European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015, 190–221

Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic

Norway: A Regional Eastern-Related
Know-How

KNUT ANDREAS BERGSVIK1 AND ÉVA DAVID2

1
Department of AHKR, University of Bergen, Norway
2
CNRS Laboratory Préhistoire et Technologie, France

This article focuses on the production of bone tools during the seventh millennium cal BC. A large
number of fishhooks and waste from fishhook production have been found at the sites of Sævarhelleren
and Viste cave, in western Norway. The data have been studied by means of the chaîne opératoire
concept, meaning that the artefacts are described and analysed in order to identify the different steps in
the production process and to characterize the technology in a comparative northern European perspec-
tive. The result shows that bone tools and fishhooks were crafted in a similar way at these two sites,
with techniques that were mastered by all makers, and in close relation to stone tool production. When
compared to other contemporaneous sites, the technology resembles the Mesolithic bone technology of
north-eastern Europe. It thus contradicts the hypothesis of a strong connection between western Norway
and the Maglemose cultural group in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany.

Keywords: Norwegian Mesolithic, bone tools, technology, chaîne opératoire, rockshelters

INTRODUCTION these discussions on regionalism and

In line with research on the Mesolithic in
Europe in general, the data from western
Norway have been used partly to explore
regional differentiation, and partly to
investigate inter-regional connections.
This situation is particularly evident for
the period 7000–6000 cal BC, when there
were, on the one hand, pan-Scandinavian
similarities, most notably indicated by the
presence of blades produced from conical
cores, and, on the other, a presence of
quarried ‘chubby’ ground stone adzes with
regionally distinct distribution patterns
(e.g. Olsen & Alsaker, 1984; Bergsvik &
Olsen, 2003; Bjerck, 2008). Until now,
inter-regional connections have been based
mainly on the study of lithic material, and
especially on similarities and differences
between finished products.
In this contribution, we take a different
perspective. Our main data are bone arte-
facts and our approach is technological by
means of the chaîne opératoire concept.
Such a study has been made possible,
thanks to recent excavations of the rock-
shelter of Sævarhelleren, western Norway
(Figure 1), which has provided extensive
data on the bone industry. The goals of
the project have been to reconstruct the
methods of manufacture, explore the skills
that were involved in the process of

© European Association of Archaeologists 2015 DOI 10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000073

Manuscript received 12 March 2014,
accepted 23 August 2014, revised 23 June 2014
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 191

Figure 1. Southern Norway. Archaeological sites mentioned in the text.

making bone and antler tools, investigate
inter-regional similarities and possible
external influences, and to explore to what
degree the bone technology entailed an
adjustment to regional circumstances and/
or traditions. We will argue that the pro-
duction of bone tools in this area consisted
of a combination of fracturing and abrasive
techniques (grinding/drilling/sawing/
scraping), which was mastered by all
makers, and that the techniques chosen
for removing blanks, as well as the tool
types, indicate eastern connections during
the middle Mesolithic.
192
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
During the eighth and seventh millennia
cal BC, western Norway was occupied by
coastal hunter-fishers. Until recently, rela-
tively little was known about these
populations, primarily due to flooding and
destruction of their shore-bound sites
during the Tapes transgression (c. 8000–
6500 cal BC) (Bjerck, 1986). During the
last decade, however, quite a few sites have
been excavated, and there is now more
substantial knowledge about subsistence
and settlement as well as artefact compo-
sition, at least from c. 7500 cal BC onwards
(e.g. Ballin, 1999; Åstveit, 2008b; Bjerck,
2008; Skjelstad, 2011). Site locations
strongly indicate a marine orientation, and
faunal data show that fishing played a
crucial role in subsistence, although shells,
and marine and terrestrial mammals, were
also utilized (Hufthammer, 1992;
Bergsvik, 2001). The large majority of
their settlement sites were situated in the
coastal zone, whereas the fjords and
mountain plateaux were used only to a
limited extent (Indrelid, 1994; Bergsvik &
Hufthammer, 2009). The populations
were residentially mobile; however, in
contrast to the preceding early Mesolithic,
they appear to have been regionally
confined within relatively small geographi-
cal areas, as indicated by the distinct
distributions of quarried and ground stone
adzes and by the increasing use of local
lithic raw materials for the production of
tools and projectile points (Olsen &
Alsaker, 1984; Bjerck, 2008; Skjelstad,
2011).
Parallel to these indications of territorial
or regional developments, several traits
point towards external influences and
perhaps regular social interaction with
distant populations. Traditionally, links
with southern Scandinavia have been
assumed (Brøgger, 1908; Shetelig, 1922;
Mikkelsen, 1971; Olsen, 1992), and until
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
recently this view has not been seriously
challenged. In terms of lithic technology,
conical blade technique—whereby blades
were produced by pressure from conical
cores—was introduced into this region
c. 8000 cal BC (Bjerck, 1986). The pres-
ence of slotted bone elements is clearly
associated with this blade technology.
Another indication of long-distance
contacts is the engraved slotted bone
points from the Viste and Kotedalen sites
(Brøgger, 1908; Lund, 1951; Mikkelsen,
1971; Olsen, 1992). The ornaments
consist of geometrical patterns on bone
items, which perhaps find their closest
parallels in the Maglemosian design reper-
toire (e.g. Mikkelsen, 1971; Clark, 1975;
Olsen, 1992; Nash, 1998). A third indi-
cation of external contact is perforated
stone hatchets, which occur as simple, cru-
ciform, and star-shaped forms. Although
there are regional differences in the distri-
butions of these forms, the items may be
seen as a group and are mainly found in
central Scandinavia (Gräslund, 1962; Skår,
2003; Glørstad, 2010).
A fourth artefact type that has com-
monly been used to study inter-regional
similarities is the bone fishhook. With the
exception of a few open-air sites (e.g.
Hufthammer, 1992; Olsen, 1992; Åstveit,
2008a), bone tools are only present in
caves and rockshelters in western Norway
(Brøgger, 1908; Bøe, 1934; Lund, 1951;
Myhre, 1967; Mikkelsen, 1971, 1979;
Jansen, 1972; Clark, 1975; Matland, 1990;
Olsen, 1992; Bjerck, 2007; Bergsvik &
Storvik, 2012). Comparative studies have
concluded that there are typological simi-
larities between Maglemosian fishhooks
and those from Norway in terms of shape:
for example, both lack a barbed tip (e.g.
Bøe, 1934; Olsen, 1992), and hooks in
both areas were manufactured by perforat-
ing the bone with flint tools (Sarauw,
1903; Brøgger, 1908). It is argued that the
quantitative differences between the two
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway
regions are the result of fishing being
more important in (coastal) western
Norway than at (inland) sites in southern
Scandinavia during this period (Olsen,
1992: 173).
One problem with these inter-regional
comparisons is that they have only con-
sidered the shapes of the finished
manufactured products. In the case of
fishhooks, however, it may be argued that
their shape to a large extent was deter-
mined by their function, and that
similarity in form in the two areas conse-
quently says very little about inter-regional
relations. As recently indicated by techno-
logical studies of bone industries, products
and art from different regions that may
look similar have not necessarily been
made in a similar fashion (e.g. David,
1999). In order to use fishhooks for inter-
regional comparisons; therefore, it is
necessary to look more closely at the
different steps in their production, not
only at the finished products.
THE CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE CONCEPT
The chaîne opératoire is used to reconstruct
past technical behaviours and to study how
raw materials are transformed into manu-
factured objects. The concept was first
introduced by Leroi-Gourhan during the
1960s, after intense ethnographical investi-
gations (Leroi-Gourhan, 1988a: 164,
1988b: 26; see also Djindjian, 2013). He
proposed that any project concerning arte-
fact production involves a mental template
that is materialized in the form of chaîne
opératoire, by means of following a method.
The method is seen as a linkage of several
technical actions, which employ, in a sys-
tematic way, one or several techniques in
order to accomplish a task (Tixier, 1980:
92). An important premise for the
approach is that human behaviour always
follows a logic regarding the practical
193
production of tools; it is a logical chain of
technical actions in the form of a suite of
operations undertaken to transform the raw
material—in our case, the skeletal parts of
animal carcasses—into specific manufac-
tured pieces, including use/repair events,
until they are discarded (Pelegrin et al.,
1988). This involves the recognition of the
raw material as well as the chronological
ordering of events. It is, thus, the recon-
struction of the physical transformation of
the raw material into technical stages or
sequences that enable archaeologists to
rediscover the intention of the project
(Balfet, 1991). This quest for rediscovering
the intention is mainly done according to a
qualitative understanding of the coherence
of how the recorded technical actions are
organized (Tixier, 1978: 67). In these
terms, the concept was introduced to the
study of bone and antler industry in the
1990s by a few members of Tixier’s
research laboratory. As a result of this
work, which included extensive use of
experiments, 21 Mesolithic techniques and
several procedures, used for manufacturing
and hafting, have now been identified
(David, 2004).
The bone industry from the Viste cave and
Sævarhelleren in western Norway was studied
with the help of stereo microscope (Leica
MZ7.5) for observing aspects of the bone
surfaces. The techniques utilized by the
Mesolithic populations for making this indus-
try have been identified using an experimental
reference series on prehistoric techniques
for bone manufacturing, complementary to
comparative osteological collections.
THE VISTE CAVE AND SÆVARHELLEREN
The Viste cave is situated on the coast in
Randaberg, Rogaland, close to the shore-
line in the Visteviken bay (Figures 1 and
2). It was excavated (altogether 125 m2) in
1907, then in 1939 and 1941 (Brøgger,
194
Figure 2. The Viste cave. Plan and section. (Redrawn from Lund, 1951: plates XIX and XX.)
1908; Lund, 1951). The stratigraphic
units that provided bone artefacts (strata I
and II) have been dated typologically to c.
7000–6000 cal BC (Mikkelsen, 1971;
Olsen, 1992). This is supported by a series
of radiocarbon dates, several of which until
now were unpublished (Table 1). Aside
from the bone tools, the archaeological
material consists of a variety of lithic arte-
fact types, such as ground and pecked
greenstone ‘chubby’ adzes, cores, scrapers,
burins, knives, microliths, and flakes of
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
flint and other raw materials. In spite of
coarse methods of excavation, the faunal
data are rich in animal species, represented
by terrestrial and marine mammals (22),
birds (37), and fish (11). The data indicate
summer occupations and, possibly, also
use during winter (Degerbøl, 1951a;
Indrelid, 1978). The variety of the
material together with the location and
size of the site may indicate that it was
used as a seasonal base camp during the
relevant period (Mikkelsen, 1979: 92).
 Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway
Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Sævarhelleren and viste cave. Calibrations were performed with OxCal v3.10 (Bronk Ramsey, 2005)
Site Lab. no. Exc. unit Exc. Stratigraphic Sample Method 14
C Age BP δ13C Cal. BC age range Reference
layer layer material ‰ 2s

