the late stone age of arctic norway: a review

The Late Stone Age of Arctic Norway: A ReviewAuthor(s): Ericka EngelstadSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1985), pp. 79-96Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316081 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 23:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArcticAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:52:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316081?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE LATE STONE AGE OF ARCTIC NORWAY: A REVIEW

ERICKA ENGELSTAD

Abstract. The history of archaeological research, the cultural characteristics, and the chronology of the Late Stone Age are presented. Recent research, which is changing our previous understanding of the area's prehistory, is described. New data and interpretations include: (1) variation in assemblage patterning shown through multivariate statistical analysis, (2) a reevaluation of the chronological system which shows that sites and periods date at least 1000 years earlier than previously believed, (3) a better understanding of house- site relationships and the composition of villages and house clusters, (4) new analyses of midden material and reevaluation of previous osteological analyses showing greater variation in resource utilization and seasonality of habitation, (5) archaeological and pollen evidence indicate agriculture and animal husbandry at c. 5000-4000 B.P. , (6) new surveys of the interior reveal a greater utilization of this area, and (7) analyses of the newly discovered rock carving areas in Alta which have established a chronological sequence of changes in the form, association, and meaning of figures. The socioeconomic and symbolic systems which are now being defined for the Late Stone Age exemplify the diversity and flexibility of arctic maritime adaptations.

INTRODUCTION

Recently there has been renewed interest shown in both maritime adaptations (Fitzhugh 1975; Rowley-Conwy 1983a) and hunter- gatherer societies (for example, Binford 1980, 1983; Kelley 1983; Leacock and Lee 1982; Bailey 1983). The Stone Age prehistory of northern Norway is relevant to much of the present discussion of hunter- gatherers and maritime adaptations but is relatively little known outside of Scandinavia (Fitzhugh 1974). In an effort to redress this lack of knowledge, the present article presents a review of the Late Stone Age of northern (Arctic) Norway-both the traditional view found in textbooks and the new perspectives gleaned from more recent research. I will concentrate this summary on Finnmark and use data from the rest of Arctic Norway only as it contributes to our changing views of the regionTs prehistory (Fig. 1).

Recent developments in archaeological research in Arctic Norway are changing our understanding of the prehistory of the area. This is particularly true of the Late Stone Age. Not only have we acquired more data because of new excavations and surveys , but we have also achieved new insights into, and new interpretations of, prehistoric society and culture.

Finnmark has long been the province of research on the Stone Age, and the chronological sequence here has been applied to the entire region. Much of the archaeological work in the 1970s was also concentrated in Finnmark. How- ever, a few excavations have been carried out in Lofoten and in Senja. Archaeological surveys performed in connection with national projects of economic mapmaking for the populated parts of the country , hydroelectric projects , and road works have all provided new data. Many of the 75 townships in the northernmost part of Nor- way, within the jurisdiction of Tromsd Museum (as defined by the Law of Cultural Heritage of 1978), have now been surveyed for archaeological remains. Unfortunately, many of these surveys, begun in the 1960s, have been methodo- logically weak and most of the results remain unpublished. Thus, it is newer excavations or the reworking of previously excavated materials which are our main sources of new data and interpretations. Much of this new work has been carried out in Finnmark.

It is important to remember that northern Norway, although located between approximately 66° N and 71° N in latitude, can only partially be considered Arctic in the more general sense of the word. It is true that northern Norway does have the definitive two months of winter

Ericka Engelstad, Tromsi Museum, University of Tromsé, 9000 Tromsé, Norway

ARCTIC ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 79-96, 1985



80 Arctic Anthropology 22:1

•4-»

X O

<x>

.s 0) 03 CO

Ü CO

•p-t

Q CO

CO

T3

cO

CO CO

<

be C

•r-l

O

CO

>> CO

o z

-4-*

g < <4H O

CO

rH

<D U

bo s

g OC

%v^4 fc<á ^ "^N-á-

0 < <

.V h < O I "£

Í 5 , Y ? * « 5

« -2 i £ i © fc<á ^ "^N-á- < <

.V < O "£ 5 , Y * 5 -2 £ ©

*» /3T ¿ ¡ "^

C S ? i1 2 Ì5 | 8 3 I 2 ¿

MA %>.••••"•...••• ../

p|<"1 ....

^y c *^> CO t ^^^ m^ ' •*««•» ^^

è j ^W\V^ V';



Engelstad: Arctic Norway 81

darkness and two months of summer sunlight , but it otherwise stands in strong contrast to other areas at the same latitude, such as Arctic Canada, Alaska, and Siberia. In terms of cli- mate , flora , and fauna the whole of northern Norway is better described as Subarctic. This is , of course , due to the ameliorating effects of the Gulf Stream which warms the coastal waters. Although the northernmost coast of Finnmark is 70° N, the sea does not freeze in the winter, leaving the coast ice-free for the entire year. In terms of the natural setting, then, it is better to view Finnmark as more similar to south- western Alaska and the northwest coast of Canada than to the Point Barrow region or northeastern Siberia at the same latitude. For this reason , comparisons of hunter- gatherer societies based on latitude gradients , as seen in some of the most recent archaeological treat- ments (Binford 1980; Whitelaw 1983), can only lead to spurious generalizations.

HISTORY OF RESEARCH

THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH

The Late Stone Age in northern Norway has been known since the late nineteenth century (Winther 1878), and, since then, has been generally regarded as a series of culture groups with simple hunter- gatherer adaptations to a harsh northern environment. Of course, the "primitiveness" of Stone Age hunter- gatherer societies or , in the case of northern Norway , of fisher- hunter societies is often only a matter of the viewer's interpretation. This is obvious in much of the new anthropological writing on hunter- gatherers, or foragers as they are now called , in which their complexity rather than their primitiveness is emphasized. It was A. W. Br^gger who , with the publication of Den arktiske stenalder i Norge [The Arctic Stone Age in Norway] in 1909, established the tradi- tion in Norwegian archaeological interpretation of viewing northern Fennoscandia as a poor and elementary northern cousin in comparison with the more "advanced" southern Scandinavia. The northern cultures always came out looking more primitive as a result . It is probably no coincidence that the majority of Stone Age research in Arctic Norway has, until recently, been done in the northernmost province of Finn- mark. Research on the Iron Age and Viking periods (i.e. , the more "complex" cultures) has been concentrated in the more southerly part of Arctic Norway , and few archaeologists have considered it worth their while to examine possible iron- using cultures in Finnmark (Schanche and Olsen 1983).

