Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:19:13.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Search of Cloudstones? The Contribution of Charismatic Rocks Towards an Understanding of Mesolithic and Neolithic Communities in the Montane Regions of South Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2020

Astrid J. Nyland
Astrid J. Nyland*
Affiliation:
Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger; NO-4036 Stavanger, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses whether a consideration of the capacity of rocks to affect humans in terms of their charisma or object-agency can aid in understanding identified variation in patterns of lithic procurement, distribution, and use. Lithic assemblages at sites dating to both the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in two separate areas of the central mountain plateau in southern Norway demonstrate use of locally available rock. Their use contrasts with that of flint which could only be sourced at the coast. While the use of flint in regions with a restricted range of available and suitable rock types is understandable, the presence of flint in regions rich in flint alternatives is more puzzling. In order to understand the choices and actions of prehistoric communities we must consider other factors, such as a sensorial exploration of the ability of raw materials to affect humans, together with the diverging ontological perspectives that shape human–material relations and the social situations of practice. This paper argues that, in addition to their straightforward utility, lithic raw materials had socially situated object-agency and inherent characteristics of charisma and that these exerted powerful influences on human choice, perception, and preference.

Résumé

RÉSUMÉ

Ala recherche des pierres de nuage? Contribution des rochers charismatiques à la compréhension des coumunautés mésolithiques et néolithiques des régions montagneuses du sud de la Norvège, de Astrid J. Nyland

Cet article discute la question de savoir si une considération de la capacité des rochers à affecter les humains en termes de leur charisme ou objet agence peut aider dans la compréhension de variations identifiées dans les schémas de procurement, de distribution et d’utilisation lithiques. Les assemblages lithiques sur deux sites séparés datant à la fois du Mésolithique final et du début du Néolithique dans deux zones du plateau montagneux central de la Norvège du sud mettent en évidence l’utilisation de roches disponibles localement. Leur usage est en constraste avec celui du silex qu’on ne pouvait se procurer que sur la côte. Tandis que l’utilisation du silex dans les régions avec une gamme limitée de types de roches disponibles et appropriées est compréhensible, la présence de silex dans les régions riches en alternatives au silex est plus troublante. De manière à comprendre les choix et les actions des communautés préhistoriques nous devons prendre en considération d’autres facteurs tels qu’une exploration sensorielle de l’abilité des des matières premières à affecter les humains ainsi que les perspectives ontologiques divergentes qui donnent forme aux relations humains-matériaux et les situations sociales de pratiques Cet article argumente qu’en plus de leur utilité immédiate, les matières pemières lithiques avaient ddu-objet-agence situé ssocialement et des caractéristiques inhérentes de charisme et que celles-ci exerçaient de puissantes influences sur les choix,la perception et les préférences humaines.

Zusammenfassung

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Auf der Suche nach Wolkensteinen? Der Beitrag charismatischer Felsen zur Erforschung mesolithischer und neolithischer Gemeinschaften in der Gebirgsregion von Südnorwegen, von Astrid J. Nyland

Dieser Beitrag diskutiert, ob eine Erörterung der Fähigkeiten von Gesteinen, auf Menschen durch ihr Charisma oder durch ihre Objekt-agency einzuwirken, zu einem Verständnis bekannter Unterschiede in der Art der Gewinnung, Verbreitung und Nutzung von Gesteinen beitragen kann. Anhand von lithischem Material von zwei Fundplätzen zweier getrennter Regionen des zentralen Gebirgsplateaus in Südnorwegen, die jeweils ins späte Mesolithikum und frühe Neolithikum datieren, lässt sich die Nutzung lokal verfügbarer Gesteine aufzeigen. Ihre Nutzung kontrastiert mit jener von Feuerstein, der nur an der Küste gewonnen werden konnte. Während die Nutzung von Feuerstein in Regionen mit begrenzter Auswahl an verfügbaren und brauchbaren Gesteinstypen nachvollziehbar ist, ist das Vorhandensein von Feuerstein in Regionen mit großer Auswahl an Alternativen zu diesem Material überraschend. Um die Entscheidungen und Handlungen prähistorischer Gemeinschaften zu verstehen, müssen wir andere Faktoren in Betracht ziehen, wie eine sensorische Erkundung der Fähigkeit der Rohmaterialien Menschen zu beeinflussen, und ebenso die divergierenden ontologischen Perspektiven, die Mensch-Material-Beziehungen bestimmen, und die soziale Situierung von Praktiken. Dieser Beitrag spricht sich dafür aus, dass lithische Rohmaterialien neben ihrer unmittelbaren Nützlichkeit auch eine sozial situierte Objekt-agency und inhärente Merkmale von Charisma besaßen, und dass diese starken Einfluss nahmen auf menschliche Entscheidungen, Wahrnehmungen und Vorlieben.

