Department of Archaeology, History, Religious Studies and Theology Maritime Human Ecodynamics of Stone Age Arctic Norway Developing middle-range causal linkages between climate forcing, demography, and technological responses Erlend Kirkeng Jørgensen A dissertation for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor - 2020 Maritime Human Ecodynamics of Stone Age Arctic Norway Developing middle-range causal linkages between climate forcing, demography, and technological responses Cover photo: “Uveir langs kysten” (English: “Storm on the coast”). Hand-colored dias. 1900-1940. Wilse, Anders Beer / DEXTRA photo / Digitalt Museum. Ref: DEX_W_00152 Preface and acknowledgment “What are the major issues currently pushing the boundaries of archaeology? And what are the major problems archaeology needs to solve in order to advance as a science?” - he asked causally, not knowing how unsettling these questions were. My friend posed these questions in the inescapable setting of being crammed into a fully packed car, going to a mountain cabin for a new year’s celebration some years back. Of military background and no prior experience with archaeology, he had no idea how troublesome these questions were. I cannot recall what I told him in response. The answer was probably not very informative or interesting to him, and frankly, to this day, I am not able to give a straight answer to these questions. I have come across versions of this question at various points in my academic career, and it has always struck a chord with me. Being able to pinpoint the crucial questions epitomizes what constitutes great thinking in general, and great science specifically. In the case of archaeology however, making progress can often be frustratingly difficult. This is a natural consequence of being “the science of incomplete and insufficient data”. The many fundamental problems in reconstructing past systems from contemporary fragments likely make us susceptible to myopic research: getting hung up on improving the precision of tools, methods and concepts. As an empirical science, striving for such improvements are both necessary and justifiable. Yet it should not stop us from posing grand questions. This is because no detailed study of even the most particular of things makes much sense without reference to an overarching problem. The very validation and reason for performing in-depth, particularistic research, is by contributing solid, empirical evidence (however, small) to the bigger picture. This is afforded through feedbacks between the large and the small. There were some fear already in the 1970´s that the drive towards ever more minute details and methodological precision was gained at the cost of integrative oversight (Gjessing 1977:13). This, it was believed, finally would result in a dismal state where “archaeologists act like deaf men answering questions no one asked” and that “archeology suffers from cataracts and requires surgery to regain perspective” (Gjessing 1977:13)[my translation]. Contrary to such bleak predictions, increasing scientific influences on archaeology have rekindled interest in classic culture-historical topics and fueled more integrative, interdisciplinary research into the human past – not only as a cultural, but equally as socioecological processes. Through my work, I have attempted to tackle the uncomfortable stretch of combining both the very small with the very big. I have taken on the task of poking my nose into the grand challenges of archaeology, while simultaneously striving to maintain a solid empirical footing. I cannot determine the degree of my success, but I hope I can be commended for my efforts. The ambition is to contribute a useful building block to the scientific community. --- The realization of this thesis is communal to its core – although its production has primarily been confined to the privacy of my office. For one, I am truly grateful for the institutional arrangement and political willingness in Norway to spend people’s hard-earned tax money on seemingly irrelevant and marginal research projects such as what I present here. I have no illusions as to the insignificance of this work in the grander scheme of things, yet my utter enjoyment in working with this has only been possible through working people not rebelling against the public spending on basic research – and for i that I am grateful. This has provided me with the opportunity to come to Tromsø and realize an academic dream. Globally and historically, this is a great privilege that I fully appreciate. This work is also communal in the sense that the majority of data, methods, analytical categories etc. emanate from the work of previous scholars and practitioners. There are so many contributors on which this work is contingent and dependent that I cannot name them all. For the sake of brevity, I only mention the most significant supporters of this work. I thank Charlotte Damm (project leader and internal supervisor), for letting me participate in an interesting and stimulating project, for providing robust and predictable guidelines and expectations, and making sure my project stayed on track. You provided the culture-historical anchor within an otherwise lofty project and helped stifle my eclectic impulse to pursue my very wide spectrum of interests all at once, while providing the trust and freedom to develop my research. I thank Felix Riede (external supervisor), for the opportunity to visit Århus on multiple occasions. I am grateful for the now long history of our relationship, following the serendipity of meeting at the Norwegian Archaeological Conference in Tromsø 2013. The discovery of our mutual research interests and the kind act of taking me in and supporting my work already at the MA level, has been highly formative for my academic career. I am deeply indebted to Bryan Hood (internal supervisor) for the truly selfless sharing of time and knowledge, for language corrections, and for acting as my partner in (ecodeterministic) crime. I have probably worn down the doorstep to your office with my many visits. Thank you for your patience and dedication, as well as our informal tradition of Friday evening discussion sessions. Miikka Tallavaara has also been a major supporter, to the extent that this thesis would not have been possible without his very generous sharing of technical expertise. I have benefitted greatly from the introduction to palaeodemographic modelling and for acting as technical support periodically. Your relentless dedication to precision is admirable, and has been a very healthy correction to my natural tendency to bluntness. --- Dedication comes at a cost. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of my parents who have selflessly exempted me from familial requirements in a time that has been particularly hard and would have benefitted from me taking my share of care work. Thank you for the freedom and support. During my time working this project I have been diagnosed with a chronic rheumatic disease. Living with constant pain and discomfort is not the physical attribute most compatible with that of doing intellectual work requiring focus and dedication. In fact, it had simply not been bearable without my wife Terese´s support. Were it not for your generosity and consideration in giving up settled life in the lushness and comfort of our home area to the complete unknown of the Artic, this work had never happened. When I applied for this position, none of us thought I would get it, and so we were confronted with the problem of deciding what to do upon getting the offer of doing a PhD in Tromsø. Deciding to go was no small thing, and although it has been challenging at times, it has more than anything been an adventure of the exciting kind. Thank you for everything. Hessfjord, Ringvassøy 6.4.2020 (in societal and physical isolation due to the COVID-19 pandemic and avalanches blocking the road) ii Summary This thesis has two overarching goals. One is to reconstruct human population dynamics in Stone Age Arctic Norway (12.000-2000 cal BP). The other is to explain the demographic changes as population ecological phenomena. Thus conceived, the project is fundamentally engaged in contributing to the Human Ecodynamic research agenda of investigating the co-evolution of human and natural systems. This agenda is operationalized as a set of objectives: Reconstruct relative population size changes through time. Compare with relevant palaeoenvironmental records. Provide detailed case studies of human adaptive responses to ecological change. Establish middle-range causal mechanisms connecting macro-scale climate forcing with micro- scale human risk reduction strategies, by way of aggregated demographic, technological and ecological effects. Track the evolution of maritime adaptation in the region. The justification for the project is provided by the general lack of integrated socioecological research of Arctic Norwegian prehistory. As such, this project attempts to plug a marked knowledge gap concerning the causal role of environmental drivers in long-term cultural change. Equally important however, is the ambition of contributing to the general understanding of human ecology and adaptability by way of generalizable, empirical results, and case studies of causal mechanisms driving integrated socioecological change. An important premise of this work is that such is achievable only through the study the ecological and environmental drivers of change in human cultural systems. The project has a marked interdisciplinary profile, relying on