Gutorm Gjessing was instrumental in broaden- ing the scope of archaeological research in northern Fennoscandia by , very simply ,

changing the direction of orientation in comparative studies. Instead of looking mainly to the south, Gjessing looked eastward and de- veloped the concept of the Circumpolar Stone Age, with its strong west-east cultural diffusions (Gjessing 1942:452-477, 1944, 1953). It is interesting to note that this concept was first published as one of the final chapters in Gjessing's (1942) summary book on the Late Stone Age in northern Norway- Yngre steinalder i Nord-Norge. It was probably GjessingTs de- veloping interest in Sami ethnography which caused him to look for similarities with other arctic and subarctic regions. In addition, he must have realized the inadequacy of a Nordic perspective if one were interested in prehistoric societies and not just prehistoric implements and their typological relationships. However, the southern perspective has continued to the present, with both cultural and chronological comparisons being made with southern Scandinavia, despite the approximately 2000 km between the two areas. This can be seen, in particular, in Simonsenfs approach to the region's prehistory, culture change, and circumpolar diffusions. Following Gjessing, Simonsen views the circumpolar Arctic as an ecological continuum with cultural traits spreading easily within a circumpolar diffusion sphere (Simonsen 1972a; Fitzhugh 1975:4-6). However, the flow of traits is from west to east with a majority of new cultural traits seemingly originating in northern Fenno- scandia and particularly in northern Norway. But where did these new elements really origi- nate? Not in the Scandinavian Arctic itself but, according to Simonsen, among the more innovative cultures to the south. Thus, the Scandi- navian Arctic Stone Age peoples accept southern cultural innovations and , more or less immediately , send them eastward to their equally less innovative arctic neighbors. Fitzhugh (1975:5) paraphrases the argument simply:

In Scandinavia, Simonsen suggests that contacts between stone age people and Neolithic or sub -Neolithic societies resulted in the dissemination of innovations into the epi-Mesolithic cultures of intellectually and materially starved northern peoples eager to add new and useful elements to their otherwise narrow form of adaptation.

The southern orientation can be readily seen in the basis for SimonsenTs chronological system for north Norway and particularly Finnmark. Relative dating of the chronological periods was based on comparisons with southern Scandinavia (especially Danish) Stone Age chronology. Thus, in 1975, Simonsen (1975b: 257-259) was able to ignore new radiocarbon dating of the Varanger finds (Helskog 1974b) because they were earlier than the Danish chronology , only to change the chronology four years later




(Simonsen 1979a: 509-513) when radiocarbon dating of the Danish Stone Age sites revealed these to be earlier than previously believed. This new dating brought them in line with the earlier radiocarbon dates from Varangerfjord.

Clearly, such an interpretive approach, which views a region as continually on the re- ceiving end of material diffusions or waves of migration , overlooks the possibilities of internal cultural dynamic processes. Both the chronological and sociocultural relationships during the c. 4000 years of the Late Stone Age are often defined on the basis of external factors alone. One is presented with a picture not only of a more or less static hunting- gathering adaptation , but also of an almost total lack of tech- nological creativity. The defining characteristics and chronological relationships of this view of the Late Stone Age will be described below.

CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CHRONOLOGY

The Arctic Stone Age, or the slate culture as first defined by A. W. Brtfgger in 1909, forms the core of what was later to be known as the Late Stone Age. The Arctic Stone Age was defined on the basis of stray finds of ground slate tools , primarily knives and projectile points , and was, by definition, associated with the northern part of Fennoscandia. B rigger compared these slate implements with similar tool types from southern Scandinavia. Thus, polished slate tools were considered a poor sub- stitute for the better quality flint used in southern Scandinavia but lacking in the north. There are no known flint sources in northern Fennoscandia and quartz, quartzite, and chert of varying qualities are the primary lithic materials used in the chipped stone industries here.

With the addition of many new finds and newly recognized structures, Gutorm Gjessing was able in 1942 to describe the Late Stone Age in some detail and to formulate tool type descriptions which are still often used today. Helping in many ways to define the Late Stone Age was the fact that it could now be contrasted with the newly discovered Mesolithic assemblages which were collectively given the name Komsa culture (Bde and Nummedal 1936; E. Helskog 1974). One of the major new artifact categories was pottery, discovered during excavations at Karlebotn at the base of Varangerfjord. The first structural remains-pit houses-from the Late Stone Age were discovered, again, in Karlebotn during the 1930s (Nummedal 1937, 1938). Although pit houses can occur singly, they most often occur in clusters of a few ( 3 to 4, 10 to 12) to as many as 90. Lacking a detailed chronology and with only a handful of houses excavated, Gjessing considered many

of the pit house clusters to be contemporary. This led him to postulate the existence of Late Stone Age fishing villages.

The essential characteristics of the Late Stone Age were known by the early 1940s, and few major new categories of evidence have been added since then. During the 1950s and 1960s, site surveys and many new excavations were conducted , and an enormous amount of data was amassed particularly at sites in the Varangerfjord- Pasvik Valley area (Simonsen 1961, 1963) and on the island of Sdrdya (Simonsen 1964, 1968, 1973b, 1975b: 267- 273). Much of this work was aimed at understanding house sites and estab- lishing a more detailed chronology. The most important new source of data discovered during this time was the large bone and shell middens associated with pit houses at coastal sites. There was also some indication of craft specialization in pottery and lithic tool manufacture discovered on the island of Sdrdya (Simonsen 1975a).

Culturally, the defining characteristics of the Late Stone Age are: (1) flaked stone tools, particularly flat- flaked projectile points, using quartz and quartzite (and what some geologists would define as chert); (2) ground or polished slate tools , particularly single- and double- edged knives and projectile points, both with and without tangs; (3) ceramics of two major categories- early Comb Ceramics of the Sàràìsniemi I type and later Asbestos Ceramics; and (4) pit house structures of two major polythetic types- small and shallow with a single hearth (Karlebotn type) , and large and deep with double hearths (Gressbakken type).

The Late Stone Age is considered to be sub- Neolithic (Meinander 1961; Simonsen 1975a: 75) or epi-Mesolithic (Simonsen 1972b), and is now dated to between 4000/3400 B.C. and A.D. 100/ 200. Thus, it is contemporary with the southern Scandinavian Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Early Iron Age. There is no Bronze Age in terms of cultural affiliations in northern Norway. In Finnmark, the Late Stone Age is directly followed by the Sami Iron Age, while in other parts of this region groups with a Stone Age technology seem to have coexisted with Nordic Iron Age groups. At the moment, this transi- tional or coexistence phase is little understood.

Based primarily on the relative typology from the Varangerfjord- Pas vik Valley area as it related to southern Scandinavian dated finds , Simonsen (1961, 1962, 1963, 1970a, 1970b, 1975b), built a chronological sequence of four major periods. These periods were also considered to be cultural phases and were given phase names after a designated type site. In- herent in the phases was a sociocultural developmental sequence. Since the periods /phases are still used today, it will be necessary to briefly describe their distinguishing characteristics. This description is based on Simonsenfs major




publications of archaeological material from Finnmark.

Period I, the Saeleneshdgda phase, is considered to be a continuation of the Mesolithic Komsa culture; it has numerous blades and microlithis and some chipped and ground slate. There are three possible houses or tent rings excavated at the type site. Simonsen (1979a: 509-512) now dates this period to 4200-3400 B.C.

