Cultural dynamics in Stone Age hunter gatherers hidden dimensions

HIDDEN DIMENSIONS This is a free offprint – as with all our publications the entire book is freely accessible on our website, and is available in print or as PDF e-book. www.sidestone.com HIDDEN DIMENSIONS Aspects of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer landscape use and non-lithic technology OLE GRØN & HANS PEETERS (EDS) © 2022 Individual authors Published by Sidestone Press, Leiden www.sidestone.com Text editing: Ole Grøn, Hans Peeters, Suzanne Needs Lay-out & cover design: Sidestone Press Photograph cover: Birch bark (photo: Evan Novostro | stock.adobe.com) ISBN 978-94-6426-125-7 (softcover) ISBN 978-94-6426-126-4 (hardcover) ISBN 978-94-6426-127-1 (PDF e-book) Contents List of contributors 7 Cultural dynamics in Stone Age hunter-gatherers: hidden dimensions 9 Ole Grøn and Hans Peeters PART ONE: DWELLINGS WITH NO OR LITTLE KNAPPED LITHICS A Mesolithic bark mat on Kvitsøy in south-western Norway 27 Sigrid Alræk Dugstad No knapping on the floor! Norwegian examples of (mainly) Mesolithic dwellings with few associated lithics 55 Silje E. Fretheim PART TWO: SITES IN THE LANDSCAPE WITH NO OR LITTLE KNAPPED LITHICS Mesolithic sites with no or few finds: some examples from the west coast of Sweden 69 Robert Hernek Dozens of large and (almost) empty pits: towards a new geography for the French Mesolithic? 83 Nathalie Achard-Corompt, Emmanuel Ghesquière, Christophe Laurelut, Charlotte Leduc, Arnaud Rémy, Isabelle Richard, Vincent Riquier, Luc Sanson and Julia Wattez Mesolithic landscapes and where to hunt big game: everywhere or ??? David Vogt, Ole Grøn, Hans Peeters, Robert Hernek and Éva David 113 PART THREE: NON-LITHIC MATERIAL CULTURE What is not there? Skin and fur objects in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies 153 Torunn Klokkernes Thin and pointy: a case study of eyed needles and sharp awls from the Upper Palaeolithic site of Yana, arctic Siberia 177 Vladimir V. Pitulko and Elena Y. Pavlova Bone flakes from traditional metapodial reduction in postglacial deposits Éva David, Arturo Cueva Temprana and Justyna Orłowska 235 Cultural dynamics in Stone Age hunter-gatherers: hidden dimensions Ole Grøn and Hans Peeters 1 Introduction Whereas the ‘cultural groups’ of Stone Age hunter-gatherers in archaeology typically are distinguished and classified on the basis of the typology of knapped lithics – whereby lithics are assumed to reflect these people’s territorial configurations as well as their cultural interactions – the reality becomes considerably more complicated when one is in a position to observe the organic dimensions of material culture and the way this component is used among living hunter-gatherers. Despite variations among different cultures, the organic part of their material culture seems to dominate significantly over the lithic component, in terms of both time investment in its manufacture and its role in cultural dynamics and interaction. Concerning the question of the arrival or development (i.e. diffusion or independent invention) of new cultural elements or traits, it also becomes clear that different cultural elements can follow different patterns of diffusion, in combination with different types of independent local inventiveness. The ‘currents of cultural influence’ affecting a human culture can, thus, be different for different parts of its material culture, e.g. its knapped lithics technology, its hafting methods, its clothing ornamentation, its burial customs, and so on. Such a complex, multi-layered cultural interaction pattern will in most cases be impossible to reconstruct archaeologically, but it is nevertheless important to keep the likelihood of this layering of interactions in mind, so that we do not lure ourselves into the illusion that the patterns distinguishable in lithic industries necessarily correspond to other, possibly more significant cultural influences that we are unable to reconstruct. 2 The ‘curse’ of lithics The ethnographic record demonstrates that different cultures, either due to the lack of locally available lithic raw materials or, in some cases, due to their cultural tradition, put different emphasis on the use of organic materials, such as bone, antler, wood, and shell, than they do on lithics for the production of implements e.g. for cutting, piercing, and drilling. For instance, the Andaman Islanders used knapped flakes of quartz for a in: O. Grøn and H. Peeters (eds), 2022: Hidden Dimensions: Aspects of Mesolithic huntergatherer landscape use and non-lithic technology. Leiden: Sidestone Press, pp. 9-24. 9 very limited spectrum of activities: shaving, tattooing, and skin scarring. The remainder of their material culture relied on the use of shells, bone, wood, and plant material, without any involvement of lithic implements, despite the Islanders having had good local access to quartz and obsidian in some parts of their activity range (Radcliffe Brown 1922: 444-450; Man 1932: 111-115, 159-161, 183; Cipriano 1966: 147). The Wik of Cape York, northern Australia, where no local stone suitable for knapping was available, used only a single kind of stone implement: ground stone axes made of imported material. Apart from that, their material culture was based on plant wood, bark, grass stems, leaves and sap and on animal bones, teeth, feathers, shells, spines, wax, and hair (Sutton 1994). The Wik people had the opportunity to import lithic materials that could be knapped, but they chose to use the local alternatives. The Halakwulup and the Yamana of Tierra del Fuego used projectile points of knapped lithics, slate, bone and wood. To plane the shafts, they used quartz flakes and shells. Apart from that, they did not use knapped lithics – their material culture was mainly based on bone, wood and shell, as well as a number of different vegetative materials (Gusinde 1937: 466-481, 491-497, 1974: 213, 235). That bone can satisfactorily substitute for knapped lithics as a cutting material is demonstrated by several North American Indigenous groups, such as the Thaltan and the Iglulik, who used knives exclusively made out of bone or antler for skinning, butchering and removing fat from sinew, despite having had access to lithic material suitable for knapping. The Thaltan even used butchering knives with obsidian inserts in parallel to bone butchering knives, for the same tasks (e.g. Mathiassen 1928: 9, 111; Albright 1948: 23, 47-48). The Wola of New Guinea reduced the need for a wide range of functionally specialised flake tools by using bamboo as an alternative material (Sillitoe and Hardy 2003). Compared with activities related to organic materials, the manufacture and use of stone tools, which is seen by many archaeologists as a central and defining phenomenon of Stone Age cultures, probably involved much less of people’s activity time than is generally imagined. For an area with easy access to quantities