T.D. Price - Mesolithic of Northern Europe

The Mesolithic of Northern Europe
Author(s): T. Douglas Price

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20 (1991), pp. 211-233
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2155800
Accessed: 28-08-2018 09:45 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2155800?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual
Review of Anthropology
This content downloaded from 122.177.45.125 on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:45:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1991. 20:211-233
Copyright ? 1991 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
THE MESOLITHIC OF
NORTHERN EUROPE
T. Douglas Price
Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

53706
KEY WORDS: prehistory, Stone Age, hunter-gatherers, foragers, pre-farming
INTRODUCTION
The subject of this essay is 5,000 years of the early postglacial prehistory of
northern Europe, from approximately 10,000 until 5,000 years ago. This part
of the past is of interest in its own right, but also in a much broader context.
Current evidence suggests that rather large and sedentary groups of hunter-
gatherers were present in northern Europe during the early Holocene. This
information leads to two important messages for this paper: 1. The European
Mesolithic was a period of dynamic change and innovation, rather than a time
of cultural degeneration as it has often been portrayed; and 2. large and
sedentary groups of hunter-gatherers are likely more typical of late Pleis-
tocene and early Holocene adaptations than the small and mobile ones de-
scribed for much of the ethnographic and archaeological record.
This chapter begins with a discussion of the climatic, environmental, and
chronological background of the northern European Mesolithic. I then focus
on recent archaeological evidence before returning to the two points made
above.
For purposes of this essay, northern Europe includes all or parts of those
countries that share the coasts of the Baltic Sea and Kattegat, including
northern Poland and Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the
northwestern corner of the Soviet Union, and the Baltic Republics (Figure 1).
This is an immense area; it is further from one end of Norway to the other than
211
0084-6570/91/1015-021 1$02.00
212 PRICE
1 Ertebolle j -
2 Nederst NJ
3 Skateholm P
4 Stroby Egede
5 Tybrind Vig
6 Vedbiek)
Ole-ni Ostrov
Rormry l(3 wZvcej t ii 53
Demern
Figure 1 Map of northern Europe with the location of sites in the text and the Norwegian
highlands (shaded).
it is from Copenhagen to the boot of Italy. Northern Europe stretches from

high northern latitudes well within the arctic circle to approximately 530
north, and from the west coast of Norway to the western part of the Soviet
Union. To put the northerly aspect of this area into perspective for New World
readers, the cities of Oslo, Stockholm, and Leningrad lie at the latitude of the
middle of Hudson's Bay in North America. The warming effects of the Gulf
MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 213
Stream and a maritime climate greatly ameliorate the colder conditions that
could be expected given this northern location. Even in Finnmark, at the
northern end of Norway, the sea does not freeze in the winter. The effect of
this amelioration decreases from west to east and from north to south. The
environment of this area ranges from the arctic tundra of the far north to the
temperate forest and taiga of the Baltic basin. The area was heavily glaciated
during the Pleistocene and, with the exception of the highlands in Norway and
Sweden, the landscape is largely flat and rolling with many lakes, rivers, and
wetlands.
In the following discussion I emphasize southern Scandinavia (Denmark
and southern Sweden) where there is a greater density of archaeological
information; I mention new data from other areas only briefly. A number of
regional summaries have been published in the last few years to which the
interested reader may refer for more details on the Mesolithic in specific areas
of northern Europe (8, 9, 33, 34, 37, 38, 42, 48, 53, 54, 72, 73, 74).
THE MESOLITHIC OF NORTHERN EUROPE
Although occupied only briefly in the span of Old World prehistory, northern
Europe is an extraordinary laboratory for the investigation of human adapta-
tion. Archaeology and natural history together provide a detailed picture of
climate, vegetation, fauna, and human activities for the early postglacial. This
area became ice free toward the end of the Pleistocene, opening a new
landscape for human occupation, essentially for the first time. It is thus
possible to witness in the span of 10,000 years the transition from mobile
groups of reindeer hunters in the late Paleolithic to metal-using village
farmers in the Neolithic.
Moreover, archaeological and environmental research has long been well
established in Scandinavia. More archaeologists work in Scandinavia than
anywhere else, and more archaeological data are collected from the region
than from anywhere else in the world. Thus the depth and density of informa-
tion on the past, and particularly on the Mesolithic, provide a detailed view of
human adaptation in the early postglacial period. Finally, the preservation of
archaeological materials in the bogs and wetland deposits of northern Europe
is exceptional, providing added dimension to the archaeological record.
The Prehistoric Landscape
The effects and consequences of Pleistocene glaciation dominate the land- and
sea-scapes of postglacial northern Europe. Rather than a series of oscillations,
the end of the Pleistocene in northern Europe is now seen as a process of
continuous warming, from the Lateglacial Interstadial-interrupted by a sin-
214 PRICE
gle cold spell-the Younger Dryas Stadial (22, 40). This warming trend was
evident by 16,000 before present (BP). Late Weichselian ice began retreating
from eastern Denmark and northern Germany at that time, indicating a rapid
rise in temperature. Average July temperatures increased from ca. 10? C at
that time to almost 18? C by 13,000 BP (22); most of southern Scandinavia was
likely free of ice by that time. The retreat of continental glaciation continued
during the early part of the Holocene and by 8500 BP the ice was virtually
gone from northern Europe (5, 12).
Following the retreat of the ice, most of northern Europe was left covered
with glacial sediments, primarily outwash sands and glacial till or moraine.
This fresh surface was colonized initially by a steppe tundra, including a
variety of herbaceous vegetation-sedges and grasses, with some dwarf birch
and willow. Continued warming was responsible for the expansion of open
birch forest across most of the area, followed by a combination of birch and
pine with some increasing elm, aspen, and ash (62). Average July tempera-
tures in the early part of the Holocene reached ca. 15? C and the warming
continued. The beginning of the Boreal climate period is marked by the
appearance of hazel and a predominance of pine in the pollen record. Hazel
spread across much of northwest Europe in this period.The climate was
similar to today's (30).
A dense, mixed deciduous forest of lime, with elm, beech, and oak,
dominated in the Atlantic period, beginning around 8,000 BP. July tempera-
tures averaged 18-20? C in northwest Europe in the Atlantic. Temperatures
were warmer than today's and the climate maritime. The arctic treeline moved
further north during the warmer conditions of the early postglacial. Summers
and winters were likely warmer than at present. The elm decline that marks
the end of the Atlantic is today considered the result of disease rather than
signficant climatic change at the beginning of the Subboreal period (32).
What is perhaps most important to remember about the environment of
early Holocene northern Europe is its diversity. A rich mixture of plants and
animals occupied this landscape and the surrounding oceans, providing a
wealth of resources to the human occupants. Temperatures were as warm or
warmer than today's. This must have been a most propitious environment for
its inhabitants during the Mesolithic period.
Shortly after the close of the Pleistocene, the distribution of reindeer and
other arctic species was reduced to highest elevations and latitudes. Faunal
evidence indicates that aurochs and elk were predominant during the Pre-
boreal and that red deer, wild pig, and roe deer became the terrestrial animals
of major economic importance by the Atlantic climatic episode. The latter
three species are ubiquitous throughout most of Europe in the early Holocene.
A variety of small fur-bearing species are represented, including marten,
otter, wolf, and squirrel.The dog was domesticated by the end of the Pleis-
tocene. Numerous species of fish, fowl, and small game are recorded as well
in the postglacial archaeological record. The remains of approximately 55

