becoming european: the transformation of third millennium northern and western europe

Becoming EuropeanThe transformation of third millennium Northern

and Western Europe

edited by

Christopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad

OXBOW BOOKSOxford and Oakville

Published byOxbow Books, Oxford, UK

© Oxbow Books and the authors, 2012

ISBN 978-1-84217-450-0

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

This book is available direct from:

Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK(Phone: 01865-241249; Fax: 01865-794449)

and

The David Brown Book CompanyPO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA

(Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468)

or from our website

www.oxbowbooks.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Becoming European : the transformation of third millennium northern and western Europe / edited by Christopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-84217-450-0 1. Prehistoric peoples--Europe. 2. Anthropology, Prehistoric--Europe. 3. Antiquities, Prehistoric--Europe. I. Prescott , Christopher. II. Glårstad, Høkon. GN803.B38 2011 936--dc23 2011037623

Cover illustration: Late Neolithic electrum spiral ring (S3585), from a bog at Braut, Rogaland, Norway. Photo: Terje Tveit, Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger

Printed in Great Britain byHobbs the PrinterTott on, Hampshire

Preface ......................................................................................................................................................................vChristopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad

Contributors and abstracts ................................................................................................................................ vii

1. Introduction: becoming European ....................................................................................................................... 1Christopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad

2. Personhoods for Europe: the archaeological construction and deconstruction of European-ness .........12Herdis Hølleland

3. Demography and mobility in North-Western Europe during the third millennium cal. BC................... 19Marc Vander Linden

4. Perceiving changes in the third millennium BC in Europe through pott ery: Galicia,Britt any and Denmark as examples .................................................................................................................. 30M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez

5. Body use transformations: socio-political changes in the Bell Beaker context ........................................... 48Lucía Moragón

6. Late Neolithic expansion to Norway. The beginning of a 4000 year-old shipbuilding tradition ............ 63Einar Østmo

7. Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway – the role of metal and metal working ........ 70Lene Melheim

8. Historical ideal types and the transition to the Late Neolithic in South Norway .....................................82Håkon Glørstad

9. The last hunter-fi shers of western Norway .................................................................................................... 100Knut Andreas Bergsvik

10. Third millennium transformations in Norway: modeling an interpretative platform ............................ 115Christopher Prescott

11. Technology Talks: material diversity and change in Northern Norway 3000–1000 BC .......................... 128Marianne Skandfer

12. Cultural Reproduction from Late Stone Age to Early Metal Age – a short discussion of the cultures in Finland, the northern part of Fennoscandia and Karelia, 3200 cal. BC to 1500 cal. BC .................... 144Mika Lavento

13. Tracing pressure-fl aked Arrowheads in Europe ...........................................................................................156Jan Apel

14. The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages: an archaeological model ..............................165Kristian Kristiansen

Contents

Preface

This anthology is based on papers presented at a session entitled Becoming European? The transformation of third millennium Europe – and the trajectory into the second millennium BC at the 14th EAA conference in Valett a in 2008. A few papers are added, compared to the original session programme, to furnish a fuller thematic and geographical presentation of the subject.

In our invitation to the session we described the theme as follows:

The aim of the EAA is to promote the management and interpretation of the European archaeological heritage. Since Childe’s day the concept of a European archaeology and identity – the concept of Europe – has varied concurrently with theoretical trends in archaeology. Both processual and post-modern archaeology have, with notable exceptions, been small-scale archaeologies. A number of recent studies have again explored explanations and accounts on a continental scale, not the least concerning the Bronze Age. In the wake of these studies, renewed theoretical and methodological approaches are being hammered out.

We would argue that elements of a European heritage can be identifi ed not only as a national strategy of the present, but also as a process in prehistory – the cultural and political transformations of the third millennium BC in European prehistory sparking of this process. The transformation of third millennium society initiated the processes and mechanisms that led up to the complex political, social and cultural institutions of the fi rst half of the second millennium BC. From this time on an authentic historical continuum leading towards present day society can be identifi ed. Some places – like Scandinavia – this process seems to sever the bounds to the past, creating a new historical trajectory. This break is, i.a., represented by the introduction of permanently occupied farms, more intensively tilled fi elds, deforestation

in order to create pastures, an evolving metal industry and distribution of prestige objects, long distance contact, and the initial establishment of hierarchical political institutions, promoting a predatory culture. We want to focus on processes in the past and the present leading towards a unifying concept or appearance of culture, making up a fundament for the creation of our part of the world as a unity, as Europe.

The papers presented in the 2008 session illuminated the themes we tentatively sketched in a productive fashion. They provided an up-to-date survey of trends in Bell Beaker research with a focus on western and northern Europe as well as developments in the northern and eastern Scandinavian and Baltic regions. The geographical focus along with the interpretative perspective hopefully demonstrate some of the progress in understanding the histories of third millennium Europe. A follow-up publication was therefore projected at the end of the conference. We wish to thank the authors for their contributions, and for their patience with the process of editing the articles and the production of this book.

The University of Oslo and the Norwegian Research Council generously provided funding for organising the session in Valett a. Professor emeritus Erla B. Hohler reviewed the English-usage. Sigrid Staurset reviewed the formatt ing. Layout and design is done by Oxbow books. We are grateful to Julie Gardiner and Oxbow for their interest in this project and valuable support in the production of the publication. This publication was made possible through grants from The Museum of Cultural History, The Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History at the University of Oslo and the Norwegian Research Council.

The University of Oslo, December 2010


Jan ApelGotland University, Cramérgatan 3, Visby. E-mail: [email protected]

Tracing pressure-flaked arrowheads in EuropePressure fl aked arrowheads are known to exist already in the 5th Millennium BC in north Scandinavia and Finland. This tradition most probably had an eastern origin. It remains unclear exactly how this early phase of bifacial arrowheads relates to the custom of producing bifacial arrowheads with straight bases in local raw materials in Northern Scandinavia during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (2350-1000 BC). They likely represent two or more independent historical events in which this technology was introduced to northern Fennoscandia from the east.

During the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, two distinct technological traditions produce pressure-fl aked arrowheads in Scandinavia: one tradition in southern Scandinavia where arrowheads were produced in high quality fl int, and another tradition in Northern Fennoscandia where arrowheads were produced in local raw materials of high quality, predominantly quartzite and quartz. The northern part of the Mälaren Valley in eastern central Sweden was a border zone where these two diff erent traditions of making bifacial projectile points met. In the central parts of Scandinavia simple pressure fl aked arrowhead were produced in south Scandinavian fl int, however with a pronounced lack of the skill that characterise the south Scandinavian arrowheads. In this context this tradition is regarded as a local variation of the southern tradition. These traditions demarcate a classic cultural barrier between south and north Sweden with roots back to the Mesolithic. This cultural barrier is also a long lasting division between hunter-gatherers/herders in the north and farming communities in the south. In this paper we will argue that these two traditions may share a distant common origin and that they have been formed by diff erent historical cultural-historical trajectories.

Kristian KristiansenDepartment of Historical Studies, University of Gothenburg, Box 200, SE-405 30 Göteborg, SwedenE-mail: [email protected]

The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages: an archaeological modelTo understand the spread of languages, an understanding of the social and economic dynamics of the societies that carried those languages is necessary. Language is in this respect a

secondary product of social organisation, and it is social processes of migration, conquest, travels and trade that may lead to language change. In this article two theoretical and methodological strategies are identifi ed. They are considered necessary in order to link models of language spread with archaeological models of political and social expansion.

Knut Andreas BergsvikDepartment of archaeology, history, cultural studies and religion, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 78055020 Bergen NorwayEmail: [email protected]

The last hunter-fishers of western NorwayThe paper deals with the end of the Middle Neolithic (MNB) of western Norway, which was the fi nal phase of the indigenous hunter-fi sher culture in this region. Several important changes took place during this period: (1) there was an increase in agricultural activity, (2) the traditional hunter-fi sher sites were less intensively used, (3) people started to explore inland locations, and (4) the exchange networks towards southern and eastern areas were more intensive. An argument is developed that these changes mainly were the results of choices made by ambitious individuals; leaders from the hunter-fi sher groups wanted new artefacts into their exchange systems in order to strengthen their own prestige. However, when they imported the new artefacts, they at the same time took over a number of values and symbols that were associated with these tools. As a result, the traditional hunter-fi sher culture characterised by sedentism, social boundaries, inter-group exchanges, disintegrated from the inside.

Håkon GlørstadMuseum of Cultural History, University of OsloBox 6762 St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo NorwayE-mail: [email protected]

Historical ideal types and the transition to the Late Neolithic in South NorwayThis paper discusses the transition from the Middle Neolithic to the Late Neolithic in eastern Norway based on a case study from the southern part of Østfold County. The author demonstrates that although the Batt le Axe Complex and some agricultural activity are present in the Oslo fj ord area in the Middle Neolithic, there are good reasons to describe the transition to the Late Neolithic as a watershed in the culture-

Contributors and Abstracts

viii Contributors and Abstracts

history in the area. Thus a perspective of a dramatic historical event is a valuable perspective for the Oslo fj ord region. It is a challenge to develop a model for explaining some central aspects of this crucial historical process of change.

Weber’s concept of ideal types is still a currant analytical tool. By ideal types Weber means abstracted models or analytical tools for analysing historical or present social situations. These ideal-types emphasises particular aspects of the social reality, thus the case under study can be constructed in a certain manner. Following Marshall Sahlins, a historical scenario based on competing social entities, can be analysed according to an ideal typical model, as defi ned by Weber. The theoretical framework for the present analysis is the assumption that two structurally opposed yet interrelated models of social organisation, such as Sahlins identifi es, constitutes a fruitful model for analysing the introduction of Late Neolithic culture in eastern Norway.

Herdis Hølleland University of Oslo, Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages, P.O box 1010, Blindern 0315 Oslo, NorwayE-mail: [email protected]

Personhoods for Europe: The archaeological construction and deconstruction of European-nessThe concept of personhood is a rather new addition to archaeological vocabulary. Personhood materialises itself through a person’s interactions and social strategies. Personhoods of the past are interpretative products of the way in which archaeological material is categorised, classifi ed and theorised. European Bronze Age research share at least one thing in common: they are rarely explicitly concerned with the topic of personhood. However, if one examines the actual interpretations of Bronze Age Europe, one can easily observe that the texts do in fact reveal a great deal about how archaeologists conceptualise the peoples and persons of the period, and thus contribute to the creation a Bronze Age personhood. By analysing archaeologists’ categorisations of the material culture, one can, in the grand narratives of the period, detect the existence of a particular ‘pan-European BA personhood’. The aim of the paper is to highlight how archaeological interpretations have contributed to the archaeological construction of European-ness.

Mika LaventoUniversity of Helsinki, Institute of Cultural ResearchPb 59, 00014 University of Helsinki, FinlandE-mail: [email protected]

Cultural reproduction from Late Stone Age to Early Metal Age – a short discussion of the cultures in Finland, the northern part of Fennoscandia and Karelia, 3200 cal BC to 1500 cal BCThe southeastern part of the Baltic belongs to the Corded Ware Culture’s border zone. When the Corded Ware emerged in this region it profoundly infl uenced the indigenous populations. In addition to the new batt le axe and ceramic types, it represented a new economy with the early cultivation and animal husbandry. Interestingly, the origin of the Finnish Corded Ware tradition can be found fi rst of all in the Baltic countries, although connections to southern Scandinavia are visible, too, in the later phase of the culture. The early connections of the Finnish Corded Ware with the Baltic countries seem reasonable the dates of the graves, which may stretch back as early as c. 3200 calBC, are taken into account. In southern Scandinavia the origin is not earlier than c. 1900/1800 calBC.

The paper aims at describing the Corded Ware tradition in Finland and Karelia, along its marginal area, and considers the unusual role it played in relation to local, indigenous traditions. The paper covers the period from the Middle Neolithic to the Bronze Age and into Early Metal Age. The change of the society and the economy together with the changing contact network from the Baltic to the Upper and Middle Volga region is key to the discussion.

Lene Melheim Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History, University of Oslo, Pb 1008 Blindern, 0315 Oslo, NorwayE-mail: [email protected]

Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway – the role of metal and metal workingAs opposed to the traditional view, it is argued here that metals and metallurgy had already arrived in Norway c. 2400 cal. BC. A re-dating of metal fi nds based, among other things, on chemical composition is paired with evidence of early metallurgy in rock shelters in Western Norway. The conclusion drawn from this archaeological discussion is used as a stepping stone for approaching the role played by Bell Beaker groups in the spread of metallurgy to Norway. It is proposed that the initial Bell Beaker contacts may have involved small groups on expeditions into the ‘wilderness’ and that one of the driving forces may have been prospecting for metals. As an alternative to an evolutionary view it is argued here that the initial meeting with and subsequent adoption of metallurgy was a rapid process, historical in character. The challenge of formulating problems and models to account for the social processes that transformed this historical event into structures of lasting importance opens up new and important possibilities for future research.

ixContributors and Abstracts

Lucía MoragónThe Heritage Laboratory (LaPa) Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)E-mail: [email protected]

Body use transformations: socio-political changes in the Bell Beaker contextThe aim of this paper is to provide fresh insights into the complexity of the Bell Beaker Culture, seeking a perspective that allows us to re-analyze the question of what this phenomenon means. Until now, most approaches have focused on social and economic interpretations, without att empting to advance further into the culture’s mentality. My approach addresses the problem of the Bell Beaker Culture from a point of view that has been litt le explored in archaeology: the body.

My proposal is based on two premises. The fi rst is that the body has a very signifi cant and symbolic content in that it reproduces – in itself and in all the practices associated with it – the principles by which a given society or culture is organized. The second is that it is possible to observe patt erns of regularity particular to Bell Beaker funeral practices, and that what these patt erns represent is structurally coherent.

These considerations led me to conceive the possibility of gaining a more detailed understanding of Beaker people through their perception of themselves and the world around them. Additionally, studying the fi xed patt erns reproduced by the body could be particularly useful in determining identity and social processes of change, particularly the transformations connected to the progressive replacement of a communal way of life with a more individualized one during the third millennium BC.

Einar Østmo Museum of Cultural History, University of OsloBox 6762 St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, NorwayE-mail: [email protected]

Late Neolithic expansion to Norway. The beginning of a 4000 year-old shipbuilding tradition During the Early and Middle Neolithic, South Scandinavian Neolithic cultures were present in Norway foremost in the Oslo Fiord region in SE Norway. Late Neolithic fi nds are however abundant above all in SW Norway, certainly testifying to the opening of the sea route across the Skagerrak. These fi nds include Bell Beaker pott ery and pressure-fl aked points with tang and barbs, in addition to numerous fl int daggers and other items. Arguably, the sea-borne expansion was connected with recent inventions concerning shipbuilding, probably made possible by the new metal tools, especially axes. This

marks the beginning of the Northern shipbuilding tradition, distinct from those found in Britain and in the Mediterranean, and gave rise to the development of Scandinavian shipbuilding during the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Christopher PrescottDepartment of Archaeology, Conservation and History. University of Oslo, P.O box 1008 Blindern, 0315 Oslo NorwayE-mail:christopher.prescott @iakh.uio.no

Third millennium transformations in Norway: modeling an interpretative platformThe core area of the prehistoric Nordic region of Norway is found from the southwest coast stretching north of the Arctic Circle. As of the transition to the Late Neolithic this region is bound together by intensifi ed maritime interaction and alliances. The transition is related to the establishment of a western Scandinavian Bell Beaker horizon; it is rapid and dramatic and echoes BB-transitions otherwise in Europe. In Norway it leads to the establishment of farms, metallurgy and a new social order that will evolve in the millennia to come. Within the diverse and extensive 1000 km coastal region aff ected, there was evidently a dramatic history played out around 2400 BC. To the extent this momentous history has been recognized in a predominantly evolutionary archaeology, explanations have been general and single-factored. Through neo-geographical and anthropological analogies the article suggests elements in multi-factor models, including migration, social entrepreneurs and aspects of the sociology of knowledge, to unravel how the dramatic and rapid change in cultural and social life could have occurred. As such, this study from Western Scandinavia serves as an interesting case study of 3rd millennium developments in Europe.

M. Pilar Prieto-MartínezParga Pondal Programme.Department of Historia I. Sincrisis Research GroupHeritage, Paleoenvironment and Landscape LaboratoryInstitute of Technological Research, Campus SurUniversity of Santiago de Compostela15782 A Coruña, SpainE-mail: [email protected]

Perceiving changes in the third millennium BC in Europe through pottery: Galicia, Brittany and Denmark as examplesIn the third millennium BC, a series of large-scale changes took place in Europe. Pott ery is a good indicator of these changes, both on a supra-regional and particularly on an

x Contributors and Abstracts

intra-societal social level. The widespread introduction of Bell Beaker pott ery in Europe refl ects the period’s dynamic of change, representing a social model diff erent to that of the preceding Late Neolithic. This article argues that the acceptance of Bell Beaker ceramics is connected with the development of socially innovative mechanisms of circulation that made it possible to diff use and stabilise the new model. The Bell Beaker model was a key factor in the genesis and later development of the Bronze Age. In order to develop this hypothesis three European regions have been selected for in-depth study: Galicia, Britt any and Denmark.

The methodology is based on comparing the pott ery from these areas, focusing on the transformations that occurred in pott ery styles in the third millennium BC, with special emphasis on decoration. The article explores the transition from a Neolithic model defi ned by strong regional diversity in the fi rst half of the millennium – especially the Penha style in Galicia (integrated in the western half of the Iberian Peninsula), the Conguel, Quessoy, Kerugou and Groh Collé styles in Britt any, and the Corded Ware of Denmark (forming part of a much wider territory in Central Europe and the Baltic) – to a model belonging to the Bronze Age, marked by standardisation and homogeneity in the latt er half of the third millennium, when the Bell Beaker styles spread throughout much of Europe. The aim is to identify the features of the pott ery that contribute towards a clearer defi nition of the mechanisms of circulation which allowed the various stable European networks that characterise the second half of the third millennium BC. In this sense, Bell Beaker decoration provides the ideal support for transmitt ing a new ideology.

Marianne SkandferFaculty of Archaeology and Social Anthropology, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, NorwayE-mail: [email protected]

Technology Talks: Material Diversity and Change in Northern Norway 3000–1000 BC

According to several researchers, Northernmost Norway did not become part of Europe until late medieval times. In this paper the author suggest that north Norway was networked into Europe (and Eurasia) at a much earlier date. I will present

some of the transformations in the archaeological record in northern Norway during the third and second millennia BC, in order to investigate to what extent these changes can be related to the transitional processes in European prehistory occurring in the third millennium BC. With technology as a point of departure, I argue that communities in northern Norway were embedded in networks of cultural, social and political relations on various levels and to diff erent parts of Scandinavia, Fennoscandia, Central and Eastern Europe. This article focuses on the variety within the material from diff erent parts of northern Norway between c. 3000 and 900 BC. During this period of time, the societies in the region are in contact with at least two technologically discernable traditions. It is suggested that both traditions are brought to the region by individuals or small groups of immigrants. However, how they are given meaning in the new local context seems to diff er quite radically. The mobile lifeways practiced in the northeastern region facilitated the rapid distribution of new impulses, constituting an important dynamic force in the spread of technology. In contrast, the technologies related to the south Scandinavian objects found in concentrations along the coast of southernmost northern Norway are interpreted as imported, fi nished objects inscribed with specifi c meaning, as indicated in the patt ern of their deposition. It seems that small enclaves along the coast were incorporated into the West-European Bronze Age society, and aft er the initial phase of colonisation the technological traditions were not spread further north or east.

Marc Vander LindenSchool of Archaeology and Ancient HistoryUniversity of Leicester,University Road, LE1 7RH, Leicester GBEmail: [email protected]

Demography and mobility in North-Western Europe during the third millennium cal. BC

Aft er reviewing a series of theoretical limitations encountered in older interpretations of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, this paper puts forward an alternative model, stressing the role of demography and northern Europe in the making of this extensive social network.

1

Introduction: becoming European


When did Europe become Europe? At fi rst glance, perhaps a question of litt le ontological, conceptual or political relevance to archaeology. Of course, Europe has always been Europe in the sense of a geographical abstraction imposed on an area of the Earth. As such, this concept is more concerned with geography and its history, than archaeology and cultural-political history. Still ‘Europe’ is a construction, mainly given relevance in recent centuries through a long process of globalisation, and particularly in the twentieth century through political forces that have sought to integrate this part of the world, in part as a cultural opposition to the rest of the world. In recent history the European Union, created as a reaction to the destruction and division resulting from the Second World War, has contributed signifi cantly to an image of Europe as an area with an inner logic and shared culture, also drawing on archaeology to create a historical justifi cation (Europarat 1999; Gröhn 2004; Hølleland 2008).

Still, the concept of Europe has a noteworthy history in archaeology, perhaps most notably argued by Gordon Childe and Christopher Hawkes (Hølleland, this volume). Archaeologists of diff ering archaeo-political faiths are well aware of the pitfalls inherent in quests for the prehistoric foundations of concepts like ‘Europe’. Such endeavours will always be dialectically bound to contemporary, sometimes contrasting, political agendas. To ask the question concerning the how’s and whys of Europe in prehistory is also a political query voiced through (or perhaps more accurately; masked by?) the language of science. While remaining mindful of contemporary baggage, in the wake of this anthology we still raise the question: Are recent and contemporary agendas and ideological dreams all that construct the concept of Europe? Or are there authentic material and social institutions, ideology and experiences – a common heritage with roots in

the third millennium BC – that render concepts of Europe still viable in archaeology?

This book primarily examines processes in third millennium Western and Northern Europe. The articles focus on the transition from the Neolithic to the earliest Bronze Age, and a majority of the contributions in some way deal with the Bell Beaker Culture/phenomenon. The editors would argue that this is a focussed period in prehistory when Northern and Western Europe was socially and culturally re-structured in such a way that the trajectory of history was forever altered. At this historical intersection choices were made, and their outcomes generated human praxis, which continued to reproduce and evolve structures that have been of signifi cant importance to social life at least until industrialisation in the nineteenth century – if not until today. Not all the elements in this historical process were unique to the historical context of third millennium Europe, nor were they without roots in preceding contexts – but the totality of socio-cultural forces and institutions that came to bear at this time, and the specifi c conditions that created a context of impact, is fairly unique. It was at this time a process was initiated that re-shaped a patchwork Neolithic world into a fl edgling Bronze Age mould that would form the European continent.

This brings us to a core theoretical issue in this anthology: What is the relationship between social structures and history? What tools are at archaeology’s disposal in the exploration of this concern? Of course, the premises for such questions (and our response) are partly found in a theoretical framework and a thereto related model or scenario. We would, however, maintain that valid and relevant responses to questions like the above (indeed, the validity and relevance of the questions themselves) must be generated within the framework of a more interpretative agenda that is empirically responsive (Trigger 1998). In all empirical

Christopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad2

disciplines, and certainly in the contributions in this book, the construction of questions and the ensuing response must be responsive to the patt erns found in an empirical record, and a context meaningfully defined in time and space. It is perhaps a banal truth, but archaeology is neither solely a theoretical treatise, methodological application nor an empirical description. The litmus test for the robustness of theory and the relevance of data is found in their dialectic convergence – dynamic tensions – in relation to an actual context. The challenge of this book is therefore to try to construct or apply theoretical perspectives that are a function of patt erns in time and space. This entails interpreting cases within contexts found in third millennium Western and Northern Europe, but simultaneously transcending such contexts by both drawing on and contributing to generalised knowledge of social life and history.

This claim might seem vague and perhaps trite. Still, it has remained an ongoing source of discussion throughout history of scientifi c archaeology (e.g., Montelius 1900, 1903; Müller 1884). The division between anthropology and ethnography and more generally, between sociology and history, or nomology and ideography, is just as artifi cial and controversial as is the dialectics between structure and history in archaeology. Post-processual archaeology has dominated the most visible interpretative and theoretical venues of the last two decades. It (and its off shoots) has increasingly restricted itself to somewhat narrowly defi ned sectors of broader social research, and has not managed to contribute to a fertile solution of the paradoxical relation between nomos and idios. Though post-processual traditions have prett y much avoided a direct confrontation with such issues, such questions (and the scale of inquiry they can imply) continue to generate a sense of unease, and a coherent response is not formulated. As far as we can see, some schools and frameworks in archaeology – cultural historical, and processual archaeology – at times faced the challenges of history and society in a more able fashion – and indeed although legitimately criticised and ostensibly abandoned, tenets lift ed from older archaeological traditions remain implicit premises in most archaeology from post-modernism and on. But if the scale and historicity of cultural historical archaeology cannot be abandoned, and the methods, forces and processes employed in processual archaeology are still relevant, so are small scale analyses, ontology, theoretical and refl exive perspectives of post-processual archaeology and its aft ermath. There is no turning back to a mythical research past.

The concept of Becoming European... is not an uncritical projection of contemporary politics into the

past, nor a sentimental restitution of defunct theoretical positions (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). Neither is it the accumulation of empirical observations of archaeological data. This process is an att empt to identify patt erns in prehistory that constitute a trajectory which is defi ned by a specifi c historical context but structured by and depicted through analytical types and defi nitions which are relevant in much wider contexts. The choice of the third millennium BC as the premise for this anthology (as for numerous other studies, too) is not a coincidence or reducible to a function of contemporary politics. In our opinion this period represents the initiation of processes that shaped Europe into its historical presence. No other millennium can more provocatively challenge and defi ne the basic structures of the worlds described by ethnographers and ethnologists as the ‘authentic’ Europe. We claim that these fundamental structures, interwoven as the continuous texture of history, are in the context of northern and western European archaeology, the creation of the farm and an agrarian political economy, the institutionalization of overseas travel, the recognition of the importance of metals and the commencement of social singularity and institutionalised social hierarchy.

The search for historyBecoming European has been a familiar concept since the constitution of modern archaeology. In a number of studies Oscar Montelius (e.g. Der Orient und Europa from 1899, also 1903, 1916–23) developed a fascinating overview of a pan-European history, interlaced with robust studies of fundamental theoretical and methodological issues, where developments in Asia via the eastern Mediterranean were shown to have had signifi cant impact on Northern European history. Later, Gordon Childe (e.g. 1925, 1942, 1954, 1958) in particular made the third millennium the beginning of a process of ‘Europeanization’, where the Orient and the Europe grew apart, the increasingly rigid, conservative monarchical civilizations of the Orient repeating themselves (Childe 1936), the small-scale Barbarian societies of Europe becoming dynamically innovative and allowing artisans the freedom to develop – creating ‘the foundation of European Civilization as a peculiar and individual manifestation of the human spirit.’ (Childe 1925, see Hølleland’s discussion, this volume). Childe as well as several of his intellectual heirs (e.g. Kristiansen & Larsson 2005; Sherratt 1981), emphasised the third millennium in general and the diff erent Corded-Ware complexes in particular as the main arena for initial Europeanization. Originating in the East, the Indo-European package was eventually adopted

1. Introduction: becoming European 3

throughout Europe, implementing a language transition (emphasised by Childe (1925) as the European’s most important advantage), new technologies and material cultures, social and cosmological concepts, warfare organised on a previously unknown scale and new hierarchies (see Kristiansen, this volume) Similar conclusions have regularly been drawn by researchers up to the present – the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures being allott ed a decisive position. But these perspectives have also been challenged on several fronts, not least in regard to the nature and role of these phenomena, but also in the history and mechanisms of their dispersions. Two lines of criticism are of particular relevance to our discussion.

First, an early casualty of New Archaeology was a concept central to third millennium archaeology; migration (see Anthony 1990, 1992; Burmeister 2000; Kristiansen 1989; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995). Though right to question the concept of migration as a sufficient explanation of change (cf. Childe 1940, 1958), and the uncritical use of this concept that permeated cultural historical archaeology, the reigning modern critique of migration in archaeology created a parody of migration studies and then prett y much denied or circumvented the concept for nearly 40 years. Contemporary, historical and prehistorical cases of extreme mobility (e.g. Neolithic expansion and third millennium developments) have shown that the cause-and-eff ect of migrations are complex and diverse, but that they can not be erased from the explanatory repertoire nor defi ned as irrelevant subjects of study. Research on Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies has continued to demonstrate that mobility and migrations have been the norm in European Stone Age societies (e.g. recently Haak et al. 2010), not rare exceptions. Thus there is no reason to believe that a large scale migration took place only once (Manning 2005), somehow creating a sharp contrast to a perceived normal situation of immobility. The same data sets can be interpreted in various ways (Gellner 1985; also Kristiansen 1989; Trigger 1989), and can in numerous cases also be interpreted in favour of human migrations as important mechanisms for change – not as a grand, single event, but as a continuous process that is part of everyday life in prehistory. In terms of the third millennium, two points may be made: First, it provides an excellent archaeological example of the relevance of modern migration perspectives – modern migration studies and archaeological migration studies can mutually enrich each other. Second, numerous migration perspectives were never genuinely refuted; they were abandoned on contemporary research political grounds (Kristiansen 1989; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995). The interpretative climate in

archaeology once again encourages the exploration of migration study perspectives, applied on various scales and in variable interpretative frameworks, to be overtly explored.