Sævarhelleren Poz-15917 22x 55y NØ G1 Layer G Charcoal AMS 7930 ± 50 7040–6660 Bergsvik and Hufthammer
(2009)
Sævarhelleren Poz-15918 22x 55y NØ E7 Shell layer E Charcoal AMS 7890 ± 50 7030–6630 Bergsvik and Hufthammer
(2009)
Sævarhelleren Poz-19344 22x 55y NØ E4 Shell layer E Charcoal AMS 7470 ± 50 6430–6230 Bergsvik and Hufthammer
(2009)
Sævarhelleren Ua-45244 22x 59y NV/ E5 Shell layer E Animal bone AMS 7512 ± 45* −15.8 6460–6330
SV
Sævarhelleren Poz-19341 23x 60y NV E3 Shell layer E Charcoal AMS 7450 ± 50 6430–6230 Bergsvik and Hufthammer
(2009)
Sævarhelleren Tra-4334 22x 55y SV E4 Shell layer E Fish bone AMS 7515 ± 60* −15.5 6470–6240
Sævarhelleren Poz-15916 21x 55y NØ E3 Shell layer E Charcoal AMS 7560 ± 50 6500–6260 Bergsvik and Hufthammer
(2009)
Sævarhelleren Poz-15840 21x 55y NØ E1 Shell layer E Charcoal AMS 7370 ± 40 6380–6090 Bergsvik and Hufthammer
(2009)
Sævarhelleren Poz-15839 21x 55y NØ D4 Layer D Charcoal AMS 7110 ± 60 6080–5840 Bergsvik and Hufthammer
(2009)
Sævarhelleren Poz-15838 21x 55y NØ D2 Layer D Charcoal AMS 7360 ± 150 6500–5900 Bergsvik and Hufthammer
(2009)
Viste Cave T-2943 III F 8 Stratum I Animal bones Standard 8040 ± 100 −23 7300–6650
Viste Cave T-2668 XH 6 Stratum I Animal bones Standard 7780 ± 130 −23.2 7050–6400 Indrelid (1978)
Viste Cave T-2664 III I 5 Stratum I Animal bones Standard 7850 ± 120 −24.6 7050–6450 Indrelid (1978)
Viste Cave T-2873 II H 5 Stratum II Animal bones Standard 7810 ± 70 −23 7050–6450
Viste Cave T-2872 II H 3 Stratum II Animal bones Standard 7620 ± 130 −23.7 6850–6200
Viste Cave T-2665 IX K 5 Stratum II Animal bones Standard 6270 ± 170 −20.7 5550–4750 Indrelid (1978)
Viste Cave T-2941 II F 2 Stratum II Animal bones Standard 6940 ± 90 −23.5 6000–5660
Viste Cave T-3351 I VI — I VII Uncertain Human bone Standard 7120 ± 150* −17.1 6350–5700 Hufthammer and Meichlejohn
(1986)
Viste Cave T-2666 XH 3 Stratum III Animal bones Standard 7260 ± 160 −24.5 6450–5800

195
*Marine reservoir correction performed (300 ± 50 BP).
196
Figure 3. The Sævarhelleren rockshelter. Plan and section.
The rockshelter Sævarhelleren is situ-
ated in Herand, Jondal, in the Hardanger
fjord (Figures 1 and 3), and was also situ-
ated close to the contemporaneous
shoreline. Sævarhelleren was excavated
(9 m2) in 2005 and 2006 (Bergsvik et al.,
2014). The excavated soil was sieved using
0.4 and 0.2 cm meshes, leading to a more
varied assemblage of bone artefacts than at
Viste (Table 2). The radiocarbon dates
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
from the Mesolithic layers span c. 7000–
5800 cal BC (c. 8000–7050 BP; Table 1).
Relatively few lithic artefacts were found
during the excavations, comprising frag-
ments of greenstone adzes, cores,
microblades, scrapers, and also flakes of
flint, quartz, and quartz crystal. The
preservation conditions for shells and
faunal material were very good, and
species of terrestrial and marine mammals
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 197

(8), birds (3) and fish (15) were recovered

total artefacts
Total tools/
(Bergsvik & Hufthammer, 2009). The

33/125
13/13

8/16
faunal seasonal indicators, the relative
narrow spectrum of tool types, the location
in the fjord, as well as the small size of the
site all indicate that the shelter was used
Unid.
piece

1
0

0
during short summer occupations.
Since a technological evaluation of the
Waste

bone industry is a major goal of this

91
0

8
article, in this context it is important to
emphasize that although the industrial
Undet.

assemblages were recorded in different

tool

2
1

archaeological layers, they can still be used

for comparative analyses. Comparison of
Blade

the artefacts from strata I and II at Viste

0
0

(Table 2) reveals few differences between

Knife

these strata in terms of the main types.

2
0

Changes within the thick stratum II are

difficult to discern owing to the level of
Flutter

3
4

documentation at the site. At Sævarhelle-

ren, stratigraphic analyses have been
Table 2. Composition of the bone and antler industry of Sævarhelleren and the Viste Cave

Gorge

performed, which show that similar types

2
0

0
Tools/waste

of artefacts occur throughout the sequence

(layers E and G), indicating that few
hook
Fish

19
4

changes in material culture took place

during this time period. Therefore, it was
Awl

decided that the bone industry from the

3
1

Mesolithic layers at the two sites could be

Straight

analysed together as if deposited during

point

1
0

contemporaneous occupations and conse-

quently that the different elements
retrieved represent parts of a single, coher-
straight

ent production process.

point
Thin

1
0

0
Barbed

THE BONE INDUSTRY AT VISTE

point

AND
0
1

SÆVARHELLEREN

Viste
Slotted
point

0
2

Altogether, 29 worked bone and antler

artefacts have been analysed from the
Mesolithic layers at Viste (Table 2). The
Sævarhelleren
Viste Cave

Viste Cave

manufactured pieces represent six different

stratum II

stratum I

tool categories, which make this series

Site

relatively varied.
198 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015

Fishhooks of the so-called ‘Viste type’
(Bøe, 1934: 34) are well represented. The
hooks measure 2.6–6.9 cm in overall
length. The majority of the hooks from
Viste are broken, most often at the bow
(Lund, 1951: 26), probably during fishing
(e.g. Olson et al., 2008). Some are also
broken at the middle of the shank or the
tip (Figure 4 (6, 7)). Their shanks taper
upwards to a point, with a truncation at its
end, formed by grinding obliquely the
inner side of the tip with a stone. The
outer face of the shank is either plain or
notched (Figure 4(6)). Up to four notches
(0.05–0.1 cm deep) were fashioned by
sawing transversally with a ground stone
edge. The basal end of the hook was
roughly rounded by grinding all around in
continuous faceted planes. The pointed tips
of the active ends of the hooks—sometimes
showing shiny aspects—are straight,
without any supplementary barbs. At the

