Settlement and Economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of

AmS-Varia 43
Settlement and economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of southern Norway: Some points and premises
Settlement and Economy in the Late Neolithic and
Bronze Age of Southern Norway: Some Points and Premises
CHRISTOPHER PRESCOTT
Prescott, C. 2005: Settlement and Economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of Southern Norway: Some
Points and Premises. AmS-Varia 43, 127-136, Stavanger. ISSN 0332-6306, ISBN 82-7760-120-4, UDK
903.4(481)”6347/637” & 903.4:338.
The present article discusses some of the research historical background for the study of economy and settlement in
Late Neolithic and Bronze Age in Norway. Premises for interpreting the archaeological record, particularly concerning the extensive body of excavated long-houses, that has been developed in the course of the last twenty years is
summed up and elaborated in ten points. These points include the dramatic consequences of the Late Neolithic
transition, the agro-pastoral economy, the contextual meaning of productive activities, and the composite nature of
landscape use, the concurrent importance of local variation and regional streams, and the challenge of producing
more household data.
Christopher Prescott, Institute of Archaeology, Art History and Conservation, University of Oslo, PO Box 1019
Blindern, N-0315 BLINDERN, NORWAY. Telephone: (+47) 22841908. Telefax: (+47) 22841901. E-mail:
christopher.prescott@iakk.uio.no
ing observations and developing typologies. Therefore, it
would undoubtedly be profitable to more strongly stimulate interpretative (anthropological and historical) and
theoretical contributions, and to explore the challenge of
producing more behaviourally oriented data. Taking a
number of the broader interpretative developments within
LN and BA research into account, publishing results from
the excavations promptly and developing applied methodology to generate more behavioural data, would probably invigorate interpretations of domestic architecture
in the LN and BA.
The evidence that revolves around house constructions and settlements can certainly offer significant data
for the conceptualisation of numerous social, economic,
political and cultural facets of these periods. Very compelling cases in point, from various research historical eras,
are Egil Bakka’s excavations in Sunnmøre in the early
1950’s (compiled in Johnson & Prescott 1993), the above
mentioned large scale excavations at Forsand in Rogaland
and the very recent excavations (2001) of fields and house
remains at Svinesund in Østfold (Rønne 2003:143ff,
187ff).
Culture-historical research traditions into the 1970’s
were theoretically and conceptually influenced by a «megalithic perspective» of the Neolithic and following Bronze
Age, i.e. a culture evolutionary view that portrayed cultures as active participants in prehistory. The approach
virtually created what amounted to a «battlefield map» of
culture. Apart from this now questioned approach to cultures, emphasis was on a wide geographic scale, preoccu-
Our understanding of the Nordic Late Neolithic (LN)
and Bronze Age (BA) in southern and central Norway
has developed considerably in the course of the last 15
years. This progress has been in response to theoretical
perceptions, refined methodologies, and focused research
efforts leading to the establishment of a defined field of
research. Source materials, analysis and empirical results
from several disciplines have inspired avenues of inquiry
in archaeology and within the natural sciences, for example, developments in radiocarbon dating (especially accelerator dating) and paleobotany (Prøsch-Danielsen &
Simonsen 2000, Soltvedt 2000, Prøsch-Danielsen &
Sandgren 2003). One especially important category of
evidence in archaeology, post-supported long houses, became well-known in the wake of new methods of excavation; large scale topsoil removal, in Norway initiated by
Trond Løken in 1980 at Forsand in Rogaland (Løken,
Pilø & Hemdorff 1996). Though Egil Bakka (1976:38f)
uncovered important material in the 1950’s, Løken’s excavations made sites with post-supported long houses accessible on a large scale and led to the dissemination of
appropriate methodology.
Despite the initial dramatic impact on Scandinavian
and Norwegian archaeology, results from large scale soil
removal and mapping of structural remains have not produced data or stimulated results which have developed as
far as one would perhaps have expected. The subject has
been dominated by a valid concern for the methodology
of excavation and documentation, and results, when made
available, have to a certain degree been limited to report127
Christopher Prescott
pied especially with southern Scandinavian. This was definitely a valid stance, though in the wake of radiocarbon
the chronological scheme, the application of a southern
Scandinavian blueprint and the proposed ordering of
Neolithic cultures were shown to be flawed. In the 1970’s
the culture-historical approach was often substituted for
evolutionary approaches that emphasised local developments, and empirically and methodologically built on and
referring to local observations. For a number of reasons,
elements of both these approaches live on, though often
not expressly argued (see e.g. Prescott 1994, Glørstad
2002).
Especially the Late Neolithic has until recently been
implicitly portrayed as a chronologically and culturally
diffuse «non-period» – evolutionarily liminal, and of little historical consequence or definition – a period that
primarily served as a bridge between the authentic
Neolithic and the Bronze Age. With a few exceptions (e.g.
Bakka 1980, 1993, Scheen 1980, Johansen 1993), the
Late Neolithic and Bronze Age were often not attributed
importance in their own right, but served Stone Age studies
as an evolutionary bookend for the Neolithic. On the
other end of the scale the Late Bronze Age intermittently
served Iron Age studies as an evolutionary warm up. Culturally and historically the Late Neolithic and in part the
Bronze Age were empirical and methodological doggy bags
for loose ends that could not readily be fitted into predominant systems of classification.