Resumen

RESUMEN

¿En busca de las cloudstones? La contribución de las rocas carismáticas a la comprensión de las comunidades Mesolíticas y Neolíticas en las regiones montanas del sur de Noruega, por Astrid J. Nyland.

En este artículo se discute si la capacidad de las rocas para afectar a los humanos en términos de carisma o de acción-objeto puede ayudar a comprender la variación identificada en los patrones de abastecimiento, distribución y uso del material lítico. Los conjuntos líticos procedentes de dos yacimientos arqueológicos datados en el Mesolítico Final y en el Neolítico Antiguo en dos áreas separadas de la cadena montañosa central en el sur de Noruega demuestran el uso de las rocas disponibles en el entorno local. Su uso contrasta con el del sílex, que sólo puede obtenerse en la zona de costa. Aunque el uso del sílex sigue unas pautas comprensibles en regiones donde la disponibilidad y aptitud de rocas es restringida, su aprovechamiento en regiones ricas en otras rocas alternativas es más desconcertante. Para comprender las elecciones y acciones de las comunidades prehistóricas es necesario considerar otros factores, como la exploración sensorial de la capacidad que tienen las materias primas de influir en los humanos, junto con las perspectivas ontológicamente divergentes que modelan las relaciones humano-materia y las situaciones sociales en que se llevan a la práctica. Este artículo sostiene que, además de su utilidad directa, las materias primas líticas asientan socialmente tanto la relación acción-objeto como su inherente carácter carismático, y que ambos ejercen una poderosa influencia en la selección, la percepción y las preferencias humanas.