of good flint, such as Denmark, lithics specialist Bo Madsen estimates that a Late Palaeolithic or Mesolithic nuclear family not using bifacial techniques for e.g. arrow heads, spent about 1-2 hours knapping flint per week (Eigeland 2015: 175-180; Madsen pers. comm. 2021). This is consistent with ethnoarchaeological observations that knapped lithics are a ‘secondary’ material in some small-scale cultures, produced when needed at a routine level of consciousness, like when one ties one’s shoelaces (e.g. Gould 1968; Hayden 1979: 14, 26-27, 31-33, 92-93, 109, 112-113, 121-123, 145-149, 157-164; Binford and O’Connell 1984; Sillitoe and Hardy 2003; Jochim 2015). The idea that a more or less constant sound of flint knapping at Stone Age sites embodied a range of sensory experiences and provided a means through which prehistoric people gained expression and negotiated social strategies (Mills and Pannett 2009) thus seems somewhat misplaced, and neglects the importance of a multitude of experiences connected to the processing and use of other materials, which each demanded a considerable level of expertise and investment of time. Today’s strong focus on flint knapping and refitting seems to have thrown us back to the silent assumption in traditional typological studies (e.g. Kozłowski 1975: 7-9; Stout 2011; Sørensen et al. 2013), that all cultural traits are reflected in the lithic tools. Today such views are often enveloped in a cultural landscape perspective (e.g. Blades and Adams 2009: ix-xiii): 10 HIDDEN DIMENSIONS “Regardless of geographical location or time period, it may be argued that lithic materials reflect the knowledge and exploitation of the landscape and the social organisation required to promote and facilitate that exploitation.”, Blades and Adams 2009, ix. In our opinion, the ‘lithic dimension’ of material culture in the exploitation of the landscape, and its broader role in social interaction, is overestimated. The need for skin and fur for clothing and tent covers, for instance, involves a range of activities related to their acquisition, processing, manufacture, decoration and maintenance, and satisfying this need must have been extremely time consuming. The replacement of worn-out items had to be planned in good time, so that animals with the right skin and fur specifications could be killed, their hides processed, and garments sewn and decorated. Depending on their size, tent covers could have consisted of a large number of smaller skins or a small number (around 10 or more) of larger skins (of bison, buffalo, elk or the like). The processing of the larger skins, which are also thick, would have consumed at least a hundred work hours each (Reilly 2015: 161-168; Klokkernes this volume). Similarly, the use of vegetative raw materials for various purposes is likely to have been time consuming with regard to acquisition, production, decoration and maintenance (e.g. Vasilevich and Smolyak 1964; Turnbull 1965a: 197-200, 212-222, Figs 25-28, Plates 27, 31, 32; Emmons and De Laguna 1991: 210-255; Anderson 2000; Adney and Chapelle 2014: 7-57). The manufacturing of items out of plant material required well-prepared bark and other plant fibres that were needed to assemble various parts into multi-component items, such as baskets, tent covers, clothes and boats. According to Sackett’s ‘isochrestic’ approach to style, the organic part of artefacts is easier to modify and use for display of dynamically changing signals of social codes at all scale levels – e.g. within the family, within the clan, between clans – than is the knapped lithic part of artefacts (Sackett 1982). Furthermore, it is obvious that socially significant stylistic elements applied to the human body (e.g. clothing itself; elements on the clothing; and painting, tattooing or scarring of the skin) are direct and powerful social signals compared with stylistic elements applied to or related to lithic artefacts, which only indirectly perform a ‘social expression’ of relationships (e.g. Strathern and Strathern 1971: 171-173; Ebin 1979: 5-22; Krutak 2015). Thus, the generally difficult-to-modify but well-preserved knapped lithics are only to a very limited degree able to mirror any social reality in the past, with its dynamic currents of social and cultural impulses knapped lithics were part of, whereas the mostly not preserved organic objects could have done so in a much more comprehensive way. If one could be secure in the assumption that all cultural impulses communicated in organic materials, as well as in knapped lithics, moved along the same trajectories and behaved in more or less parallel ways, then one would have a chance of reconstructing patterns of diffusion that brought cultural impulses to specific sites or areas on the basis of the vague reflections of these impulses that can be distinguished in knapped lithics. However, ritual and linguistic aspects of living hunter-gatherer cultures display a much higher degree of small-scale variation in space and time than what we can distinguish in the ‘lithic dimension’ of most prehistoric hunter-gatherer cultures as defined by archaeologists (e.g. Donner 1926: 45-46; Krause 1956: 101-102; Bird Grinnell 1962: 56-62; Turnbull 1965b: 100-109, Plan II; Croes 1989; Oakes and Riewe 1992; Svensson 1992). In living hunter-gatherer cultures, one can, in addition, observe a strong tendency to modify, Cultural DyNaMICS IN StONE agE HuNtEr-gatHErErS: HIDDEN DIMENSIONS 11 Figure 1. Nisga’a chiefs of Gitlaxt’aamiks, British Columbia, Canada, with ceremonial equipment. From left to right: three children; Andrew Nass, wearing shirt with coppers and ermine-decorated headdress; John Nass, in light-coloured skin robe, holding a rattle, his dance headdress showing a carved frontlet; James Skean, wearing a Chilkat blanket and decorated leggings and dance apron; Philip Nass, wearing a Chilkat blanket, neck ring, three-ringed headdress and dance apron decorated with puffin beaks; two children; Charlie Brown, in shirt with inverted face holding a painted drum; Eliza Brown, in button blanket with neck ring; Matilda Peal, in button blanket; one child. Both women have down in their hair. Displayed are masks, frontlets, dance headdresses and carved wooden boxes. Photo: possibly C.H. Orme, approximately 1903 (Northern British Columbia Archives, Geoffrey R. Weller Library, University of Northern British Columbia). and thus personalise, incoming cultural trends through inventive behaviour at the smallscale social level, so that the resulting cultural features tend to vary in a dynamic way from clan to clan, and even among subgroups consisting of just a few families. This variation seems, to a large degree, to result from conscious but quite unpredictable choices and from local invention or modification within the different small groups, to mark their individuality within their own group and towards other groups, so as to strengthen their identity (Donner 1926: 45-46; Shirokogoroff 1935: 12-39; Barth 1987: 55-64; Grøn et al. 2009; Tanner 2014: 157, 171, 186, 195, 201; Grøn 2016). This principally differs from the extremely slow typological changes with comparatively small spatial variation that can be observed in the knapped lithic repertoires of most Stone Age hunter-gatherer cultures. Even cultural transmission theory, despite its focus on all types of cultural transmission, appears, for prehistoric hunter-gatherers, to be trapped in the ‘knapped lithics pitfall’ because of the lack of information on organic materials used (e.g. Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Eerkens et al. 2014). Thus, there is good reason to believe that, at best, the typotechnological changes in lithic artefacts over time represent a very distant and poorly representative echo of sociocultural processes among prehistoric hunter-gatherers, and at worst, these changes may be of a totally different nature and spatial configuration than the 12 HIDDEN DIMENSIONS main trajectories of cultural interaction, and therefore directly misleading with regard to an understanding of the multifaceted development of once-living and dynamic prehistoric societies (Fig. 1; e.g. Turnbull 1965b: 100-109, Plan II). 3 Landscapes of interaction In landscapes with high relief, as well as in swampy landscapes, it is natural that the main transportation corridors and contact routes follow the river valleys and lakeshores, because it is easier to use these routes rather than crossing through mountainous areas or extended marshland. But even in such landscapes, as well as in less directional landscapes, lines of contact and, therefore, channels of sociocultural interaction (e.g. trade or exchange, the search for marriage partners, visits out of curiosity) will have deviated from such a simple linear corridor model, and form rather fine-meshed networks (e.g. Rogers 1969; Townsend 1978; Cavalli-Sforza and Hewlett 1982; Fischer 1982; Hewlett et al. 1982; Swagerty 1988; Stiles 1993; Brown 2001; Tykot 2004; Bar-Yosef 2005; Fitzgerald et al. 2005; Grøn et al. 2005; Floss 2014; Grøn 2019). Linear long-distance trade or exchange systems were probably of a different character, and conveyed a different or differently weighted spectrum of cultural impulses than did exchange networks based on intermarriage relations between groups or on other types of exchange networks (Rogers 1969; Ericson 1977; Cavalli-Sforza and Hewlett 1982; Layton 1986; Joiris 2003). Therefore, we cannot assume that cultural impulses related to lithics necessarily followed the same geographical routes as the majority of other sociocultural impulses in play. It is obvious that, if lithic material for knapping could only be obtained through long-distance trade or exchange systems, access to it would be embedded in cultural exchange contexts of quite a different character than if it could be obtained through short-range networks or could be obtained locally by the end-users themselves. Therefore, the character of cultural exchange contexts related to lithics most likely varied significantly in prehistory. Hence, the role of lithics in sociocultural interaction and local modification or invention will be difficult to generalise in relation to all the other in- and out-going signals. How can we, today, cope with such a mismatch between basic archaeological method and theory focusing on knapped lithics, on the one hand, and on sociocultural interaction in living cultures, on the other? One obvious way to reconcile this mismatch is to increase our focus on the organic side of the prehistoric cultures in question. This could be done by prioritising fieldwork in areas with a potential for preservation of organic materials and environmental data, as well as ancient DNA, notably wetlands and submerged landscapes. The development of improved technologies and procedures for efficient recording and analysis of organic materials during excavation, and subsequent processing of information from wetland or underwater sites would permit significant steps forward. However, prevailing excavation methodologies are first and foremost developed to cope with dryland sites, characterised by quantities of knapped lithics. These sites most likely represent only the tip of the iceberg, in a sea of sites that were originally mainly characterised by organic remains, which, if they had, in general, been better preserved, likely would provide a quite different, and much more detailed and dynamic, narrative than the one we have today. A strong focus on sites with good organic preservation may be able to provide access to at least fragments of such a different prehistoric cultural reality. Equally important is a better acceptance of ethnoarchaeology as a tool to provide us with ideas about what we are looking at archaeologically, and to give us a clue about a prehistoric organic material reality. Cultural DyNaMICS IN StONE agE HuNtEr-gatHErErS: HIDDEN DIMENSIONS 13 4 Examples and implications of sites with low lithic visibility: presentation of the papers Sites with low lithic visibility form a basic problem for our understanding of prehistoric settlement systems and economy, as well as our ability to predict what would have been likely settlement locations in prehistory. Our current understanding and theory are based on sites that have sufficiently large amounts of lithics or other preserved artefacts and structural features that they can be observed as obvious anomalies. A central question is how big a problem the low-visibility sites represent for archaeology. Does this problem totally undermine our current understanding of prehistoric hunter-gatherer landscapes, and subsequently our possibilities for modelling potential settlement locations and areas, as well as demographical processes? And is the effect of this problem equally important from one cultural context to another? At present we cannot answer these questions, due to a lack of quantitative information. A more systematic effort to record and document such sites has only just begun in some geographic areas. At the qualitative level, however, we can start listing known sites and site types with low lithic visibility, as the start of a more targeted approach to determine how radical a revision of our archaeological thinking is needed. A number of wetland and lake sites with good organic preservation provide solid evidence for the existence in some prehistoric cultures of elaborate dwelling constructions of considerable dimensions but with such low ‘lithic visibility’ that they would most likely not qualify as sites meriting investigation, and possibly not even registration, according to typical survey and registration criteria. The most archaeologically visible of the wet sites are those with remains of elaborate pile dwelling constructions from the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, which are known today from various parts of Europe (Haffner