Late Mesolithic Foodways in Arctica and Subarctic Coastal Zones: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach Megan Binkley, University of Wisconsin–Madison
Preferred Resource Concentrations Across Accessibility Zones 1. Skerry Introduction 25 Peaks & Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers on northern Mainland coastlines c. 8,300-6,000 cal BP relied on marine Zone 20 resources for survival. Associated site distribution ≤ 2 km inland patterns suggest that these populations may have preferred areas with concentrations of specific resources, but this hypothesis has not previously been 15 tested via studies of modern behavior. Through collaboration with modern Norwegian 2. Supralittoral 10 farmers practicing hunting and gathering, I create an Zone analogy between current populations and Late Splashed but not Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Through this, I test inundated by tides whether modern subsistence practices support the idea 5 of a Mesolithic preference for flatter coastlines with concentrations of accessible resources.
0 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
# Resources - All # Resources - Preferred # Demographics 3. Eulittoral Zone High-to-low tide Implications zones • Shellfish and seaweeds were likely critical secondary resources in Mesolithic foodways PERMANENT WATER LINE • Shell middens may have reinforced exploitation routes on an ecological level Results • Juvenile hunter-gatherers may have made meaningful 4. Infralittoral My observations at HF1 and HF2 revealed: contributions to subsistence economies Non-Immersion • 32 ongoing exploitation sites Zone • 30 regularly targeted species Up to 0.5 m deep Pacific Oyster harvesting beds (HF1, photo by author). • 21 ‘preferred’ marine species, exploited daily • 6 discrete topographic zones throughout the fjord- Methods skerry landscape 5. Infralittoral I gathered data during two homestays with the • Pros and cons associated with each zone following sample populations across Norway: Because Zone 6 is not fully within the fjord-skerry Immersion Zone landscape, I excluded it from my final analysis. 0.5-5 m deep Host Family 1 (HF1): 21-day homestay • Near Grimstad, Norway (a subarctic zone) • Flatter landscapes, emphasis on faunal exploitation Primary Conclusions A Flat Oyster harvesting bed (HF1, photo by author). • Near a concentration of Mesolithic sites Fjord-skerry exploitation is best approached through the 6 Accessibility Zones Model (illustrated to the far Host Family 2 (HF2): 10-day homestays right, developed for this research). Analysis via this Acknowledgements • Near Napp, Norway (an arctic zone) model showed matching patterns in both ancient and My thanks to my Faculty Advisor, Dr. Sarah Clayton, 6. Circalittoral Zone • Mountainous landscapes, emphasis on seaweed modern populations. Specifically: for her guidance. Thanks also to the UW-Madison L&S 5+ meters deep exploitation Honors Department for funding, and to my host families • Concentrations of preferred resources in Zones 3-5 for welcoming me into their homes. Finally, my gratitude • No nearby Mesolithic hunter-gatherer sites • A distinct preference for flatter landscapes to Nick & Lily for map assistance.