species of fowl, both aquatic and terrestrial forms, are known from Mesolithic
sites in northern Europe (14). Vegetable foods do not appear to have played a
major role in the diet, with the possible exception of hazelnuts.
The oceans were full of food; molluscs, crustacea, fish, and sea mammals
were all food for coastal dwelling hunter-gatherers. Although water tempera-
tures in the early postglacial may not have supported a variety of shellfish (7),
their numbers and range expanded greatly through this period. Seals, por-
poise, and whales are all found among the fauna at archaeological sites. Fish
species from a wide range of habitats were taken during this period with a
variety of elaborate equipment (19).
Changes in sea level at the end of the Pleistocene are equally important to
an understanding of the archaeology of this area. The melting of glacial ice
began to raise sea levels toward the end of the Pleistocene. By 10,000 BP sea
levels were more than 60 m lower than they are today. Denmark and southern
Sweden were part of one landmass connected to the European continent, and
coastlines were far out in the North Sea Basin (12). Sea level continued to rise
through the early Holocene, transgressing former coastlines and submerging
and/or destroying the archaeological sites located there. Sea level reached and
exceeded modern heights during the Atlantic after 5,000 BP; at that time,
coastlines were roughly similar to today's, but slightly further inland. In fact
it appears that there were a number of transgressions and regressions of sea
level throughout the postglacial until the seas stabilized at present levels only
a few thousand years ago (67).
While sea level has been rising, the surface of the land in northern Europe
has been isostatically rebounding from the enormous weight of the Pleis-
tocene ice, resulting in an intricate race between land and sea. As a result of
differential uplift in northern Europe, Mesolithic sites in some areas are still
submerged beneath the sea, while in other areas they may be found at some
distance inland from the present coasts. In some areas, particularly along the
west coasts of Norway and Finland, this rebound goes on at a rapid rate.
Shoreline displacement curves are used to date archaeological sites in Nor-
way, Sweden, and Finland (16, 45). Rock carvings made along the coast of
the Oslo fjord some five or six thousand years ago are now found more than
25 m above sea level. The coastline of Finland today is rapidly moving into
the Baltic Sea as the land surface rebounds at a rate of several millimeters per
year (43). Such rebound has significant consequences for archaeology. I
return to this point at the conclusion of the essay.
For now, I consider the recent archaeological evidence from the Mesolithic
of northern Europe in terms of typology and chronology, subsistence and
settlement, cemeteries, styles and territorities, exchange, and the transition to
agriculture. This evidence supports the message I convey in the review's
conclusion.
216 PRICE
Typology and Chronology

The term Mesolithic ("Middle Stone Age") is used to designate those societies
of hunter-gatherers present during the period between the end of the Pleis-
tocene and the beginnings of agriculture in Europe. The end of the Pleistocene
is conventionally set at 10,000 BP; the earliest Mesolithic assemblages in the
northern part of Europe date from ca. 9,500 BP. The end of the Mesolithic is
marked by the introduction of agriculture between 6,000 and 5,000 BP in
northern Europe. In the most northerly areas, above the limits of cultivation,
hunter-gatherer adaptations continued until very recent times, and such
adaptations are often simply referred to as "stone age." The limit of cultiva-
tion lay somewhat to the north of its present location during the warmer
climatic conditions of the early postglacial.
Radiocarbon dates from the terminal Paleolithic and early Mesolithic in the
western portion of the North European Plain show a clear gap between 10,500
and 9,500 BP. (62). In southern Scandinavia, too, there is a lack of evidence
for occupation between the early part of the Younger Dryas and the middle of
the Preboreal, from approximately 10,500 to 9,500 BP. There is little doubt,
however, that the Mesolithic of northern Europe is descended from the Late
Paleolithic. A case can be made for the continuous evolution of projectile
points during this time (25). Transitional assemblages can be seen in Late
Paleolithic sites such as Deimern 45 in northern Germany (66) or Mesolithic
occupations such as R0rmry in southern Norway (64).
A distinct change is detectable, however, from the Late Paleolithic to the
Mesolithic in terms of the size of artifacts toward smaller and more geometric
forms. In northern Germany and Poland, for example, the large blade indus-
tries of the Late Paleolithic shift toward smaller cores of lower-quality flint in
the Mesolithic (1 8). In southern Scandinavia, one observes a change from the
large and regular blades of the Bromme period to smaller and less regular ones
in the early Mesolithic Maglemosian period. The large, tanged points of the
Bromme are replaced by various microliths and triangles (Figure 2).
In general terms the Mesolithic of northern Europe is characterized by
similarities in technology and in the types of tools and other equipment used.
This equipment was both diverse in form and specialized in function. The
bow and arrow were used, dogs were domesticated for hunting, water trans-
port took the form of canoes and sea-going craft, and a variety of fishing gear
was employed, including nets, hook and line, weirs, and traps. Ground stone
artifacts appear as axes, celts, plant-processing and woodworking equipment,
and other tools. Projectile weapons were armed with a large array of special-
ized tips made of bone, wood, antler, and stone. Ceramics appear in the
late Mesolithic of northern Germany (Ellerbek), southern Scandinavia (Erte-
b0lle), and Finland (Combed Ware), likely as an idea borrowed from
Neolithic farmers in Central or Eastern Europe.
The currently accepted chronology for the Mesolithic of northern Europe is
Ti?4NSVERSEHPONTS
ARMPEZES,
TiI4#N IES
05W1UIYISIM UN TED P0/N Ts,
0 4 cm
Figure 2 Projectile points belonging to the late Paleolithic (tanged/shouldered points) and the
Mesolithic in northern Europe.
based primarily on lithic typology, radiocarbon dating, and pollen analysis.

Figure 3 summarizes the chronology for some of the defined archaeological
cultures of northern Europe (after 48). Heavy revision and enhancement of
this chronological framework in recent years have brought changes in or
abandonment of previously well-regarded terms. What was once called the
218 PRICE
Years Denmark Sweden Norway Finland

bp West East North East West North
U 4000F PITED WARE PITTED

0D WARE SLATE NYELV COMBED
FUNNEL FUNNEL FUNNEL SLATE/ FUNNEL WARE II
BEAKER BEAKER BEAKER QUARTZ BEAKER RHYOLIT GROP
5000 BAKKEN COMBED
WMVg9>A '>@f i ONB,ytX,A.ffi.'& gA 6t A ^_1 N0SW EW ARE II
NOSTVET
PHASE IV NORDLI
LIHULT QUARTZ COMBED
60 ERTE- AND N0STVE
JS ERTE- F~LINT NSVTHOGDA
B0LLE GROUPS NSV
QUARTZ! (Phase III) KOMSA

700(Y- I~QUATZ- OMA INA
the
60mMesolithic
ANDG- there. The term Fosna is back
KONGE- PHASE 11
MOSE
SAND-
DARNA
800-
- MAGLE- FOSNA FOSNA CYLUS

MOSE (s ( . Mesolithic(as
0
900
HENS-
BACKA
0
p~10000
Figure 3 Chronology of early postglacial archaeological cultures in northern Europe (after 48).
Gudenaa culture of Denmark, for example, is now recognized as a mixture of

