Wild boar and domestic pigs in Mesolithic and Neolithic southern Scandinavia

In Mesolithic and Neolithic southern Scandinavia, Sus is often the animal found most commonly on archaeological sites, and it undoubtedly formed a major part of the meat diet throughout the prehistoric period. Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain whether this meat comes from wild boar (Sus scrofa) or domestic pigs (Sus scrofa f. domestica), as archaeologists have only the bones to go on when seeking to determine the status of the animals they study. This contribution will examine bones from a series of sites, most in Denmark but some also in Sweden. Three main areas will be considered. First, Mesolithic animals will be discussed. These are universally regarded as wild boar, and the effects of the rising sea level and consequent fragmentation of their populations will be examined. Second, Danish Neolithic and later domestic animals will be discussed; these could either have been domesticated in Denmark from local wild boar, or could have been introduced from outside along with exotic agricultural items such as wheat or sheep. Third, we will consider Middle Neolithic animals from the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. Wild boar were almost certainly not present on Gotland during the Mesolithic, and the animals must therefore have been introduced by human agency. However, opinion is divided as to whether they were domestic pigs, wild boar introduced to found a hunted population, or a crossbred or feral population. The sites to be examined are listed in Table 7.1. The various sites have been excavated at various times over the last century or so. Some were published shortly after being excavated, but others had to wait many years for publication. Excavation quality has certainly varied, but we believe this will probably not have exerted a major influence on the results we present. Our work is based on the mandibles, and these are large and robust. They are unlikely to be overlooked during even poor-quality excavations, and they survive better than many other parts of the skeleton. Samples are therefore unlikely to be biased either by recovery of preservation. In grouping sites by period, for example ‘Early Mesolithic’, we are certainly conflating sites of somewhat different ages.