6
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Introduction
The aim of the project “The Pioneer Settlements of
Gotland” was to achieve a deeper knowledge and
understanding of the oldest Mesolithic settlements
on the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea (Fig. 1). By
combining renewed investigations of archaeological
materials from old sites with new excavations of
selected sites the goal was to present a novel view
of the first pioneers of Gotland and their relations
to groups on the mainland. A central site for the pro-
ject was the cave site of Stora Förvar located on Sto-
ra Karlsö, a small island c. 5km west of Gotland,
with rich cultural layers containing the earliest evi-
dence of humans on Gotland. Here we summarize
the most important implications of understanding of
the pioneer settlements on the island of Gotland.
The present study is based on an earlier summary
presented in Swedish (Apel, Storå 2017) that has
been complemented with additional information.
The island of Gotland was one of the last unexplored
territories in Scandinavia and the Baltic area that
was colonized by humans during the post-glacial pe-
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers
of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE
jan.apel@ark.su.se< jan.stora@ofl.su.se
ABSTRACT – Mesolithic pioneers reached Gotland around 9200 cal BP and adopted seal-hunting.
The subsistence economy was flexible, and the importance of freshwater fish is reflected in the
location of settlements and available stable isotope data. Overgrowing lakes provided an impor-
tant subsistence base, and marine resources were mainly related to raw material needs. The nar-
rower breadth of resources is reflected in the osseous production, where implements were made
from seal bones. The lithic technology exhibits local adaptations over time – in the form of a sim-
plification of the technology – that we relate to sedentism and increases in risk management and
external networks.
IZVLE∞EK – Mezolitski pionirji so dosegli Gotland ok. leta 9200 pr. n. ∏t. in so prevzeli lov na tjul-
nje. Njihovo samooskrbno gospodarstvo je bilo pro∫no, pomen sladkovodnih rib pa se ka∫e tako v
lokacijah naselbin kot podatkih o stabilnih izotopih. Zara∏≠ena jezera so nudila pomembno osno-
vo pre∫ivetja in morski viri so bili predvsem povezani s potrebo po surovinah. Slab∏e dostopni visi
se ka∫ejo v produkciji kostnih izdelkov, ki so bili izdelani iz tjulnjevih kosti. Kamnita orodja pa
ka∫ejo lokalne prilagoditve skozi ≠as – v obliki poenostavljanja tehnologije -, ki jih povezujemo s
stalnim na≠inom ∫ivljenja in pove≠anjem upravljanja tveganj ter zunanjih omre∫ij.
KEY WORDS – lithic technology; osseous technology; marine adaptation; seal exploitation; Stora
Förvar; Mesolithic
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – tehnologija izdelave kamnitih orodij; tehnologija izdelave ko∏≠enih orodij; pri-
lagoditev na morje; izkori∏≠anje tjulnjev; Stora Förvar; mezolitik
Dinami;ne prilagoditve mezolitskih pionirjev
na obmo;ju Gotlanda ob Baltskem morju
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.1
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
7
rified the stratigraphic conditions (Knape, Ericson
1988; Lindqvist, Possnert 1997; 1999; Apel, Storå
2017; 2018; Apel et al. 2017; Boethius et al. 2017;
Landeschi et al. 2017; 2018).
An important aim of the project has been to evalu-
ate the integrity and character of the Mesolithic cul-
tural layers in the cave. Therefore, a small excava-
tion in the cave floor was conducted in the summer
of 2013 (Apel et al. 2015) (Fig. 2). On previous vis-
its seal bones and worked flint had been observed
in the soil between the stones in the cave floor, and
this indicated that there could be preserved pockets
of cultural layers that were not excavated during the
original excavation. The purpose of our new field-
work was thus to investigate this more closely.
Three small test pits (Fig. 2) were excavated, two of
which were located at the bottom of the cave and
found to contain intact Mesolithic layers. The culture
layers in the test pits were water sieved in 4 and
2mm meshes, and the findings were collected in
units of 0.5x0.5m and in 5cm spits. Using a mobile
3D scanner, a digital, three-dimensional model was
created of the cave (Landeschi et al. 2017; 2018;
Lundström 2016). The purpose of the model was to
reconstruct the cultural sequence documented in the
original excavation, and thus give us an opportunity
to more closely link archaeological finds to their ori-
ginal positions in the cultural layer. The cultural la-
yers in the two inner test pits consisted of sand and
soot. In several places, lime originating from the
riod. The pioneer settlement phase of Gotland ex-
tends between 9200 and 7600 cal BP. Gotland rose
out of the Baltic Ice Lake in the pre-Boreal period
and was never connected to the mainland. Since the
island is positioned 80 km from the nearest main-
land, i.e. the Swedish east coast, large terrestrial
mammals were not present on the island until hare
and fox appeared during the Middle and Late Meso-
lithic period (Ahlgren et al. 2016; Lindkvist, Pos-
snert 1997), possibly introduced to by humans. The
environment and climate in the Baltic Sea area was
undergoing major changes at the time of the initial
pioneer settlements. During the Late Boreal time
(9200-8200 BP), Gotland was covered by a light
forest consisting mainly of pine in the coastal areas
and birch, elm, oak and hazel at the fertile soils of
the inland (Påhlsson 1977; Österholm 1989.14).
The annual average temperature was similar to that
of today, but with slightly cooler winters and warm-
er summers. The Baltic Sea was a freshwater lake,
the Ancylus Lake, but a gradually rising tempera-
ture meant that the Atlantic sea level rose and after
about 8500 BP, salt water flowed into the Baltic Sea
through Öresund (Andrén et al. 2011). These large-
scale changes are important for understanding the
development and character of the environment and
the settlements, even if in the present work we are
examining a specific region. In this paper we summa-
rize our results of the research project against the
background of previous arguments and interpreta-
tions of the Mesolithic period in the Baltic region.
Chronology of the cave Stora Förvar
The cave site Stora Förvar has been a key site and
frame of reference for Stone Age research in Scandi-
navia, despite the fact that the place in many respects
is unique. The cave was excavated between 1888 and
1893 by Lars Kolmodin, a schoolteacher from Visby,
and Hjalmar Stolpe, one of Sweden’s foremost field
archaeologists in the late 19th century (Schnittger,
Rydh 1940). The cave is c. 25m deep and the origi-
nal cultural layer, which was over 4m thick, was ex-
cavated in sections (A-I) and in 0.3 meter spits (a
Swedish foot) (Schnittger, Rydh 1940).
The stratigraphy in the cave was obviously formed
over a long period of time, but it was still difficult to
establish a relative chronology. For a long time the
stratigraphic integrity of the cave was questioned,
partly because of the original excavation method,
but also because of how the finds had been handled
after the excavations (see Lidén 1942; Rydbeck 1950;
Althin 1951). However, subsequent research has cla-
Fig. 1. The Baltic Sea with modern and early Holo-
cene (grey) coastlines. Gotland is the large island
in the lower centre of the figure.
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
8
cave’s walls had infiltrated the cultural layer, thus
preserving pockets and lenses of cultural layers. The
existence of intact pockets with remnants of Stone-
Age finds and soil matrix in the cave floor was an
important finding which offers new opportunities to
obtain important information about the early use of
the cave.
A series of radiocarbon dates of finds from the bot-
tom layers of the stratigraphy of the cave date to the
period 9200–7800 cal BP (Apel et al. 2017; Lind-
qvist, Possnert 1999; Landeschi et al. 2018). Thus,
the cave was used during the early and middle Me-
solithic periods but from the late Mesolithic period
there is an approximately 2000-year long hiatus in
the sequence. The cave was not in use again until
the early Neolithic period (c. 6000 cal BP) and on-
wards. In connection with the 2013 excavation, six
radiocarbon dates were analysed: A seal bone and
a human tooth from Trench 2 and a salmon bone
from Trench 3 were dated to the interval 9200–9000
cal BP (Apel et al. 2015; Apel, Storå 2018; Apel et
al. 2017; Boethius et al. 2017). Four additional sam-
ples of seal and sheep bones collected in situ in lime-
stone concretions in the cave walls were also se-
lected for radiocarbon dating. These dates confirmed
that the lower meter of the stratigraphic sequence
can be dated to the earliest Mesolithic phase, while
samples from c. 1.2m and upwards are of younger
age (Apel et al. 2015). Thus, the transition in the
stratigraphy between the Mesolithic and Neolithic
phases should appear somewhere between 0.6–1.2m
above the cave floor, depending on location in the
cave. As the cave floor slopes towards the mouth,
the Mesolithic layers are thicker there while thin-
ner at the end of the cave. This is further confirmed
by a digital analysis of the distribution of ceramics
in the cave sequence (Landeschi et al. 2018; Lund-
ström 2016) and also by analysis of the animal
bones in different parts of the cave (Apel, Storå
2018). A summed probability distribution model of
all available radiocarbon dates from the cave sug-
gests that the hiatus may have been somewhat
shorter than previously estimated, probably around
1400 years (Fig. 3). We thus have a better idea than
before about the stratigraphic and chronological
conditions in the lower layers of the cave. However,
the upper layers from the Late Stone Age to the Iron
Age/Middle Ages are not yet as well investigated or
documented.
Stratigraphic integrity and observations of the
2013 survey at the Stora Förvar cave
During the 2013 excavation, stone and flint artifacts,
burnt clay and pottery, bones of animals and hu-
mans were recovered (see Apel et al. 2015). The
flint consisted mainly of local Ordovician flint, but
some fragments in south Scandinavian flint were
also found. A large proportion of cores and flakes
with cortex indicate that beach pebbles were used as
raw material. Approximately 8.5kg of bone material
was collected, and the bones of seals and hare, fish
and birds but also occasional domestic animals such
as sheep/goats, cattle and pigs were recovered. These
last mentioned bones are obviously recent intrusions
that were deposited in the cave floor after the pri-
mary excavations. A few skull fragments, a milk tooth
and fragmented foot bones from humans were also
recovered. The tooth was dated to c. 9300–9200 cal
BP (BETA-399029, 8420±40 (–300 years to compen-
sate for the freshwater effect); Apel et al. 2017), one
of the oldest dates of a human bone from Stora För-
var and Gotland.