Baltic
materials from several the
periods; the term trm
is no longer used (3).Kuna is enera
In Norway, the
terms Komsa and Fosna have been modified to reflect a new interpretation of
the Mesolithic there. The term Fosna is back in good standing, after some
years of ill repute, and is now applied to adaptations in southwester Norway
and the Oslo fjord area. Comparable adaptations on the west coast of Sweden
are known as Hensbacka (48). Komsa is used to describe the Mesolithic of
northern Norway. The Finnish Mesolithic has recently been subdivided on the
basis of artifact types and shoreline chronologies into an early Ancylus and a
later Littorina phase (42). The Mesolithic in Finland continues until at least
4500 BP in spite of the presence of Combed Ware ceramics (43). In the eastern
Baltic, the term Kunda is generally used to describe local Mesolithic adapta-
tions (20, 34).
Detailed local chronologies provide information on variation in artifacts
and materials. The Mesolithic chronology for southern Scandinavia, for
example, is divided into three major periods with at least 12 minor sub-
divisions. Intriguing shifts in techniques of manufacture, classes of raw

material, and types of artifacts are seen within a relatively brief span of time
(69). For example, bone scrapers replace flint ones during a several-hundred-
year period of the middle Mesolithic; techniques for making blades alternate
between the use of hard and soft hammers; forms such as flaked stone axes
from the very earliest Mesolithic reappear again in the late Mesolithic.
Projectile points evolve rapidly over time from triangular to trapezoidal to
transversal forms (25). Two processes are apparent in this evolution: (a) Stone
projectile tips become narrower and more symmetrical around the shaft of the
arrow, and (b) a narrow, pointed tip evolves toward a broader cutting edge for
the leading end of the arrow. This emphasis on a broader edge provides more
killing power. Arrowheads with a broad leading edge drive bone and other
tissue ahead of them, causing additional damage, rather than slicing neatly
through tissue like a knife.
A variety of materials other than stone are in use during the Mesolithic,
most of which do not preserve well. Underwater excavations at the submerged
site of Tybrind Vig in central Denmark have provided a remarkable glimpse
of the preserved wood, bone, and fiber components of this technology (5).
This Mesolithic settlement on the west coast of the island of Fyn lies today at
a depth of 2-3 m beneath the waters of the Baltic. Some 6,000 years ago the
site stood on the shoreline of a small estuary. Evidence is present at the site
for summer, autumn, and winter residence, making year-round occupation
likely. The bones of numerous mammals and fish have been found in the
deposits around the site. Seals, porpoises, and whales were hunted at sea from
this site, but it was fish-particularly cod, spurdog, and eel-that were of
primary importance in the diet. Carbon isotope analysis of both human bone
and food residues in pots from the site document the predominance of marine
species in the diet.
A variety of fur-bearing mammals were present, including pine marten,
wildcat, fox, otter, badger, and polecat (68). In almost every case these
fur-bearing animals were represented by articulated clusters of bones,
suggesting that they were not eaten but were discarded as whole carcasses.
Cutmarks from stone knives on the mandibles and skulls of these animal
represent the traces of skinning. Fatal fractures on the rear of the skulls
represent blows from either the trapper or the traps that captured these
animals. Clearly the furs of these animals were of primary importance,
perhaps for exchange as well as local use. Among the artifacts of organic
material were found a wide range of fishing equipment: a bone hook with a
fiber line still attached, leister prongs, fish traps, and weirs, along with two
dugout canoes and a number of paddles. One of the canoes is particularly
impressive, hollowed from a lime tree, with a length of 9.5 m. The rear
portion of the canoe contains a small fireplace, likely used for attracting eels
220 PRICE
at night. This boat could have carried six to eight individuals and their
equipment. Canoe paddles of ash from the site have a heart-shaped blade and
provide the first evidence in Europe for the decoration of wooden objects. A
curvilinear, symmetrical design was cut into the blade of the paddle and filled
with a brown coloring material. Finally several pieces of textiles and ropes,
woven from threads of plant fiber, provide further evidence of the array of
equipment and materials in use during the Mesolithic.
Of course differences in certain artifact types and raw materials are also
apparent across northern Europe. These differences can be seen between the
northern and southern portions of the area and between the east and west.
Many of the more obvious variations in stone tools between these areas result
from the availability of raw material. In southern Scandinavia where high-
quality flint is abundant, fine blade industries dominate lithic assemblages. In
much of northern Scandinavia, flint is not readily available and a variety of
materials, including quartz, quartzite, dolomite, rhyolite, and slate, are used
for the manufacture of cutting and projectile tools and weapons. In the eastern
part of the Baltic, slate knives and points and distinctive antler artifacts are
particularly common.
Settlement and Subsistence

Through the early Holocene, subsistence activities were intensified, settle-
ments became more permanent, exchange systems developed and elaborated,
and regionalization became more pronounced (54). Wild foods provided
sustenance to populations throughout northern Europe, but the specific com-
position of diet was largely a function of settlement location. Increasingly
good evidence from a number of areas documents both local variation and
regional similarities. Major differences are seen between coastal and inland
adaptations.
In southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, known settlements appear
to have been seasonal during the late Paleolithic and early Mesolithic. Most
known sites are short-term camps on inland lakes and river valleys. By the
middle Mesolithic, settlements are more sedentary; most sites are found in
coastal situations. A number of different types of sites are known from the lat
Mesolithic. (a) Coastal occupations contain both marine and terrestrial fauna,
with or without associated shell middens; the shell middens appear to be
largely long-term, episodic accumulations of seasonal activities; the shell
midden at the type site of Ertebo0lle is a good example of such an accumula-
tion (6). (b) Smaller, seasonal coastal sites evidence a more specific procure-
ment focus-e.g. deep-water fishing, sealing, or fowling for migratory spe-
cies such as swans. (c) Inland trapping stations exhibit large numbers of intact
carcasses from fur-bearing animals such as pine marten. (d) Inland lakeside
settlements may have been year-round occupations. Year-round occupation at
both coastal and inland sites appears likely during the Ertebo0lle. The occur-
rence of cemeteries in Zealand and southern Scania at this time complements
this picture of more sedentary residence and suggests increased social and
ritual complexity (37, 53).
The Ertebo0lle, or late Mesolithic, period represents the culmination of
several trends in the Mesolithic of southern Scandinavia. Technological
elaboration accompanies the development of the Mesolithic in southern Scan-
dinavia (13, 52). More artifact types and facilities, and more complex facili-
ties, are known than from earlier periods; previous forms become more
functionally specific. A great array of wood, bone, and antler tools were in
use by the Ertebo0lle period. The appearance of ceramics in this period
provides dramatic evidence of such innovation, as well as of contact with
Neolithic groups to the south. Watercraft in the form of dugout canoes up to
10 m long provided for the movement of people and goods along the coasts.
An intensification in food procurement can be traced through the Danish
Mesolithic. The appearance of shell middens in the middle Mesolithic, the
diversity of extraction camps, the faunal remains of a wide range of marine
fish and mammals, including seals, dolphins, and whales, and the utilization
of "species-specific" trapping stations all combine to demonstrate the divers-
ity of the subsistence base. The number of species represented at Ertebo0lle
sites is some 50% greater than in the earlier Maglemosian.
Recent investigations of Mesolithic diet in southern Scandinavia (55, 65)
have altered a bias toward terrestrial foods that dominated earlier views. The
importance of marine resources in northern Europe has been seriously un-
derestimated. Tauber (65) used carbon isotopes in human bone to examine the
importance of marine resources in the diet of the inhabitants of Mesolithic and
early Neolithic Denmark. Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in southern Scandina-
via were assumed to have been largely dependent on terrestrial resources.
Although fish, seal, and whale bones were found on sites from this period, the
contribution of these marine foods to the diet was thought to be relatively
small. However, carbon isotope ratios in the bones of Mesolithic hunter-
gatherers are comparable with those of Greenland Eskimo, for whom marine
foods contribute more than 75% of the diet. Thus it appears that Mesolithic
hunter-gatherers only supplemented their diet with terrestrial foods. Carbon
isotope ratios in the the bones of Neolithic farmers clearly indicate a diet of
terrestrial foods, thereby documenting a dramatic shift away from the sea and
toward domesticated plants and animals as food sources. Archaeological
evidence, such as substantial quantities of fish bone at coastal sites and the
presence of marine mammal bones at inland sites in Jutland (4), reinforces the
impression of the importance of marine resources in the diet of the Mesolithic
inhabitants of northern Europe.
In Norway, the Mesolithic differed between the north and south. Materials
222 PRICE
south of Stavanger are more closely related to those from southeastern

