European Journal of Archaeology 2021, page 1 of 18 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Mesolithic Pyrotechnology: Practices and Perceptions in Early Holocene Coastal Norway CHARLOTTE BRYSTING DAMM Department of Archaeology, History, Religious Studies, and Theology, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway Substantial pyrotechnological structures and large quantities of charcoal are rarely found on Early Holocene sites in coastal Norway. Nevertheless, information on the use of fire and fuel types is available and pre- sented in this article, a survey of sites dating from 10,000 to 8000 uncal BP. Possible fuel types and preferences are discussed and it is argued that most fires would have been small and short-lived, making extensive use of low vegetation. This suggests that food must have been largely consumed raw, fermented, or dried. The distinction between the use of shrubs and trees must have had implications for the perception of their properties, which appear to have persisted even after the emergence of more forested landscapes. Keywords: Early Holocene, Mesolithic, pyrotechnology, fuel, food preparation INTRODUCTION indicate different kinds of interaction with fuel sources and food preparation, and The frequent absence of charcoal from thus suggest different perceptions of vege- Early Holocene sites is a well-known and tation and other resources? frustrating obstacle to dating pioneer set- In order to investigate this topic, detailed tlements along the Norwegian coast. This information on the use of fire on Mesolithic lack of datable material is attributed in settlement sites will be interrogated along part to a settlement pattern assumed to be the following lines. Which practices are dominated by short-term occupations, evident in the archaeological record? What which yield little charcoal and other organic fuel sources were available; what were their material, and in part to poor preservation properties; and what were the prehistoric due to age, exposure, and weathering (see preferences? These findings will be dis- Sergant et al., 2006). In addition, the cussed in relation to practices connected to general absence of stone-lined hearths heating, light, cooking, and other purposes. reduces the visibility of fireplaces and the detection of charcoal fragments. There may, however, be more to it. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FROM Does the lack of charcoal and distinctive EARLY HOLOCENE NORWAY hearths perhaps also indicate specific pyro- technological practices, notably some that Archaeological evidence for pyrotechnolo- differ from later practices? And could this gical activities includes charcoal and other Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Association of Archaeologists doi:10.1017/eaa.2021.31 Manuscript received 30 September 2020, Downloaded fromaccepted https://www.cambridge.org/core 21 June 2021, revised 22. DecemberIP address: 170.106.33.19 2020 , on 29 Sep 2021 at 02:16:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.31 2 European Journal of Archaeology 2021 burnt material such as bone or shell, fire- collections with limited documentation. cracked or scorched stones, red-burnt and Breivik (2014:1481,2016: appendix C4) sooty soil, and burnt lithic material. lists 164 Early Mesolithic sites from the Unfortunately, without radiocarbon dates, region, but only twelve per cent of these there is always a risk that pyrotechnologi- have been investigated in the last three cal activities post-date the period being decades and have a minimum of documen- investigated, as the many late dates from tation. In early excavations, fire-cracked Early Holocene sites in Norway show. stones may not have been noticed as sig- Charcoal outside a convincing archaeo- nificant; but, even on recently excavated logical context could derive from natural sites, awareness of such finds and their fires and therefore does not contribute to an recording vary. Hence, for the majority of evaluation of pyrotechnological practices. sites, it is difficult to ascertain whether and In order to limit this study to well-defined which pyrotechnological activities were Early Holocene activity, only sites with carried out. Sites with conclusive evidence radiocarbon dates from material linked to for an Early Holocene use of fire are pre- a distinct structure and/or contemporary dominantly those with remains of dwell- lithics have been considered (see tables in ings. This overview includes seventeen sites online Supplementary Material). from northern Norway with radiocarbon The following constitutes an overview dates (Supplementary Table S1, hereafter of the evidence for the use of pyrotechnol- Table S1), several of which included