In the material from 2013, grey seals and ringed
seals are most common, while harp seals were not
identified with certainty. This is in good agreement
with previous observations of the faunal assembla-
ges in the Mesolithic layers (Pira 1926; Possnert,
Lindqvist 1997). The fish bone material contains a
few elements of (large) salmon, which are common
Fig. 2. Plan drawing of the Stora Förvar cave and
the trenches of the 2013 excavation.
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
9
on Mesolithic sites but unusual on
Neolithic ones (e.g., the middle Neo-
lithic Pitted Ware culture sites). An
important observation that testifies
to the integrity of the recovered poc-
kets with Mesolithic finds and layers
is that some long bones from young
grey seals with conjoining unfused
and loose epiphyses were recovered.
As these parts of the elements were
found in close proximity to each
other, extensive (post-depositional)
disturbance does not appear to have
occurred. The refitting of two flint
blades is another indication of stra-
tigraphic integrity (Fig. 4). However,
occasional finds of pottery and
bones from domestic animals and
cod from later periods show that the
lowest layers in the inner part of the cave consist of
a palimpsest. Moreover, artefacts made of sheep/goat
bone have been identified in the old find material,
although they appeared in the top layers of the stra-
tigraphy, see below. These finds may actually be old
intrusions, but perhaps more likely they were tram-
pled into the soil after the excavations. The excava-
tions in 2013 together with more detailed analyses
of the archaeological finds from the first excavations
show that the finds from Stora Förvar provide the
most important frame for chronological analyses.
The other sites on the island of Gotland, even with
considerably smaller amounts of finds, may be com-
pared and associated with the cave sequence, but
they also complement the chronology of the settle-
ment.
The lithic technology on Gotland during the
Mesolithic
The stone finds from the 2013 excavation provide
interesting insights into the character of the settle-
ment. Two flake cores in local flint testify to a re-
duction technique similar to that of the technology
group 2 of the younger Maglemosian culture of
southern Scandinavia (upper part of Figure 4; see
Sørensen 2006). These are cores with flat, unpre-
pared platforms, and with about 70° external plat-
form angles and step-fractures on the reduction sur-
face. These features suggest the use of a direct tech-
nique with soft hammer percussion; probably a ham-
merstone in sand- or limestone or less likely a ham-
mer of moose/red deer antler. Two of the blades re-
covered during the investigations have been possi-
ble to refit, indicating that knapping occurred in the
cave itself, and also the integrity of the cultural layer.
Interestingly, flint technology seems to have been
simplified in the cave, and in Gotland in general,
during the course of the earliest settlement phase
(Apel, Storå 2017).
Finds of cores and blades/flakes from the original
excavation mostly consist of local flint cores reduced
with a rudimentary hard platform technique (see
lower part of Figure 4). There is thus a transition
from the so-called techno group 2 to 1 in Gotland
during the early and middle Mesolithic. This con-
trasts with the situation in southern Scandinavia
where the development goes from techno group 1
to techno group 2 during pre-Boreal and Boreal
times (Sørensen 2006). From a lithic technology
perspective, this is exciting. The blade technique of
techno group 2 is more complex than that of tech-
no group 1 and requires more know-how and more
sophisticated knapping tools, and thus it is reason-
able to ask why this change happened. There are dif-
ferent views about the circumstances that affect and
control the degree of technological complexity of
hunter-gatherers. A basic premise is that the trans-
mission and passing down of technological knowl-
edge between generations is costly. It must, so to
speak, ‘pay off’, and for hunter-gatherers’ this greater
profitability may be related to efforts that directly
affect food procurement and resource acquisition.
Some research has emphasized the importance of
mobility for the maintenance of complex techni-
ques. According to this approach, it is advantageous
to use more complex technologies, often in the form
of compound tools, when moving around the land-
scape. Conversely, it is advantageous to simplify tech-
Fig. 3. A summed probability distribution model based on 68 ra-
diocarbon dates (14 binned 200-year slots) from the Stora Förvar
cave (Apel et al. 2017).
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
10
nologies when you become more resilient and se-
dentary, and closer to raw materials and food re-
sources (Binford 1980; Kelly 1995.77ff; Hertell, Tal-
lavaara 2011). It has also been pointed out that
technological complexity co-varies with risk: in situ-
ations where the chances of failure are high, there
are incentives to invest in more complex technolo-
gies that reduce this risk. And vice versa: when there
is a low risk of failure, it is more advantageous to
‘simplify’ technologies (Torrence 2001; Collard et
al. 2013).
Several researchers have pointed out that the con-
ditions for the maintenance and dissemination of
complex technologies also depends on the relative
size of the population and its external network (Hen-
rich 2004 2010; Riede 2009b; Powell et al. 2009).
Groups that are large enough and have large exter-
nal social networks tend to be able to maintain com-
plex technologies, while small groups are at greater
risk of losing technological and cultural knowledge
over time.
How, then, should we understand the change in the
Gotlandic flint and stone tool technology? One pos-
sibility is that the smaller size and different quality
of the lithic raw material on Gotland may have lim-
ited the possibilities in the craft. There are some in-
teresting parallels to this in the osseous craft. The
small size of the beach pebbles would then possibly
have posed problems as regards to reproducing the
technology over time. However, concerning the raw
material size and quality, the situation at the island
of Bornholm was similar but the technological deve-
lopment was different. On Bornholm for instance,
another large island in the Baltic Sea, the only avail-
able flint source is kugleflint, similar in size and
quality to the Gotlandic Ordovician flint. In a study
of the development of the stone tool technology of
Bornholm it was concluded that the development of
the craft over time follows the Maglemosian techno-
logical concept, even if the size of the cores, blades
and microliths is reduced in the middle and later
Maglemosian phases (Casati, Sørensen 2009.247).
The production of sophisticated blade cores in raw
materials of different sizes and lesser quality than
South Scandinavian flint is also known from eastern
central Sweden, where microblade cores and handle
cores were produced in local materials such as por-
phyry, jasper, ash tuff, different quartzites and even
quartz (Apel et al. 1996; Guinard 277.280ff). Thus,
it is unlikely that differences in raw material alone
would be responsible for the technological changes
on Gotland.
Another possibility is that the transition and actual-
ly the technological ‘simplification’ we see over time
is due to a combination of the above-mentioned fac-
tors. When groups moved to Gotland and came to
live there for most of the year, mobility decreased.
Given that the Gotland lakes were very rich in re-
sources, consisting of both fish and flora, and large
colonies of marine mammals, the conditions for
hunting and foraging should have been good. This
may have promoted a trend towards simpler tech-
nological solutions. It can also be assumed that the
first pioneers of this new environment probably had
reduced opportunities to maintain external social
networks. Perhaps this was also a contributing fac-
tor to the change seen in the development of lithic
technology?
The bone technology and osseous production
on Gotland in light of the finds from Stora För-
var
Descriptions of the types and quantities of osseous
implements in the different sections and layers of
the cave are found in the original publication by Bror
Schnittger and Hanna Rydh. They report a total of
548 bone and antler artefacts from the cave (Schnit-
tger, Rydh 1940.64) and provide photographs of a
Fig. 4. Flint artefacts from the oldest layers of Sto-
ra Förvar. Upper part of picture: two bladecores
and blades of the Maglemosian techno group 2.
Lower part of picture: blades and blade cores of
the Maglemosian techno group 1.
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
11
total of 199 and drawings of five different imple-
ments. Noteworthy are the high numbers of awls
and the small number of formal ‘type’ artefacts,
where the harpoons are the most important ones.
The original publication reports 51 ‘harpoons’, two
slotted bone points (fågelpilar), two arrowheads,
one spearhead, 11 daggers, 12 fishing implements,
375 awls (or ‘points’), 15 adzes, 20 polishers/flatte-
ners (glättare), two saw-toothed artefacts, 15 wild
boar teeth (11 knives and two awls), seven animal
teeth (mostly pendants and ‘a few’ awls), three hand-
les, two whistles, 10 needles, four pendants (bone),
three bone rings, and an unspecified number of
‘worked’ bones. This adds up to 535 items, appar-
ently excluding the 13(?) ‘worked’ pieces needed to
reach the reported number of 548.
Schnittger and Rydh also commented upon stratigra-
phic observations, i.e. the commonness of harpoons
in section G6. In earlier research a few Gotlandic
finds have gained most attention, namely one find
of a slotted bone point recovered in the body of a
male in a Mesolithic burial at Stora Bjers on Gotland
and two other finds from the Stora Förvar cave on
Stora Karlsö (see Apel, Storå 2017). The two slotted
points at Stora Förvar were also recovered in sec-
tion G, in layers 6 and 7, i.e. around 180–210cm
down in the stratigraphy of the cave. They have
been discussed extensively but here it is enough to
note that they do not seem to belong to the oldest
pioneer Mesolithic settlement. Schnittger and Rydh
(1940) noted morphological similarities between
some of the harpoons and a spearhead and other
finds in the Baltic area. We will not expand further
on the discussion on the chronology and typology of
various implements here, as the circumstances have
changed with the use of exact dating methods.
A sample of bone tools (N=207) recovered in the sec-
tions E and F of Stora Förvar, and stored at the Swe-
dish History Museum (SHM) in Stockholm, was ana-
lysed in an earlier study (Apel, Storå 2018). There
we evaluated which species and elements had been
chosen as raw materials for the osseous production.
Implements made of seal bones were most common
in the deeper layers of the cave, while ones made
of bones of domestic animals became more common
in the upper layers (Apel, Storå 2018.Tab. 11.2). This
was in good agreement with the earlier observations
on the distribution of harpoons and fishhooks, which
was taken as an indication that there had been chan-
ges in the hunting pattern and the general resource
utilization patterns over time at the site (e.g., Clarke
1946; 1976; Pira 1926). The observations correlat-
ed well also with the general composition of the fau-
nal assemblage through the stratigraphy of the cave,
such as the appearance of bones from harp seal and
other Atlantic species that indicated a change to
more marine conditions and greater salinity in the
Baltic Sea (Clarke 1946; 1976; Pira 1926; Apel, Sto-
rå 2018.283-287).