These positions supported the theoretically naive concept of «cultural dualism», with its connotations of cultural retardation and acculturation. Although «primordialist» approaches (in Jones’ 1997 terminology), i.e. positions that regard ethnicity to contain a fairly static core and
to be an identity into which people are born, are still reiterated from time to time, they have largely been supplanted
by Barth’s (1969) concept of ethnicity and emphasis on
borders, and recently, if to a lesser degree, by Bourdieuinspired (Jones 1997:84ff) approaches to identity.
And indeed, latter Neolithic and Bronze Age fields of
research have undergone a transformation and are today
energetic, especially in terms of studies of interaction, transformations, ritual, social organization, symbolism,
economy, landscape and religion. A renewed interest in
the European context of northern developments, combined with local conditions and historical developments
within the periods, as well as wide ranging cross-disciplinary analysis, has supplanted the synchronous, semi-evolutionary, local perspective (e.g. Prescott & Walderhaug
1995, Larsson 1997, cf. Kristiansen 1998, Hygen &
Bengtsson 1999: 66ff, Holberg 2000, Kvalø 2000,
Fig. 1. Traces of 3 two-aisled Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age houses uncovered at Sande in Sunnmøre. The houses and arding traces
were found under an Iron Age mound – Holerøysa - and were excavated by Egil Bakka 1953-55. Photo: E. Bakka.
128
AmS-Varia 43
Settlement and economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of southern Norway: Some points and premises
Fig. 2. Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age long houses and agriculture were located in this landscape at Sande. The road that runs along
the shore cuts through the Holerøysa site. Photo: E. Bakka.
acceptance and consolidation of a new package of mentalities that go far beyond a simple «introduction of agriculture» (cf. Prescott & Walderhaug 1995). The new
elements include two-aisled, post-supported long houses,
widespread agricultural production (especially cereals;
barley), pastoralism (sheep, goats and cattle), lithic technology (surface flaking, bifacial techniques, and flake technology combined with an abandonment of older
technologies) and Metal Age design (daggers, sickles, triangular projectile points, wedge shaped pendants, bone
pins). In social terms the evidence suggests that the Late
Neolithic introduces an unequivocal trajectory towards
social differentiation. In terms of large scale interaction
the Late Neolithic represents the incorporation of most
of southern Norway into the Nordic – and therefore European - field of interaction. This represents a change from
interaction over a major border to interaction within a
common cultural field, i.e. a change from «interaction
between» to «interaction among». A thereto compatible
economic logic of surplus production and participation
in prestige networks follows. The package of mentalities
that structures and supports participation in Scandinavian
and European networks is dialectically both a result of
the incorporation of Norwegian peripheries into the Nordic world, and at the same time a necessary precondition
for such an incorporation.
On a local and domestic scale, the Late Neolithic ar-
Melheim 2001, Engedal 2002, Winter 2002, Fari 2003).
Interpretative goals for prehistoric archaeology dealing with the LN/BA are:
- A responsive anthropological archaeology, i.e. anthropology of a specific context, developed in dialogue
with the empirical foundations.
- An authentic history of the periods, i.e. a history specifically situated in time and place that outlines conditions and developments, not just demonstrates or
illustrates (or is represented by) the presence of general trends.
In summary there have been tremendous developments
in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeology. The methodological developments in and empirical results from
uncovering house remains have also been substantial. The
potential for analysis is dramatically increased, but as yet
not strongly exploited. To further interpretative goals it
would perhaps be useful to examine some of the general
premises for research, and below I outline ten points that
I believe are especially relevant for contemporary research.
1. The Late Neolithic represents a major change of
historical course and a fundamental transformation of
socio-cultural conditions
The transition to the archaeological conditions initiated
around the beginning of the Late Neolithic represents a
dramatic historical change of course. Changes include the
129
Christopher Prescott
rials (table 1) – bones, seeds, houses, contexts, artefacts are from numerous site types (houses, open air sites, fields,
rock shelters) and from variable environments (coast, inland, alpine), and are in themselves striking expression of
the time and impact of this altered socio-cultural and productive-economic order.
The beginning of an epoch can be a short period of
time that results from a long process. As also many LNBA studies demonstrate, contemporary archaeology inherently biases the creation and explanation of patterns
that indicate long-term processes, and will seldom «prove»
swift transitions. The patterns that have emerged since
the beginning of the 1990’s are therefore all the more remarkable. Still, although a moderately coherent picture
has emerged - radiometrically, typologically and culturally - there is a need to substantiate and refine the chronology to better generate historical interpretations.
guably transforms smaller scale social interaction, rules
and practice. The dialectic interaction between ideologically prescribed European Metal Age ideals, local material and historical conditions, and the continuous negotiations and day-by-day practice between actors, constitutes an important and dynamic field for the production
of culture and (re-)generation of social orders. In this respect, studies based on material from domestic contexts,
and aimed at illuminating interaction within a household
and in the surrounding landscape, would probably be especially relevant for studies of the Late Neolithic and
Bronze Age and the earliest Iron Age. There is a need for
more detailed studies pursued in a context-responsive fashion, i.a. on the process of change, relationship between
social categories, the specific nature of the social organization and the nature of the LN I and II ideology. Producing more data to illuminate «household archaeology»
is a challenge to field archaeology that deals with house
remains.