et al. 2020). Many of these sites are characterised by a remarkably low density of knapped lithics from their Stone Age occupation phases. For instance, the site of Meilen-Schellen, in Lake Zürich, has an approximately 500 m long, up to 80 m wide, and several metres thick accumulation of cultural material, including remains of wooden pile dwellings from several Neolithic phases, as well as from an extensive Bronze Age habitation. The 430 m2 portion of the deposit excavated in 1975-1977 displayed a sequence consisting of Neolithic Cortaillod, Pfyner, Horgener and Corded Ware culture, as well as the Early and Late Bronze Age. This portion had a thickness of up to 1.2 m. The density of knapped lithics was approximately 0.5-1.0 pieces per m2 (Altorfer and Conscience 2005: 11-43, 87-108; Grøn et al. 2021) – which works out to approximately 0.1-0.2 pieces of knapped lithics per m2 per cultural phase, each of which can represent several settlement phases. Taking into consideration that this is an accumulated total from a number of long-lived habitation phases, and that this total might well be even smaller if the Bronze Age phases were excluded, it is obvious that the individual cultural phases of a similar site located on dry land, with no organic preservation, would not have qualified for site registration on the basis of their knapped lithics in a survey based on surface observations. A slightly greater total density, of about 2.5 pieces of knapped lithics per m2, was recorded during the excavation at the Zürich-Parkhaus Opéra, of ca. 3600 m2 of a ca. 80 cm thick ‘sandwich’ of Neolithic cultural deposits representing a pile dwelling settlement (Early Neolithic, Horgener and Corded Ware culture). The density was obviously considerably lower for the individual cultural layers (Kienholz and Affolter 2016; Bleicher and Harb 2017; Harb et al. 2017). 14 HIDDEN DIMENSIONS Two of the papers in this book deal with the problem of Mesolithic dwellings with few or no knapped lithics. The paper by Fretheim presents examples of rather elaborate Norwegian structures with dwelling pits, surrounding wall mounds or stone rings, with lithic find densities as low as a couple of pieces per m2. Some dwelling structures have internal hearths. Other examples of Mesolithic dwellings with low lithic densities, such as Hjemsted; Hylteberga no. 9 (Larsson 1975; Grøn 1995: 36-37); Sarching structure 4 (Schönweiss & Werner 1974) and Verrebroek ‘Dok’ structures CIII, CV1, CV2 and CV3 (Crombé 1998) indicate that such dwelling pits must represent a strongly underreported phenomenon. In northern Europe, however, dwelling pits seem to form an integral part of dryland Mesolithic dwelling construction, making the identification of such features easier (Grøn and Peeters 2021). Dugstad, following on from a suggested Mesolithic bark mat from Norway, discusses ephemeral bark sleeping or living floors that are often associated with extremely few artefacts. In moist areas, for more substantial dwellings, bark floors are also known to be constructed instead of dwelling pits. The past century has yielded an increasing number of Mesolithic bark mats and floors, which also are known from the Neolithic (e.g. Grøn 1995: 13-33; Bērziņš 2008: 52-61; Sjöström 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015; Gross et al. 2018). The ‘minor activity areas’ distinguished in the Zealand Åmose, in Denmark, may in fact represent bark mat sites where the bark did not preserve (Grøn 1987). Since the use of small sleeping mats is widespread among present-day hunter-gatherers during travel and hunting (Grøn 2014), it seems likely that they are heavily underrepresented in our archaeological data. One could argue that such sites are not central and significant. However, they must be known about in order for us to have archaeological representation of important economic activities, as well as travel among the basecamps, and thus provide important information about the structuring of hunter-gatherer landscapes. Three papers deal with Mesolithic sites that have few or no knapped lithics but that exhibit accumulations of features, such as deep pits or hearths. Achard-Corompt and her group present and discuss the surprising number of deep pits in France that have lately been attributed to the Mesolithic by means of radiocarbon dating. They appear along the larger river valleys, as well as in the hinterland. Whereas some of them may have served as pit-falls, evidence from other pits that the bottoms and sides were originally lined with plant material indicates that at least some of them had different functions, for instance storage. The sites show considerable time-depth, indicating that they have been used repeatedly by many generations of hunter-gatherers, and comparable to what has been found in the Netherlands (Peeters & Niekus 2017) and Germany (Gehlen et al. 2020). The deep pit sites represent aspects of Mesolithic landscape use that until recently was unknown, due to the fact that no attention was paid to the existence of such features, or that they were not identified during fieldwork. In addition, the lack of lithics at certain sites may result from soil erosion, and appears to have negatively influenced the process of defining research priorities. The identification of deep pits fundamentally affects our understanding of Mesolithic landscape use serving as the basis for any kind of sociocultural modelling of hunter-gatherer societies (Achard-Corompt et al. 2017). Hernek, writing about the southernmost Swedish-Norwegian border region in relation to the Mesolithic coast lines, describes an equally intriguing tendency for Mesolithic coastal settlements to be characterised by significant amounts of knapped lithics and for hinterland sites to have no or very few knapped lithics but large hearths that, to the surprise Cultural DyNaMICS IN StONE agE HuNtEr-gatHErErS: HIDDEN DIMENSIONS 15 of the investigators, produce contemporaneous Mesolithic radiocarbon dates. Apparently, seashore hinterland niches that until recently appeared little used and inhabited in the Mesolithic have been overlooked because the Mesolithic behaviour in these zones did not involve the use of a lot of knapped lithics. Sites with very low lithic densities and with concentrations of another type of hearth than the types observed in Sweden have been registered in the Netherlands (Peeters and Niekus 2017; Peeters et al. 2017), but their topographical situation is less clear (Grøn and Peeters 2021) due to continuous landscape change resulting from sea-level driven processes during the Mesolithic. Following this discussion on the relationship between Mesolithic sites with significant amounts of knapped lithics along the larger rivers and on sea- or lake shores, on the one hand, and apparently contemporaneous and quite substantial hinterland sites with deep pits and hearths but zero or very low densities of directly associated lithics, on