This leads to the second line of critique, the argument in disfavour of the third millennium as a turning point in European history. Colin Renfrew (1987) and Ian Hodder (1990) have initially argued in favour of another great event in European prehistory as the fundamental turning point in the history of the Continent. According to these researchers it is the introduction of agriculture, spreading from the Balkans into Europe thousands of years before the Corded Ware Cultures that most convincingly explains the homogenisation of European culture and language. They claim that the mental and physical process of domestication created the fundamental social structures on which present society is built. This compelling argument is in some way supported by economic and evolutionary anthropology, drawing on a long tradition concerning the revolutionary implications of agriculture and the decisive division between hunter-gatherers on the one hand and farmers on the other. Although advocating substantially dissimilar theoretical platforms and analytical premises, both Hodder and Renfrew have had to adapt their initial arguments in light of the historical record generated by archaeological patt erns, and in the process loosing the comprehensive, simple elegance of an initially convincing argument.

As most readers have observed – we believe that organising the arguments this way, to create the fundament of an interpretative platform, also shows the shortcomings in Renfrew’s and Hodder’s theories. First, though Neolithic developments are crucial, the data as they now stand give litt le support for a single Neolithic event or process as the defi nitive turning point in European history. Neither agriculture as economics nor the expansion of LBK farmers can be considered to be the single transformational factor in the historical trajectory of post-glacial Europe. North European data has, for instance, clearly demonstrated that large parts of Scandinavia as well as the Baltic did not adopt agriculture in response to impact from the LBK farmers. People in this area delayed the introduction of an agrarian economy for several centuries. Contemporary populations around the Baltic Sea, sharing several important cultural institutions, such as religion, economy, food and clothing, never adopted uniform languages. These examples demonstrate that the trajectories of European history in the past and the present appear more diverse and complex, making it diffi cult to point out a single technological feature or Neolithisation event as the turning point. Interestingly,


already Childe (1942, followed by many others), who coined the phrase ‘Neolithic Revolution’, recognised the inherent limitations integral to Neolithic society and economy, and that third millennium developments in Europe did not generally evolve out of Neolithic societies. In this respect he was later echoed on a more general level by Lévi-Strauss (1962) in anthropology.

Both Renfrew and Hodder relied heavily on evolutionary theory and perceptions, even though the latt er probably would deny this claim. As so many others, they practically took for granted a growing social and technological complexity and a gradualist development from the fi rst European inhabitants to the creation of European states. Defi ning agriculture as the decisive fi rst turn towards modern state societies, in initiating a more or less stable development towards social complexity, has been an underlying assumption in much research on the Neolithic and preceding chronological periods. In northerly Scandinavia this has led to an interpretation of the Neolithic as a phase of trial and gradual economic adjustment of the Continental agrarian economy to a colder and less favourable environment. In this interpretative tradition, the transition to the Late Neolithic represents the earliest identifi able fi nal breakthrough of agriculture as an economy (but ironically not always the institution of the farm) in this part of northern Europe. Such a perspective removes vital parts of the historical trajectory from the research agenda – because the outcome and framework of the process were already defi ned through a universal human development – and important patt erns in prehistory remain unexamined. Thus the destination of all social evolution is a maximum development of the forces of production and supreme control of nature (Odner 1979: 96). In this perspective it is of less consequence whether the process identifi ed is symbolic or material.

Of course, this reasoning leaves our initial claim in troublesome territory: How is it possible then to break the Neolithic inertia and claim that the third millennium BC represents the turning point in European history, when we reject constricted ‘prime movers’ and the singular events of Neolithic agriculture as decisive for prehistoric social development? There are several answers to this question. First, there is the level of analysis. Most archaeologists at least superfi cially adhere to the Braudelian claim that history can be analysed in three layers – as a fundamental structures of long duration (longue duree), as an intermediate level of economic, social and political conjonctures and as short term histoire événementielle (Braudel 1949, 1980, for archaeology also Sherratt 1992; Bintliff 1995). Our claim is that the conjonctures and histoire événementielle of the third millennium BC created an authentically

original context of social and cultural institutions that have been decisive for the rest of European history. In this we do not reject the continuity of history, that events that took place in earlier periods were relevant for the rest of history, and that structures were formed in the Neolithic. However, these structures represented a fabric of longue durees that contributed to history, but not in a decisively determinative manner. Apel’s article in this volume serves to highlight this point. The bifacial pressure fl aking technology shows a very complex and long history in Eurasia, and the events of the third millennium BC must be interpreted against a background of an enduring and complex trajectory that can not be mechanically connected to the spread of agriculture or other single events aff ecting the enormous region in question. This leads to an important point: Elements such as bifacial pressure fl aking technology, improved agricultural production, the development of single farms, individuality, hierarchy, metallurgy, travel and seafaring, language etc. are not decisive in themselves – but they were important components in a particular conjoncture – forces, institutions and technologies converging at a advantageous period in history but created through a number of important but not necessarily interdetermined events. This perspective creates our view of history, particularly the history of the third millennium BC. In contrast to those who see the Late Neolithic in Northern Europe or the third millennium in Western, Northern, and indeed the whole of Europe as a mere consolidation or outcome of processes that had been evolving for centuries, we would argue that what happened in this period was not the fulfi lment of a process necessarily given a fi xed outcome. The outcome of events is neither the result of gradualist processes nor are they coincidental. The impact of these events and the ensuing conjonctures defi ned crucial premises for the rest of European history. This signifi cance was thus not given in an evolutionary, deterministic sense – and in contemporary study (which, aft er all, is our context and standard) it is only given relevance by the actual tracing of fundamental structures down through (pre-)history. Thus in an historical perspective we intend to focus on the creation of conjonctures that were important in Europe up to the present. We do not deny the importance of great events such as the Roman Empire or Christianity – our point is to emphasise the importance of analyses of fundamental institutions or means of organisation present through the last 4500 years of history. In our opinion social singularity, hierarchical ideology, institutionalised seafaring, agrarian economy based on farms, and metallurgy are introduced to Western and Northern Europe in the third millennium, transforming this region from a


patchwork of cultures and groups (e.g. Milisauskas 1978: fi g. 4.3) to a fi eld of continental interaction. The institutions, technologies and structures that converge in creating the third millennium trajectory, starting what should be regarded as an initial Bronze Age, can be identifi ed throughout the rest of prehistory and into historical times. In a long term perspective, and particularly from a Western and Northern European vantage point, the third millennium was perhaps more decisive than many of the historical phenomena that traditionally receive the att ention of historians.

Micro-history and micro-perspectivesInitially we claimed that in regard to the understanding of history and creating a consequential historical narrative, traditional cultural historical archaeology and processual archaeology were bett er equipped than post-processual archaeology. This claim might seem odd, because history has certainly been within the ontologically defi ned aims of post-processual archaeology, not least in more recent studies. Our claim is related to a fundamental objection to the way history has been dealt with in the aft ermath of post-processualism, i.e. an objection to the very way history is defi ned and approached. A question of scale is central, here. Since 1987 with the infl uential work of Daniel Miller (1987, 2005) and later with the establishment of the Journal of Material Culture, the received perspective has been the negation of social and similar reifi ed concepts. Instead, emphasis is on the small scale perspectives, the day-to-day actions and agendas of agents. Indeed, this perspective opens up for the understanding of material culture as an active part in life and human relations, and of archaeology as a narrative of such relations. In the context of the third and second millennium it could also, potentially, be seen as part of an analysis that deals with a driving force both in generating interpretative syntheses as well as to see what was specifi cally played out in diff erent regions at slightly diff erent times: the dialectics involved in large scale ideologies and norms of practice when confronted with specifi c local traditions, practices and conditions. This has, unfortunately not been the case. Miller’s work, as well as the literature originating from it, raises questions concerning the advocated perspective of material culture studies (see Bourdieu 2007: 60–68). The narrow perspective, the emphasis on the particular and unique replaces the ‘grand’ questions, and any comprehensive social analysis. The dialectics of history and the patt erns that transcend micro-scale att ention (in space and oft en time) are lost. Their

prime concern is the relation between people and things (Miller and Tilley 1996: 5), not any social totality or a historic trajectory of a society or area. Miller’s reasons for abandoning the traditional social perspective of research are clearly presented. We interpret them as an att empt to revitalize a tradition of post-modern critique, in the footsteps of particularly Bruno Latour (1993), Jean Baudrillard (1994), and Michel Foucault (1970), of modernist science and a unifi ed history of humankind. It is perhaps also possible to see in this criticism a development of a favoured strand in North European research in humanities and social relations, that is, methodological individualism (e.g. Barth 1994; Goff man 1959). Thus, from this point of view there are only relations where ‘… persons and things exist in mutual self-construction and respect for their mutual origin and mutual dependency’ (Miller 2005: 38). No social reality beyond such relations exists. Our claim is that this constricted perspective on human-matt er relations (and inherently human-human relations) is fl awed, and thus cannot genuinely att ain its aim of dealing with materiality and material relations. It has also rendered late post-processual archaeology and ensuing branches peripheral in terms of important, if contentious, questions of developments in Europe and European history as a unifying process. Although we do not generally deny the value of in-depth analysis in a small scale perspective – one scale does not rule out the validity of another – in most cases it is fertile with an analytical focus on an area and sett ing suffi ciently large to grasp the important structures in question. In such a way, the dialectics involved in multi-scalar forces and actions, as well as the context created by historical precedence, retains the role which both history of research and general human experience have confi rmed. The reluctance towards interpreting the data as indicative of agricultural production before the second half of the third millennium in large parts of the Baltic and Scandinavia (Glørstad, Lavento, Prescott , Skandfer, this volume), the Bell Beaker phenomena (Moragón, Prescott , Prieto-Martínez, this volume), early metallurgy and other technological developments (Melheim, Østmo, this volume) or the adoption of bifacial fl ake pressure technology in Europe (Apel, this volume) can, for example, not be understood without a suffi ciently large chronological and geographical scale of analysis and contextualisation. On the other hand, the in-depth study of a selection of sites (Prieto-Martínez, this volume) or graves (Moragón, this volume) demonstrates how smaller scale studies also have impact on large-scale historical interpretation.Going back to the early years of post-processual archaeology (Hodder 1990) and the neo-evolutionary framework of processual archaeology (e.g. Cohen


1977; Jensen 1977; Malmer 1962), the large scale of the analysis was an intrinsic analytical component. This framework was, however, not a genuinely historical one. Instead it was more an expression of the chronological delineation of general process in a region or continent, not the unfolding of historical events or tracing of cultural streams. Thus our ambition is to combine the large scale analysis of earlier archaeology with the sound interest in details and particular trajectories, to create a perspective that is historical, encompassing generalisation in a dialectic discourse with the specifi c and ultimately historically unique. Here researchers like Kristian Kristiansen (1998, Thomas B. Larsson (1997), Kristiansen and Larsson (2005), David Anthony (2008), Jim Mallory (1989) and Andrew Sherratt (1994a, 1994b) have renewed the importance of the large scale perspective in order to understand the European history.

The question of scale By advocating a fl exible and multi-level perspective to scale in archaeological analysis, we also intend to revitalise the ‘old’ questions of cultural-historical archaeology with new perspectives and a more consciously defined theoretical framework (see Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). Why do these themes remain important? First of all, a number of the questions posed by modernist archaeology were strongly political – they commented on contemporary issues in a more direct and challenging way (and were probably more immediately imbedded in their contemporary discourse) than the sometimes obscure rhetoric of post-modern academics. There is no need to be blatantly political in archaeological research per se. Indeed many overtly political agendas in archaeology rapidly att ain an aura of irrelevance in regard to debates concerning both prehistory and contemporary humans. Cultural-historical archaeology, and to a lesser degree processual archaeology, struck a chord of relevance – for bett er or worse – in their contemporary worlds through the themes that were investigated and the interpretations that were drawn. The fl uid political landscapes of fragile states and expansive regimes in the fi rst half of the twentieth century made it natural to think that this was the normal situation in the prehistory as well – and archaeology provided ammunition for diametrically opposed agendas (e.g., the case of Childe and Kossina). A number of these themes have resurfaced as relevant in today’s globalised world of migration, diff usion, identity transformation and repression, ethnicity and ethnically driven violence, materiality, the reduced role of the nation-state, and

economic-political re-structuring. Could this be a return to the normal state of aff airs for our epoch, if on a global scale? It would be a severe mistake not to analyse similar themes in and through archaeology, as archaeology has studied and can study these them in prehistory, and provide a unique historical, long-time perspective – not doing so is to condemn archaeology to irrelevance. On the other hand, ‘returning to a normal state of things’ perhaps reminds archaeology of important forces that have infl uenced stability and drama in human lives throughout much of our history, like class societies, inequality, conditions of production and cultural change. For example, today’s migration or the exploitative conditions of today’s global division of labour – the forces that drive them, the impact they have and the tensions they generate – are primarily unique in their scale; global as opposed to continental and regional scales of the third to fi rst millennium BC.

History and ideal typesIf recent history and anthropology are a source of analogies and concepts for interpreting prehistory it still remains that the generalisations expounded from more recent observations, the models and ideal types, should not be confused with the history of a given prehistorical epoch. Likewise, neither descriptions of archaeological developments in some arbitrarily defi ned region nor the large scale context of a given area of study represent actual history, i.e. the events and their explanations in a given geography within a given stretch of time. We believe that all the articles in this anthology, in various ways, demonstrate the inherent value and necessity of utilizing variable geography (from Eurasia to a given site) and analytical levels (from specifi c patt erns to the broad generalizations represented by ideal types) to create tensions from which historical narratives and interpretations arise – and a language to articulate them. This does not mean that the analytical structure of empirical patt erns (derived from materials, methods and theoretical choices) and generalizations are representations of the events themselves; they are conscious constructions aimed at explaining how and what happened in history. Explaining these patt erns as relations, and verbalizing structures and forces through ideal types and analogies generates interpretations of particular importance but with general, comparative importance. In this fashion a basis for genuine historical narrative arises, and we avoid the common archaeological exercise of unleveled description of patterns (in contemporary archaeology with a preference for local


and regional scales) and a labeling of phenomena instead of explanation (Barth 1990). This way we hope to make the archaeological record an integral part of analysis, not just an illustration of a reality or history of a diff erent order and nature.

From cold to warm societies – or from anthropology to history Neolithic Europe off ers a strikingly heterogeneous cultural expression (compare Bergsvik’s western Norway, Lavento’s Finland and Moragón’s Spain, this volume). Equally striking is a strong degree of stability in Neolithic period societies. In this regard, concepts introduced by various twentieth century archaeological and social-anthropological researchers like Childe (1942), Lévi-Strauss (1966) or Barth (1990) emphasize that such stability is actively generated by societies to counter individual choices, thus countering dynamic social and historical forces – i.e. ‘cold societies’ (see Glørstad and Prescott 2009). In the course of the third millennium BC, these societies were rapidly replaced by Corded Ware and Beaker societies. Not only was this episode in itself dramatic, but it initiated dynamic historical processes, leading to developments broadly termed The Bronze Age – in some parts of Europe a proto-historical epoch (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). The process leading from the range of Neolithic epoch societies to greater homogeneity in the Bronze Age was variable in diff erent parts of Europe; the resulting contrast is remarkable.

As argued in general terms above, broad generalizations like ‘cold’ and ‘warm’ societies are inaccurate when we are dealing with genuine archaeological cases. However, this generalisation creates a platform from which to structure patt erns and interpretations. This dichotomy is perhaps fertile in discussions concerning the initial rise of the third millennium package, helping to articulate the diff erence between this and its predecessor, and generate explanations for variable trajectories of transformation. There is a long-standing explanatory schism, albeit with tremendous variations on both sides, concerned with interpreting third millennium societies as either evolving out of pre-existing Neolithic societies (whether for political, economic, ecological, cognitive or symbolic reasons) versus those who see patt erns transgressing local societies (whether appealing to common ecological forces, or elite networks, diff usion, migration etc.). More sharply contrasting Neolithic and Bronze Age societies will hopefully be fertile in furthering the premises of the discussion. Moving beyond this simple dichotomy,

through the collection of regional and local studies in this book, we hope to emphasise the heterogeneous starting points and trajectories of developments leading to broadly comparable outcomes of on some levels interacting societies. Generalised anthropological models and ideal types provide a vocabulary and analytical platform to interpret empirical patt erns.

In a historical narrative it may be difficult to diff erentiate between indices of a historical process and its causes or driving forces. This is perhaps especially true for archaeology as it studies material expressions that are both structured and structuring elements of human actions. The third millennium developments indicate some common att ributes that would also seem to represent important technological and institutional forces. The articles in this volume highlight agricultural intensification, metallurgy, transportation and communication, social hierarchy and individualised identities. None of the above is completely novel to the third millennium, but the package is new, as is the context in which individuals and groups could avail themselves of these factors to transform history’s trajectory, if unintentionally. Does the third millennium indicate room for a novel actor in Europe, the entrepreneur?

Bell Beaker questions Writing about late third millennium Western Europe entails writing about the Bell Beaker Culture (or Phenomenon), and a majority of the articles have some passages concerning the Bell Beaker Culture (BBC). Questions concerning what the BBC represents, how this archaeological culture came to be spread throughout Europe, its relationship to other cultures, its internal chronology, typology, regional boundaries and indeed the very label (culture, phenomenon, folk?) are all long-standing issues of debate in archaeology. All these questions enter into this anthology. In this respect, lines back to cultural historical and typological archaeology (e.g. Childe op.cit., Van der Waals 1984), social and processsual archaeology (particularly Clarke 1976; Harrison 1980; Vandkilde 1996), as well as more symbolic approaches (Hodder 1990) can be drawn. There are still several features in the contributions that we hope off er new insights. First of all, though empirically and methodologically grounded, there is an explicitly interpretative goal. Second, what constitutes the subject matt er of Bell Beaker study is expanded, and to a degree BBC expressions are not viewed typologically or as social symbols, but as material culture. This leads to a discussion of Bell Beaker geography, including ‘new’ Bell Beaker regions


like Denmark, but also farther north in Scandinavia. New regions, like Norway and Finland, are drawn into the European discussion, generating interesting comparative perspectives. Expanding the geography off ers a slightly diff erent angle from that of traditional studies from core BBC regions.

Marc Vander Linden’s paper explores some of these questions, by constructing a three point critique of Bell Beaker studies: the lacking appreciation of variability, a polarization of scale (global papers ignoring regional variation, and regional papers disregarding broader consequences). Turning to a series of discussions in Europe he explores expansion in light of demography. Inherent to this approach is a critique of several more general theoretical stances in archaeology. Vander Linden’s approach represents a large scale study built up around regional cases. Lucía Moragón also starts with a general review of the research history, and is critical of a perceived predominance of social and economic interpretations. Her approach, however, turns to a more restricted side of the BB expression: mortuary practices. Through these classic BBC context and material categories, from core regions of BB studies, she re-examines these contexts, drawing on comparative contrasts to Neolithic grave materials that predate the BB-phase. Central to her approach are recent concepts revolving around the body. Through this approach she seeks not only to understand life and death in the Beaker world, but to elucidate identity and process in a move from emphasis on communality to individuality. M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez also revisits materials traditionally at the core of BB studies (pott ery) and methodology (typology). She comparatively draws on materials from well-established BBC regions in Spain and Britt any, but also on data from the more recently recognised BB regions in Scandinavia. By re-analysing pott ery from a new methodological angle and with a theoretical model of material culture, where bell beakers are analyzed as inherent to the transmission of ideological information, she explores mechanisms of circulation in the various European networks.

The importance of communication and movement are also at the heart of three other papers, Einar Østmo, Christopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad. Einar Østmo discusses the shift in geography from an easterly, diff use emphasis in the Norwegian Middle Neolithic, to a marked south-western predominance in the expression of the earliest Late Neolithic. This marked development is necessarily related to sea-borne activities. Though the actual boats are still missing, Østmo pieces together a pattern of technological development in Scandinavia. His contribution thus picks up on two major, contemporary themes in Bronze

Age Archaeology: the importance of (sea) travel and the social impact of technology and materials. Like Østmo and Prieto-Martínez, Håkon Glørstad has the relatively recent inclusion of Norway and the Scandinavian Peninsula into the Beaker world as a starting point. Empirically founded in a regional study from south-east Norway, Glørstad defi nes patt erns of marked change from the Middle Neolithic Corded Ware into the Late Neolithic. Glørstad’s contribution is a case study exploration of interpretative dialectics, the tensions between spatially and chronologically specifi c patt erns and ideal types with the goal to generate explanative and interpretative history. Drawing on a recent study by Marshall Sahlins, Glørstad outlines two structurally opposed models of social organisation as a driving force in the region’s third millennium history. Interestingly in the context of ongoing debates is that though the core materials in Glørstad’s scenarios is agrarian, a defi ning feature of Late Neolithic societies is maritime mobility and the suite of structures that were associated with it. Christopher Prescott also explores the dramatic developments in Norway around 2400–2350 BC, and employs a number of the mechanisms and approaches found in several of the above papers. In his paper, the diverse Middle Neolithic background that under Bell Beaker infl uence is transformed to a homogeneous Late Neolithic is a central premise. Arguing that the transition refl ects qualities in both external BB-groups as well as in the indigenous societies, a similar outcome in diff erent regions is perceived as the result of variable processes. Migration, sociology of knowledge and economy are at the core of the argument. A further defi ning element of the Bell Beaker expression is copper and copper metallurgy. Lene Melheim explores variable avenues of evidence and arrives at the conclusion that copper metallurgy in Norway potentially starts with the transition to the Late Neolithic, around 2400 BC. Her assertion, drawing Norway into the BBC world, identifying metals as an important factor in this region as early as 2400, is in itself signifi cant. Her suggestion that metal prospecting was potentially an integral force in third millennium events on the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway has wide spread and rich deposits of copper ore as well as some gold and tin , represents a challenge to many cherished dogmas in European archaeology. Knut Andreas Bergsvik’s paper also recognises a societal transition but emphasises internal developments driven by choices made by individuals, thus echoing David Clarke’s concept of prestige exchange, and how ideas, institutions and symbols in the societies of origin were simultaneously transferred and adopted in far fl ung Neolithic societies.

The sum of arguments taken from the contributions of Melheim, Bergsvik, Østmo, Glørstad, Prieto-Martínez,


Prescott and Moragón create a model of social transformation of the Third Millennium North and Western Europe based on developments in and institutionalisation of agriculture through farm societies and stable communication by overseas travelling. This was closely connected to a growing interest in use and distributions of metals, but also new emerging hierarchies and individualisation of prestige. In our opinion, these processes that interconnect at this time constitute the basic vectors in the conjunctive formation of third millennium Europe.

… and beyondThough the above articles all more or less deal with areas drawn into the Bell Beaker world, they all represent an expansion of the geographical and interpretative basis for late third millennium studies in relation to the BBC. But developments in the third millennium extend beyond the regions discussed so far. So, if the above articles represent a geographical continuum from The Iberian Peninsula to the Arctic Circle, Marianne Skandfer’s and Mika Lavento’s serve to further expand the geography to the north and east. Marianne Skandfer, like those studying cases farther south, also interprets the archaeological record in northernmost Norway as a record of extensive transformation towards the end of the third millennium. She thus pushes the integration of this high north region into an active fi eld of European interaction back thousands of years. If developments discussed in the articles from more southerly parts of Europe have dealt with regional traditions and Bell Beaker impulses, the picture in Northern Norway is more complex. Apart from regional variations and traditions, these northerly parts of Scandinavia are aff ected by both southern Scandinavian traditions but also by the major easterly cultures that develop and impact tremendous regions across Europe, from the Northern Scandinavia to the Ural Mountains. The dynamics and patterns involved here are a fundamental force in the further evolution of Europe. Likewise, Mika Lavento’s contribution charts the complex developments in various parts of Finland and Karelia. The history outlined here challenges simple notions of cultural typologies, but also outlines far-reaching third millennium developments, stretching into the fi nal millennium BC. Lavento also emphasises the complex interaction between various groups and cultural streams in his att empt to understand localised developments.

We hope that the geographic span in the articles will serve to stimulate research into the dramatic

events of third millennium Europe, and that by combining studies from traditions that usually stick to a core material, an appreciation of an integration of the forces that were in play across Eurasia, and that are part of the record we defi ne and describe locally and regionally, will ensue. Jan Apel’s and Kristian Kristiansen’s contributions certainly serve this purpose. Through his study of bifacial technologies, Apel identifi es the meeting of two major traditions in Scandinavia in the third millennium BC. However, his study also illustrates that even the enormous geography encompassed by the above studies, which from a Scandinavian perspective virtually radiates from around the Baltic, is only part of a much larger chronological and historical picture. Kristiansen’s article is concerned with another important institution that eff ects much of Europe and Asia, Indo-European languages. Although the subject of continuing dispute for so many reasons, it has long been argued that Indo-European languages are an essential factor in third millenium developments (Childe 1925). Their spread and history is thus an important subject of inquiry in itself, but also to understanding the archaeological record. Apart from the scale of Kristiansen’s study, from the Ural mountains to the British Isles, his study illustrates the necessity and feasibility of bringing variable scientifi c traditions to bear on the historical issuses at the heart of this anthology.

Final remarksThe contributions outlined above, though concerned with variable regions of Europe, contribute towards a construction of European narratives. We initially examined the concept of Europe in this introduction, and argued that it was a construction of history and researchers, but as the articles in this volume demonstrate, also rooted in the archaeological record of the third and second millennia. Herdis Hølleland addresses this theme through Chris Fowler’s “personhood” concept. Personhoods of the past, she argues, are products of archaeological practices, and though few Bronze Age researchers have addressed the theme, in their work there is a construction of Bronze Age personhood. A European Bronze Age personhood does, Hølleland argues, inform all the grand narratives of the past – and are a part of the archaeological construction of Europe. Hølleland’s research historical perspective creates clarity probably only att ained through distance. Still, this perspective also serves to generate a hopefully more open discussion concerning practices in a globalised Europe anno 2010.

Diving into the fi eld of research constituted by the late third millennium opens a complicated and


diverse field of archaeological culture, historical patterns, interpretative alternatives and research historical perspectives. As such this fi eld serves note only as a discussion of what happened around the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age. If history (and thus archaeology) is not solely a question of narrating, explaining and debating past events, but also generating myths that appear to be valid and relevant to contemporary agendas, hopefully this anthology explicitly and implicitly highlights the context of archaeological research and particularly its social context. Still, the recurring patterns of interpretation and narration throughout archaeology’s tumultuous history indicate that the third millennium as a dynamic epoch in Europe’s history is not solely a fi gment of contemporary context and agendas. By all accounts the third millennium was a historical turning point, also of relevance for those trying to interpret the following millennia of European history.

ReferencesAnthony, D. 1990 Migration in archeology: The baby and the

bathwater. American Anthropologist 92: 896–914.Anthony, D. 1992 The Bath Refi lled: Migration in Archeology

Again. American Anthroplogy 94: 174–176.Anthony, D. 2008 The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-

Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Barth, F. 1990 The Guru and the Conjurer: Transactions in knowledge and the shaping of culture in Southeast Asia and Melanesia. Man 25: 640–653.

Barth, F. 1994 Manifestasjon og prosess. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Baudrillard, J. 1994 Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Bintliff , J. 1995 The Annales School and Archaeology. Leicester University Press, Leicester.

Bourdieu, P. 2007 Viten om viten og refl eksivitet. Pax forlag, Oslo.

Burmeister, S. 2000 Archaeology and migration. Approaches to an archaeological proof of Migration. Current Anthropology 41(4): 539–567.

Braudel, F. 1949 La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II. Armand Colin, Paris.

Braudel, F. 1980 On History. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Childe, V. G. 1925 Dawn of European Civilization. Kegan Paul, London.

Childe, V. G. 1936 Man Makes Himself. Watt s, London.Childe, V. G. 1940 Archaeology in the USSR. Nature 14:

110–111.Childe, V. G. 1942 What Happened in History. Penguin Books,

London.Childe, V. G. 1954 Prehistory. In The European Inheritance edited

by E. Barker, G. Clarke and P. Vaucher, 3–155. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Childe, V. G. 1958 Valediction. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 1: 1–8.

Cohen, M. N. 1977 The Food Crisis in Prehistory. Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Europarat. 1999 Gött er und Helden der Bronzezeit. Europa im Zeitalters des Odysseus. Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen.