3. Agriculture and pastoralism
Prior to the Late Neolithic there were occurrences of agropastoral production, though the geographic extent, scale
and socio-economic role of domestic agro-pastoral production is ambiguous (Prescott 1996, Prøsch-Danielsen
& Simonsen 2000, Myhre 2002:3 3f). With the transition
to the Late Neolithic, agriculture and pastoralism become
the referential forms of production and the economic base.
This is not to say that other forms of production were not
pursued in an economy increasingly geared to multiple
2. Chronology: a sharp division
The above proposed change in course can be dated with
increasing accuracy. The initial stage can be typologically
dated to the Middle Neolithic B - Late Neolithic transition into the early LN I. Radiometric values from throughout most of southerly Norway point to 3800-3600 BP,
indicative of dates around 2400-2000 BC, as the time of
breakthrough and initial entrenchment. The dated mate-
Table 1. The 3800 to 3600 BP transition from Sunnmøre to Østfold. Some published Late Neolithic I data indicating the dates of features
interpreted as diagnostic of the Late Neolithic transformation. The selection is made to highlight the early LN I, geographic distribution and
occurrences in a wide range of environments. For some categories, such as bifacial lithics and pollen occurrences, numerous additional
examples could be listed. Radiocarbon data are referred back to uncalibrated values.
Feature
2-aisled long houses
Fields and ardmarks
Cereals – directly dated
Cereals – in layers
Bone – in layers
Sheep faces
Pollen
Bifacial points
Bell beakers
Name
Svinesund, Østfold
Voll, Rogaland
Kvåle, Rogaland
Sande, Sunnmøre
Hjelle, Sogn and Fjordane
Håbakken, Rogaland
Saunes, Dalteigane, Rabbane,
Hornnes, Sogn and Fjordane
Svinesund, Torpum 9a, Østfold
Hjelle, Sogn and Fjordane
Austbø, Rogaland
Svinesund, Torpum 9a, Østfold
Skrivarhelleren, Sogn and
Fjordane
Slettabø, Rogaland
Skrivarhelleren
17 Budalen, Hordaland
Region B Jæren, Rogaland
Slettabø, Rogaland
Vikadalen 32, Sogn and
Fjordane
Slettabø, Rogaland
Age indication (example)
3790 BP
3665 BP
LN
LN I/II
3650, 3690, 3760 BP
LN I
LN I
Reference
Rønne 2003:217
Mydland & Soltvedt 1995: 30
Myhre 2002:45
Johnson & Prescott 1993
Soltvedt 2000:53
Juhl 2002
Diinhoff 1999:16
3635 BP
3760 BP
3805 BP
3630 BP
3610 BP
Rønne 2003:178
Soltvedt 2000:53
Bakkevig et al. 2002
Glørstad 2003:347
Soltvedt 2000:53
Late MN B-LN I
LN I
3700 BP
3800 BP
Bell Beaker type
3760, 3690 BP
Skjølsvold 1977:69
Prescott 1995:100
Nærøy 1994:148, Soltvedt 1994:223f
Prøsch-Danielsen & Simonsen 2003
Myhre 1979, Skjølsvold 1977
Prescott 1986:54
Late MN B/LN I
Skjølsvold 1977:155, 364
130
AmS-Varia 43
Settlement and economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of southern Norway: Some points and premises
Skrivarhelleren site (Prescott 1991, 1995), with its large
collection of non-burnt and burnt/cooked bone from the
LN, BA and Early Iron Age, has therefore been pivotal. It
has been claimed (Hufthammer 1995, also Myhre
2002:62) that there are relatively minor occurrences of
bone from domesticated species, for example 12-14 %
domestic bone in LN-BA layers. There are, however, numerous problems with the calculations concerning the
numeral base, compared categories and chronological accuracy. Another site, Skipshelleren in Hordaland, has also
been referred to (Hufthammer 1995), but the material
from that site is too chronologically inaccurate and contextually dubious to use in a referential quantitative analysis.
For the time being the tentative figures presented by
Prescott (1995:98ff) for the LN-BA are the most accurate estimation of the relative importance of domestic
mammals (31%-64%) to wild mammals (3-35%) to not
species determined artiodactyls (20-40%). In short, the
domesticated species were of fundamental importance to
life in the sub-alpine Skrivarhelleren environment of innermost Sogn as of the LN I (Prescott 1995:98ff, 106f).
There has also been some contention about the use of
Sherratt’s (1981, 1983) Secondary Products concept and
whether changes are «revolutionary». The dramatic nature of the changes around the beginning of the Late
Neolithic have been argued above. As the totality of data
and analysis concerning exploitation strategies in the LN
and BA periods stand today, a model incorporating a secondary products strategy still offers the best contextualized
explanation of the observed empirical, anthropological
and historical patterns. Continued analysis of the nature
of the early pastoral production based on faunal materials
would definitely be valuable. A referential international
study that should influence the design of future studies in
this regard is Greenfield’s (1988 and following discussion)
study of faunal remains from the Late Neolithic of the
Balkan as a source for study of secondary product strategies. He makes evident that the study of secondary product strategies based on faunal remains is complicated,
perhaps especially when using material from regions that
necessitate combined analyses of upland and lowland sites.
