107
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Untangling Social, Ritual and Cosmological Aspects of Fishhook Manufacture in the Middle Mesolithic Coastal Communities of NE Skagerrak

Pages 31-47 | Received 19 Jan 2017, Accepted 19 Jan 2017, Published online: 22 Apr 2021
 

Abstract

This article investigates the entanglement of environment, materiality, technology and cosmology in the Middle Mesolithic Stone Age (8300–6300 cal. BC), of the NE Skagerrak area of Eastern Norway and Western Sweden, by focusing on the manufacture of bone fishhooks. The argument made is that fishhooks are key objects for exploring the world‐views of Middle Mesolithic coastal groups. Fishhooks were linked with daily subsistence, invested with much labour, and their manufacture was entwined with the hunting of ungulates that provided their raw material. This process involved the transformation of living bodies into artefacts. Thus, it is argued that these mundane objects were considered active agents in mediating the dangers and insecurities of an unpredictable maritime life.

Abstract

斯卡格拉克中石器时代东北沿海社群鱼钩制造的社会-仪式及宇宙观方面的解读

本文通过关注骨质-钩的制造, 探讨了处于东挪威和西瑞典的斯卡格拉克地区东北部中石器时代 (公元前8300‐6300) 的环境、物质性、技术及宇宙观-间的纠缠。文中所提出的论点是, 鱼钩是探索中石器时代沿海群体世界观的关键对象。鱼钩与日常生活息息相关, 人们投入大量劳动力, 它们的制造还与狩猎提供原材料的有蹄类动物紧密相连。这-过程涉及将活体转变为人工制品。因此, 有一种观点认为, 这些平凡的物件被看作是调解不可预知的海上生活带来的危险和不安全感的活性剂。

斯卡格拉克中石器時代東北沿海社群魚鈎制造的社會、儀式及宇宙觀方面的解讀

本文通-關注骨質-鈎的制造, 探討了-于東挪威和西瑞典的斯卡格拉克地區東北部中石器時代 (公元前8300‐6300) 的環境、物質性、技術及宇宙觀-間的糾纏。文中所提出的論點是, 魚鈎是探索中石器時代沿海群體世界觀的關鍵對象。魚-與日常生活息息相關, 人們投入大量勞動力, 它們的制造-與狩獵提供原材料的有蹄類動物緊密相連。這-過程涉及將活體-變爲人工制品。因此, 有一種觀-認爲, 這些平凡的物件被看作是調解不可預知的海上生活帶來的危險和不安全感的活性劑。

Abstract

Fiskekroker av bein forekommer på kystlokaliteter datert til mellommesolittisk tid (8300‐6300 f. Kr.) i det nordøstlige Skagerak (Oslofjordsområdet og den svenske vestkysten). Gjennom å studere tilvirkning, bruk og avhending av fiskekroker utforsker jeg hvordan funksjonelle, sosiale, rituelle og kosmologiske aspekter kan være sammenfiltret i tilsynelatende ubetydelige bruksgjenstander. Sentralt i artikkelen er antropologen Pierre Lemmoniers tilnærming til teknologi, som handler om hvordan sentrale verdier og sosiale relasjoner kommuniseres ordløst gjennom felles håndverksproduksjon. Å tilvirke fiskekroker av bein er en møysommelig prosess som innebærer en lang rekke av operasjonelle handlinger (chaîne opératoires) der hjortedyr ble omformet fra levende kropper til funksjonelle redskaper. I jeger/fisker‐sankersamfunn er ervervet forbundet med usikkerhet, og bruk og produksjon av jakt‐ og fiskeredskaper er ofte omgitt av ritualer og tabuer som skal sikre hell i jakt og fiske. Med utgangspunkt i slike forestillinger foreslår jeg at fiskekroker fungerte som «liminale agenter»: redskaper som intervenerte mellom den terrestriske og den marine sfæren.

Desenmarañando aspectos sociales, rituales y cosmológicos de la manufactura de anzuelos de las comunidades costeras del noreste de skagerrak en el mesolítico medio

Centrado en la manufactura de anzuelos de hueso, este artículo investiga el entrelazamiento del medio ambiente, la materialidad, la tecnología y la cosmología del noreste de Skagerrak en las áreas este de Noruega y oeste de Suecia, durante el Mesolítico Medio de la Edad de Piedra (8300‐6300 cal. A. C.). El argumento consiste en que los anzuelos son objetos clave para explorar las concepciones del mundo de los grupos costeros del Mesolítico Medio. Los anzuelos estaban vinculados a la subsistencia diaria, implicaban una inversión de trabajo considerable y su manufactura estaba entrelazada con la caza de ungulados que proveían la materia prima. Este proceso implicaba la transformación de cuerpos vivientes en artefactos. En este sentido, se arguye que estos objetos mundanos eran considerados agentes activos en la mediación de los peligros e inseguridades de una vida marítima impredecible.

Traducción: Ricardo Borrero L

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Anne Lene Melheim for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, to Morten Kutschera, Anders Andersson and Per Persson for providing maps and illustrations and Barry Kavanagh for revising my language. Also, I wish to thank my colleagues at FUN, in particular Carine Eymundsson, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, for partaking in discussions that greatly assisted the research, although they may not agree with all of the interpretations provided in this paper.

Notes

1. The figure was originally interpreted as an elk; however, in a later publication Knut Helskog (Citation2014: 85, fig 77) interprets it as a bear.

2. Nash (Citation2002: 186) interprets these figures as reindeer.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.