Norway and southern Scandinavia, while the area to the north is allied more
with northern Sweden. In the early Mesolithic of both areas human occupa-
tion clearly focused on the coast.
The success of coastal adaptations in the south is documented by the
presence of early Mesolithic groups (and perhaps Late Paleolithic as well) on
the western coast of Norway before the ice sheets had left the adjacent
highlands (44, 48). Most late Mesolithic sites are found on the islands and
outer coast of western Norway. Subsistence appears to have been based on
fish, seals, and whales with a supplement of terrestrial species such as red
deer, wild boar, elk, and small game. After 7,000 BP, the density of occupa-
tion at the coastal sites increases dramatically, and sites contain more (and
more varied kinds of) artifacts. This change is generally interpreted as the
result of the appearance of sedentary occupations (47). That sites are often
found close together at this time may reflect the presence of large communi-
ties.
Recent surveys have revealed seasonal settlements in the highland areas of
southern Norway dating to the Preboreal (8), but most known inland sites are
later and are situated relatively close to the coast. The earliest archaeological
sites in the Hardangervidda highlands date to ca. 8,300 BP (48) and in the
Setesdal mountains to 7,000 BP (9). Recent survey in inland areas has also
documented the seasonal use of highland valleys that are at some substantial
distance from the coast. The primary subsistence focus of these inland sites
appears to have been reindeer hunting and fishing.
With respect to the hunting of maritime animals, the evidence from the
Mesolithic of Norway indicates more complex development in the north than
in the south (48). In Norway north of the Arctic Circle, the earliest human
settlement is late Mesolithic, younger than 6,000 BP. Hundreds of sites are
known from this period, and preservation is often good. House foundations
are present at many sites in groups of up to 90 structures (23, 63). Subsistence
remains document the importance of marine mammals in the diet as well as
year-round occupation at these sites (58).
In northern Sweden, numerous Stone Age sites have been reported after
8,000 BP (e.g. 17, 27). Elk, beaver, and bear are the primary hunted species in
inland areas while fish and seals are common on the coast and along major
rivers. After about 6,000 BP there are clear differences between inland and
coastal adaptations (48). Broadbent (16) has suggested that large, sedentary
occupations were present along the coast, focused on the hunting of ringed
seals. Inland settlements are characterized by small pithouse stnictures and an
abundance of elk and beaver bone. Analysis of these remains has indicated a
pattern of seasonal mobility for the interior populations (26).
Most of the known Mesolithic sites in Finland represent coastal occupa-
tions. In fact the chronology for the Mesolithic of this area is based on the
rapid eustatic rise of the land and the movement of the coastline from east to
west (42). Earlier Mesolithic sites show an emphasis on seals, beaver, and elk
in the faunal assemblages, while later coastal sites from the Combed Ware
period are focused almost entirely on seals. Occupation in coastal Finland
appears to be sedentary after 6,000 BP (43).
Cemeteries
Cemeteries are a recent hallmark of the Mesolithic; before 1975 their exist-
ence in northern Europe had not been detected. A few isolated graves had
been reported in the literature, but not until the discoveries at Vedbek,
Denmark (2) and at Skateholm in southern Sweden (35) was the presence of
substantial graveyards recognized.
At Vedbaek in northeastern Zealand, a Mesolithic cemetery was uncovered
in 1975 during the construction of a school. The cemetery is dated to
approximately 6,000 BP and contains the graves of at least 22 individuals of
both sexes and various ages. Powdered ochre (a deep red mineral pigment)
had been used to adorn individuals in many of the graves. Racks of red deer
antler were placed with elderly individuals; males were buried with flint
knives; females were often interred with jewelry of shell and animal teeth. In
one grave, a newborn infant was found buried on the wing of a swan next to
his mother. The mother's head had been placed on a cushion of material
resembling animal skin. The infant was buried with a flint blade, as were all
males in the cemetery. The cemetery also contained rather dramatic evidence
for conflict and warfare. The simultaneous burial of three individuals in a
single grave-an adult male with a lethal bone point through his throat, an
adult female, and a child-suggests the violent death of all three.
Excavations at Skateholm in southern Sweden have uncovered at least three
cemeteries within the same former estuary, dating from the late Mesolithic
(36). Skateholm I contained at least 57 graves with some 62 individuals, as
well as 8 dog graves. Skateholm II, only partially excavated, held at least 22
graves, and an unknown number of graves were found nearby at Skateholm
III some years ago. Almost every imaginable type of burial has been found
here, including cremations and inhumations. The inhumation graves show
individuals in a variety of positions: supine, sitting, extended, flexed, and
more. One individual was buried on his stomach. Grave goods and food
accompany a number of the burials. Both position in the grave and the type of
grave goods appear to vary with the age and sex of the individual.
Archaeological excavations at the site of Oleni ostrov between 1936 and
1938 uncovered the skeletal remains of 177 human individuals and associated
artifacts, found in 141 distinct graves, on an island in Lake Onega, Karelia,
USSR (29). The total number of graves at the site is estimated to have been
over 400, making it the largest known Stone Age cemetery in Europe. More
than 7,000 artifacts were recovered including a variety of decorated pieces,
224 PRICE
pendants, perforated teeth, and effigies of snakes, elk, and humans. The
distribution of grave goods at this site has led some to suggest that status
differences are reflected in the amounts of various materials present in the
grave (49). The age of the site has been the subject of controversy. The lack of
pottery in the graves and the similarity of the artifacts to materials in other
contexts suggested a Mesolithic date (50). The large size of the cemetery and
the wealth of artifacts, however, led others to argue that it was Neolithic,
dating to the second millennium BC. The first radiocarbon determinations for
Oleni ostrov have recently been obtained from human bone samples (58).
These determinations indicate an age of ca. 7,500 BP for the burials, definitely
within the Mesolithic period.
A number of other graves and cemeteries are now known from northern
Europe, including the site of Nederst in Jutland and Zvejnieki in Latvia (71).
Finds of one or a few graves at excavations in the early part of this century
may well represent the remains of larger cemeteries. A number of interesting
burials have been reported from underwater sites in the Baltic. The recent
excavation of a mass grave at Stro0by Egede in Zealand with eight children
and adults (four male, four female) is also of interest (15).
The cemeteries provide a wide variety of information on the biology and
culture of Mesolithic peoples. Skeletons are generally robust, bearing little
indication of disease or malnutrition. Violent trauma, however, is not un-
common, and a number of the individuals appear to have been murdered.
Such evidence suggests that inter-group conflict may have been frequent in
this area. Large cemeteries, usually located within settlement areas, reinforce
the notion of substantial sedentary communities in the Mesolithic.
Styles and Territories