Keywords

Quartz crystalquartziteslithic procurementMesolithicNeolithicobject-agencycharismasocial practice
Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 86 , December 2020 , pp. 43 - 64
Copyright
© The Prehistoric Society, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alsaker, S. 1987. Bømlo, steinalderens råstoffsentrum på Sørvestlandet. Bergen: University MuseumGoogle Scholar
Aubry, T., Luís, L., Llach, J.M. & Matias, H. 2012. We will be known by the tracks we leave behind: Exotic lithic raw materials, mobility and social networking among the Côa Valley foragers (Portugal). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31, 528–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakka, E. 1976. Comments on typological and chronological problems. Stone Age chronology in the light of Hein 33. Norwegian Archaeological Review 9, 16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballin, T.B.B. 1998. The Steinsbustølen Site. Quartzite reduction in the Norwegian high mountains. Universitetets Oldsaksamling Årbok 1997–1998, 83–92Google Scholar
Ballin, T.B.B. 2008. Quartz technology in Scottish prehistory. Scottish Archaeological Internet Report 26. https://doi.org/10.5284/1017938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bang-Andersen, S. 1975. Arkeologisk datarapport fra Ulla/Førre-Undersøkingen 1974. Unpublished report, Museum of Archaeology, StavangerGoogle Scholar
Bang-Andersen, S. 1983. Kulturminer i Dyraheio. Sammenfatting av arkeologiske registreringer utført 1972–1979 i Suldal-, Hjelmeland- og Bykleheiene i Rogaland og AustAgder som ledd i Ulla/Førre-undersøkelsene. Stavanger: Museum of Archaeology, AmS-Varia 12Google Scholar
Bang-Andersen, S. 2003. Encircling the living space of Early Postglacial reindeer hunters in the interior of Southern Norway. In Larsson, L., Knutsson, K., Loeffler, D. & Åkerlund, A. (eds). Mesolithic on the Move, 193–204. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Bang-Andersen, S. 2008. De første jegerne i Dyraheio – utnyttelsen av Setesdal Vesthei i steinalder ca. 7000–3500 år før nåtid. Stavanger: Museum of ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Bang-Andersen, S. 2012. Colonizing contrasting landscapes. The Pioneer Coast settlement and inland utilization in southern Norway 10,000–9500 years before present. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31, 103–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsvik, K.A. 2002. Task groups and social inequality in Early Neolithic western Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Review 35, 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsvik, K.A. 2006. Ethnic Boundaries in Neolithic Norway. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsvik, K.A. 2011. East is east and west is west: On regional differences in Neolithic Norway. In Olofsson, A. (ed.), Archaeology of Indigenous Peoples of the North. Archaeology and environment, 133–60. Umeå: Unversity of UmeåGoogle Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1979. Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 255–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjørgo, T. 1981. Flatøy. Et eksempel på steinalderens kronologi og livbergingsmåte i Nordhordland. Bergen: University of BergenGoogle Scholar
Blystad, P. & Selsing, L. 1988. Deglaciation Chronology in the Mountain Area Between Suldal and Setesdal, Southwestern Norway. Trondheim: Norwegian Geological ServiceGoogle Scholar
Boivin, N. 2004a. From veneration to exploitation. Human engagement with the mineral world. In Boivin, N. & Owoc, M. A. (eds), Soils, Stones and Symbols. Cultural perceptions on the mineral world, 1–29. London & New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Boivin, N. 2004b. Mind over matter? Collapsing the mind-matter dichotomy in material culture studies. In Demarrais, E., Gosden, C. & Renfrew, C. (eds), Rethinking Materiality. The Engagement of Mind with the Material World, 63–72. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological ResearchGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. & Watson, A. 2019. Axes from the sky. In Rodríguez-Rellán, C., Nelson, B.A. & Fábregas Valcarce, R. (eds), A Taste for Green: A Global perspective on ancient jade, turquoise and variscite exchange, 141–58. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Conneller, C. 2011. An Archaeology of Materials. Substantial Transformations in Early Prehistoric Europe. London & New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Damlien, H. 2010. Referansesystem for littiske råstoff. In Stene, K. (ed.), Gråfjellprosjektet Bind III, 50–66. Oslo: Museum of Cultural HistoryGoogle Scholar
Dean, C. 2010. A Culture of Stone. Inka Perspectives of Rock. Durham NC: Duke University PressGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, M. & Ferraby, R. 2013. Stoneworks. Orkney: Group VI PressGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, B.V. 2002. Fossil mollusks and exotic raw materials in Late Glacial and Early Post Glacial find contexts: A complement to lithic studies. In Fischer, L.E. & Eriksen, B. V. (eds), Lithic Raw Material Economies in Late Glacial and Early Postglacial Europe, 27–52. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1093Google Scholar
Eilertsen, K.S. 2009. Arkeologisk undersøkelse av heller v/Fiskåvatnet, Søre Våge 89/2, Karmøy kommune Mai – juni 2008. Archival archaeological report (2010/05), Museum of Archaeology, University of StavangerGoogle Scholar
