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-fanning

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 hunter­gatherers 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 Pleis­tocene and early Holocene adaptations than the small and mobile ones de­scribed 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 comer 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

0084-6570/91/1015-0211$02.00

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

212 PRICE

1 ErtebeUe

2 Nederst

3 Skateholm

4 Streby Egede

5 Tybrind Vig

6 Vedbcek

OIeni Ostrov

\ � � 11t;) � &O�� ;(� V • Zvejnield /' ?

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 53° 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

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

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 adapta­tion. 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 informa­tion 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-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

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 Gennany 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 wanning 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 tempera­tures 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 tempera­tures 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 wanner 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 wanner 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 Pre­boreal 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 Pleis­tocene. Numerous species of fish, fowl, and small game are recorded as well

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 215

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 tempera­tures in the early postglacial may not have supported a variety of shellfish (7), their numbers and range expanded greatly through this period. Seals, por­poise, 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).

C hanges 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 modem 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 Pleis­tocene 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 Nor­way, 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.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

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 Pleis­tocene 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 cultiva­tion 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 indus­tries of the Late Paleolithic shift toward smaller cores of lower-quality flint in the Mesolithic (18). 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 trans­port 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 special­ized tips made of bone, wood, antler, and stone. Ceramics appear in the late Mesolithic of northern Germany (Ellerbek), southern Scandinavia (Erte­b0lle), 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

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 2 17

TRANSVUSE POINTS

ILJl /jt£:J P TllI/PElE!

lh [:rJ ,- [Il TlUANGlES

� � � OBLIQUELY 8lUNTE/) POINTS

� � � TANGE/)/SHoutIJERE/) POINTS

o 4cm

Figure 2 Projectile points belonging to the late Paleolithic (tangedlshouldered 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

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

218 PRICE

Years Denmark bp

Iii 4000-Q)

Is :g FUNNEL en BEAKER

5000-

. .M c:: 6()()(J � ERTE-

B0LLE

7000-KONeE-MOSE

sooo-

� MAGLE-MOSE

S 9000-

.. � 0 1: P:;1DOOO-

Sweden

West I East

PlTIE6WARE

FUNNEL FUNNEL BEAKER BEAKER

LIHULT QUARTZ AND FLINT

GROUPS

SAND-DARNA

HENS-BACKA

Norway Finland North East West North

PITIED WARE SLATE NYELV COMBED

SLATE/ FUNNEL WARE II QUARTZ BEAKER RHYOLIT GROP-

BAKKEN COMBED WARE II

N0STVET PHASEN I NORDLI

COMBED SJELENES WARE I

N0STVET H0GDA IT

N0STVEl QUARTZ/ (Phase III) LITTOR-QUARTZ- KOMSA INA lTE Mesolithic PHASE II

FOSNA !ANCYLUS (Phase I) FOSNA

Mesolithic

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 materials from several periods; the term is no longer used (3). 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 southwestern 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 adapta­tions (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-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 2 19

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-hundred­year 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, induding 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

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

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 high­quality 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, settle­ments 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 com­position 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 late 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 Erteb0011e is a good example of such an accumula­tion (6). (b) Smaller , seasonal coastal sites evidence a more specific procure­ment focus--e.g. deep-water fishing, sealing, or fowling for migratory spe­cies 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

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 221

both coastal and inland sites appears likely during the Ertebo!/llle. The occur­rence 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 ErtebO!/llle, 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 Scan­dinavia ( 13, 52). More artifact types and facilities, and more complex facili­ties, 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 ErtebO!/llle 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 divers­ity of the subsistence base. The number of species represented at ErtebO!/llle 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 un­derestimated. 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 Scandina­via 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 hunter­gatherers 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

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

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 occupa­tion 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 occupa­tion 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 communi­ties.

