Working with water in prehistory

Working with water in
Prehistory
A biographical approach to watercraft
technologies in the Mesolithic of Denmark

Mesolithic Studies Masters
Department of Archaeology
University of York
September 2014


Abstract
It has long been known that marine resources and watercraft technology made up an
important part of Mesolithic subsistence practices, especially in Denmark. This
dissertation joins artefact biography with the theory of taskscape to explore two
organic watercraft artefacts found at the site of Tybrind Vig, Denmark. The joining
of these two methods allows for the exploration of the knowledge that would have
been needed to create and use an object. This information allows for a more holistic,
human inclusive interpretation, showing the true complexity of hunter-gatherer
lifestyle and society, as well as the shifting meaning of the object.

1


Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 1
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Aim of Thesis ..................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Interpretation and the discourse ......................................................................... 6

1.3 Aims and chapter outline ................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: The Mesolithic, Danish Archaeology, and Tybrind Vig .......................... 11
2.1 The Mesolithic and Archaeology ..................................................................... 11
2.2 The Mesolithic: Current Understanding........................................................... 16
2.3 The site of Tybrind Vig, Denmark ................................................................... 19
2.3 Use of Ethnography.......................................................................................... 25
Chapter 3: Understanding artefacts ............................................................................ 27
3.1 Material Culture and Identity ........................................................................... 27
3.2 Taskscape ......................................................................................................... 30
3.2 Object Biographies ........................................................................................... 34
Chapter 4: Tybrind 1 2033 BXA ................................................................................ 39
4.1 Current understanding ...................................................................................... 39
4.2 Reconstruction.................................................................................................. 40
4.3 Dugout creation from raw material .................................................................. 42
4.4 Representation, conservation and preservation. ............................................... 46
Chapter 5: Oar blade 2033 BSS ................................................................................ 47
5.1 Oar creation from raw material ........................................................................ 48
Chapter 6: Conclusion ................................................................................................ 53
Bibliography............................................................................................................... 56

2


List of Figures
Figure 1: The isostatic tilt line marked with the dotted line, south of the line is
sinking, north of the line is rising. The Åmose bog area is represented by a rectangle.
Tybrind Vig is located with a star. (Andersen 1995, 42). .......................................... 18
Figure 2: Upper image: the settlement as in the Mesolithic. Middle image: the
settlement eroded as sea level rises. Lower image: divers discovering artefacts.
(Malm 1995). ............................................................................................................. 19

Figure 3: Table showing the level of difference in levels of isotope 13ͨ in humans
from the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Mesolithic diet consisted of mainly marine
resources. (Fischer 2007, 65: Fig 5.18). ..................................................................... 23
Figure 4: Present coastline and land represented by lighter shaded area. Old coastline
represented by darker cross hatched area, with the sea to the west. .......................... 24
Figure 5: the top diagram represents the post-industrial perception of environment;
the bottom diagram represents the hunter-gatherer perception of environment (Ingold
2000, 46). ................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 6: Visualisation of the foundations of perception. (Author’s own) ................ 32
Figure 7: Visualisation of the cyclical nature of perception. (Author’s own) ........... 32
Figure 8: Tybrind 1 (image: Beuker & Niekus 1997). ............................................... 40
Figure 9: technique used to create reconstruction of dugout canoe (Christensen 1990,
136: figure 20). ........................................................................................................... 41
Figure 10: The finished dugout reconstruction (Christensen 1990, 138: figure 25). . 41
Figure 11: considerations when making a canoe from raw material. (Author’s own).
.................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 12: example of a complete oar blade found at Tybrind Vig (Andersen 1986,
100: Figure 19). .......................................................................................................... 47
Figure 13: considerations when making an oar from raw material. (Author’s own). 48
Figure 14: Oar blade 2033 BSS (Andersen 1986, 102: Figure 21). ........................... 50

3


Acknowledgments
Thank you to my mother, Ingrid O’Mahoney, without whom my masters would not
have been possible and my sister, Imogen O’Mahoney, whose continued support
kept me afloat. My supervisor, Dr Hayley Saul, whose enthusiasm and guidance
were shining stars in a sometimes dark sky. The friends, new and old, who cheered
me on my way, helping me to reach the finish line.

4


Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Aim of Thesis
Since the 1980s archaeologists have been increasingly frustrated with a view of
hunter-gatherer societies as simple and it has become important to explore ways in
which the complexity of hunter-gatherer society and their relationship with the
environment can be conveyed. Denmark is of particular interest because the
archaeological record shows a later adoption of agriculture (c. 3,000 BC) compared
to other areas of Europe (Grøn 1998; Rowley-Conwy 2001; Troels-Smith 2002).
Indeed certain hunter-gatherer groups in Denmark were even within communicable
distance of agricultural groups, but still continued to practice a hunter-gatherer
lifestyle despite the opportunity to become farmers (Layton 2001; Troels-Smith
2002). Most often farming is seen as a progressive rung on the ladder of social
evolution, a step to a more complex and intentional, or choice driven, society
(Thomas 1993; 390; Troels-Smith 2002; 137), and such a lag could be explained by
the retention of complex system of heritage values. I would argue against this view
of seeing social change as progressive, urging instead that it required communities to
undergo a change of perception and therefore identity. This thesis builds on a
growing body of applications that use taskscape theory as a basis for interpretation
(Van Hove 2004; Sturt 2006; Walker 2011), but applies this technique to watercraft
technology which have been under-explored to date. Watercraft technologies were
instrumental in maintaining Mesolithic economy, and there is evidence to suggest
their importance in the socio-ideological framework of Mesolithic communities in
southern Scandinavia. Taskscape emerges from the notion of habitus (Ingold 2000),
understanding how a human experiences the world around them through their past
and current experience, from these experiences a sense of identity is built. Taskscape
theory will be used in conjunction with a biographical approach which reconstructs