In Period II, the Nordli phase, the ground slate industry with ground slate knives and points was established. There is also a chipped stone industry that lacks blades and microliths but includes flat-flaked projectile points and the ubiquitous scrapers found in most stone age assemblages in all periods. The associated ceramics are said to be similar to Sàràisniemi I ceramics which, in southern Finland, are now dated contemporary with Comb ceramics style 1:1. Some bone tools (points and combs) were found. Interestingly enough, there are no associated pit house structures found along the coast. The type site is a coastal, open-air site. Although the evidence is equivocal, there are reported house structures possibly dating to this period at Noatun Haugen (Simonsen 1963: 15) and Fredrik Antiplassen in the interior of Pasvik (Simonsen 1963:139). This period is now dated by Simonsen (1979a: 509- 512) to 3400- 2400 B.C.

In Period III, the Gropbakkeengen phase, well made ground and polished slate projectile points and knives are found along with some bone tools (points and combs) and a few flaked points. There is little associated ceramic material and it is primarily found in the interior of Pasvik. The Nyelv slate point type is related to the Pyheensilta points of Finland. Most impor- tantly , pit house structures are found in relatively large numbers along the coast. The Karlebotn house type (the type site of which is Gropbakkeengen; see Fig. 2) is associated primarily with this period. The houses are described as being small, shallow, round or square pits approximately 12-20 m2 in size. There is one stone-lined hearth, usually small, in each house. The houses are said to have a single entrance occurring at the back (i.e. , away from the sea) , although they often have no definable morphological feature which can be interpreted as an entrance. This period was initially dated by Simonsen (1975b) to 2000/1800-1200/1000 B.C. , but it is now dated to 2400-1800/1500 B.C. (Simonsen 1979a: 509- 512).

Period IV, the Gressbakken phase, sees the degeneration of the ground slate industry , now composed of miniature forms and single- edged knives. Flat-flaked lanceolate projectile points of quartz and quart zite dominate. Ceramics are tempered with asbestos and often have an imita- tion textile ornamentation. Again, house sites occur in relatively large numbers . The type

most often associated with this period is the Gressbakken house (Fig. 3) , the type sites of which are Gressbakken Nedre vest and Gress- bakken Nedre dst. These houses are described as being large, deep, oval pits (0.5-1 m deep) which average about 40 to 50 m2 in size, although houses of 70 m2 are also known. They can have from one to four depressions in their walls, but never more than one depression in a single wall. The length of the house is oriented parallel with the sea and the depression in this wall is most often interpreted as being an entrance passage. The interior contains two large, rectangular stone-lined hearths oriented along the long axis of the house. A low mound of fire- cracked rock is often found between these two hearths. The interior is said to contain sleeping platforms similar to some Inuit houses , but the evidence for this is highly equivocal. In contrast to the Karlebotn type houses , shell and bone middens are often associated with Gressbakken houses. Simonsen (1975b) previously placed this period between 1200/1000 B.C.-A.D. 100/200, but he now dates it as beginning e . 1800/1500 B.C. (Simonsen 1979a: 511).

This is the essence of the cultural chronology used today. As will be shown later, this system now requires modification in the light of new data. However, the general developmental trend has only rarely been questioned, and con- tinues to be presented in general texts on Nor- wegian prehistory (for example, Hagen 1967).

SOCIOCULTURAL INTERPRETATIONS

Both Gjessing (1955, 1975a, 1975b) and Simonsen (1952, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1970a, 1970b, 1972b, 1973a, 1973b, 1975a, 1975b, 1979a, 1979b: 363- 437) have presented a model of Late Stone Age societies based on the pit house structures, the osteological material from the middens , and a general understanding of hunter- gatherer societies .

Both authors give prime importance to ecological factors, asserting that utilization of subsistence resources was determined by seasonal changes not only in the occurrence of these resources but also in their abundance. Thus , the year is divided into a set of four seasons each with its own set of subsistence resources. Interestingly enough, Simonsen and Gjessing disagree on the seasonal utilization of fish, seal, and whale. Gjessing, basing his arguments on Sami ethnography, believed they were utilized during the summer, while Simonsen, basing his arguments on the osteological analysis of midden material, believed they were utilized during the winter. Simon- sen^ interpretation appears to be the most widely accepted today and will be described further.

According to Simonsen, subsistence resource




Figure 2. Late Stone Age House of the Karlebotn Type from Gropbakkeengen (modified from Simonsen 1961:113).

Figure 3. Late Stone Age House of the Gressbakken Type from Gressbakken Nedre Vest (modified from Simonsen 1961:290).




utilization affects other aspects of the sociocultural system, in particular mobility, settlement pattern, population size, and social structure. Thus, the Late Stone Age population groups lived by coast-interior transhumance with a fixed seasonal round with four seasonal sites. The winter was spent in coastal fishing villages of several sod pit houses. Earlier villages had 30 to 40 small Karlebotn type houses, while later villages had 10 to 15 large Gress- bakken type houses. In the late spring, this village broke up into smaller units in order to hunt birds and collect eggs on the outer coast , to fish in the interior rivers during the summer, and to hunt reindeer further in the interior in the autumn. The population was organized into egalitarian bands of approximately 100-150 individuals, each band having a fixed territory. The population was essentially static. Expan- sion came primarily by way of ("hunger") migrations from the south and east , new population groups bringing some new technology (for example, ceramics) with them but adapting rapidly to local environmental and , presumably , social conditions. The shift from the Karlebotn type house in Period III to the Gressbakken type house in Period IV is seen as a shift from small nuclear families to large extended families or multifamily households. Note that concurrent with this expansion in family size was a decrease in village size, and thus village population re- mained static. But it is recognized that this shift to larger houses was not complete, since Karlebotn type houses continued to be used in this later period as well.

The Late Stone Age transhumance pattern described above appears , on the basis of this chronological interpretation, to be static for at least the last 2000-3000 years B.C. Some geographical variation is assumed , with the outer islands (Stfrtfya and Traena) having a more restricted seasonal movement limited essentially to the islands themselves. However, the transhumance pattern becomes reified by "movement diagrams" as illustrated by Simonsen (1979a: 401, Fig. 209).

The Late Stone Age subsistence- settlement pattern, with winter coastal villages serving as an important factor, is often contrasted with the later Sami Iron Age pattern of summer habitation on the coast. This change in subsistence- settlement pattern is equated by Simonsen (1972a, 1973b) with an economic change and the beginning of reindeer pastoralism in Finnmark.

NEW PERSPECTIVES

ASSEMBLAGE PATTERNING

In the traditional model, the population living in winter fishing villages is seen as performing the same set of socioeconomic activities through

time. If the pit houses in a village are occupied during the same season and the inhabitants are performing a similar set of activities, this should be reflected by similarities in assemblage patterning. Non- similarity in assemblage patterning would indicate either differences in seasonality or differences in activities or both. A recent analysis of house site assemblages at Iversfjord (E. Helskog 1983a; Bdlviken et al. 1982) investigated these aspects of assemblage patterning. The assemblages from 14 house units were classified into 37 lithic tool types which in turn were grouped into seven major functional categories. On the basis of both a factor analysis and a correspondence analysis of this data, it was found that there were three major house/ activity clusters, each interpreted as emphasiz- ing different economic activities: fishing, hunting (either marine or terrestrial mammals) , and routine household /maintenance activities. These groupings are not mutually exclusive , and all of these economic activities were probably to some degree carried out by each household. But, there is a clear difference in emphasis .