the other hand, Vogt et al. suggest that a reconstruction of Mesolithic hunting patterns can help to understand this behavioural ‘dichotomy’ better. Aspects of the landscape behaviour of a selection of important large game animals suggest that the larger river valleys and sea- or lake shores, which often have a relatively open vegetation and thus provide good visibility, attract large game on a regular basis. Hence, these landscape zones may have been ideal for hunting with weapons. The denser vegetation in the hinterland zones will generally have hampered such hunting practices. Here, the use of pit-falls may have been more effective. Other hinterland economic activities, notably the processing and storage of plant foodstuffs, activities that we far from fully understand, may be reflected by the hearth sites with low densities of lithics. The dichotomy outlined here urgently calls for more focussed fieldwork and research, as we seem to have missed a significant part of the Mesolithic activity spectrum. At the same time, however, evidence from the Netherlands demonstrates that such a model cannot simply be extrapolated to various regions, and that variability in landscape dynamics at multiple scales in space and time must be taken into consideration. Having opened a Pandora’s Box of ‘un-lithic’ perspectives on the Stone Age huntergatherer life, we have to look at what can fill the gap that the relative lack of lithics creates in the traditional archaeological representation of the Stone Age. Three papers deal with the processing and production of important objects consisting of organic materials. Based on Evenk and Sami skin and fur processing (Klokkernes 2007), Klokkernes discusses different steps in this complicated and complex activity in relation to prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies and attempts a tentative reconstruction of how labour and time demanding the production of clothing, tent covers, and other skin and fur objects actually was. Compared with these activities, the production of lithic tool elements is estimated to have taken up very little – probably only 2-3% – of the active time of the people making them, implying that this represents a much less significant activity in settlements. Also, it appears obvious that ornamentation on clothing, tent covers and blankets, for instance, was a much more culturally important and well-suited medium for communication of sociocultural signals than were knapped lithics (Fig. 1). Pitulko and Pavlova’s detailed analysis of the vast assemblage of eyed needles and awls from the Upper Palaeolithic site of Yana, in Siberia, underlines Klokkernes’s point. The variation in size, shape, breakage patterns and re-sharpening patterns appears to reflect a highly specialised, demanding and diversified practice for the production and maintenance of e.g. clothing, footwear, sleeping bags, dwelling covers, boats, backpacks, containers 16 HIDDEN DIMENSIONS and sewn-on decorations. Study of the production details indicates that differences in the dimensions of awls and needles appear to reflect variation in the thickness of the skin and fur to be sewn. Ornamentation and markings of possible ownership are discussed in their spatial context. Like the processing of skin and fur into a raw material for sewing, the production and use of needles and awls to manufacture usable objects is a knowledgeintensive process that demands significant training and experience, as well as knowledge of the local tradition and its background. Whereas the chaînes opératoires concept is most often used to investigate lithic production schemes and aspects of technological variability, both at the level of individual knappers and at the level of sociocultural traditions, David et al. use the concept to focus on the production in the Mesolithic of bone flakes and splinters from the proximal end of deer metapodials with the use of chisels, in a way that is comparable to the knapping of lithics. It appears that the flakes are waste products, and these have not been processed further. The splinters are used as blanks for the production of bone points of different types, as well as fishhooks (Bergsvik and David 2015). The splitting and knapping of bone, tooth, ivory and antler has been convincingly demonstrated to be part of the standard repertoire of Stone Age technology, in parallel to the knapping of lithic materials (also see Khlopashev and Giria 2010). 5 Conclusions The results and insights presented in this book demonstrate that the reliance on knapped lithics as the dominant framework for an understanding of Stone Age cultural groups and subgroups bears the risk of creating an erroneous narrative about prehistoric huntergatherer life. An understanding of these people and their inter- and intragroup sociocultural interaction and dynamics, landscape behaviour, and economic choices will be vastly dependent on our ability to obtain deep insights into the importance of organic materials in their material culture. Without that insight, the modelling of the underwater part of the iceberg will rely solely on indications from its tip, which is visible above the waterline. There is no standard recipe for how to obtain a better understanding of the organic side of prehistoric material culture. An increased strategic focus on wetland and underwater sites with good preservation of organic materials would help (e.g. Croes 1989). The development of better survey and excavation methods could also improve the chances for finding and salvaging organic objects (e.g. Grøn and Hermand 2015; Grøn et al. 2021, 2022b). It is necessary to thoroughly consider how much energy and money should be invested in the investigation of Stone Age sites where only the lithic artefacts are preserved, in contrast to sites with good organic preservation – and typically involving a more expensive and relatively more time-consuming phase of processing, documentation and preservation of finds. On the theoretical front, there is also a need for a conceptual reorientation. It is necessary to include the broad spectrum of signals related to organic material culture, which is normally much more dynamic than the developments we are able to observe in slowly ‘reacting’ knapped lithics. Since knapped lithics formed the basis for the development of Stone Age archaeology, the focus on this aspect was understandable. With the knowledge we have today, however, there is no valid excuse to maintain this strong focus on the typology and technology of lithics, which in all probability were only a relatively minor aspect of material culture, and therefore not a good indicator of either the Cultural DyNaMICS IN StONE agE HuNtEr-gatHErErS: HIDDEN DIMENSIONS 17 interaction between different sociocultural groups or their internal cultural inventiveness (e.g. Grøn et al. 2009). Geographical modelling of zones with a high probability of Stone Age settlement, in addition to a range