Osseous implements at Stora Förvar on Stora
Karlsö
The data on the osseous implements are presented
in the find presentation of the original publication
(Schnittger, Rydh 1940.29-60). In the present work
we have examined the data and recorded informa-
tion on 572 different osseous elements, Tables 1
and 2. There are some discrepancies between the
numbers provided in the find description and the
summary (Schnittger, Rydh 1940.64-67), but this is
not critical to obtain an impression of the assem-
blage. The implements are described in connection
to the finds of each section and layer, and this con-
tains information on the type, dimensions (length),
and in many cases the element and/or species that
the implement is made of. The information on the
artefacts varies but it is most detailed on those that
exhibited ‘type morphology’, such as harpoons, and
especially on those that have been photographed.
For quite a few items the information includes a com-
parison and a reference of similarity to a photogra-
phed item. This is especially valuable for the inter-
pretation on the many awls that in most cases were
made of a seal or pig bone. According to Schnittger
and Rydh (1940.64), 62 awls were made of seal fi-
bulas, 19 made of metapodials of sheep (?, with one
goat?), and 19 of pig fibulas. Bird bone had been
used for nine awls, and there are five radii, two ul-
nae and two humeri. The osteological information
on the implements was provided by Adolf Pira, and
in some cases by Hjalmar Stolpe (Schnittger, Rydh
1940.64). There were 36 bone harpoons and 14
made of antler.
According to our documentation and interpretation
of the data in the original publication, we have
grouped the implements into 31 categories, as
shown in Tables 1 and 2. Most common are awls fol-
lowed by harpoons, adzes and needles, and then
many examples of items represented by only a few
specimens. Noteworthy are the concentration of har-
poons to the levels 5 and 6, and the more dispersed
stratigraphic occurrence of awls. Moreover, imple-
ments that belong to the Iron Age or even medieval
period are found in the upper parts of the stratigra-
phy. The stratigraphic distribution of the species
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
12
used as raw material for the osseous implements
show that the domestic animals are concentrated in
the upper part of the stratigraphy, while seal bones
become more common in the deeper layer, as shown
in Table 2. In rough terms, the implements recorded
in layers 1–4 belong to the Iron Age, possibly even
Bronze Age, or younger. The finds in layers 5–8/9
are from the Late Mesolithic, Neolithic and possibly
Bronze Age and, finally, the finds in layer 9/10 and
deeper are mainly from the Mesolithic.
If we consider how the osseous implements were
shaped and produced, they may be divided into five
different categories based on the level of modifica-
tion of the raw material (Figs. 5 to 7). Again, the ob-
servations have been compiled from the original
publication and we limit the presentation to levels 5
and deeper (Tab. 3). We here distinguish between
the categories element, long bone (shaft), tool, tooth
knife, and tooth pendant (Tab. 3). An additional ca-
tegory is element/long bone, where it has not been
possible to make a certain judgement of which ele-
ment had been used as a raw material based on the
information available in the original publication
(Schnittger, Rydh 1940). The division is not exclu-
sive, as different types of implements occur in the
same category and similar types of implements are
found in different categories. Still, the division illu-
minates general aspects of the osseous craft and our
specific focus is on the layers 9/10 and deeper in
order to comment on the Mesolithic osseous craft.
All awls seen in Figure 5.A have been made from
fibula and tibia of seal, i.e. elements where only the
diaphysis has been modified, shaped, and partly
polished, and the tip sharpened. The epiphyseal end
of the awls is most often modified only slightly, and
it is thus possible to determine from which specific
element the implement was made from. Therefore,
the items in this category are skeletal elements for
which most often only the working edge – or tip –
has been modified.
Tab. 1. Identified artefact types among bone tools in different layers of Stora Karlsö according to the ori-
ginal publication (Schnittger, Rydh 1940.Ch. 5); NISP number of identified specimens. There may be some
discrepancies in the data due to problems of interpretation.
Artefact type 1 2 3 4 1-4 4-5 5 6 7 7-8 8 9 10 11 12 13 11-12 12-14 14-15 nd Total
Finger ring 3 3
Gaming piece 1 1
Comb 4 4
Whorl 1 1
Skate 1 1 2
Harpoon 1 1 15 21 4 1 1 1 1 1 47
Barbed point\harpoon 1 1 2
Notched point 1 2 1 4
Arrowhead\point 1 1
Slotted bone point 1 1 2
Point 1 1 2 1 5
Point\awl 3 1 1 5
Awl 1 9 11 25 1 41 58 44 2 32 46 33 23 17 4 11 1 3 2 364
Awl| 1 1 2
Dagger\awl 1 1 1 1 1 5
Adze 2 1 1 2 2 1 5 1 15
Adze+awl 3 3
Needle 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 11
Double needle\awl\hook 3 1 2 6
Boar tusk 1 7 1 3 1 1 1 15
Bone tube 2 2
Fishhook 3 1 1 1 6
Tool 2 7 1 2 1 1 1 3 18
Tool| 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 15
Pendant 1 1
Pendant| 1 1 2
Tooth pendant 1 1 2 2 2 8
Tube\bead 1 1
Tube| 1 1
Worked bone 1 1 5 3 4 3 1 1 19
Raw material| 1 1
Total 11 14 17 28 6 3 73 108 61 2 42 62 55 29 22 5 21 6 3 4 572
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
13
The awls/points in Figure 6.E have all been made
from long bone (shafts). It is still possible to deter-
mine that it was made from a long bone but not
from which specific element. The long bones have
often been split or splintered. They often exhibit
fresh fractures and the working edge has been
shaped and often carefully polished. Occasionally
both ends have been shaped and modified. The cate-
gory is important as it is often possible to determine
whether the implement was made from an element
of seal or not, which is of interest at Stora Förvar.
Bones of terrestrial mammals probably had to be
brought to Gotland, or else the implements were
brought there. Considering the ‘lack’ of waste prod-
ucts in the cave the latter alternative may be more
plausible. The awl in Figure 7.C was made from a
long bone of a large mammal (ungulate).
The barbed item in Figure 5.C represents a tool,
where most of the surface has been modified. On
tools it is (most often) possible to determine only
whether it has been made of bone or antler and not
which specific element has been used. The needle in
Figure 6.A and the awl/point of antler in Figure 7.A,
though it was recovered in G7, may also be conside-
red a tools, as the whole surface of each item has
been modified and shaped.
Two types of implements made from teeth have
been found at Stora Förvar. The first category com-
prises wild boar tusks where the tip of the tooth ex-
hibits modifications and traces of wear. The identi-
fication as wild boar is reasonable, but it has not
been possible to assess this in detail. There may be
a danger that some of the (wild boar) implements
are later (Neolithic) intrusions in the older layers,
and thus may originate from domestic pigs. The ra-
ther homogeneous pattern of modification of the tip
of the teeth suggest they were produced in a similar
craft context, probably chronologically restricted to
the Mesolithic. Schnittger and Rydh (1940) labelled
these items as knives, and the term has been re-
tained here even if the implements were probably
used in various ways. Finally, a few teeth, most often
seal canines, that had been used as pendants were
identified.
The osseous craft on Stora Karlsö
The two traditions or techno groups of lithic blade
production mentioned above are also linked to diffe-
rences in osseous production (Bergsvik, David 2014;
David, Kjällquist 2018; Gummesson 2018; Gum-
messon et al. 2019). It is thus possible to relate the
osseous craft and bone technology found on Got-
land, and especially that of Stora Förvar, to that
found on mainland sites. This is not the place for an
extensive review, but a comparison to recent studies
of osseous craft and technology on three Mesolithic
sites in Sweden is sufficient to contextualize the Got-
landic finds and craft. There are a few sites from the
Tab. 2. Identified species among the artefacts in different layers of Stora Karlsö according to the origi-
nal publication (Schnittger, Rydh 1940); NISP number of identified specimens. There may be some discre-
pancies in the data due to problems of interpretation as some, but not all, identifications were possible
to verify based on the text and the photographs.
1 2 3 4 1-4 4-5 5 6 7 7-8 8 9 10 11 12 13 11-12 12-14 14-15 nd Total
Grey seal 1 1
Ringed seal 1 5 1 1 1 1 10
Seal 2 2 1 2 4 22 12 6 8 15 12 2 1 1 3 3 96
Elk 1 1
Cervid 1 1 9 1 12
Cattle 1 1
Horse 1 1 2
Large mammal 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 10
Pig 1 2 13 1 2 4 1 1 3 2 30
Pig| 3 3
Sheep\goat 4 6 5 1 2 1 2 21
Ungulate 1 1 1 2 5
Red fox 1 1
Hare 1 2 3
Small mammal 1 1 2
Bird 2 3 1 3 11 9 3 1 1 2 1 37
Eagle 1 1
Mammal 9 11 4 13 4 51 47 26 2 19 37 23 10 9 2 13 2 1 283
Unidentified 3 9 8 7 2 4 6 4 7 2 1 53
Total 11 14 17 28 6 3 73 108 61 2 42 62 55 29 22 5 21 6 3 4 572
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
14
Tab. 3. Level of modification of osseous tools in different layers (5–15) at Stora Förvar according to
information in the original publication (Schnittger, Rydh 1940); NISP number of identified specimens.
Definition of the categories is found in the text.
Modification\tool type 4-5 5 6 7 7-8 8 9 10 11 12 13 11-12 12-14 14-15 Total
Element
Harpoon 1 2 3
Adze 1 1 3 5
Dagger\awl 1 1 1 3
Awl 6 29 17 7 13 15 13 7 2 5 1 2 117
Tool 1 4 1 6
Tool| 2 2 4
Bone tube\handle| 2 2
Worked bone 1 1
Long bone shaft m.