A similar analysis was carried out using not only the Iversfjord material but also data from the major "classic" sites in the Varan gerfjord- Pasvik area (Engelstad 1984). These latter localities included Gropbakkeengen , Gressbakken Nedre vest, Bugdyfjord, Nyelv, Noatun Neset, and Noatun Innmarken. Since some of the house sites at these localities were excavated earner when the significance of flakes with wear marks was not recognized or was considered unimpor- tant, the one assemblage category which included utilized flakes was excluded from this analysis. Again, it was found that there was a strong degree of variation in assemblage patterning between the different houses at a single locality as well as between localities. This re- flects not only differences in household activities but also could be related to seasonal changes in house occupancy.

The majority of earlier house site excavations were only of the interior of the house. It appears that areas exterior to the houses were excavated only to the extent that they produced midden material. This, of course, will affect any discussion of the spatial patterning of assemblages and will make it appear that all activities, except garbage disposal, occurred within the house (i.e. , primarily during the cold winter months). At the Iversfjord locality, testing of the area outside of the house structure produced evidence of extensive exterior assemblages and exterior activity areas. This was interpreted as representing differences in seasonality, with activities exterior to the house most probably representing summer activities. But, again, it should be noted that there was great variation, with some house sites having little or no evidence of the utilization of exterior space.




CHRONOLOGY

The dating of the four-period chronology, described above, was based primarily on typological comparisons with the southern Scandi- navian (especially the Danish) chronological systems. In a more general way, comparisons were made with the Finnish and western Russian Bronze Age chronologies. However, until recently, Simonsen (1975b: 257- 259) considered the Finnish Stone Age chronology to be too early to be acceptable. In addition, some use was made of post- Pleistocene sea level changes in relation to the altitudes of the classic sites , particularly in the Gressbakken-Nyelv and Karlebotn areas at the head of Varangerfjord. Unfortunately, these two dating methods were not always in agreement. A case in point is SimonsenTs archaeological dating of the Nyelv Nedre vest site, which disagrees with the geological dating of the terrace on which the site lies. The occupation of the site was archaeologically dated to a period when the terrace would have been below sea level! The strength with which the southern Scandinavian perspective has dominated northern Norwegian archaeological research can be seen by the fact that Simonsen (1961:437) re- jected the geological dating without further discussion.

A number of problems made it clear that the north Norwegian chronology was in need of revision. Such problems included disagreements on the relative dating of sites , a growing dis- satisfaction with the southern perspective and the rather dubious assumption of rapid diffusion from the south , and new research on the Finnish Stone Age chronology which placed many tool complexes earlier than previously accepted (Siiriáinen 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973). It was also clear that any revision should be based on internal dating and not assumed external connec- tions. Extensive radiocarbon dating of Late Stone Age house sites in Varangerfjord was undertaken during the 1970s by Knut Helskog (K. Helskog 1974b, 1978a, 1978b, 1980a). In addition, the first C-14 dates of Asbestos ceramics from the Iversfjord locality and Gasadaknes in the Finnmarksvidda interior became available (E. Helskog 1978, 1983a: 53- 58). The results of this dating program in relation to the four- period scheme are shown in Figure 4. MASCA calibrations for the radiocarbon dates have been used and the time spans do not include the stan- dard deviation. As can be seen from Figure 4, there are major differences between the traditional chronological scheme and the results of the radiocarbon dating. It is clear that the periods, if they should be kept at all, should be placed at least 1000 years earlier than previously assumed. Note that, according to HelskogTs scheme, the sites associated with Period I are considered to be a part of the Early Stone Age. In a recent text, Simonsen (1979a: 509-513)

appears to accept the earlier chronology but interestingly enough uses external grounds (i.e., the newly revised Danish chronology) and ignores the radiocarbon dating of the sites themselves.

Although there are three C-14 dates1 associated with Sáraisniemi I ceramics from Lossoa's hus in the Varangerfjord-Pasvik area, the ef- fect of the earUer dating of Gropbakkeengen and the Nyelv /Pyheensilta point is to make the North Norwegian Sáraisniemi I ceramics contemporary with the Finnish dating of Sáraisniemi I. This changes the transition between the late Stone Age and the Mesolithic to at least 4500/4000 B.C. , if not earlier, and makes Simonsenfs Period I Late Mesolithic. At the other end of the scale there is a clear gap of approximately 600 years between the last C-14 dates for the Late Stone Age and the oldest C-14 dates for the Sami Iron Age. This chronological gap is not recognized by Simonsen (1979a: 511-512), whose period IV lasts c. 2000 years and is immediately followed by the Sami Iron Age. In- terestingly, the beginning of this chronological hiatus at c. 600/500 B.C. is the dividing line between the Sub-Boreal and Sub-Atlantic climatic periods.

In addition , the chronological position of the type sites in Varangerfjord for periods III and IV is considerably changed. The sites of Advik, Nyelv Nedre vest, and Gressbakken Nedre cfst become at least partially contemporary. Thus, it would appear that the period divisions are also in need of revision.

Concurrent with the C-14 dating program in the Varangerfjord area were new studies of post -Pleistocene shoreline displacements (Donner et al. 1977, 1979; K. Helskog 1974b, 1978a, 1978b). The new C-14 dating brings the ages of the type sites more in line with the geological dating of the earlier shorelines and terraces. The shoreline displacement diagrams also indicate an altitudinal overlapping of sites from Period III with sites from the latter part of Period II and the earlier part of Period IV. The result is that Period III seems to disappear almost completely as a valid chronological unit.

HOUSES AND VILLAGES

A repercussion of the new C-14 dating of many houses at single localities was to shed new light on the existence of Late Stone Age fishing

1These three dates were run on seal bone and marine shell. Although not mentioned by K. Helskog (1978a) in his discussion of radiocarbon dating of the Varanger sites , these dates were reported after being corrected for isotopie fractionation by the Radiological Dating Laboratory in Trondheim (K. Helskog, personal communication) .




Figure 4. A Comparison of Chronological Schemes for the Late Stone Age of Arctic Norway. (A) The chronological period system and placement of important sites in the Varanger- fjord area as first presented by Simonsen (modified from Simonsen 1975b: 217). (B) Simonsen's latest revision of the four-period time scheme. The placement of sites within this scheme is the same as earlier (Simonsen 1979a: 512). (C) The revised chronology based on extensive C-14 dating of the Varanger sites and shoreline displacement (K. Helskog 1980a: 60).

