Report, Excavation of Mohalsen2012‐II

The excavation of Mohalsen2012‐II site revealed series of features that seem to go together in a dwelling structure. The main cobble structure seems to mark a boundary between the sterile outside and the inside with the two fireplaces, and the area with artifacts, that also coincide with the brown sandy soil. The latter is probably a cultural deposit by proxy, an original floor area with organic deposits that through the years has been decomposed. Shoreline dating and 14C dates demonstrate that this is an Early Mesolithic site, probably within EM3(8500‐8000 cal BC). The artifact assemblage contains few chronological markers, but seems in agreement with the date. The two fireplaces suggest two occupation phases, which also is supported by the differences in 14C age and different patterns in artifact distribution. Fireplace 1 seems to have been left in perfect order, and Fireplace 2 seems to be disturbed, and thus probably is the oldest. This is supported by the 14C dates, but age difference is probably less than the 4‐500 years age difference in the dates. Fireplace 2 and most of the quartz assemblage seem to go together with the main cobble structure. Fireplace 1 and most of the quartzite artifacts is not in good agreement with the main structure. It is also in the very border of the excavation area, and probably part of a structure that is only partly excavated. The two fireplaces with collections of moderate heated pebbles and patches of sooty soils bear resemblance to the Ormen Lange project. This implies that they may have been fuelled by blubber, and that the sorted pebbles are placed to conserve heat. Both fireplaces show that the actual fire was more confined than the area with pebbles, meaning that pebbles were heated and eventually raked more widespread (also observed at Locality 48 in the Ormen Lange project). Warming pebbles in a fire fed by blubber is an arrangement that permits low energy fuelling over long time, producing modest heat sufficient for a small dwelling. We hope that the chemical analysis of sediment samples may reveal more data on this. House or tent? It is believed that the somewhat disorganized 98 cobbles all are related to the dwelling structure. This seems way more than needed in a tent, or a very temporary dwelling that was not meant to last for planned future stays at the place. This point in the direction of house, i.e. a dwelling constructed for lengthy occupations, and also to be of use during reoccupations at the site. The possible remains of a floor area with substantial organic accumulation are pointing in the same direction. The fireplaces may suggest stable fire over lengthy periods, but this could also be the case in a tent.