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 (2 3, 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 structures 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 occupa­tions. In fact the chronology for the Mesolithic of this area is based on the

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 223

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 exist­ence in northern Europe had not been detected. A few isolated graves had been reported in the literature, but not until the discoveries at Vedbrek, Denmark (2) and at Skateholm in southern Sweden (35) was the presence of substantial graveyards recognized.

At Vedbrek 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 �weden 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,

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

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 Be. 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 StroS'lby 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 un­common, 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

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 225

period, after 8,000 BP, this pattern has been amplified to the point where 15 or more distinct groups can be recognized (51). Examination of the distribution of bone and antler points as indicators of social territories in the late Paleolith­ic 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 Ertebo!?llle; differences between eastern 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 comer of the island, covering areas with a diameter on the order of 40 km or less (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Distribution of three different types of flake axes in the eastern Danish islands (70).

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

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 organiza­tion, 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 in­dicated 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 Vedbrek. 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 lo­cated 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

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 227

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 in­dicative 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 domesti­cated plants and animals. In southern Scandinavia there was a swift shift from the preceding Ertebo�lle 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 oc­curred 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 and central Poland by 4,500 Be. The exchange of materials such as the amphibo­lite 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 Be 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 Be; but a fully Neolithic economy is not in place until after 2,600 Be. It is clear that contact with farmers preceded actual cultivation and herding by at least 500 years. Agricul­ture became the primary subsistence regime only 1,000 years later following a

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

228 PRICE

2000

Neolithic

3000

IMPORTS

Shoe-last Celts Bone Combs

T-shllped Anller Axes Ertebfllle Pottery

SEDENTARY

FORAGERS

Broad Spectrum Subsistence Elaborate Technology

Cemeteries Coastal Focus

FULL NEOLITHIC

Extensive Forest Clearance Megalithic Construction Causewayed Enclosures Abundant Cereal Pollen

FIRST FARMERS Funnel Bellker Pottery

Cereal Impressions Domestic Cattle Bones

Long Barrows Inland Focus

Mesolithic

4000

Bandkeramic Farmers Poland, GermallY, Netherlands

5000

Years b.c. E ullcalibratedl

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-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 229

mental changes (61), the gradual spread of ideas and products (46), competi­tion for prestige (31, 24), and resource-poor inland groups seeking a pro­ductive 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 resis­ting 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 preceed­ing Paleolithic. Food procurement was both more specialized and more diversified-specialized in terms of the technology and organization of forag­ing 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 elaboratc 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

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

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 pre­served 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 Ertebo\'llle 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 archaeolo­gical 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 com­plex 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-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 231

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 b ut 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 modem shorelines until late in the postgla­cial, 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 postgla­cial. 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 societ­ies, the better we will come to understand the forager groups of the past.

Literature Cited

1 . Aaris-S�rensen, K. 1980. Depaupera­tion of the mammalian fauna of the is­land of Zealand during the Atlantic per­iod. Vidensk. Meddr dansk naturh. Foren . 142: 1 3 1 -38

2 . Albrethsen, S . E. , Brinch Petersen, E. 1 977. Excavation of a Mesolithic ceme­tery at Vedbrek, Denmark. Acta Archaeol. 47: 1-28

3. Andersen, S. H. 1973. Overgangen rra reldre til yngre stenalder i Sydskandina­vien set rra en mesolitisk synsvinke!. In Bonde-Veidemann. Bofast-ikke bofast i nordisk forhistorie, ed. P. Simonsen, O. Stamsp Munch, pp. 26-44. Troms�: Universitetsforlaget

4. Andersen, S . H. 1975. Ringkloster, en jysk indlandsboplads med Erteb�lIekul­tur. Kuml 1973-74: 1 1-108

5 . Andersen, S . H. 1 980. Tybrind Vig. Antik, Stud. 4:7-22

6. Andersen, S . H . , Johansen, E. 1986. Erteb�lIe revisited. 1. Danish Archaeol. 5:31-6 1

7. Bailey, O. N. 1978. Shell middens as indicators of postglacial economies: a territorial perspective. In The Early Postglacial Settlement of Northern Eu­rope. An Ecological Perspective, ed. P. Mellars, pp. 37-63. London: Duckworth

8. Bang-Andersen , S . 1987. Surveying the Mesolithic of the Norwegian Highlands. In Mesolithic Northwest Europe: Recent Trends, ed. P. Rowley-Conwy, M . Zvelebil, H. P. B lankholm, pp. 33-45. Sheffield: Dept. Archaeo! . Prehist.