Figure 4. Viste bone and antler industry securely associated with stratum I (except number 3, on
antler, they are all made of bone). 1: Fragment of an engraved bilateral slotted point; 2, 5 and 8:
‘flutters’; 3: removed active end of a blade-axe; 4 and 9: waste debris cut by transverse sawing (all
around) with a stone edge and flexion break; 6: fishhook roughout; 7: almost complete fishhook. (Scale
subdivision in cm.)
Illustration by É. David
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway
bottom of the inner part of the gap, there
are in some cases traces of the remaining
edge of a perforation (0.2 cm in diameter)
made by drilling (Figure 4(6), dotted
circle). Usually, these traces of drilling were
completely removed by the subsequent
grinding, leading Egenæs Lund (1951: 26)
to conclude that the hooks of Viste type
were made without the use of drills.
However, traces of drilling have been
preserved on unfinished and unused hooks,
which were accidentally broken when
drilled, thus providing insight into an
otherwise not easily retrievable technical
stage in the fashioning of the hooks.
Although invisible, this perforation stage is
also suggested by the shape of the edge
(cupule-like, in cross-section) on this part
of the hook (Figure 4(7)). Furthermore, the
presence of notches on the discarded pieces
suggests that fashioning of the gap may
have been the last stage of the manufactur-
ing process.
The complete shaping of the hooks by
grinding makes it difficult to identify what
kind of raw material was used in their
manufacture. However, owing to the pres-
ence of spongy core, or unmodified
medullary canals still visible, it seems that
most of the hooks were made of bone.
Interestingly, some of the waste debris has
features corresponding to the hooks them-
selves in terms of dimensions and
manufacturing techniques. For instance,
the facetted planes observed at the bottom
of the hooks are equally reflected at the
extremities of some of the blanks
(Figure 4(6) and (9), dotted lines). These
latter artefacts are anatomically more pre-
cisely identifiable than the hooks, and it is
possible to identify limb bones of large
mammals including large carnivores.
However, one cannot exclude the use of
other parts of the skeleton as raw material,
such as ribs of red deer and wild boar size,
or even the roots of wild boar and red deer
teeth, especially when these are found
199
deliberately split into equal parts
(Figure 5). Their natural morphology, as
well as their dimensions, clearly corre-
spond with that of some hooks.
This is also true for the bone ‘flutter’
type, that is, perforated blade-like artefacts
that are relatively small, and always made
long and flat: they measure 2.5–5.9 cm in
length, 0.5–0.9 cm in width, and are 0.1–
0.2 cm thick. They display a perforation
made by drilling transversally, from each
face of the piece, to form a single biconical
hole at one end of the piece (Figure 4(8)).
The bone surface was prepared by scraping
locally, with a sharp ground stone edge.
This enabled the drill to remain stable on
its axis during the perforation of the bone.
The holes have a diameter of 0.2–0.3 cm
and are more or less centrally placed. They
have use wear in the form of smooth areas
that have modified the original aspect of
the perforation. This modification can be
observed in the upper part of the hole and
even more at its sides, extending onto one
edge of the piece, suggesting that the item
was attached in a random fashion for sus-
pension. Such artefacts are usually
interpreted as pendants (e.g. Lund, 1951;
Mikkelsen, 1979); however, as suggested
by Degerbøl (1951b: 140), a more likely
explanation is that they were attached to
the line along with the hooks and used as
flutters (similar in function to spoon baits)
for attracting fish. The flutters have no
other regular pattern of use wear, except
for a smooth area or zones that are locally
worn in different ways depending on the
piece. Usually, the edges were regularized
by grinding during production and the
area where the perforation took place was
also flattened in advance. Depending on
the initial morphology of the blanks,
which was clearly varied, the surfaces of
the objects were regularized by grinding,
even if the original shapes—usually irregu-
lar—remain partly visible. As a result,
standardized objects were produced, which
200 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015

Figure 5. Viste bone and antler industry, all belonging to the stratum I (except number 4, to stratum
II): 1: splinter (Vulpes vulpes, humerus-like) covered (external face) by lengthwise scraping marks
made with a stone; 2: half split wild boar (Sus scofa) incisor (superior) showing a negative of removal
(black dot). This shows that indirect percussion has been performed on an anvil from the opposite edge
of the piece, shown by a negative of removal (black arrow); 3: bone flake (large mammal limb bone)
showing several indirect percussion impacts (black dots); 4: indeterminated bone piece with sides that
were made convergent. The face of the piece shows the use of grinding (bottom part of a fishhook rough-
out?); 5: splinter (Canis lupus, small size, metatarsal III left, proximal end, lateral face) showing
impacts (black dots) of indirect percussion, representing one-fifth of the bone, in cross-section; 6: half
split red deer (Cervus elaphus) incisor (see black dot placing the impact at the start of the corresponding
negative of removal) which was treated by indirect percussion. (Scale subdivision in cm.)
Illustration by É. David

were based on blanks of different sizes and
morphology. One flutter from Viste had
been regularly notched—probably for
ornament—by the use of the sawing
technique on both its edges.
Engravings, made with flint tools, are
also found on the slotted bone points
(Figures 4 and 6). These points have
either uni- or bi-lateral grooves up to
0.25 cm deep and 0.24 cm wide, and
roughly straight ‘U’ or ‘V’ shapes in cross-
section. The grooves were made for lithic
inserts, but no such inserts were found in
position (although they occurred at the
site). One fragment shows, instead of
another groove, a barb at the tang, facing
the missing inset at the opposite edge of
the slot (Figure 6(6)). An almost complete
barbed point shows four barbs in a row,
shaped by convergent scraping. All these
points may have been produced from large
mammal limb bones considering their
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 201

Figure 6. Viste bone industry securely assigned to stratum II: 1 to 4: broken fishhooks; 5 and 6: frag-
ments of engraved slotted points, with lateral grooves, with (6) a barb at the tang; 7: barbed point; 8 to
11: whole and broken (10) ‘flutters’; 12: awl (wild boar fibula distal end). (Scale subdivision in cm.)
Illustration by É. David

length and cortical thickness (the slotted
pieces were consistently 0.4–0.5 cm thick).
One complete awl, made pointed by
shaping the distal end of a wild boar
fibula, completes the Viste bone industry.
The antler industry of the site is rep-
resented by a single item: a blade on
which the active end (45° angle) was
shaped by scraping lengthwise. The prep-
aration for removal from its stem was
done by nicking (i.e. deep transverse
impacts) and it was broken off by flexion
(Figure 4(3)).
At Viste, bone removals are present,
and a distinctive feature is the irregularity
of the edges of the longest splinter forms
(Figures 5(3) and 6(5–7)). On smaller-
sized skeletal fragments, result of indirect
percussion are expressed by traces after
only one or two hits per blank (Figure 5
(2), (5) and (6)). On the basis of these
elements, one may assess an in situ
production at Viste. As will be apparent
from the discussion below, this fracturing
technique was also applied at
Sævarhelleren.
202 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015

Sævarhelleren type, represented by nineteen pieces, also

At Sævarhelleren, a similar industry has
been found, providing in total 125 arte-
facts for our study. The thirty-one
manufactured items comprise seven cat-
egories of tools (Table 2). Again,
fishhooks are the most common artefact
of the ‘Viste type’ (Figure 7). The majority
of the hooks with total lengths intact is
between 2.1 and 3.4 cm long, and is 0.2–
0.4 cm thick. The largest specimen is 4.8
cm long. The fishhooks show similar
breakage patterns to the Viste hooks;
several broken edges with ‘tooth-like’

Figure 7. Sævarhelleren bone fishhooks: 1 to 3: broken roughouts; 4: pointed shank broken at the first
notch (dot); 5: burnt roughout, broken at its upper last notch and where the perforation was drilled,
with three (unused) notches, dentine?; 6 and 7: (burnt) active tips; 8: whole hook; 9: shank with a
notch; 10 and 12: burnt shank parts; 11: broken part showing flexion break, with two notches; 13
broken part showing flexion break; 14 and 16: (burnt) almost entire pieces, with a notch; 15: shank tip
with three notches; 17: broken burnt (roughout?), showing remains of a drilled perforation and five
notches; 18 and 19: broken hook with three notches; 20: shank end with three notches that has an edge
showing breakage by flexion; 21 and 22: shank ends with two notches that have edges showing breakage
by flexion. (Scale subdivision in cm.)
Illustration by É. David
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 203

fracture planes typical of the flexion break,
suggesting that the pointed ends broke off
during fishing. The bottom parts are rela-
tively fresh, still displaying original traces
of fashioning, by grinding in planes. A
ground stone edge was also used for
shaping the suspension system in the form
of discrete notches (0.01–0.1 cm deep), by
sawing the external side of the shank in
some parts, and at the tip. Roughouts
show that the drilling technique was used
for perforating the central part of the

Figure 8. Sævarhelleren bone industry made of large mammals (cervid-like) flat (rib) and limb bones:
1: straight thin point; 2:almost complete gorge; 3: tip of gorge; 4: tip part of a straight point, possible
seal bone; 5: waste debris removed by flexion break (both ends) after it was sawn transversally all
around with a ground stone edge (upper end); 6: waste debris showing transversal sawing, all around
its end, with a ground stone edge; 7: fragment that potentially conjoins with the missing working edge
of a ‘scaling’ knife; 8 to 10: active end of awls; 11 and 13: flakes produced by the shaft-wedge-splinter
technique (indirect percussion here with a grinding stone wedge) that would ideally refit with the nega-
tives of removal displayed on the internal side of the ‘scaling’ knife blank; 12: waste debris showing
bifacial scraping marks and flexion break (edge); 14: ‘scaling’ knife (proximum, one-quarter in cross-
section of a red deer metatarsus, caudal side); 15 to 17: ‘flutters’; 18: waste debris showing sawing and
flexion break. (Scale subdivision in cm.)
Illustration by É. David
204
blank for making the fishhooks’ gap
(Figure 7(5)). The irregular delineation of
this particular side—visible at the inner
edge of the hook (Figure 7(9)) — suggests
the removal of the vestigial cortical feature
of the perforation by regularizing with or
on a ground stone. It also suggests the
removal of the gap part by scraping the
bone material axially, on both faces of the
blank, with a ground stone edge. A bifa-
cial piece found among the sieved material
reflects this stage of manufacture (Figure 8
(12)). Both faces merge at one end, where
there is hardly any material left, so that it
represents the removed inner part of the
hook after the bone was first perforated by
drilling (see dotted circle). This gave the
shank a polygonal cross-section. The poly-
gonal form is seen on the internal edge of
the finished hooks in that two-faceted
planes always joined towards the gap.
Additionally - and this feature was not
observed at Viste - the gap was sometimes
shaped by sawing with a ground stone
edge transversally down directly to the
bottom of the central part of the blank.
This detail is visible on a few roughouts
(Figure 7(1–3)).
In terms of raw material used, the data
are varied, from bone splinters to large
chips of osseous material, including other
biological materials such as dentine
(Figure 7(5)) and even shell, as recently
identified by É. David (Figure 9). Ribs
and limb bones of large mammals were,
however, most commonly used for blanks
and hooks. This is indicated by the pres-
ence and dimensions of spongy core and/
or medullary canal on the fishhooks them-
selves, and also on the corresponding
debris (removed by sawing transversally,
showing similar patterns and dimensions
— e.g. 0.3, 0.4, and 0.3 cm thick for
Figure 8(5), (6), and (18), respectively),
which anatomically is more identifiable.
Identification of these raw materials
becomes even easier when considering the
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
other tool types found at Sævarhelleren,
such as straight fishhooks or gorges
(Figure 8(2) and (3)), projectile points
(Figure 8(1) and (4)), ‘flutters’ (Figure 8
(15–17)), and ‘scaling knives’ (possibly
used for processing fish; after Lozovski,
1996: 55), which were also made from
large terrestrial mammal bones (Figure 8
(7) and (14)), in addition to a possible seal
bone (Figure 8(4)). The awls were pro-
duced from limb bones (ulna, elk vestigial
metapodial bone) with natural forms that
are easy to make pointed (Figure 8(9) and
(10)).
When obtained by splitting, tool blanks
often show straight fracture planes and
negatives of removals. This facilitates
identification of the use of debitage tech-
niques by percussion. Awareness of this
fact prompted a reinvestigation during this
project by É. David of the sieved faunal
material (retained by the 0.4 cm sieve) par-
ticularly in order to find supplementary
elements enabling recording of the percus-
sion techniques employed on the osseous
material. Such elements were identified as
bone flakes of the same shape and size as
the observed negatives of removal dis-
played on the splinters. Several new
fragments of tools (hook tips, etc.) were
also found, and up to 90 per cent of the
total of waste debris linked to the bone
industry at the site was identified as a
result of this re-examination. These data
indicate that the manufacturing of the
tools as well as the removal of blank pro-
ducts was performed at the site, and was
carried out by indirect percussion. Even a
snapped shell provided a square-shaped
piece of waste debris (Figure 9, right).
Discarded elements made of limb bones
and flat (rib) bones showed up as whole or
fragmentary flakes (Figure 8(11) and
(13)), long splinters (Figure 8(5), (6), and
(18)) and removed proximal ends of meta-
podials (elk and red deer). The flakes,
which result from fracturing bones
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 205