The analysis must consider holistic exploitation patterns,
methodological biases, differential recovery and survival
of bone, the historical and/or anthropological context,
relevant analogies and the emphases within a secondary
products economy. The «… [representations of] ideal situations .. may not precisely correspond to real-world conditions» (Greenfield 1988:576). Greenfield demonstrates
that pursuing a zoo-archaeological approach to the workings of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age economies demands
a comprehensive methodological and theoretical approach
(ref. Prescott 1997:164, Oma 2004).
networks of exchange. Production covered local subsistence needs and probably regional exchanges, but also created objects for direct and indirect participation in the
European prestige exchanges (Prescott 1995:137f). The
exploitation of various resources has since the introduction of agro-pastoral economies been characteristic of
economies in this part of Scandinavia (Brøgger 1925:21).
It is not immediately clear why an agro-pastoral type
of production would be accepted around 2400 BC. There
are no apparent environmental, economic or demographic
explanations to support a functional argument for the
swift and widespread consolidation of such production.
In light of the cultural transformations at this time and
the Nordic quality of the culture, it is reasonable to argue
that the initial widespread consolidation of agro-pastoral
production was a result of the acceptance of externally
provided ideology and cultural practices. Agro-pastoralism was part of a comprehensive ideological and cultural
package.
Although it is generally accepted that with the Late
Neolithic, agro-pastoral practices become more widespread, there is still some discussion about how important
cereal and pastoral production was in the LN-EBA (Myhre
2002:70ff). There is clearly an intensification of production – in both agro-pastoral and other sectors - in the Late
Bronze Age, so it could be argued that the LN-EBA represents a long process of consolidation for a final breakthrough for such production in the LBA. However, the
fields, the houses, the pollen and the cereal kernels themselves can leave little doubt about the widespread importance of such production already in the Late Neolithic
(table 1) and later in the Early Bronze Age (Prescott 1996).
This impression is reinforced by the fact that evidence is
found over a wide geographic region and in environments
with natural conditions not immediately recognized as
conducive for early agro-pastoralism, for example the
acidic and clay soils at Svinesund in Østfold, the subalpine environment at Skrivarhelleren in Sogn and the
coastal strandflats in Sunnmøre. The data assembled in
table 1 also demonstrate that changes are implemented in
the early part of the LN I, probably as part of the transition from the MN B to the LN I. The dramatic change in
practice, material culture and ideology suggests that the
transformation is a result of a moderately short historical
process, and not long term evolution (in a stricter sense of
the concept) .
There has moreover been some discussion about the
importance of sheep, goat and cattle, as well as the concept of the secondary products revolution, based on faunal
material. Although indications of animal husbandry have
cropped up in several LN-EBA contexts, source criticism
primarily allows a face value interpretation of the data to
argue the presence of domesticated species. The
131
Christopher Prescott
scale cultural and ideological streams within European/
Nordic regions, and local traditions, environment and conditions is characteristic of this epoch and probably one of
the most important sources of political capital, and a driving force of change in these periods.
In sum, the evidence from sites from the coast to the
uplands in Østfold to Sogn and Fjordane, demonstrates
that patterns of production established with the transition to the LN I are reproduced and developed in the
following centuries; a cultural package is quickly entrenched and consolidated in the LN and continues to be
vigorously developed through the Bronze Age.
6. Regional streams - local variations
There are ideological and cultural streams (cf. Barth 1983),
with accompanying interaction, on a large, indeed continental, scale and these are essential for contextualizing
specific local expressions in the archaeological record.
However, recognizing such cultural streams and communication does not create models of specific modes of practice applicable throughout Scandinavia. There are regional
and local variations in the archaeological material; for example in the use of rock shelters, the distribution of asbestos tempered «Risvik ceramics», the distribution of
stone shaft hole axes, variation in depots, the ways intensified production is pursued and evidence concerning the
relevant importance of agriculture to pastoralism to hunting/fishing. Some of this variation can be explained in
source critical terms, for example the absence of Late
Neolithic houses in eastern Norway was obviously the
result of limited field investigations. Still, there are significant and authentic variations in the archaeological record.
These variations in the archaeological record represent
variations in practice and material culture (and on some
level, identity) within the Nordic region. The variations
in the archaeological record along with, for example, highly
divergent environmental conditions illustrate some of the
dialectics of interpretation: Numerous elements, both
material and immaterial, result from innovation and process on a large geographic scale (e.g. metallurgy, architecture, ideology, economy), but at the same time blanket
generalizations, e.g. about the relative importance of different forms of production, readily become inaccurate,
historically unresponsive – if not outright mistaken.
