Technological transitions and human-environment interactions in Mesolithic southeastern Norway, 11 500–6000 cal. BP

Solheim, Steinar; Damlien, Hege; Fossum, Guro

doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106501

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The flint material of the later sites are to larger extent characterised by micro-blades, which corresponds to the transition to micro-blade production from handle cores (e.g. Solheim et al 2020). A more fragmented flint material, as indicated by the relative importance of flint chips and fragments, is also a previously noted property of some later Mesolithic, as well as early Neolithic sites (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The resulting posterior density estimates were then summed for each site. Radiocarbon data are provided in the supplementary data (see also Solheim 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bjerck 2008;Breivik and Callanan 2016;Fuglestvedt 2012; but see Viken 2018). Around the transition to the subsequent Middle Mesolithic or Microlith Phase at c. 8200 BCE, pervasive changes in blade and axe technology occur (Damlien 2016;Eymundsson et al 2018;Solheim et al 2020), which in turn has been associated with changes in population genomics and related migration events hailing from the Eurasian steppes (Günther et al 2018;Manninen et al 2021). The Microlith Phase is defined as lasting until around 7000 BCE, which is followed by the Pecked Adze Phase, characterised by a more dominating presence of non-flint macro tools and associated production waste in the assemblages (Reitan 2016).…”

Section: Archaeological Context and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bjerck 2008). Furthermore, these coastal sites appear to predominantly have been located on or close to the contemporary shoreline when they were in use (Åstveit 2018;Breivik et al 2018;Møller 1987;Solheim et al 2020). In south-eastern Norway, this pattern is combined with a continuous regression of the shoreline, following from isostatic rebound (e.g.…”

Section: Archaeological Context and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ballin 1999;Bjerck 1986;Reitan 2016) or been concerned with technological processes associated with certain sub-categories of the site inventories, such as the production of blades or axes (e.g. Berg-Hansen 2017; Damlien 2016;Eymundsson et al 2018;Solheim et al 2020). Studies that have involved entire assemblages have either been concerned with general compositional traits such as relative frequency of various tool types and raw-materials (Breivik 2020;e.g.…”

Section: Bergmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring the Composition of Lithic Assemblages in Mesolithic South-Eastern Norway

Roalkvam¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper leverages multivariate statistics to explore the composition of 54 Mesolithic assemblages located in south-eastern Norway. To provide analytical control pertaining to factors such as variable excavation practices, systems for artefact categorisation and raw-material availability, the sites chosen for analysis have all been excavated relatively recently and have a constrained geographical distribution. The assemblages were explored following two strains of analysis. The first of these entailed the use of artefact categories that are established within Norwegian Mesolithic archaeology, while the other involved drawing on measures that have been linked directly to land-use and mobility patterns associated with lithic assemblages more widely. The findings pertaining to the established artefact categories largely reflect the temporal development previously reported in Norwegian Mesolithic research, which has been based on more subjectively driven methods. Furthermore, the chronological trends associated with variables taken from the so-called Whole Assemblage Behavioural Indicators (e.g. Clark and Barton 2017), originally devised for characterising Palaeolithic assemblages in terms of associated mobility patterns, also align with the development previously proposed in the literature. This provides an initial indication that these measures are applicable in a Norwegian Mesolithic setting as well, setting the stage for a more targeted and rigorous model evaluation outside this exploratory setting. Furthermore, this finding supports the notion that these measures can offer a powerful comparative tool in the analysis of lithic assemblages more generally.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The resulting posterior density estimates were then summed for each site. Radiocarbon data are provided in the supplementary data (see also Solheim 2020).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%