Figure 9. Sævarhelleren bone industry made of sea shell. Right: broken fishhook with three notches
(dots) showing, amongst other features, a very different shape in cross-section compared to the fishhooks
made of bone, even if it has been made a similar way. Left: waste debris (29 cm long 0.3 cm thick)
showing slipped impact traces (arrows), made of Mitridae sp., compared to a sub-fossil Mactra glauca
(Born, 1778) with which it shares all the same characteristics (Locard, 1890). Acknowledgment:
David Fenwick (2012) for the comparative material. (Scale subdivision in cm.)
Illustration by É. David

lengthwise, using an intermediate piece
placed transversally onto the bone edge
when hit, are numerous (sixty-seven
pieces). Such flakes are important techno-
logical elements, and are present at
Sævarhelleren owing to the precise exca-
vation techniques. They can be
distinguished because they display a clear
butt end, with a bulb overlying a fracture
plane in the form of a removal. On the
dorsal face, they may have similar features,
but in negative. They are the result of
hitting the bone, all along, in a controlled
manner, using indirect percussion, by the
shaft-wedge-splinter technique (David,
2004: 122). The splinters have negatives
206
of these removals on both their edges
(Figure 8(14)), leading to a corresponding
number of flakes, which potentially refit
these edges (Figure 8(11) with Figure 8
(14)). Bone debris and flakes were dis-
carded, and left unused. The impact traces
left by using the intermediate piece are
still visible on the butt end of some of
them.
RELATED TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGY
Intermediate pieces or wedges are crucial
when employing the shaft-wedge-splinter
technique, but no such wedges—either of
stone or bone—have yet been identified in
the assemblages from Viste and Sævarhel-
leren, or at any other site in the region.
Considering the scale of the bone indus-
try, however, such wedges must have been
common. One possibility is that they were
not formal tools, and that any suitable
stone with a sharp edge would do. Alter-
natively, the wedges were formal tools, but
they have not been identified as such. An
interesting candidate for the latter alterna-
tive is the ‘bi-polar core’. Such cores,
which are found in large quantities at
Mesolithic sites in northern Scandinavia,
are usually interpreted as waste from the
production of irregular blades and flakes
(e.g. Bjerck, 2008: 88). It has, however,
also been suggested that these cores were
themselves modified and used as tools
(Broadbent, 1979: 170–71; Callahan,
1987: 24). Considering their acute and
oval cross-sections, it is possible that
bipolar cores may have served as wedges
(for a North-American case, see discussion
in Leblanc, 1992). However, this hypoth-
esis needs testing by means of extensive
experiments.
The shaft-wedge-splinter technique was
used to obtain long splinters from large
mammal metapodials and ribs. The dril-
ling technique (with a bow-drill and
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
hafted drill-head) enabled perforating
them with a bow-drill and hafted drill-
head. It served for the fashioning of the
suspension system of the flutters and the
gap part of the fishhooks. Some tiny
quartz crystal flakes, made pointed by
retouching of the butt end, have been
detected at Sævarhelleren. Indeed, their
shape and their smooth-used tip 0.2 cm in
diameter (i.e. identical to the recorded
diameter of the perforations seen on the
flutters and fishhook roughouts) indicate
their probable utilization as drill-bits
(Figure 10). Sharp ends/edges made of
knapped flint/quartzite, well represented
on both archaeological sites, were even-
tually employed for manufacturing the
groove for the slotted points. Although
the latter tool type was not found at
Sævarhelleren, the presence of several flint
bladelets suggests that bone slotted points
had also been present at that site. Drills as
well as small groovers are common at sites
from this period (Bjerck, 2008: 80–81).
The bone blanks produced could be
further snapped (flexion break) into several
segments by means of the sawing tech-
nique. By employing this technique, the
suspension system of fishhooks was also
made. When notches are deep, they reflect
the negative form of the stone implement
used, probably a ground stone edge with a
large smooth ‘U’ shape (approximately
0.02–0.03 cm in width). The scraping tech-
nique was also employed, using a ground
stone edge, to enlarge the gap part of the
hooks, after it had been first perforated.
This technique was also used to sharpen/
regularize most of the projectile points and
the scaling knife’s cutting edge. Together
with the active part of a straight point,
awls, fishhooks, gorges, and flutters were
entirely shaped and/or sharpened using the
grinding technique. This was thus used to
regularize most of the chipped blanks that
became weapons and tools. The techniques
of sawing, scraping, and grinding referred
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 207

Figure 10. Quartz crystal tiny flake probably used as a drill at Sævarhelleren. (Scale 1cm).
Illustration by É. David.

to above may have been performed by a during work. The tools used for these pur-
single ‘multi-purpose’ grinding stone tool. poses were partly knapped flint/quartz tools
The likely candidates are (fragments of) (drilling and slot making) and partly grind-
‘plate knives’ from Sævarhelleren, which ing stones or ‘plate knives’ (sawing,
were made from schist (Figure 11). This scraping, and grinding). The abrasive
type is also present in the Viste cave
(Lund, 1951: plate XIV) and at other con-
temporaneous open sites in Norway (e.g.
Warren, 1994: 174; Mikkelsen et al., 1999:
38) and is also common at later Mesolithic
sites (e.g. Bergsvik, 2002; Åstveit, 2008c;
Skjelstad, 2011). We argue that an impor-
tant function of these stone ‘knives’ would
have been grinding of small bone artefacts
such as fishhooks. They are particularly
suitable for this purpose, because their
recorded dimensions allow for workability
and flexibility.
All in all, we argue that the industry
involved the use of five techniques:
shaft-wedge-splinter, drilling, sawing,
scraping, and grinding. Except for the first,
for which (indirect) percussion was applied, Figure 11. Ground schist tools probably used for
reducing (grinding, sawing, scraping) osseous
the others are abrasive techniques, that is, material at Sævarhelleren. (Scale subdivision in cm).
the osseous material was reduced to powder Illustration by É. David.
208
technology was always used to produce the
final product, and in this case the fishhooks
were often completely transformed into
much smaller items than the original skel-
etal bone blank. In some cases, this was
balanced by using blanks such as diaphyses,
tooth roots, and shell, where the natural
anatomical shape is closer to the finished
hook. Another way of increasing the effi-
ciency was to use a controlled fracturing
technique on the longest and most regular
natural skeletal elements of cervids: meta-
podials and ribs. By employing this
technique systematically, several fishhooks
could be made from a single blank.
To summarize, the techniques used for
débitage and fashioning at Viste and
Sævarhelleren belong to the same bone
working technology. Furthermore, on the
basis of the tool categories recorded here,
it seems that the function of the manufac-
tured bone products can be separated
essentially into two different but related
activities: (1) hunting, represented by
straight, slotted, and thin projectile points
and (2) line fishing, represented by fishing
gear (fishhooks, flutters, and gorges), tools
possibly for making/repairing lines (some
of the awls), and possibly tools for proces-
sing of fish (scaling knives).
RECONSTRUCTED CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE
Considering that a variety of skeletal parts
were used to produce hunting and fishing
equipment at Viste and Sævarhelleren,
ideally several chaînes opératoires of manu-
facture should be reconstructed. However,
in this context, we will focus on metapo-
dials and ribs of elk (Alces alces) and red
deer (Cervus elaphus). It is not possible to
decipher which of these skeletal parts was
preferentially used for a specific tool type,
and the metapodials of elk and red deer
were subject to the same fracturing
method; the metapodials of both animals
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
naturally display opposed natural grooves
that were used as guiding lines for (re)frac-
turing the bone lengthwise. Below, these
are presented in a single chaîne opératoire
of the entire bone industry, and the main
focus is on what was probably a particular
method of manufacturing bone toolkits:
making elongated blade-like forms ready
to be snapped or split into either small or
thin blanks (Figure 12).
The diaphysis of the original matrix
(Sequence 0 in Figure 12) was regularized
by grinding it on a stone (Phase 1 in
Figure 12). Both anatomical sides of the
bone—cranial and caudal for metapodial,
lateral, and medial for rib — were separ-
ated into similar blanks, by means of the
shaft-wedge-splinter technique, using an
intermediate piece several times (Sequence
2, Figure 12). During this operation, both
skeletal ends were removed, probably by
flexion, if not using the shaft-
wedge-splinter technique facially in a more
transverse and convergent mode. The
latter sequence required stone artefacts for
both the wedge and the presumed anvil
(Sequence 3, Figure 12). Placing the bone
onto a convex surface made the indirect
percussion even more efficient, using the
counterblow effect. Thus, while the split
was performed at an edge, it was brought
into the material at the other opposite
skeletal edge. The detached blank (free of
flakes) represents half a bone in cross-
section. Thereafter, it was split again, also
lengthwise, using the same technique or
even by axial direct percussion, in order to
obtain a quarter of a bone in cross-section.
The product could then serve directly as a
scaling knife, after one of its edges (exter-
nal side) was partly regularized by
lengthwise scraping. Split again, thus
representing one-sixth or one-eighth in
cross-section, straight and slotted points
were produced, which were usually regu-
larized and made pointed by scraping
axially and/or grinding on a stone.
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 209

Figure 12. Theoretical chaîne opératoire for manufacturing the late middle Mesolithic bone industry
at Sævarhelleren and Viste (Norway).
Illustration by É. David.