9. Bang-Andersen, S. 1988. New Findings spotlighting the Earliest Postglacial Settlement in Southwest-Norway. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger·skrifter 12:39-5 1

10. Becker, C. J. 1939. En Stenalderboplads paa Ordrup Nres i Nordvestsjrelland. Bidraget til Sp�rsmaalet om Erteb¢lIe­kulturens Varighed. Aarbpger for Nor­disk O/dkyndighed og HislOre 1939: 1 99-280

1 1 . Becker, C. J. 1973 . Problemer omkring

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

232 PRICE

overgangen fra fangstkulturer til bonde­kulturer i Sydskandinavien. See Ref. 3 , pp. 6-21

12. Berglund, B. E. 1979. The Deglaciation of southern Sweden 1 3 .500-10.000 B .P . Boreas 8:89- 1 1 7

1 3 . Blankholm, H . P . 1 987. Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and the transition to farming in southern Scandinavia. See Ref. 8, pp. 1 5 5-62

14. Brinch Petersen, E. 1 973. A survey of Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic in Den­mark. In The Mesolithic of Europe. ed S. K. Kozlowski, pp. 77- 1 28. Warsaw: University Press

1 5 . Brinch Petersen, E. 1 988. Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. In Arka?olo­giske udgravninger i Danmark 1987. pp. 79-8 1 . K�benhavn: Det Arkreologiske Nrevn

16. Broadbent, N. 1979. Coastal Resources and Settlement Stability. A Critical Study of a Mesolithic Site Complex in Northern Sweden . Uppsala: Inst. Archaeo! .

1 7 . Broadbent, N. 1987. Northern hunting and fishing cultures-the first 6000 years. In Swedish Archaeology 198/-1985. ed. A. Carlsson, P. Hellstr�m, A. Hyenstrand, A. Akerlund, pp. 37-46. Stockholm: Swedish Archaeo!. Soc.

1 8 . Burdukiewicz, J. M. 1986. The Late Pleistocene Shouldered Point Assem­blages in Western Europe. Leiden: E. J . Brill

19. Clark, J. G. D. 1948. The development of fishing in prehistoric Europe. Antiq. J. 28 :45-85

20. Clark, J. G. D. 1 975. The Earliest Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia . Cam­bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

2 1 . Clark, J. G. D. 1980. Mesolithic Pre­lude. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press

22. Coope, G. R . 1975. Climatic fluctua­tions in northwest Europe since the Last Interglacial, indicated by fossil assem­blages of Coleoptera. In Ice Ages: An­cient and Modern. ed. A. E. Wright, F. Moseley, pp. 55-68. Liverpool : Seel House Press

23. Englested, E. 1985 . The late stone age of arctic Norway: a review. Arctic An­thropol. 22:79-96

24. Fischer, A. 1 982. Trade in Danubian shaft-hole axes and the introduction of Neolithic economy in Denmark. J. Dan­ish Archaeol. 1 :7- 1 2

25 . Fischer, A. 1989. Hunting with flint­tipped arrows: results and experiences from practical experiments. In The Mesolithic in Europe. ed. C. Bonsall, pp. 29-39. Edinburgh: John Donald

26. Forsberg, L. 1984. A multivariate anal-

ysis of hunting and fishing sites on the river Umealv, northern Sweden. Archaeol. Environ. 2:3 1-44

27. Forsberg, L. 1 985. Site variability and settlement patterns. An analysis of the hunter-gatherer settlement system in the Lule River Valley. Archaeol. Environ. 5 .