4. The meaning of production and its socio-economic
role is contextual
A longstanding contribution from Scandinavian archaeology has been its environmental and economic approaches. This has perhaps led to a degree of «environment
and production-determinism», i.e. rather direct conclusions from data about environment and production activities to conclusions about general ideological and
cultural conditions (and through the concept of «culturaldualism», ethnic relations). This problem has been especially acute in relation to non-agrarian production,
especially hunting, fishing and gathering after the introduction of pastoral-agrarian practices (e.g. Bakka 1973,
Hagen 1983:331), but also highland iron production
(Johansen 1973:92, 99). Though forms of production
are undoubtedly culturally important, there is no one-toone, mechanically determinative connection. The meaning of production activities varies with the socio-historical
context. In southerly Norway the evidence indicates that
the role and meaning of fishing, hunting and gathering is
substantially different in, for example, the Early Neolithic
versus the Late Bronze Age. In the Late Neolithic and
Bronze Age, ideological emphasis is on the agro-pastoral
production. «Wilderness» products were locally consumed
commodities, but certain products must have been vital
in the geographically large scale prestige exchanges (e.g.
Prescott 1995:137f, Johansen 2000:78f, 217ff).
5. Dealing with multiple explanatory and analytic
scales: Continental-regional- local-domestic
Traditions within Late Neolithic-Bronze Age research have
tended to project a polarized emphasis between local development versus the determinate nature of European
developments and events (e.g. within the Bell Beaker horizon, Únetice culture, Mound Cultures, Hallstatt, Nordic Bronze Age). The evidence in Norway cannot be
appreciated out of the broader European context. On the
other hand, broad Scandinavian and European trends,
for example in the economic sector, cannot be mechanically applied in a blueprint fashion to the regions of present
day Norway (cf. Prescott 1997:184f). Elements in the
archaeological record, for example architecture or gender-related practices, are thus the result of larger scale trends
and innovations, but also interpreted, negotiated, adjusted,
and utilized in a local context. The tension between large
7. The LN-BA represents a valid
comparative framework
The historical era from the Late Neolithic to the earliest
Pre-Roman Iron Age can validly be viewed as a historical
continuum. However, within this continuum there are historical developments and change. Some archaeological
changes represent relatively dramatic historical transitions,
crossing a threshold, from one period to another. Interpreting these transformations as the result of swift and dramatic events can be argued based on expressions that are
found in the archaeological record. Modern archaeology
has, however, been explanatorily biased towards explanations that privilege gradual process more than dramatic
change, so the «dramatic alternatives» have probably not
been sufficiently appreciated in interpretative syntheses.
132
AmS-Varia 43
Settlement and economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of southern Norway: Some points and premises
bers. It also contributes to the structuring of intra-household relations. Based on recent work in archaeology concerning landscape utilization in the LN-BA, from the highlands to the sea, it is likely that a cosmography encompasses both distinct sections (fields, pastures, hunting
grounds, routes of communication, places of ritual), but
also creates a continuous entity of the landscape - possibly to a degree unrivalled in the previous and following
epochs. Beyond economic exploitation, use of the landscape also projects a comprehensive cosmography that
allocates conceptual meaning to different sections of the
landscape within a totality (Vogt 1998, Hygen &
Bengtsson 1999, Kvalø 2000, Groseth 2001, Eriksen
2003).
Various ritual and economic activities are situated in
different sections of the landscape. The LN-BA landscape
is divided into sectors in the sense that it contains several
niches and environments, but it is also a totality and sectors should not be pigeon-holed, but viewed as a continuum, allowing for fluid movement between them in
terms of LN-BA practice, and in our interpretations. In
short; any given site is located in and concurrently constitutes elements of a landscape that contains a range of resources in combination with human cosmography. The
totality of the landscape represents materialization in space
of the Metal Age ideology.
For the study of settlement and economy in the LNBA, long term studies can assume an analytic approach
where variables such as production, settlement, landscape
etc. in these periods can be compared in a meaningful
way. Some important thresholds, and questions tied to
the transformations are:
* The MN B to LN transition and questions concerning
migration, the initiation of a consolidated agro-pastoral economy, ethnic relations and connections between
the cultural streams of the Corded Ware and Bell
Beaker cultures.
* The transition from LN I to LN II is an expression of
a further entrenchment of Metal Age culture under
the influence of the Únetice regions.
* Changes in settlement, house architecture, economy
and the evolution of stronger social differentiation take
place with the transition from EBA I to II.
* The EBA III to LBA IV represents a shift to intensified
production (in all sectors), cosmological and ritual
developments and developments in ethnic relationships to the east under the expanding influence of the
Ananino Iron Age culture.
* The escalated intensification of production throughout the LBA
* The large scale Nordic Bronze Age system collapse around
the Early Iron Age’s beginning and the very conspicuous repercussions on economy, production and settlement.
9. The household as an analytic focus:
Methodological challenges
The transition to the LN represents a significant and widespread change in ideology and social practice on all scales.
The household-members’ associations with each other and
their activities in various sections of the landscape are
important sources for archaeologically interpreting topics
on a more general scale. Such analysis illuminates the specific impact of transformative processes in Europe on the
anthropological conditions and the historical developments in different parts of Norway at this time. A valuable element in the analysis of smaller scale social relations
is the house:
* The house is an enclosed scene for the enactment
household interaction.
* The walls of the house are an interface between two
social stages. The indoors is saturated by ties and actions within the household. Outdoors the stage is increasingly saturated with interaction between households.