Harpoon 2 2
Adze 1 1 2 1 2 1 8
Adze+awl 3 3
Dagger\awl 1 1 2
Fishhook 3 1 1 5
Awl 25 17 14 8 8 12 5 5 6 1 101
Double needle\awl\hook 3 1 2 6
Point 1 1 2
Point\awl 3 1 4
Needle 1 1 2 2 6
Tool 1 1 2 4
Tool| 1 1 2 1 1 1 7
Pendant 1 1
Pendant| 1 1 2
Element\Long bone
Barbed point\harpoon 1 1
Boar tusk 1 1
Awl 10 12 12 2 17 25 6 5 5 2 96
Point 1 1 2
Point\awl 1 1
Needle 2 1 3
Tool 2 1 2 1 1 7
Tube\bead 1 1
Worked bone 4 3 4 3 1 1 16
Tool
Harpoon 12 19 4 1 1 1 1 39
Barbed point\harpoon 1 1
Notched point 2 1 3
Slotted bone point 1 1 2
Arrowhead\point 1 1
Fishhook 1 1
Awl 1 1
Point 1 1
Tool 1 1
Tooth knife
Boar tusk 7 1 3 1 1 13
Tooth pendant
Tooth pendant 1 2 2 2 7
Total 3 73 108 61 2 42 62 55 29 22 5 21 6 3 492
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
15
Late Boreal and Early Atlantic periods
with preserved finds of osseous craft,
such as Ringsjöholm in Scania (Gum-
messon et al. 2019), Sunnansund in
Blekinge (David, Kjällquist 2018), and
Strandvägen in Östergötland (Gummes-
son 2018; Gummesson et al. 2019). The
first two of these sites are dated to
around 9500–8000 BP, i.e. the time
when the pioneer settlement had reac-
hed Gotland while Strandvägen is slight-
ly younger, c. 8000-6500 BP, i.e. the pe-
riod during the hiatus of the settlements
on Gotland. The bone tools found at
Stora Karlsö illuminate aspects of the
utilization of animal resources, namely
the specific choices of raw material for
osseous production.
When comparing the assemblage of os-
seous artefacts from Stora Karlsö to
those on the mainland settlements it is
immediately evident how different, in
many aspects, the bone technology was
on Gotland. The finds from the two sec-
tions, E and F, are here compared to the
other assemblages. These finds were studied at SHM,
with the faunal remains (from section F) the focus
of osteological analysis. First, when examining the
raw materials used for the osseous craft in the old-
est layers of the cave, the difference in availability
of prey animals and, thus, suitable raw material for
Fig. 5. A nine awls recovered in section F and layer 10. All
made of seal fibulas except the one labelled a which was made
of a tibia. B tooth pendant made of canine from grey seal from
section F, layer 10. C tip of bilaterally barbed point (harpoon)
recovered in section F, layer 9. It was probably made from a
grey seal tibia. D crural bone (tibia and fibula) of a seal, mod-
ern reference. The long and slender diaphysis of the two ele-
ments were the most important raw material for osseous pro-
duction at Stora Förvar.
Fig. 6. A needle made from a long
bone with a completely polished
surface that hinders an identifica-
tion of the element it was made
from. Recovered in F12. B awl/ne-
edle made from fibula of an adult
seal where the tip is crudely shaped.
The tool has probably been reshap-
ed. Recovered in F8. C awl made of
a tibia of a seal where the tip is cru-
dely shaped and a large surface
with cancellous bone visible. Reco-
vered in F9. D awl made of tibia of
an adult ringed seal. The tip is well
polished. Note the damaged tip. Re-
covered in F9. E awls/points made
from long bones (shafts) that have
been split or splintered. The bones
exhibit fresh fractures and the work-
ing edge has been shaped and of-
ten carefully polished. Occasionally
both ends have been shaped and modified. Three of the implements have been made of long bones of ter-
restrial mammals, not seals. The implement labelled “a” is from a bird. Recovered in E9. F awls, made
of the distal part of the tibia of a hare (a) and from the tibia of a ringed seal (b). Recovered in F8.
tool production is reflected (Tab. 4). The importance
of red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus
capreolus), but also wild boar (Sus scrofa) on Meso-
lithic sites is evident as bones from these are the
most common on Ringsjön and Sunnansund as raw
materials. In addition, on the more northerly locat-
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
16
ed Strandvägen, the skeletal ele-
ments of Elk (Alces alces) were also
an important raw material. The spe-
cies that provided skeletal elements
for tools production at Stora Förvar
were seals, but some finds of bones
of large ungulates, cervids and pos-
sibly wild boar also occur. The oc-
currence of sheep/goats among the
Mesolithic finds is an obvious recent
intrusion (see Apel, Storå 2018 for
more details). The layers F9-F8 mark
a transitional horizon between the
Early and Middle Mesolithic and Late
Mesolithic/Neolithic finds. Note the
appearance of harpoons, fishhooks,
and boar tusk implements that most
likely mainly belong to the chronolo-
gically younger finds.
The difference in osseous raw mate-
rial availability may be seen as a pa-
rallel to the different availability of
(good) lithic raw material that the
pioneer settlements also faced but
evidently adapted to. It seems that
the craft to a high degree considered
the prerequisites of the raw material. Some level of
simplification is evident, in a similar manner to that
seen for lithic technology. The osseous craft produc-
ed a rather specific and limited set of tools at Stora
Förvar. At the same time, however, we might con-
sider this a specialization.
The lack of large ungulates on Gotland forced the
pioneers to select seal bones as a raw material for
osseous production. The skeletal elements are not
suitable as raw material in the same manner as cer-
tain elements of ungulates such as metapodia, radii
and to some extent also femur and humerus or ant-
ler of cervids. Still, seal bones were the most com-
mon raw material, which apparently put some strain
and limitations to the craft. Considering the mor-
phology of seal bones, it is actually only the tibia
and fibula, which in seals are proximally fused to
form the crural bone, and the ribs, that are long and
slender. Most other elements are small, irregular
and often with curved outlines which make them
difficult to use. Teeth have commonly been extracted
from the seal jaws, especially the canine teeth that
were used as pendants or possibly dress ornaments.
We may note that seals are represented with one im-
plement only on Sunnansund, a tooth pendant. Bird
bones were used more frequently at Stora Förvar
than at the other sites. That seems to be a local
adaptation, but may also be a preference to utilize
the often hard but thinner bone structure of bird
bones (Figs. 5–7). Bones of mountain hare exhibit si-
milar properties, as do those of many small-sized
mammals. The finds of tools and artefacts made of
antler and (long) bones of large ungulates in the
cave most probably represent imported tools, or
tools made from raw material that was imported to
Gotland.
The frequency of different tools is markedly differ-
ent on the sites (Tab. 5). Slotted items are the most
common category on Ringsjöholm (11%) and Sun-
nansund (33%) while barbed points are most com-
mon at Strandvägen (30%), followed by plain bone
points (12%). This difference has been discussed at
some length (see Gummesson et al. 2018 and refe-
rences therein), but for Stora Karlsö the almost com-
plete absence of these categories of tools is of inte-
rest. Awls are the most common category at Stora
Förvar, both in the oldest Mesolithic layers (78%)
and the Late Mesolithic/Neolithic (66%) layers among
the analysed osseous implements at SHM. The fre-
quency of awls is 70% in all Mesolithic layers accord-
ing to the data in the original publication (Schnit-
tger, Rydh 1940).
Fig. 7. A awl (point?) made of antler recovered in F7. B the base of
a similar implement as in A (a), unknown type, possibly a shaft
part from a fishhook or needle/awl (b). Two awls made from the
tibia (c) and fibula (d) of a seal. Note the polish and damaged
working edge of d. The implement was possibly discarded as it be-
came too short during use. All items found in E11. C large imple-
ment (awl/point) made of the long bone of a large mammal, not
seal. The working end is polished and shaped. Recovered in E11.
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
17
Pendants are more common in the assemblages
from Ringsjöholm (8%) and Sunnansund (12%) than
at Stora Förvar (3%) and Strandvägen (1%). Ringsjö-
holm exhibits slightly more varied material than
Sunnansund, but this may be related to the differ-
ence in sample size. Strandvägen has the most var-
ied and rich material of osseous implements, which
also may be related to the larger sample size. How-
ever, the difference in the composition of the mate-
rial at Strandvägen is still noteworthy, as many ele-
ments seen on the older sites have been retained
here (Gummesson et al. 2018), while they disap-
peared on the Gotlandic sites.
The assemblage of osseous tools at Stora Förvar has
to be considered as less variable than those on the
other three sites. This is seen in the more limited
number of species used as a source for raw mate-
rials and also in the smaller variability of tool types.
Finally, it may be noted that the assemblage from
Stora Förvar lacks waste products. This, however, is
not completely true, as a few of the artefacts appear
to be preforms while other implements have obvi-
ously been modified and re-shaped, possibly on site.
Also, there is a category of items classified as ‘work-
ed pieces’ by Schnittger and Rydh (1940.64), i.e.
smaller fragments with traces of polishing or other
marks from the production. Biased recovery may
probably have contributed to a certain loss of small
fragments and, thus, presumably waste products,
but it is not only the smallest waste products that
are lacking in the assemblage. Waste products were
also absent among the finds from the 2013 excava-
tions where water sieving was employed. It may be
concluded that the osseous production here was
rather different than at the other sites. As seal bones
are not well suited as raw material for tool produc-
tion the pioneers had locally different availability
and access to good bone raw material for tool pro-
duction, in contrast to the situation on the settle-
ments on the mainland. We need to consider diffe-
rent reasons for the differences, as there was surely
some degree of shortage with regard to local avail-
ability of raw materials, e.g., elements of ungulates,
but at the same time maybe the hunting of seals
did not require the larger implements and points
that have been identified on the mainland sites. This
issue cannot be resolved here, but we acknowledge
that there are no simple explanations to this.
Tab. 4. Identified species used as sources of skeletal elements for osseous craft on different sites. Data for
Ringsjöholm and Strandvägen is found in Gummesson et al. (2019.Tab. 3), for Sunnansund in David
and Kjällquist (2018.Appendix 9.1), and for Stora Förvar, 9–13 (1940) in Schnittger and Rydh (1940).