of other serious methodological problems (e.g. Kamermans 2010; Grøn et al. 2022a), tends to take as its starting point the topographical positions of known sites with high lithic visibility but a lack of organic remains. The full range of archaeological evidence needs to be taken into consideration, including landscape dynamics at different spatial and temporal scales (Peeters 2007). The modelling of demographic features and processes in the Stone Age cultures on the basis of radiocarbon dates, which itself has serious methodological issues (e.g. Riede 2009), must also be seen as relatively meaningless in the absence of dates of large numbers of ‘missing’ sites with low lithic visibility. The negative consequences of the lack of data from the now-submerged areas, with their highly attractive coastal resources, must, furthermore, be regarded as significant (Carleton and Groucutt 2020). To conclude, it is necessary for Stone Age archaeology to cope with the difficult task of finding ways of taking the ephemeral organic material culture of prehistoric hunter-gatherers into account in a way that balances these organic materials with the demonstrably less important knapped lithics. References Achard-Corompt, N., E. Ghesquière, C. Laurelut, C. Leduc, A. Rémy, I. Richard, V. Riquier, L. Sanson & J. Wattez, 2017: Des fosses par centaines, une nouvelle vision du Mésolithique en Champagne: Analyse et cartographie d’un phénomène insoupçonné, in: N. Achard-Corompt, E. Ghesquière & V. Riquier (eds), Creuser au Mésolithique. Digging in the Mesolithic. Actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Châlons-enChampagne (29-30 mars 2016), (Séances de la Société préhistorique française 12), 11-25. Adney, E.T. & H.I. Chapelle, 2014: The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America, Washington D.C. (Smithsonian Institution National Museum of History and Technology). Albright, S.L., 1984: Tahltan ethnoarchaeology, Burnaby (Department of Archaeology Publication 15, Simon Fraser University). Altorfer, K. & A.-K. Conscience, 2005: Meilen-Schellen. Die neolithischen und Spätbronzezeitlichen Funde und Befunde der Untersuchungen 1934-1996; Seeufersiedlungen, Zürich (Zürcher Archäologie 18. Baudirektion Kanton Zürich, Hochbauamt Kantonsarchäologie). Anderson, K., 2000: California Indian horticulture: management and use of redbud by the southern Sierra Miwok, in: P.E. Minnis (ed.), Ethnobotany: a reader, Norman (University of Oklahoma Press), 29-40. Bar-Yosef, D.E., 2005: The exploitation of shells as beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant, Paléorient (1), 176-185. Barth, F., 1987: Cosmologies in the making: a generative approach to cultural variation in inner New Guinea, Cambridge (Cambridge University Press). Bergsvik, K.A. & E. David, 2015: Crafting bone tools in Mesolithic Norway: a regional eastern-related know-how, European Journal of Archaeology 18(2), 190-221. Bērziņš, V., 2008: Sarnate: Living by a coastal lake during the East Baltic Neolithic, Oulu (Faculty of Humanities, General Archaeology, University of Oulu). Bettinger, R.L. & J. Eerkens, 1999: Point yypologies, cultural transmission, and the spread of bow-and-arrow technology in the prehistoric Great Basin, American Antiquity 64(2), 221-242. 18 HIDDEN DIMENSIONS Binford, L.R. & J.F. O’Connell, 1984: An Alyawara day: the stone quarry, Journal of Anthropological Research 40(3), 406-432. Bird Grinnell, G., 1962: The Cheyenne Indians: their history and ways of life, Vol 1, New York (Cooper Square). Blades, B.S. & B. Adams, 2009: Introduction: lithics, landscapes, and societies, in: B. Adams & B.S. Blades (eds), Lithic Materials and Palaeolithic Societies, Oxford (Wiley-Blackwell), ix-xiii. Bleicher, N. & C. Harb, 2017: Rück- und Ausbliche, in: C. Harb & N. Bleicher (eds), ZürichParkhaus Opera. Eine neolithische Feuchtbodenfundstelle Band 3: Naturwissenschaftliche Analysen und Synthese, Zürich (Monographien der Kantonsarchäologie Zürich 49), 263-279. Brown, J.S.H., 2001: History of the Canadian Plains until 1870, in: R.J. DeMaille (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 13: Plains, Washington, D.C. (Smithsonian Institution), 300-312. Carleton, C. & H.S. Groucutt, 2021: Sum things are not what they seem: problems with point-wise interpretations and quantitative analyses of proxies based on aggregated radiocarbon dates, The Holocene 31(4), 630-643. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. & B. Hewlett, 1982: Exploration and mating range in African Pygmies, Annals of Human Genetics 46, 257-270. Cipriani, L., 1966: The Andaman Islanders, London (Weidenfeld and Nicolson). Croes, D.R., 1989: Prehistoric ethnicity on the Northwest Coast of North America: an evaluation of style in basketry and lithics, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8, 101-130. Crombé, P., 1998: The Mesolithic in north-western Belgium: recent excavations and surveys, Oxford (BAR International Series 716). Donner, K., 1926: Bei den Samojeden in Sibirien, Stuttgart (Strecker & Schröder). Ebin, V., 1979: The body decorated, London (Thames & Hudson). Eerkens, J.W., R.L. Bettinger & P.J. Richerson, 2014: Cultural transmission theory and hunter-gatherer archaeology, in: V. Cummings, P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil (eds), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology and anthropology of hunter-gatherers, Oxford (Oxford University Press), 1127-1142. Eigeland, L.C., 2015: Maskinmennesket i steinalderen. Endring og kontinuitet i steinteknologi fram mot neolitiseringen av Øst-Norge, Oslo (PhD thesis, University of Oslo). Emmons, G.T. & F. de Laguna, 1991: The Tlingit Indians, Seattle (University of Washington Press and American Museum of Natural History). Ericson, J.E., 1977: Egalitarian exchange systems in California: a preliminary view, in: T. Earle & J. Ericson (eds), Exchange systems in prehistory. New York (Academic Press), 109-126. Fischer, A., 1982: Trade in Danubian shaft-hole axes and the introduction of Neolithic economy in Denmark, Journal of Danish Archaeology 1, 7-12. Fitzgerald, R.T., T.L. Jones & A. Schroth, 2005: Ancient long-distance trade in western North America: new AMS radiocarbon dates from southern California, Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 423-434. Floss, H., 2014: Rivers as orientation axes for migrations, exchange networks and transmission of cultural traditions in the Upper Palaeolithic of Central Europe, in: M. Yamada & A. Ono (eds), Lithic raw material exploitation and circulation in Prehistory: Cultural DyNaMICS IN StONE agE HuNtEr-gatHErErS: HIDDEN DIMENSIONS 19 a comparative perspective in diverse palaeoenvironments; International Symposium, Sat 27-Sun 28 October 2012; Meiji University (Tokyo), Tokyo (Series ERAUL 138. Meiji University), 11-22. Gehlen, B., E. Eckmeier, K. Gerken, W. Schön & A. Zander, 2020: Mesolithic pits in Germany – a first compilation, in: A. Zander & B. Gehlen (eds), From the Early Preboreal to the Subboreal period – Current Mesolithic research in Europe. Studies in honour of Bernhard Gramsch, Kerpen-Loogh, 243-313. Gould, R.A., 1968: Chipping stones in the outback, Natural History 77(2), 42-49. Gross, D., H. Lübke, U. Schmölcke & M. Zanon, 2018: Early Mesolithic activities at ancient Lake Duvensee, northern Germany, The Holocene 29(2), 197-208. Grøn, O., 1987: Seasonal variation in Maglemosian group size and structure, Current Anthropology 28(3), 303-327. Grøn, O., 1995: The Maglemose Culture: the reconstruction of the social organisation of a Mesolithic culture in northern Europe, Oxford (BAR International Series 616). Grøn, O., 2014: Human spatial behaviour in dwellings and social psychology, in: M. Svart Kristiansen & K. Giles (eds), Dwellings, identities and homes: European housing culture from the Viking Age to the Renaissance, Aarhus (Jutland Archaeological Society), 29-38. Grøn, O., 2016: Yakut food producers colonising areas occupied by Evenk hunter-gatherers: fragments of a process of cultural change caused by migration, in: L. Melheim, H. Glørstad & Z. Tsigaridas Glørstad (eds), Comparative perspectives on past colonisation, maritime interaction and cultural integration, Bristol (Equinox), 73-83. Grøn, O., 2019: Mammoth-hunter camps in the Scandinavian North Sea sector during the Late Weichselian? Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University: History 64(2), 555-583. Grøn, O., C. Nellemann & N. Røv, 2005: Die Auswirkungen von Transportkorridoren auf indigene Kultur und kulturelles Erbe. Annäherung an eine Definition von Einflusszonen, in: P. Schweitzer (ed.), Beiträge zum zirkumpolaren Norden/Contributions to Circumpolar Studies, Vienna/Fairbanks (University Wien/University of Alaska), 172-183. Grøn, O., T. Klokkernes & M.G. Turov, 2009: Cultural small-scale variations in a hunter-gatherer society: or ‘everybody wants to be a little bit different!’ An ethnoarchaeological study from Siberia, in: S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warre & P. Woodman (eds), Mesolithic Horizons. Papers presented at the seventh international conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, Oxford (Oxbow Books), 203-209. Grøn, O. & J.-P. Hermand, 2015: Settlement archaeology under water: practical, strategic and research perspectives, 2015 IEEE/OES Acoustics in Underwater Geosciences Symposium (RIO Acoustics). DOI.org/10.1109/RIOAcoustics.2015.7473591. Grøn, O., L.O. Boldreel, M.F. Smith, S. Joy, R. Tayong Boumda, A. Mäder, N. Bleicher, B. Madsen, D. Cvikel, B. Nilsson, A. Sjöström, E. Galili, E. Nørmark, C. Hu, Q. Ren, P. Blondel, X. Gao, P. Stråkendal & A. Dell’Anno, 2021: Acoustic mapping of submerged Stone Age sites – a HALD approach, Remote Sensing 13(445), 44. Grøn, O. & H. Peeters, 2021: Mesolithic ‘ghost’ sites and related Stone Age problems with lithics, in: D. Borić, D. Antonović & B. Mihailović (eds), Foraging assemblages, Belgrade/New York (Serbian Archaeological Society/Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America, Columbia University), 233-239. Grøn, O., A. Hansson, J. Cook Hale, C. Phillips, A. Zander, D. Groß, & B. Nilsson, 2022a: Mapping Stone Age sites by topographical modelling: problems and possibilities, in: 20 HIDDEN DIMENSIONS S. D’Amico & V. Venuti (eds), Handbook of cultural heritage analysis, Cham (Springer Nature), 1595-1642. Grøn, O., L.O. Boldreel, R. Tayong Boumda, P. Blondel, B. Madsen, E. Nørmark, D. Cvikel, E. Galili & A. Dell’Anno, 2022b: Acoustic detection and mapping of submerged Stone Age sites with knapped flint, in: S. D’Amico & V. Venuti (eds), Handbook of cultural heritage analysis, Cham (Springer Nature), 901-933. Gusinde, M., 1937: Die Feuerland Indianer. Ergebnisse meiner vier Forschungsreisen in den Jahren 1918 bis 1924 unternommen im Auftrage des Ministerio de Instruccion Publica de Chile. Band II, Die Yamana. Vom Leben und Dencken der Wassernomaden am Kap Hoorn, Mödling bei Wien (Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift Anthropos). Gusinde, M., 1974: Die Feuerland Indianer. Ergebnisse meiner vier Forschungsreisen in den Jahren 1918 bis 1924 unternommen im Auftrage des Ministerio de Instruccion Publica de Chile. Band III/I, Die Halakwulup, Mödling bei Wien (Verlag St. Gabriel). Haffner, A.M., A. Hinz, E. Mazurkievich, E. Dolbunova & E. Pranckenaite, 2020: Introduction: Neolithic and Bronze Age pile dwellings in Europe: an outstanding archaeological resource with a long research tradition and broad perspectives, in: A. Haffner, E. Dolbunova, A. Mazurkievich, E. Pranckenaite & M. Hinz (eds), Settling waterscapes in Europe: the archaeology of Neolithic and Bronze Age pile-dwellings, Heidelberg (Propylaeum, Heidelberg University Library), 1-6. Harb, C., N. Bleicher, E. Jochum Zimmermann, A. Kienholz, B. Ruckstuhl & M. Weber, 2017: Handwerk und Technologie, in: C. Harb & N. Bleicher (eds), Zürich-Parkhaus Opera. Eine neolithische Feuchtbodenfundstelle Band 3: Naturwissenschaftliche Analysen und Synthese, Zürich (Monographien der Kantonsarchäologie Zürich 49), 238-262. Hayden, B., 1979: Palaeolithic reflections: lithic technology and ethnographic excavation among Australian Aborigines, Canberra (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies). Hewlett, B., J.M.H. van De Koppel & L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, 1982: Exploration ranges of Aka Pygmies of the Central African Republic, Man, New Series 17(3), 418-430. Jochim, M., 2015: Beyond stone: contributions of bone and antler technology to Stone Age archaeology, in: Y.-j. Lee, J.-y. Woo, S.-w. Lee & K.-W. Lee (eds), Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium: Suyanggae and Her Neighbours in Korea, Seoul (Institute of Korean Prehistory), 39-48. Joiris, D.V., 2003: The framework of Central African hunter-gatherers and neighbouring societies, African Study Monographs, Suppl. 28, 57-79. Kamermans, H., 2010: The application of predictive modelling in archaeology: problems and possibilities, in: F. Niccolucci & S. Hermon (eds), Beyond the artefact: digital interpretation of the past. Proceedings of CAA 2004, Prato 13-17 April 2004, Budapest (Archaeolingua), 273-277. Khlopashev, G.A. & E.J. Giria, 2010: Secrets of ancient bone carvers in eastern Europe and Siberia: methods of processing mammoth tusk and reindeer horn in the Stone Age (according to archaeological and experimental data), Saint Petersburg (Nauka) (in Russian). Kienholz, A. & J. Affolter, 2016: Sileces, in: C. Harb & N. Bleicher (eds), Zürich-Parkhaus Opera. Eine neolithische Feuchtbodenfundstelle Band 2: Funde, Zürich (Monographien der Kantonsarchäologie Zürich 49), 109-233. Cultural DyNaMICS IN StONE agE HuNtEr-gatHErErS: HIDDEN DIMENSIONS 21 Klokkernes, T., 2007: Skin processing technology in Eurasian reindeer cultures, Copenhagen (Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, The School of Conservation). Krause, A., 1956: The Tlingit Indians: results of a trip to the Northwest Coast of America and the Bering Straits, Seattle (University of Washington Press). Krutak, L., 2015: The cultural heritage of tattooing: A Brief History, Current Problems in Dermatology 48, 1-5. Kozłowski, S.K., 1975: Cultural Differentiation of Europe from 10th to 5th millennium B.C., Warsaw (Warsaw University Press). Larsson, L., 1975: A contribution to the knowledge of Mesolithic huts in southern Scandinavia, Meddelanden från Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum 1973-1974, 5-28. Layton, R., 1986: Political and territorial structures among hunter-gatherers, Man, New Series 21(1), 18-33. Man, A.F., 1932 (2nd edition. first published in 1885): On the aboriginal inhabitants of the Andaman Islands with report of researches into the language of the South Andaman Island, London (Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland). Mathiassen, T., 1928: Material culture of the Iglulik Eskimos, Copenhagen (Nordisk Forlag). Mills, S. & A. Pannett, 2009: Sounds like sociality: new research on lithic contexts in Mesolithic Caithness, in: S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren & P. Woodman (eds), Mesolithic Horizons: Papers presented at the seventh international conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, Vol. 2, Oxford (Oxbow), 717-721. Oakes, J. E. & R. Riewe, 1992: A comparison of historical and contemporary skin clothing used in North Greenland: an ethnohistorical approach, Clothing and Textile Research Journal 10(3), 76-85. Peeters, J.H.M., 2007: Hoge Vaart-A27 in context: towards a model of Mesolithic-Neolithic land-use dynamics as a framework for archaeological heritage management, Amersfoort (Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten). Peeters, H. & M.J.L.Th. Niekus, 2017: Mesolithic pit hearths in the northern Netherlands: function, time-depth and behavioural context, in: N. Achard-Corompt, E. Ghesquière & V. Riquier (eds), Creuser au Mésolithique. Digging in the Mesolithic. Actes de la séance de la Société préhistorique française de Châlons-en-Champagne (29-30 mars 2016), (Séances de la Société préhistorique française 12), 225-239. Peeters, H., D.C.M. Raemaekers, I.I.J.A.L.M. Devriendt, P.W. Hoebe, M.J.L.Th. Niekus, G.R. Nobles & M. Schepers, 2017: Paradise lost? Insights into the early Prehistory of the Netherlands from development-led archaeology, Amersfoort (Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands). Radcliffe Brown, A.R., 1922: The Andaman Islanders: a study in social anthropology, Cambridge (University Press). Reilly, A., 2015: Women’s work, tools, and expertise: hide tanning and the archaeological record, Calgary (unpublished MA thesis, University of Alberta). Riede, F., 2009: Climate and demography in early Prehistory: using calibrated ¹⁴C dates as population proxies, Human Biology 81(2-3), 309-337. Rogers, E.S., 1969: Band organization among the Indians of eastern Subarctic Canada: Contributions to Anthropology, in: D. Damas (ed.), Band societies. Proceedings of the conference on band organization, Ottawa, August 30 to September 2, 1965, Ottawa (Bulletin 228. Anthropological Series 84. National Museum of Canada), 21-55. 22 HIDDEN DIMENSIONS Sackett, J.R., 1982: Isochrestism and style: a clarification, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5(3), 266-277. Schönweiss, W. & H. Werner, 1974: Mesolithische Wohnanlagen von Sarching, Ldkr. Regensburg, Bayrische Vorgeschichtsblätter 39, 1-29. Shirokogoroff, S.M., 1935: Psychomental complex of the Tungus, London (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner). Sillitoe, P. & K. Hardy, 2003: Living lithics: ethnoarchaeology in highland Papua New Guinea, Antiquity 77(297), 555-566. Sjöström, A., 2011: Mesolitiska lämninger I Rönneholms mosse. Arkeologisk förundersökning 2010, Lund (Rapporter från Institutionen för arkeologi och antikens historia Lunds universitet 4). Sjöström, A., 2012: Mesolitiska lämninger I Rönneholms mosse. Arkeologisk förundersökning 2011, Lund (Rapporter från Institutionen för arkeologi och antikens historia Lunds universitet 5). Sjöström, A,. 2013: Mesolitiska lämninger I Rönneholms mosse. Arkeologisk förundersökning 2012, Lund (Rapporter från Institutionen för arkeologi och antikens historia Lunds universitet 8). Sjöström, A., 2014: Mesolitiska lämninger I Rönneholms mosse. Arkeologisk förundersökning 2013, Lund (Rapporter från Institutionen för arkeologi och antikens historia Lunds universitet 12). Sjöström, A., 2015: Mesolitiska lämninger I Rönneholms mosse. Arkeologisk förundersökning 2014, Lund (Rapporter från Institutionen för arkeologi och antikens historia Lunds universitet 14). Stiles, D., 1993: Hunter-gatherer trade in wild forest products in the early centuries A.D. with the Port of Broach, India, Asian Perspectives 32(2), 152-167. Stout, D., 2011: Stone toolmaking and the evolution of human culture and cognition, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366, 1050-1059. Strathern, A. & M. Strathern, 1971: Self-decoration in Mount Hagen, London (Gerald Duckworth). Sutton, P., 1994: Material Culture Traditions of the Wik People, Cape York Peninsula, Records of the South Australian Museum 37(1), 30-52. Svensson, T. 1992: clothing in the Arctic: a means of protection, a statement of identity, Arctic 45(1), 62-73. Swagerty, W.R., 1988: Indian trade in the Trans-Mississippi West to 1870, in: W.E. Washburn (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 4: History of Indian-White Relations, Washington, D.C. (Smithsonian Institution), 351-374. Sørensen, M., T. Rankama, J. Kankanpää, K. Knutsson, H. Knutsson, S. Melvold, B. Valentin Eriksen & H. Glørstad, 2013: The first eastern migrations of people and knowledge into Scandinavia: evidence from studies of Mesolithic technology, 9th-8th millennium BC, Norwegian Archaeological Review 2013, 1-38. Tanner, A., 2014: Bringing home animals: Mistissini hunters of Northern Quebec, St. John’s (ISER Books, Memorial University of Newfoundland). Townsend, P.K., 1978: The politics of mobility among the Sanio-Hiowe, Anthropological Quarterly 51(1), 27-35. Turnbull, C.M., 1965a: The Mbuti Pygmies: an ethnographic survey, New York (Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 50(3)). Cultural DyNaMICS IN StONE agE HuNtEr-gatHErErS: HIDDEN DIMENSIONS 23 Turnbull, C.M., 1965b: Wayward servants: the two worlds of the African Pygmies, New York (Natural History Press/Garden City). Tykot, R.H., 2004: Neolithic exploitation and trade of obsidian in the Central Mediterranean, in: le Secrétariat du Congrès (eds), Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liège, Belgium, 2-8 September 2001. Section 9: The Neolithic in the Near East and Europe, Oxford (BAR International Series 1303), 25-35. Vasilevich, G.M. & A.V. Smolyak, 1964: The Evenks, in: M.G. Levin & L.P. Potapov (eds), The peoples of Siberia, Chicago (University of Chicago Press), 620-654. 24 HIDDEN DIMENSIONS