A B C

SAMI !} 200-

IR0NAGE 5 '«ON AGE

-""""" ADVIK AD BUG0YFJORD

BC SAMI IRON AGE

Period IV

500-- I *T £ s Period IV CD Z V) D V) t- UJ < oc O co °1 zl y

iooo . £

TST is ST > > 5

UJ ! ° > > UJ

>

1500-- Period III > | g >

z m ^^ o Q. ^^ CÜ

° ^^ I i 2000-^"^ O I H XT' "

_ % Period III <2j H

Period II z 2 < |_ z °<o J^^ W G

2500- - T o gg

^^ T _ CO ^^

_ uj i£ "

^^ < > > ^^ « g

< Period II £

o « Z Q Q

S5 5 S SÜ 3000-- i S z 1 >

Period I 2 ¿ 3 ^ í ^ zT ?T z

1 1 i ^ UJ ,_

X uj _, J 5¿ _, -

3500 _ EARLY Komsa 2 < z 1 _ STONE AGE g ^

Period I Komsa «1 °-l 1 3 I

«¡ ! i<

; -1- lil it ol 4000 it ol

EARLY STONE ¡ S¡ 4500- AGE Lli

_ Komsa 2 EARLY STONE AGE

5000 -




villages. Pit houses often occur in clusters which today have the appearance of abandoned villages , and they have been interpreted as such (Simonsen 1952, 1965, 1975a, 1976). Ex- cavation has revealed only some stratigraphic evidence of the reuse of pit house structures. Their appearance on the surface of a terrace, often in a tight cluster or a linear array , gives the immediate impression of contemporaneity of pit houses. However, C-14 dating showed that there could be large differences in age between houses. At Iversfjord, seven houses and a midden (Fig. 5), occurring as parts of three different clusters between 8-10 m above sea level, were dated to between 4240±100 B.P. and 24901100 B. P. (3150±150 B.C. to 645±165B.C, MASCA calibrations). Statistical analysis of these dates indicated that only two houses could be considered contemporary (E. Helskog 1983a: 53-58). Extensive analyses (based on shoreline displacement, statistical comparisons of C-14 dates , estimated house longevity , the number of houses at particular localities , ethnographic analogy, and local historic descriptions) of several house clusters in the Varangerfjord area indicated that it was probably most usual to find two to six houses occupied contemporaneously (K. Helskog 1978b, 1984a; K. Helskog and Schweder n.d.).

The presumed change through time from the Karlebotn type house to the Gressbakken type house has, in addition, been called into question. In Varanger these two house types are at least partially contemporary. It appears that the Gressbakken type houses go out of use rather abruptly around 3000 B.P. (K. Helskog 1984a). This may be a local phenomenon and, at present , we have little data from the following time span in that area. But this does call into question the hypothesized associated change in social organization from nuclear families to extended or multifamily households. Also indicated is the need to revise the house type defi- nitions, since many sites have house structures which are clearly a mixture of the defining characteristics of both of these house types.

MIDDENS AND SEASONALITY

Our views on the Late Stone Age settlement seasonality, and the fixed four-season subsistence-settlement system are also changing. Al- though much of this is due to new analyses and changing views of the structure, composition, and functioning of band societies (both ethno- graphically and ethnoarchaeologically) , there is, in Finnmark, archaeological evidence for greater variation in seasonality and subsistence- settlement systems, especially regarding maritime fishing- hunting societies.

The osteological analysis of the Varanger- fjord midden material (Olsen 1967, n.d. a,

n.d.b) has influenced our views concerning the winter habitation of the coastal area. New excavations and analyses of Late Stone Age middens (E. Helskog 1983a; Renouf 1981, 1984) associated with coastal house sites indicate not only a greater permanence of occupation but also the possibility of spring, summer, or autumn occupation of at least some of the house sites (Engelstad 1984). Both Olsen and Renouf used industrial fishery seasonal catch figures as the basis of their interpretation of winter cod fishing. This fishery is based on the Norwegian- Arctic cod , which are to be found on the fishing banks of the outer coast and which make extensive seasonal migrations. However, fjord cod are found in stable populations in local fjords (Eliassen 1983) and probably made up the majority of the Late Stone Age cod fishing. There are, in addition, typical summer fish bones found in the middens , although in fewer numbers.

The avifaunal remains also indicate summer habitation of some coastal sites. In addition, it is clear that these sites (in particular , Nyelv and Gressbakken Nedre vest) contain an un- usually large number of bird bones compared with other prehistoric sites in Norway as a whole, although they are not near any bird rookeries. This would seem to indicate some form of subsistence specialization, at least seasonally, or the non- subsistence use of avifauna.

Both new faunal analyses and the reexamina- tion of previous faunal collections associated with individual pit house structures indicate flexibility in the seasonal use of subsistence resources. This can be seen most easily in the variation in faunal assemblages between house sites at a single locality. The diversity of species in some faunal assemblages also points toward the use of fauna which are abundant at different seasons and , thus , to a longer period of house occupation.

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND AGRICULTURE

Late Stone Age societies are considered to be sub-Neolithic both socioeconomically and chronologically. The temporal span of the Late Stone Age makes it contemporary not only with Neolithic culture groups but also with later Bronze Age and Iron Age groups. Previously, the Late Stone Age was considered to consist solely of hunting- gathering societies, with neither agriculture nor animal husbandry. But both the metal-using, agrarian societies and the stone-using, hunting and gathering societies existed contemporaneously and probably had some contact with each other. Recent pollen analyses of a few coastal sites , from the Arctic Circle through Lofoten to Altafjord and Varangerfjord, indicate "anthropogenic"




u cO

E C

E .£ CO (1) '•£ o tì c co .5

3 CD

&§ <>>

Is CD CD

tra

_ « _ gè as

al CD £ CO CD

^^

O >

CO CC

^>>

CO ^

Ü

-4-» +-> •H co

3!

« >>

CD

4j CO CO *M

5 tí CD >, 2 ff >,

11

s bù




influences on the landscape (Vorren 1975, 1976, 1979, 1983; Vorren and Nilssen 1982). Some of these changes in the pollen curves are considered to indicate the grazing of domesticated animals as early as the first part of the Late Stone Age, approximately 5510±80 bp2 on the island of VestvSgdy in Lofoten. At this same site, there are pollen changes interpreted as the beginning of cereal growing (barley) in the area dated to 3740150 bp, while on the nearby island of Gimsdy cereal growing (barley and possibly wheat) is dated to c. 4150 bp (Vorren and Nilssen 1982). But, as noted by others (Rowley-Conwy 1983b), the pollen evidence is highly equivocal, with many of the important indicator plants actually being native to the coastal regions of Arctic Norway.