The finds from Stora Förvar E/F were analysed at SHM in Stockholm.
Ringsjöholm Sunnansund
Stora Förvar, Stora Förvar, Stora Förvar,
StrandvägenE\F9-13 E\F5-8 9–13 (1940)
Alces alces 2 35
Bos primigenius 1
Capreolus capreolus 12 7(9) 30
Cervidae 9 5 2 3 13
Cervus elaphus 26 9(11) 281
Bos taurus 2
Ovis aries\Capra hircus 2 4 2
Sus scrofa 11 2 3 4 9 24
Large ungulate\mammal 6 38(46) +12 16 14 4 381
Ungulate 3 2
Ursus arctos 2 1
Felis silvestris 1
Meles meles 1
Lutra lutra 1
Martes martes 3
Small carnivore 4
Carnivora 2
Halichoerus grypus 1 11 1 1
Phoca hispida 19 6 8
Phoca sp. 38 6 42
Castor fiber 1
Lepus timidus 3 1 2
Aves 12 9 8 11
Unidentified mammal 234 1 9 11 119 691
Total 316 70(89) 115 61 197 1468
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
18
A new interpretation of the earliest Gotland
settlements
In previous research, the rich occurrence of marine
mammal bones (seals) in the cultural layers of the
Mesolithic settlements was interpreted as reflecting
the main driver of the colonization of Gotland (Pi-
ra 1926; Schnittger, Rydh 1940; Clark 1976; Öster-
holm 1989; Lindqvist, Possnert 1999; Wallin, Sten
2007; Andersson 2016). This is not surprising con-
sidering that over 1000kg of seal bones have been
collected in the Mesolithic layers from Stora Förvar,
and bones of seals also dominate the other faunal
assemblages on Mesolithic sites (Apel, Storå 2018).
One important exception to this is Ericson’s study
which highlights the importance of fish for the set-
tlements, even if this mostly concerns the Atlantic
(i.e. Late Mesolithic) and Subboreal (Neolithic) con-
ditions and is also related to taphonomy, mainly the
preservation bias favouring seal bones (Ericson
1989). An early study that also warrants attention is
that of Welinder, who emphasized the importance
of the lake environments and thus fish resources for
the Mesolithic settlements in South Scandinavia (We-
linder 1978). Other important studies focus atten-
tion on the recovery bias, especially for Gotland (Jo-
hansson, Larje 1993; Lindqvist 1997; Olson, Wal-
ther 2007). More recent research has shown that
freshwater fish were an important resource for Me-
solithic settlements in many regions of Northern Eu-
Tab. 5. Identified types of osseous implements on different sites. Data for Ringsjöholm and Strandvägen
is found in Gummesson et al. (2019.Tabs. 1–2) for Sunnansund in David and Kjällquist (2018.Appen-
dix 9.1), and for Stora Förvar, 9–13 (1940) in Schnittger and Rydh (1940). The finds from Stora Förvar
E/F were analysed at SHM in Stockholm.
Type of implement Ringsjöholm Sunnansund Stora Förvar, Stora Förvar, Stora Förvar, Strandvägen
E\F10-13 E\F5-9 9–13 (1940)
Heavy-duty tools 2
Barbed point 6 2 2 446
Harpoon head 1 1 5 8 3 14
Slotted bone point 34 14 43
Plain bone point 5 180
Arrowhead 1 8
Spearhead 1 16
Notched point 1 1
Bone point, unspec. 17 1 3
Needle\pin 15 3 2 4 35
Slotted dagger 8
Ulna dagger 1 1
Awl 7 4 90 40 137 71
Double awl 2 2 3
Chisel 6 53
Knife 3 5
Wedge 1
Navette 7
Fishhook 1 1 1 3 1
Gorge 3
Pressure flaker 8 33
Antler axe\adze\mattock 3 10
Bone adze 1 5 1 7
Antler club 6
Club (bone) 1
Antler shaft 4
Antler sleeve 3
Decorated antler object 6
Stopper\cork 3
Knife\scraper, boar tusk 2 5 7
Enamel tool 1 2 13
Beads\pearls\pendant 26 5 5 13
Handle-like 2
Unidentified antler object 14 2 31
Unidentified 174 6 3 4 22 447
Osseous implements, total 316 43 115 61 197 1468
Waste (+unfinished) 977 34 2185
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
19
rope. In Scandinavia, this is evident both in light of
the composition of the site refuse faunas (see Boe-
thius 2017; Boethius, Ahlström 2018) and analyses
of stable isotopes of human remains (Eriksson et
al. 2018). The pioneers of Gotland, with a probable
origin in mainland and coastal environments, should
have been well aware of these resources, but – as
mentioned above – the importance of fish was not
the focus of the early research. However, the island
of Gotland was actually rich in lake environments
(see Apel, Storå 2018). In light of the new knowl-
edge about Mesolithic subsistence patterns and adap-
tive dynamics, we wanted to scrutinize the interpre-
tations on the subsistence of the pioneer settlements
on Gotland. In earlier publications we have focused
attention on prey choice in the exploitation of seals
(Apel, Storå 2018), the importance of freshwater fish
for the pioneer settlements (Apel, Storå 2018; Boe-
thius et al. 2017), and the general chronology and
character of the demographic development (Apel
et al. 2017).
Seal hunting
During all periods of the Mesolithic, seal hunting on
Gotland was focused mainly on the youngest seals
of both grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and ringed
seal (Phoca hispida) that were hunted during late
winter and early spring, but initially also later in the
year. The hunting season at Stora Karlsö initially ap-
pears to have been more than six months long, but
was then shortened to around three months (Apel,
Storå 2018). As the hunting season became shorter,
grey seals of smaller body size were hunted, which
in turn resulted in a smaller yield of the hunt (Fig.
5). If the breeding season of the grey seal and ringed
seal was the same as today, hunting probably start-
ed on the ice, but perhaps there were also colonies
of grey seals on the beaches at Stora Karlsö and
other places on Gotland that could be hunted ‘from
land’. The ringed seal, on the other hand, is more so-
litary, and judging from the age of the seals the hun-
ters searched for breeding lairs and/or breathing
holes in the ice. The apparent prevalence of fast ice,
which is necessary for ringed seals, this far south in
the Baltic Sea differs markedly from the situation
today, when the species usually occurs in the north-
ern parts of the Baltic basin. The seasonality patterns,
prey choices, as well as the general chronological
changes observed show that the seal hunting pat-
terns were dynamic and unequivocally of significant
importance on Gotland throughout the Mesolithic.
The hunting patterns for seals underwent changes
through time, and the species distribution sheds
some light on the stratigraphic integrity in the cave
(Landeschi et al. 2018). Of interest here is the ap-
pearance of the harp seal, which entered the Baltic
Sea around 6000 BP, approximately when the hia-
tus in the cave ends (Bennike et al. 2008; Storå,
Ericson 2004). Bones of harp seals appear in the
sections and layers B6, E7, F9, G7, H7, and I5 (Apel,
Storå 2018; Pira 1929). This roughly coincides with
the appearance of bone harpoons and fishhooks and
larger quantities of Pitted Ware culture pottery (Lan-
deschi et al. 2018). Bones of domesticated animals
become more common in the uppermost layers,
which date to the Iron Age and Historical period
(Landeschi et al. 2018). Some finds of sheep and
other domestic animals are found as deep as G8
(Lindqvist, Possnert 1997). Thus, the oldest Mesoli-
thic finds are found in layers deeper than 10 while
late Mesolithic/Neolithic finds appear approximately
in layer 9. It is important to note that in the inner
parts of the cave pottery and other ‘young’ finds are
found even in the bottom layers (I7 and H7).
Importance of fish
The site refuse faunas of the oldest Gotlandic Meso-
lithic settlement sites show a large number of fish
species such as various types of carp, pike, burbot
and salmon (Knape, Ericson 1988; Lindqvist, Pos-
snert 1999; Boethius et al. 2017). Due to the reco-
very techniques used, the species representations
are difficult to evaluate (see Lindqvist 1997). It is
evident that the pioneers also collected various types
of molluscs and hazelnuts (Munthe, Hansson 1930),
in addition to hunting of seals (Pira 1926; Ericson
1989; Apel, Storå 2018), hares and foxes (Lindqvist,
Possnert 1999; Ahlgren et al. 2016). Ungulates, a
common prey on the mainland, were absent on Got-
land. There are, however, several reasons to believe
that freshwater fish played a major role for the first
pioneers, and we have suggested that in fact it may
have been the many shallow lakes in northern Got-
land that attracted the first pioneers to the island
(Apel, Storå 2017; Boethius et al. 2017). The earli-
est settlement appeared on Gotland in a time of hot
summers but cold winters, and the general trend for
the climate was that it became warmer. The pioneer
settlement came to an environment that was diffe-
rent from that of the mainland, and important prey
animals were absent. The fact that Gotland is an is-
land that has not been in direct contact with the
mainland most probably characterized the local flora
and fauna. The surrounding water was a barrier for
the dispersal of many species. However, the environ-
ments with the lakes were familiar and perhaps
much more important than previously thought. The
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
20
specific focus on seal hunting may be seen as a new
element, but this element was incorporated into a
larger adaptive strategy. The oldest settlements on
Gotland are, admittedly, often located on the coast,
but it is important to note that they are also located
in direct connection with lake environments. This is
also the case on the mainland (e.g., Boethius 2018).