the life-cycle of the artefact – choices and decisions made during manufacture, use,
repair, deposition, discovery and current whereabouts. These techniques allow the
exploration of an artefact’s shifting meaning in the context of social life in
Mesolithic Denmark (11,500-3,950 BC) to its current meaning as an artefact. With
this in mind this thesis asks: how was watercraft technology valued in the aquatic
food dependent culture of Mesolithic southern Scandinavia?
5


1.2 Interpretation and the discourse
To create an interpretation is an intentional act. To create an object is an intentional
act. It requires information, choices and decision making. Whilst it cannot be argued
that the change from hunter-gatherer to agricultural evidence in the record does not
denote a shift in society, it can be argued that the change is not necessarily a
realisation of intention towards the earth, rather a different way of representing
choices and decisions towards the earth, the environment, society and individuals. It
has been argued that the monuments of the Neolithic, which can be seen across space
and time, are evidence of human intention (Criado 1995, 197-198). Recent
ethnographic studies and new archaeological evidence show that intention can be
represented differently (cf. Grøn and Kuznetsov 2003; Jordan 2003; Zvelebil 2003).
Difference does not make other communities better or worse, complex or simple,
civilised or barbaric, it just makes them different. Much of Mesolithic archaeology is
ephemeral, interpretations once founded on lithic scatters, can now be enhanced by
the excavation of submerged or water logged sites, known since the early 1800s
these sites were often left un-investigated due to the expense of excavation (Malm
1995). However, these sites are rich in organic objects, which represent choices and
decision making in a daily practice. Organic technology shows a far more complex
and advanced society than once assumed. It is often suggested that past huntergatherers lived as they had evolved to live, more as animals within the world (Clark
1972, 15). However, this disregards choices and decision making. The decision to
live as part of the earth, the choice to make things from the earth that can be returned

to the earth. The late adoption/adaption to farming in some areas of the world,
including Denmark could be interpreted as a decision, a conscious choice to continue
a practice that allows you to live within the environment, rather than adopting new
life-skills which would not only change or damage the environment, but also change
or mutate the social and individual identity of a person.

Schiffer (2000, 11) uses the term ‘humanistic archaeology’ to define interpretations
that attempt to connect to the humans of the past. I would argue that the definition of
archaeology (as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary) is ‘the study of human
history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artefacts
and other physical remains’. This dissertation focuses on the human aspect of the
6


material object, the knowledge, understanding and activities which were needed to
complete, use, and deposit an object. However, I do not denote it as humanistic
archaeology, only archaeology if the original definition is considered. The study of
artefacts has obscured people and I would call for revival of human led study. The
interpretations created from the proposed method hopefully moving forward ideas,
and theories, concerning Mesolithic society, culture and people. Watercraft itself is
seen as an integral part of Danish Mesolithic subsistence practice (Troels-Smith
2002, 137; Fischer 2007, 67; Warren 2014, 544-545), rather than exploring the
functional aspects of watercraft this thesis aims to look at the information a human
would need to create and use such artefacts. The examining of this aspect will allow
for a wider network to be built concerning cultural communication.

Thomas (1993) suggests that discourse on the Neolithic has been limited and has
also created a way to control how data is interpreted. Thomas sees the discourse as
having built an intrinsic idea of the Neolithic which means that interpreting outside
of these set perimeters can be nearly impossible. Therefore, the discourse has

become stagnant, stopping the creation of new ways of interpreting, seeing,
understanding, and perceiving the past. Though the interpretations concerning the
Mesolithic have moved past certain theories, such as Europe having been
uninhabited at the time (Burkitt 1979, i) or technological regression (Clark 1954),
particular interpretations, such as simple social bands; nomadic and seasonal huntergatherers with a lithic centred culture, are seemingly ingrained within Mesolithic
discussions (Jordan 2003, 128; Zvelebil 2003, 65; Milner & Woodman 2005, 4;
Spikins 2008, 2). The use of simple effectively downgrades the hunter-gatherers,
they are of nature, which we have somehow separated ourselves from, we have
progressed (Criado 1995, 196). This seems to understate the complexity of
Mesolithic society and culture (Moore 2003, 143). However, with discoveries such
as the well-preserved sites of Tybrind Vig (Andersen 1986; 1987; 1994; 2011; Malm
1995; Kubiak-Martens 1999; Uldum 2011), Star Carr (Clark 1954; Milner et al
2011) and many other Mesolithic sites around Europe (Price 1987; Bailey & Spikens
2008), as well as a general and more open change of religious thought theoretical
paradigms, such as artefact biographies, have developed to examine these detailed
organic datasets and bring about high-resolution interpretations.
7


