Rock Procurement in the Early Neolithic in Southern Norway – Significance by Association with People and Places?

Abstract

Rocks and places of rock procurement can be sig- nificant beyond pragmatic reasons. In the Early Ne- olithic in southern Norway, specific rock types and quarries appear to have been deeply entangled in socio-political strategies that either bound people together or set people apart. Charted variations in the character of lithic procurement and distribu- tion indicate two parallel but diverging processes of “Neolithization” in the western and eastern region respectively. In the west, rhyolite from a quarry atop Mt. Siggjo was especially significant, demonstrated by the intense quarrying and wide distribution of rhyolite along the west coast. Indeed, in the west, certain quarries appear to have been regarded as nodal points, anchoring people’s sense of identity and belonging. In the east, imported flint gained a similar role because of its association with farm- ing and Funnel Beaker–related societies in south- ern Scandinavia. That is, rock was significant not only due to its physical qualities, but by its associa- tion with a specific place, social or cultural group.

Early Neolithic flint extraction in south-western Sweden: transregional practices on a local scale

“…It is important to emphasise that no earlier evidence of flint extraction is known from south-western Sweden. In contrast to the situation identified elsewhere in Europe (Nyland 2016;Edinborough et al 2021;Topping 2021), flint used for tool production before c. 4300 BC in southern Scandinavia was not mined or quarried but, rather, was collected from the surface, for example along beaches or the banks of streams where flint from limestone bedrock or moraine deposits was exposed (Knarrström 2001).…”

“…In line with Topping (2021), we see here evidence of Late Mesolithic flint extraction in a region where Early Neolithic flint mining and quarrying activities were introduced c . 4000 BC (see also discussion in Nyland 2016; Edinborough et al . 2021).…”

“…The reason for this uncertainty is that, c. 4000 BC, there was also local continuity in the extraction of flint from beach ridges. In a study of raw material extraction sites in Norway, Nyland (2016) shows that, in some places, the groups who accessed raw material sources before 4000 BC seem to be the same as those that continued to do so after 4000 BC. If, in line with Nyland's results, flint extraction at the beach ridge sites was undertaken by groups which already had a tradition of using these sites, then embodied layers of practice in place for hundreds of years was still expressed at the beach ridges, but for making a new type of axe.…”

From Tents to Pit Houses: A Quantitative Study of Dwelling Trends in Mesolithic Norway, 9500–4000 bc

“…Distinct signs of regional differences, as well as interregional contacts, are visible in much of the archaeological evidence for the period 5000-4000 cal BC (LM4-LM5) (Nyland, 2016: 258-63). There is a general increase and change in rock art; large, long-term settlement sites (albeit with few documented dwelling units) are established in coastal parts of western and south-eastern Norway (Olsen, 1992;Bergsvik, 2001); the raw materials used for ground stone axes show distinct geographical patterns in the southern regions (Bergsvik, 2006;Nyland, 2016), while polished slate artefacts and Combed Ware are introduced in the far north (Damm, 2006). The final part of the Mesolithic (which includes the early part of the Late Stone Age in northern Norway, i.e.…”

Transport Patterns as Heuristic Testing Variables for the Social Coherence of Taxonomic Units at Different Spatial Scales

“…Different classes of dynamic objects, such as lithic raw materials or mollusk shells, often show class-specific ranges of transport distances in certain periods and areas, obtained via specific modes of acquisition, such as direct procurement, exchange, or trade, thus reflecting contact on different spatial and social scales (Eriksen, 2000;Maier, 2015;Nyland, 2016;Olsen & Alsaker, 1984). However, there is no fixed relation between an object class and the social scale for which it is indicative, nor are all dynamic objects in same period and area necessarily circulated according to the same rules.…”