The detached blanks were regularized or
flattened by grinding their stem and edges
roughly locally, on a grinding stone surface
(Sequence 4, Figure 12). They provided
blade-like preforms easy to break into
several similar products. Standard objects
were manufactured by drilling in several at
regular intervals (Sequence 5, Figure 12),
each time on both sides (vis-à-vis). The
narrow portion that was left between the
drilled holes and the subsequently removed
edge (on flutters for instance, Figure 8(17))
suggests that drilling was performed before
the segmentation of the blank (Sequences 7
and 8, Figure 12). This latter operation was
achieved by sawing all around with a
ground stone edge, then breaking it by
flexion at the sawn area. The perforation
could have served as a means of attaching
the piece, but it could also be used for
creating the gap of the fishhook (Phase 6,
Figure 12); the external side of the segment
thus representing directly that of the fish-
hook, without any further modification
except the making of the notches. The per-
foration was enlarged, using a smaller sized
210
grinding stone edge/point, by scraping the
bone bi-facially, from the drilled-hole
onwards towards the point, continuously,
until a large gap was formed. The possible
remaining part was then removed by snap-
ping it from the inner edges of the hook
that became shank- and/or tip-parts. It is
suggested here that, theoretically, several
opposing hooks were produced from a
single multiple-hollowed bone segment,
before their final removing from the
preform by transverse sawing and flexion
break. The broken ends and the bottom
part of the hook were then regularized, by
grinding them transversally and obliquely
on a grinding stone (Sequence 9,
Figure 12).
IMPLICATIONS
On the basis of this reconstructed chaîne
opératoire, we will now (1) discuss the
skills involved in the production of bone
artefacts, focusing on the fishhooks; (2)
explore how the bone industry is related to
the production of stone adzes in western
Norway; and (3) discuss the social and
cultural implications of our results in a
northern European context.
Production skills, knowledge, and
choices
We have not yet performed any exper-
iments to evaluate how much know-how
was required in order to produce the bone
tools. However, we argue that the skills
involved in the manufacturing of the bone
tools was probably maintained among the
local groups throughout time in a direct
vertical (parent–child) relationship where
the ‘tutor’, through direct intervention,
guided the ‘learner’ towards the necessary
level of know-how (Tehrani & Riede,
2008).
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
This is supported by the limited variation
in the way the bone tools were made, deriv-
ing mainly from the basic chaîne opératoire
described above. This is not only true for
the series considered, but also for the
assemblages represented on other more or
less contemporaneous sites (from a period c.
7700–6000 cal BC). At Kotedalen—a base
camp type of coastal site—similar fishhooks
are present, together with drills and grind-
ing tools, and also refuse from fishhook
production (Olsen, 1992: 163; Warren,
1994: 174). In eastern Norway and western
Sweden, fishhooks of the ‘Viste type’ and/
or characteristic debitage from fishhook
production (Figure 8(6)) have been
recorded at the sites of Prestemoen 1
(Persson, 2013: 31), Tørkop (Mikkelsen
et al., 1999: 39), and Dammen (Schaller-
Åhrberg, 2007: 49). As pointed out above,
drilling equipment and small grinding
stones are commonly found at coastal sites
from this period all over southern Norway.
This not only indicates common knowledge
for making bone tools, but also that all the
steps in the process of the production of
fishhooks took place everywhere, at the
coast as well as in the fjords. It also took
place at all kinds of sites—at base camps,
such as the Viste cave, and at short-term
camps such as Sævarhelleren.
Nevertheless, within the limits set by
this basic chaîne opératoire, each fishhook
is still unique. Aside from differences in
length, which would be related to that of
the original blank or even the type of
fishing that was carried out (e.g. Olson
et al., 2008), this can be seen by means
of idiosyncratic patterns. First, the way
the notches were placed in the shank
shows that there were no specific rules, in
terms of numbers of notches required
(zero to five), where they were placed
(0.3–1.2 cm from the tip), or how they
relate to one another (from 0.1 to 0.5 cm
from each other; Figure 13). Second, the
number of faceted planes on the shanks
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 211

Figure 13. Recorded data on the fishhooks from Sævarhelleren and Viste.
Illustration by E. David.

in cross-section varies between four and
six grinding planes (Figure 7). Third, the
shape of the bottom part of the fishhooks
was deliberately rounded or left-pointed.
Fourth, although mammal bone is by far
the most common, the hooks were made
from different raw materials. All this
indicates relatively flexible rules concern-
ing how and from what material the
fishhooks were made—thus allowing for
individual choices—even if the basic
method for making them was followed by
(Figure 12).
Bone and stone industry connections
Since most of the operations relating to
the production of fishhooks were per-
formed everywhere, it may be concluded
that there was a shared knowledge of their
manufacture, and it was probably mastered
by throughout the region, although there
may have been within-group differences
(age, gender) in who produced what. One
can add here that, according to our pre-
vious experiments (David, 1999), the use
of the shaft-wedge-splinter and drilling
212
techniques requires a specific skill or
equipment that can be related to the way
stone/flint were transformed. In other
words, it may be argued that the ability
that had been developed for production of
bone tools was transferrable to stone tool
production or vice versa. The same is the
case with grinding. The idea of a connec-
tion between stone and bone industry was
already promoted by Brøgger (1908: 55)
in the publication of the Viste cave, and
developed further by Shetelig (1922:
46–96) in his discussions of the Mesolithic
‘bone age’, with particular reference to a
ground red deer antler adze found at
Viste, which was shaped in a similar way
to the contemporaneous ‘chubby’ stone
adzes from this period (Brøgger, 1908:
plate II, fig. 26). This idea has recently
been reintroduced with reference to the
similarity between hatchets of stone and
antler/bone (e.g. Glørstad, 2010: 189,
231–36). Already c. 8000 cal BC, quarried
and knapped stone adze blanks were fin-
ished—and modified/resharpened—by
grinding on grindstone slabs, and it is quite
likely that the concept of grinding relating
to the production of bone tools was linked
to the grinding of stone adzes, considering
that both activities happened at the sites.
Social and cultural implications
Our results have important implications in
a northern European context. As pointed
out above, in previous investigations bone
artefacts from Mesolithic sites in western
Norway have primarily been related to
artefact assemblages from Maglemosian or
older sites in southern Scandinavia and
northern Germany (e.g. Brøgger, 1908;
Bøe, 1934; Olsen, 1992). Admittedly,
some similarities can be observed between
these two areas. A common trait is the
lack of a barb at the tip, while notches
along the hook-shank are also occasionally
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
found (e.g. Cziesla, 2001: 485). A further
similarity is documented in the lower
horizon attributed to the Maglemose
phase 3 at the site of Sværdborg I-1917
(Zealand, Denmark). Here, one may
observe that the ‘perforating–enlarging the
hole’ technique was used—a procedure
that was also applied to the Norwegian
hooks. This might suggest that, in this
period, there was only one method of
making the hook gap when only stone
tools were available. However, an impor-
tant difference between these two areas is
that, instead of drilling (with a bow) and
scraping the hook gap, the perforation of
the hooks at Sværdborg I-1917 (Friis
Johansen, 1919) was made by employing
the boring technique (using a hand-held
borer) and the enlarging was done by
means of convergent grooving down to the
hole (David, 1993: 41). This process can
also be observed in discarded blanks of
hooks from the Maglemosian sites at Mul-
lerup (Sarauw, 1903: 261) and Ulkestrup
Lyng II (Andersen et al., 1982: 74). The
gap of the fishhooks was thus created by
extracting the bone material after delimit-
ing the gap by the grooves (David, 1999:
199, fig. 59-B), and not through reducing
of the bone by grinding, as is done at the
sites in Norway. Important in this context
is that these different ways of producing
fishhooks do not just relate to different
local practices for making fishhooks. They
are also, respectively, the expression of two
different technical traditions that strongly
divided Europe, from the Preboreal,
through the Boreal, and until the begin-
ning of the Atlantic chronozone (David,
1999, 2009; Figures 14 and 15):
A northern European (Maglemosian)
tradition, found at sites scattered around
the North Sea, characterized by straight
and barbed points made of elk and red
deer limb bones and ribs, using the D
(and F) method(s), that is using the
groove and splinter technique.
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 213