2 8 . Gendel, P. 1 984. Mesolithic Social Ter­ritories in Northwestern Europe. Ox­ford: Bf. Archaeo! . Rep.

29. Gurina, N. 1956. Olneostrovski mogil­nik. Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologgi SSSR 47.

30. Huntley, B . , Birks, H. 1. B. 1983. An Atlas of Past and Present Pollen Maps for Europe: 0-13,000 Years Ago. Cam­bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

3 1 . Jennbert, K. 1984. Den produktiva gavan. Tradition och innovation i Syds­kandinavienfor omkring 5300 ar sedan. Acta Archaeo!. Lundensia, Ser. 4, No. 16. Lund: CWK Gleerup

32. Kolstrup, E. 1988. Late Atlantic and Early Subboreal vegetational develop­ment at Trundholm, Denmark. J. Ar­chaeol. Sci. 1 5:503- 1 3

3 3 . Kozlowski, S . K . 1989. Mesolithic in Poland. A New Approach. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszaw­skiego

34. Kozlowski, S. K . 1989. A survey of early Holocene cultures of the western part of the Russian plain. See Ref. 25, pp. 424-4 1 . Edinburgh: John Donald

35. Larsson, L. 1980. Stenalderjagamas bo­plats och gravar vid Skateholm. Lim­hamniana 1980: 1 3-39

36. Larsson, L. 1989. Late Mesolithic Settlement and Cemetries at Skateholm, Southern Sweden. See Ref. 25 , pp. 367-78

37. Larsson, L. 1990. The Mesolithic of southern Scandinavia. J. World Prehist. 4:257-3 1 0

38. Larsson, L. 1 99 1 . Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic. In The Archaeology of Sweden. ed. E. Baudou. In press

39. Lee, R. B . , deVore, I. 1968. Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine

40. Lowe, J. J . , Gray, J. M. 1 980. The stratigraphic subdivision of the Lategla­cial of NW Europe : a discussion . In Studies in the Lateglacial of North-West Europe, ed. J. J. Lowe, J . M . Gray, J . E. Robinson, pp. 157-75. Oxford: Per­gamon Press

4 1 . Madsen, T. 1986. Where did all the hunters go? J. Danish Archaeol. 5:230-39

42. Matiskainen, H. 1989. Studies on the Chronology. Material Culture and Sub­sistence Economy of the Finnish

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

MESOLITHIC NORTHERN EUROPE 233

Mesolithic, 10,000-6000 BP. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys Finska FornminnesfOreningen

43. Matiskainen, H. 1 990. Mesolithic sub­sistence in Finland. In Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe, ed. P. M. Ver­meersch, P. van Peer, pp. 2 1 1-14. Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press

44. Mikkelsen, E. 1978. Seasonality and Mesolithic adaptations in Norway. In New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology, ed. K. Kristiansen, C. Paludan-Miiller, pp. 79- 1 1 9 . Copen­hagen: Natl. Mus.

45. MlIIller> J . J. 1987. Shoreline relation and prehistoric scttlement in northern Norway. Norsk Geogr. Tidsskr. 41 :45-60

46. Nielsen , P. O. 1 986. The Beginning of the Neolithic-Assimilation or Complex Change? J. Danish Archaeol. 5:240-43

47. Nygaard, S. E. 1987. Socio-economic developments along the southwestern coast of Norway between 10,000 and 4000 b.p. See Ref. 8, pp. 147-54

48. Nygaard, S . 1989. The stone age of northern Scandinavia. J. World Prehist. 3 :71-1 1 6

49. O'Shea, J . , Zvelebil, M . 1 984. Olneos­trovski mogilnik: reconstructing social and economic organization of prehistoric foragers in northern Russia. J. An­thropol. Archaeol. 3 : 1-40