A fundamental tenet in archaeology is that ideology and
immaterial social relations are portrayed, enacted, bounded
and constituted in spatial contexts. Thus, through the
spatial patterning of traces and evidence, archaeology can
interpret the historically specific constitution of the social
world. LN-BA archaeology has developed a substantial
8. A question of scale: from a delimited site to a
concept of the composite landscape
With increasing numbers of excavated LN-BA houses it
is analytically crucial to bear in mind that the house is
situated in an extended landscape, where fields, forests,
sea, highlands and wetlands are in use; the mental concept of landscape in the LN-BA encompasses the whole
physical landscape. The range of potential resources is
exploited, for example for cultivation, extensive grazing,
transportation, hunting, fishing and gathering. Although
the cultural and economic package introduces the agropastoral economy and settlement patterns that develop
into the historical agrarian societies, the LN-BA
understandings of agrarian landscapes are probably not
identical to that found in more recent agrarian thinking.
The landscape is a stage for the enacting and materialization of social relations. It is allotted meaning through
ritual, practice and cognition, but it also generates meanings about itself, and about the social relations in and
around it. For example, the domestic landscape in and
around a LN-BA long house is certainly conceived of in
relation to ideology and practice, but it also structures the
inter-household relations; the negotiation and reproduction of thought and practice between household mem133
Christopher Prescott
and their world.
The thrust in settlement archaeology has produced
an overwhelming amount of archaeological material in
the course of the last 10 years. In terms of Late Neolithic
and Bronze Age archaeology these patterns can become
more coherent if they are interpreted in a dialogue with
broader results. The challenge to settlement archaeology
is to contribute to the creation of an authentic history
and anthropology of the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age.
body of large-scale social, economic and cultural data concerning these issues. It has also developed a body of intermediate data concerning different site types and their place
in the landscape.
However, despite numerous investigations of house
layouts, there is a pronounced deficiency in smaller scale
data concerning household relations in and around the
long houses. The present day methods of excavating house
structures usually means that systematic recovery of artefacts and their provenience are not given priority, whether
because of resources, goals or an assumption that contexts will be disturbed and distorted. The house is a fundamental social arena, and therefore a potential source
for further understanding – in time and space - the interplay between practice and ideology, the definition of social actors, gender relations, and economic activities etc.
Investigation of this primary arena of the domestic sphere
poses a challenge to the archaeology that investigates house
structures in the field; a challenge to recover more detailed data concerning the activities in and immediately
around the house structures.
Acknowledgements
I’m grateful to several colleagues for bringing new studies
to my attention and allowing me access to data in the
process of publication when this manuscript was being
prepared: Ola Rønne and Håkon Glørstad for allowing
me access to fresh results from Svinesund, Arne Johan
Nærøy for advice on research in Rogaland, Olle Hemdorff
for information concerning excavations in Rogaland, and
Eli-Christine Soltvedt and Lisbeth Prøsch-Danielsen for
advice and offprints concerning recent paleobotanical data.
References
10. Taking stock of the record
The archaeological record has substantially transformed
the conceptual and interpretative platform for interpreting the general LN-BA history, as well as the specific topics of settlement, economy, cosmology and society. Though
answers to a number of questions, if not most, cannot be
proven through simple empirical approaches, it would
still undoubtedly be profitable if the archaeological record
was as precise, reliable, up-to-date, comprehensive and
comparable as possible. In this regard there are two major
stumbling blocks. The first is that data organized in relation to out-of-date or incompatible principles and methodology creates numerous problems. Examples are
incoherent chronological systems, radiometric dates that
are calibrated in different ways, radiometric dates from
sources deemed unacceptable by contemporary standards
and dubious reporting that stands uncorrected.
The other problem, highlighted by the conference in
2003 that led to the present publication, is in many ways
more serious: A lot of data is not readily accessible, is inaccurately published or is only partially or tentatively published.
Bakka, E. 1973: Omkring problemet om kulturdualisme i SørNoreg. Bonde-Veidemann. In Simonsen, P. & Munch, G.S.
(eds.): Bofast - ikke-bofast i nordisk forhistorie. Tromsø Museums
Skrifter XIV, 109-128. Tromsø University Museum.
Bakka, E. 1976: Fire vestnorske kystboplasser fra yngre steinalder.
Iskos 1, 35-88. Finska Fornminneföreningen, Helsinki.
Bakka, E. 1980: Representativitetsproblem i vestnorsk bronsealder. In Thrane, H. (ed.): Broncealder bebyggelse i Norden. Beretning fra det andet nordiske symposium for broncealderforskning, 3758. Department of History, University of Southern Denmark,
Odense.
Bakka, E. 1993: Kulturtilhøve og regionale skilnader i vestnorsk
bronsealder. In Solberg, B. (ed.): Minneskrift Egil Bakka. Arkeologiske Skrifter fra Historisk museum 7, 90-117. University of
Bergen.
Bakkevig, S., Griffin, K., Prøsch-Danielsen, L., Sandvik, P.U., Simonsen, A., Soltvedt, E-C. & Virnovskaia, T. 2002: Archaeobotany in Norway: Investigations and methodological advances
at the Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger. In Viklund, K. (ed.):
Nordic Archaeobotany – NAG 2000 in Umeå. Archaeology and
Environment 15, 23-48. Umeå.