A north-eastern European (Post- them in length (by grooving or flake break-

Swiderian related Kunda-Butovian) tra-
dition was found at sites around the Baltic
Sea, where mainly slotted bone points
made of elk and red deer limb bones were
produced with the Z method, that is,
using the shaft-wedge-splinter technique.
Both methods were used c. 8000 cal BC
and start with the use of wedge-splinter for
calibrating the metapodial bone of elk or red
deer in order to keep its maximum cortical
potential in length. The D method employs
the groove and splinter technique, and the
Z method that of the shaft-wedge-splinter
for extracting elongated blanks and to resplit
age respectively) after they have been
removed from the distal ends.
For western Norway, it has been
pointed out above that fishhooks, as well
as flutters, slotted bone points, and
scaling knives were manufactured by
means of the shaft-wedge-splinter tech-
nique (Z-method). Considering that this
technique for local production of bone
implements has so far not been observed
at sites in the Maglemose area (Denmark
and northern Germany), it is suggested
here that the manufacturing process in
western Norway, and possibly eastern

Figure 14. Distribution map of bone industries showing similar technology, c. 7500–6000 cal BC, and
the sites referred to in the text. Reconstructed shoreline c. 8000 cal. BC.
Map partly based on Donner (1995) and Sørensen et al. (2013)
214
Figure 15. The north-European Maglemosian ‘Danish’ (D method) and the north-eastern European
(Kunda-Butovian ‘Zamostje’ (Z method).
After David, 2009.
Norway and western Sweden, was
embedded in an eastern-related tradition
of making tools; the current data from
Viste and Sævarhelleren indicate that, in
terms of debitage and the shaping of
bones for tool production c. 7000 cal BC,
there are close similarities with contem-
poraneous sites in the Baltic area
(including Scania), and even with Russian
sites (Oshibkina, 2006; David, 2009).
Considering that the groove and splin-
ter technique (D-method) and the shaft-
wedge-splinter technique (Z-method)
(Figure 15) were both intended for the
acquisition of animal (limb) bone resources
from the same mammals (mainly large
ungulates), and that the manufactured
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
tools were intended for similar purposes
(fishing and hunting with implements
hafted and fixed on their shafts/lines),
these techniques should be considered as
cultural choices based on different tra-
ditions in different areas of Europe, that
is, ‘isocrestic variation’ (cf. Sackett, 1985).
However, the question remains as to why
western Norway was more closely related
to the north-eastern tradition than the
Maglemosian tradition. This question is
pertinent because, during the preceding
early Mesolithic (c. 9500–8000 cal BC),
there were marked technological simi-
larities between the Norwegian (Fosna)
assemblages and those of the late Ahrens-
burg/early Maglemose (Bjerck, 2008;
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway
Fuglestvedt, 2009). This probably means
that major changes in the direction of cul-
tural influences in northern Scandinavia
took place between 8000 and 7000 cal BC.
This shift may in part have been related to
environmental changes; the flooding of
the North Sea continent would have led to
much longer travel distances and therefore
a weakening of the southern connections
(e.g. Glørstad & Kvalø, 2012).
In a recent contribution, Sørensen et al.
(2013) explore this problem from the per-
spective of blade technology found at a
large number of sites spanning 9500–7000
cal BC in Scandinavia, the Baltic, and
Russia. They argue that the ‘conical core
pressure blade’ concept originated among
‘Post-Swiderian’ hunter–gatherer groups
on the Russian Plain c. 9500 cal BC. From
there, it spread—possibly via migratory
groups—westwards and northwards. It
reached northern Finland, which is situ-
ated relatively close to the northern coast
of Finnmark, Norway, c. 8500 cal BC.
These authors argue that it thereafter
spread southwards along the western coast
and that it reached southern Norway/
interior Sweden c. 8000 cal BC. Consider-
ing that the ‘shaft-wedge-splinter’
technique of bone manufacturing (related
to the production of slotted tools) was also
practised in eastern Baltic regions c. 9000
cal BC, for example at Korpilahti (David,
1999) and Pulli (David, 2005), and that
the concept clearly relates to the pro-
duction of blades (which were used as
insets in slotted bone points), a relevant
hypothesis is that the ‘shaft-wedge-splin-
ter’ technique was also introduced to
western Norway along this route from the
north (Figure 14). It is important to
develop further hypotheses on the social
mechanisms of this ‘introduction’ process,
since the area had already been occupied
by (Fosna) marine hunters for 1500 years.
This could be done on the basis of tar-
geted fieldwork; we need to find, excavate,
215
and compare sites, preferably with faunal
material, from the early and middle Meso-
lithic along the Norwegian and Swedish
coasts (David & Kjällquist, in press), and
also to investigate more closely the tech-
nology of lithic assemblages from such
sites that are already excavated.
A last question concerns whether the
techniques of drilling and grinding were
also introduced to Norway via the route
discussed above. According to David’s
research, drilling of bone was practised in
Latvia, but it has until now only been
recorded in funerary contexts (David,
2006). To our knowledge, grinding (and
sawing and scraping) of bone with a
grinding stone has not yet been documen-
ted at sites elsewhere outside Norway for
this period. Probably this means that,
although these individual techniques may
have been introduced to Norway from the
east, they were not part of an integrated
‘package’ at the time of their introduction.
Our data indicate rather that the specific
combination of shaft-wedge-splinting,
drilling, sawing, and grinding with a stone
developed independently in coastal
Norway between 8000 and 7000 cal BC,
probably in connection with the increased
importance of fishing (and a subsequent
need for effective fishing gear), and also,
as indicated above, in close relation to the
chaîne opératoire of stone adze production.
CONCLUSIONS
Bone and antler artefacts have traditionally
received much attention in European
Mesolithic research. The reasons for this
are the refined craftsmanship they display,
and also the advanced artistry they some-
times express. This material has mainly
been studied by means of typological or
functional analysis. During the last few
years, however, the concept of chaîne opéra-
toire has also been applied, and this has
216
made it possible to distinguish clearly
between a northern European (Maglemo-
sian) and a north-eastern European
(post-Swiderian related Kunda-Butovian)
tradition for producing such tools (David,
1999). Until now, the Norwegian middle
Mesolithic bone technology has not been
analysed for this purpose; however, it has
been commonly assumed that the bone
industry from this region was closely
related to that of the Maglemose group. In
order to test this hypothesis, the current
project has investigated the bone industry
at the two sites of Sævarhelleren and the
Viste cave (c. 7000–6000 cal BC), with a
particular focus on fishhook-production
produced on large mammal limb-bone dia-
physis. It is suggested here that the
production of bone tools at these sites con-
sisted of a combination of fracturing
techniques (shaft-wedge-splinter) and abra-
sive techniques (drilling, sawing, scraping,
and grinding), that these techniques were
mastered by all makers, and that there was
probably a close connection between stone
and bone tool production. The identifi-
cation of the shaft-wedge-splinter
technique indicates a technological back-
ground in Eastern Europe rather than in
the Maglemose tradition. It is also argued
that the industry developed between 8000
and 7000 cal BC partly as a result of these
eastern technological influences, and partly
from regional innovations and adjustments
related to an increased focus on a marine
economy during this period.
Compared to many methods tradition-
ally applied on Scandinavian Mesolithic
data, the chaîne opératoire has many advan-
tages. One of the most important is that it
breaks up the production process into
individual parts. This not only enables the
identification of possible new tool types
and tool functions, as demonstrated above.
It also makes it possible, in a much more
detailed way, to study the spatial—and
perhaps also the social—organization of
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
the acquisition and production of tools.
We argue therefore that an increased use
of the chaîne opératoire approach on the
Scandinavian Mesolithic will lead to a
more refined, complex, and dynamic view
of this period.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The excavations at Sævarhelleren were
financed by the Faculty of Humanities
and the Meltzer foundation of the Univer-
sity of Bergen, and the analysis of the
material was supported by a 2012 NFR/
FMSH grant and grants in 2013 from
AHKR University of Bergen, for which
we are very grateful. An early version of
this paper was presented at the session
‘Settled and Itinerant Crafts People in
History and Prehistory’ at the 2012 EAA
meeting in Helsinki. We thank Berit
Valentin Eriksen and Gitte Hansen for
inviting us there. We also thank Sveinung
Bang-Andersen, Anne Karin Huftham-
mer, and Svein Indrelid for providing
access to unpublished radiocarbon dates
from the Viste cave, and Ken Ritchie for
his help with identification of carnivores
and for improving our knowledge on fish.
We are grateful to Hein Bjartmann
Bjerck, Clive Bonsall, and Håkon
Glørstad for comments on an earlier
version of the manuscript. Finally, we
would like to thank Robin Skeates and
Jennifer Sharman for helpful comments
and suggestions.
REFERENCES
Andersen, K., Jørgensen, S. & Richter, J.
1982. Maglemose hytterne ved Ulkestrup
Lyng (med bidrag af Helle Juel Jensen).
København: Det Kongelig Nordiske
Oldskrifselskab.
Åstveit, L.I. 2008a. Lokalitet 29 Fredly—
Mellommesolittisk kulturlagslokalitet med
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway
bruksfaser fra MN-BA. In: H.B. Bjerck,
L.I. Åstveit, T. Meling, J. Gundersen,
G. Jørgensen & S. Normann, eds. NTNU
Vitenskapsmuseets undersøkelser. Ormen
Lange Nyhamna. Trondheim: Tapir akade-
misk forlag, pp. 93–118.
Åstveit, L.I. 2008b. Mellomesolittisk tid
(MM) 8000–6500 BC. In: H.B. Bjerck, L.
I. Åstveit, T. Meling, J. Gundersen,
G. Jørgensen & S. Normann, eds. NTNU
Vitenskapsmuseets arkeologiske undersøkelser
Ormen Lange Nyhamna. Trondheim:
Tapir Akademisk Forlag, pp. 571–75.
Åstveit, L.I. 2008c. Senmesolittisk tid (SM)
6500–4000 BC. In: H.B. Bjerck, L.
I. Åstveit, T. Meling, J. Gundersen,
G. Jørgensen & S. Normann, eds. NTNU
Vitenskapsmuseets arkeologiske undersøkelser
Ormen Lange Nyhamna. Trondheim:
Tapir Akademisk Forlag, pp. 576–87.
Balfet, H. 1991. Observer l’action technique, des
chaînes opératoires pourquoi faire? Paris:
Éditions du CNRS.
Ballin, T.B. 1999. The Middle Mesolithic in
Southern Norway. In: J. Boaz, ed. The
Mesolithic of Central Scandinavia. Oslo:
Universitetets Oldsaksamling, pp. 203–15.
Bergsvik, K.A. 2001. Sedentary and Mobile
Hunter-Fishers in Stone Age Western
Norway. Arctic Anthropology, 38(1):2–26.
Bergsvik, K.A. 2002. Arkeologiske undersøkelser
ved Skatestraumen. Bind 1. Bergen: Bergen
Museum, University of Bergen.
Bergsvik, K.A. & Hufthammer, A.K. 2009.
Stability and Change among Marine
Hunter-Fishers in Western Norway 7000–
4500 BC. Results from the Excavations of
Two Rockshelters. In: P. Crombé,
M. Van Strydonck, J. Sergant, M. Boudin
& M. Bats, eds. Chronology and Evolution
in the Mesolithic of N(W) Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, pp. 435–50.
Bergsvik, K.A. & Olsen, A.B. 2003. Traffic in
Stone Adzes in Mesolithic Western
Norway. In: L. Larsson, H. Kindgren,
K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler & A. Åkerlund,
eds. Mesolithic on the Move. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, pp. 395–404.
Bergsvik, K.A. & Storvik, I. 2012. Mesolithic
Caves and Rockshelters in Western
Norway. In: K.A. Bergsvik & R. Skeates,
eds. Caves in Context. The Cultural
Significance of Caves and Rockshelters in
Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 22–38.
217
Bergsvik, K.A., Bommen, C. & Waraas, T.A.
2014. Report from the Excavations of
Sævarhelleren, Sævarhagen, Herand, Jondal
k., Hordaland (unpublished report on file
at the Topographical Archive, UMIB,
University of Bergen).
Bjerck, H.B. 1986. The Fosna-Nøstvedt
Problem. A Consideration of
Archaeological Units and Chronozones in
the South Norwegian Mesolithic Period.
Norwegian Archaeological Review, 19
(2):103–21.
Bjerck, H.B. 2007. Mesolithic Coastal
Settlements and Shell Middens (?) in
Norway. In: N. Milner, O.E. Craig & G.
N. Bailey, eds. Shell Middens in
Atlantic Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books,
pp. 5–30.
Bjerck, H.B. 2008. Norwegian Mesolithic
Trends. A Review. In: G. Bailey &
P. Spikins, eds. Mesolithic Europe.