The distributions of specific raw materials, types of artifacts, and styles of
manufacture or decoration change dramatically from the Late Paleolithic
through the Mesolithic of northern Europe. These changes reflect both a
general decrease in the area of such distributions, and the appearance of
nested (hierarchical) patterns. If we assume that these patterns reflect aspects
of human social organization, it may be possible to investigate the size and
nature of local and regional social groups and interaction spheres within
northern Europe.
There were at least three distinct areas or "techno-complexes" in the Late
Paleolithic of the north European plain and southern Scandinavia at the end of
the Pleistocene (20, 62). The Ahrensburgian, Swiderian, and Brommian
cultures cover areas of more than 100,000 km2. The distinctions among these
three groups are most apparent in the forms of projectile points, in assemblage
composition, and in types of raw material.
In the Boreal period of the early postglacial, there are as many as 8-10
distinct Mesolithic groups on the North European Plain. By the Atlantic
period, after 8,000 BP, this pattern has been amplified to the
more distinct groups can be recognized (51). Examination of the distribution
of bone and antler points as indicators of social territories in the late Paleolith-
ic and Mesolithic of northwestern Europe has confirmed these patterns (70).
Verhart reports a change in such style zones from an average size in the late
Paleolithic of 230,000 km2, to 80,000 km2 in the middle of the Mesolithic, to
30,000 km2 by the late Mesolithic.
In southern Scandinavia, there are a variety of artifacts, materials, and
designs with restricted distributions particularly during the latter part of the
Mesolithic. Significant regional variation in artifact types and styles is
documented from the later half of the Ertebo0lle; differences between easter
and western Denmark, and among smaller areas within the island of Zealand,
have been reported (5). Groundstone Limhamn axes occur largely on Zealand
and in Scania (10). T-shaped antler axes and bone combs and rings are found
primarily in Jutland (3). Certain design elements on pottery also show res-
tricted distributions (5). Analysis of flaked flint axes from Zealand (69) has
indicated that certain types are distinctive to the northeast corner of the island,
covering areas with a diameter on the order of 40 km or less (Figure 4).
0 40 km
Fi-gure 4 :Distr-i.bution of thr.e
226 PRICE
The shift from larger areas on the order of 100,000 km2 to areas of 1,000
km2 or even smaller is an important indication of the increasing density and
definition of human groups in this period. It is equally significant to note that
these "distributions" or "style zones," are often found nested within larger
scales of patterning. The axe shapes in Zealand, for example, fall within the
larger distribution of distinctive materials found in the eastern part of southern
Scandinavia. The remains from the coastal areas of southern Scandinavia are
distinct from much of the inland of the North European Plain, yet all are
included within an area defined by the use of trapezoidal projectile points.
The distribution of various artifacts and materials in northern Europe
suggests that distinctive "zones" marked by certain types and designs became
smaller and more pronounced through the Mesolithic. While it is not yet clear
what such zones mean in terms of specific forms of human social organiza-
tion, a general pattern of reduction in territory seems apparent.
Exchange
While the evidence from the distribution of artifacts and designs indicates a
reduction in area, information from the exchange of various materials and
items indicates increasing interaction among these groups. Exchange is in-
dicated by either the distribution of certain raw materials or the presence of
exotic artifacts. Mention has been made of the extensive use of slate in the
eastern part of the Baltic. This raw material was distributed widely from its
sources in Norrland, northern Finland, and Karelia. A single-source raw
material in Poland, known as chocolate flint, provides additional information
about changes in the scale of human interaction (61). In the late Paleolithic,
chocolate flint occurs up to 400 km from its source and in a high proportion
(90%) of total assemblages at distances of 200 km. In the postglacial period,
the chocolate flint from Central Poland continues in use, but its distribution is
more restricted. In the Mesolithic this material is rarely found more than 200
km from its source and then in very small amounts. The distribution of
Wommersom quartzite defines a similar pattern in the Mesolithic period in
Belgium, defining an area of approximately 250 km x 200 km (28).
Again the evidence from southern Scandinavia is particularly informative.
A wide range of exotic items are known from the late Mesolithic. Although
elk and aurochs had been locally exterminated (1), tooth pendants from these
species were found in the cemetery at Vedbaek. An ornamented club of elk
antler was found at a nearby site. These items must have come from either
Sweden or the European mainland.
Other materials and artifacts document contact with Neolithic groups lo-
cated only a hundred or so kilometers to the south in northern Germany and
Poland. Danubian farming groups occupied parts of northwestern Europe,
including central Germany, southern Holland, and south-central Poland, by
6,500 BP. The pottery found in the late Mesolithic of northern Europe is likely
one of the best examples of contact between these farmers and foragers. A
number of other "Neolithic" items were also borrowed and appear in a
Mesolithic context, including t-shaped antler axes and bone rings and combs
(5). The presence of central European Neolithic Schuhleistenkeil (shaft-hole
axes) in the late Mesolithic of Denmark and southern Sweden is also in-
dicative of contact (24, 37). These axes are made of amphibolite, a type of
stone found only in southern Poland. Most such axes in a Mesolithic context
are found in the eastern Danish islands, suggesting contact across the Baltic.
While it is unclear what objects were exchanged with Neolithic groups, furs
and amber are good candidates.
The Transition to Agriculture
The transition to agriculture is informative with regard to the nature of

Mesolithic foraging adaptations. The earliest Neolithic in northern Europe is
recognized by the appearance of Funnelbeaker (TRB) ceramics and domesti-
cated plants and animals. In southern Scandinavia there was a swift shift from
the preceding Ertebo0lle ceramics to Funnelbeaker pottery after 3,100 BC.
The almost simultaneous appearance of domesticates throughout southern
Scandinavia after this date is remarkable. The adoption of agriculture oc-
curred across the arable areas of southern Scandinavia at the same time, as
evidence for cultivation and animal herding begins to appear.
Equally remarkable, however, is the length of time it took for agriculture to
be established in this area. Farming groups, belonging to the Danubian
tradition, were present less than 150 km to the south in northern Germany an
central Poland by 4,500 BC. The exchange of materials such as the amphibo-
lite axes and t-shaped antler axes documents the fact that Mesolithic hunters
were in contact with these groups of farmers. Yet in spite of this contact, it is
not until 3,100 BC that the first domesticated animals and plants are seen in
southern Scandinavia. Agriculture, although it must have been known, was
not adopted in this area until more than 1,000 years after contact.
The change from hunting-gathering to farming in southern Scandinavia was
not sudden. The gradual shift to agriculture can be seen as a four-stage
transition (Figure 5). Sedentary groups of Mesolithic foragers avoided the
arduous requirements of agriculture in favor of wild foods for some time but
gradually imported tools and weapons of Neolithic manufacture from the
south after 3,600 BC. Funnelbeaker pottery, domesticates, and long barrows
mark the appearance of the first farmers around 3,100 BC; but a fully Neolithic
economy is not in place until after 2,600 BC. It is clear that contact with
farmers preceded actual cultivation and herding by at least 500 years. Agricul-
ture became the primary subsistence regime only 1,000 years later following a
228 PRICE
2000
FULL NEOLITHSIC
Extensive Forest Clearance
Megalithic Construction
Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures

Abundant Cereal Pollen
FIRST FARMERS
Funnel Beaker Pottery
Cereal Impressions
Domestic Cattle Bon-es
3000 ~~Long Barrows
3000 Inland FocIus
IMPORTS
Shoe-last Celts
Bone Combs
T-shazped Antler Axes
Ertebelle Pottery
Mesolithic
SEDENTARY
FORAGERS
Broad Spectrumi Subsistenice 4000

Elaborate Technology
Cemeteries
Coastal Focus
Banidkeramic Farmners
Polan-d, Germanaiy, Nethierlanzds
5000
Years b.c.
[unicalibrated]
Figure 5 The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in southern Scandinavia showing the four major
stages of this transition.
period of experimentation and major changes in subsistence, settlement, and

burial practices.
Previous views of the first farmers as invaders or colonists (11) have given
way to concepts of indigenous adoption by local Mesolithic groups. A number
of possible causes have been proposed for the transition, including environ-
mental changes (61), the gradual spread of ideas and products (46), competi-
tion for prestige (31, 24), and resource-poor inland groups seeking a pro-
ductive source of food (41). However, the actual mechanisms-the how and
why-of the transition remain unclear. Important, however, is the fact that
Mesolithic foragers adopted agriculture only after hundreds of years of resis-
ting its allure. Such a delay in the spread of cultivation emphasizes the success
of coastal foraging adaptations.
CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
The societies of the last hunters (and fishers and gatherers) of northern Europe
appear to have evolved quickly toward increasing complexity in the period
prior to the spread of agriculture (52). Complexity is defined by greater
diversity (more things) and integration (more connections). Advances in
technology, settlement, and subsistence are preserved in the archaeological
record. During this period technology developed toward greater efficiency in
transport, tools, and food procurement. Settlements were generally larger,
more enduring, and more differentiated in the Mesolithic than in the preceed-
ing Paleolithic. Food procurement was both more specialized and more
diversified-specialized in terms of the technology and organization of forag-
ing activities, and diversified in terms of the numbers and kinds of species and
habitats exploited.
At the beginning of this chapter, I noted that the archaeological evidence
from the Mesolithic of northern Europe suggested the incorrectness of two
common assumptions in archaeology: 1. that the Mesolithic was a period of
"cultural degeneration," and 2. that foragers in the past typically lived in
small, mobile groups. I elaborate on these points here.
The Meaning of Mesolithic

The term Mesolithic was originally applied as a "residual" category or
"catch-all" to describe archaeological remains dated between the end of the
Paleolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic. The contrast between the richly
painted caves and beautifully carved tools of the Upper Paleolithic and the
"impoverished" scatters of small stone tools from the Mesolithic of France led
to an impression of degeneration, of cultural regression, that would only be
relieved by the arrival of enlightened, pottery-making, farming villagers in
the Neolithic.
This rather negative view of the Mesolithic results largely from factors of
preservation. Very different kinds of evidence from the Upper Paleolithic,
Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods were compared. The cave paintings and
decorated bone and antler tools of the Upper Paleolithic, and the pots and
ground stone axes of the Neolithic, were compared with the microlithic stone
artifacts of the Mesolithic. Thus different classes of material were being
230 PRICE
considered. In most areas of western Europe, few examples of bone or antler

items were preserved at Mesolithic sites. The simple painted pebbles of the
Azilian were taken as the typical examples of Mesolithic art and contrasted
with the painted caves of the Perigord. Much better evidence of Mesolithic
art, however, can be found in northern Europe where conditions have pre-
served examples of carved amber figurines, engraved wooden objects, and
numerous decorated bone and antler pieces (20).
Since its initial definition, the concept of Mesolithic has been saddled with
a number of other connotations. For example, the Mesolithic has been defined
by the absence of ground stone tools and pottery, but both are present during
the latter part of the period. Ground stone tools in the form of axes and/or
maceheads make their appearance throughout northern and western Europe
during the Mesolithic. Pottery is known from the Ertebo0lle in northern
Europe, but also from France, Holland, and elsewhere in the late Mesolithic.
Recent investigations of this period before farming have changed current
archaeological perspectives on the Mesolithic. Indeed, the argument today
has come almost full circle. Some contemporary scholars portray the period as
one of the most dynamic and critical in the evolution of human culture (21).
Suffice it to say that the Mesolithic is no longer properly viewed as a period of
degeneration or decline. The evidence from the north and elsewhere in Europe
(54) documents a time of innovation, interaction, and highly successful
adaptation among these early postglacial foragers.
Foraging Adaptations
A second point to be made concerns the preconceptions that archaeologists
bring to their study of the past. Most models for prehistoric hunter-gatherer
societies are based on evidence from the recent foragers of the ethnographic
record who inhabited the most marginal environments on the planet. Although
there are a number of ethnographic reports of contemporary hunter-gatherers,
one volume, Man the Hunter, has likely had the greatest impact on archaeolo-
gical thinking. In this volume, studies of a number of living hunter-gatherer
groups were brought together in the published proceedings of an important
anthropological conference. The general conclusions of the conference, as
summarized by the organizers, were that hunter-gatherers lived in small
groups and moved around a lot (39). Over the last 20 years, this limited
perspective has essentially become doctrine; as such, it has almost totally
dominated archaeological interpretations of past hunter-gatherer adaptations.
There has consequently been heated resistance to discussions of more com-
plex hunter-gatherer groups in many areas, in spite of compelling evidence.
Archaeologists have tended to see hunter-gatherer groups as small, mobile,
and simple rather than large, sedentary, and complex.
The evidence from the Mesolithic of northern Europe and elsewhere dem-
onstrates that many of the foraging groups of the early postglacial do not fit
the "small and mobile" mold. The evidence from northern Europe is not
atypical of foragers but may instead be one of our best examples of late
Pleistocene and early Holocene adaptations. Most evidence about such groups
comes from inland areas where population density would have been low and
mobility perhaps more usual. We have little evidence from most areas about
the coastal aspect of these adaptations. It is critical to remember that the rising
sea levels of the Holocene have submerged the early postglacial coastlines of
much of the globe. It is now clear that sea levels in the Atlantic and
Mediterranean did not stabilize at modern shorelines until late in the postgla-
cial, perhaps 2,500 BP (67). The postglacial coastlines of most of Europe and
the other continents are simply missing from the archaeological record-they
lie underwater. Northern Europe is unusual only in the fact that these old
coastlines have been uplifted by the eustatic rise of the land and are today
accessible to archaeologists.
The evidence from northern Europe probably reflects typical foraging
adaptations along the coasts of Europe and elsewhere during the early postgla-
cial. Many foraging adaptations may well have been characterized by large,
sedentary communities with significant territoriality, networks of exchange,
and patterns of interaction. Complex hunter-gatherer adaptations were likely
the rule, rather than the exception, in many places during the later Pleistocene
and Holocene (56). The sooner archaeologists begin to look for such societ-
ies, the better we will come to understand the forager groups of the past.
Literature Cited
1 . Aaris-S0rensen, K. 1980. Depaupera- 7. Bailey, G. N. 1978. Shell middens as