Foucault, M. 1970 The Order of Things: an Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Pantheon Books, New York.

Gellner, E. 1985 Relativism and the Social Sciences. Positivism against Hegalianism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Glørstad, H. and Prescott , C. 2009 Neolithisation as if history matt ered. In Neolithisation as if History Matt ered edited by H. Glørstad and C. Prescott , pp. 9–22. Bricoleur, Göteborg.

Goffman, E. 1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, Garden City.

Gröhn, A. 2004 Positioning the Bronze Age in Social Theory and Research Context. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8°, 47, Lund.

Hodder, I. 1990 The Domestication of Europe. Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Blackwell, Oxford.

Hølleland, H. 2008 Gamle og nye europeere og deres kultur: Om konstruksjon av kulturell kontinuitet. Primitive Tider 10: 23–30.

Jensen, J. 1977 The Prehistory of Denmark. London, Methuen.Kristiansen, K. 1989 Prehistoric migrations – the case of the

Single Grave and Corded Ware Cultures. Journal of Danish Archaeology 8: 137–151.

Kristiansen, K. 1998 Europe before History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kristiansen, K. 2005 What language did Neolithic pots speak? Colin Renfrew’s European farming-language-dispersal model challenged. Antiquity 79: 679–691

Kristiansen, K. and Larsson, T. B. 2005 The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Larsson, T. B. 1997 Materiell kultur och religiösa symboløer. Mesopotamien, Anatolien och Skandinavien under det andra förkristna årtusendet. Arkeologiska studier vid Umeå Universitet 4, Umeå.

Latour, B. 1993 We Have Never Been Modern. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1962 La Pensée sauvage. Plon, Paris.Mallory, J. P. 1989 In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language,

Archaeology and Myth. Thames and Hudson, London.Malmer, M. P. 1962 Jungneolithische Studien. Acta archaeologica

Lundensia. Series in 8°. Gleerup, Lund.Manning, P. 2005 Migration in World History. Routledge, New

York.Milisauskas, S. 1978 European Prehistory. Academic Press, New

York.Miller, D. 1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Blackwell,

Oxford.Miller, D. 2005 Materiality, Duke University Press, Durham. Miller, D. and Tilley, C. 1996 Editorial. Journal of Material Culture

1: 5–14.Montelius, O. 1899 Der Orient und Europa. Einfl uss der orientalischen

Kultur auf Europa bis zur Mitt e des letzten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Stockholm.

Montelius, O. 1900 Typologien eller utvecklingslären tillempad på det menneskeliga arbetet. Norstedt, Stockholm.


Montelius, O. 1903 Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa. I. Die methode. Stockholm.

Montelius, O. 1916–23 Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa. II. Babylonien, Elam. Assyrien. Stockholm.

Müller, S. 1884 Mindre Bidrag til den forhistoriske Archæologis methode I. Den svenske typlologi. II. Den archæologiske Sammenligning som grunnlag for Slutning og Hypothese. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1884.

Odner, K. 1979 Evolusjonistiske modeller belyst ved tidlige statsdannelser og imperier : Leslie White, Shmuel Eisenstadt, Maurice Godelier. Oslo Occasional Papers in Social Anthropology 1, Oslo.

Prescott , C. and Walderhaug, E 1995 The last frontier? Processes of Indo-Europeanization in northern Europe. The Norwegian case. Journal of Indo-European Studies 3–4: 257–280.

Renfrew, C. 1987 Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Jonathan Cape, London.

Shennan, S. 1993 Sett lement and social change in Central Europe 3500–1500 BC. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 121–161.

Sherratt , A. 1981 Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In Patt erns of the Past. Studies in Honour of

David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, N. Hammond and G. Isaac, pp. 261–305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sherratt , A. 1992 What can archaeologists learn from Annalistes? In Archaeology, Annales and Ethnohistory, edited by A. B. Knapp pp. 135–142. New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge.

Sherratt , A. 1994 The transformation of early agrarian Europe: the Later Neolithic and Copper Ages, 4500–2500 BC. In The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe, edited by B. Cunliff e, pp. 167–201. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Sherratt , A. 1994 The emergence of elites: Earlier Bronze Age Europe 2500–1300 BC. In The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe, edited by B. Cunliff e, pp. 244–276. Oxford, Oxford University Press

Trigger, B. G. 1998 Archaeology and epistemology: Dialoguing across the Darwinian chasm. American Journal of Archaeology 102: 1–34.

Van der Waals, J. D. 1984 Bell Beakers in continental Northwestern Europe (1). In L’âge du Cuivre Européen Civilisation à vase Campaniformes, edited by J. Guilaine Editions du CNRS, Paris.

2

Personhoods for Europe: the archaeological construction and deconstruction of European-ness

Herdis Hølleland

Introduction: material manifestations of personhoodThe concept of personhood is a rather new addition to the archaeological vocabulary that, to use Chris Fowler’s (2004: 7) defi nition, refers to ‘the condition or state of being a person, as it is understood in any specifi c context’. Personhood, as Fowler (2004: 37) understands it, materialises itself through a person’s interactions and social strategies. As a result, both past and present personhoods become visible through ‘what people do, who they exchange with, what they give, [and] what eff ects these exchanges have’. However, while one can argue that personhoods manifest themselves materially, personhoods of the past are also interpretative products of the way in which archaeological material is categorised, classifi ed and theorised. While European Bronze Age (BA) research is very diverse, the majority of BA studies do share at least one thing in common: they are rarely explicitly concerned with the topic of personhood. However, if one examines the actual interpretations of BA Europe, one can easily observe that the texts do in fact reveal a great deal about how archaeologists conceptualise the peoples and persons of the BA, and essentially contribute to the creation of a BA personhood. Thus, while the topic of personhood has yet to be fully integrated in European BA research, I argue that, by analysing archaeologists’ categorisations of the material culture, one can, in the grand narratives of the period, detect the existence of a particular ‘pan-European BA personhood’. The aim of this paper is therefore to highlight how archaeological interpretations, not primarily concerned with personhood, have contributed to the archaeological construction of European-ness.

The emergence of a pan-European Bronze Age personhoodWritt en during the period now known as culture-historic archaeology, V. Gordon Childe’s (1925, 1926, 1957, 1962) and C. F. C. Hawkes’ (1940) interpretations of BA Europe stand as useful examples of how a people’s state of being is inferred from assemblages of material culture. The basis for these interpretations is a normative notion of culture, where the characteristics of the material culture are understood as direct refl ections of the social and cultural qualities and values of the people who produced it. In this sense, both Childe’s and Hawkes’ interpretations are typical of their time. Yet equally they are also atypical as they are not concerned with national or regional matt ers, but the whole continent of Europe. Thus these interpretations are explicitly concerned with European prehistory, and can be categorised as grand narratives. As one of the underlying themes of their work is the origin of Europe, they are implicitly dating and defi ning the emergence of European-ness. On slightly diff erent grounds both Childe and Hawkes date the origin of Europe, the time when Europe, so to speak, became European, to the BA (Childe 1925, 1926, 1928, 1957, 1962; Hawkes 1940). Even though neither is concerned with the topic of personhood, I would nevertheless argue that these authors are the fi rst to produce a pan-European BA personhood and more generally contribute to the early ideational dimension of the European discourse (see Hølleland 2008).

While Childe and Hawkes are situated within the tradition of culture-historic archaeology, their creation of what can be understood as a European personhood owes as much to the philosophic traditions of the nineteenth century as to the archaeological material

2. Personhoods for Europe: the archaeological construction and deconstruction of European-ness 13

itself. Both move towards a defi nition of what it means to be European by contrasting the archaeological material from Europe and the Near East. Hence, the state of being European is in a classic way constructed in relation to an idealised notion of the Oriental. In short, to Childe and Hawkes the BA represented the period when Europe was capable of not only adapting and adopting, but of drawing on the innovations of the Orient in order to develop its own innovations and cultural expressions. Thus the reasoning builds both on the Hegelian notion of sublation and Marx’ material concept of history (Rowlands 1994; Skirbekk and Gilje 2007). The materialist notion of history is then combined with the archaeological normative notion of culture: based on diff erences in monumental architecture and the existence of regional variations of type objects, Childe and Hawkes construct ideas about the social structures and essentially the essence of Oriental and European cultures (see Table 2.1). The dawn of the European personhood therefore rests on culture-historic archaeology on the one hand, and older Western philosophers such as Montesquieu’s, Smith’s, Hegel’s and Marx’ conceptualizations of the Occident-Orient opposition on the other (Gathercole 1971, 2009; Rowlands 1987, 1994; Skirbekk and Gilje 2007).

Neither Childe nor Hawkes are particularly interested in the persons of the BA; rather they aim to explore and explain the state of being European. In order to arrive at this generalised idea of European-ness, they have to reduce the differences within each geographical area as a means to highlight the continental diff erences. This generalised state of being is perhaps most developed in Childe’s interpretations of the bronze smiths of Europe. Inspired by Hegel’s notion of sublation and Marx’ Asiatic mode of production,

Childe gives us hints into the formative stages where Europe parted from the Orient.

Childe argues that, in contrast to the Oriental craft smen, the Europeans had not been reduced to an underclass, as no class division was present in Europe. Rather the European craft smen were free and could travel about and choose their markets (Childe 1957: 9–10). Childe (1962: 114, 157) draws on Homer to explain the smiths’ freedom, arguing that ‘a craft sman is welcome everywhere’. According to Childe, the creative and progressive situation was maintained because the Aegean region was too remote to be ‘the victim of Oriental imperialism’ (1957: 10; see also 1958: 72; 1962: 160–161). Even if they were aliens in a society organized around kinship, and landless in communities where access to land was ‘the fi rst consequence of membership to the tribe’ (Childe 1957: 11; see also 1962: 169), the European smiths held a particular position in BA society due to their skills and achievement. The travelling smiths gradually created an integrated Europe, and from 1500 BC ‘an international commercial system linked up with a turbulent multitude of tiny political units’ was established in temperate Europe (Childe 1962: 172). Furthermore, it is argued that in order to sustain the fl ow of raw materials the smaller city-states or tribes had to surrender their economic independence. This did, however, lead to a situation in which ‘they also benefi ted from a free circulation of ideas and their exponents’ (Childe 1962: 172). Thus:

‘in a classic version of Marxist ontology, the freedom of the European Bronze Age smiths to seek work and outlets for their products free from political constraints inverts the social conditions of production in oriental despotism and patronage by court elites’ (Rowlands 1994: 38).

MATERIAL CULTURESOCIO-POLITICAL INTERPRETATION

NORMATIVE INTERPRETATION

NEAR EAST

• Monumental structures such as temples, tombs

• Litt le artistic and technological development once a form is set

• Urban

• Empires ruled by kings

• Class divisions

• Totalitarian• Despotic• Static

EUROPE

• Lack of large-scale monumental structures

• Diverse material expressions – local and regional variations over similar themes

• Barbarian

• Warriors• No strong class

division

• Dynamic • Economic

developments• Positive• Original• Individuality

Table 2.1: Defi ning European and Oriental BA. Based on Childe (1925, 1926, 1928, 1957, 1962) and Hawkes (1940) – see also Rowlands (1987).

Herdis Hølleland14

As such, a truly European arena can emerge, and the state of being European becomes directly linked to the freedom of the bronze smiths.

Essentially, Hawkes and Childe’s pan-European BA personhood is a product of mixing grand trans-continental diff erences and the categorisation of one, in many ways atypical group of people, i.e. the bronze smiths. These smiths are then presented as: ‘the lineal ancestors of the natural scientists who since Galileo, Newton and Pascal have been pooling their results in an international society’ and the links between the recent scientists and the bronze smiths are ‘the travelling scholars and migrant guildsmen of medieval Europe and in less familiar fi gures in the Dark Ages and Iron Ages’ (Childe 1957: 14). This argument is further developed in Childe’s last book, The Prehistory of Europe:

‘The national states that eventually emerged were indeed enormously larger than our Bronze Age tribes and fewer in number. But they have all shown themselves just as mutually jealous in policy and as competitive economically. All have been increasingly dependent on a supra-national economic system for vital raw materials as well as the disposal of their own products. While peasantries have oft en been reduced to serfdom even more rigorously than under the despotic monarchs of the Bronze Age Orient, craft smen, the exponents of applied science, have preserved their traditional freedom of movement within a supranational economy. The metics at Athens, the way-faring journeymen of the Middle Ages, and the migrant craft unionist of the nineteenth century are the lineal descendants of the itinerants just described. But so were the Natural Philosophers and Sophists in Classical Greece, the travelling scholars of medieval Europe, and the natural scientists who from the days of Galileo and Newton have freely exchanged information and ideas by publication, correspondence, and visits regardless of political frontiers.’ (Childe 1962: 172–173).

Through this line of reasoning Childe connects past and present, and is, to use M. Rowlands’ (1994: 38) words creating a ‘grand sociological history of freedom’. For Childe the reason why the freedom arose and became such a central value in Western society therefore lay in the circumstances of innovation in production and the essentially diff erent social circumstances of BA Europe and the Orient. As such, the European personhood is directly linked to the introduction of metallurgy, which enables Childe to demonstrate prehistory’s relevance for Hegel’s view that ‘the purpose of history’s lay in creating the conditions for the achievement of absolute knowledge’ (Rowlands 1994: 38).

A Bronze Age personhood in the era of early European cultural politicsWith the death of Childe the style of grand narratives lost ground, and while some large-scale studies of prehistoric Europe were produced before the 1990s (e.g. Coles and Harding 1979; Piggott 1965; Renfrew 1973), it was not until the mid-1990s that this type of large-scale perspective on the European BA was taken up again (Kristiansen 1994, 1998; Sherratt 1993). In the early 1990s a new Europe was in the making, due to the expansion and consolidation of the European Union and the opening of Eastern Europe. Rather than an archaeological return, a driving force behind this return was the political quest for a new European identity and its need for a common European heritage. Both of these are refl ected in the Valett a Convention’s goal of protecting ‘the archaeological heritage as a source of European collective memory’. As a means to achieve this goal, the European Plan for Archaeology introduced a campaign which was meant to ‘increase the public awareness of the value and signifi cance of the archaeological heritage, based on the theme of “The Bronze Age” (Archaeological Heritage 2007). On the initiative of the European Council the idea of the BA as the fi rst golden age of Europe was realised during the period of 1994–1996, and its goal was ‘to present the concept of a culturally unifi ed Europe to a broad public’ (Demakopoulou et al. 1999: 5).

While the archaeological interpretations have a wider range of themes, the political themes of ‘unity in diversity’ and ‘the birth of Europe’ aff ect the emergence of a pan-European BA personhood. Unlike Childe’s construct this personhood is not fi rst and foremost established through the Occident-Orient opposition, but rather in terms of 1) a shift in burial practice, 2) long-distance trade and travels, 3) the Homerian hero. Nevertheless, the BA personhood portrayed in the campaign share several traits with Childe’s general characteristics.

The Homerian heroes were originally understood as the kings and nobles of the palaces of Mycenaean era and pre-Classical Greece. However, in the exhibition catalogue, Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, the idea of the hero is used as a means to conceptualise the owners of the rich burials and splendid objects from all over Europe. This pan-European hero enters the historical stage at the turn of the second millennium BC when societies outside the Aegean were transformed due to an increased demand for metal. According to O’Brien (2007 [1994]) the rich burials ‘tend to emphasize the special role of adult male warriors


whose authority was ultimately held through force of arms’. As the hero is understood as a male warrior, heroic life is centred round the material aspects of war and war ceremonies. Furthermore it is stated that the warriors were ‘responsible for the spread of metallurgy along the Atlantic coastline of Europe at the beginning of the Bronze Age’ (O’Brien 2007 [1994]). First the dagger, and from the Middle BA, the sword, are viewed as the heroes’ insignia dignitas, in other words they are international symbols of the warrior heroes (Jensen 1999: 93). Acquired through travelling or foreign contacts, the precious metal objects were only in the hands of the few. These objects therefore become symbols of alliances (Jockenhövel 1999: 57). Understood as symbols these objects lack the social agency of the heroes. The objects function as material proofs of the heroes’ actions that materialize social diff erences, and give the heroes a sense of individuality as entrepreneurial adventurers. This makes it possible for O’Brien (2007 [1994]) to conclude that the BA is ‘widely associated with entrepreneurial leadership, with initiative and innovation of the kink [sic] which is characteristic of modern Europe’.

With Ulysses as the ideal hero, the journey becomes a particularly important aspect of the hero and his diff erentiation from ordinary people. The journeys function as initiations that form the hero and set him apart from the rest of society. During the course of such a journey the hero acquires new skills and knowledge as he becomes familiar with the world outside the farming universe in which he grew up (Priego 1999). As such, objects acquired through travelling become important for the BA nobility because power is

illustrated by ability to own, acquire and exchange precious objects. While ornamental styles diff er from area to area, the symbols of power became similar across Europe (Jensen 1999: 92). As a result, Jensen (1999: 92) argues that an ‘individualising tendency emerged, resulting in increased individual burial’ among the nobility, and hence the BA becomes the fi rst period where ‘the individual beings come into clearer focus’ (Longworth (2007 [1994]).

Thus, the changes in the material culture of the BA are presented, in a similar way as the culture-historic approaches, to reflect the emergence of qualities such as enterprise, inventiveness, individuality and entrepreneurialism cherished in today’s Europe. As such, the BA can emerge as the birth of Europe and European-ness. As shown in Figure 2.1, the BA can, therefore at once seem familiar, even if distant:

Essentially past and present is blurred, and the BA functions as a means to give historical roots to the desired European identity of the present. At the same time it is portrayed in a fashion which gives meaning to the state of being European. As trading is presented as a core aspect of the heroic BA life, the practice of trading is naturalised as ‘evidence’ for the European personhood’s long historical roots. Thus it is possible for O’Brien (2007 [1994]) to argue that ‘This period of prehistory mirrors to a great extent our Europe, a shift ing mosaic of regional identities bound closer by a common interest in trade and enterprise’. Using the concepts of trade and prestige goods rather than their sibling the Maussian gift exchange, the individualised individual enters the historical stage, and the individuals, whether they are heroes or bronze

Figure 2.1: Blurring past and present personhoods.

ENTREPRENEURIAL TRADE-NETWORK

Inventiveness Demand

Dependency

EUROPEAN

PERSONHOOD

=

INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUALITY

PAST

=

PRESENT?

Herdis Hølleland16

smiths, are separated from the goods they exchange. As a result, BA personhood comes to resemble the modern Western notion of commodifi ed personhood as a ‘”thin” theory of self, because nothing in it “is intrinsic but the bare undiff erentiated free will”; everything else is alienable’ (Radin 1996 in Osteen 2002: 239–240). Thus things are separable from humans; and the person is understood, to use Lynn Meskell’s defi nition:

‘as the fount of agency, consciousness, interpretation and creativity in cultural and social life, by virtue of his or her sole ownership of discrete, corporeal, sense-making apparatuses … the skin-bound mortal human being’ (Meskell 1999: 9, 32 in Thomas 2004: 122).

Therefore it is only a human that can be regarded as a person. In this sense the heritage presentations like the earlier culture-historic interpretations create a cultural continuity through their construction of European-ness.

European personhoods in the era of multi-vocality: towards an archaeological deconstruction of European-nessWhile neither the public BA campaign nor the European identity has made any profound impact on the peoples of Europe, BA research has nevertheless benefi ted from this campaign, as there has been an increased archaeological interest for the period. However, within the ‘post-BA-campaign’ research we can observe a general tendency towards the deconstruction, rather than the construction, of European-ness. Both recent macro- and micro-studies share the post-processual aim of grasping the ‘otherness’ of the BA, and they use the same methodological strategy of analogical reasoning as a means to explore the ‘otherness’ of the period. Yet the interpretative results are very diff erent, and in many ways contradictive, as two mutually exclusive notions of personhood are recognised.

The main contributors to the post-processual grand narratives of BA Europe are Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson (Kristiansen 1998; Larsson 1997; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). Again the main character of the narrative is the travelling warrior or hero (Kristiansen 1998; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). While Kristiansen and Larsson (2005: 360) stress the cosmological similarities within Europe, these similarities are, however, not linked to the emergence of European-ness. On the contrary, Kristiansen and Larsson eagerly present the transmissions and transformations of BA Europe as part of a much wider phenomenon that transgresses regional, national and continental borders. Through the linking of historical sources and

the process of institutionalisation, they connect, rather than oppose Europe and the Near East and move towards an Indo-European notion of the BA. Thus, this grand narrative is not about the Europeanization of Europe even though the heroes and warriors to a large extent can be understood as individualised persons. Hence, what essentially diff erentiates it from earlier perspectives is the intercontinental angle where a chain of contacts enables interaction ‘from the Orient to Scandinavia’ (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: 62). As such, it is fair to say that this interpretation contributes to a deconstruction of the archaeological construction of BA European-ness.

While Fowler’s interpretation is a very brief introduction to BA personhood at micro level, it, even more than Kristiansen and Larsson’s book, contributes to the deconstruction of the BA European-ness. Using Joanna Brück’s (1995, 1999, 2001) BA studies from southern Britain, Fowler (2004: 40–41) approaches the BA personhood. Middle and Late BA cremation and sett lement material in Britain are characterized by fragmentation. Both fragments of artefacts and human remains are deposited in pits, ditches, ramparts, post-holes and middens, and as such they were incorporated into structures of regeneration. As objects and humans are not diff erentiated, it is reasonable to argue for an understanding of the individual as dividualised rather than individualised. That is, the conceptualised person, whether it is a human or an object, is understood as composite and multiple-authored, and in this context characterized by partibility. As Fowler approaches a BA personhood closer to the Melanesian ethnography than our own, the BA as a period of Europeanization fades and its links to European-ness are further deconstructed.

The recent exhibition ‘Journey of the Sun – Rogaland in European Bronze Age’, at the Archaeological Museum in Stavanger (AMS), manifests the ambiguous role and status of the BA in archaeological discourse. This exhibition was a result of a European construct: in 2008 Stavanger was the European Capital of Culture. Essentially the exhibition was to function as a culture-historic backdrop for understanding the city’s vision of Open Port; a port that is not only open to Europe, but also part of Europe. This is not, however, a particularly European-centred exhibition.

Following the majority of BA research and public dissemination, personhood is not a topic of the exhibition. Contrary to most permanent exhibitions, however, this exhibition is deeply rooted in recent archaeological research. As such it brings together a variety of artefacts not only from Europe, but also from Egypt. The small exhibition catalogue extends the geographical scope of the exhibition by drawing


on texts from the not only Norse, Greek and Egyptian literature, but also the Indian Rig-Veda (Pedersen 2008). As such the audiences encounter a BA rather unlike the Childean prehistory. It is an exhibition which exposes the ‘global’ character of the BA – in this sense it enables the audiences to draw lines between the past and present situations of openness and interaction. The way in which the artefacts are placed in a mythological framework does, however, make the period’s ‘global’ character essentially diff erent from today. As a result, it in many ways frees itself from more problematic sides of the fi eld of heritage and its tendency to highlight similarity and familiarity. Furthermore, this intercontinental cosmological point of departure creates a situation in which artefacts, animals and humans hold a more equal status whilst it simultaneously downplays the idea of the BA as purely European. In this sense the exhibition is theoretically balancing between the grand narratives and the micro studies; it has the geographical scope of the grand narratives, but it is closer to Fowler’s dividuals than the usually favoured individuals. The result is an inconsistent storyline: rather than situating Rogaland in BA Europe, the exhibition situates it in a much wider Indo-European framework which extends far beyond Europe. On the one hand one can argue it fulfi ls the vision of Open Port. On the other hand it also exposes the outdated character of sett ing clear geographic boundaries for openness in the past and once again reveals the tendency of discrepancy between political visions and academic discourses.

ConclusionBy approaching BA research from a personhood perspective it is possible to detect certain patt erns within the BA discourse. Within the grand narratives of the BA the individualised individual holds a strong position. The individualised individual has in the culture-historic and archaeological heritage interpretations been directly linked to the idea of the emergence of Europe and European-ness. While still very much present in the grand narrative of the twenty-fi rst century, the emergence of the individualised individual is no longer conceptualised as a sign of European-ness. This is largely a result of the central aim: to explore the otherness of the past. As such we can speak of a tendency towards the deconstruction of BA European-ness – a tendency that is even stronger in micro studies. At present it seems fair to argue that the deliberate archaeological construction of European-ness belongs to the present past.

ReferencesArchaeological Heritage. The Council of Europe Initiatives and

the Valetta Convention (1992) 2007 Electronic document, http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/Heritage/ Archaeology/BrochureEN.pdf, accessed October 1, 2007.

Brück, J. 1995 A place for the dead: the role of human remains in Late Bronze Age Britain. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 61: 245–277.

Brück, J. 1999 Houses, lifecycles and deposition on Middle Bronze Age sett lements in southern England. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 65: 145–166.

Brück, J. 2001 Body metaphors and technologies of transformation in the English Middle and Late Bronze Age. In Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation, edited by J. Brück, pp. 149–160. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Childe, V. G. 1925 The Dawn of European Civilization. Kegan Paul, London.

Childe, V. G. 1926 The Aryans. A study of Indo-European Origins. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, London.

Childe, V. G. 1928 The Most Ancient East: the Oriental Prelude to European Prehistory. Paul, Trench, Trubner, London.

Childe, V. G. 1957 The Bronze Age. Past and Present 12: 2–15.Childe, V. G. 1958 Retrospect. Antiquity 32: 69–74.Childe, V. G. 1962 The Prehistory of European Society. Cassell,

London. Coles, J. M. and Harding, A. F. 1979 The Bronze Age in Europe.

Methuen, London.Demakopoulou, K., Eluère, C., Jensen, J., Jockenhövel, A. and

Mohen, J.-P. 1999 Introduction. Gods and heroes of the Bronze Age. Europe at the time of Ulysses. In Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, edited by K. Demakopoulou, C. Eluère, J. Jensen, A. Jockenhövel and J.-P. Mohen, pp. 5–9. Thames and Hudson, London.

Fowler, C. 2004 The Archaeology of Personhood. An Anthropological Approach. Routledge, London and New York.

Gathercole, P. 1971 ‘Patt erns in Prehistory’: an examination of the later thinking of V. Gordon Childe. World Archaeology 3(2): 225–232.

Gathercole, P. 2009 Childe, Marxism and knowledge. European Journal of Archaeology 12(1–3): 181–191.

Hawkes, C. F. C. 1940 The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe. To the Mycenean Age. Methuen, London.

Hølleland, H. 2008 The Bronze Age – the dawn of European civilisation? A case study of usages of the past within the European identity discourse. Unpublished Master thesis, University of Oslo. Accessible from: htt p://www.duo.uio.no/sok/work.html?WORKID=86988

Jensen, J. 1999 The heroes: life and death. In Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, edited by K. Demakopoulou, C. Eluère, J. Jensen, A. Jockenhövel and J.-P. Mohen, pp. 88–97. Thames and Hudson, London.

Jockenhövel, A. 1999 The image of Bronze Age man. In Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, edited by K. Demakopoulou, C. Eluère, J. Jensen, A. Jockenhövel and J.-P. Mohen, pp. 54–59. Thames and Hudson, London.

Kristiansen, K. 1994 The emergence of the European world system in the Bronze Age: divergence, convergence and social evolution during the fi rst and second millennia BC in Europe. In Europe in the First Millennium B.C., edited by J. Jensen and K. Kristiansen, pp. 7–30. Sheffi eld Archaeological Monographs. J. R. Collins Publications, Sheffi eld.

Herdis Hølleland18

Kristiansen, K. 1998 Europe Before History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kristiansen, K. and Larsson, L. T. 2005 The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Larsson, T. B. 1997 Materiell kultur och religiösa symboler. Mesopotamien, Anatolien och Skandinavien under det andra förkristna årtusendet. Institutionen för arkeologi, Umeå universitet, Umeå.

Longworth, I. 2007 [1994] The Rise of the Golden West. Electronic document, htt p://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co%2Doperation/heritage/resources/europeanheritage2.asp#P56_11260, accessed May 4, 2007.

O’Brien, 2007 [1994] The Bronze Age – the fi rst golden age of Europe. Electronic document, htt p://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co%2Doperation/heritage/resources/europeanheritage2.asp#P56_11260, accessed May 4, 2007.

Osteen, M. 2002 Gift or commodity. In The Question of the Gift . Essays Across Disciplines, edited by M. Osteen, pp. 229–247. Routledge, London and New York.

Piggott, S. 1965 Ancient Europe: from the Beginnings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Pedersen, E. S. 2008 Solens reise. Rogaland i europeisk bronsealder. AmS-Småtrykk 80. Kai Hansen Trykkeri, Stavanger.