New York: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 60–106.
Bøe, J. 1934. Boplassen i Skipshelleren på
Straume i Nordhordland. Bergen: A.S.
John Griegs Boktrykkeri.
Broadbent, N. 1979. Coastal Resources and
Settlement Stability. Uppsala: Institute of
North European Archaeology, University
of Uppsala.
Brøgger, A.W. 1908. Vistefundet, en ældre
stenalders kjøkkenmødding fra Jæderen.
Stavanger: Stavanger Museum.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2005. OxCal Version 3.10
[online] [accessed 12 March 2014].
Available at: <http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/>
Callahan, E. 1987. An Evaluation of the Lithic
Technology in Middle Sweden during the
Mesolithic and Neolithic. Uppsala: Societas
Archaeologica Upsaliensis.
Clark, G. 1975. The Earlier Stone Age
Settlement of Scandinavia. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cziesla, E. 2001. Neue Altfunde aus Pritzerbe
(Brandenburg). Zugleich ein beitrag zum
Fischfang und zum Steinzeitlichen
Angelhaken. Etnographish-Archäologische
Zeitschrift, 42(4):473–503.
David, É. 1993. Les industries en matières dures
animales maglemosiennes. Présentation et
premiers résultats d’après la documentation
livrée par le site danois de Sværdborg 1
(fouille K. Friis Johansen, 1917). Toulouse:
École des Hautes Études en Sciences
Sociales.
218
David, É. 1999. L’industrie en matières dures
animales du Mésolithique ancien et moyen
en Europe du Nord. Contribution de
l’analyse technologique à la définition du
Maglemosien (unpublished PhD thesis,
Paris X University).
David, É. 2004. Transformation des matières
dures d’origine animale dans le
Mésolithique de l’Europe du Nord.
Industrie de l’os préhistorique. In:
D. Ramseyer, ed. Matières et techniques.
Fiches de la Commission de Nomenclature de
l’Industrie Osseuse. Cahier XI. Paris:
Éditions de la Société Préhistorique
Française, pp. 113–49.
David, É. 2005. Preliminary Results on a
Recent Technological Study of the Early
Mesolithic Bone and Antler Industry of
Estonia, with Special Emphasis on the
Pulli Site. In: H. Luik, A.M. Choyke, C.
E. Batey & L. Lõugas, eds. From the
Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to
Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone
Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the
Present. Tallinn: Tallinn Book Printers
Ltd., pp. 67–74.
David, É. 2006. Technical Behaviour in the
Mesolithic (9th–8th Millennium Cal. BC):
The Contribution of the Bone and Antler
Industry from Domestic and Funerary
Contexts. Back to the Origin. In:
L. Larsson & I. Zagorska, eds. New
Research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic
Zvejnieki Cemetery and Environment,
Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica
Lundensia. Series in 8° 52. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell, pp. 235–52.
David, É. 2009. Show Me How You Make
Your Hunting Equipment and I Will Tell
You Where You Come From: Technical
Traditions, an Efficient Means to
Characterize Cultural Identities. In:
S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren &
P. Woodman, eds. Mesolithic Horizons.
Oxbow: Oxford, pp. 362–67.
David, É. & Kjällqvist, M. in press. The
Mesolithic North-Eastern Tradition in
the Mood for Maglemose (phase 2): the
Key Site of Norje Sunnansund (Scania).
In: K. Knutsson, J. Apel, H. Knutsson &
H. Glørstad, eds. The Early Settlement
of Northern Europe — Technology and
Communication. Lindome: Bricoleur Press.
Degerbøl, M. 1951a. Det osteologiske mater-
iale. In: H.E. Lund, ed. Fangst-boplassen i
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
Vistehulen på Viste, Randaberg, Nord-Jæren.
Stavanger: Stavanger Museum, pp. 52–84.
Degerbøl, M. 1951b. Tillæg: zoologisk bestem-
melse af redskaper af ben og horn. In: H.
E. Lund, ed. Fangst-boplassen i Vistehulen
på Viste, Randaberg, Nord-Jæren. Stavanger:
Stavanger Museum, pp. 140–42.
Djindjian, F. 2013. Us et abus du concept de
‘chaîne opératoire’ en archéologie. In:
S. Krauzs, A. Colin, K. Gruel, I. Ralston &
T. Dechezlepêtre, eds. L’Age du fer en Europe.
Mélanges offerts à Olivier Buchsenschutz.
Bordeaux: Ausonius, pp. 93–108.
Donner, J. 1995. The Quaternary History of
Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fenwick, D. 2012. Aphotomarine [online]
[accessed 1 March 2014]. Available at:
<http://www.aphotomarine.com/>
Friis Johansen, K. 1919. En boplads fra den
ældste stenalder ved Sværdborg mose
(med bidrag af Knud Jessen og Herluf
Winge). Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed
og Historie, 1919:106–235.
Fuglestvedt, I. 2009. Phenomenology and the
Pioneer Settlement on the Western
Scandinavian Peninsula. Lindome:
Bricoleur Press.
Glørstad, H. 2010. The Structure and History
of the Late Mesolithic Societies in the Oslo
Fjord Area 6300–3800 BC. Lindome:
Bricoleur Press.
Glørstad, H. & Kvalø, F. 2012. HAVVIND —
paleogeografi og arkeologi. Oslo: Norsk
Maritimt Museum.
Gräslund, B. 1962. Skafthålsförsedda spets-
redskap av sten. Tor, 8:105–50.
Hufthammer, A.K. 1992. De osteologiske
undersøkelsene fra Kotedalen. In: K.
L. Hjelle, A.K. Hufthammer, P.
E. Kaland, A.B. Olsen & E.C. Soltvedt,
eds. Kotedalen — en boplass gjennom 5000
år. Bind 2. Naturvitenskapelige
undersøkelser. Bergen: Historical Museum,
University of Bergen, pp. 9–64.
Hufthammer, A.K. & Meiklejohn, C. 1986.
Neue Direct Dating of the Viste Burial,
Coastal Norway. Mesolithic Miscellany,
7 (2):7–8.
Indrelid, S. 1978. Mesolithic Economy and
Settlement Patterns in Norway. In:
P. Mellars, ed. The Early Postglacial
Settlement of Northern Europe. An
Ecological Perspective. London:
Duckworth, pp. 147–76.
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway
Indrelid, S. 1994. Fangstfolk og bønder i fjellet.
Bidrag til Hardangerviddas førhistorie
8500–2500 før nåtid. Oslo: Universitetets
Oldsaksamling, University of Oslo.
Jansen, K. 1972. Grønehelleren, en kystboplass
(unpublished MA thesis, University of
Bergen).
Leblanc, R. 1992. Wedges, Pieces Esquillees,
Bipolar Cores, and Other Things: An
Alternative to Shott’s View of Bipolar
Industries. North American Archaeologist,
13(1):1–14.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1988a. La Geste et la Parole
I. Technique et Langage, 2nd ed. Paris:
Albin Michel.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1988b. La Geste et la
Parole II. Memoire et les Rythmes, 2nd ed.
Paris: Albin Michel.
Locard, A. 1890. Description des espèces
françaises appartenant au genre Mactra.
Bulletin de la Société Malacologique de
France, 7:1–76.
Lozovski, V.M. 1996. Zamostje 2. Les
derniers chasseurs-pêcheurs préhistoriques
de la plaine russe. In: P. Cattelain, ed.
Catalogue de l’exposition ‘Du fond de l’eau,
du fond des âges: chasseurs-
pêcheurs préhistoriques de la Russie’.
Treignes: Musée du Malgré-Tout-
Éditions du CEDARC, pp. 11–84.
Lund, H.E. 1951. Fangstboplassen i Vistehulen.
Stavanger: Stavanger Museum.
Matland, S. 1990. Bone Implements: A
Re-Evaluation of Stone Age Finds from
Caves and Rockshelters of Western
Norway (unpublished MA thesis,
University of Bergen).
Mikkelsen, E. 1971. Vistefunnets kronologiske
stilling. Trekk av Rogalands eldre stei-
nalder. Stavanger Museums Årbok, 1970:5–
38.
Mikkelsen, E. 1979. Seasonality and
Mesolithic Adaptation in Norway. In:
K. Kristiansen & C. Paludan-Müller, eds.
New Directions in Scandinavian
Archaeology. Copenhagen: National
Museum of Denmark, pp. 79–119.
Mikkelsen, E., Ballin, T.B. & Hufthammer,
A.K. 1999. Tørkop. A Boreal Settlement
in South-Eastern Norway. Acta
Archaeologica, 70:25–57.
Myhre, B. 1967. Tjorahelleren. Et bidrag til
Rogalands tidlige steinalder. Stavanger
Museums Årbok, 1967:7–40.
219
Nash, G. 1998. Exchange, Status and Mobility:
Mesolithic Portable Art of Southern
Scandinavia. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Olsen, A.B. 1992. Kotedalen — en boplass
gjennom 5000 år. Bind 1: Fangstbosetning
og tidlig jordbruk i vestnorsk steinalder: Nye
funn og nye perspektiver. Bergen: Historical
Museum, University of Bergen.
Olsen, A.B. & Alsaker, S. 1984. Greenstone
and Diabase Utilization in the Stone Age
of Western Norway: Technological and
Socio-Cultural Aspects of Axe and Adze
Production and Distribution. Norwegian
Archaeological Review, 17(2):71–103.
Olson, C., Limburg, K. & Söderblom, M.
2008. Stone Age Fishhooks — How
Were They Dimensioned? Morphology,
Strength Test, and Breakage Pattern of
the Neolithic Fishhooks from Ajvide,
Gotland, Sweden. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 35:2813–23.
Oshibkina, S.V. 2006. Mezolit Vostočnogo
Prionežja: Kul’tura Veret’e. Moscow: Nauka.
Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C. & Bodu, P. 1988.
‘Chaînes opératoires’: un outil pour les
préhistoriens. In: J. Tixier, ed. Technologie
Préhistorique, Notes et Monographies
Techniques 25. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.,
pp. 55–62.
Persson, P. 2013. 4.7 Prestmoen 1. En plats
med ben från mellanmesolitikum. In:
P. Persson, ed. Vestfoldbaneprosjektet.
Årsrapport 2012. Oslo: Kulturhistorisk
Museum, Universitetet i Oslo, pp. 28–33.
Sackett, J. 1985. Style and Ethnicity in the
Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner. American
Antiquity, 50(1):154–59.
Sarauw, G.F.L. 1903. En stenalders boplads i
Maglemose ved Mullerup, sammenholdt
med beslæktede fund. Aarbøger for Nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie, 2(18):148–315.
Schaller-Åhrberg, E. 2007. Fishing for
Storage: Mesolithic Short Term Fishing
for Long Term Consumption. In:
N. Milner, O.E. Craig & G. Bailey, eds.
Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, pp. 46–53.
Shetelig, H. 1922. Primitive Tider i Norge.
Bergen: John Griegs Forlag.
Skår, Ø. 2003. Rituell kommunikasjon i sein-
mesolitikum (unpublished candidatus
philologiae thesis, University of Bergen).
Skjelstad, G. 2011. Fosenlokalitetene—
oppsummeringer og diskusjon. In:
220
G. Skjelstad, ed. Steinalderboplasser på
Fosenhalvøya. Arkeologiske og naturvitenska-
pelige undersøkelser 2004–2007
T-forbindelsen, Karmøy kommune,
Nord-Rogaland. Stavanger: Arkeologisk
Museum, Universitetet i Stavanger, pp.
217–46.
Sørensen, M., Rankama, T., Kankaanpää, J.,
Knutsson, K., Knutsson, H., Melvold, S.,
Eriksen, B.V. & Glørstad, H. 2013. The
First Eastern Migrations of People and
Knowledge into Scandinavia: Evidence
from Studies of Mesolithic Technology,
9th–8th Millennium BC. Norwegian
Archaeological Review, 46(1):19–56.
Tehrani, J.J. & Riede, F. 2008. Towards an
Archaeology of Pedagogy: Learning,
Teaching and the Generation of Material
Culture Traditions. World Archaeology, 40
(3):316–31.
Tixier, J. 1978. Méthode pour l’étude des out-
illages lithiques. Notice sur les travaux
scientifiques de J. Tixier présentée en vue
du grade de docteur ès lettre (soutenance
sur travaux). Unpublished PhD thesis,
Paris X University.
Tixier, J. 1980. Préhistoire et technologie lithi-
que. 11–13 Mai 1979. Publications de
l’URA 28, cahier 1, Centre de Recherches
Archéologiques du Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique. Paris: Éditions du
CNRS.
Warren, J.E. 1994. Coastal Sedentism During
the Atlantic Period in Nordhordland,
Western Norway? The Middle and Late
Mesolithic Components at Kotedalen
(unpublished MA thesis), Memorial
University of Newfoundland.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Knut Andreas Bergsvik is Professor of
Archaeology in the Department of
Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies
Faire des outils en os en Norvège au Mésolithique: Un savoir-faire régional
apparenté à la tradition orientale
Cet article traite de la production d’outils en os au cours du septième millénaire av. J.-C. (en datation
calibrée). À l’ouest de la Norvège, sur le site de Sævarhelleren et dans la grotte de Viste, un grand
nombre d’hameçons et leurs déchets de fabrication ont été retrouvés. Les données ont été étudiées à l’aide
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
and Religion at the University of Bergen,
Norway. His research interests and publi-
cations include the social and territorial
organization of Stone Age hunter–gatherer
groups, the transition to agriculture in
Scandinavia, and the human use of caves
and rockshelters. He has conducted several
excavation projects in western Norway. He
has been managing editor of Norwegian
Archaeological Review for the period 2010
to 2014.
Address: Department of AHKR, University
of Bergen, P.O. Box 7805, 5020 Bergen,
Norway [email: knut.bergsvik@ahkr.uib.
no]
Éva David is Researcher at CNRS Lab-
oratory Préhistoire et Technologie, France,
and gives lectures on Mesolithic bone
technology at the University of Nanterre,
France. She has many years of experience
of the study of bone artefacts, and has
studied and compared earlier Stone Age
assemblages from several countries in
Northern Europe by applying the techno-
logical approach. She is currently
participating in several international
research projects as a specialist on bone
technology, and has published extensively
on the subject.
Address: Maison René-Ginouvès, Archéo-
logie et Ethnologie, UMR 7055
Préhistoire et Technologie, 21 Allée de
l’Université, F—92023 Nanterre—cedex,
France [email: eva.david@mae.u-paris10.
fr]
Bergsvik and David – Crafting Bone Tools in Mesolithic Norway 221