more ogy along the coast of Norway (Figure 1). than one excavated unit, a unit being The main emphasis is on data from nor- understood as a feature or set of features. thern Norway, but summary accounts of Out of twenty-eight units, twenty are data from other regions are also provided, definitively dwelling structures. the latter including a few upland sites. In these twenty-eight units, some pat- This overview is arbitrarily limited to the terns can be recognized. Reports of patches period 10,000–8000 uncal BP, roughly or concentrations of sooty soil and scattered 11,500–9000 cal BP, covering the Early pieces of charcoal dominate. In many cases, and much of the Middle Mesolithic in several stratified and partly overlapping Norway. Norwegian archaeology employs lenses of charcoal or sooty soil have been chronozones (Bjerck, 2008b: 74, table found. House A15536 at Tønsnes (no. 12 3.1), in which the period 9500–8000 BC is on Figure 1 and Table S1) provides evi- termed the Early Mesolithic and the period dence of at least twelve consecutive epi- 8000–6500 BC the Middle Mesolithic. sodes of pyrotechnological activity inside Here, the term Early Holocene refers to the one unit (Figure 2), but even some of the entire timespan covered by these periods. earliest sites, such as Nii’beræppen 3 (no. 3 The large Mesolithic dwellings from on Figure 1 and Table S1) and Løkvika Tønsnes are slightly later but included (no. 7 on Figure 1 and Table S1), have since the information from these adds sig- several stratified and overlapping patches. nificantly to the discussion. Examples of small depressions with char- coal suggest either that a fire was deliber- ately lit in these, or that they were formed Northern Norway by clearing out debris. The Middle Mesolithic dwellings at Tønsnes demon- While many Early Holocene sites are strate that the remains of fires were system- found in northern Norway, most are atically cleared out from the structures’ known only from surveys and early surface interior to middens or refuse areas outside Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.19, on 29 Sep 2021 at 02:16:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.31 Damm – Mesolithic Pyrotechnology in Coastal Norway 3 Figure 1. Map of Norway with the four regions and numbering of the sites listed in the online supple- mentary Tables S1 and S2. Map by permission of J.E. Arntzen, Arctic University of Norway. (Skandfer, 2010: 158; Gjerde & Skandfer, active use of stones and pits but not of 2018). Fire-cracked stones are found on stone-lined hearths. At Kviteberg (no. 10 numerous sites, but only in small quantities. on Figure 1 and Table S1), a pit contained These are typically not found in concentra- fire-cracked stones and charcoal; and the tions but scattered around the site. pit at Tønsnes 104380 (House 3) con- There are exceptions to these scatters tained several small concentrations of and lenses of charcoal, indicating the charcoal, but no fire-cracked stones Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.19, on 29 Sep 2021 at 02:16:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.31 4 European Journal of Archaeology 2021 Figure 2. Successive thin charcoal lenses at Tønsnes 10 A15536, Troms, northern Norway. Photograph by permission of M. Cerbing, Arctic University Museum of Norway. (Skandfer, 2010: 140). It seems likely that number of fire-cracked stones was fewer this was a location for pyrotechnological than twenty-five (Thuestad, 2005: 84; activity rather than a refuse pit. At Blankholm, 2008). In these cases, i.e. Mohalsen II (no. 15 on Figure 1 and where modern documentation and an Table S1) in the southernmost part of the awareness of the importance of fire- northern region, two separate fireplaces cracked stones are present, the indications were identified: they consisted of a con- that pyrotechnological activities took place centration of potato-sized pebbles in one directly on site are limited. layer mixed with sooty soil and fragments of charcoal. A little under half of these were fire-cracked. Central Norway Numerous Early Holocene dwellings have been excavated in the north in recent The recent summary by Breivik and years without charcoal being recovered Bjerck (2018) provides a good overview of (e.g. Gjerde & Hole, 2013), and a number all the Early Mesolithic sites (c. 11,500– of well-investigated sites with no definite 10,000 cal BP) from central Norway. For remains of dwellings have similarly left no the Early Mesolithic, 244 sites are known indications of distinct fireplaces (e.g. from the region but, as in northern Blankholm, 2008; Kleppe, 2014). In Norway, most are known from surveys several cases, some fire-cracked stones and surface collections only.