Priego, M. L. R.-G. 1999 The journey as a rite of initiation. In Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, edited by K. Demakopoulou, C. Eluère, J. Jensen, A. Jockenhövel and J.-P. Mohen, pp. 46–47. Thames and Hudson, London.

Renfrew, C. 1973 Before Civilization: the Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Jonathan Cape, London.

Rowlands, M. J. 1987 ‘Europe in prehistory’: a unique form of primitive capitalism? Culture and History 1: 63–78.

Rowlands, M. J. 1994 Childe and the archaeology of freedom. In The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe. Contemporary Perspectives, edited by D. R. Harris, pp. 35–54. University College London Press, London.

Sherratt , A. 1993 What would a Bronze-Age world system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1: 1–57.

Skirbekk, G. and Gilje, N. (in co–operation with A. Granberg, C. Holst and R. Slaatt elid) 2007 Filosofi historie. Innføring i europeisk fi losofi historie med særlig vekt på vitenskapshistorie og politisk fi losofi . Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Thomas, J. 2004 Archaeology and Modernity. Routledge, London and New York.

3

Demography and mobility in North-Western Europe during the third millennium cal. BC

Marc Vander Linden

So many theories, so many limitsFor more than a century, a passionate debate has animated archaeological circles over the interpretation of the pan-European Bell Beaker Phenomenon. Successive hypotheses include smiths seeking new sources of copper ore (Childe 1925), tribes migrating in complex ways across Europe (Sangmeister 1966), prestige goods circulating amongst the nouveaux riches of the late third millennium cal. BC (Clarke 1976; Shennan 1976), rising ideologies loosely linking various communities (Strahm 1998), or grooms and brides moving to their new post-marital homes (Brodie 2001; Needham 2005; Vander Linden 2007a). Each of these hypotheses obviously bears the traces of its intellectual context of production, and is as such representative of the changing theoretical paradigms of the entire archaeological discipline (Strahm 1995). This statement is however a mere cliché of the history of sciences and thus of limited value. Rather than an extensive theoretical review, this paper adopts an alternative position by exposing three recurring theoretical limits encountered in most of these older hypotheses. These limits are deeply embedded in the material and geographical structure of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon itself and therefore transcend classical classifi cations such as culture-historical, processual or post-processual:

• Firstly, previous interpretations of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon do not directly tackle the material variability of this archaeological culture but rather develop various methodological and theoretical paraphernalia to mask it (e.g. notion of prestige goods, maritime pot as 'pure' Bell Beaker type).

• Secondly, older models make a general confusion

between the local and global scales. Models with interpretative global pretension are rightly criticised for not considering the particularities of local situations. Symmetrically, countless models account for regional sequences, but their implications are rarely explored beyond their original geographical scope. The resulting picture is a mosaic of local situations without any apparent overarching structure. All in all, there is still a strong underlying bias towards explanatory factors acting at the global scale, although these remain elusive.

• Thirdly, several older hypotheses are self-explanatory as they blur the distinction between the how and the why of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. Migrationist narratives explain the pan-European distribution of this archaeological culture as the material translation of the movements of migrating tribes, but do not provide an explanation for the causes of these migrations. Likewise, the prestige goods model identifi es the beakers and associated artefacts as items of prestige circulating amongst new-born élites, but does not explicitly explain in independent terms the mechanisms responsible for this growing social complexity.

This paper is organised in two sections. In the fi rst one, I briefl y explore each of these three limits and their implications for Bell Beaker research. This theoretical work provides the foundations of the second section, where I put forward an alternative interpretative model which does not reproduce these three limits. This model stresses the overlooked role of both demography and northern Europe in the constitution and evolution of the material and human networks which form the Bell Beaker Phenomenon.

Marc Vander Linden20

Always the same, always diff erentThe fi rst encountered limit is the management of the material variability of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. The recent favour for labelling this period ‘phenomenon’ rather than, say, ‘culture’ indicates the uneasiness of researchers dealing with Bell Beaker assemblages. Beyond the defi ning presence of beakers in all areas involved, a rapid glance at the documentation indeed shows the huge variation within the Bell Beaker distribution area: single graves are found in most of northern and central Europe (e.g. Heyd 2000; Turek 2001), but associated with mounds only in the Netherlands and the British Isles (Drenth and Lohof 2005; Last 1998); early copper metallurgy in the latt er region but nowhere else (O’Brien 2001; Roberts 2008); ever-changing domestic ceramic assemblages (Besse 2004); open-air and generally poorly preserved settlements in north-western and central Europe (e.g. Gibson 1987; Turek et al. 2003; Denmark being a noticeable exception: Sarauw 2007a) contrasting with the re-use of – sometimes monumental – dry-stone architecture in the western Mediterranean basin (Guilaine et al. 2004; Kunst 2001). Whatever the chosen criteria, the situation evokes more a kaleidoscope of local changes than the stable association of a few well-defi ned elements.

Several interpretative models, especially since the processual critique of the 1960s and 1970s, have tried to solve this problem of variation by focusing on the defi nition of ‘pure’ traits evenly shared across the entire Bell Beaker geographical domain. While culture-historical models linked – with as much enthusiasm as litt le care – any material variation to modifi cations in the structure of a given ethnic group (the so-called ‘Beaker Folk’) (e.g. Clarke 1970; Sangmeister 1966), the advent of prestige goods models drastically changed the situation (Clarke 1976; Shennan 1976). Aft er demonstrating that central European Bell Beaker assemblages lacked any geographical coherence, Stephen Shennan stressed that the Bell Beaker material identity only concerned a very restricted number of grave goods, his Beaker package (Burgess and Shennan 1976; Shennan 1976, 1978). Concomitantly, the social identity of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon was narrowed, from an entire ‘tribe’ to a minority of individuals sitt ing at the top of the newly established social pyramids. Several scholars have recently criticised these models but have at the same time extended this methodological obsession for a precise material defi nition, for instance in Strahm’s four levels of decreasing Bell Beaker material identity (Besse and Strahm 2001; Strahm 1995), or Salanova’s characterization of the Beaker maritime type as a standard production considered

as the only type worthy of the Bell Beaker label (Salanova 2000; see also Besse 2004). As Volker Heyd puts it regarding the need to identify with the greatest care the earliest Bell Beaker phase in central Europe: ‘the culture should then be at its purest and most original, untainted by interactions with native cultures and supraregional tendencies’ (Heyd 2001: 387). Few scholars have actually tried to embrace variation per se (but see Gallay 1979), and a large section of the Bell Beaker historiography can be read as a systematic att empt at reducing Bell Beaker assemblages to a few common elements, from which the interpretation would supposedly arise (Vander Linden 2006: 3–4).

Although more precise typologies and descriptions are always needed and welcome, this defi nitional obsession implies that most of the variation exhibited by Bell Beaker assemblages would only be informative of local processes and thus, on the global scale, constitute ‘background noise’ that must be eliminated for the clarity and success of the analysis (Vander Linden 2004). An alternative solution lies in the description and comparison of categories of evidence (e.g. funerary practices, ceramic decoration and morphology, sett lement patt ern) in order to identify geographical regularities in their distribution and combination (Vander Linden 2004, 2006).

Local or global?The second theoretical limit is the spatial correlate of the fi rst one. As Bell Beaker studies oft en express a marked preference for defi ning ‘pure’ Bell Beaker traits found across the entire distribution area, they are strongly biased in favour of theories which explain the entirety of this archaeological phenomenon. Culture-historical scenarios had the obvious advantage of their simplicity, as typological variation directly pointed to the movements of the Beaker Folk all across Europe. Likewise, it is noteworthy that Shennan’s ideas on central Europe were published very early on in parallel to another paper by Colin Burgess which explored their repercussions for the British Isles (Burgess and Shennan 1976). Although developed to account for a local case-study following the strictest processual dogma, the prestige goods model always seemed to have had global interpretative pretension.

This all-encompassing dimension of the prestige goods model has been criticised for not taking regional idiosyncrasies enough into consideration (Salanova 1998; Strahm 1995). As a consequence, the last two decades have witnessed the development of precise, extremely well-documented regional studies

3. Demography and mobility in North-Western Europe during the third millennium cal. BC 21

(see contributions in Nicolis 2001; Czebreszuk and Smyt 2003; Czebreszuk 2004). However, from an interpretative point of view, these studies oft en repeat the same global models, only to show the local range of their applicability (e.g. Sherratt ’s ‘secondary products revolution’: Sherratt 1981; Garrido-Pena 2000). Bell Beaker specialists seem to resort to a limited theoretical tool-kit, where regional case-studies are only validated through their relevance for general models. There is thus now more than ever a tyranny of a global, unifying interpretation of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon.

Because of this bias, the potentially wider-ranging implications of local case-studies are rarely considered. By this, I mean how changes aff ecting a single Bell Beaker area could have triggered a series of related, but not identical, transformations with potential repercussions across the entire distribution area (see Watt s 2002). The only exception is to be found in the heated discussions on the localization of the Bell Beaker ‘homeland’. Aft er a century of debate, the topic is now so contentious that, aft er having proposed a potential homeland, it is almost customary to state that this localization cannot, and does not, provide an all-encompassing explanation of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. Although this latt er statement makes perfect sense for several theoretical and practical reasons, its implications still remain to be explored in depth.

The how and whyThe third and last theoretical limit is probably the least understood and most insidious of all. It can indeed be argued that classical interpretations of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon are self-explanatory, in the sense that they do not make any clear distinction between the why and the how of this archaeological culture, between its causes and its mechanisms. Culture-historical scenarios described at length the supposed movements of the Beaker Folk, but rarely provided a rationale for these migrations. The same largely applies for the processual prestige goods model, where the circulation of the Beaker Package constitutes at the same time the mechanism of the spread and its motivation. The reason why human agents decided in unison to evolve along the same social trajectory towards increased hierarchy is left open, although the infl uence from socio-evolutionist models is evident (Vander Linden 2007b). More recently, several studies have stressed the ideological dimension of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. Bell Beaker artefacts would be the material support of new discourses and status (e.g. man as warrior/hunter), which were effi cient

and malleable enough to be integrated into distinct communities (e.g. Fokkens et al. 2008; Strahm 1998). As for the prestige goods, the suggested mechanisms of distribution and their underlying causes are not clearly distinguished in these scenarios. Although the why and the how of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon do not necessarily need to be distinct, the absence of explicit theoretical discussion on the question constitutes a potential risk of circular reasoning.

These three theoretical limits do not imply that the work of our predecessors must be cast away. Quite the contrary, the many theoretical and methodological advances made over the years are undeniable. Yet, beyond the traditional historiographies set in terms of a chest of theoretical drawers, where culture-history eff ortlessly gives way to processualism and so on and so on, it is noteworthy that these three limits can be observed, all things being equal, at the core of several distinct theories. Far from being anecdotal, these limits have thus to be taken into consideration in the elaboration of any new interpretative model, as att empted in the second section of this contribution.

Back to the Dutch ModelBefore the onset of processualism, the localization of the homeland of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon was considered the necessary departing point of any interpretation of the period, hence the multiplicity of existing propositions, from the lower Rhine (Lanting and van der Waals 1976) to various regions of the Iberian Peninsula (Castillo 1928; Kunst 2001), as well as the French Midi (Clarke 1970) or Sicily (Guilaine 2004). An apparent consensus has recently emerged in placing the Bell Beaker homeland, or at least the development of one of its key components, the maritime beaker, in the Portuguese Estremadura (e.g. Guilaine et al. 2004; Kunst 2001; Needham 2005; Salanova 2004). The argument rests mainly on radiocarbon dates. In a widely quoted paper, Müller and van Willingen re-evaluated the relatively limited 14C evidence for the entire Bell Beaker Phenomenon and systematically considered charcoal dates as unreliable because of the potential ‘old wood’ eff ect (Müller and van Willingen 2001). Although their decision seems methodologically sound, by acting so, they created an imbalanced dataset since, for instance, charcoal dates constituted until recently the only source of information for the Netherlands (Drenth and Hogestĳ n 2001; Lanting 2007/2008; Lanting and van der Plicht 1999/2000; Lanting and van der Waals 1976). Their statistical treatment of the resulting dataset is thus only informative of their criteria for


selecting dates, but by no means of any past reality (Vander Linden 2006: 12). The Portuguese Estremadura has yielded consistently old dates, pointing to the emergence of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon somewhere between 2700 and 2500 cal. BC, but similar old – and otherwise valid for any quality criteria – dates are also available for the rest of the Iberian peninsula, the French Midi and the Netherlands (Vander Linden 2006: 12–14, annex). The solution, or absence thereof, of the problem lies in the radiocarbon curve for the third millennium cal. BC, which shows a lengthy plateau between 2700 and 2500 cal. BC (see Raetzel-Fabian 2001). All the ‘old’ dates fall within this plateau and are therefore virtually undistinguishable from each other. All things considered, it is thus not possible to assign a Portuguese origin, or any other one, for the Bell Beaker Phenomenon on the sole basis of the radiocarbon evidence. This bias in favour of the Estremadura is actually the renewed expression of a marked preference for this area which goes a long way back in the Bell Beaker historiography (e.g. Castillo 1928). Because of the inherent limits to the use of the 14C dating method for the third millennium cal. BC, any att empt at locating the Bell Beaker homeland must therefore eventually rest upon explicit cultural and typological arguments (Vander Linden 2006: 14).

For this last reason, my personal favour goes for the lower Rhine, which not only has yielded old 14C dates, but is also well-known for its sequence showing the uninterrupted local development of all facets of the material culture from the Single Grave Culture to the local Bell Beaker group (Drenth 2005; Drenth and Hogestĳ n 2001; Lanting and van der Waals 1976; van der Beek and Fokkens 2001; van der Waals and Glasbergen 1955; compare with the Portuguese hypothesis which crucially misses a convincing ceramic prototype for the bell beaker: Salanova 2004). As detailed accounts of this sequence have been published in several older and recent publications (Drenth 2005; Drenth and Hogestĳ n 2001; Lanting and van der Waals 1976; van der Beek and Fokkens 2001; van der Waals and Glasbergen 1955), I will here only briefl y recall the main lines of this argumentation. Van der Waals and Glasbergen suggested more than fi ft y years ago a continuous typological development from the Protruding Foot Beakers (old terminology for the Dutch Single Grave Culture) to the Bell Beakers (van der Waals and Glasbergen 1955). Their developmental scheme has since then been confi rmed, especially through the addition of radiocarbon evidence, and is today not questioned by any Dutch scholar (Drenth and Hogestijn 2001; Lanting and van der Plicht 1999/2000; Lanting and van der Waals 1976; van der Beek and Fokkens 2001). Continuity is also obvious in

the sett lement patt ern and in funerary practices (single grave under a mound, preference for stereotyped grave goods: Drenth and Lohof 2005). Moreover, the signifi cance of the Dutch sequence for the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, at least for North-Western Europe, cannot be denied, as typological and cultural arguments strongly suggest that the Netherlands were the source of the British Bell Beaker local group (Needham 2005; Vander Linden in press).

It is impossible to derive the range of variation exhibited by all Bell Beaker assemblages from the Netherlands (e.g. origins of the central European Begleitkeramik to be sought in the Carpathian Early Bronze Age; this is outside the distribution of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon per se: Machnik 1991). This impossibility does not however minimise the role of this region for the entire period (fi rst theoretical limit). Yet, in order to address this potential global impact, it is necessary to describe in independent terms the underlying mechanisms at play in the Dutch sequence (third theoretical limit), and to explain how these processes could have triggered a sequence of events with further repercussion for the rest of the Bell Beaker domain (second theoretical limit).

From more people...In a series of key publications, Harry Fokkens has shown how the cultural changes exemplifi ed by the Single Grave Culture in the Netherlands, and to some extent during the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, were related to a contemporary technological innovation, the introduction of plough agriculture (e.g. Fokkens 1986, 1998, 2005). The addition of the plough to the existing agricultural techniques had major implications, noticeably a shift from long to short fallow agriculture and the concomitant development of more permanent plots, leading to a reorganisation of the social division of labour with more precise roles assigned to both women and men (Fokkens 1986; see also Sherratt 1981). From the economic point of view, the period corresponds to a phase of productive intensifi cation, which can also be observed in the neighbouring Danish Single Grave Culture (Klassen 2005; Vandkilde 2005: 12; for earlier evidence of economic intensifi cation, see Johansen 2006) and the central German Corded Ware Culture (Starling 1985).

Fokkens’ model is deeply inspired by Boserup’s seminal work, who considered that plough agriculture was a technological response to demographic pressure, the intensifi cation of production fulfi lling the expanding dietary requirements of the enlarging population (Boserup 1965). It can alternatively be


considered, in a more Malthusian way, that this production intensifi cation had demographic outcomes, since it provided the logistic possibility of a change in the demographic regime of these communities (on the interplay of technology and demography: Bocquet-Appel 2008: 97–110; Wood 1998). Unfortunately the extent of this supposed demographic change cannot be delineated with any precision in the case of the Dutch Late Neolithic. Demographic estimations are indeed notoriously diffi cult to obtain for prehistoric situations (e.g. Hassan 1979). Since a census is by defi nition impossible, prehistorians have to rely on a series of proxies which all potentially present severe methodological shortcomings (for a recent review, see Bocquet-Appel 2008, especially pp. 111–128). Mortuary information is highly biased because of the choices made by the mourners in providing a ‘proper’ burial (i.e. with archaeological potential) to certain categories of individuals (e.g. absence of neo-natal individuals, preference given to male adults: Bocquet-Appel and Masset 1982, 1996). Although these shortcomings can partially be overcome by not considering these categories in the analysis (e.g. Bocquet-Appel 2005), such demographic procedures and accompanying statistical tests cannot be applied to the Dutch evidence because of the generally poor conservation of bones in sandy soils (Drenth and Lohof 2005). Another proxy, sett lement patt ern, is also diffi cult to use for the Late Neolithic because of its renowned elusiveness (Fokkens 2005). Lastly, the use of 14C dates as demographic proxy evidence (the ‘dates as data’ approach: Gamble et al. 2005; Shennan and Edinborough 2007) is also problematic, be it only considering the general scarcity of dates for the entire Bell Beaker Phenomenon (Prieto-Martínez 2009: 96; Vander Linden 2006: annex). It must also be noted that demographical changes are not sudden catastrophic events, but processes with a given tempo. For instance, Bocquet-Appel estimates that the demographic transition associated with the introduction of farming occurred within a timespan of 500 to 700 years (Bocquet-Appel 2005). These last numbers are purely indicative but they are not incompatible with the Dutch chronological sequence, as the Single Grave Culture starts around 2900 cal. BC and the Bell Beaker Phenomenon somewhere between 2500–2400 cal. BC. Let us eventually remember that the role of population variation on the Bell Beaker Phenomenon had already been briefl y considered by Stephen Shennan (Shennan 1993: 144; Shennan and Edinborough 2007: 1344).

Although it is thus unfortunately impossible to quantify changes in the demographic regime during the Single Grave Culture and the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, the hypothesis of such a change remains far from

implausible. It is indeed one of the expected correlates of an episode of intensifi cation of the agricultural production, whose existence and consequences are widely accepted for the Dutch Late Neolithic. From this perspective, the Single Grave Culture – Bell Beaker sequence would have been accompanied by a relative increase in the local population. As suggested by Fokkens in the initial formulation of his model on the role of plough agriculture (Fokkens 1986: 14), it is likely that the resulting demographic pressure was more pronounced on the fabric of the social landscape, rather than on the eff ective carrying capacity of the land (see also Broodbank and Strasser 1991): the simple fact that more people inhabited the same territory would have led to denser social networks. Consequently, these new density levels must have necessitated appropriate social responses, through either an extension of the capacities of social integration of these networks (internal growth), or the territorial extension of these networks (external growth). In my opinion, both possible responses are not mutually exclusive and can be related to the other distinctive trait of the population history of the period, extended human mobility.

…to people on the moveAft er decades of theoretical dismissal, human mobility is back in fashion in archaeological – and in particular Bell Beaker – circles. Indeed, isotopic analyses now provide robust, independent evidence demonstrating the relocation of individuals during their lifetime, sometimes over rather impressive distances (Bentley 2006; Evans et al. 2006; Price et al. 2004). Various explanations have been put forward to explain these ‘isotopic aliens’ (aft er Needham 2007): individuals att racted by copper ores (Sheridan 2008a, 2008b), travellers undertaking long journeys to enhance their personal prestige (Fitzpatrick 2009), or post-marital residency rules (e.g. Vander Linden 2007a), such marriage networks being sometimes considered as a technique to gain prestige through the acquisition of an ‘exotic’ partner (e.g. Brodie 2001; Needham 2005).

Another factor explaining this sudden increase in human mobility can be sought in demography. As we have seen, the intensifi cation of agricultural production, related to the introduction of the plough, was probably associated with a change in the demographic regime of the corresponding human communities. The resulting increase of population during the Single Grave Culture (SGC) – Bell Beaker (BB) sequence did not have to be massive, but rather only large enough for the local social networks to reach a point of saturation. It was suggested that, in order to deal with this situation,


either the integrative capacities of the network or its size had to be extended (internal vs. external growth). This hypothesis of demographic-induced mobility thus suggests a phase of migration of a few individuals or communities outside the area under pressure, in this case the Low Countries.

Evidence for these early migrants across North-Western Europe has become increasingly available during the past two decades. Alison Sheridan has for instance listed a series of potential ‘Flying Dutchmen’ for Scotland: an individual buried in Sorisdale (supported by isotope measurements: Sheridan 2008a), and three potential ones at Upper Largie in Kilmartin Glen, west Scotland (on the basis of Dutch affi nities in the ceramic typology: Sheridan 2008b). Two comparable sites can also be mentioned for France. Firstly, the grave of Jablines has yielded an All Over Corded (AOC) pot, which presents typological similarities with early Dutch types (Laporte et al. 1992). Interestingly, this grave lies in the Paris Basin, an area otherwise mostly devoid of Bell Beaker fi nds (Salanova 2004). This paradoxical presence of a potentially early Bell Beaker grave in an apparent Bell Beaker no man’s land perhaps indicates that, in some cases, these early migrants att empted but did not succeed in establishing a new social network. A second French site with potential Dutch affi nities is the grave site of La Folie, near Poitiers, where both ceramic typology and funerary practices also present clear Dutch connections (AOC type, enclosing circular palisade of postholes: Tcheremissinoff et al. 2000). This second site is of particular interest because of its spatial proximity with the area of Grand-Pressigny, where impressive fl int daggers were produced and then exported over large distances, some of them having been found in Dutch SGC and AOO (All Over Ornamented) – but not Bell Beaker – graves (Drenth 1989). The grave of La Folie, with its distinctively Dutch appearance, could thus indicate that, in a few cases, early migrants sometimes followed previous trade routes. Lastly, it must be noted that the fact that these early migrants were buried following the classical Bell Beaker norms imply that they were not isolated in alien cultural milieus but well integrated in a group responsible for conducting the proper funerals (Vander Linden in press). In this sense, the scale of the Bell Beaker network, from the early stage onwards, is not one of ‘extraordinary individuals’, but rather one of entire communities.

Then, in the NorthAs already mentioned, demographic change operates over more or less long periods of time. In this sense,

the impact of demography on the cultural sequence of the North European third millennium cal. BC is not necessarily limited to a single episode of outward migration. I would alternatively suggest that its infl uence is still perceptible in the development of the comparatively late Northern European Bell Beaker group. While the earliest Bell Beaker fi nds are dated between the 28th and 26th centuries in most of Europe, the Danish Bell Beaker group appears somewhat later around 2350 cal. BC. By this time, various typological traits are widely shared over a large area stretching from the North Sea to the southern shores of the Baltic Sea (Dutch Veluwe style: Lanting and van der Waals 1976; Danish Jutland: Vandkilde 2005; Sarauw 2007a, 2007b; northern Germany: Mertens 2003a, 2003b; northern Poland: Czebreszuk 2002; Norway: Prescott 2009). Interestingly, this process begins at the same time as, further south in central Europe, the Bell Beaker Phenomenon gradually gives way to several Early Bronze Age cultures (e.g. Heyd 2001; Kim 2005).

In addition to the establishment of these typological connections, partially doubled by the extensive exchange network of Danish flint daggers (Apel 2008), one of the striking features of this secondary Bell Beaker regional group is the introduction of farming subsistence techniques in southern Norway. Although indications of early farming practices exist for the fourth millennium cal. BC, it is indeed only by the late third millennium cal. BC that undeniable agriculture can be observed (Hjelle et al. 2006; Prescott 1996, 2009; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995). The underlying reasons for this territorial expansion are somewhat unclear. For instance, Prescott relies heavily upon the well-documented connections between the southern Norwegian and the Jutland Bell Beaker groups to argue that local hunter-gatherer communities were gradually incorporated into ‘an evolving Nordic network’, without denying the possibility of small-scale migrations (Prescott 2009). These two factors probably acted in parallel, but this new level of multiform interaction (i.e. exchange of goods, human mobility, transfer of knowledge) around the Baltic Sea, and apparently at the expense of the rest of Europe, remains to be explained.

An element of answer lies in the cultural geography. There is indeed a marked diff erence between the state of aff airs as it was in 2500 cal. BC and a couple of centuries later by 2350 cal. BC. In 2500 cal. BC, the cultural geography of Western Europe was indeed rather fragmented with, the Corded Ware and Single Grave Cultures excepted, a scatt er of relatively small-sized archaeological cultures, which all were succeeded by the Bell Beaker Phenomenon in various ways (Vander Linden 2004, 2006). At this time therefore,


individuals who undertook journeys were travelling, if not in completely unknown territories, then at least outside otherwise well-established social networks. On the contrary these people were creating the new Bell Beaker social network. By 2350 cal. BC, the Bell Beaker network is thus well-established, but several cracks already threaten its relative homogeneity. Britain as a whole witnesses a steady increase in the number of sites, especially burial mounds. This development culminates in Needham’s fi ssion process by 2250–2150 cal. BC, which corresponds to a signifi cant rise in regional variation on the British Bell Beaker group (Needham 2005). Central Europe follows a generally similar trajectory, so that by 2200 cal. BC, the Bell Beaker Phenomenon gives way to local early Bronze Age cultures. In both British and central European cases, social networks, as we can infer them from archaeological material culture, present a now marked local character and have initiated histories of their own.

In parallel to this incipient local fragmentation of the Bell Beaker network, the suggested relative population initiated during the Single Grave Culture is probably still active in the Netherlands, but also further north. As Vandkilde puts it in her recent review of the Danish Late Neolithic:

‘Growing population density and the expansion of sett led land as assessed from large fi nd quantities and fi nd distributions characterise the Late Neolithic Period hence constituting evidence of intensifi ed economic activity’ (Vandkilde 2005: 12; see also Kristiansen 2009).

Following the same line of argument as presented above for the Dutch case-study, we can hypothesize that this economic intensifi cation was accompanied by a change in the demographic regime of these communities, leading to a relative increase of the local population. This last process would have had a major impact on the social networks, subject as they were to an unprecedented densifi cation. It is suggested that the resulting stress upon the social networks was dealt with through – limited – external growth, in the form of small-scale migrations. Since the existing cultural geography now prevented further expansion southwards, the only remaining possibilities were indeed either internal growth (cf. growing number of sett lement in Jutland: Vandkilde 2005), or external growth directed towards other northern regions. As it did a couple of centuries before, the movement of early migrants surely played a determining, but not exclusive (see below), role in the making of the Bell Beaker network, this continuing process of external growth was surely instrumental in establishing the renewed interaction across the southern Baltic shores.

For the Norwegian sequence, while Prescott insists on the integration of local hunter-gatherer communities in a larger cultural and social Nordic sphere, I would alternatively stress that the shift to subsistence economy cannot be understood if it was not driven by pioneering migrant communities, driven out of their original land.

Beyond the limits?This contribution started by pointing out the existence of three theoretical limits which could be observed, all things being equal, in several previous interpretations of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. These limits cross-cut the paradigms of the archaeological discipline, and are deeply rooted in the structure of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon and of its study. Although they do not constitute a structure per se, they are tightly inter-related. The diffi culties of envisaging the various geographical scales of the phenomenon are echoed by the methodological issues of distinguishing the scales of material variation. This correspondence is further reinforced by a systematic blurring, in many interpretative scenarios, of the how and why of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon.