1.3 Aims and chapter outline
Artefact biographies have developed as a method of enquiry to counter many of the
critiques outlined above. The life of an object as an artefact begins at its discovery.
Archaeologists create a past life for the artefact. We use the information gained from
material culture to create a past life for the object to form interpretations regarding
human behaviour in the past (Torrence 2001, 73). This dissertation will explore an
artefact using a biographical method, examining the current data available and
asking questions concerning what knowledge a person would need to create an
object from raw material. The aim is to create interpretations that are broader and
more holistic, connecting modern people to past people using material culture as a
medium. The biography will focus on two artefacts, a dugout canoe and an oar, from

the submerged site of Tybrind Vig in Denmark.

This dissertation aims to answer the question: how was watercraft technology valued
socio-economically and ideologically in the aquatic food dependent culture of
Mesolithic southern Scandinavia?

In order to meet this aim, the objectives of this dissertation are to explore:
1. What knowledge is needed to create key watercraft technologies from raw
materials?
2. What knowledge is needed to use the objects created?
3. How knowledge and decision-making with regard to watercraft technology
were valued in Mesolithic social life, and may have contributed to a heritage
of aquatic craft-retention in the face of wider changes to subsistence
economy?

Layton (2006, 40) states ‘Archaeology needs to develop systematic procedures for
assessing reconstructions of meanings from past cultures’. The objective is to use a
biographical method as a systematic way of investigating cultural knowledge, as well
as a way to review and re-evaluate current interpretations. This method also
highlights the extent of control archaeologists have over the information that is
created and represented to the discipline and most importantly the public (Buchli

8


1995, 193; Carmen 1995, 99; Lucas 1995, 38; Shanks & Hodder 1995, 16, 20;
Thomas 1996, 19), hoping to create a more reflexive archaeological discussion of the
Mesolithic to broaden, deepen and create a more encompassing discourse ensuring
the continued exploration of the Mesolithic (Coles 1987, 1). This method is being
applied to organic material as this is a particular area in which the Mesolithic lacks

in-depth study, many studies focus on the functional aspect of an artefact. In
ethnographic studies organic material used for watercraft is often seen as a bridge
between the land and the water by those who use it, those who use it being a medium
by which these two aspects of the environment are joined (Munn 1977; 41). In
addition to lithics, watercraft technology is an essential contributor to subsistence
practices and thus past people’s taskscape and their identity. However, this approach
can easily be applied to more than watercraft technology. The aim of interpretation
should be to connect us to the people of the past and not to the artefacts themselves.

Chapter two explores the changing theories and interpretations concerning the
Mesolithic within archaeology, with a focus on organic watercraft technology,
evaluating Denmark’s contribution to the discourse. The site of Tybrind Vig, the
interpretations, and its contribution to the wider debate is also evaluated. A short
section looks at the history and use of ethnographic analogy, examining the issues
that have a risen and its current use.

Chapter three will review the literature concerning the biographical approach to
objects; the strengths and weakness of the approach, and will examine some of the
difficulties faced when looking at prehistoric objects, which are given to us with no
social context. The aim is to explore ways in which a biographical approach joined
with taskscape can connect the people of the past to those of today. It is hoped this
will be achieved by understanding the activities humans would have undertaken to
complete an object in the past.

Chapter four and five describe the biography of a dugout canoe and a decorated oar
from the site of Tybrind Vig, and show how these artefact histories were integrated
into the social landscape of the site, through the tasks they were enrolled in. The aim
is to show that by scrutinising an artefact and asking questions regarding the human
9

participation in the creation of material culture important information can be gained
concerning human understanding and knowledge concerning their daily lives, the
way in which they are incorporated into the world. The biography will also review
the current interpretations and explore the ways in which these can be broadened,
followed by a short section exploring their current resting place and the future of the
artefacts. Chapter six discusses the implications of the values of watercraft
technology in the Mesolithic of Denmark, as well as looking at possible future study.

10


Chapter 2: The Mesolithic, Danish Archaeology, and
Tybrind Vig
Mesolithic archaeology has a long history of debate, even before the period was
named (Rowley-Conwy 1996; Milner & Woodman 2005). What has been most
notable is that through these debates one definite fact has struck archaeologists:
coastal, marine and water resources were important to Stone Age people, with the
Mesolithic having a particular connection to watercraft technology made from
organic materials, especially in Denmark (Andersen 1987, 271; Coles 1987, 2).
Ethnographic analogies have also been strongly applied to this area of archaeology,
with Scandinavian archaeology leading the way in this (Trigger 2006, 130; RowleyConwy 2007, 50); though not always successful the aim of use was always to
broaden interpretations. This chapter offers a brief look at some of the main debates
surrounding the Mesolithic, Danish and Scandinavian archaeology, as well as taking
a closer look at the site of Tybrind Vig itself. A short section outlines the issues
surrounding ethnographic use, which should not be used as a straight analogy but as
just one part of a more holistic approach to interpretation (Lane 2006, 417; Trigger
2006, 130, 357).