Eilertsen, K.S. 2010. Arkeologisk undersøkelse heller på Barka, Bjørkhaug 42/3, Strand kommune. Archival archaeological report (2009/06), Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger.Google Scholar
Espedal, O. 1965a. Innberetning om registrering i dalen Eldrevann – Øljusjøen, Borgund s. Lærdal pgd. Sogn og Fjordane, sommeren 1965. In Arkeologiske undersøkelser 1965 ved Lærdalsvassdraget Borgund s. Lærdal pgd. Sogn og Fjordane. Unpublished report: University Museum BergenGoogle Scholar
Espedal, O. 1965b. Innberetning om registrering ved Store og Lille Øljusjøen, Lærdalsvassdraget Borgund s. Lærdal pgd. Sogn og Fjordane sommeren 1965. In Arkeologiske undersøkelser 1965 ved Lærdalsvassdraget Borgund s. Lærdal pgd. Sogn og Fjordane. Unpublished report: University Museum BergenGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, J.P. 2009. Rocking cosmopolitanism: Don McKay, strike/slip, and the implications of geology. English Studies in Canada 35, 165–87Google Scholar
Ferraby, R. 2015. Stone exposures. A Cultural Geology of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of ExeterGoogle Scholar
Gell, A. 1992. The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology. In Coote, J. & Shelton, A. (eds), Anthropology, Art and Aestetics, 40–67. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Gjerland, B. 1980. Utgravning av steinalderlokalitetane Glitreøyna I, II og III, 17–20. juli 1979. Unpublished report: University Museum BergenGoogle Scholar
Gosden, C. 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Gosden, C. 2005. What do objects want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12, 193–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, R.A. 1978. Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology. Albuquerque NM: University of New Mexico PressGoogle Scholar
Gould, R.A. & Saggers, S. 1985. Lithic procurement in Central Australia: a closer look at Binford’s idea of embeddedness in archaeology. American Antiquity 50, 117–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, L. 1983. Arkeologiske registreringer i Vossovassdraget. Verneplan for Vassdrag – 10 års vernede vassdrag. Bergen: University Museum BergenGoogle Scholar
Harris, O.J.T. & Sørensen, T.F. 2010. Rethinking emotion and material culture. Archaeological Dialogues 17, 145–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y. 2013. Archaeology and the Senses. Human Experience, Memory, and Affect. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, O.W.B. 1999. Culture of Stone. Sacred and Profane Use of Stone among the Dani. Texas: Texas A&M University PressGoogle Scholar
Hjelle, K.L., Halvorsen, L.S., Prøsch-Danielsen, L., Sugita, S., Paus, A., Kaland, P.E., Mehl, I.K., Overland, A., Danielsen, R., Høeg, H.I. & Midtbø, I. 2018. Long-term changes in regional vegetation cover along the west coast of southern Norway: The importance of human impact. Journal of Vegetation Science 29, 404–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indrelid, S. 1994. Fangstfolk og bønder i fjellet. Bidrag til Hardangerviddas førhistorie 8500–2500 år før nåtid. Oslo: Universitetets OldsaksamlingGoogle Scholar
Johansen, A.B. 1967. Innberetning om foreløpige undersøkelse av Kvartsittbrudd II på Kjøleskarvet, Borgund s., Lærdal pgd., Sogn og Fjordane. Arkeologiske undersøkelser 1967 ved Lærdalsvassdraget, Borgund s., Lærdal pgd., Sogn og Fjordane. Unpublished report: University Museum BergenGoogle Scholar
Johansen, A.B. 1968. Innberetning om fortsatt undersøkelse av Kvartsittbrudd II på Kjølskarvet, Lærdal kommune, Sogn og Fjordane. Arkeologiske undersøkelser 1968 ved Lærdalsvassdraget, Borgund s., Lærdal pgd., Sogn og Fjordane. Unpublished report: University Museum BergenGoogle Scholar
Johansen, A.B. 1978. Høyfjellsfunn ved Lærdalsvassdraget II. Naturbruk og tradisjonssammenheng i et sør-norsk villreinområde i steinalder. Oslo: UniversitetsforlagetGoogle Scholar
Johansen, E. 1955. Flintfunn og flinttyper fra Øst-Norge. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift 35, 178–9Google Scholar
Martens, I. (ed.) 1965. Arkeologiske undersøkelser ved Lærdalsvassdraget 1965. Borgund s. og Lærdal Pgd. Sogn og Fjordane. De Arkeologiske Museenes registreringstjenester. Unpublished report, De Arkeologiske Museenes RegistreringstjenesterGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, M. & Uleberg, E. 2002. Nye steinalderboplasser ved Vavatn i Hemsedal. In Hofseth, E.H. (ed.), UKM – En mangfoldig forskningsinstitusjon, 207–20. Oslo: Museum of Cultural HistoryGoogle Scholar
Müller, A. 2008. Assessment of Quartz Quality IV. 2008.053. Trondheim: Geological Survey NorwayGoogle Scholar
Myhre, B. 2005. Produksjon av bergkrystallperler i Suldal- og Røldalsheiene i yngre jernalder. Kvinner i arkeologi i Norge 25, 76–91Google Scholar
Mökkönen, T., Nordqvist, K. & Herva, V.-P. 2017. Beneath the surface of the world: High-quality quartzes, crystal cavities, and Neolithization in circumpolar Europe. Arctic Anthropology 54, 94–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, G.E. & Smith, R.K. 2016. The need to belong motivates demand for authentic objects. Cognition 156, 129–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nyland, A.J. 2016a. Humans in Motion and Places of Essence. Variations in Rock Procurement Practices in the Stone, Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Southern Norway. Unpublished PhD thesis: University of OsloGoogle Scholar