Assessing the significance of fish based on bone finds
has been challenging. The finds of the older excava-
tions and surveys are not reliable, mainly because
water sieving or fine-mesh sieving were not adopt-
ed, a problem not unique to Gotland (for a discus-
sion see Boethius 2016; Enghoff 2007; Johansson,
Larje 1993; Lindqvist 1997; Olson, Walther 2007;
Segerberg 1999). This has been noted before (Kna-
pe, Ericson 1988), but based on the results of the
2013 survey at Stora Förvar, and of the recent exca-
vations at Gisslause, it is evident that fish bones are
indeed are very common in Mesolithic Gotland set-
tlements where water sieving has been used (Apel,
Vala 2013; Apel et al. 2015; Boethius et al. 2017;
Apel, Storå 2018). A more indirect but still impor-
tant indication of the importance of fish in the diet
is the fact that bones from the Mesolithic pioneers
exhibit a reservoir effect that can be linked to a large
intake of freshwater fish (Boethius et al. 2017). Fish-
ing implements are rare on Gotlandic sites, but in
southern Scandinavia discoveries of the net sinks,
bright spots, shoals and fermentation contexts from
the Boreal time further show the significant impor-
tance of fishing for these communities (Andersen
1978; Boethius 2016; Hammarstrand et al. 2008;
Hansson et al. 2018; Johansson 2006).
Vegetable resources
Hazelnuts have a high energy value and were evi-
dently an important staple food during the early
Holocene in northern Europe (Holst 2010.2871),
and also appear on Gotlandic Mesolithic sites. How-
ever, vegetables (which were also used for purpos-
es other than food) are almost invisible in the archa-
eological record. It has been suggested that the ra-
pid spread of hazel in Northern Europe during early
Boreal time may be due to the fact that humans
brought it with them. As hazel appears earlier in the
eastern Danish islands than in western Denmark,
Iversen suggested that it might have been trans-
ported by people in boats along the Oder and Wei-
chsel Rivers and further up to the Dana River in the
present Great Belt (Iversen 1973.62). However, it
has been pointed out that there are source-critical
problems that must be resolved before such an in-
terpretation can be confirmed (Björkman 2007.70).
Regardless, this hypothesis is particularly interest-
ing for Gotland, partly because it is an island, and
partly because it seems that certain wild animals
were taken to the island by humans both during the
Mesolithic and Neolithic, e.g., the mountain hare (Le-
pus timidus) (Ahlgren et al. 2017), hedgehog (Eri-
naceaus europaeus) (Fraser et al. 2012) and pos-
sibly also pig (Sus scrofa) (Jonsson 1986).
It is a tempting thought that the first pioneers would
have brought hazelnuts and other nuts to create
nurtured hazel environments near the places of the
settlements. However, perhaps a more sensible in-
terpretation, which does not exclude the role of hu-
mans, is that the hazel had already been spread to
the island by birds, and that the pioneers favoured
it by clearing areas near the settlements and tend-
ing the bushes. It has been suggested that hazelnut
was favoured by contemporary hunter-gatherers in
southern Scandinavia (Regnell, Ekblom 2001.266).
It was not only an important food, but could also be
used for trapping devices and arrow shafts.
Another edible plant that was abundant in the many
shallow, overgrown Gotland lakes during Boreal
times is the bulrush (Typha). Seeds have been found
on millstones from a 25 000-year-old site in Bilanci-
no near Florence, Italy (Aranguren et al. 2015),
which shows that European hunter-gatherers knew
of and used the plant quite early. It is productive
and can be eaten fresh (the young stalk), while the
seed capsule and roots can also be ground into
flour, boiled or roasted, and may very well have
been used as a carbohydrate source. According to
calculations made by the Swedish Defence Force in
the 1980s, roots of phragmites could support large
parts of the Swedish population in the event of an
emergency (Persson 1999.175), and it has been
pointed out that phragmites and clover (Trifolium)
may have been used as food during the Mesolithic
period (Larsson 1978.186).
The shallow lakes of northern Gotland during Bo-
real times should have had large populations of yel-
low water-lily (Nuphar lutea) that could have been
used by the pioneers. Seeds of yellow water-lily have
been collected at contemporaneous settlements at
Holmegaard’s bog in Denmark (Broholm 1931.19)
and are also known from recent excavations of a
Mesolithic site in Ageröd, southern Sweden (Boethi-
us et al. 2020). Yellow water-lily, for example, was
the most important traditional food for the Klamath
Indians in Oregon, which fed on fishing, hunting
and, above all, on the collection of yellow water-lily
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
21
in shallow, overgrown lakes from stock boats (Co-
ville 1902). There are archaeological indications that
wild apples were collected at Boreal settlements
around Ringsjön in Skåne, and it is likely that rasp-
berries and other berries also were included in the
Boreal diet (oral information from Arne Sjöström,
Department of Archaeology, and the History of Anti-
quity, Lund University, see Boethius et al. 2020).
Changing environments and adaptive dynamics
on Mesolithic Gotland
Seal bones also occur in Mesolithic site refuse faunas
on the coasts of the Baltic Sea, but these exhibit a
more varied species representation including terres-
trial species, and especially different ungulates (see
Magnell 2006; Magnell et al. 2020), with these spe-
cies missing on Gotland. Thus, the subsistence base
on Gotland – or actually the terrestrial fauna – pro-
bably lacked important elements of variation and
diversity that could have affected the Mesolithic set-
tlements, not necessarily in deterministic terms but
still affecting regional and specific adaptive dynam-
ics. It is evident from the zooarchaeological analyses
of the site refuse faunas of the Gotlandic Mesolithic
sites that even if seal bones do indeed occur in high
numbers, other resources had to be exploited. More-
over, the Gotlandic settlement and adaptive strate-
gies might have been sensitive and had to be res-
ponsive to the recurrent changes in environmental
conditions we know took place. The changes in sa-
linity of the Baltic Sea and general climatic trends of
the period may actually have been especially impor-
tant for the seals.
The predictable boreal climate changed drastically
about 8200 years ago in connection with a rapid
cooling that occurred in the northern hemisphere
and then lasted for hundreds of years (Manninen
2014). This cold period affected population devel-
opment and the place of residence in much of north-
ern Europe, Denmark and Sweden (Riede 2009a).
At Gotland, the temperature decrease is seen in a
10 000-year temperature curve above the average
temperature in July in the lake Tingstäde Träsk (Mör-
ner, Wallin 1977), and also as a marked reduction
in pine and increase in birch in the pollen diagrams
at the transition between pollen zones VI and VII
(Boreal/Atlantic period) (Påhlsson 1977). These
changes have previously been interpreted as a result
of the Ancylus transgression (Österholm 1989.14),
but since it reached its maximum already in pre-Bo-
real time it is more reasonable that they should be
associated with the 8200 BP cold event. In Blekinge
and Estonia, geologists have documented sediments
from this period suggesting high cyclonic activity in
the Baltic Sea area, with severe storms as a result
(Berglund et al. 2004; Veski et al. 2004). The cold
event at 8200 BP probably affected the Mesolithic
settlements on Gotland.
When the effect of the cold period subsided, the
temperature rose rapidly, and about 8000 years ago
lime and ash appear in the Gotland pollen diagrams
(Påhlsson 1977; Mörner, Wallin 1977). The warm-
er and more humid climate during the Atlantic pe-
riod lead to the development establishment of a
dense oak mixed forest on the island. However, the
rise in temperature created a rapid melting of ice at
the poles and a rise in sea levels, and in the Baltic
Sea this lead to the first Littorina transgression rea-
ching its maximum 7600 years ago (Risberg et al.
2007). The transgression raised the sea level by over
4m and Mesolithic settlements close to the shoreline
on Gotland, such as Gisslause, Svalings and Strå,
were flooded and overlain by thick layers of lime-
stone (Munthe 1940). The transgression did not
really reach the Stora Förvar estuary, which is today
about 21m asl (Schnittger, Rydh 1940.19), but the
sea level certainly affected the conditions for hunt-
ing marine mammals on the beach below the cave.
In addition, the beach vegetation changed. However,
the changes should not have significantly affected
the conditions of the seal populations, although the
higher salinity and thus higher productivity should
have benefited them.
As indicated by the data presented above, it was not
only the hunting of seals that determined the set-
tlement and activity patterns during the Mesolithic
in Gotland (see Ericson 1989). We also see traces of
other activities that fall into other seasons, such as
fishing, exploitation of birds and not least hazelnut
shells. The chronologically earlier settlements on
Gotland were always located close to lakes, even
though they had a coastal location. Probably the
most important consequence of the sea level rise
was that the coastal lakes were flooded with salt
water. With this, the environments in which the old-
est settlements were located changed. The settle-
ments on the main Gotland island that have been
radiocarbon dated to the Atlantic era, i.e. Svalings,
Visborgs Kungsladugård and Norrbys, are now fac-
ing the salty Littorina Sea, but without close contact
with lakes. Activity on Stora Karlsö seems to be slow-
ing down, although the location of the site was dif-
ferent from those of the other settlements. The seal
hunting patterns are also changed. Up to 50% of the
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
22
hunted seals now consist of ringed seals, a species
that is more difficult to hunt and is also smaller than
the grey seal. At Norrbys, the discovery of one of the
earliest finds of a harpoon suggests that seal hunt-
ing had become more sophisticated by the early
Atlantic period, as harpoons are missing from the
chronologically earlier Late Boreal settlements. We
may note that the production of harpoons would
have been difficult using seal bones as raw materi-
al. One harpoon recovered in G7 at Stora Förvar is
made of the mandibula of a grey seal (Schnittger,
Rydh 1940.Pl I.3). Seals had been hunted with other
techniques during the older period, and perhaps they
were clubbed on the ice or beaches. Active hunting
in open water does not seem to have been common
(Apel, Storå 2018).
The image of the first pioneer settlements on Got-
land is a complex one. Hunter-gatherers are often
defined by the fact that, unlike farmers, they do not
produce their own food but instead survive by hunt-
ing, foraging and collecting existing species in the
environment. The first pioneers seem to defy this
image. By transporting hares and perhaps even fox-
es to Gotland and thus creating populations that
could be hunted and possibly also by nurturing the
growth of hazel, they may have mastered and chan-
ged the environment to their own advantage. The
hares and foxes would also have produced raw ma-
terial for the osseous craft, in addition to furs and
meat. The presence of eagle bones at Gisslause (Mun-
the, Hansson 1930; Apel, Vala 2013) and Stora För-
var (Lindqvist, Possnert 1999) is an indication that
the main competitor for the hares may have been
guarded, but here also the bones of the birds were
apparently desired for bone craft and, possibly, more
so than on mainland sites.