Barth, F. 1969: Introduction. In Barth, F. (ed.): Ethnic Groups and
Boundaries, 9-38. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Barth, F. 1983: Sohar: culture and society in an Omani town. John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Brøgger, A.W. 1925: Det norske folk i oldtiden. Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning, Oslo.
Diinhoff, S. 1999: Træk af det Vestlandske jordbrugs historie fra
sen stenalder til tidlig middelalder. Arkeo 1-99, 14-28. University of Bergen.
Engedal, A. 2002: The Nordic scimitar. External relations and the
creation of elite ideology. British Archaeological Reports, international series 1050. Oxford.
Eriksen, E. 2003: Kosmografi i bronsealderen – en analyse av sørvestlige
Sandefjord. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Oslo.
Wrapping up
Archaeology must necessarily dedicate substantial resources
to uncovering and describing its source materials. The
discipline must also dedicate itself to classifying observations and patterning data. There is a constant need for
developing methods. Generations of archaeologists have,
however, reminded each other that these consuming activities are means to an end: to address humans, their lives
134
AmS-Varia 43
Settlement and economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of southern Norway: Some points and premises
Fari, C. 2003: Hiero-gamos. En sammenligning mellom symbolets
uttrykk i den nordiske bronsealderens helleristningstradisjon og
myteverdenen i det østlige middelhavsområdet. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Oslo.
Glørstad, H. 2002: Neolittisk Renessanse. Hypoarkeologiske tekster
om neolitikum i Sør-Norge. Acta Humaniora, University of Oslo.
Glørstad, H. 2003: Svinesundprosjektet Bind 2. Utgravninger avsluttet i 2002. Varia 55. University Museum of Cultural History,
Oslo.
Greenfield, H.J. 1988: The origins of milk and wool production in
the Old World. A zooarchaeological perspective from the Central Balkans. Current Anthropology 29, 4, 573-593 with discussion in 29/5, 743-747.
Groseth, L. 2001: Å finne sted. Økonomiske og rituelle landskap i
Telemark i sen neolitikum og bronsealder. Varia 53, 1-93. University Museum of Cultural History, Oslo.
Hagen, A. 1983: Norges Oldtid (3rd edition). Cappelen, Oslo.
Holberg, E. 2000: Klokkebegerkulturens symboler: Senneolitikum i
Rogaland og Nordland sør for polarsirkelen. Unpublished masters
thesis, University of Bergen.
Hufthammer, A.K. 1995: Tidlig husdyrhold i Vest-Norge. In Bergsvik, K.A., Nygaard, S. & Nærøy, A.J. (eds.): Arkeologiske Skrifter
fra Arkeologisk Institutt 8, Steinalderkonferansen i Bergen 1993
203-119. University of Bergen.
Hygen, A.S. & Bengtsson, L. 1999: Helleristninger i grensebygd.
Bohuslän og Østfold. Warne Förlag, Göteborg.
Johansen, A.B. 1973: Iron production as a factor in the settlement
history of the mountain valleys surrounding Hardangervidda.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 6, 2, 84-101.
Johansen, Ø. 1981: Metallfunnene i østnorsk bronsealder. Universitetets Oldsaksamlings Skrifter 4. University of Oslo.
Johansen, Ø. K. 1993: Norske depotfunn fra bronsealderen. Universitetets Oldsakssamlings Skrifter. Ny rekke 8. University of Oslo.
Johansen, Ø. 2000: Bronse og makt. Bronsealderen i Norge. Andresen
& Butenschøn, Oslo.
Johnson, T. & Prescott, C. 1993: Late Neolithic houses at Stokkset,
Sande in Sunnmøre. In Solberg, B. (ed.): Minneskrift Egil Bakka. Arkeologiske Skrifter fra Historisk museum 7, 70-89. University of Bergen.
Jones, S. 1997: The archaeology of ethnicity. Reconstructing identities
in the past and present. Routledge, London.
Juhl, K. 2002: Theoretical and methodological aspects of investigating stone built structure of ancient farms and field systems.
In Viklund, K. (ed.): Nordic Archaeobotany – NAG 2000 in
Umeå. Archaeology and Environment 15, 111-132. Umeå.
Kristiansen, K. 1998: Europe before history. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Kvalø, F. 2000: Oversjøiske reiser fra Sørvest- Norge til Nordvest-Jylland i elder bronsealder – En drøfting av maritim realisering og
rituell mobilisering. Unpublished masters thesis, University of
Oslo.
Larsson, T.B. 1997: Materiell kultur och religiösa symboler. Arkeologiska studier vid Umeå universitet 4. University of Umeå.
Løken, T., Pilø, L. & Hemdorff, O. 1996: Maskinell flateavdekking og utgravning av forhistoriske jordbruksboplasser: en metodisk innføring. AmS-Varia 26, 1-104. Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger.
Melheim, A.L. 2001: Gjennom ild og vann: graver og depoter som
kilde til kosmologi i bronsealderen i Øst-Norge. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Oslo.
Mydland, L. & Soltvedt, E.C. 1995: Lok. 27 Voll, Rennesøy. In
Høgestøl, M.: Arkeologiske undersøkelser i Rennesøy kommune,
Rogaland, Sørvest-Norge. AmS-Varia 23, 125-132. Stavanger.