Unfortunately , there is little archaeological evidence to substantiate these claims, based on palynology , for early animal husbandry and agriculture. At the cave site of Storb&thallaren on VestvSgdy , bones of domestic animals (cow , sheep /goat) have been radiocarbon dated to the same time period as the southern Scandinavian Bronze Age (Utne 1973, 1974, 1979, and personal communication). Renouf (1981) reports the presence of cow and sheep /goat bones from what she considers to be undisturbed contexts in the Nyelv site in Finnmark, dated to 3500- 3000 B.C. Although Renouf (1981:225-226, 266- 267) considers these finds "tantalizing," they represent a meager presence of domesticates (only 10 bones out of 10,000) and, given the thin stratigraphy of Late Stone Age house sites , they may just well be much later intrusive elements. The only unequivocal evidence of animal husbandry and agriculture comes from the recently excavated cave site of Stiurhelleren in Rana, just south of the Arctic Circle. Here both sheep /goat bones and barley seeds have been found in a stratigraphic unit C-14 dated to 5000-4500 B. P. (Hultgreen 1983). Although the site is as yet only summarily reported , there is reason to believe that the precise re- trieval techniques employed would reveal con- crete evidence of animal husbandry and agriculture in more northerly sites as well.

The newly discovered rock carvings at Alta (to be discussed below) have some figures which are interpreted as possible evidence for the control of reindeer and reindeer herds. In particular, three scenes are cited (K. Helskog 1976, 1977, 1983): a woman riding a reindeer (Fig. 6) , a man holding a reindeer with a possible harness (Fig. 7), and a reindeer corral with animals inside (Fig. 8). But, again, the evidence is insubstantial and equivocal. Al- though they may depict domestic reindeer, such scenes could also be interpreted as ritual or as sophisticated hunting techniques.

In terms of artifact types generally associated with the Neolithic, the evidence for agriculture is also meager (Johansen 1976, 1977, 1979, 1982). In the whole of Arctic Norway , there are only a few stray finds relating to the southern Scandi- navian Early Neolithic. There is evidence of clustering, in certain coastal areas, of stray finds of artifact types relating to the southern Scandinavian Middle Neolithic, Late Neolithic, and Bronze Age (see also Bakka 1976). Al- though interpreted as possible indications of population groups with animal husbandry and /or agriculture, these finds may mean nothing more than trade or some other form of culture contact. There are, as yet, no Neolithic sites from the region north of the Arctic Circle , and it is clear that habitation sites are needed to support the interpretations of the pollen diagrams.

NEW FINDS: INTERIOR SURVEYS AND ROCK CARVINGS

Lastly, there are two major new data sets which should be described: (1) diverse Late Stone Age localities in the interior, and (2) rock carving areas in the inner part of Altafjord. Much of this material was only recently discovered , and analyses are still in progress . However, these materials will fill major gaps in our understanding of the regioni prehistory.

INTERIOR SURVEYS

Until the early 1970s, the major portion of archaeological research in northern Norway was concentrated on the coast. However, major hydroelectric projects in the mountainous interior along the Norwegian- Swedish border and in the interior plateau of Finnmark, the area known as Finnmarksvidda, began during the 1970s. The interior mountainous region, from the Arctic Circle northward to, but not includ- ing, Finnmarksvidda, produced surprisingly few archaeological sites (K. Helskog 1980b). It appears that this mountainous area was used in a way that left few or no archaeological remains , or was used only as a transit zone between the Norwegian coast and the Swedish interior forested region. There is both historical and ethnographic evidence for the last pattern , and it is possible that this area was utilized in a similar manner during the Late Stone Age.

Surveys of some of the river systems of Finnmarksvidda-notably the Alta-Kautokeino River- have recorded well over 100 Late Stone Age localities (K. Helskog 1974a; E. Helskog 1978). Most are open-air sites lacking stratigraphy and are generally marked by a mixture of components. The sites are best characterized as a scatter of lithic tools and debitage and , occasionally , sherds of Asbestos ceramics .

2Dates designated with "bp" are in un- calibrated radiocarbon years.




Figure 6. Rock Carving of a Woman Riding a Reindeer from Bossekop in Alta.

Figure 7. Rock Carving of a Man with a Reindeer with a Possible Harness from Bossekop in Alta.




Figure 8. Rock Carving of a Reindeer Corral from Hjemmeluft in Alta.

Ground slate tools are rare finds in the interior, seemingly substantiating the impression that ground slates are associated with maritime hunting and fishing. Some semisubterranean structures have been found, particularly near Kautokeino. These are, however, enigmatic. Although three structures have been excavated (E. Helskog 1983b) and C-14 dated to the latter part of the Late Stone Age, they produced ab- solutely no artifacts and their cultural context remains a mystery. Major new surveys and excavations along the northern part of the Alta River have been undertaken during the last three years , but as yet there are few published results (Simonsen, Vorren and Aarseth 1982). Late Stone Age subsistence patterns based on coast-inland transhumance can only be poorly understood from data acquired primarily on the coast. Not only the new data from Finnmarks- vidda but also the lack of finds in the interior further south will give new insights into prehistoric socioeconomic systems in the entire region .

ROCK CARVINGS

Until the 1970s there were few known rock carving sites in Finnmark. The earlier major sites were in the provinces of Troms and

Nordland (Gjessing 1932, 1936; Simonsen 1958). In 1973, the first rock carving site at Bossekop at the base of Altafjord was discovered. Since then new carvings have been discovered, and investigated almost every year, particularly at the site of Hjemmeluft , and the area has now become one of the largest rock carving areas in northern Europe with well over 3000 recorded figures (K. Helskog 1976, 1977, 1984b, 1984c, and personal communication). Not only are individual figures of humans, animals, boats, and geometric designs represented , but also hunting, fishing, and ritual scenes. In contrast to many other rock carving sites, the Alta carvings are relatively well dated , with good chronological control over changes and continuities in form and association of the various figures (K. Helskog 1984b). The diversity of carvings represents a unique oppor- tunity to investigate both socioeconomic systems and structural /symbolic systems in prehistory .

CONCLUSIONS

Our new perspectives on the Late Stone Age of Arctic Norway are the result of both changing viewpoints and new data. Both have made




it necessary to ask new research questions, to reanalyze "old" data, and to implement new methodologies. The old monolithic chronology, although still generally in use, is beginning to be broken up , but there is , as yet , no new regional system which can replace it. The variation which is evident today indicates the proba- bility that an overall regional chronology must be able to incorporate subregional differences and chronological and geographical clines.

The socioeconomic pattern that is emerging is one of diversity and flexibility, and not just strict adaptability to ecological factors. Such flexibility requires innovative thinking and creativity in maritime fishing and hunting societies. Farming and stock raising are simply possible additions to an already diversified socioeconomic pattern. Not only was seasonal transhumance practiced, but also semipermanent or permanent coastal settlement in small house clusters from which people could both fish and hunt marine and terrestial animals.

Acknowledgements. This article is based on a seminar given while I was a Visiting Scholar at the Department of Archaeology , University of Cambridge, England. I wish to thank that department for the use of its facilities.

REFERENCES

Bailey, Geoff (editor) 1983 Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehis-

tory, A European Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bakka, E gil 1976 Arktisk og Nordisk i bronsealderen i

Nordskandinavia. Det kgl. norske Videnskabers Selskab, Museet, Miscellanea 25.