2.1 The Mesolithic and Archaeology

At the beginning of the 19th century the terms Palaeolithic and Neolithic had been
realised, but as research and archaeological evidence was discovered and the use of
geological dating became more common it was apparent that in some areas there was
a period of change between the Palaeolithic and Neolithic. However these
discussions were most often based on lithic finds and scatters. Mesolithic stone tools
were seen as a step down, a cultural regression after the stone tools and art of the
Palaeolithic (Conkey 2001, 268). One theory interpreted Europe as being
uninhabited after the Palaeolithic to be re-inhabited by farmers in the Neolithic
(Burkitt 1979, i; Clark 1972, 15; Milner & Woodman 2005, 4). However, the body
of evidence was growing, with deposits being notably found on coastal areas (e.g.
Scotland – Jacobi 1978; Mellars & Andrews 1987; Portugal and Spain – Gonzalez
Morales & Martinez 2005; Straus et al 2002; Straus 2008; Poland – Sulgostowska
11


2006) and wetland sites (e.g. Star Carr, UK – Clark 1954; 1972; Åmose, Denmark
Noe-Nygaard 1983).

The early study of the Mesolithic centred on creating a definition, this sparked more
discussion within the discourse concerning aging of artefacts and the understanding
of cultural progression (Rowley-Conwy 1996; Milner & Woodman 2005; Cummings
2014, 441-444). A larger issue was the biased towards Palaeolithic or Neolithic
archaeology within the discipline. However, Scandinavia was one of the forerunners
in the understanding and study of what is now called Mesolithic Archaeology.
Scandinavian research of Stone Age artefacts has a long history and their early links
with the Mesolithic, if in archaeology and not terminology, makes it one of the most
studied areas of the world for Mesolithic archaeology (Price 1991, 213; Warren
2014, 545-546).

During the 19th century wars and the intensifying of agricultural practices damaged

many important monuments in Denmark. However, it also facilitated the uncovering
of many prehistoric artefacts (Rowley-Conwy 2007, 32). These artefacts were
affected by the predominant Christian beliefs of the time, and viewed as artefacts of
a heathen past. Prehistory was a short era before the refinement of the more classical
civilisations (e.g. Greeks, Romans) (Jensen 2003, 1). However, as Denmark had
been untouched by such civilisations their interest in prehistory abounded, and
established their academics at the forefront of prehistoric, and currently Mesolithic,
studies. Joining with Swedish archaeologists, Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (17881865), a Danish antiquarian, promoted the three age system to classify prehistoric
artefacts. This system is still in use today (Trigger 1989, 73-80, 161; Rowley-Conwy
2007, 36). Another Danish antiquarian Sven Nilsson was one of the first to use
explorers’ discoveries of indigenous communities to link stone tool artefacts with
those of the indigenous hunter-gatherers (Coles 1987, 2; Trigger 1989, 86, 161;
Rowley-Conwy 2007, 50). Scandinavian archaeologists frequently publish in
English, thus their work becoming more accessible to the rest of the discipline, as
well as exploring experimental techniques to study ways in which artefacts were
created and used. These factors have allowed more regional studies of the area,
creating larger pictures of communities and the shift and changes within these
12


communities, supposedly of the same culture. However, the study of prehistory was
extremely lithic based, something the Mesolithic still suffers from today (Conkey
2001, 276; Cobb 2014, 1213; Jordan & Cummings 2014, 18; cf. Finlay 2003;
Warren 2006).

It was not until the middle 20th century with the championing of Grahame Clark
(1954), a student of Gordon Childe both prominent archaeologists of their day, and
the excavation of Star Carr that the term Mesolithic really took a hold within the
discipline (Milner & Woodman 2005; Rowley-Conwy 2007). Clark’s work at Star
Carr was a beginning for further Mesolithic study; however, Clark was also heavily

influenced by Scandinavian, particularly Danish, archaeological methods (Clark
1954, 8). Economics, seasonality and functional tool use most often related to
environmental change were, and continue to be, important research questions during
this time (Spikins 2008). Starr Carr fitted with the predominant theories and became
a type-site for the Mesolithic in the UK and areas of Europe. Many of the
interpretations created at this time, such as small, nomadic, bands of hunter-gatherers
that moved seasonally taking advantage of available resources as they went, were
still prominent within Mesolithic discussions up until recently and can still permeate
into interpretations now (Trigger 1989; Jordan 2003, 128; Spikins 2008; Schofield et
al 2011). However, what Star Carr did highlight and still continues to show today is
the importance of organic technology to past people (Clark 1954; Milner et al 2011;
Conneller et al 2012).