du concept de chaîne opératoire, ce qui signifie que les objets sont décrits et analysés afin d’identifier les
différentes étapes dans les processus de production et de caractériser la technologie dans une perspective
comparative nord-européenne. Le résultat montre que des outils en os et des hameçons ont été fabriqués,
par tous, de la même manière sur ces deux sites, et en relation étroite avec la production d’outils en
pierre. Rapportée aux productions d’autres sites contemporains, la technologie s’apparente à celle, méso-
lithique, utilisée au Nord-Est de l’Europe. Ceci contredit ainsi l’hypothèse d’un lien fort entre les
groupes culturels de l’ouest de la Norvège et ceux du Maglemose au sud de la Scandinavie et nord de
l’Allemagne.

Mots clés: Mésolithique norvégien, outils en os, technologie, chaîne opératoire, abris sous roche

Knochengeräteherstellung im mesolithischen Norwegen: Eine regionale

Technologie mit östlichen Verbindungen

Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Produktion von Knochenwerkzeugen während des 7. vorchristli-
chen Jahrtausends. Eine große Anzahl von Angelhaken und Abfallstücke von deren Produktion wurden
in den Halbhöhlen von Sævarhelleren und Viste in Westnorwegen gefunden. Das Fundmaterial wurde
in Bezug auf das Konzept der chaîne opératoire untersucht. Die Objekte wurden beschrieben und ana-
lysiert, um die verschiedenen Schritte des Produktionsprozesses zu identifizieren und die Technologie in
einer vergleichenden nordeuropäischen Perspektive zu charakterisieren. Das Ergebnis zeigt, dass Kno-
chengeräte und Angelhaken an diesen beiden Plätzen auf ähnliche Weise und mit Techniken, die alle
Hersteller beherrschten und sich in enger Beziehung zur Steingeräteproduktion befanden, gefertigt
wurden. Im Vergleich zu anderen gleichzeitigen Fundplätzen spiegeln die Objekte die mesolithische
Knochengerätetechnologie des nordosteuropäischen Raumes wider und widersprechen daher der Hypoth-
ese einer engen Verbindung zwischen Westnorwegen und der Maglemose-Kultur in Südskandinavien
und Norddeutschland. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Stichworte: norwegisches Mesolithikum, Knochengeräte, Technologie, chaîne opératoire,

Halbhöhlen