Myhre, B. 1979: Spor etter klokkebegerkulturen i Rogaland. Frá
hauk ok heiðni 7, 4, 298-303.
Myhre, B. 2002: Landbruk, landskap og samfunn 4000 f.Kr.-800
e.Kr. In Myhre, B. & Øye, I. (eds.): Norges Landbrukshistorie 1,
11-214. Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo.
Nærøy, A.J. 1994: Troll-prosjektet. Arkeologiske undersøkelser på
Kollsnes, Øygarden k. Hordaland, 1989-1992. Arkeologiske Rapporter 19, 1-218. University of Bergen.
Oma, K. 2004: The relationship between humans and animals in the
European Bronze Age: Animals as a structuring principle. Unpublished upgrade paper, University of Southampton.
Prescott, C. 1986 [1987]: Chronological, typological and contextual
aspects of the Late Lithic Period. A study based on sites excavated in
the Nyset-Steggje Mountain Valleys, Årdal, Sogn, Norway. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Bergen.
Prescott, C. 1991: Kulturhistoriske undersøkelser i Skrivarhelleren. Med et bidrag av Eli-Christine Soltvedt. Arkeologiske rapporter 14, 1-129. Historical museum, University of Bergen.
Prescott, C. 1994: Paradigm lost, paradigm gained? 150 years of
Norwegian Bronze Age research. Norwegian Archaeological Review 27, 2, 87-110.
Prescott, C. 1995: From Stone Age to Iron Age. A study from Sogn,
western Norway. British Archaeological Reports, international series 603. Tempus reparatum, Oxford.
Prescott, C. 1996: Was there really a Neolithic in Norway? Antiquity 70:1/267, 77-87.
Prescott, C. 1997 [1995]: Aspects of early pastoralism in Sogn.
Acta Archaeologica 66, 163-190.
Prescott, C. & Walderhaug, E. 1995: The Last Frontier? Processes
of Indo Europeanization in Northern Europe. The Norwegian
Case. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 3 & 4, 257-280.
Prøsch-Danielsen, L. & Sandgren, P. 2003: The use of pollen, magnetic and carbonanalyses in identifying agricultural activity and
soil erosion from the Neolithic to the Iron Age – A study of two
lake sediment cores from Jæren, South-western Norway. Environmental Archaeology 8, 33-50.
Prøsch-Danielsen, L. & Simonsen, A. 2000: Palaeoecological investigations towards the reconstruction of the history of forest
clearances and coastal heathlands in south-western Norway. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9, 189-204.
Rønne, O. 2003: Torpum 9A og Torpum 16 – Boplasser med spor
fra nøstvetfasen, senneolitikum, bronsealder og eldre jernalder.
In Glørstad, H.(ed.): Svinesundprosjektet Bind 2. Utgravninger
avsluttet i 2002. Varia 55, 143-186. University Museum of Cultural History, Oslo.
Rønne,O. 2003: Stensrød – boplass med spor fra nøstvetfasen, senneolitikum, bronsealder og eldre jernalder. In Glørstad 2003,
H.(ed.): Svinesundprosjektet Bind 2. Utgravninger avsluttet i
2002. Varia 55, 187-222. University Museum of Cultural History, Oslo.
Scheen, R. 1980: Flintdolken, det vanligste våpen fra norsk bronsealder. In Johansen, Ø., Marstander, L., Mikkelsen, E. & Rolfsen, P. (eds.): Festskrift til Sverre Marstrander på 70-årsdagen.
Universitetets Oldsaksamlings Skrifter 3,169-174. University of
Oslo.
Sherratt, A. 1981: Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In Hodder, I., Isaac, G. & Hammond,
N. (eds.): Patterns of the past. Studies in honour of David Clarke,
261-305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sherratt, A. 1983: The secondary exploitation of animals in the
Old World. World Archaeology 15, 1, 90-104.
Skjølsvold, A. 1977: Slettabøboplassen. Et bidrag til diskusjonen
om forholdet mellom fangst og bondesamfunnet i yngre steinal-
135
Christopher Prescott
der og bronsealder. AmS-Skrifter 2, 1-380. Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger.
Soltvedt, E.C. 1994: Hvilke planter sanket og utnyttet menneskene
på Kollsnes i forhistorisk tid. In Nærøy, A.J. (ed.): Troll-prosjektet. Arkeologiske undersøkelser på Kollsnes, Øygarden k. Hordaland, 1989-1992. Arkeologiske Rapporter 19, 219-238. University of Bergen.
Soltvedt, E.C. 2000: Carbonised Cereal from Three Late Neolithic
and Two Early Bronze Age Sites in Western Norway. Environmental Archaeology 5, 49-62.
Vogt, D. 1998: Dekonstruksjon-Rekonstruksjon. Helleristninger og
landskap i Østfold. Stensilserie B nr. 52, Institutt for arkeologi,
Universitetet i Tromsø.
Winter, L. 2002: Relationen mellan Medelhavsområdets och Sydskandinaviens bildvärlder. In Goldhahn, J. (ed.): Bilder av bronsålder, 201-221. Almqvist & Wiksell Int’l. Stockholm.
136