The 1960s were a time of industrial change in many European countries and
Denmark was no exception, changes to the structure of excavation, study and theory
took hold. The 1960s became a decade of change and new ideas, strongly reflecting
positivist, Marxist and structuralist theories. Changes in legislation meant that sites
and monuments of archaeological significance were now protected under law. It was
also during this time that research started to ask questions concerning the importance
of the environment and the landscape that people inhabited. How did these influence
past people’s economy and their resources, and what part did this play in their life
and social organisation (Jensen 2003, xvii, 3, 5).

13


During the 1970s there was a shift in Mesolithic studies to researching the
environment, understanding the climatic changes and linking this to the evidence
being found. Binford’s (1962; 1968; Binford & Quimby 1972) work in the
anthropologically based archaeology of America heavily influenced the wave of

New Archaeology (Processualism) which moved across the UK and much of Europe.
Archaeological research itself became focused on scientific analysis and mainly
looked at how technology was affected by dramatic changes in the climate, how
people sustained themselves and seasonality of site use. Understanding food in a
functional and economic sense, studying the calorific intake and comparing this to
the calorific out-take of gaining resources. Hunter-gatherers were viewed more as
feeding machines, moving from one area of resource to the next, rather than people
of emotional, as well as physical, resources and needs (Spikins 2008; Cummings
2014, 441-444). The existence of the Mesolithic and its research was championed,
the Mesolithic people were not: ‘Yet if human behaviour, even the behaviour of
people at the rather elementary level of technology with which we are here
concerned.’ (Clark 1972, 15). ‘if only to ensure the viability of the population as a
breeding unit’ (Mellars & Andrews 1987, 3). These quotes from prominent
archaeologists and Mesolithic researchers even up into the late 1980s show the
feelings towards the people of the Mesolithic, where their technology (conclusion
based on mainly lithics) equated to simple behaviour (Clark 1972, 15) and living on
an island (Oronsay) meant they curbed their ability to breed (Mellars & Andrews
1987, 3) as if the population were 1) only there to sustain human population and 2)
living on an island completely aware that they needed to breed and continue human
kind. These completely negate the organic technology that was used as well as the
way humans identify themselves. However, this period did leave the discipline with
a wealth of data that focused on the food of past people (Mellars & Andrews 1987;
Noe-Nygaard 1983; Enghoff 1989; 1995). This research demonstrated the
importance of marine resources and provided a context for further research
concerning subsistence practices and changes (Richards & Schulting 2006; Fischer et
al 2007) including this thesis. These studies also highlighted the importance of
marine and aquatic food to the people of the Mesolithic, creating discussion
concerning the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and whether marine resources
continued to be of importance. These discussions have led to further interpretations

14


concerning the adoption of farming, did this happen through people communicating
or through colonisation (Blankholm 2008).

However, during the 1980s and 1990s research began to shift, the phenomenological
approach popular with Neolithic archaeology began to look at and move into the
Mesolithic discourse (Moore 2003; Thomas 2000; 2006). Binford’s (1978) work
with Inuit and Shostak’s (1981) work with the !Kung became particularly popular,
studying ethnographic parallels and creating analogies for the archaeological
evidence being uncovered (a further discussion of the use of ethnographic studies is
covered in a later section). With ethnographic analogy allowing for broader
interpretations and with the discovery of cemetery sites across Northern Europe,
such as Skateholm, Sweden (cf. Fahlander 2008), and Oleneostrovski Mogilnik,
Northern Russia (cf. O’Shea & Zvelebil 1984), interpretations were changing as
‘burials and monuments are so often the only measures of social complexity’ (Moore
2003, 143). This assumption allowed technology to be categorised as functional and
only for economic use, negating the need to study its wider impact on social
interaction.

Environmental studies continued, however, evolving from purely climatic and
resource focused research, into more phenomenological understanding of the
environment (Grøn & Kuznetsov 2003; Jordan 2003; Zvelebil 2003; Spikens 2008).
An exploration of how past people were socially and spatially organised,
encompassing an interest in everyday practice and ideology of past people also
became popular (Grøn 1998). An issue with phenomenological theory is the way in
which it focuses on how we are creators of interpretations and archaeological
narrative. Phenomenological studies can become more situated in the present and
create archaeology as a form of theatre, though this reinvigorates interest in areas,

sites and artefacts from the past, it does not necessarily further understanding
concerning past people. The past becomes locked within a cycle of only being
presented through modern ideals and therefore continually questions the validity of
the discourse and interpretations (Fleming 2006, 268). This study hopes to walk the
middle line between the already acknowledged scientific understanding and the way

15


a phenomenologically based theory allows us to review the past and connect to past
humans with an exploration of knowledge.