The often-emphasized importance of seal hunting
needs to be scrutinized even further. To this we can
add the large-scale consumption of inland fish, which
in itself should have been based on mass fishing
with advanced techniques in the growing shallow
lakes of northern Gotland and also in their outlets
to the Ancylus Lake. This important environment
was probably greatly influenced by the changes in
the natural conditions, and this may be the main
cause of the decline in activities we can note during
the late Mesolithic on Gotland. The increasing tem-
peratures should have given people better opportu-
nities in the interior of the island, but a more marked
expansion to these areas apparently occurred later
than was previously believed. The so-called ‘axe’ set-
tlements that are situated in the interior parts and
were earlier interpreted as being from the Late Me-
solithic seem to date either to the Early Atlantic era
(e.g., Norrbys) or later to the Mesolithic/Neolithic
(e.g., Ajvide and Nasume).
A source critical factor that needs consideration is
that few of these sites have been archaeologically
investigated and dated. The hiatus in settlement ac-
tivities also needs further attention, but it is evident
that the earlier development halted. Of importance
is that there are no secure finds of Ertebölle pottery
on Gotland (dated to c. 7300-6000 BP), which rein-
forces the impression of more sporadic visits to Got-
land in the Late Mesolithic (Atlantic period) than in
earlier times, but also after c. 6000 BP. Perhaps the
8200 BP cold event and subsequent transgression
contributed to a fairly extensive demographic rest-
ructuring in the Scandinavian hunter-gatherer groups,
which would probably have also affected the coastal
groups. If so, it is not difficult to imagine that the
remaining human groups in Scandinavia concentrat-
ed in the (richer) mainland environments with good
communication routes – but perhaps also with
lakes with fish resources that were not affected by
the impact of the Litorina Sea. The Strandvägen site
in Östergötland may be one such example. The more
peripheral environments, such as Gotland, which
during the most productive phase of Late Boreal
time offered favourable conditions with rich lakes
and large seal colonies, seem to have been aban-
doned or used only sporadically for a long period of
up to 2000 years. After this, what had once been im-
portant on the islands no longer seems to have at-
tracted people there.
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
23
References
Ahlgren H., Norén K., Angerbjörn A., and Lidén K. 2016.
Multiple prehistoric introductions of the mountain hare
(Lepus timidus) on a remote island, as revealed by an-
cient DNA. Journal of Biogeography 43: 1786–1796.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12759
Althin C.-A. 1951. Bäckaskogs- och Lummelunda-gravar-
nas ålder. Fornvännen 1951: 360–364.
Andersen K. 1978. Smuldpladser i Åmosen. Nationalmu-
seets Arbejdsmark 1978: 103–110.
Andrén T., Björck S., Andrén E., Conley D., Zillén L., and
Anjar J. 2011. The development of the Baltic Sea Basin
during the Last 130 ka. In J. Harff, S. Björck, and P. Hoth
(eds.), The Baltic Sea Basin. Springer. Heidelberg: 75–98.
Apel J., Bäckström Y., Geijerstam M., Hallgren A.-L., and
Kritz A. 1996. Valhalla – En mesolitisk lägerplats vid Ling-
bo, Ockelbo sn, Gästrikland. Arkeologisk slutundersök-
ningsrapport från Arkeologikonsult AB, Upplands Vä-
sby 1996: 6.
Apel J., Storå J. 2017. Ett återbesök i Stora Förvar och
en ny bild av mesolitikum på Gotland. In P. Wallin, H.
Martinsson-Wallin (eds.), Arkeologi på Gotland 2.
Tillbakablickar och nya forskningsrön. Institutionen
för arkeologi och antik historia. Uppsala universitet and
Gotlands Museum. Upssala: 9–19.
2018. The pioneer settlements of Gotland – A behavi-
oural ecology approach. In P. Persson, F. Riede, B. Skar,
H. M. Breivik, and L. Jonsson (eds.), The ecology of early
settlement in northern Europe. Conditions for subsi-
stence and survival (volume 1). Equinox Press. Shef-
field: 277–309.
Apel J., Storå J., and Landeschi G. 2015. Ett återbesök i
Stora Förvar. Efterundersökning av stenålderslokalen
Stora Förvar, Stora Karlsö, Eksta sn, RAÄ 138:1, Got-
land. Arkeologisk rapport, Institutionen för arkeologi och
antikens historia, Lunds Universitet. Lund.
Apel J., Wallin P., Storå J., and Possnert G. 2017. Early Ho-
locene Human Population events on the Island of Gotland
in the Baltic Sea. Quaternary International 465(B):
276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.014
Aranguren B., Becattini R., Lippi M. M., and Revedin A.
2015. Grinding flour in Upper Palaeolithic Europe (25 000
years bp). Antiquity 81: 845–855.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00095946
Berglund B. E., Sandgren P., Barenkow L., Hannon G.,
Jiang H., Skog G., and Yu S.-Y. 2004. Early Holocene his-
tory of the Baltic Sea, as reflected in coastal sediments in
Blekinge, southeastern Sweden. Quaternary Internatio-
nal 130: 111–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2004.04.036
Binford L. R. 1980. Willow smoke and dog’s tails: Hunter-
gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site for-
mation. American Antiquity 45: 4–20.
https://doi.org/10.2307/279653
Björkman L. 2007. Från tundra till skog. Miljöföränd-
ringar i norra Skåne under jägarstenåldern. Riksanti-
kvarieämbetet. Stockholm.
Bødker Enghoff I. 2007. Viking age fishing in Denmark,
with particular focus on the freshwater site Viborg, me-
thods of excavation and smelt fishing. In H. H. Plogmann
(ed.), The role of fish in ancient time: proceedings of the
13th meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group
in October 4th–9th, Basel/August 2005. International
Council for Archaeozoology. Fish Remains Working Group
Meeting. Verlag Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf: 69–76.
Boethius A. 2016. Something rotten in Scandinavia: the
world’s earliest evidence of fermentation. Journal of
Archaeological Science 66: 169–180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.01.008
2018. Fishing for ways to thrive: integrating zooar-
chaeology to understand subsistence strategies and
their implications among Early and Middle Mesoli-
thic southern Scandinavian foragers. Studies in Osteo-
logy 4. Acta Archaeological Lundensia, Series Altera in
8o, No 70. Lund University. Lund.
Boethius A., Ahlström T. 2018. Fish and resilience among
early Holocene foragers of southern Scandinavia: a fusion
of stable isotopes and zooarchaeology through Bayesian
mixing modelling. Journal of Archaeological Science
93: 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.02.018
Boethius A., Storå J., Vala C. H., and Apel J. 2017. The im-
portance of freshwater fish for the Early Holocene colo-
nization of the Island of Gotland in the Baltic Basin. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Science Reports 13: 625–634.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.014
Boethius A., Hollund H., Linderholm J., Vanhanen S., Kjäl-
lqvist M., Magnell O., and Apel J., 2020. Quantifying ar-
chaeo-organic degradation – a multiproxy approach to
understand the accelerated deterioration of the ancient
organic cultural heritage at the Swedish Mesolithic site
Ageröd. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0239588.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239588
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
24
Broholm H. C. 1931. Nouvelles trouvailles de plus an-
cien age de la pierre. Les trouvailles de Holmegaard et
de Svaerdborg. Mémoires de la Société royale des anti-
quaires du Nord. 1926–1931. Köpenhagen.
Casati C., Sørensen L. 2009. The settlement patterns of
the Maglemose culture on Bornholm, Denmark. Some pre-
liminary results and hypothesis. In S. B. McCartan, R.
Schulting, G. Warren, and P. Woodman (eds.), Mesolithic
Horizons. Volume I. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 248–254.
Clark G. 1946. Seal Hunting in the Stone Age of North-
Western Europe: a Study in Economic Prehistory. Proce-
edings of the Prehistoric Society 12: 12–48.
1976. A Baltic Cave Sequence: A Further Study in Bio-
archaeology. In H. Mitcha-Marheim, H. Friesinger, and
H. Kerchler (eds.), Festschrift für Rickard Pittioni zum
70. Geburtstag. Archaeologia Austriaca 14. Deuticke.
Wien: 113–123.
Collard M., Buchanan B., O’Brien M. J., and Scholnick J.
2013. Risk, mobility or population size? Drivers of techno-
logical richness among contact-period western North Ame-
rican hunter-gatherers. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B 368(1630): 20120412.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0412
Coville F. V., Frederick V. 1902. Wokas, a primitive food
of the Klamath Indians. Report of the United States Na-
tional Museum for the year ending June 30: 725–739.
Ericson P. G. P. 1989. Säl och säljakt i Östersjöområdet
under stenåldern. In E. Iregren, R. Liljekvist (eds.), Fau-
nahistoriska studier tillägnade Johannes Lepiksaar.
Symposium 26 maj 1988. Report Series No. 3. University
of Lund. Institute of Archaeology. Lund.
Eriksson G., Frei K. M., Howcraft R., Gummesson S., Molin
F., Lidén K., Frei R., and Hallgren F. 2018. Diet and mobi-
lity among Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Motala (Swe-
den) – the isotope perspective. Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science: Reports 17: 904–918.
Fraser M., Sten S., and Götherström A. 2012. Neolithic
Hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) from the Island of Got-
land show early contacts with the Swedish mainland. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Science 39(2): 229–233.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.006
Guinard M. 2018. Middle Mesolithic blade technology in
Sweden, c. 8th Millenium BC. In K. Knutsson, H. Knuts-
son, J. Apel, and H. Glørstad (eds.), Technology of Early
Settlement in Northern Europe. Transmission of Know-
ledge and Culture. Equinox Press. Sheffield.
Gummesson S. 2018. Points on production. Taphonomic
research on Mesolithic osseous assemblages, in Sweden.
Theses and Papers in Osteoarchaeology 9. Stockholm Uni-
versity. Stockholm.