In this contribution, I have insisted upon the overlooked potential role played by demography. Surely, this demographic postulate may appear at first sight as a mere post hoc explanation of some of the traits associated with the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, thus reaching and breaching another kind of theoretical limit. This situation is not helped by the general methodological diffi culties associated with demographic estimates in prehistory. Still, this demographic hypothesis rests on some solid ground as it is the expected correlate of an otherwise well-described technical innovation, plough agriculture, whose repercussions in both economic and social spheres are widely acknowledged. Furthermore, this demographic hypothesis constitutes the pivotal argument in the elaboration of a model which takes into consideration these three theoretical limits. In this perspective, this demographic model rests fi rst of all on the re-evaluation of the role of northern Europe, especially the Netherlands. The demographic process described here only applies to this area, but, by initiating the outward movement of migrants and the concomitant chains of connections, it presents global implications for the understanding of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. Yet, rather than reviving the idea of a Dutch homeland, it is perhaps more accurate to speak of a northern pole, which, alongside other ones such as the Atlantic façade (e.g. recently Prieto-Martinez


and Salanova 2009), contributed to the making of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. Furthermore, demography provides an independent mechanism for human mobility, which does not impact upon the nature of the associated interactions and resulting networks.

To conclude: back to demographyA few years ago, archaeologists could not explain the Bell Beaker Phenomenon in terms of human mobility because of their self-imposed theoretical blinds. It is fair to say that contemporary archaeologists have, to some extent, reached a similar level of disengagement with demography, possibly because of its association with the now out-fashioned processualism (but see Chamberlain 2006; Pétrequin 1996; Shennan 2000; contributions in Bocquet-Appel and Bar-Yosef 2008). Yet, throughout Europe, large quantities of skeletal material await re-examination in other terms than racial types.

In much the same way as human mobility was generally perceived as large migration flows, demography in archaeology is still all too often associated with massive population growth . As several scholars have stressed, demography rather procures a necessary template for some of the processes that we study:

‘the provocative history of population fl uctuations suggested here makes it clearer than ever that we cannot explain regional culture historical patterns without first understanding regional demography and its impact on cultural transmission’ (Shennan and Edinborough 2007: 1344).

If, as suggested here, demography triggered the constitution of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, it also led to its demise. The interactions observed across northern Europe aft er 2350 cal. BC still belong, in cultural and typological terms, to the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, but they were also a response to the already extended Bell Beaker network, which by then constrained the free fl ow of individuals, ideas and goods. This last process provides the seeds for the further fragmentation of the European cultural landscape in regional blocks, which will then inter-communicate in various ways during the rest of the Bronze Age.

AcknowledgementsThis research was undergone as part of the project The Continental Background of British and Irish Prehistory, funded by the Leverhulme Trust and co-directed by Professors Richard Bradley (University of Reading)

and Colin Haselgrove (University of Leicester). I would like to thank the editors, in particular Christopher Prescott , for inviting me to contribute to this volume: by doing so, and without knowing it, they forced me on an interpretative path which proved as unexpected as exciting. Richard Bradley pointed out the central question of geographical scale; Ben Roberts and other members of the Bronze Age Studies Group provided much needed constructive scepticism. I remain the only responsible person for any mistakes and (mis)interpretations to be found here.

ReferencesApel, J. 2008 Knowledge, know-how and raw material – the

production of Late Neolithic fl int daggers in Scandinavia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15: 91–111.

Bentley, R. A. 2006 Strontium isotopes from the earth to the archaeological skeleton: a review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13: 135–187.

Besse, M. 2004 Des Campaniformes européens au Campaniforme méditerranéen. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 101: 215–222.

Besse, M. and Strahm, C. 2001 The components of the Bell Beaker complex. In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 103–110. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. 2005 La transition démographique néolithique. In Populations néolithiques et environnements. Séminaire du Collège de France, edited by J. Guilaine, pp. 11–20. Errance, Paris.

Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. 2008 La paléodémographie. 99,99 % de l’histoire démographique des hommes ou la démographie de la Préhistoire. Errance, Paris.

Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds) 2008 The Neolithic demographic transition and its consequences. Springer, New-York.

Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. and Masset, C. 1982 Farewell to paleodemography. Journal of Human Evolution 11: 321–333.

Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. and Masset, C. 1996 Paleodemography: expectancy and false hope. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99: 571–583.

Boserup, E. 1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. Aldine, Chicago.

Brodie, N. 2001 Technological frontiers and the emergence of the Beaker culture. In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 487–496. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Broodbank, C. and Strasser, T. S. 1991 Migrant farmers and the colonization of Crete. Antiquity 65: 233–245.

Burgess, C. and Shennan, S. 1976 The beaker phenomenon. In Sett lement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia B.C., edited by C. Burgess and R. Miket, pp. 309–331. British Archaeological Report British Series 33. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.


Castillo, A. del Yurrita 1928 La cultura del Vaso Campaniforme (su origen i extensión en Europa). Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Chamberlain, A. 2006 Demography in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Childe, V. G. 1925 The Dawn of European Civilization. Routledge, London.

Clarke, D. 1970 Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Clarke, D. 1976 The Beaker network – social and economic models. In Glockenbecher Symposion Oberried 1974, edited by J. N. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 459–477. Fibula-Van Dishoeck, Haarlem.

Czebreszuk, J. 2002 From typochronology to calendar. A case-study: society between Jutland and Kujawy in the 3rd millennium BC. In Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? 5Tagung Bamberg 14.–16. Juni 2001), edited by J. Müller, pp. 235–244. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

Czebreszuk, J. (ed.) 2004 Similar but Diff erent. Bell Beakers in Europe. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.

Czebreszuk, J. and Szmyt, M. (eds) 2003 The Northeast frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the symposium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (Poland), May 26–29 2002. British Archaeological Report International Series 1155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Drenth, E. 1989 Een onderzoek naar aspecten van de symbolische betekenis van Grand-Pressigny en Pseudo-Grand-Pressigny dolken van de Enkelgrafcultuur in Nederland In Bundel van de Steentĳ ddag (Groningen, 1 april 1989), edited by A. T. L. Niklewicz-Hokse and C. A. G. Lagerwerf, pp. 100–121. Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, Groningen.

Drenth, E. 2005 Het Laat-Neolithicum in Nederland. Archeologie 11/12: 333–365.

Drenth, E. and Hogestĳ n, W. J. H. 2001 The Bell Beaker culture in the Netherlands: the state of research in 1998. In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 309–332. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Drenth, E. and Lohof, E. 2005 Mounds for the dead. Funerary and burial ritual in Beaker period, Early and Middle Bronze Age. In The Prehistory of the Netherlands, volume 1, edited by L. Louwe Kooĳ mans, P. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. van Gĳ n, pp. 433–454. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Evans, J., Chenery, C. and Fitzpatrick, A. 2006 Bronze Age childhood migration of individuals near Stonehenge, revealed by strontium and oxygen isotope tooth enamel analysis. Archaeometry 48: 309–321.

Fitzpatrick, A. P. 2009 In his hands and in his head: the Amesbury Archer as a metalworker. In Bronze Age connections. Cultural Contact in Prehistoric Europe, edited by P. Clark, pp. 176–188. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Fokkens, H. 1986 From shift ing cultivation to short fallow cultivation: late Neolithic change in the Netherlands reconsidered. In Op zoek naarmens en materiele cultuur, edited by H. Fokkens, P. M. Banga and M. Bierma, pp. 5–21. Groningen University Press, Groningen.

Fokkens, H. 1998 From the collective to the individual: some thoughts about culture change in the third millennium BC. In Understanding the Neolithic of North-western Europe, edited

by M. Edmonds and C. Richards, pp. 481–491. Cruithne Press, Glasgow.

Fokkens, H. 2005 Longhouses in unsettled settlements. Settlements in Beaker period and Bronze Age. In The Prehistory of the Netherlands, volume 1, edited by L. Louwe Kooĳ mans, P. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. van Gĳ n, pp. 407–428. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Fokkens, H., Achterkamp, Y. and Kuĳ pers, M. 2008 Bracers or bracelets? About the functionality and meaning of Bell Beaker wrist-guards. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74: 109–140.

Gallay, A. 1979 Le phénomène campaniforme: une nouvelle hypothèse historique. Archives Suisses d’Anthropologie Générale 43: 231–258.

Gamble, C., Davies, W., Pett itt , P., Hazelwood, L. and Richards, M. 2005 The archaeological and genetic foundations of the European population during the Late Glacial: implications for ‘agricultural thinking’. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15: 193–223.

Garrido-Pena, R. 2000 El Campaniforme en la Meseta central de la Península Ibérica (c. 2500–2000 AC.). British Archaeological Report International Series 892. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Gibson, A. 1987 Beaker domestic sites across the North Sea: a review. In Les relations entre le continent et les îles britanniques à l’âge du bronze. Actes du colloque de Lille dans le cadre du 22ème congrès préhistorique de France. Revue archéologique de Picardie (supplément): 7–16.

Guilaine, J. 2004 Les Campaniformes et la Méditerranée. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 101: 239–252.

Guilaine, J., Besse, M., Lemercier, O., Salanova, L., Strahm, C. and Vander Linden, M. 2004: Avant-propos: les Campaniformes aujourd’hui. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 101: 197–200.

Hassan, F. A. 1979 Demography and archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 8: 137–160.

Heyd, V. 2000 Die Spätkupferzeit in Süddeutschland. Dr. Rudolf Habelt Gmbh, Bonn.

Heyd, V. 2001 On the earliest Bell Beakers along the Danube. In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 387–409. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Hjelle, K. J., Huft hammer, A. K. and Bergsvik, K. A. 2006 Hesitant hunters: a review of the introduction of agriculture in western Norway. Environmental Archaeology 11: 147–170.

Johansen, N. N. 2006 Draught catt le and the South Scandinavian economies of the 4th millennium BC. Environmental Archaeology 11: 35–48.

Kim, J.-I. 2005 Formation and Change in Individual Identity between the Bell Beaker Culture and the Early Bronze Age in Bavaria, south Germany. British Archaeological Report International Series 1450. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Klassen, L. 2005 Zur Bedeutung von Getreide in der Einzelgrabkultur Jütlands. Electronic document, http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2005_klassen_print.pdf, accessed July 13, 2009.

Kristiansen, K. 2009 Proto-Indo-European languages and institutions: an archaeological approach. In Departures from the Homeland. Selected Papers from the 12th European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) Annual Meeting. Krakow, Poland. 19th to 24th September 2006, edited by K. Jones-Bley and


M. Vander Linden, pp. 111–140. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 56. Institute for the Study of Man, Washington.

Kunst, M. 2001 Invasion? Fashion? Social rank? Consideration concerning the Bell Beaker phenomenon in Copper Age fortifi cations of the Iberian Peninsula. In In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 81–90. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Lanting, J. N. 2007/2008 De NO-Nederlandse/NW-Duitse Klokbekergroep: culturele achtergrond, typologie van het aardewerk, datering, verspreiding en grafritueel 11. Palaeohistoria 49/50: 11–326.

Lanting, J. N. and van der Plicht, J. 1999/2000. Die 14C-chronologie van de Nederlandse pre- en protohistorie, III: Neolithicum. Palaeohistoria 41/42: 1–110.

Lanting, J. N. and van der Waals, J. D. 1976 Beaker culture relations in the Lower Rhine basin. In Glockenbecher Symposion. Oberried 1974, edited by J. N. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 2–80. Fibula-Van Dishoeck, Haarlem.

Laporte, L., Guy, H. and Blaizot, F. 1992 La sépulture à mobilier campaniforme de Jablines Le Haut Château. In Jablines, Le Haut Château (Seine-et-Marne): une minière de silex au Néolithique, edited by F. Bostyn and Y. Lanchon, pp. 224–229. Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris.

Last, J. 1998 Books of life: biography and memory in a Bronze Age barrow. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17: 43–53.

Machnik, J. 1991 The Earliest Bronze Age in the Carpathian basin. Department of Archaeological Sciences, Bradford University, Bradford.

Mertens, K. 2003a Einflüsse der Glockenbecherkultur in Norddeutschland. In The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the Symposium Jeld at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (Poland), May 26–29 2002, edited by J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt, pp. 51–71. British Archaeological Report International Series 1155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Mertens, K. 2003b Ein Siedlungplatz der Glockenbecherkultur in Hamburg-Boberg? In The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (Poland), May 26–29 2002, edited by J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt, pp. 73–83. British Archaeological Report International Series 1155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Müller, J. and van Willingen, S. 2001 New radiocarbon evidence for European Bell Beakers and the consequences for the diff usion of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 59–80. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Needham, S. 2005 Transforming Beaker culture in North-West Europe; processes of fusion and fi ssion. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 171–218.

Needham, S. 2007 Isotopic aliens: Beaker movement and cultural transmissions. In From Stonehenge to the Baltic. Living with Cultural Diversity in the Third Millennium BC, edited by M. Larsson and M. Parker Pearson, pp. 41–46. British Archaeological Report International Series 1692. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Nicolis, F. (ed.) 2001 Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

O’Brien, W. 2001 New light on Beaker metallurgy in Ireland. In In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 561–576. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Pétrequin, P. 1996 Management of architectural woods and variations in population density in the fourth and third millennia B.C. (lakes Chalain and Clairvaux, Jura, France). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15: 1–19.

Prescott , C. 1996 Was there really a Neolithic in Norway? Antiquity 70: 77–87.

Prescott , C. 2009 History in prehistory – the later Neolithic/Early Metal Age, Norway. In Neolithisation as if History Matt ered. Processes of Neolithisation in North-Western Europe, edited by H. Glørstad and C. Prescott , pp. 193–215. Bricoleur, Lindome.

Prescott , C. and Walderhaug, E. 1995 The Last Frontier? Processes of Indo-Europeanization in Northern Europe. The Norwegian case. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 3/4: 257–280.

Price, T. D., Knipper, C., Grupe, G. and Smrcka, V. 2004 Strontium isotopes and prehistoric human migration: the Bell Beaker period in central Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 7: 9–40.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2009 Reply to comments from Marc Vander Linden, Helle Vandkilde, Przemyslaw Makarowicz, Janusz Czebreszuk, Einar Østmo, and Christopher Prescott and Lene Melheim, Norwegian Archaeological Review 42: 93–100.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. and Salanova, L. 2009 Coquilles et Campaniforme en Galice et en Bretagne: mécanismes de circulation et stratégies identitaires. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 106: 73–94.

Raetzel-Fabian, D. 2001 Amerkungen zur Interpretation von 14C-Daten. In Die absolute Chronologie in Mitt eleuropa 3000–2000 v.Chr./The Abolsute Chronology of Central Europe 3000–2000 BC, edited by J. Czebreszuk and J. Müller, pp. 11–24. Bamberg: Rahden.

Roberts, B. 2008 Creating traditions and shaping technologies: understanding the earliest metal objects and metal production in Western Europe. World Archaeology 40: 354–372.

Salanova, L. 1998 Le statut des assemblages campaniformes en contexte funéraire: la notion de ‘bien de prestige’. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95: 315–326.

Salanova, L. 2000 La question du Campaniforme en France et dans les îles anglo-normandes. Productions, chronologie et rôles d’un standard céramique. C.T.H.S./Société Préhistorique Française, Paris.

Salanova, L. 2004 Le rôle de la façade atlantique dans la genèse du Campaniforme en Europe. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 101: 223–226.

Sangmeister, E. 1966 Die Datierung des Rückstroms der Glockenbecher und ihre Auswirkung auf die Chronologie der Kupferzeit in Portugal. Palaeohistoria 12: 195–207.

Sarauw, T. 2007a Male symbols or warrior identities? The ‘archery’ burials of the Danish Bell Beaker culture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 65–87.


Sarauw, T. 2007b On the Outskirts of the European Bell Beaker Phenomenon – the Danish Case. Electronic document, htt p://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2007_sarauw_high.pdf, accessed July 13, 2009.

Shennan, S. 1976 Bell Beakers and their context in central Europe. In Glockenbecher Symposion. Oberried 1974, edited by J. N. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 231–239. Fibula-Van Dishoeck, Haarlem.

Shennan, S. 1978 Archaeological ‘cultures’: an empirical investigation. In The Spatial Organisation of Culture, edited by I. Hodder pp. 113–140. Duckworth, London.

Shennan, S. J. 1993 Sett lement and social change in central Europe, 3500–1500 BC. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 121–161.

Shennan, S. 2000 Population, culture history, and the dynamics of culture change. Current Anthropology 41: 811–822, 830–835.

Shennan, S. and Edinborough, K. 2007 Prehistoric population history: from the Late Glacial to the Late Neolithic in Central and Northern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1339–1345.

Sheridan, J. A. 2008a Upper Largie and Dutch-Scottish connections during the Beaker period. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40: 240–260.

Sheridan, A. 2008b Towards a fuller, more nuanced narrative of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain 2500–1500 BC. Bronze Age Review 1: 57–78.

Sherratt, A. 1981 Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In Patt ern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond, pp. 261–305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Starling, N. J. 1985 Social change in the later Neolithic of central Europe. Antiquity 59: 30–38.

Strahm, C. (ed.) 1995 Das Glockenbecher-Phänomen. Ein Seminar. Institut für Ur- und Frügeschichte der Universität Freiburg, Freiburg.

Strahm, C. 1998 Il bicchiere campaniforme: fenomeno e cultura. In Simbolo ed enigma. Il bicchiere campaniforme e l’Italia nella preistoria europea del III millennio a.C., edited by F. Nicolis and E. Mott es, pp. 21–44. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Tcheremissinoff, M., Fouéré, P., and Salanova, L. 2000 La sépulture campaniforme de la Folie (Poitiers, Vienne): présentation préliminaire. Internéo 3: 161–167.

Turek, J. 2001 Late Eneolithic mortuary practices and their social signifi cance. In The Archaeology of Cult and Religion, edited by P. F. Biehl and F. Bertemes, pp. 219–234. Archaeolingua, Budapest.

Turek, J., Dvořák, P. and Peška, J. 2003 Archaeology of Beaker sett lements in Bohemia and Moravia. An outline of the current state of knowledge. In The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (Poland), May 26–29 2002, edited by J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt, pp. 183–208. British Archaeological Report International Series 1155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

van der Beek, Z. and Fokkens, H. 2001 24 years aft er Oberried: the ‘Dutch Model’ reconsidered. In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 301–308. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Vander Linden, M. 2004 Polythetic networks, coherent people: a new historical hypothesis for the Bell Beaker phenomenon. In Similar but Diff erent. Bell Beakers in Europe, edited by J. Czebreszuk, pp. 35–62. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.

Vander Linden, M. 2006 Le phénomène campaniforme dans l’Europe du 3ème millénaire avant notre ère. Synthèses et nouvelles perspectives. British Archaeological Report International Series 1470. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Vander Linden, M. 2007a What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe? Antiquity 81: 343–52.

Vander Linden, M. 2007b For equalities are plural: reassessing the social in Europe during the 3rd millennium BC. World Archaeology 39: 177–193.

Vander Linden, M. in press The importance of being insular. Britain and Ireland in their North-Western European context during the 3rd millennium BC. In Is there a British Chalcolithic?, edited by M. Allen, J. Gardiner and A. Sheridan. Prehistoric Society research Paper 4. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

van der Waals, J. D. and Glasbergen, W. 1955 Beaker types and their distribution in the Netherlands. Palaeohistoria 4: 5–46.

Vandkilde, H. 2005 A review of the Early Late Neolithic in Denmark: practice, identity and connectivity. Electronic document, htt p://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/ pdf/2005_vandkilde_high.pdf, accessed July 13, 2009.

Watt s, D. J. 2002 A simple model of global cascades on random models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 5766–5771.

Wood, J. W. 1998 A Theory of Preindustrial Population Dynamics: Demography, Economy, and Well-Being in Malthusian Systems. Current Anthropology 39: 99–135.

4

Perceiving changes in the third millennium BC in Europe through pott ery: Galicia, Britt any and

Denmark as examples

M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez

Introduction In the course of the third millennium BC a series of large-scale changes took place in diff erent facets of the lives of communities in Europe. Economic strategies (regarding land use, subsistence or the placement patt ern of the sett lements) were transformed, new funerary structures and burial rites were developed, and a range of new elements of material culture appeared (e.g. Czebreszuk and Szmyt 2008; Kristiansen 1998; L’Helgouach 2001; Méndez Fernández 1994; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Prieto-Martínez 1999; Vandkilde 2005). These changes took place between 2900 and 2400 BC, and coincided with the disappearance of a range of formerly abundant Neolithic cultures, and with the initial establishment and ensuing development of a common social model expressed through an unprecedented homogeneity in the material culture. For the fi rst time it is possible to refer clearly to a pan-European social model, in a meaningful sense.

However, it is as difficult to know which changes were decisive in this period of powerful social transformation, as it is to determine causal relationships. Furthermore, the social model of the later third millennium BC was not necessarily the result of a total change in all of the aspects of life of all communities. Perhaps only a few specifi c changes, maximising key developments in the Late Neolithic, had an impact that re-routed the historical trajectory embedded in the structure of communities from this period. Therefore, the establishment of a new patt ern of rationality did not imply a break with everything that had previously existed, for example in technology

and production, but led instead to the appearance of a series of mentalities, combined with elements that were genuinely novel. As a result, the appearance of a new mentality, associated with the Bell Beaker material culture, implied a change in the organisation of society. This concerns spheres such as the strategies for exploiting raw materials and land, as well as the way products and objects were incorporated into a new system of commercial exchange, in response to the new interests of the emerging elites. The power discourse of the new elites required new symbols of representation, although the existing technical knowledge (for manufacturing objects, dwellings or clothing) was not rejected, but instead transformed, in order to communicate new messages that were in line with the change that was underway, based on these new requirements.

Pott ery is a good indicator of these large-scale changes, and is particularly relevant in order to understand different elements relating to the constitution of society at this time. Pott ery can be a rich source of information, although to exploit its full potential, studies must draw on a wider stylistic and contextual analysis that extends beyond typology. Studying the chaîne opératoire of the vessels provides more information than a traditional typological study, although this will only be of value when a full analysis is applied, evaluating the integral biography1 of the object: its biography of manufacture (how each vessel was made and which technical choices were made in the process), its biography of use (its function or functions), and its biography of deposition (which type of vessel was selected in each context,

4. Perceiving changes in the third millennium BC in Europe through pott ery 31

with what purpose, and in which conditions it is documented, until it was discarded). This study should be accompanied by another that includes the signifi cant spatial scales of the Bell Beaker phenomenon – at local, regional and European level – in order to establish a complete patt ern of behaviour for the pott ery.

Starting points for the study

Proposals and hypothesesThe fundamental interpretative starting point for this article concerning prehistoric societies in Europe is based on a diachronic sociological model developed by Clastres (1981), which characterises the lines of strength of primitive and state societies as two opposing social formations and patt erns of rationality. The fi rst are characterised by the internal homogeneity of the social body and the external diversity between communities (supra-local). The second, state societies have strong internal divisions and social separation – an internal diversity of the social body – whilst at the supra-local, external level they are homogeneous. European societies from the third millennium BC are situated at the crossroads leading from one social model to another. As a result, in chronological terms they were situated at a point where a trajectory towards social division and complexity was inevitable, but had still not fully developed into the complexity of a typically state-organised society. The Bell Beaker societies were one step ahead of the Neolithic societies of this millennium, representing a clear example of social change associated with the Bronze Age. A new social model and a new patt ern of rationality emerged, and Bell Beaker pott ery forms part of a style organised to express this new practice and mentality.

This paper explores this hypothesis of dramatic social transformation from an archaeological perspective, using key material expressions from various contexts of the third millennium BC, although with an emphasis on Bell Beaker communities.

MethodologyThe methodology applied in the following analysis is inspired by French structural anthropology (Lévi-Strauss 1987), and by the anthropology of technology (Lemonnier 1983, 1986, 1993). It is based on the formal analysis of pott ery from various Bell Beaker regions and the subsequent comparison between diff erent zones. I would emphasise that the decoration applied to Bell Beaker ceramics, and, as will be argued, other facets of material culture, represent an important “code”

that is fundamental to this study. The decoration and the message it expresses has a symbolic presence that is visibly more evident than other decorative aspects. Although the style is geometric and diffi cult to interpret, it can be deciphered by defi ning its patt erns and systematising the contextual evidence, an approach that extends beyond the rigidity imposed by traditional typology.

Study areasIn Europe there is a historical patt ern characterised by the replacement of a mosaic of Neolithic cultures (and in northern Europe: hunter-gatherers) leading towards a marked reduction in diversity from 2700–2600 BC onwards, concurrently expressing a move towards social inequality. Every European region has its own peculiarities, and the evolution of the pott ery styles is not linear. The three areas chosen for in-depth study here, Galicia, Denmark and Britt any, are no exception. I have chosen these regions as I have fi rst-hand knowledge of the material, they all form a part of the Atlantic fringe, ‘Finisterres’, on the European continent covering an area between 27,000 and 30,000 square kilometres (Galicia: 29,574 km2, Britt any: 27,209 km2, Denmark: 43,094 km2 – of which Jutland constitutes 29,775 km2), and they represent three regional versions of the same social patt ern, the European Bell Beaker social model. Representing discrete geographical entities in relation to each other, they are Bell Beaker regions that had a potential for extensive external contact.

AimsThe main aim of this article is to demonstrate through pott ery that the Bell Beaker phenomenon was a new social model that can be characterised as Early Bronze Age, and which implied a break with the fi nal stages of the Late Neolithic – not an evolutionary continuity (some diff erences in terminology exist when assigning periods to a chronology between Northern Europe and the rest of the area studied in this article. These are shown in Table 4.1). In order to achieve this objective, the record is analysed in four steps. The fi rst step focuses on the third millennium BC in general, to then comparatively characterise the diff erent social models of the third millennium BC. The following three steps deal with the Bell Beaker societies in my study areas in order to identify the social organisation of Bell Beaker communities, the development of mechanisms of identity amongst Bell Beaker communities, and the development of new strategies of power to control circulation in Europe.

M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez32

Materialisations of the new social model

Characterisation of the social models of the third millennium BCAlthough it is not the purpose of this study to explore chronological aspects in detail, it is necessary to clarify the temporal framework in which the communities we are dealing with developed. It should be noted that all of the Late Neolithic cultures are more or less contemporary with the Bell Beaker Culture (BBC). In Galicia, we have the Culture of Penha-type pott ery, and in Britt any the Conguel, Kerugou and Quessoy cultures. These co-existed for 200–300 years with the

Bell Beaker Culture. In Denmark, the cultural ‘jigsaw’ is more complex, as cultures co-existed with very diff erent lifestyles, from the Pitt ed Ware Culture, associated with groups of hunter-fi sher-gatherers, to the Funnel Beaker (TRB) of the Early and Mid-Neolithic, and the Corded Ware Culture (CWC), from the Mid- and Late Neolithic. The Pitt ed Ware Culture (PWC) and the CWC coexisted for between 300–500 years with the BBC (Table 4.1, Figure 4.1.1).

Furthermore, the duration of the Bell Beaker Culture varies from zone to zone: it lasts longer in Galicia (2800/2700–1600/1500 BC), followed by Britt any (2800–2100 BC), and shorter in Denmark (2350–1950

Denmark Brittany Galicia Years

BCAge/

Period Pottery Age/Period Pottery Age/Period Pottery

1400 Early Late Late

1500 Bronze Age

Bronze Age Bronze

Age

1600 Ancient Early BB 1700 Late Bronze Bronze 1800 Neolithic Age Age 1900 BB 2000 2100 Late BB 2200 Neolithic 2300 2400 Single CW Late Penha

Pott ery2500 Grave

Period PW Neolithic 2600 Quessoy 2700 Conguel

2800 Middle Neolithic TRB Kerugou

2900 Groh Collé

3000 3100 Middle Impressed

Pott ery

3200 Neolithic 3300 Early 3400 Neolithic 3500 Middle

3600 Neolithic (II)

(Hvass and Storgaard 1993; Vandkilde 1996) (Demoule 2007) (Prieto-Martínez 2005, 2009)

Table 4.1: Comparative chronological chart. Abbreviations: BB=Bell Beaker, TRB=Funnel Beaker, CW=Corded Ware, PW=Pitt ed Ware.

Figure 4.1: (1) The territories: BBC (aft er Czebreszuk and Szmyt 2003a; Nicolis and Mott es 1998), TRB (aft er Midley 1992), Penha Culture (aft er Prieto 2009), Quessoy, Conguel, Kerugou Cultures (aft er Demoule et al. 2008), PWC (aft er Fornander et al. 2008), CWC (aft er Corded Ware culture 2009). Sites on the periphery of the BBC: 1 (aft er Bokbot and Ben Nçer 2008), 2 (aft er Skjølsvold 1977), 3–14 (aft er Heyd 2005). (2) Schematic representation of diff erent spatial models based on a selection of recent ceramic decorations: Galicia (Prieto 2009, 2005), Britt any (aft er Briard et al. 1989; Salanova 2000; Le Roux et al. 1989), Denmark (aft er Andersen 1997; Jensen 1973; Ebbesen 1979; Prieto 2008).