2.2 The Mesolithic: Current Understanding
The Holocene, the geological term for the epoch the earth is currently in, began
11,500 BP. During this time the warming of the earth and receding of the ice caps, as
well as the melting of landlocked glaciers, which had held a large amount of the
earth’s water, caused worldwide sea level change, as well as flooding. The north of
Europe saw a large amount of change with the flooding of Doggerland, or as it is
now known the North Sea (Gaffney et al 2009; Warren 2014, 537-538). These
changes in the landscape affected already embedded hunter-gatherer groups across
the globe, taking away areas of the environment with the rising sea level, but
uncovering other areas with the receding of the ice. The change not only affected
humans but also the fauna and flora of the earth, animals previously hunted in the
Palaeolithic, such as mammoth were extinct, with populations of other animals, such
as deer, moving into and populating more areas (Cummings 2014, 439-441).
Societies in all areas would have experienced change in their landscape.
Archaeological and paleo environmental evidence shows the Mesolithic is less an
intermediary between the Palaeolithic and Neolithic, but a period of worldwide
environmental change with strong indication of human ingenuity and adaptability in
social organisation and technological ability, as well as a continuation of practices of

domestication already evidenced in certain areas during the Palaeolithic (TroelsSmith 2002; Cummings 2014, 437-439).

The current understanding concerning human habitation in Denmark is that it was
not continuously inhabited until the end of the last ice age, when the withdrawal of
the covering ice freed the western land mass. The pressure and subsequent
withdrawal of the ice is still effecting the land today, with the north west
experiencing isostatic lift making the coastline of the past more inland and the south
east experiencing isostatic drop, effectively sinking the area (Figure 1; Andersen
1995, 42). The retraction of the ice and the warming climate allowed virgin forest to
take hold at the beginning of the Mesolithic, with the environment and landscape
16


becoming less variable towards the end, creating a more recognisable image, similar
to that of modern Denmark (Jensen 2003, 11). During the beginning of the
Mesolithic the pioneer trees were pine and pine-birch, however as the climate and
landscape changed, a mixture of elm (Ulmus), hazel (Corylus avellana), oak
(Quercus), lime (Tilia sp.) and ash (Fraxinus ex.) over took the forested areas
(Kubiak-Martens 1999, 117). The rising sea level, coupled with the isostatic drop
meant that the coastline was never far away, the forest covering the land was thought
to be dense encouraging humans to move and inhabit the coastal areas, as well as
inland wet sites.

Inland sites have so far been discovered around large lakes, or wet land sites, such as
bogs and fenland. The Åmose bog, Denmark (Figure 1), has c. 100 sites situated in
and around what used to be a lake, with a small river, or stream, passing through it
(Noe-Nygaard 1983, 125). Though fewer than twenty of the sites have been
excavated, there is clear evidence from those excavated that inland people relied
heavily on fish, oysters (Ostrea edulis), mussels (Mytilus edulis) and cockles
(Cerastoderma edulis). Two dog burials were found at the site of Præstelyngen,

Åmose. One was tested for its carbon 13 content and dated to c. 3300 BC; the test
found it within range for terrestrial food values (Noe-Nygaard 1983, 139). Whilst we
must be careful when drawing conclusions concerning human diet from dog bones,
the discovery of fragmented red deer bones with a minimum number of individuals
estimated at 9, shows that terrestrial resources were being hunted and eaten (NoeNygaard 1983, 127).

The coastal site of Norsminde (Figure 1, Norsminde Fjord), is a site showing
Mesolithic and Neolithic occupation with dates from the late Mesolithic, c. 3500 BC,
into the early Neolithic, c. 2800 BC (Enghoff 1989, 42). The site was situated by a
small spring, which seems to have been the only possible fresh water resource in the
area (Enghoff 1989, 41). Over 8900 bones of fish from c. 22 species have been
recovered from shell middens at the site, showing the variety of fish that were caught
and eaten, as well as a reliance on oysters (Ostrea edulis). However, it is important
to note that not one bone from a freshwater fish was recovered at Norsminde, either
they are not present in the shell midden because they were not eaten or they were
17


placed somewhere else (Enghoff 1989, 49). The fact that none were found strongly
suggests they were not eaten at this site and the variety of marine resources were
either enough for those inhabiting Norsminde or were not available in the area.

West of Norsminde is the site of Ringkloster, an inland lake site dated to c. 41104460 BC (Enghoff 1995, 99). At Ringkloster freshwater dominate the excavated
bones; however, there is evidence of marine species, including Bottle-nosed Dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus). Many hazel sticks have been excavated from what would have
been the bottom of the lake, a strong indication that fish weirs were being used to
direct and catch fish (Enghoff 1995, 104). The evidence points to either contact with
coastal groups or groups going to the coast to fish for marine species. It is difficult to
fully interpret this action, but may in fact point to communication between groups, it
is unlikely that inland groups would not know of coastal groups, as well as species

possibly being collected for particular meals and cuisine. However, the evidence is
interpreted the main interpretation is that aquatic resources were part of the staple
diet of Mesolithic people in Denmark.

Figure 1: The isostatic tilt line marked with the dotted line, south of the line is sinking, north of
the line is rising. The Åmose bog area is represented by a rectangle. Tybrind Vig is located with
a star. (Andersen 1995, 42).