Gummesson S., Molin F., and Sjöström A. 2019. The Spa-
tial Organization of Bone Crafting During the Middle and
Late Mesolithic at Ringsjöholm and Strandvägen in Swe-
den. Journal of Field Archaeology 44(3): 165–179.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2019.1580093
Hammarstrand Dehman K., Sjöström A. 2008. Mesolitiska
lämningar i Rönneholms mosse. Rapporter från Institu-
tionen för arkeologi och antikens historia, Lunds univer-
sitet. Nr 2. Institutionen för arkeologi och antikens histo-
ria. Lund.
Hansson A., Nilsson B., Sjöström A., Björck S., Holmgren
S., Linderson H., Magnell O., Rundgren M., and Hammar-
lund D. 2018. A submerged Mesolithic lagoonal landscape
in the Baltic Sea, south-eastern Sweden–Early Holocene
environmental reconstruction and shorelevel displace-
ment based on a multiproxy approach. Quaternary Inter-
national 463(Part A): 110–123.
http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.07.059
Henrich J. 2004. Demography and cultural evolution: why
adaptive cultural processes produced maladaptive losses
in Tasmania. American Antiquity 69: 197–218.
https://doi.org/10.2307/4128416
2010. The evolution of innovation-enhancing institu-
tions. In M. J. O’Brien, S. J. Shennan (eds.), Innovation
in cultural systems: contributions from evolutionary
anthropology. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
Holst D. 2010. Hazelnut economy of early Holocene hun-
ter-gatherers: a case study from Mesolithic Duvensee,
northern Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science
37: 2871–2880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.028
Iversen J. 1973. The development of Denmark’s nature
since the last glacial. C. A. Reitzels Forlag. Copenhagen.
Johansson A. D. 2006. Maglemosekulturens fiskepladser
i Köng Mose og Barmose, Sydsjälland. In B. V. Eriksen
(ed.), Stenaldersstudier. Tidligt mesolitiske jaegere og
samlere i Sydskandinavien. Jysk Arkeologisk Selskab. År-
hus: 119–134.
Jonsell B., Karlsson T. (eds.) 2010. Flora Nordica 6. Swe-
dish Royal Academy of Sciences. Stockholm.
Jonsson L. 1986. From wild boar to domestic pig – a re-
assessment of Neolithic swine of Northwestern Europe.
Striae 24: 125–129.
Kelly R. L. 2013. The lifeways of hunter-gatherers. The
foraging spectrum. Cambridge University Press. Cam-
bridge.
Dynamic adaptations of the Mesolithic pioneers of Gotland in the Baltic Sea
Knape A., Ericson P. 1988. Stora Förvar-kontinuitet och
förändring i ett resursutnyttjande. Gotländskt Arkiv 1988:
31–38.
Landeschi G., Apel J., Lindgren S., and Dell’Unto N. 2017.
An exploratory use of 3D for investigating a prehistoric
stratigraphic sequence. Proceedings of the Conference
on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in
Archaeology, Oslo 2016. http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/0963
6484-f9b7-48ad-a7b2-585266d5ac53
Landeschi G., Apel J., Lundström V., Storå J., Lindgren S.,
and Dell’Unto N. 2018. Re-enacting the sequence: com-
bined digital methods to study a prehistoric cave. Archa-
eological and Anthropological Sciences 11: 2805–2819.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0724-5
Larsson L. 1978. Ageröd I:B – Ageröd I:D. A study of Early
Atlantic settlement in Scania. CWK Gleerup. Lund.
Lidén O. 1942. De flinteggade benspetsarnas nordiska
kulturfas. CWK Gleerup. Lund.
Lindqvist C. 1997. About the Importance of Fine-mesh
Sieving, Stratigraphical and Spatial Studies for the Inter-
pretation of the Faunal Remains at Ajvide, Eksta Parish,
and other Neolithic Dwelling Sites on Gotland. In G. Bu-
renhult (ed.), Remote Sensing: Applied Techniques for
the Study of Cultural Resources and the Localization,
Identification and Documentation of Sub-Surface Pre-
historic Remains in Swedish Archaeology, Vol. 1: Osteo-
anthropological, Economic, Environmental and Techni-
cal Analyses. Theses and papers in North-European archa-
eology 13a. Stockholm University. Department of Archaeo-
logy. Stockholm: 91–111.
Lindqvist C., Possnert G. 1997. The subsistence economy
and diet at Jakobs/Ajvide, Eksta parish and other prehi-
storic dwellings and burial sites on Gotland in long-term
perspective. In G. Burenhult (ed.), Remote Sensing: Ap-
plied Techniques for the Study of Cultural Resources
and the Localization, Identification and Documenta-
tion of Sub-Surface Prehistoric Remains in Swedish Ar-
chaeology, Vol. 1: Osteo-anthropological, Economic, En-
vironmental and Technical Analyses. These and Papers
in North-European Archaeology 13a. Stockholm Univer-
sity. Department of Archaeology. Stockholm: 29–90.
1999. The first seal hunter families on Gotland. On the
Mesolithic occupation of the Stora Förvar Cave. Current
Swedish Archaeology 7: 65–88.
Lundström V. 2016. Exploring new horizons through the
use of legacy data. An innovative approach for assess-
ing the early Mesolithic chronology at the cave site Sto-
ra Förvar using 3D-GIS and density analysis. MA thesis.
Department of archaeology and ancient history. Lund Uni-
versity. Lund.
Magnell O. 2006. Tracking Wild Boar and Hunters.
Osteology of Wild boar in Mesolithic South Scandinavia.
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History. Lund
University. Lund.
Magnell O., Gummesson S., Molin F., Zetterlund P., and
Storå J. 2020. Mesolithic deer hunting – Prey choice of
red deer (Cervus elaphus) based on age and sex distribu-
tions. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29:
102049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102049
Manninen M. 2014. Culture, behavior, and the 8200 cal
BP cold event. Monographs of the Archaeological Society
of Finland 4. University of Helsinki. Helsinki.
Mörner N. A., Wallin B. 1977. A 10 000-year temperature
record from Gotland, Sweden. Palaeogeography, Palaeo-
climatology, Palaeoecology 21: 113–138.
Munthe H., Hansson H. 1930. En ny boplats från äldre
stenåldern på Gotland. Fornvännen 1930: 257–285.
Munthe H. 1940. Om Nordens, främst baltikums senkvar-
tära utveckling och stenåldersbebyggelse. Kungliga Sven-
ska Vetenskapsakademiens handlingar. Stockholm.
Olson C., Walther Y. 2007. Neolithic cod (Gadus morhua)
and herring (Clupea harengus) fisheries in the Baltic Sea
– in the light of fine-mesh sieving. A comparative study of
subfossil fish bone from the late Stone Age sites at Ajvide,
Gotland, Sweden and Jettböle, Åland, Finland. Environ-
mental Archaeology 12: 175–185.
Österholm I. 1989. Bosättningsmönstret på Gotland un-
der stenåldern. Theses and Papers in Archaeology 3.
Stockholm.
Pira G. 1926. On Bone Deposits in the Cave Stora Förvar
on the Isle of Stora Karlsö, Sweden. Acta Zoologica 7:
123–217.
Powell A., Shennan S., and Thomas M. G. 2009 Late Ple-
istocene demography and the appearance of modern hu-
man behavior. Science 324: 1298–1301. doi: 10.1126/
science.1170165
Påhlsson I. 1977. A standard pollen diagram from the
Lojsta area of central Gotland. Striae 3. Societas Upsa-
liensis Pro Geologia Quaternaria. Uppsala.
Regnell M., Ekblom A. 2001. Strandmiljö och växtutnyt-
tjande. In P. Karsten, B. Knarrström (eds.), Tågerup spe-
cialstudier. Riksantikvarieämbetet UV-Syd. Lund.
Riede F. 2009a. Climate and demography in early prehi-
story: using calibrated 14C dates as population proxies.
Human Biology 81(2–3): 309–337.
https://doi.org/10.3378/027.081.0311
25
Jan Apel, Jan Storå
26
2009b. The loss and re-introduction of the bow-and-ar-
row technology: A case study from the northern Euro-
pean Late Palaeolithic. Lithic Technology 34(1): 27–45.
Risberg J., Alm G., Björck N., and Guinard M. 2007. Syn-
krona paleokustlinjer 7000–4000 Kal. BP. I mellersta och
norra Uppland. In N. Stenbäck (ed.), Stenåldern i Up-
pland. Arkeologi E4 Uppland Volym 1. Societas Archaeo-
logica Upsaliensisis. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Upplandsmu-
see. Uppsala.
Rydbeck O. 1950. Om nordisk stenålderskronologi och
gravar med sittande hocker. Fornvännen 1950: 281–308.
Schnittger B., Rydh H. 1940. Grottan Stora Förvar på Sto-
ra Karlsö. Wahlström and Widmark. Stockholm.
Segerberg A. 1999. Bälinge mossar. Kustbor i Uppland
under yngre stenåldern. Aun 26. Uppsala University. De-
partment of Archaeology and Ancient History. Uppsala.
Sjöstrand A. 2011. Early Holocene Seal Hunting on the
Island of Gotland. Unpublished BA thesis. Gotland Uni-
versity. Visby.
Sørensen M. 2006. Rethinking the lithic blade definition:
towards a dynamic understanding. In J. Apel, K. Knutsson
(eds.), Skilled Production and Social Reproduction. SAU
Stone Studies 2. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis. Up-
psala.
Torrence R. 2001. Hunter-gatherer technology: macro-
and microscale approaches. In C. Panter-Brick, R. H. Lay-
ton, and P. Rowley-Conwy (eds), Hunter-gatherers. An
interdisciplinary perspective. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
Veski S., Heinslau A., Klassen V., Kriiska A., Lougas L., Pos-
ka A., and Saluäär U. 2004. Early Holocene coastal settle-
ments and palaeoenvironment on the shore of the Baltic
Sea at Pärnu, southwestern Estonia. Quaternary Interna-
tional 130: 75–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2004.04.033
Wallin P., Sten S. 2007. Säljakten på Gotland. Gotländskt
Arkiv: 23–40.