Technology, labor organization, and institutions during the adoption of agriculture in Mesolithic and Neolithic Denmark

My dissertation explores the relationships between the adoption of agriculture in Denmark and the social changes that accompanied it. I hypothesize that the adoption of agriculture entailed changes in labor organization and necessitated the development of new institutions for promoting cooperation and coordination. I employ two different data sets to address these issues.; The first half of the dissertation assesses the extent to which the organization of stone tool production and use did, in fact, change between the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. I evaluate this organization using excavated samples of stone tools and lithic debitage from a number of sites. Mesolithic hunter-gatherers exploited resources that were seasonally abundant and difficult to capture; Neolithic farmers did not face these same challenges. Mesolithic tool makers carefully produced a wide variety of task-specific tools and divided tool production tasks among a large number of individuals. The organization of tool production and use among Mesolithic groups ensured that resources could be exploited when they were available. Neolithic tool makers produced tools expediently and divided production tasks among a smaller number of individuals. Although Neolithic tool makers did not divide labor extensively within the group, as Mesolithic groups did, some Neolithic groups may have produced stone tools for exchange among groups. Because Neolithic farmers began to divide labor in new ways, they should have developed new rules and norms for promoting stable interactions.; In the second half of the dissertation, I explore the kinds of institutions that existed during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. Mesolithic groups did not build monuments, but monuments were prominent features of the Neolithic landscape. The activities surrounding monuments may have created different relationships among groups and individuals than previously existed. Using game theory, I model two possible monument functions. These models provide testable implications that can be compared against the archaeological record. Neolithic monuments probably served as focal points on the landscape for community gatherings. Such focal points helped to bring together groups that were otherwise dispersed and autonomous. Mesolithic groups were bound by ties of dependence, but Neolithic groups created such ties through the construction of a social landscape.