18


2.3 The site of Tybrind Vig, Denmark
During the 19th century many artefacts were collected from the Danish coast and
given to museums (Malm 1995; Fischer 2007). As industrialisation continued to
grow in the 20th century more and more artefacts were being found during
commercial endeavour (e.g. chemical extraction). However, many of the finds,
especially from submerged areas, were of organic material. Whilst flint has always
survived well, especially on land, and has come to dominate Mesolithic study, the
artefacts from the sea where showing more and more organic technology (Fischer
2007). Submerged areas close to the coastline are often covered with a thick muddy
layer referred to as gyttja, the gyttja deposit helps to seal, preserve and protect the
artefacts. However, an issue with submerged sites is that due to the change in sea
level, the original land/settlement area has often been eroded away, leaving the
original underwater area intact (Figure 2). Tybrind Vig is one such site (Andersen
1984, 315). Areas with material that have been identified as over 100 years old are
documented and protected. Construction work must be checked against this
documentation before being allowed (Malm 1995; Fischer 2007, 55).

Figure 2: Upper image: the settlement as in the Mesolithic. Middle image: the settlement eroded
as sea level rises. Lower image: divers discovering artefacts. (Malm 1995).

19


The area surrounding Tybrind Vig was already known as a place of interest as two
divers, also amateur archaeologists, had collected over 500 artefacts only 500m away
from where the excavation took place (Albrectsen 1959 as cited by Malm 1995). In
1975 further divers and amateur archaeologists dived where the excavation was to
take place, the following year they returned as the “Marine-archaeological group” as
well as having contacted Assistant Professor Søren H. Andersen from the Århus
University, with proper excavation being undertaken seasonally from 1978 to 1988
(Malm 1995). Submerged excavation is not without its difficulties as well as its
expense. The gains, however, are seen within the finds recovered. In the beginning
years many of the team were volunteer divers with an interest in archaeology, the
excavation was not only an education to them, but to archaeologists as well, many of
whom had little experience with diving and underwater excavation. It was the
commitment showed by people involved that really allowed the site to be excavated.
This commitment has led to many amazing discoveries, as well as a furthering in
techniques involving marine archaeology (Andersen 1984; 1985; Malm 1995).

The site of Tybrind Vig is in Western Fyn, Denmark (Figure 1) and lies under 2.53m of water, 250m away from the current coastline (Andersen 1984, 314). The
artefacts range from 5,600-4,000 BC showing that the site was either revisited or
could have been continuously used during this period. The site’s submersion
preserved many organic artefacts; however, it was partially eroded by tidal action,
taking away much of what would be considered the settlement area of the site
(Figure 2; Andersen 1984, 315; Malm 1995). It is one of many submerged
Mesolithic sites that show that humanity’s ingenuity is not just tied to the creation of
stone tools. The Mesolithic can no longer be joined with the idea of technological
regression, submerged sites allow for impressive organic preservation and this is
where the Mesolithic technology shows its true colours (Andersen 1987, 263, 266;

1994, 1; Kubiak-Martens 1999, 117). Submerged sites should not be used solely for
interpretation, but in conjunction with dry sites (Coles 1987, 1, 19; e.g. Noe-Nygaard
1983; Fischer 2007). The excavation of Tybrind Vig would introduce new standards
and experiment with new techniques that are still used to excavate submerged
archaeology today (Andersen 1987).

20


To excavate the site a raft was first borrowed from a nearby harbour and later one
was constructed by the divers themselves. The raft is now seen as an essential piece
of equipment when undertaking an underwater excavation (Andersen 1984, 314;
Malm 1995). The sea floor was then split into sections, using ranging poles and large
nails, as well as a spirit level. Each person excavated their own square metre at a
time. In 1986 a section rail was introduced, a frame 80cm wide by 10m long was a
stable reference, that sat on the sea floor and could be levelled. The frame itself
could hold equipment and had rods with plumb bobs protruding over the layer being
excavated. The section rail greatly improved the precision of recording, also
allowing for quicker excavation. A pump was used to help with the issues of
visibility; muddy water that was pumped away from the site and put through a
serious of sieves, which allowed the collection of small finds (Malm 1995).

Many artefacts were uncovered that would be associated with fishing: line and hook
fishing, spear fishing, fish weirs which aim to direct fish, as well as fish traps, all of
which were made of organic material. There was also evidence of textiles in the
discovery of a small find of spun plant fibres that had been needle-netted together
(Andersen 1985, 68 as cited by Malm 1995). Three dugout canoes were also found,
all three have evidence for a clay “fireplace” which Malm (1995) wishes to
reinterpret as “ember places” due to the danger of having an open flame on a wooden
boat. Oars, made from complete pieces of Ash (Fraxinus ex.), were also uncovered,

not only were there examples of complete oars, but there were also decorated oars;
this was the first time that decorated wood had been discovered at a Danish
Mesolithic site (Andersen 1987, 276; Andersen 1994, 1). A grave containing a young
woman and a child was also uncovered. It was dated to 6,440 BP which is thought to
be the early Ertebølle culture. Bones from other skeletons were also found, however,
these were stray finds, either they had not been buried or the burials had been eroded
and disturbed (Andersen 1984, 317; Uldum 2011).