50. Pankrushev, O. 1978. Mesolit i neolit Karelii. Leningrad: Nauka

5 1 . Price, T. D. 1 98 1 . Regional approaches to human adaptation in the Mesolithic of the North European plain. Veroff. Mus. Ur- Friihgesch . Potsdam 14/15 :217-34

52. Price, T. D. 1985 . Affluent foragers of Mesolithic southern Scandinavia. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, ed. T. D . Price, J . A. Brown, pp . 341-63. Orlan­do: Academic

53. Price , T. D. 1 986. The earlier Stone Age of Northern Europe. In The End of the Paleolithic in the Old World, ed. L. Strauss, pp. 1-30. Oxford: Br. Archaeol. Rep . , Int. Ser. 284.

54. Price, T. D. 1 987. The Mesolithic of Western Europe. J. World Prehist. 1 :225-305

55. Price, T. D. 1989. The reconstruction of Mesolithic diets. See Ref. 25 , pp. 48-59

56. Price, T. D . , Brown, J. A. 1985. Pre­historic Hunter-Gatherers: The Emer­gence of Cultural Complexity. Orlando: Academic

57. Price, T. D. , Jacobs, K. 1990. Olenii Ostrov: first radiocarbon dates from a major Mesolithic cemetery in Karelia, USSR. Antiquity 64:849-53

58. Renouf, M. P. 1984. Northern coastal hunter-fishers: an archaeological model. World Archaeol. 16: 1 8-27

59. Rowley-Conwy, P. 1983. Sedentary hunters: the Ertebllllle example. In Hun­ter-Gatherer Economy, ed. G. Bailey, pp. 1 1 1-26. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ . Press

60. Rowley-Conwy, P. 1985. The origin of agriculture in Denmark: a review of some theories. J. Danish Archaeol. 4: 1 88-95

6 1 . Schild, R. 1976. The final Paleolithic settlement of the European plain. Sci. Am. 234:88-99

62. Schild, R. 1984. Terminal Paleolithic of the North European plain: a review of lost chances, potential, and hopes. Adv. World Archaeol. 3 : 1 93-273

63 . Simonsen, P. 1976. Steinalders hystyper i Nord-Norge. lskos 1 :23-25

64. Skar, B . , Coulson, S. 1987. The Early Mesolithic site of Rlllrmry II. Acta Archaeol. 56: 167-83

65 . Tauber, H. 1 98 1 . Sl3C evidence for die­tary habits of prehistoric man in De­nmark. Nature 292:332-33

66. Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen­Gruppe in nordlichen Milleleuropa. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss der spaten Alt­steinzeit. Kaln: Bahlau

67. Ters, M. 1976. Les lignes de rivage holocene, Ie long de cote atlantique fran­<;ais . In La Prehistorie Fram,:ais, ed . J. Gui1aine, pp. 27-30. Paris: Cent. Nat. Rech. Sci .

68 . Trolle-Lassen, T. 1987. Human ex­ploitation of fur animals in Mesolithic Denmark. Archaeozoologia 12:85-102

69. Yang Petersen, P. 1984. Chronological and regional variation in the Late Mesolithic of Eastern Denmark. J. Dan­ish Archaeol. 3:7-18

70. Verhart, L. B. M . 1990. Stone Age bone and antler points as indicators for "social territories" in the European Mesolithic. See Ref. 43, pp. 1 39-5 1

7 1 . Zagorskis, F. 1973. Das Spatmesolithi­kum in Lettland. In The Mesolithic in Europe, ed. S. K. Kozl�owski , pp. 65 1-69. Warsaw: University Press

72. Zvelebil, M. 198 1 . From Forager to Farmer in the Baltic Zone. Oxford: Br. Archaeol. Rep.

73. Zvelebil, M . 1986. Postglacial foraging in the forests of Europe. Sci. Am. 254: 104-14

74. Zvelebil, M . , ed. 1986. Hunters in Transition . Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

1.20

:211

-233

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Hai

fa U

nive

rsity

on

10/2

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.