BC), although in the last two cases the dates should be reviewed, as in at least the case of Denmark, the range may vary between 2600 and 1700 BC in the light of recent datings, and aft er revising a number of previous dates.

Each model of social organisation is interwoven with a material style that belongs to it, and is therefore diff erent from the styles of other social models. This means that as some specifi c aspects of the style can be linked to a specifi c, delimited social model, studying the organisation of the decorative spaces over time may help us to delimit and understand these social models bett er.

In order to verify whether there are signifi cant diff erences in the decorative characteristics of pott ery from the cultures of the third millennium BC, the Galician case will be used as a reference point, as its material has already been studied in detail (Prieto-Martínez et al. 2003); we will then consider if this model is coherent, and therefore may be used as an analogy to the patt erns in other zones. Despite a certain paucity of data from Galicia, the region has qualitative advantages due to the local ‘Finisterre’ style, which is among the main stylistic variations of Atlantic Prehistory. In the resulting synthesis, ceramics from the beginning of the Neolithic and the end of the Bronze Age are studied (to complete a comprehensive, diachronic perspective), and four well-defined stylistic horizons between them are identifi ed. These four stylistic horizons correlate with chronologically diff erent social models. The general tendencies within each model are (Figure 4.1.2):

• Early and Mid-Neolithic. The decoration used on the pott ery is very simple, limited to the upper third of the vessel, with the elements distributed randomly in narrow friezes. There are no elements bordering the design, which is organised horizontally. In general, the pott ery has low visibility (the decoration occupies a small amount of space on the body of the vessel, and the surface fi nish is rough and inhibits the presence of the designs), and it is almost unnecessary to change the viewing angle in order to view all of the decoration. The Scandinavian PWC would also fi t more closely with an Early and Mid-Neolithic model.

• Late Neolithic. The decoration is more complex, with numerous decorative elements extending over the upper two-thirds of the vessel. The elements are distributed orderly in separated metopes of variable width. There is usually a horizontal element delimiting the upper part of the design, although the majority of the elements are distributed vertically. The decoration is highly visible, and in order to view

it, it is necessary to rotate the vessel horizontally, meaning that there are various angles from which the decoration must be seen in order to fully appreciate it. This formal patt ern is found in the Galician Penha type pott ery, and is analogous to the Danish TRB and the Conguel, Kerugou and Quessoy styles from Britt any. A large part of the decoration from the CWC can also be included in this model, although in a simplifi ed version.

• Early Bronze Age/Bell Beaker phase. The decoration changes substantially and becomes highly standardised. The number of decorative elements varies between one and eight, covers the surface of the vessel and is distributed in horizontal bands of well-proportioned widths. There is a horizontal element that delimits the upper and lower part of the design, and most of the elements are orientated horizontally. The metope motifs also comply with this patt ern of proportionality. Decoration and motifs are highly visible, and in order to view the decoration it is necessary to shift the gaze with an oblique movement from top to bott om or bott om to top, meaning that there are various points of view from which to see the decoration completely. All the Bell Beaker ware corresponds to this way of organising the decorative space, with some vessels from the CWC approximate this model, once again in a simplified version (employing one or two elements, and only the upper two-thirds of the pot is decorated).

• Late Bronze Age. The decoration is once again reduced and simplifi ed, but maintains the horizontal distribution and the decorative elements. Various points of view are required in order to see the decoration, entailing a movement of the vessel in a vertical and circular direction. Late Bronze Age ceramic practices thus maintain some aspects of the spatial principles from the Early Bronze Age/Bell Beaker phase.

In summary, the societies from the third millennium BC express three models for the organisation of decorative space, and these correspond to three dissimilar social models (Table 4.2): an open-occasional-horizontal model, from the societies of the Early and Mid-Neolithic, e.g. including the Pitt ed Ware Culture; a segmented horizontal model, characteristic of the societies from the Late Neolithic, such as the Penha, Conguel, Kerugou, Quessoy, TRB and partly the CWC; and an oblique model, typical of the societies from the Early Bronze Age, amongst which the CWC is only partially included, whilst the Bell Beaker ceramics are fully fl edged exponents. The fourth variety, with roots in the preceding phase, is not found in pott ery until the middle of the second millennium BC.


Decoration EN–MN LN BB–EBA LBA

PositionWhere it is situated Exterior

How much it occupies Upper third Upper two-thirds Complete

cover Upper third

Composition Distribution Disorder Order

Organisation Narrow line / strip

Compartmented metopes

Horizontal bands Horizontal frieze

Delimitation Delimitation Not clear Delimited on upper part Upper and lower

Elements used Horizontal straight lineHorizontal straight line or sudden change in the profi le

General orientation of elements

Succession

Specifi c, horizontal or vertical. Repetition of 1 or 2 elements

VerticalSudden changes in motifs that imply a discontinuation

HorizontalChanges in motifs imply continuity

Visibility Degree of visibility

Relatively concealed Visible Highly

visible Concealed

Direction of reading Line of vision Specifi c points-

horizontal Horizontal Oblique Vertical

Variety of points of view

Apprehension of decoration

Static, one point of view Dynamic, various points of view

Sense of movement

Gaze and movement

No movement, specifi c points

Horizontal-circular movement Oblique Vertical-circular

Overall decoration

Overall spatial organisation

Open-specifi c points, horizontal

Horizontal, segmented Oblique Vertical

Table 4.2: Summary of some of the features that defi ne the decoration of the prehistoric pott ery from the three regions that were studied. Abbreviations: EN=Early Neolithic, MN=Middle Neolithic, LN=Late Neolithic, BB=Bell Beaker, EBA=Early Bronze Age, LBA=Late Bronze Age.

The social organisation of Bell Beaker communities: Materialising the divisionAs mentioned at the start of this article, Neolithic and Bell Beaker societies are positioned halfway between a ‘primitive society’ and a ‘state society’, especially with regard to the way in which material culture is organised in a highly complex manner in Bell Beaker communities, and how two opposing, though parallel, processes or principles may be identifi ed: (1) diversity (a tendency towards the separation of the social body) and (2) homogeneity (a development of uniformity at a supra-community level) (aft er Clastres 1981). These two processes are typical of societies with a more complex organisation than that of Neolithic societies, and are driven by societal mechanisms in a vastly diff erent way from those that structure material expressions in Neolithic societies. The way in which

both principles are manifested is complex, as both pott ery and material culture in general simultaneously express diversity and/or homogeneity, and one or the other are emphasised depending on the context and the spatial scale of the study. As a result, I will now present a series of examples in which both principles may be documented, demonstrating the clear emergence of a process of hierarchisation that was unknown until that time in Europe.

In our fi rst example, we will focus on the diversity of Bell Beaker pott ery. We may refer to this as ‘standardised variability’, as it is found in all of the Bell Beaker regions. This variability is expressed through the manufacture of various pott ery categories or diff erent technical chains, which clearly have diff erent functions. The number of categories and functions vary depending on the zones. In Galicia and Britt any, between two and


three categories have been documented: Bell Beaker, undecorated, and decorated non-Bell Beaker (Prieto-Martínez and Salanova 2009). In Denmark, four: Bell Beaker, undecorated, mixed decoration and grooved decoration (Prieto-Martínez 2008; Figure 4.2.1, the Danish model has been simplifi ed here).

This formal and functional variation in the pott ery is particularly pronounced in the pott ery found in sett lements, where specialisation can be seen in the vessels, as they were probably assigned a use when they were manufactured. We may therefore conclude that the way of manipulating the pottery in this context is a clear indication of the existence of social differences within each specific domestic sphere. The standardisation of the diversity of Bell Beaker pott ery represents a clear change when compared to the Neolithic pott ery found in the sett lements2, and presumably reveals a much deeper change in the society. This patt ern is seen in sett lements from all over Europe.

Diff erences in status are seen through the quantity, quality and distribution of the objects documented at each site, and are especially pronounced in the Galician and Danish sett lements. Material diff erences may be seen between the houses in the same sett lement, both in terms of the quantity and variety of elements recorded, indicating a possible diff erence in status between houses in the same community (Prieto-Martínez 1999, 2008). No sett lements are known in Britt any, although patt erns similar to those found in Denmark and Galicia are reported in areas close to the west coast of France, such as the site of La Noue (Salanova and Ducreux 2005). Therefore the internal diversity/‘separation’ within each community refl ect diff erences in the social organisation within specifi c Bell Beaker communities.

If we focus on funerary contexts, we once again find a manifestation of the same two principles: homogeneity and diversity. Bell Beaker pott ery is found associated with men, women and children in Megalithic burials, cists and pits from all over Europe, and is highly standardised. Additional grave goods are also standardised, comprising over forty diff erent objects. This process of large-scale standardisation expresses a supra-local and supra-regional homogeneity, which goes beyond individuals and communities, and is a typical feature of divided or hierarchical societies (based on Clastres’ theoretical model). This homogeneity is strengthened by the selection of Bell Beakers included as part of the grave goods. In the three areas studied in the present article, there is a predominance of beakers with decorative motifs of an intermediate and high complexity (Figure 4.2.2). As a result, we may suppose that the Bell Beaker is

the most characteristic material symbol of a supra-regional Bell Beaker social identity, more than a symbol of power or status.

In support of the idea discussed above, and based on the distribution of grave goods in Megalithic burial sites that were re-used over hundreds of years, we once again fi nd an expression of supra-regional homogeneity. Analysing this aspect reveals that it is possible to detect a change in the methods of appropriation of Bell Beaker funerary space. The Bell Beaker communities sought to conceal the burial or the activity they were carrying out in megaliths built by previous Neolithic communities, taking steps to avoid making any visible modifi cations to the architecture of the monument as far as possible (either through surface burials or by excavating discrete pits in the burial mound), and in the majority of cases seeking a location that was easily accessible (either on top of the mound or in the superfi cial levels inside the chamber). These Bell Beaker communities gave priority to the moment of the funeral, by exhibiting the ritual of appropriating a space from another culture, rather than investing in permanence by building monumental structures in the same way as the Neolithic communities. We know of examples that illustrate this model in the three regions included in the study, such as the tumulus of A Romea in Galicia (Prieto-Martínez 2007), Barnenez in Britt any (L’Helgouach 2001) or Blære in Denmark (Fabech 1988). Many other examples allow us to see how there was a mentality shared by all of the Bell Beaker communities, regardless of their regional diff erences.

However, the funerary contexts must be analysed on a more detailed spatial scale in order to provide us with information on the status of individuals. In some cases, quantitative diff erences may be seen in the grave goods, as in the case of Danish tombs with arrowheads, with some exceptional deposits having up to 12 arrowheads (Sarauw 2007), or in some tombs in Britt any, in which a large number of beakers may be found, such as 31 in Crugou or 41 in Men-Ar-Rompet, as opposed to a more typical frequency of less than three (Salanova 2000). In other cases, the quality of the grave goods is the most signifi cant device with which to designate status. In Galicia, copper daggers have been documented in cists where there is no Bell Beaker pott ery, there are also examples from some megaliths where it has not been possible to demonstrate any stratigraphic connection between daggers and Bell Beaker pott ery. Even so, there are few burials in Europe with copper daggers, and many with Bell Beaker pots. If we compare the distributions of tombs and copper daggers, dividing Europe into fi ve geographic zones, we see a number of signifi cant tendencies3 (Figure 4.3):


Figure 4.2: (1) Comparative summary of the three basic ceramic categories from the three zones (Prieto 1999; Prieto and Salanova 2009; Prieto 2008). (2) The stylistic uniformity of the European Bell Beaker style is shown based on a selection of funerary vessels with Bell Beaker decoration from the three study areas.


• In general, the percentage of tombs with copper daggers throughout the Bell Beaker territory is low: 5.8%.

• The lowest relative occurrence of tombs with copper daggers is in zones 1, the British Isles, and 3, the Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary, although these are the zones with the highest total number of burials in Europe.

• The highest percentage of tombs with copper daggers – signifi cantly higher than any other zone – is found in the Iberian Peninsula, zone 5.

• Galicia, Britt any and particularly Denmark have a large number of tombs with copper daggers.

• In Galicia and Denmark, no Bell Beaker pott ery is found directly associated with copper daggers.

If we compare the distribution of tombs with copper daggers with zones that provide raw materials for copper production, it may be seen that in the western half of Europe there may be a relationship between the density and number of tombs with copper daggers and the abundance of mining resources, as is the case of Galicia and Britt any, while in other areas the mines are distant from these grave goods. This is especially signifi cant in Denmark, which, together with the southeast Iberian Peninsula, has one of the highest densities of tombs with copper daggers. Perhaps the value of the copper dagger was greater in Denmark due to the diffi culties involved in obtaining them, the social confl icts were more extreme, or certain elites travelled more and had more opportunities to obtain these daggers.

There seems to be a correlation between arteries of communication and graves indicating high individual status. The most important circulation zones are along the coast and along the major rivers towards the interior of Europe, and across the Alpine passes. Burials with a complete set of grave goods, with the ‘quartet’ of beaker, dagger, adornments and tools are scarce, as shown in the map in Figure 4.3.3, but they are concentrated along the routes of communication. This means that although all of the elements included as grave goods contribute towards defining the status of a person, and daggers are used to indicate the highest status levels, some tombs with copper daggers indicate a status that was higher than the rest, as noted by Salanova (2007), not only because of the accompanying material, but also as a result of their strategic geographical location.

We have just seen a number of examples in which the material culture has multiple meanings, where it is possible to fi nd diff erent manifestations of the two principles (diversity and homogeneity) that materialise social division in Bell Beaker society. Finally, if we

examine the decoration used on Bell Beaker pott ery in detail, we once again fi nd both principles in the diff erent contexts that continue to reinforce the idea of a European tendency towards social division. The decoration of Bell Beaker pott ery reinforces diff erences in status through the selection of certain motifs over others (Figure 4.4), which vary depending on the context, with certain variations depending on the zone.

On the one hand, in both the Galician and Danish settlements there is a predominance of simple decorative motifs, combining horizontal lines with diff erent decorative techniques. However, the Bell Beakers with the most complex decoration are found in Danish sett lements, in some cases representing 15% of the total (e.g. Thy and Myrhøj). This is not the case in Galicia, where the more complex motifs are only found in 7% of the cases, and is found in burials.

On the other hand, in the funerary contexts of Galicia, Britt any and Denmark, the opposite occurs in the sett lements, as we fi nd a predominance of complex decorative motifs in the designs, such as grids, oblique lines, zigzags, triangles or metopes. Galicia and Britt any have a similar tendency, as there is a predominance of the standard variety with oblique lines, zigzags and grids, representing more than 50% of the vessels, while the simple decoration and the most complex occur in similar percentages. However, in Denmark there is a predominance of the regional variety, i.e. motifs with metopes, diamonds and zigzags fi lled in with decoration, and it is diffi cult to fi nd two vessels with identical decoration, revealing a preference for the more complex motifs, as these represent nearly 80% of the vessels found in the burials, while those with simple motifs are almost completely absent.

Based on these observations, it may be concluded that the expression of local diversity found in Bell Beaker decoration from sett lements and burials follows a fundamentally similar patt ern or structure. Local diversity actually constitutes a further expression of supra-local homogeneity: strategies developed to express social diff erences in sett lements and tombs are two versions of the same patt ern, despite the presence of specifi c regional expressions found in each of these three areas, as in Denmark, where the Bell Beaker pott ery appears to express the individual in a more direct manner than in Britt any and Galicia, both in domestic and funerary contexts.

The development of mechanisms of identity in Bell Beaker communitiesBell Beaker pott ery is an expression of identity in the sett lements, on diff erent spatial scales. The Galician sett lements are comprised of single household units,


Figure 4.3: (1) Distribution of Bell Beaker tombs with copper daggers. Five areas are defi ned, showing the percentage of tombs with daggers in each area (aft er Clarke 1970; Harrison 1977; Delibes and Montero 1999; Nicolis 2001; Rojo et al. 2005). (2) Distribution of copper and tin mines. (3) Distribution of tombs with copper daggers and especially ornate grave goods: 1- Cañada del Carrascal (Lazarich and Sánchez 2000), 2- Melides (Cardoso 2001), 3- Fuente Olmedo (Martín and Delibes 1989), 4- La Sima (Rojo et al. 2005), 5- Amesbury (Fitzpatrick 2003), 6- Wallers (L’Helgouach 1984), 7- Lunteren (Lanting & van der Waals 1976), 8- Hroby (Turek 2005), 9- Kněževes- grave 8 (Turek 2000), 10- Fontaine-le-Puits (Demoule et al. 2007: 139), 11- La Fare (Lemercier 2004), 12- Tomb 87 from the necropolis of Remedello Sott o (Marzatico & Gleirscher 2004). (4) Incorporation of the information from the previous three maps to help explain the geographical location of the aspects considered.


while the Danish sett lements are larger and consist of at least two or three houses. The pott ery is used to establish and express inequalities between households by playing with diff erent decorative techniques or the selection of certain decorative motifs instead of others. In Galicia, identity is expressed by establishing stylistic differences between the single-family settlements within the same territory, while in Denmark these diff erences are established between houses in the same community.

The strategies of identity vary depending on the spatial scale and the relationships established between the communities in these territories. There are regions in constant communication, which express a common identity through the decoration used on pott ery, such as the decorative motifs with metopes in the Baltic area, including Denmark (Czebreszuk and Szmyt 2003b), or the herringbone motifs in Western Europe, including Britt any and Galicia.

Essentially, there is a common way of decorating Bell Beaker pott ery that makes it both recognisable as such, but also diff erent from that of other parts of Europe (the phenomenon of identity between regions). For example, in the northern region the metope on the body of the vessel is organised diff erently in Poland, Germany,

Holland and Denmark (Prieto-Martínez 2008). Today these diff erences seem subtle, connected by way of organising the decorative spaces, but they would have been easily recognisable by an inhabitant of the area.

In summary, all of the communities are organised in relation to similar principles, and this is expressed in the material culture: standardisation of the ceramic diversity in the domestic sphere, the selection of certain vessels with specifi c decoration for burials, and the selection of the same grave goods or quantity thereof depending on the status of the deceased. Bell Beaker pott ery is the most evident material symbol of a pan-European social identity to be found in the archaeological record.

The development of new strategies of power to control circulation in EuropeAs argued above, decoration is an important code of communication. There is nothing random in the selection of motifs, their combination, their spatial organisation or panels where they are drawn, even though they are simply geometric. The structure used in the designs is implicit in other elements of material culture, and thus Bell Beaker decoration may be found represented in other levels of signifi cance or

Figure 4.4: The decorative complexity is shown in percentages, based on the number of elements that are combined in the decorative scheme in Britt any, Galicia and Denmark. The contexts are also taken into account.


materialities. If we explore the other decorated elements of material culture, we fi nd evidence of the strategies for controlling circulation in Europe, perhaps beyond the Bell Beaker communities. Everything points to the existence of a specifi c movement of people, products and ideas of diff erent intensity and scales.

The decoration found on Bell Beaker pottery is also found on some anthropomorphic steles of warriors, the most famous case being Sion (Gallay 1976). The decorative motifs, selected amongst all of those possible designs, coincide with those found on the funerary Bell Beaker ceramics: grids and zigzags. Thus we may establish that there is some kind of relationship between the warrior (bow, arrows, wrist-guard, copper dagger, halberd), special Bell Beakers (with complex decoration) and adornments (necklace beads probably made of diff erent materials, belts). The same decorative structure may also be found on other stone supports, where two types in particular stand out: on the one hand, carvings on cists, where we may fi nd representations identical to those found on the Bell Beakers with more complex designs, where not only the structure, but also the detail of the designs (horizontal, vertical and oblique lines and zigzags), is maintained; and on the other, in rock art, although the motifs in some cases are fi gurative, for example slabs from Valcamónica (Figure 4.5.1).

Clearly, the location of these steles, cist carvings and rock art was carefully selected. The steles are situated in important enclaves on the continent (Mezzena 1998): maritime and terrestrial zones suitable for transport and communication (Figure 4.5.2). Some locations seem to correlate with zones of confl ict with other cultural horizons (frontier zones), such as the area of the Carpathians (the Jamna Culture), Saxony (CWC) or Morocco. The Alps are a key element in the crossing of the continent from west and north to southeast (Figure 4.5.3). This network is coherent with the distribution of products and people throughout all of Europe. The localisation of these steles forms part of a strategy of ideological, political and religious fortifi cation in order to consolidate circulation throughout Europe.

There are other examples in the archaeological record that make it possible to demonstrate specifi c contacts between people from distant parts of Europe, indicating the existence of stable mechanisms of circulation and fl uent communication. The location of material elements from other zones within and outside of the traditional Bell Beaker territory is an especially signifi cant indication of interpersonal contact (Figure 4.6). Here, examples related to the decorative techniques are selected. The technical aspects involved in the manufacture of pott ery tend to be more resilient to change, as they are closely linked to the stages of learning (Gosselain 2002).

Thus, if a pott er moves to a new location, he or she will probably continue to manufacture pott ery in the new community, using the techniques learned during infancy and adolescence, while adapting other aspects of the process to the style of the new community. I believe that studying the decorative techniques in detail off ers convincing data on which it is possible to base arguments concerning the signifi cance of population movements of various kinds – not just the diff usion of objects or ideas. We will now illustrate a series of examples connected with certain pott ery techniques in order to demonstrate the intensity of these long-distance connections.

To illustrate communication within the Bell Beaker territory, two examples are selected will be discussed further here:

The fi rst is the use of shells as the most important element for decoration. Bell Beaker pott ery is usually described as being decorated by using a comb; however, recent studies (Salanova 2000) have shown that shells were also frequently used in some parts of Europe. If we focus on the three regions discussed here (Denmark, Galicia and Britt any), we see that a variety of mollusc species were used to decorate pott ery: baby scallops, cockles, clams and a fi ne shell (‘coquille fi ne’) of an unknown species. We fi nd indications that may not only demonstrate the existence of connections, but also the direction of these connections between the diff erent regions. This premise is based on the following information:

• The baby scallop is only used in Galicia and in one case from the western coast of France (the site of Sauveterre in Vendée: Rousseau 1996). The baby scallop leaves a wavy imprint, markedly diff erent from that made by a comb.

• Clams and cockles are frequently used in the Tagus Estuary and Britt any, and are scarcer in other zones. Their rectangular or square imprints are similar to those made by a comb. In Galicia, a number of vessels have been found with this decoration, particularly in inland areas. In other parts of Europe the cockle was most frequently used, always in exceptional or minimal cases. In Denmark, both clam prints and cockle prints are found, although only at a small number of Bell Beaker sites from the northern part of the Jutish Peninsula.

• In Galicia, there is one exceptional case of a corded Bell Beaker decorated with ‘coquille fi ne’ (Forno dos Mouros Dolmen: Prieto-Martínez et al. 2008), a unique case in Galicia, but very frequent in Britt any.

It is diffi cult to know when the circulation of this decorative technique began. The use of baby scallops seems to be Galician in origin, although the use of the cockles and clams may be of Portuguese and/or Breton


Figure 4.5: (1) Selection of decorative designs from diff erent elements of the material culture from Bell Beaker communities: pott ery (from the 3 study zones) and anthropomorphic steles: weapons carved on the stele of Lagundo D – Val Camonica (Marzatico and Gleirscher 2004), Sion (Mezzena 1998). (2) European distribution map of anthropomorphic steles (Mezzena 1998), petroglyphs with daggers and decorated cists. (3) Distribution of steles and Neolithic cultures that were contemporary to the fi rst bell beaker communities.

origin, the idea of using cockles to decorate ceramics subsequently spreading from Britt any to the rest of Europe. In this case, there could have been intense contact with Denmark. Analyses of the chemical composition of Danish metals demonstrate clear links to the British Isles and Britt any (Vandkilde 1996) and therefore support this hypothesis.

The second example is the case of the urn of Cameixa from a site in the interior of Galicia. This vessel was found inside a funerary pit and is not a Bell Beaker. It is important in this discussion as it is an object forming a part of the material culture from the Bell Beaker contexts in this region, and should be studied in relation to these contexts, as has been demonstrated in


Figure 4.6: (a) Distribution of the Bell Beaker areas in which shells were used to decorate pott ery (Prieto and Salanova 2009). (b) Types of shells used to decorate pott ery in the three study areas. (1–6) Vessels from Myrhøj, Slett abø, Moulin de Cujou, Beg-er-Lann, Cameixa, Forno dos Mouros. (7, 8, 9, 12, 13) Carved stones: the cist of Carnota (Rodríguez 1993: 101 and 103), burial in Mjeltehaugen (Mandt 1983), deposit of metal daggers from O Ramallal (Santos 2008), carved daggers in Stonehenge and chalk plaques from Stonehenge (web page Salisbury). (10, 11) Carvings with anthropomorphic fi gures and weapons: Outeiro do Corno Petroglyph, Peña Tú (Fábregas et al. 2004).


other studies, including the work of Besse (2003), who noted a number of important interregional infl uences in much of the continental Bell Beaker territory, based on a study of undecorated pott ery. In the case of Cameixa, the specifi c features of this urn (its profi le, fi nish, the presence of cordons and lugs on the upper part of the vessel) reveal an extra-regional connection, as it is the only vessel of this type in Galicia, and despite being made from local clays (Prieto-Martínez et al. 2009), its morphology is identical to the Anglo-Norman urns of the so-called Hilversum Horizon from Britt any, Normandy, Belgium and the British Isles (Fokkens 2005), whose features can also be found in Danish sites such as Myrhøj. The urn of Cameixa, despite being a unique fi nd in this region, reinforces the idea of the existence of consolidated circulation in the whole of the northwest Iberian Peninsula with other Atlantic regions, and is coherent with the situation of the decorative techniques discussed in the previous example.

Outside the territories commonly assigned to the Bell Beaker Culture there are also examples that confi rm existence of direct contacts, and as a result reveal the intensity and complexity of the mechanisms of circulation. For example:

• The presence of a tomb with Bell Beaker grave goods in Ostrikovac, Serbia (Brodie 2001), or the Bell Beaker pott ery found in the sett lement of Slett abø (Norway: Skjølsvold 1977), which are remarkably similar to a Bell Beaker from the Beg-Er-Lann site in Britt any (Ploemeur, Morbihan: Salanova 2000).

• The carvings from the tomb of Mjeltehaugen (Norway: Mandt 1983), which resemble the structure and design of Bell Beakers, a similar situation to the carvings on some cists in Galicia (which never include Bell Beakers in their grave goods).

• There are also other sites, studied in detail by Heyd (2005), that are located quite far from Bell Beaker territory, which nevertheless show clear infl uences of Bell Beaker know-how (Figure 1.1). It seems highly likely that there were constant connections on various levels and by various mechanisms throughout Europe – connections and communication extending far beyond the territories assigned for each culture.

As a result, certain formal features of the pott ery (decorative techniques, specifi c aspects of its morphology, etc.) allow us to verify the existence of inter-personal circulation over medium and long distances. In this case, these features provide more convincing analytical results than analysis of the clay used to produce the pott ery, which mainly show that the raw materials are of local origin, within a maximum radius of 10–15 km. Few pieces originate from other parts of the district or region, though there are exceptions.

All of these factors indicate the existence of stable and controlled circulation. New strategies of power made it necessary to maintain systematic connections with nearby and distant neighbours. In order to guarantee the stability of these connections, it was not only necessary to control circulation, extraction of raw materials, manufacture and technological know-how of production, but also the products, people and areas of distribution. It now seems clear that a sector of the population, the elites, controlled the mechanisms of circulation in Europe, although the workings of this political economy remain obscure. Individuals clearly moved, such as the adult of Sion in Switzerland, originally from a zone in the west or the Mediterranean basin (Chiaradia et al. 2003), the ‘Archer’ of Amesbury, originally from Central Europe (Fitzpatrick 2003), the Boscombe Bowmen in Wiltshire, originally from north Wales (Wessex Archaeology 2008) or the Similaun Man in the Öxtal Alps, originally from the north of Bolzano in Südtyrol (Wikipedia 2009b). These are examples of warriors who travelled long and medium distances. Movements over intermediate distances with a radius of some 200 km (for example the case from Bohemia: Price et al. 1998) most commonly involve women and children, probably representing the exchange of brides and perhaps slaves. Fewer adult males are buried away from their place of birth. We may glimpse diff erences in status and the existence of a patrilineal system of descent and virilocal residence rules through this circulation of individuals, as a high percentage of women and children moved over more limited distances, probably as a result of exchange (of whatever kind), while only a small percentage of the adult males of a community moved. On the contrary, they had a more varied patt ern of movement, not only short and medium distances, but also including long distances, revealing that only a few adult males were able to make long journeys in order to participate actively in a supra-regional socio-economic and political network, in which they probably had power of infl uence. For the time being, strontium/oxygen analyses have helped to verify the existence of movement of people throughout Europe in the third millennium, a fact that is not really surprising. In the future, as more examples become available, various population movements will be reconstructed in more detail in relation to both the remaining archaeological context and a high-resolution territorial framework.