The discovery, and stable carbon isotope 13 testing, of human skeletal remains found
at the site illustrates how important marine resources were to the diet, and how the
artefacts and finds played a major role in the inhabitant’s subsistence practices. The
isotope analysis of the bones showed that fish, shellfish and even seal were all
21


consumed by the individual (Andersen 1987, 265). Though faunal remains were
found at the site, these were not broken for marrow. Small fur bearing animals have
little evidence of butchery marks, but exhibit those of skinning, with slight cut marks
on the lower limbs and around the skull (Andersen 1987, 266), if the animals were
indeed killed for just their fur and not eaten, this could indicate a prosperous
community who either do not need to eat small game, as they are not wanting for
food, only seeing these animals as sources of fur and not food or use smaller animals
as part of particular dishes. The remains were often whole skeletons with parts still
articulated, therefore it is more likely that small animals were caught for their fur,
rather than eaten. Though the influence of nearby agrarian societies shows in slight
changes of technology and the techniques with which the technology is used, such as
the adoption of pottery before the adoption of agriculture in Denmark in the late
Mesolithic (Troels-Smith 2002, 137). It seems people were adopting the ideas that
would help with their traditional mode of economy, rather than completely adapting
to the farming ideal (Troels-Smith 2002; Jensen 2003, 51).

There is a clear difference between the stable carbon 13 isotope enrichment of
hunter-gatherers and agriculturists remains from Denmark, with hunter-gatherers
showing greater carbon 13 enrichment indicative of a reliance on marine resources
(Fischer 2007, 65; Figure 3). The structure of deposition of faunal remains found at
Tybrind Vig, suggest a single one time deposit (e.g. articulated whole skeletons),
whereas the isotopic analysis shows the effect of prolonged consumption of food
types (Tauber 1981, 332; Andersen 1987, 265; Uldum 2011). The discovery and
stable carbon 13 isotope testing of human skeletal remains found at the site
illustrates how important marine resources were to the diet. This shows that marine
resources were important to the survival, to their life, so important the evidence is
still in their bones today.

22


Figure 3: Table showing the level of difference in levels of isotope 13ͨin humans from the
Mesolithic and Neolithic. Mesolithic diet consisted of mainly marine resources. (Fischer 2007,
65: Fig 5.18).

Tybrind Vig was particularly well placed between the sea and the opening of a
protected cove (Figure 4; Kubiak-Martens 1999, 118). The tidal actions remove
waste and moves in nutrients, creating a favourable system for tidal species, such as
molluscs. There was little variety in the species; however, the conditions did allow
particular species to create large colonies (Bailey 1978, 39; Paludan-Müller 1978,
124). Salmon (Salmo lrulla) and trout (Salmo salar) would have been available at
different times of the year, with eels (Anguilla anguilla) available throughout the
year; however these are thought to have a season for best eating. There would also
have been shoreline plants such as reed grass (Phragmites australis) and water lilies
(Nuphar lutea). Certain species of birds would also be attracted to the shoreline,

especially wading birds, ducks and grebes, using the reed banks as nesting and
hiding places (Paludan-Müller 1978, 127-8). The shoreline of the site would have
been separated from the land by a reed bed and this is where the canoes (Tybrind I
and Tybrind II) were found (Andersen 1987, 261). The use of watercraft technology
in subsistence practices allowed for the production of a rich and varied marine based
diet. With the evidence of decorated pieces of technology, it is important to explore
the value of this technology and way of life to past people. As there is variety in the
food, so too would the technology have multi-faceted value within Mesolithic
society.

23


Figure 4: Present coastline and land represented by lighter shaded area. Old coastline
represented by darker cross hatched area, with the sea to the west.

The evidence points to summer, autumn and winter occupation, with spring under
represented. However, this may be due more to the seasonality of food rather than
the seasonality of human movement. This challenges the common notion that huntergatherers moved seasonally and did not settle in particular areas for long periods of
time (Jacobi 1978, 326-327). Whilst there is evidence that red deer were hunted, the
bones were used to create further implements for fishing rather than the hunting of
land animals. The remains of seals and whales show community planning,
forethought, and teamwork, which would have been needed to kill such large
animals (Andersen 1987, 266, 270). This demonstrates an economy rich in activities,
with subsistence centred on marine resources, using a variety of implements to allow
for the ease of collection. Tybrind Vig is therefore a show case for artefacts loaded
with knowledge that would have been passed from generation to generation, through
activities undertaken together.

Tybrind Vig is not a standalone site, and with the evidence from stray finds it would

seem that there are many similar sites that are yet to be excavated (Fischer 2007, 56).
However, there is a growing concern that these sites are under greater threat of
erosion than before, due to a plant called eel grass that grows in the gyttja layer and
with its roots traps the gyttja layer; this allows the gyttja to stay in place and protect
the sites underneath. Eel grass seems to be receding from these areas, leaving vast
swathes of gyttja at the mercy of the elements (Malm 1995). Tybrind Vig is at the
forefront of marine protection. A fairly simple solution has been found to protect
these sites, using a geotextile mat that is held down firstly by the weight of the water
that it absorbs and secondly by sandbags and tree trunks, over the geotextile mat
another layer is forming, of sand and mud, which helps to protect the site. However,
24