Binford, Lewis 1980 Willow Smoke and DogTs Tails:

Hunter- Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.

1983 in Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London.

Brdgger, A. W. 1909 Den arktiske stenalder i Norge.

Videnskabs-Selskabets Skrifter II. Hist. -Filos, klasse 1909. Nr. 1.

Btfe, Johannes and Anders Nummedal 1936 Le Finnmarkien. Institutt for Sam-

menlignende Kulturforskning Serie B. Skrifter XXXII.

Bdlviken, Erik, E. Helskog, K. Helskog, I. M. Holm-Olsen, L. Solheim and R. Bertelsen

1982 Correspondence Analysis: An Alter- native to Principal Components. World Archaeology 14(l):41-60.

Donner, J. , M. Eronen and H. Jungner 1977 The Dating of the Holocene Relative

Sea-Level Changes in Finnmark, North Norway. Norsk geografisk Tidsskrift 31:103-128.

1979 The Holocene Relative Sea-Level Changes in Varangerfjord , North Norway: A Reply. Norsk geografisk Tidsskrift 33:108-110.

Eliassen, Jens-Eric 1983 Fisk og fiskerier i Nord-Norge. Ottar

145:3-7.

Engelstad, Ericka 1984 Diversity in Arctic Maritime Adapta-

tions: An Example from the Late Stone Age of Arctic Norway. Acta Borealia 1(2). In Press.

Fitzhugh, William 1974 Ground Slates in the Scandinavian

Younger Stone Age with Reference to Circumpolar Maritime Adaptations. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 40:45-58.

Fitzhugh, William (editor) 1975 Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of

the Circumpolar Zone. Mouton, The Hague.

Gjessing, Gutorm 1932 Arktiske helleristninger i Nord-Norge.

Institutt for Sammenlignende Kultur- forskning, Serie B: Skrifter XXI.

1936 Nordenfjelske ristninger og malinger av den arktiske gruppe. Institutt for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning , Serie B : Skrifter XXX .

1942 Yngre steinalder i Nord-Norge. Institutt for Sammenlignende Kultur- forskning, Serie B, Skrifter XXXIX.

1944 Circumpolar Stone Age. Acta Árctica 11:1-70.

1953 The Circumpolar Stone Age. Antiquity 107:131-136.

1955 Prehistoric Social Groups in North Norway. Proceedings of the Pre- historic Society 21:84-91.




1975a Socio- archaeology. Current Anthro- pology 16(3): 323- 341.

1975b Maritime Adaptations in Northern Norway's Prehistory. In: Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circum- polar Zone y edited by W. Fitzhugh, pp. 87-100. Mouton, The Hague.

Hagen, Anders 1967 Norway. Ancient Peoples and Places

Series. Thames and Hudson, London.

Helskog, Ericka 1974 The Komsa Culture: Past and

Present. Arctic Anthropology 11 (Supplement): 261- 265.

1978 Finnmarksviddas forhistorie. In: Finnmarksvidda : natur-kultur, pp. 135-144. Norges Offentlige Utred- ninger 18A.

1983a The Iversfjord Locality: A Study of Behavioral Patterning During the Late Stone Age of Finnmark, North Norway. Tromsé Museums Skrifter XIX.

1983b Arkeologiske understfkelser ved Kautokeino, Finnmark, sommeren 1982. Rapport, Arkeologisk Avdel- ing, Tromstf Museum, Tromsd.

Helskog, Knut 1974a Stone Age Settlement Patterns in

Interior North Norway. Arctic Anthropology ll(Supplement):266- 271.

1974b Two Tests of the Prehistoric Cultural Chronology of Varanger, North Nor- way. Norwegian Archaeological Re- view 7(2): 98-103.

1976 Helleristninger ved Bossekop- et budskap fra fortidens veidefolk. Ottar 89:24-27.

1977 Et reingjerde fra steinalderen . Ottar 101:25-29.

1978a Late Holocene Sea-Level Changes Seen from Prehistoric Settlements. Norsk geografisk Tidskrift 32:111- 119.

1978b Varangers forhistorie i lys av 14C dateringer. Paper read at the Symposium in honor of the 25th anniversary of the Radio- carbon Laboratory in Trondheim, May 8-10, 1978.

1980a The Chronology of the Younger Stone Age in Varanger, North Norway, Revisited. Norwegian Archaeological Review 13(1): 47- 60.

1980b Subsistence-Economic Adaptations to the Mountain Region of Interior North Norway. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- sity of Wisconsin-Madison. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1983 Helleristninger i Alta i et tidsperspek- tiv- en geologisk og multivariabel analyse. In: Folk og Ressurser i Nord, edited by J. Sandnes, A. Kjelland and I. Osterlie, pp. 47-60. Tapirforlag, Trondheim.

1984a Younger Stone Age Settlements in Varanger, North Norway. Acta Borealia 1(1): 39- 70.

1984b Helleristningene i Alta. En presen -

tasjon og en analyse av menneske- figurene. Viking XLVII:5-41.

1984c Boats and Meaning. Acta Borealia 1(2). In Press.

Helskog, Knut and Tore Schweder n.d. The Number of Contemporaneous

Houses Seen from Radiocarbon Dates. MS. , Universitetet i Tromsd, 1984.

Hultgreen, Tora 1983 Stiurhelleren i Sir Sjona. Arbok for

Rana XVI: 113- 119.

Johansen, Olav Sverre 1976 Pfi spor etter det eldste jordbruket

i Nord-Norge II . Jordbruk alt i steinalderen? Hva kan oldsakene fortelle? Ottar 89:19-24.

1977 Stridsdkser fra steinalderen. N orden, Nord-Norges Landbruks tidsskrift 22:782-783.

1979 Early Farming North of the Arctic Circle. Norwegian Archaeological Review 12(1): 22- 32.

1982 Det eldste jordbruk i Nord-Norge, en arkeologisk oversikt. In: Intro- duksjonen av jordbrük i Norden , edited by T. Sjdvold, pp. 195-208. Det Norske Videnskapsakademi og Universitetsforlaget , Oslo.

Kelley, Robert L. 1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies.

Journal of Anthropological Research 39(3): 277- 306.




Leacock, Eleanor and Richard Lee 1982 Politics and History in Band Societies.

Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge.

Meinander, C. F. 1961 De subneolitiska kulturgrupperna i

norra Europa. Societas Scientiarum Fennica Àrsbok XXXIX B, nr.. 4:3-23.

Nummedal, Anders 1937 Yngre steinaldersfunn fra Nyelven og

Karlebotn i Ostfinnmark. Universi- tetets Oldsaksamlings Àrbok 1935- 1936:69-131.