tion of the mammalian fauna of the is- indicators of postglacial economies: a
land of Zealand during the Atlantic per- territorial perspective. In The Early
iod. Vidensk. Meddr dansk naturh. Postglacial Settlement of Northern Eu-
Foren. 142:131-38 rope. An Ecological Perspective, ed. P.
2. Albrethsen, S. E., Brinch Petersen, E. Mellars, pp. 37-63. London: Duckworth
1977. Excavation of a Mesolithic ceme- 8. Bang-Andersen, S. 1987. Surveying the
tery at Vedbik, Denmark. Acta Mesolithic of the Norwegian Highlands.
Archaeol. 47:1-28 In Mesolithic Northwest Europe: Recent
3. Andersen, S. H. 1973. Overgangen fra Trends, ed. P. Rowley-Conwy, M.
xldre til yngre stenalder i Sydskandina- Zvelebil, H. P. Blankholm, pp. 33-45.
vien set fra en mesolitisk synsvinkel. In Sheffield: Dept. Archaeol. Prehist.
Bonde-Veidemann. Bofast-ikke bofasi 9. Bang-Andersen, S. 1988. New Findings
i nordisk forhistorie, ed. P. Simonsen, spotlighting the Earliest Postglacial
G. Stams0 Munch, pp. 26-44. Troms0: Settlement in Southwest-Norway.
Universitetsforlaget Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger-skrifter
4. Andersen, S. H. 1975. Ringkloster, en 12:39-51
jysk indlandsboplads med Erteb0llekul- 10. Becker, C. J. 1939. En Stenalderboplads
tur. Kuml 1973-74:11-108 paa Ordrup NTs i NordvestsjTlland.
5. Andersen, S. H. 1980. Tybrind Vig. Bidraget til Sp0rsmaalet om Erteb0lle-
Antik. Stud. 4:7-22 kulturens Varighed. Aarboger for Nor-
6. Andersen, S. H., Johansen, E. 1986. disk Oldkyndighed og Histore 1939:
Erteb0lle revisited. J. Danish Archaeol. 199-280
5:31-61 11. Becker, C. J. 1973. Problemer omkring
232 PRICE
overgangen fra fangstkulturerysis

tilofbonde-
hunting and fishing sites on the
kulturer i Sydskandinavien. See Ref.
river 3,
Umealv, northern Sweden.
pp. 6-21 Archaeol. Environ. 2:31-44
12. Berglund, B. E. 1979. The Deglaciation 27. Forsberg, L. 1985. Site variability and
of southern Sweden 13.500-10.000 settlement patterns. An analysis of the
B.P. Boreas 8:89-117 hunter-gatherer settlement system in the
13. Blankholm, H. P. 1987. Late Mesolithic Lule River Valley. Archaeol. Environ.
hunter-gatherers and the transition to 5.
farming in southern Scandinavia. See 28. Gendel, P. 1984. Mesolithic Social Ter-
Ref. 8, pp. 155-62 ritories in Northwestern Europe. Ox-
14. Brinch Petersen, E. 1973. A survey of ford: Br. Archaeol. Rep.
Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic in Den- 29. Gurina, N. 1956. Olneostrovski mogil-
mark. In The Mesolithic of Europe, ed nik. Materialy i issledovaniya po
S. K. Kozlowski, pp. 77-128. Warsaw: arkheologgi SSSR 47.
University Press 30. Huntley, B., Birks, H. J. B. 1983. An
15. Brinch Petersen, E. 1988. Late Atlas of Past and Present Pollen Maps
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. In Arkaeolo- for Europe: 0-13,000 Years Ago. Cam-
giske udgravninger i Danmark 1987, pp. bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
79-81. K0benhavn: Det Arkaeologiske 31. Jennbert, K. 1984. Den produktiva
Naevn gavan. Tradition och innovation i Syds-
16. Broadbent, N. 1979. Coastal Resources kandinavien far omkring 5300 acr sedan.
and Settlement Stability. A Critical Acta Archaeol. Lundensia, Ser. 4, No.
Study of a Mesolithic Site Complex in 16. Lund: CWK Gleerup
Northern Sweden. Uppsala: Inst. 32. Kolstrup, E. 1988. Late Atlantic and
Archaeol. Early Subboreal vegetational develop-
17. Broadbent, N. 1987. Northern hunting ment at Trundholm, Denmark. J. Ar-
and fishing cultures-the first 6000 chaeol. Sci. 15:503-13
years. In Swedish Archaeology 1981- 33. Kozlowski, S. K. 1989. Mesolithic in
1985, ed. A. Carlsson, P. Hellstr0m, A. Poland. A New Approach. Warsaw:
Hyenstrand, A. Akerlund, pp. 37-46. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszaw-
Stockholm: Swedish Archaeol. Soc. skiego
18. Burdukiewicz, J. M. 1986. The Late 34. Kozlowski, S. K. 1989. A survey of
Pleistocene Shouldered Point Assem- early Holocene cultures of the western
blages in Western Europe. Leiden: E. J. part of the Russian plain. See Ref. 25,
Brill pp. 424-41. Edinburgh: John Donald
19. Clark, J. G. D. 1948. The development 35. Larsson, L. 1980. Stenalderjagarnas bo-
of fishing in prehistoric Europe. Antiq. plats och gravar vid Skateholm. Lim-
J. 28:45-85 hamniana 1980: 13-39
20. Clark, J. G. D. 1975. The Earliest Stone 36. Larsson, L. 1989. Late Mesolithic
Age Settlement of Scandinavia. Cam- Settlement and Cemetries at Skateholm,
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Southern Sweden. See Ref. 25, pp. 367-
21. Clark, J. G. D. 1980. Mesolithic Pre- 78
lude. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press 37. Larsson, L. 1990. The Mesolithic of
22. Coope, G. R. 1975. Climatic fluctua- southern Scandinavia. J. World Prehist.
tions in northwest Europe since the Last 4:257-310
Interglacial, indicated by fossil assem- 38. Larsson, L. 1991. Late Paleolithic and
blages of Coleoptera. In Ice Ages: An- Mesolithic. In The Archaeology of
cient and Modern, ed. A. E. Wright, F. Sweden, ed. E. Baudou. In press
Moseley, pp. 55-68. Liverpool: Seel 39. Lee, R. B., deVore, I. 1968. Man the
House Press Hunter. Chicago: Aldine
23. Englested, E. 1985. The late stone age 40. Lowe, J. J., Gray, J. M. 1980. The
of arctic Norway: a review. Arctic An- stratigraphic subdivision of the Lategla-
thropol. 22:79-96 cial of NW Europe: a discussion. In
24. Fischer, A. 1982. Trade in Danubian Studies in the Lateglacial of North-West
shaft-hole axes and the introduction of Europe, ed. J. J. Lowe, J. M. Gray, J.
Neolithic economy in Denmark. J. Dan- E. Robinson, pp. 157-75. Oxford: Per-
ish Archaeol. 1:7-12 gamon Press
25. Fischer, A. 1989. Hunting with flint- 41. Madsen, T. 1986. Where did all the
tipped arrows: results and experiences hunters go? J. Danish Archaeol. 5:230-
from practical experiments. In The 39
Mesolithic in Europe, ed. C. Bonsall, 42. Matiskainen, H. 1989. Studies on the
pp. 29-39. Edinburgh: John Donald Chronology, Material Culture and Sub-
26. Forsberg, L. 1984. A multivariate anal- sistence Economy of the Finnish
MESOIJTHIC NORTHERN EuJROPE 23-3
Mesolithic, 10,000-6000 BP. Helsinki: 58. Renouf, M. P. 1984. Northern coastal

Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys Finska hunter-fishers: an archaeological model.
Fornminnesforeningen World Archaeol. 16:18-27
43. Matiskainen, H. 1990. Mesolithic sub- 59. Rowley-Conwy, P. 1983. Sedentary
sistence in Finland. In Contributions to hunters: the Erteb0lle example. In Hun-
the Mesolithic in Europe, ed. P. M. Ver- ter-Gatherer Economy, ed. G. Bailey,
meersch, P. van Peer, pp. 211-14. pp. 111-26. Cambridge: Cambridge
Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press Univ. Press
44. Mikkelsen, E. 1978. Seasonality and 60. Rowley-Conwy, P. 1985. The origin of
Mesolithic adaptations in Norway. In agriculture in Denmark: a review of
New Directions in Scandinavian some theories. J. Danish Archaeol.
Archaeology, ed. K. Kristiansen, C. 4:188-95
Paludan-Muller, pp. 79-119. Copen- 61. Schild, R. 1976. The final Paleolithic
hagen: Natl. Mus. settlement of the European plain. Sci.
45. M0ller, J. J. 1987. Shoreline relation Am. 234:88-99
and prehistoric settlement in northern 62. Schild, R. 1984. Terminal Paleolithic of
Norway. Norsk Geogr. Tidsskr. 41:45- the North European plain: a review of
60 lost chances, potential, and hopes. Adv.
46. Nielsen, P. 0. 1986. The Beginning of World Archaeol. 3:193-273
the Neolithic-Assimilation or Complex 63. Simonsen, P. 1976. Steinalders hystyper
Change? J. Danish Archaeol. 5:240-43 i Nord-Norge. Iskos 1:23-25
47. Nygaard, S. E. 1987. Socio-economic 64. Skar, B., Coulson, S. 1987. The Early
developments along the southwestern Mesolithic site of R0rmry II. Acta
coast of Norway between 10,000 and Archaeol. 56:167-83
4000 b.p. See Ref. 8, pp. 147-54 65. Tauber, H. 1981. 813C evidence for die-
48. Nygaard, S. 1989. The stone age of tary habits of prehistoric man in De-
northern Scandinavia. J. World Prehist. nmark. Nature 292:332-33
3:71-116 66. Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen-
49. O'Shea, J., Zvelebil, M. 1984. Olneos- Gruppe in nordlichen Mitteleuropa. Ein
trovski mogilnik: reconstructing social Beitrag zur Kenntniss der splten Alt-
and economic organization of prehistoric steinzeit. Koln: Bohlau
foragers in northern Russia. J. An- 67. Ters, M. 1976. Les lignes de rivage
thropol. Archaeol. 3:1-40 holocene, le long de cote atlantique fran-
50. Pankrushev, G. 1978. Mesolit i neolit cais. In La Prehistorie Francais, ed. J.
Karelii. Leningrad: Nauka Guilaine, pp. 27-30. Paris: Cent. Nat.
51. Price, T. D. 1981. Regional approaches Rech. Sci.
to human adaptation in the Mesolithic of 68. Trolle-Lassen, T. 1987. Human ex-
the North European plain. Veroff. Mus. ploitation of fur animals in Mesolithic
Ur- Friuhgesch. Potsdam 14/15:217-34 Denmark. Archaeozoologia 12:85-102
52. Price, T. D. 1985. Affluent foragers of 69. Vang Petersen, P. 1984. Chronological
Mesolithic southern Scandinavia. In and regional variation in the Late
Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, ed. T. D. Mesolithic of Eastern Denmark. J. Dan-
Price, J. A. Brown, pp. 341-63. Orlan- ish Archaeol. 3:7-18
do: Academic 70. Verhart, L. B. M. 1990. Stone Age bone
53. Price, T. D. 1986. The earlier Stone Age and antler points as indicators for "social
of Northern Europe. In The End of the territories" in the European Mesolithic.
Paleolithic in the Old World, ed. L. See Ref. 43, pp. 139-51
Strauss, pp. 1-30. Oxford: Br. 71. Zagorskis, F. 1973. Das Spatmesolithi-
Archaeol. Rep., Int. Ser. 284. kum in Lettland. In The Mesolithic in
54. Price, T. D. 1987. The Mesolithic of Europe, ed. S. K. Kozl0owski, pp. 651-
Western Europe. J. World Prehist. 69. Warsaw: University Press
1:225-305 72. Zvelebil, M. 1981. From Forager to
55. Price, T. D. 1989. The reconstruction of Farmer in the Baltic Zone. Oxford: Br.
Mesolithic diets. See Ref. 25, pp. 48-59 Archaeol. Rep.
56. Price, T. D., Brown, J. A. 1985. Pre- 73. Zvelebil, M. 1986. Postglacial foraging
historic Hunter-Gatherers: The Emer- in the forests of Europe. Sci. Am.
gence of Cultural Complexity. Orlando: 254:104-14
Academic 74. Zvelebil, M., ed. 1986. Hunters in
57. Price, T. D., Jacobs, K. 1990. Olenii Transition. Mesolithic Societies of
Ostrov: first radiocarbon dates from a Temperate Eurasia and their Transition
major Mesolithic cemetery in Karelia, to Farming. Cambridge: Cambridge
USSR. Antiquity 64:849-53 Univ. Press

T.D. Price - Mesolithic of Northern Europe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T.D. Price - Mesolithic of Northern Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mesolithic of Northern Europe

Author(s): T. Douglas Price

Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

KEY WORDS: prehistory, Stone Age, hunter-gatherers, foragers, pre-farming

Rormry l(3 wZvcej t ii 53

it is from Copenhagen to the boot of Italy. Northern Europe stretches from

THE MESOLITHIC OF NORTHERN EUROPE

The Prehistoric Landscape

in the postglacial archaeological record. The remains of approximately 55

Typology and Chronology

05W1UIYISIM UN TED P0/N Ts,

based primarily on lithic typology, radiocarbon dating, and pollen analysis.

Years Denmark Sweden Norway Finland

U 4000F PITED WARE PITTED

QUARTZ! (Phase III) KOMSA

- MAGLE- FOSNA FOSNA CYLUS

Gudenaa culture of Denmark, for example, is now recognized as a mixture of

divisions. Intriguing shifts in techniques of manufacture, classes of raw

Settlement and Subsistence

south of Stavanger are more closely related to those from southeastern

Styles and Territories

Fi-gure 4 :Distr-i.bution of thr.e

The Transition to Agriculture

The transition to agriculture is informative with regard to the nature of

Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures

Broad Spectrumi Subsistenice 4000

period of experimentation and major changes in subsistence, settlement, and

CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS

The Meaning of Mesolithic

considered. In most areas of western Europe, few examples of bone or antler

1 . Aaris-S0rensen, K. 1980. Depaupera- 7. Bailey, G. N. 1978. Shell middens as

overgangen fra fangstkulturerysis

Mesolithic, 10,000-6000 BP. Helsinki: 58. Renouf, M. P. 1984. Northern coastal

You might also like