Final comments The aim of this study is to argue that the Bell Beaker communities represent a change to a mentality vastly diff erent to that of Neolithic cultures of the third


millennium BC. The Bell Beaker phenomenon expresses the characteristics of Bronze Age society, heralding the Bronze Age communities of Europe in the fi rst half of the second millennium BC. I have emphasised the following points:

• Material culture offers a variety of ways with which to express social and cultural diff erences and affi nities. To this end, pott ery is above all the most visible material element.

• The numerous dimensions of the objects used to express identity, and here, the spatial organisation of the decoration, provide an especially powerful medium of communication.

• Abundant examples in the archaeological material contribute towards defi ning mechanisms of circulation on local, regional and continental levels.

The interconnection between all of these aspects contributes towards a bett er understanding of the large-scale change that occurred in Europe with the introduction and development of the Bell Beaker horizon.

Numerous topics have repeatedly characterized Bell Beaker research and the history of third millennium Europe. Conclusive answers are still elusive, although through new data, analytical methods and approaches, the contours of fertile research strategies, on local to continental scales, now form the basis for new research proposals. There is an abundant and rich archaeological record available that will certainly provide some answers, but just as importantly, present us with new questions.

AcknowledgementsThis article has been produced as part of two projects: ‘Application of archaeometric techniques to the study of ancient Galician pott ery’ (code: PGIDIT07PXIB236075PR), granted by the Xunta de Galicia as part of the INCITE, 2007–2009, and ‘Emergence of European Communities – Research Training Network Project’ (code: HPRN-CT-2002-00230), granted by the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Union, 2002–2006, led by Kristian Kristiansen. I would also like to off er my thanks for the funding received for a post-doctoral stay at the University of Paris between 2006 and 2007, supervised by Laure Salanova, co-fi nanced by the Regional Government of Galicia and the European Social Fund. The pott ery reconstructions in AutoCAD are by Anxo Rodríguez Paz. Finally, I would like to thank the editors, Håkon Glørstad and Christopher Prescott , for their kind invitation to take part at the European Archaeologists’ Association Conference in

Malta and subsequently in this volume, and for their suggestions and the corrections made to the text, which have signifi cantly enriched it.

Notes1. Concept taken from R. B. Boast (1995)2. In the Late Neolithic, pott ery shapes are more limited,

and with only a few exceptions, the pott ery does not have an as clearly assigned function as that of the Bell Beaker sites. This may be seen, for example, in the remains of soot documented in both undecorated and profusely decorated vessels, revealing that both types of vessels could have been used for the same purpose – cooking food.

3. As many recent excavations have not yet been published, although they have been presented at conferences, these fi gures are approximate.

References Andersen, N. H. 1997 The Sarup Enclosures. The Funnel Beaker

Culture of the Sarup Site Including Two Causewayed Camps Compared to the Contemporary Sett lements in the Area and Other European Enclosures. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXXIII: 1. Aarhus University Press, Moesgaard.

Besse, M. 2003 L’Europe du 3e millénaire avant notre ère: les céramiques communes au Campaniforme. Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande 94, Lausanne.

Boast, R. 1995 Fine pots, pure pots, Beaker pots. In Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape. Essays on British and Irish Pott ery for Ian Longworth, edited by I. Kinnes and G. Varndell, pp. 69–80. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bokbot, Y. and Ben-Nçer, A. 2008 Decouvertes campaniformes récentes dans les plateaux de Zemmour (Maroc). In Bell Beaker in Everyday Life, edited by M. Baioni, V. Leonini, D. Lo Vetro, F. Martini, R. Poggiani Keller and L. Sarti, pp. 327–330. Museo Fiorentino di Preistoria ‘Paolo Graziosi’, Firenze.

Briard, J., Querre, G., Onnee, Y. and Briard, M. 1989 Poterie et civilisations. Tome 1, Nëolithique de la France. Éditions Errance, Paris.

Brodie, N. 2001 Technological frontiers and the emergence of the Bell Beaker culture. In In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 487–496. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servicio Beni Culturali, Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Cardoso, J. L. 2001 Le phénomène campaniforme dans les basses vallées du Tage et du Sado (Portugal). In In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 139–154. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servicio Beni Culturali, Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Chiaradia, M., Gallay, A. and Todt, W. 2003 Different contamination styles of prehistoric human teeth at a Swiss


necropolis (Sion, Valais) inferred from lead and strontium isotopes. Applied Geochemistry 18: 353–370.

Clarke, D. L. 1970 Beaker Pott ery of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Clastres, P. 1981 Investigaciones en antropología política. Gedisa, Barcelona.

Czebreszuk, J. and Szmyt, M. (eds) 2003a Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. BAR International Series 1155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Czebreszuk, J. and Szmyt, M. 2003b The northeast frontier of Bell Beakers. First step to outline. In In The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (Poland), May 26–29 2002, edited by J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt, pp. 283–286. British Archaeological Report International Series 1155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Czebreszuk, J. and Szmyt, M. 2008 Bell Beakers and their role in a sett lement evolution during the Neolithic-Bronze interstage on the Polish Lowland. In Bell Beaker in Everyday Life, edited by M. Baioni, V. Leonini, D. Lo Vetro, F. Martini, R. Poggiani Keller and L. Sarti, pp. 221–233. Museo Fiorentino di Preistoria ‘Paolo Graziosi’, Firenze.

Delibes de Castro, G. and Montero Ruíz, I. (eds) 1999 Las primeras etapas metalúrgicas en la Península Ibérica. II. Estudios Regionales. Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, Madrid.

Demoule J. P. (ed.), Cott iaux, R., Demoule, J. P., Dubouloz, J., Giligny, F., Jallot, L., Manolakakis, L., Marchand, G. and Sénépart, I. 2007 La révolution néolithique en France. La Découverte, Paris.

Ebbesen, K. 1979 Stenalderlerkar med ansigt. KUML 1978: 99–115.

Fabech, C. 1988 Storstenskisten fra Blære. KUML 1986: 45–75.Fábregas Valcarce, R., Guitián Castromil, J., Guitián Rivera, J.

and de la Peña Santos, A. 2004 Petroglifo galaico con una representación de tipo Peña Tú. Zephyrus 57: 183–193.

Fitzpatrick, A. P. 2003 The Amesbury Archer. Current Archaeology 184: 146–152.

Fokkens, H. 2005 Le début de l’Âge du Bronze aux Pays-Bas et l’Horizon de Holversum Ancien. In L’Âge du Bronze du Nord de la France dans son contexte européen, edited by J. Bourgeois and M. Talon, pp. 11–33. Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifi ques, Paris.

Fornander, E., Erikson, G. and Lidén, K. 2008 Wild at heart: approaching Pitt ed Ware identity, economy and cosmology through stable isotopes in skeletal material from the Neolithic site Korsnäs in Eastern Central Sweden. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27: 281–297.

Gallay, A. 1976 The position of the Bell Beaker civilization in the chronological sequence of Petit-Chasseur (Sion, Valais, Switzerland). In Glockenbecher Symposion (Oberried 1974), edited by J. N. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 280–306. Fibula-Van Dishoek, Bossum and Haarlem.

Gosselain, O. P. 2002 Poteries du Cameroun méridional: styles techniques et rapports à l’identité. Monographies du CRA 26. C.N.R.S Editions, Paris.

Harrison, R. J. 1977 Bell Beaker Cultures of Spain and Portugal. American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Massachusett s.

Heyd, V. 2004 When the West meets the East: The eastern periphery of the Bell Beaker phenomenon and its relation with the Aegean Early Bronze Age. In Between the Aegean and

Baltic Seas, Prehistory across Borders. Proceedings of the Internat, edited by I. Galanaki, H. Tomas, Y. Galanakis and R. Laffi neur, pp. 91–104. Aegaeum 27. University of Zagreb, Liège.

Hvass, S. and Storgaard, B. 1993 Digging into the Past. 25 Years of Archaeology in Denmark. Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries, Copenhagen.

Jensen, J. A. 1973 Bopladse Myrhøj. 3 hustomter med klokkebægerkeramik. KUML 1972: 61–122.

Kristiansen, K. 1998 The construction of a Bronze Age landscape. Cosmology, economy and social organization in Thy, Nothwestern Jutland. In Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas, edited by B. Hänsel, pp. 281–291. Oetker-Voges Verlag, Kiel.

L’Helgouach, J. 1984 Le groupe campaniforme dans le Nord, le Centre et l’Ouest de la France. In L’Age du Cuivre européen. Civilisations à vase campaniforme, edited by J. Guilaine, pp. 3–35. Éditions du CNRS, Paris.

L’Helgouach, J. 2001 Le cadre culturel du campaniforme armoricain. In In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 289–299. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servicio Beni Culturali, Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Lanting, J. N. and Van der Waals, J. D. 1976 Beaker Culture relations in the Lower Rhine Basin. In Glockenbecher Symposion (Oberried 1974), edited by J. N. Lanting and J. D. Van der Waals, pp. 1–80. Fibula-Van Dishoek, Bossum and Haarlem.

Lazarich González, M. and Sánchez Andreu, M. 2000 Los enterramientos campaniformes en sepulcros megalíticos de la Depresión del Guadalquivir: la necrópolis de Gandul (Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla). In Actas do 3° Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular (Vila Real, Portugal 1999), vol. IV, edited by Jorge, V. O., pp. 327–346. A.D.E.C.A.P., Porto.

Lemercier, O. 2004 Les Campaniformes dans le Sud-Est de la France. Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne 18. CNRS, Latt es.

Lemonnier, P. 1983 L’étude des systémes techniques, une urgence en ethnologie culturelle. Techniques et Culture 1: 11–26.

Lemonnier, P. 1986 The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147–186.

Lemonnier, P. 1993 Introduction. In Technological Choices. Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic, edited by P. Lemonnier, pp. 1–35. Routledge, London.

Le Roux, C. T., Lecerf, Y. and Gautier, M. 1989 Les megalithes de Saint-Just (Ille-et-Vilaine) et la fouille des alignements du Moulin de Cojou. Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest 6: 5–29.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1987 Antropología estructural. Spanish edition. Paidós Studio Básica, Barcelona.

Mandt, G. 1983 Tradition and diff usion in West-Norwegian Rock Art. Mjeltehaugen revisited. Norwegian Archaeological Review 16(1): 14–32.

Martín Valls, R. and Delibes de Castro, G. 1989 La cultura del vaso campaniforme en las campiñas meridionales del Duero: el enterramiento de Fuente-Olmedo (Valladolid). Monografías del Museo Arqueológico de Valladolid 1. Junta de Castilla y León, Valladolid.

Marzatico, F. and Gleirscher, P. (eds) 2004 Guerrieri, Principi ed Eroi fra il Danubio e il Po dalla Preistoria all’Alto Medioevo. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Trento.


Méndez Fernández, F. 1994 La domesticación del paisaje durante la Edad del Bronce gallego. Trabajos de Prehistoria 51(1): 77–94.

Mezzena, F. 1998 Dei di pietra. La grande statuaria antropomorfa nell’Europa del III millennio a. C. Museo Archaeologico di Aosta. Regione Autonoma Valle d’Aosta. Skira editore, Milano.

Midgley, M. S. 1992 TRB Culture. The First Farmers of the North European Plain. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Nicolis F. (ed.) 2001 Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servicio Beni Culturali, Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Nicolis, F. and E. Mott es (eds) 1998. Simbolo ed enigma. Il bicchiere campaniforme e l’Italia nella preistoria europea del III millenio a.C. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servicio Beni Culturali, Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento

Prescott , C. and Walderhaug, E. 1995 The last frontier? Processes of Indo-Europeanization in Northern Europe: the Norwegian case. Journal of Indo-European Studies 23(3–4): 257–277.

Price, T. D., Grupe, G. and Schröter, P. 1998 Migration in the Bell Beaker period of central Europe. Antiquity 72: 405–411.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 1999 Caracterización del estilo cerámico de la Edad del Bronce en Galicia: Cerámica Campaniforme y cerámica no decorada. Complutum 10: 71–90.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2005 Ceramic style in Bronze Age societies in Galicia (NW Iberian Peninsula). Similarities and diff erences in patt erns of formal regularity. In The Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean, edited by R. Laffi neur, J. Driessen and E. Warmenbol, pp. 99–107. British Archaeological Report International Series 1337. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2007 Volviendo a un mismo lugar: Recipientes y espacios en un monumento megalítico gallego (NW de España). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueología 10(2): 101–125.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2008 Bell Beaker communities in Thy. The fi rst Bronze Age society in Denmark. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2): 115–158.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2009 From Galicia to the Iberian Peninsula: Neolithic ceramics and traditions. In Early Farmers, Late Foragers and Ceramic traditions. On the Beginning of Pott ery in Europe, edited by D. Gheorghiu, pp. 114–147. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P., Cobas Fernández, I. and Criado-Boado, F. 2003 Patt erns of spatial regularity in Late Prehistoric material culture styles of NW Iberian Peninsula. In Prehistoric Pott ery: People, Patt ern and Purpose, edited by A. Gibson, pp. 147–188. British Archaeological Report International Series 1156. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P., Lantes Suárez, O. and Martínez Cortizas, A. 2008 O campaniforme cordado de Forno dos Mouros (Toques, A Coruña). Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos 121:31–51.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P., Lantes Suárez, O. and Martínez Cortizas, A. 2009 Dos enterramientos de la Edad del Bronce en la provincia de Ourense. Revista Aquae Flaviae 41: 93–105.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. and Salanova, L. 2009 Coquilles et Campaniforme en Galice et en Bretagne: mécanismes de circulation et stratégies identitaires. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 106(1): 73–93.

Rodríguez Iglesias, F. (ed.) 1993 Galicia, Arte. T 9. Hércules de Ediciones, La Coruña.

Rojo-Guerra, M. A., Garrido Pena, R. and García Martínez de Lagrán, I. (eds) 2005 Bell Beakers in the Iberian Peninsula and their European context. Universidad de Valladolid, Junta de Castilla y León, Valladolid.

Rojo-Guerra, M. A., Garrido Pena, R., Morán Dauchez, G., García Martínez de Lagrán, I. and Kunst, M. 2005 Del enterramiento colectivo a la tumba individual: el sepulcro monumental de la Sima en Miño de Medinaceli, Soria, España. Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología LXXI: 11–42.

Rousseau, J. 1996 Site campaniforme de Sauveterre, commune d’Olonne-sur-Mer (Vendée). Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest 13: 75–77.

Salanova, L. 2000 La question du Campaniforme en France et dans les îles anglo-normandes. Productions, chronologie et rôles d’un standard céramique. Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifi ques, Société Préhistorique Française, París.

Salanova, L. 2007 Les sépultures campaniformes: lecture sociale. In Le Chalcolithique et la construction des inégalités. Tome I, Le continent européen: Séminaire du Collège de France, edited by J. Guilaine, pp. 211–228. Éditions Errance, Paris.

Salanova, L. and Ducreux, F. (eds) 2005 L’habitat campaniforme de La Noue à Saint-Marcel (Saône-et-Loire). Élements de défi nition du groupe bourguignon-jurassien. Gallia Préhistoire 47: 33–146.

Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum. Chalk plaques from Stonehenge Bottom. Electronic article, http://www.salisburymuseum.org .uk/ga l ler ies / index .php?Act ion=4&obID=33& prevID=34&oprevID=15, accessed February 25, 2009.

Santos Estévez, M. 2008 Petroglifos y paisaje social en la prehistoria reciente del noroeste de la Península Ibérica. TAPA 38. IEGPS-CSIC, Madrid.

Sarauw, T. 2007 Male symbols or warrior identities? The ‘archery burials’ of the Danish Bell Beaker Culture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 65–87.

Skjølsvold, J. 1977 Slett abøboplassen. Et bidrag til diskusjonen om forholdet mellom fangst- og bondesamfunnet i yngre steinalder og bronsealder. Skrift er 2: 266–281. Arkeologisk Museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Turek, J. 2000: Being a beaker child. The position of children in Late Eneolithic society. Památky archeologické Supplementum 13 (In memoriam Jan Rulf): 424–438.

Turek, J. 2005 Hroby Amazonek v Čechách 2500 let před Kristem. ArchEOlogie 1: 3–15.

Vandkilde, H. 1996 From Stone to Bronze. The metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Århus University Press, Århus.

Vandkilde, H. 2005 A Review of the Early Late Neolithic Period in Denmark: Practice, Identity and Connectivity. Electronic article, htt p://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/ 2005_vandkilde_high.pdf, accessed February 1, 2007.

Wessex Archaeology 2008 The Boscombe Bowman. Electronic article, htt p://www.wessexarch. co.uk/projects/wiltshire/boscombe/bowmen, accessed April 28, 2009.

Wikipedia 2009a Corded Ware culture. Electronic article, htt p://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Corded_Ware_culture, accessed April 28, 2009.

Wikipedia 2009b Ötzi the Iceman. Electronic article, htt p://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman, accessed April 28, 2009.

5

Body use transformations: socio-political changes in the Bell Beaker context

Lucía Moragón

A historiographic review of the Bell Beaker phenomenon The history of research into the Bell Beaker phenomenon closely refl ects the correlation between contemporary theoretical and methodological trends and the results obtained by applying these to the record (Criado-Boado and Vázquez-Varela 1982: 81; Garrido-Pena 2005: 29–30; Salanova 2005: 7; Strahm 1997–1998: 4, 2004: 202). Despite the important symbolic and social content presented by this phenomenon when research on it began, it was not until the end of the 1970s and into the 1990s that studies focused more on sociological issues, playing down the chrono-typological approach. The work of David Clarke (1976) is fundamental for our understanding of the changes arising with respect to the traditional models.

Western thinking tends towards organizing time by forming increasingly complex phases separated by periods of change (Criado-Boado 2001a: 36). These stages of transformation are considered by many theorists as being fuelled by factors outside of society. Based on this perspective, the culture and its products would merely be the consequence of movements to adapt to the environment. From the outset, the Bell Beaker phenomenon has been considered an example that confi rms this evolutionist perspective of history. Aft er the period of latent development in the Neolithic, the appearance of the fi rst centres of social diff erentiation and the increasing complexity of political and economic relations in Europe was predictable (Burgess and Shennan 1976; Clarke 1976; Czebreszuk 2003; Thomas 1987; Vander Linden 2004, 2007a).

To some extent, the increasing socio-economic complexity indicated by the archaeological record seems to correspond with the viewpoint defended

by this evolutionist description. Most of the critical theories developed in recent decades, such as post-structuralism, call for a revision of this evolutionist tendency and recommend dealing with each episode in all its complexity (including a critical examination of the researcher’s own historical context) (Hernando 2001a; Vicent 1991). It is necessary to develop research programmes that take into account the inherent complexity and uniqueness of each period.

Although the questions posed by this diverse data are numerous, the responses seem to revolve around a fi xed set of subjects. Despite the fact that the interpretations that referred to a ‘Beaker Folk’ and defended migrationist models of dispersion may now seem remote to us, analyses of this kind are still being carried out (Brodie 1994, 1997, 1998; Budziszewski et al. 2003; Desideri and Eades 2002, 2004; Kalicz-Schreiber and Kalicz 1998–2000; Lemercier 1998, 2004a, 2004b; Makarowicz 2003; Tchérémissinoff 2006: 7–10).

Furthermore, the att ractiveness of a record of this kind has led to a large number of typological studies (Bosch Gimpera 1940, 1970, 1975; Castillo Yurrita 1922, 1928; Childe 1930; Gimbutas 1977; Kossina 1902; Martínez Santa-Olalla 1935; Montelius 1900; Petrie 1901; Renfrew 1990). The inherent complexity of the archaeological record led to explanations of its dissemination that were idealized and further removed from the human factor than any historic and cultural episode possesses in itself. This correlates with the dominant school in archaeological research, the German historical-cultural school, which always tried to particularize and systematize each culture (Hernando 2001a: 224), and tended to explain change through population movements and exogenous factors (Garrido-Pena 2005: 30; Hernando 1992: 15–16).

5. Body use transformations: socio-political changes in the Bell Beaker context 49

These studies, with a traditional perspective based on migrationist theses and chrono-typological works, were abandoned at the time when the infl uences of New Archaeology appeared. This led to the emergence of a diff erent research focus: the sociological and ideological aspects of the Bell Beaker phenomenon (Clarke 1976; Shennan 1976).

At that time, currently held ideas about the Bell Beaker phenomenon began to mature. On the one hand, a series of material elements, recurrently associated with funerary deposits, were considered characteristic of a ‘Bell Beaker package’. On the other hand, work was begun to characterize and defi ne the socio-economic context of these elements. The diff usion of a highly stereotyped and frequently ostentatious type of grave goods, and the increased number of individualized burials, seemed to coincide with the appearance of the fi rst social diff erences in Europe. Andrew Sherratt (1987, 1991) argued that the rise of an elite social class was associated with practices such as ritual libations, hunting and warfare. The fi rst analytical interpretations based on these premises were part of functionalist models applied, for example, to data from south-east Spain (Chapman 1982; Gilman 1987). Bell Beaker pottery gradually came to be considered as a prestige item and a symbol of power at a time of potential political instability (Shennan 1982: 155).

The majority of contemporary researchers who have defi ned the origin and routes of the dissemination of the Bell Beaker phenomenon have comprehensively explained the terms and dynamics of the process (Brodie 2001), leading to more accurate models. The result has been a series of intermediary diff usionist studies that focus explanations on specifi c movements (Case 1977, 1984, 2004, 2007; Needham 2005; Vander Linden 2007b), the eff ects of stylistic and productive transmission (Salanova 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005) and generalized networks of exchange (Gallay 1997–1998; Vander Linden 2004, 2006b, 2007a). These models are based on movements of people recorded from very early times (Chiaradia et al. 2003; Price et al. 1994; Price et al. 2004). The development of more complex views of the phenomenon has been supported by the increasing volume of the archaeological record and by the development of new analytical techniques, such as the study of strontium isotopes (Chiaradia et al. 2003; Fitzpatrick 2002, 2004; Price et al. 1994, 1998; Price et al. 2004). This has led to a growing awareness of the complexity of the period and the variability of the contexts (Benz et al. 1998; Chapman 1987; Salanova 2005; Vander Linden 2004). However, only a few studies seem to have taken the risk of suggesting interpretations that pay more att ention

to the people who lived with and shared Bell Beaker pott ery (Garrido-Pena 2006; Kim 2005; Rojo-Guerra et al. 2006b; Thomas 1991, 2005; Turek 2000, 2006a, 2006b; Vander Linden 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2007a).

In recent years, the theses that explicitly argued the beginning of social hierarchization have been revised. The variability of the phenomenon itself calls for refi nement of these arguments and supports intermediate solutions. The case of the ‘transegalitarian’ societies (Hayden 1995), which argues for a model in which leadership was not institutionalized, is applied by Rafael Garrido-Pena (1994, 1997, 2000, 2006; Garrido-Pena et al. 2005) to the Central Meseta of the Iberian Peninsula and serves as an example. Further examples are found in other studies in Western Europe (Brodie 1997, 1998; Díaz del Río 2001, 2006, 2008; Mizoguchi 1990; Thomas 2005; Vicent 1998). All the above share the premise that the Bell Beaker phenomenon was situated within a long period of social instability marked by ‘acephalic’ societies with litt le social diff erentiation (Harrison and Mederos Martín 2001: 119–20). Perhaps Marc Vander Linden’s studies (2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2007a) currently present the most robust alternative, as they are able to contend with a record that is both varied and homogenous, depending on the scale applied. Contrary to hypotheses governed by the issue of hierarchization, the present author maintains that an intensifi cation of social relations between individuals in terms of know-how and networks of interaction leads to a more dynamic and less competitive social scenario than previous studies argued.

Context under constructionThe Bell Beaker period represents an intermediate period between the supposed equality of the Neolithic and the incipient hierarchization of the Bronze Age. This has led some authors to develop hypotheses concerning intra-societal processes at this time (Brück 2006; Harrison and Heyd 2007; Thomas 2000; Vander Linden 2005). The adoption by segments of society – predominantly male – of characteristics that until then had been unknown or were litt le developed, such as the symbolism of the warrior hero, body care or feasting practices, seems to indicate that the fi rst signs of individuality were appearing in certain sectors of the group (Hernando 2007: 171). Therefore, apart from profound transformations in the social structure of communities, these could also be indicating changes in terms of identity that would have aff ected only certain sectors of the population.

The gradual consolidation of the peasant way of life (Vicent 1990: 288–289), population growth and

Lucía Moragón50

the eff ects of technological innovation, such as the Secondary Products Revolution, would have led to more complex economic models that were coherent with more diversifi ed production and more extensive strategies of exchange (Evershed et al. 2008; Garrido-Pena 2000; Sherratt 1981, 1983). This indicates that economic developments resulted in transformations in the social sphere, that would have been expressed through variations and innovations in material culture, of which the Bell Beaker package is a striking example. The Bell Beaker phenomenon could be included in intermediate social models positioned between an almost egalitarian way of life, in which there were no ownership rights or social diff erences beyond age and sex, and one that features an incipient institutionalization of power in the hands of specifi c individuals, who received their privileges through inheritance. At this stage the elite group, and more particularly the family and descent group, would have played a key role in the reproduction of the social and economic model (Díaz del Río 2006, 2008). The high frequency of women and children’s tombs with Bell Beaker grave goods seems to be an expression of these relationships (Brodie 1997, 1998, 2001; Price et al. 1994, 1998; Price et al. 2004; Turek 2000, 2006a). A result of these combined social and economic factors would have been the appearance of the fi rst intracommunal and interpersonal diff erences not defi ned in terms of a fully institutionalized political power, but instead as specifi c body image and care strategies (Turner 1995: 147–148). In this sense, the Bell Beaker funerary package is more restricted and more active in visual terms than that found in comparable contexts in the preceding Neolithic period. The Bell Beaker funeral is characterized by an intention to present a specifi c image of the deceased with the aim of transmitt ing and impressing on the memory of the mourners a specifi c symbolic message (Barrett 1990: 186; Mizoguchi 1993: 224; Thomas 1991; Treherne 1995: 113).

Practices of this kind indicate structural changes in the conception of these individuals, perhaps contributing to the construction of a new identity in contrast to previous practices and norms. The constitution of discrete identity groups with restricted membership created a need to introduce mechanisms that would make this diff erence acceptable (Jenkins 1996:4). In societies that do not have a technological and economic complexity but traditionally base their existence on an identity fi rmly rooted in a concept of communality, this process would be especially diffi cult, because it deals with the way the people understand themselves and the world around them (Brück 2004; Busby 1997; Hernando 1999, 2002; Lévy-Bruhl 1985[1927]). The fact that certain individuals can

obtain a series of overtly expressed rights over others (e.g. specifi c burials in a specifi c location and with specifi c grave goods) is an expression of inequality within a group directly associated with the fact that these individuals begin to feel ‘distant’ from the group (Elias 1990: 149–151; Hernando 2007: 171). The accumulation of resources, control of routes of exchange and means of production, economic specialization, and journeys over long distances are just some of the ways that may have led some individuals to develop the mechanisms necessary to separate themselves from the rest of their local group people. The growing control and dominance over nature at this time, which accompanied social and economic processes such as those described above, provided social entrepreneurs with the confi dence needed to redefi ne their social reality (Hernando 2002: 162–163).

Although these features of burial customs are incipient signs of individualization, they are far from what we would consider today as individual, a term that came into general use in the seventeenth century (Elias 1990). The standardization of grave goods, for example, seems to respond to the creation of a minority language amongst equals that hinders the possibility of referring to individual strategies of action and diff erentiation. Paradoxically, these strategies of mimesis with other elite groups would have allowed them to overcome the internal diff erences they were developing within their own group.

From the above perspective, the Bell Beaker phenomenon partially coincides with studies that support a dynamic social system in which there was room for networks of interaction and exchange of ideas between groups (Harrison and Heyd 2007; Vander Linden 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b). This implies that bonds were created within the social group itself, as well as between elites belonging to diff erent groups.

As the intra-group differences became more pronounced, the people involved in this process would have developed complex communication strategies in order to connect with similar sectors in other groups. In the same way as groups without a clearly defi ned division of functions between members express their shared identity through the same bodily appearance (Hernando 2002), it can be claimed that the transformation of social and economic dynamics would also have been expressed through the body. Bell Beaker pots, and particularly the luxury items oft en found as grave goods, serve as clear signs of a community familiarized with their symbology. Such treatment of the body in death, and presumably in life, responds to precise strategies of social, economic and cultural activity that represent the inclusion in a power


group and also its social distance from the majority. The body as an expression of identity may thus be a valid means to characterize social contexts and perceive changes in the most deeply rooted functional structures of a community.In the case of the Bell Beaker phenomenon, much of the record we know of to date comes from tombs, meaning that the development of an analytical method focused on funerary practices in relation to the body may be considered valid.

