From
Forager to Farmer in Flint: A Lithic Analysis of the Prehistoric Transition
to Agriculture in Southern Scandinavia. by Michael Stafford.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press; 1999; 147
pages; 33 tables; 101 figures; ISBN 87 7288 742 7.
The issue of change
and transition between archaeological periods is one that has consumed
archaeologists. Indeed, opinion on what constitutes being ‘Mesolithic’
or ‘Neolithic’ is constantly being modified. The change
or transition from a foraging to an agricultural economy is poorly understood
and its causes and pace remain elusive. Part of the difficulty in attempting
to resolve the Mesolithic - Neolithic transition issue, particularly
in Ireland and Britain, is that the number of well-dated sites is small.
Denmark, however, has a wealth of very well excavated and dated archaeological
sites that span this transition period. It is clear from the Danish
evidence that there was a time lag of at least 800 years between the
availability of domesticates and the final adoption of agricultural
in Denmark. The debate now centres on finding the reason or reasons
for this time lag and addressing the issue of cultural continuity or
replacement. This book aims ‘to examine the flint materials
from a group of prehistoric settlements in Denmark that span the transition
to agriculture, evaluate how the form and production technology of stone
tools changed over this period, and determine how these changes relate
to the adoption of a food producing economy’.
The first chapter
opens with an outline of the main issues and themes that are to be addressed,
defining the ‘research problem’ and presenting the views
of other authors on the ‘adoption of agriculture’. There
appears to have been several complicating factors that have affected
previous research and could also have a biasing factor in future research.
These factors include questionable stratigraphic assemblages, the identification
of key sites with Mesolithic and Neolithic contexts, site variation
(geographical, seasonal and environmental), the degree of regionalisation
within period-specific assemblages and poor detailed information on
late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic assemblages. Following this discussion
the project undertaken by Stafford is outlined with a presentation of
the seven Åmose sites and the shell midden site at Norsminde whose
material has been the focus of this research.
The second chapter
concentrates on the cultural and theoretical framework to Stafford’s
research. A very useful synopsis of the evidence for and the current
thinking on, the Late Mesolithic Ertebølle (EBK) and Early Neolithic
Tragthbæger (TRB) cultures is presented together with a summary
of the radiocarbon dates spanning the transition period. The views of
researchers on the origins and spread of TRB into Denmark are discussed.
In addition five main reasons that have been proposed as why the transition
to domestication in southern Scandinavia is so difficult to solve in
terms of mechanisms and causal elements are discussed in detail. It
is concluded that environmental reasons, such as changes, in and availability
of, food resources now seem to have been less of a ‘prime-mover’
in the transition process than once believed. While there is no clear
evidence for population increase at the transition period, territoriality
during the Late Mesolithic is indicated by stylistic zones of lithic
material. Social inequality within Late Mesolithic groups aided by the
exchange or trade of items from more southern Neolithic farmers seems
to have been very important - possession of Neolithic items may well
have improved the social standing of individuals and prompted competition.
This chapter concludes with a review of writings on the issue of ‘transition’.
The following two
chapters present the analysis of the flint assemblages from the sites
at Åmose and Norsminde. The third chapter examines flint and flint
technology with an assessment of flint supplies and availability, and
the reduction sequences associated with particular formal tool types,
in particular axes of various types that span the transition period.
Following a brief assessment of the difficulties associated with lithic
analysis and interpretation the following chapter presents the methodological
approach to the project and explains in great detail the attribute and
other analyses undertaken.
Chapter 5 presents
a discussion of the results of the analysis and concludes with a comparison
of the Åmose and Norsminde sites. It is argued that the variability
between the assemblages from the two areas is the result of different
activities in each area, although overall there are more similarities
between the sites than differences. Certain general trends, however,
in technology from the Late Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic can be
discerned. These trends include the move away from the use of blades
to flakes for tool blanks, an increase in percentage of scrapers and
transverse arrow-points alongside the appearance of polished axe types.
The final chapter discusses
the issues brought to light by the study. The similarities and differences
between the Mesolithic and Neolithic assemblages are discussed in greater
detail. It is suggested that the decline in blade technology and production
may be related to, in some small way, a decline in supplies of antler.
It is also proposed that the Neolithic pointed-butt axe is a direct
technological derivative of the Mesolithic specialised core axe, although
the quadriface axes have no obvious precursor.
One of the problems
of attempting to identify ‘transition’ is that foraging
continued as a subsistence activity well into Neolithic times. Variation
in specific tool types is therefore difficult to identify. One major
difference between both periods is the increase in the numbers of scrapers
during the Early Neolithic and the author suggests that this might be
related to the increase in demand for more tangible goods such as hides
or furs. The shape of the scraper also changes and while this is undoubtedly
related to the shift from the use of blades to flakes it is also possible
that the demand for trade/exchange goods such as hides may have necessitated
the need for a scraper with a broader working area. It is also proposed
that the appearance of the polished stone axe may not necessarily be
connected to the appearance of agriculture and the need for forest clearance.
Indeed, the author argues that the polished axes ‘were also status-laden
emulations of scarce imported metal axes’. The author strongly
argues, on the basis of the flint analysis that an invasion of Neolithic
people into Denmark did not occur. He suggests that the arrival of ‘Neolithic’
was a gradual process within the social context of Late Mesolithic foragers
becoming increasingly competitive and status orientated and that change
was achieved by the acquisition of imported goods. Polished axes were
easily transported, but they also embodied a social message and were
therefore desirable to status-seeking foragers. Equally, domesticates
may also have held symbolic meaning, but were adopted later owing to
their less portable nature. In time the ‘novel’ status of
these items was so diminished that they had become part of everyday
life. The flint assemblages illustrate the continuity in subsistence
between the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic, while the different
tool types (particularly scrapers) suggest the production of valuable
local goods that were exchanged for goods such as axes. The author argues
that it is with the arrival of these first foreign objects that the
Neolithic really began and so the transition from foraging to farming
was a symbolic and economic transformation rather than one based on
subsistence.
One flaw in the presentation
of the work is the inconsistent use of radiocarbon years and calibrated
years at the beginning of the book. Overall, however, this book will
be of great interest to anyone working in the fields of Mesolithic and
Neolithic studies and anyone with a keen interest in lithic studies.
It provides an up-to-date synopsis of the arguments for the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition in southern Scandinavia and gives food for thought in terms
of the Irish and British evidence.
Sinéad McCartan
Department of Archaeology & Ethnography
Ulster Museum
Belfast
Review Submitted: February 2003
The views expressed in this review are not
necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|