1938 Yngre steinaldersfunn fra Nyelven og Karlebotn i Ostfinnmark II. Univer- sitetets Oldsaksamlings Àrbok 1937: 1-26.

Olsen, Haakon 1967 Osteologisk materiale, innledning:

fisk- fugl. Varan gerfunnene VI, Tromsé Museums Skrifter VII (6).

n.d.a Varan ger-funnene. Pattedyr. Unpub- lished report , Zoologisk Museum , Universitetet i Bergen, 1975.

n.d.b Sjtf og land. Unpublished report, Zoologisk Museum , Universitetet i Bergen, 1978.

Renouf, M. A. Priscilla 1981 Prehistoric Coastal Economy in

Var anger fjord, North Norway. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

1984 Northern Coastal Hunter-Fishers: An Archaeological Model. World Archaeology 16(1): 18-27.

Rowley-Conwy, Peter 1983a Sedentary Hunters: The Ertebdlle

Example. In: Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, A European Perspective , edited by G. Bailey, pp. 111-126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1983b Review of T. Sjdvold (ed): Intro- duksjonen av jordbruk i Norden and M. Zvelebil: From Forager to Farmer in the Boreal Zone. Journal of Danish Archaeology 2:205-209.

Schanche, Audhild and Bjdrnar Olsen 1983 Var de alle Nordmenn? En etno-

politisk kritikk av norsk arkeologi. Kontaktstensil 22 & 23:115- 146.

Siiriainen, Ari 1970 Archaeological Background of the

Ancient Lake Paijanne and the Geo- logical Dating o.r the Mesolithic- Neolithic Boundary in Finland. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Finland 42:119-127.

1971 Shoreline Dating of the Saràisniemi I Ceramics in Finland. Suomen Museo 78:9-19.

1972 A Gradient /Time Curve for Dating Stone Age Shorelines in Finland. Suomen Museo 79:5-18.

1973 Shore Displacement and Stone Age Chronology in Finland. Finskt Museum 80:5-22.

Simonsen, Povl 1952 Karlebotn. En steinalderby ved

Varangerfjord. Ottar 1.

1958 Arktiske helleristninger i Nord-Norge II. Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning , Serie B : Skrifter XLIX.

1960 The History of Settlement. In: Norway North of 65, edited by 0. Vorren, pp. 100-121. Tromsd Museums Skrifter VIII.

1961 Varanger-Funnene II. Fund og udgravninger p8 fjordens sydkyst. Tromsé Museums Skrifter VII (2).

1962 Nord-Norges bosetningshistorie i oldtiden. Ottar 32-33.

1963 Varanger-Funnene III. Fund og ungravninger i Pasvikdalen og ved den dstlige fjordstrand. Tromsé Museums Skrifter VII (3).

1964 Steinalderundersdkelser p8 Sdrdy i Vest-Finnmark. H&lóygminne 1964: 1-11.

1965 Settlement and Occupations in the Younger Stone Age. In: Hunting and Fishing, edited by H. Hvarfner, pp. 397-406. Norrbottens Museum.

1968 Steinalderen p8 Sdrdy. Ottar 55(1).

1970a Fortidsminner nord for Polar sirkelen. Universitetsforlaget , Oslo.

1970b North- Scandinavian, Subneolithic and Circumpolar. Actes du VII Congres International des Sciences




prehistoriques et protohistoriques , Prague, 21-27 August 1966, pp. 506- 510.

1972a The Cultural Concept in the Arctic Stone Age. In: Circumpolar Prob- lems: Habitat, Economy and Social Relations in the Arctic, edited by G. Berg, pp. 163-170. Pergamon, New York.

1972b The Transition from Food-Gathering to Pastoralism in North Scandinavia and Its Impact on Settlement Patterns. In: Man, Settlement and Urbanism, edited by P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 187-192. Duckworth, London.

1973a Jaeger og nomade i Finnmark. In: Bonde-veidemann , bofast-ikke bo fast i Nordisk forhistorie, edited by G. S. Munch and P. Simonsen, pp. 174-183. Tromsd Museums Skrifter XIV.

1973b Fra livet i Finnmark i steinalderen : om de arkeologiske utgravninger p8 Sdrdy. Forsknings Nytt 18(2): 6- 12.

1975a When and Why Did Occupational Specialization Begin at the Scandi- navian North Coast. In: Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations in the Circum- polar Zone, edited by W. Fitzhugh, pp. 75-85. Mouton, The Hague.

1975b Veidemenn p8 Nordkalotten II. Yngre steinalder. Universitet i Tromsd, Institutt for Samfunnsvitenskap , Stensilserie B- historie, Nr. 4.

1976 Steinalderens hustyper i Nord-Norge. ISKOS 1:23-25.

1979a Veidemann pa Norkalotten, hefte 3: Yngre steinalder og overgang til metaltid. Universitetet i Tromstf, Institutt for Samfunnsvitenskap , Stensilserie B- historie , Nr. 17.

1979b Stfr-Varangers eldste bosettning. In: Sir Varangers historie by Aage Lunde, pp. 17-50. Stfr Varanger kommune.

Simonsen , Povl , Ornulf Vorren and Bjtfrn Aarseth

1982 Altakraftverkene : Kulturhistoriske registreringer og vernetiltak 1981. Universitetet i Tromsd, Institutt for Museumsvirksomhet , Tromura, Kulturhistorie Nr. 2.

Utne, Astrid 1973 En veidekulturs-boplass i Lofoten,

Storbathallaren ved Nappstraumen. Unpublished Magistergradsavhandling , Universitetet i Tromsd.

1974 StorbSthallaren. Ottar 79-80:30-32.

1979 Mer om Nord-Norges tidlige februk. Ottar 115:9-11.

Vorren, Karl-Dag 1975 PS spor etter det eldste jordbruk i

Nord-Norge, I, Botanisk forskning viser jordbruk allerede i bronsealderen. Ottar 89:13-18.

1976 Et pollenanalytisk bidrag til spdrsmSlet om det eldste jordbruk i Nord-Norge. Viking XXX: 175- 195.

1979 Anthropogenic Influence on the Natural Vegetation in Coastal North Norway During the Holocene. De- velopment of Farming and Pastures. Norwegian Archaeological Review 12(1):1-21.

1983 Den eldste korndyrking i det nordlige.Norge. In: Folk o g Ressurser i Nord, edited by J. Sandnes, A. Kjelland and I. Osterlie, pp. 11-46. Tapirforlag, Trondheim.

Vorren, Karl-Dag and Eilif Nilsen 1982 Det eldste jordbruk i Nord-Norge, en

palaeodkologisk oversikt . In : Intro duksjonen av jordbruk i Norden, edited by T. Sjdvold, pp. 173-194. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi og Universitetsforlaget , Oslo.

Whitelaw, Todd 1983 People and Space in Hunter- Gatherer

Camps: A Generalizing Approach in Ethnoarchaeology . A rchaeological Review from Cambridge 2(2):48-66.

Winther, T. 1878 Om den saakaldte "arktiske G ruppe"

av Stensager, med specielt Hensyn til de i Tromsd Museum opbevarede. %rsberetning fra Foreningen til Norske Fortidsminnesmerkers bevaring 1877:105-146.



the late stone age of arctic norway: a review

Documents