Nyland, A.J. 2016b. Rock procurement in the Early Neolithic in southern Norway: Significant by association with people and places? Current Swedish Archaeology 24, 107–36Google Scholar
Nyland, A.J. 2019a. Being ‘Mesolithic’ in the ‘Neolithic’: Practices, place and rock in contrasting regions in South-Norway. In: Teather, A., Topping, P. & Baczkowski, J. (eds). Mining and Quarrying in Neolithic Europe: A social Perspective. 67–81. Oxford: Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyland, A.J. 2019b. Sensory archaeology in Scandinavia and Finland. In Day, J. & Skeates, R. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Sensory Archaeology, 338–55. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nødseth, I.L. 2018. The Linköping mitre. Ecclesiastical textiles and episcopal identity. In Vedeler, M., Røstad, I.M. & Kristoffersen, E.S. (eds), Charismatic Objects. From Roman Times to the Middle Ages, 197–216. Oslo: Cappelen Damm AkademiskGoogle Scholar
Odner, K. (ed.). 1962. Arkeologiske undersøkelser i Røldal–Suldal 1962. Unpublished report: Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger.Google Scholar
Odner, K. (ed.). 1963. Arkeologiske undersøkelser i Røldal–Suldal 1963. Unpublished report: Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger.Google Scholar
Olausson, D.S. 1983. Flint and Groundstone Axes in the Scandinavian Neolithic. An Evaluation of Raw Materials Based on Experiment. Lund: Scripta Minora. Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum LundensisGoogle Scholar
Olsen, A.B. & Alsaker, S. 1984. Greenstone and diabase utilization in the Stone Age of western Norway: Technological and socio-cultural aspects of axe and adze production and distribution. Norwegian Archaeological Review 17, 71–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B. 2003. Material culture after text: Re-membering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36, 87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétrequin, P. & Pétrequin, A.-M. 2011. The twentieth-century polished stone axeheads of New Guinea: Why study them? In Davies, V. & Edmonds, M. (eds), Stone Axe Studies III, 331–49. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Pitblado, B.L., Cannon, M.B., Neff, H., Dehler, C.M. & Nelson, S.T. 2013. LA-ICP-MS analysis of quartzite from the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 2196–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. 2004. The mirror of the sun. Surface, mineral, applications and interface in Californian rock art. In Boivin, N. & Owoc, M.A. (eds), Soils, Stones and Symbols. Cultural Perspectives of the Mineral World, 91–106. London & New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Saunders, N.J. 1999. Biographies of brilliance: Pearls, transformations of matter and being, c. AD 1492. World Archaeology 31, 243–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, N.J. 2004. The cosmic earth. Materiality and mineralogy in the Americas. In Boivin, N. & Owoc, M.A. (eds), Soils, Stones and Symbols. Cultural Perspectives of the Mineral World, 123–42. London & New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A., Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.-M., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Gauthier, E. & Prodéo, F. 2019. Fifty shades of green: the irresistible attraction, use and significance of jadeitite and other green Alpine rock types in Neolithic Europe. In Rodríguez-Rellán, C., Nelson, B. A. & Fábregas Valcarce, R. (eds), A Taste for Green: A global perspective on ancient jade, turquoise and variscite exchange. 97–120. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Sjøvold, T. & Martens, I. 1971. Arkeologiske undersøkelser 1971 ved Aurlandsvassdraget, Sogn og Fjodane og Buskerud og Holsvassdraget, Buskerud. Historisk Museum og Oldsaksamlingen i Oslo. Unpublished report: University Museum BergenGoogle Scholar
Skjelstad, G. 2011. Steinalderboplasser for Fosenhalvøya. Arkeologiske og naturvitenskapelige undersøkelser 2004–2007. T-Forbindelsen, Karmøy kommune, Nord-Rogaland. Stavanger: Museum of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Taçon, P.S.C. 1991. The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem Land, Australia. Antiquity 65, 192–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taffinder, J. 1998. The Allure of the Exotic. The Social Use of Non-local Raw Materials During the Stone Age in Sweden. Uppsala: Aun 25Google Scholar
Uleberg, E. 2003. Fra punkt til område. Steinbrukende tid i fjellet. Oslo: University of OsloGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. 1968. On Charisma and Institution Building. Selected Papers. Chicago IL: University of ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Viveiros De Castro, E. 2012. Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and Elsewhere: Four lectures given in the Department of Social Anthropology, Cambridge University, February–March. Manchester: HauGoogle Scholar
Årskog, H. & Åstveit, L.I. 2014a. Arkeologisk undersøkelse av Lok 6 Eldrevatn. Bosetning fra eldre steinalder, yngre steinalder og eldre bronsealder. Unpublished report: University Museum Bergen.Google Scholar
Årskog, H. & Åstveit, L.I. 2014b. Arkeologisk undersøkelse av Lok A Eldrevatn, lokalitet fra tidligneolitikum. Unpublished report: University Museum Bergen.Google Scholar
Årskog, H. & Åstveit, L.I. 2014c. Arkeologiske undersøkelser ved rv. 52 Hemsedalsfjellet. Lokalitet på Høgfjellet med faser fra eldre og yngre steinalder. Æråker 77/2, Lærdal kommune. Unpublished report: University Museum Bergen.Google Scholar