The Bell Beaker funerary record The social, economic and political transformations that characterized the third millennium BC may respond to similar types of profound processes of structural change. The Bell Beaker phenomenon, with its various expressions, is an ideal example of the dialectic between representation, social transformation and structural change. This can be seen, for example, in the funerary sphere, where funerary rites seem to be completely focused on transmitt ing a specifi c image of the deceased. This is achieved by separating the deceased from the group (as opposed to Neolithic practices) and focusing att ention on a single body with a name, lineage and a social, economic or political status within the community, and, more importantly, accompanied by a series of restricted minority symbols (Brück 2004; Harrison and Heyd 2007; Sherratt 1987; Sørensen 1997; Treherne 1995). Practices of this kind became more systematic and this process culminated in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age (Hill 1997).

The funerary record in general provides unique information for archaeologists. Apart from its highly symbolic content, which can also be found in other facets of human activity, the funerary record constitutes an essential framework through which it is possible to comprehend the non-verbal dialogues and discourses of the past. In oral societies, public rituals should be considered a key to the exchange of information and essential for building social memory (Connerton 1989). The symbology used must be direct and clear for all the people present at the event whatever their relationship to the deceased. The funeral ritual and tomb materially convey messages through, for example, the treatment of the corpse prior to burial, the way the deceased is laid out in the tomb, the type of grave goods, or the way the grave goods are positioned in relation to the body. It should be emphasized at this point that there is a direct relationship between what is expressed here and a deeply rooted order of rationality (Criado-Boado 2000, 2001b; Tilley 1990). Such coherence is a prerequisite for understanding the message

intended for transmission. As a result, grave goods as characteristic as those seen in the Bell Beaker culture could express the social recognition of the deceased, sett ing him or her apart at the moment of the burial (Thomas 1991: 39–40, 2000: 656, 2005: 116).

The tomb as constructed spaceBell Beaker inhumation burials are usually strictly delimited in spatial terms, creating a place that is especially singularized in order to serve as a container for the deceased (Figure 5.1). Whether it is a single burial or two or more successive inhumations, the space does not vary much, although the internal distribution of the tomb does.

These may be isolated single burials also found in groups forming ‘fi elds of burial mounds’, necropoli, or associated with megalithic tombs. In the latt er case, most of the megaliths re-used for Bell Beaker burials correspond to a period of closure of megalithic spaces. Thus burials in the access corridors, in front of the entrance, on the top or one of the sides of the mound or in the burial chamber itself, established a symbolic distinction between the diff erent spaces. In some cases, this diff erentiation involves a limited transformation of the area, either by overturning one of the standing stones, or by re-organizing the collective ossuary. At the same time, the accessibility that characterized megalithic monuments, which remained open for long periods, is blocked. An example of this practice could be documented at the mound of La Sima in Soria, Spain (Rojo-Guerra et al. 2005a, 2005b). This site presents a detailed sequence that helps us to understand this process: fi rst, a collective tomb which was intentionally sealed by a ritual fi re in the Mid-Neolithic (c. 4000–3900 cal. BC), then a second stage of re-use with the construction of a tholos-type structure over the limestone crust left by the fi rst tomb (c. 3700–3600 cal. BC), and fi nally the depositing of several bodies with Bell Beaker grave goods (while only two bodies were preserved, the grave goods recovered correspond to a larger number of individuals), in an area delimited by stone blocks and dated to the last third of the third millennium BC (c. 2400–2200 cal. BC) (Figures 5.2 and 5.3).

Space has been extensively discussed in anthropology and archaeology (e.g. Andrés Rupérez 2000; Criado-Boado 1989, 1991, 1999; Goldstein 1981; Mizoguchi 1992; Moore 1996 [1986]). It is a parameter of order that, combined with time, serves to structure the world and the reality in which one lives (Elias 1992; Hernando 2002). As a result, all its manifestations respond to specific cognitive strategies. The organization of the tomb (the funerary space and its relationship,

Lucía Moragón52

Figure 5.1: Example of Bell Beaker individual burial: a very rich female burial found in Mĕlník/Central Bohemia (aft er Turek 2004: 148).


for example, with the body it contains) is based on a very precise mental patt ern of order. In turn, this model serves to formulate coherent messages aimed at a group. In the Bell Beaker funerary record, it is possible to distinguish a number of details that express the transformation of identity from the traditional communal system to the incipient features of individualization.

The most common Bell Beaker burial rite involved placing the deceased in a foetal position on their side. Past body treatments that hid the identity of the individual in favour of a collective had almost disappeared. Now emphasis was placed on the connection between the tomb and the body deposited within it as a physical unit where nothing was concealed. These features are the complete opposite of those that characterized, for example, burials in the Late Neolithic in Western Europe, where the body disappeared into a uniform mass of bodies and the space became intrinsically communal (Rojo-Guerra et al. 2005a; Shanks and Tilley 1982; Thomas 2000). In this sense, the exterior monumentality of the

megalithic tomb, focusing on its grandiose physical nature, is opposed to the internal monumentality of a Bell Beaker tomb, which mainly focuses on the att ractiveness and intrinsic quality of the grave goods. In the Late Neolithic, a tendency of decreasing the size of the megalithic chamber in favour of preparation and elaboration of grave goods has been noticed (Criado-Boado 1989; Criado-Boado and Vázquez-Varela 1982). The monuments become less visible – the mounds become smaller and less elaborate – and the chamber, being reduced in size, becomes more functional. In addition, corridors are shortened to the point of disappearing.

The megalith, a lasting element in space and time (Criado-Boado 1991), attenuates the unstoppable rhythm of change. The solidity and preponderance of the megalith generates a sensation of eternity, contradicting the threat posed by the passage of time. As the socio-economic context becomes more complex, the tools for controlling and objectivizing the world provide a solid base through which it is possible to face this change. Neolithic societies were not able

Figure 5.2: Bell Beaker re-use in the mound of La Sima Soria, Spain (aft er Rojo-Guerra et al. 2005b).

Lucía Moragón54

to confront a dynamic of lineal time in the way we understand it today, as their dynamics for controlling change would not have been capable of withstanding the situation of uncertainty caused by a strong lack of material control over their living conditions. It is for this reason, and because the variety of activities is still small and highly recurrent, that space, as a static parameter, would have been established as the main means through which to organize reality. This would have been further supported by a cyclical concept of time, mainly linked to the dynamics of nature (Hernando 1999, 2001a, 2002). The Bell Beaker tomb breaks away from these processes of concealing change, as it constitutes a specifi c moment in space: both the ceremony and the chosen space are linked to this precise moment (Figures 5.4 and 5.5). As we

will also see, ascribing the tomb to specifi c people considered as singular ancestors would have further emphasized the separation between the past, the present, and the future (Andrés Rupérez 2000: 66; Küchler 1993; Rowlands 1993; Thomas 2000: 656, 2005: 108; Thomas and Whitt le 1986: 139). The conception of a linear time dynamic means that an initial objectivizing of the world is occurring, a step that marked the beginning of a progressive separation between the subject and the universe-object that surrounds him or her. This change is related to the ability to control the living conditions, which is perceived as some subjects become emotionally separated from the natural phenomena. In short, perception of time (and space), an ability to control, an emotional connection with nature, and the perception of the subject, have to be

Figure 5.3: Bell Beaker burials and assemblages in the mound of La Sima (Soria, Spain) (aft er Rojo-Guerra et al. 2005b).


Figure 5.4 and 5.5: These images represent diff erent perceptual languages: The megalith as lasting time and space, and Bell Beaker burial as a specifi c moment in time and space.

understood as four interrelated global processes. The beginning of these transformations would have begun to take shape in the periods immediately preceding the pre-Beaker Chalcolithic, in which convincing indications may already be observed: metallurgy and other technological innovations, individual burials with personal grave goods, a greater level of economic specialization, and the development of systems of exchange (Garrido-Pena 2000).

The place of a new bodySimple individual burials became generalized from the Late Neolithic onwards. The aim of the present contribution is not to look all the examples that, prior to this period, reproduced these types of funerary practices (such as the hunter-gatherer tombs). The goal here is to establish the clearly apparent diff erences that exist, especially in the funerary record, between the Bell Beaker period and those prior to it. The data that should att ract the most att ention are perhaps those of the distinct funerary ritual that was carried out. Regarding the Late Neolithic to Bell Beaker transition, it is observed that what diff erentiates the earlier individual burials from the Bell Beaker culture or the Bronze Age is the diff erentiation of a minority of people, the distinguishing of a kind of elite, and the exclusion of the majority. This strategy was based on the display and deposition of grave goods which, apart from having in some cases a very high intrinsic value, belonged to a standardized series that was geographically widespread (this was an inherent element of its symbolic value). Most of the elements

included in the Beaker Package are the products of specialized craft s whose techniques oft en come from very remote locations (Benz et al. 1998; Brodie 2001; Rojo-Guerra et al. 2006a; Vander Linden 2006b). This is the case, for example, of the vessel from Forno dos Mouros (Galicia, Spain): a large corded Bell Beaker made of local raw material, but with very similar techniques to those used in Britt any (Prieto-Martínez et al. 2008).

The level of standardization among Bell Beaker grave goods has oft en been compared to that of the Corded Ware Culture (Turek 2004, 2006a; Vander Linden 2003, 2004, 2007a). Most of these studies focus on the similarity of the messages used to express a situation of transformation in social discourses and, consequently, of the structures of perception and organization of the world. Both traditions are characterized by individual forms of burial, by the diff erent orientation of the tombs depending on the sex of the deceased, and by the presence of highly characteristic grave goods. That said, the type of burial seen in the Corded Ware Culture has a number of fi xed characteristics that establish, for example, clearly defi ned diff erences between the sexes (Brodie 2001). The Bell Beaker phenomenon, in this sense, reveals a greater variability in the record and as a result, a much more extensive framework of identities that included men, women, and children. Both refl ect moments of greater socio-political complexity than in previous contexts, but they diff er signifi cantly in the social structure to which they correspond.

Based on a number of anthropological studies of oral societies with limited social and economic

Lucía Moragón56

complexity, it is possible to perceive a series of highly signifi cant criteria in relation to the body, such as those related to the perception and production of reality, the construction of subjectivity, cosmology and even ontology. In order to understand the transformations visible in the archaeological record, it is therefore necessary to explore the framework of rationality and identity that would have predominated in societies with less socio-economic complexity.

The majority of these studies tend to agree on the fact that in these social contexts, in which there is no specialization or division of labour, it is not possible to refer to such a clearly defi ned separation between the body and the mind. There exists instead a very diff erent concept of reality that encompassed the presence of a unifying spirit that would aff ect both people and inanimate objects. The body, in relation to its external qualities, would be understood as a changeable entity, a disguise which in some way could be cast off , and which would not be recognized in the same terms as those we use today (Descola 2004; Elias 2002[1983]; Leenhardt 1997[1947]; Lévy-Bruhl 1985[1927]; LiPuma 1988, 2001; Viveiros de Castro 2004). This is due to fact that the body was not objectivized as an entity disconnected from us (or rather, disconnected from our soul = receptacle of subjectivity), but a secondary fact in an ontology built almost completely on spirituality. This situation is clearly exemplifi ed by the incident that Maurice Leenhardt (1997[1947]:227) described during an ethnographic study of inhabitants in New Caledonia: he was surprised to learn that the body had not been ‘discovered’ until the spirit had become separated from it – in other words, until the body ceased to be understood as a diff erent reality in itself what until then had been ‘all spirit’ (Lévy-Bruhl 1985 [1927]).

This means that only relatively late in history, particularly linked to the development of writing, would there have been a concept of a sharply delimited person. In prehistory we should talk about an open, dual and fluid concept of the person. This is a perception of personhood that would permit the direct ‘participation’ and interaction of other living bodies in order to defi ne their universe, their community or their position within it (Itenau 1988; Turner 1995: 150, 164). Co-substantiality is generated and fuelled by exchanges and transactions of all kinds between the members of the group (Strathern 1988), thereby preserving its collective identity (Fowler 2004; Gamble 2007). The inability to see oneself as a unique subject, diff erent from the rest, would have distanced the people of the past from processes of individual abstraction or self-awareness, as well as from the possibility of creating a distance between the subject

and the object, which is characteristic of Western cognitive practices. A gradual, complex process involving the objectifi cation of the body has to occur in parallel with the increasing individualization of the person, or the ‘discovery’ of one’s own specifi city as a subject. This development is closely linked to the increasing complexity of the social, economic and political circumstances of the period. In my opinion, the pre-Beaker Chalcolithic, Bell Beaker and Bronze Age periods are crucial to the understanding and recognition of these transformations.

Many authors have highlighted the clearly collective nature of funerary structures from the Late Neolithic in the west of Europe (Barrett 1990; Criado-Boado 1989, 1991; Oliveira Jorge 1995; Shanks and Tilley 1982; Shennan 1982; Thomas and Tilley 1992; Thomas and Whitt le 1986; Vicent 1990, 1995). Such collective structures seem to be a response to the ritual worship of ancestors, which perhaps functioned as an att empt to maintain group cohesion at a time when increasing socio-economic transformations were causing social tension.

The systematic re-use of the burial chamber (Thomas 1991: 34), the practices of dislocating the bodies and then rearranging them, the circulation of certain bones before they were deposited (Thomas 2000: 660, 2005: 109–110), the absence of individualized grave goods and the performing of episodes of symbolic integration (for example, through the burning of the tomb) (see Figure 5.6; Rojo-Guerra et al. 2005a, 2005b) reveal ‘an absolute de-individualization in the face of death’ (Criado-Boado 1991: 105). These practices reveal an intentionality of not showing individual identities, but instead those that are purely collective and undefi ned (Criado-Boado 1989: 91; Shanks and Tilley 1982: 151).

In contrast to the situation in the Late Neolithic, the Bell Beaker phenomenon establishes a new genealogical nexus between the living and the dead (Thomas 2005; Treherne 1995; Vicent 1998). The occultist way of treating dead bodies from Neolithic times was replaced by a ceremony that in all likelihood would have been open to all members of the group (Barrett 1990: 186). In this way, a specifi c ritual would have inserted the image of a singular person into the collective group memory, an individual entitled to be treated as a recognized ancestor (the member of a lineage). The typical features of the individual tomb seem to att empt to displace the traditional community spirit in order to deliberately adopt a diff erentiated style. A frequently used tactic for this purpose, as already mentioned, was the re-use of spaces that until that time had been strictly communal.


Some fi nal remarksIn writing this paper, I have tried to off er a new perspective of what the Bell Beaker period could mean in terms of identity and mentality change. The objective of introducing the role of the body in archaeology is to capture the dynamics related to the identity of communities from specifi c periods through interpretations of material remains. The body is the human factor.

In the case of the Bell Beaker phenomenon, the ‘body perspective’ activates new data to those generally accepted, but also off ers additional perspectives and tools for perceiving and understanding processes of social, economic and cultural change. The data provided by the funerary record from the third millennium BC infer transformations of identity on a grand scale. At

the same time, inter-group diff erences and similarities between equals from diff erent groups join together in a new context of change. This situation fl ows into the creation and development of a new identity and language and new strategies of social activity.

To conclude, archaeologists must be aware of the fact that the people and scenarios we investigate are not the same as those we know today. Many of the images that have been associated with the Bell Beaker culture are taken from modern-day social models. Few studies have att empted to explore the real difference that exists between them without intending to legitimize the current situation; instead, they fall victim to the structural abyss that separates us and makes each society or culture unique in terms of equality (Hernando 2001b).

Figure 5.6: Site plan of the collective ossuary inserted into the limestone crust of La Sima (Soria, Spain) (aft er Rojo-Guerra et al. 2005b).

Lucía Moragón58

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Christopher Prescott for having given me the opportunity to take part in this volume. I would also like to thank my tutor, Almudena Hernando, for accompanying me on my fi rst steps as a researcher. Thanks to the entire team at the Heritage Laboratory for helping and teaching me, especially Pilar Prieto-Martínez for her patience, Lois Armada for his careful review of the text, and Anxo Rodríguez-Paz for his speedy and altruistic help. I also appreciate the contributions of Rafael Garrido-Pena and Cristina Tejedor-Rodríguez. Any error or oversight is entirely my responsibility.

ReferencesAndrés Rupérez, M. T. 2000 El espacio funerario dolménico:

abandono y clausura. Saldvie I: 59–76.Barrett , J. C. 1990 The monumentality of death: the character

of Early Bronze Age mortuary mounds in southern Britain. World Archaeology 22(2): 180–189.

Benz, M., Gramsch, A., Wiermann, R. R. and van Willingen, S. 1998 Rethinking Bell Beakers. In Some New Approaches to The Bell Beaker ‘Phenomenon’. Lost Paradise…? Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the “Association Archéologie et Gobelets”. Feldberd (Germany), 18th–20th April 1997, edited by M. Benz and S. van Willingen, pp. 181–191. BAR International Series 690. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Bosch Gimpera, P. 1940 The types and chronology of west European ‘Beakers’. Man 1–2: 6–10.

Bosch Gimpera, P. 1970 Tipos y cronología del Vaso Campaniforme. Archivo Español de Arqueología 43(121–122): 3–37.

Bosch Gimpera, P. 1975 Prehistoria de Europa. Las Raíces Prehistóricas de Europa. Istmo, Madrid.

Brodie, N. 1994 The Neolithic-Bronze Age Transition in Britain. A Critical Review of some Archaeological and Craniological Concepts. BAR International Series 238. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Brodie, N. 1997 New perspective on the Bell Beaker Culture. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(3): 297–314.

Brodie, N. 1998 British Bell Beakers: Twenty Five Years of Theory and Practice. In Some New Approaches to The Bell Beaker ‘Phenomenon’. Lost Paradise…? Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the “Association Archéologie et Gobelets”. Feldberd (Germany), 18th–20th April 1997, edited by M. Benz and S. van Willingen, pp. 43–56. BAR International Series 690. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Brodie, N. 2001 Technological frontiers and the emergence of the Beaker culture. In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Riva del Garda, Trento, Italy, May 1998), edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 487–496. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Brück, J. 2004 Material metaphors. The relational construction of identity in Early Bronze Age burials in Ireland and Britain. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(3): 307–333.

Brück, J. 2006 Fragmentation, personhood and the social construction of technology in Middle and Late Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16(3): 297–315.

Budziszewski, J., Haduch, E. and Włodarczak, P. 2003 Bell Beaker culture in south-eastern Poland. In The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers, edited by J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt, pp. 155–181. BAR International Series 1155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Burgess, C. and Shennan, S. 1976 The Beaker Phenomenon: some suggestions. In Sett lement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC, edited by C. Burgess and R. Miket, pp. 309–331. BAR British Series 33. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Busby, C. 1997 Permeable and partible persons: a comparative analysis of gender and body in south India and Melanesia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 3:261–278.

Case, H. 1977 Bell Beakers in Britain and Ireland. In Beakers in Britain and Europe, edited by R. Mercer, pp. 71–89. BAR International Series 26. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Case, H. 1984 The Beaker Culture in Britain and Ireland. In L’Age du Cuivre Européen. Civilisations à Vases Campaniformes, edited by J. Guilaine, pp. 37–50. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifi que, Paris.

Case, H. 2004 Beakers and the Beaker Culture. In Similar but diff erent: Bell Beakers in Europe. Poznań Symposium, Poland, 26–29 May 2002, edited by J. Czebreszuk, pp 11–34. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.

Case, H. 2007 Beakers and the Beaker Culture. In Beyond Stonehenge. Essays on the Bronze-Age in honour of Colin Burgess, edited by C. Burgess, P. Topping and F. Lynch, pp. 237–254. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Castillo Yurrita, A. 1922 La cerámica incisa de la cultura de las cuevas de la Península Ibérica y el problema de origen de la especie del vaso campaniforme. Anuario de la Universidad de Barcelona: 1–20. Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Castillo Yurrita, A. 1928 La cultura del vaso campaniforme: su origen y su extensión por Europa. Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Chapman, R. 1982 Autonomy, ranking and resources in Iberian prehistory. In Ranking, Resources and Exchange. Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, edited by C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, pp. 46–51. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Chapman, R. 1987 ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’: Some observations on Beaker studies. In Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean. Defi nition, Interpretation, Theory and New Site Data. The Oxford International Conference 1986, edited by W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 61–80. BAR International Series 331(i). British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Chiaradia, M., Gallay, A. and Todt, W. 2003 Different contamination styles of prehistoric human teeth at a Swiss necropolis (Sion, Valais) inferred from lead and strontium isotopes. Applied Geochemistry 18(3): 353–370.

Childe, V. G. 1930 The Origin of the Bell-Beaker. Man 30: 200–201.

Clarke, D. 1976 The Beaker network-social and economic models. In Glockenbecher Symposium (Oberried, 1974), edited by J. L. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 459–477. Fibula-van Dishoeck, Bussum and Haarlem.

Connerton, P. 1989 How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Criado-Boado, F. 1989 Megalitos, espacio, pensamiento. Trabajos de Prehistoria 46: 75–98.


Criado-Boado, F. 1991 Tiempos megalíticos y espacios modernos. Historia y Crítica I: 85–108.

Criado-Boado, F. 1999 Del Terreno al Espacio: Planteamientos y Perspectivas para la Arqueología del Paisaje. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela.

Criado-Boado, F. 2000 Walking about Lévi-Strauss. Contributions to an Archaeology of Thought. In Philosophy and Archaeological Practice. Perspectives for the 21st Century, edited by C. Holtorf and H. Karlsson, pp. 277–303. Bricoleur Press, Göteborg.

Criado-Boado, F. 2001a La memoria y su huella. Sobre arqueología, patrimonio e identidad. Claves de Razón Práctica 115: 36–43.

Criado-Boado, F. 2001b Problems, functions and conditions of archaeological knowledge. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(1): 126–146.

Criado-Boado, F. and Vázquez-Varela, J. M. 1982 La cerámica campaniforme en Galicia. Cuadernos do Seminario de Sargadelos 42: 97–104.

Czebreszuk, J. 2003: Bell Beakers from West to East. In Ancient Europe. 8000 B.C.–A.D. 1000. Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World, edited by P. Bogucki and P.J. Crabtree, pp. 476–485. Thomson Gale, New York.

Descola, P. 2004 Las cosmologías indígenas de la Amazonía. In Tierra Adentro. Territorio Indígena y Percepción del Entorno, edited by A. Surrallés and P. García Hierro, pp. 25–35. IWGIA, Copenhagen.

Desideri, J. and Eades, S. 2002 La question du “peuplement” campaniforme en suisse occidentale. État de la question et apports de la morphologie dentaire et crânienne. Bulletins et Mémories de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 14(3–4): 345–362.

Desideri, J. and Eades, S. 2004 Le peuplement campaniforme en Suisse. Nouveaux apports de la morphologie crânienne et dentaire. In Graves and Funerary Rituals during the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age in Europe (2007–2000 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Cantonal Archaeological Museum, Sion (Switzerland), October 4th–7th 2001, edited by M. Besse and J. Desideri, pp. 99–109. BAR International Series 1284. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Díaz del Río, P. 2001 La formación del paisaje agrario: Madrid en el III y II milenio BC. Arqueología, Paleontología y Etnografía 9. Comunidad de Madrid, Madrid.

Díaz del Río, P. 2006 An appraisal of social inequalities in Central Iberia (c. 5300–1600 cal BC). In Social Inequality in Iberian Recent Prehistory, edited by P. Díaz del Río and L. García Sanjuán, pp. 67–79. BAR International Series 1525. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Díaz del Río, P. 2008 El contexto social de las agregaciones de población durante el Calcolítico Peninsular. Era Arqueología 8: 128–137.

Elias, N. 1990 La Sociedad de los Individuos. Península, Barcelona.Elias, N. 1992 Time: an Essay. Blackwell, Oxford.Elias, N. 2002 [1982] Compromiso y Distanciamiento. Ensayos de

Sociología del Conocimiento. Peninsula, Barcelona.Evershed, R. P., Payne, S., Sherratt , A., Copley, M. S., Coolidge, J.,

Urem-Kotsu, D., Kotsakis, K., Özdoğan, M., Nieuwenhuyse, O., Akkermans, P., Bailey, D., Andeescu, R. R., Campbell, S., Farid, S., Hodder, I., Yalman, N., Özbaşaran, M., Biçakci, E., Garfi nkel, Y., Levy, T. and Burton, M. M. 2008 Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to catt le herding. Nature 455(25): 528–531.

Fitzpatrick, A. 2002 ‘The Amesbury Archer’: a well-furnished Early Bronze Age burial in southern England. Antiquity 76: 629–630.

Fitzpatrick, A. 2004 The Boscombe bowmen: builders of Stonehenge? Current Archaeology 193: 10–16.

Fowler, C. 2004 The Archaeology of Personhood. An Anthropological Approach. Routledge, London.

Gallay, A. 1997–1998 L’Énigme Campaniforme. In L’énigmatique civilisation campaniforme, pp. 14–19. Hors-Série d’Archéologie 9. Editions Faton, Dĳ on.

Gamble, C. 2007 Origins and Revolutions. Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Garrido-Pena, R. 1994 A vueltas con el problema campaniforme: nuevos datos, viejas teorías. Arqurítica 8: 19–20.

Garrido-Pena, R. 1997 Bell Beakers in the Southern Meseta of the Iberian Peninsula: socioeconomic context and new data. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(2): 187–209.

Garrido-Pena, R. 2000 El Campaniforme en la Meseta Central de la Península Ibérica (c. 2500–2000 A.C.). BAR International Series 892. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Garrido-Pena, R. 2005 The Beaker Labyrinth: Brief history of an intellectual challenge. In Bell Beakers in the Iberian Peninsula and their European Context, edited by M. A. Rojo-Guerra, R. Garrido-Pena and I. García Martínez de Lagrán, pp. 29–44. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.

Garrido-Pena, R. 2006 Transegalitarian societies: an ethno-archaeological model for the analysis of Copper Age Bell Beaker using groups in Central Iberia. In Social Inequality in Iberian Recent Prehistory, edited by P. Díaz del Río and L. García Sanjuán, pp. 81–96. BAR International Series 1525. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Garrido-Pena, R., Rojo-Guerra, M. A. and García Martínez de Lagrán, I. 2005 Bell Beakers in Central Iberia (the Inner Meseta). In Bell Beakers in the Iberian Peninsula and Their European Context, edited by M. A. Rojo-Guerra, R. Garrido-Pena and I. García Martínez de Lagrán, pp. 411–456. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.

Gilman, A. 1987 Unequal development in Copper Age Iberia. In Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies, edited by E. M. Brumfi el and T. K. Earle, pp. 22–29. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gimbutas, M. 1977 The fi rst wave of Eurasian steppe pastoralists into Copper Age Europe. Journal of Indo-European Studies 5: 277–338.

Goldstein, L. 1981 One-dimensional archaeology and multi-dimensional people: spatial organization and mortuary analysis. In The Archaeology of Death, edited by R. Chapman, I. Kinnes and K. Randsborg, pp. 53–69. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Harrison, R. J. and Heyd, V. 2007 The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland). Prehistorische Zeitschrift 82: 129–214.

Harrison, R. J. and Mederos Martín, A. 2001 Bell Beakers and social complexity in Central Spain. In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Riva del Garda, Trento, Italy, May 1998), edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 111–124. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Hayden, B. 1995 Pathways to power. Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In Foundations of Social Inequality,

Lucía Moragón60

edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 15–86. Plenum Press, New York and London.

Hernando, A. 1992 Enfoques teóricos en Arqueología. Spal 1:11–35.

Hernando, A. 1999 Percepción de la realidad y Prehistoria. Relación entre la construcción de la identidad y la complejidad socio-económica en los grupos humanos. Trabajos de Prehistoria 56(2): 19–35.

Hernando, A. 2001a Sociedades del pasado y Prehistoria del presente. El caso del Calcolítico de la Península Ibérica. Complutum 12: 217–236.

Hernando, A. 2001b Sobre identidad y Prehistoria Arqueoweb. Revista sobre Arqueología en Internet 3(3). Electronic document, htt p://www.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb/numero3_3/ articulo3_3_hernando.html

Hernando, A. 2002 Arqueología de la Identidad. Akal, Madrid.Hernando, A. 2007 Sexo, género y poder: breve refl exión sobre

algunos conceptos manejados en la Arqueología del Género. Complutum 18: 167–174.

Hill, J. D. 1997 ‘The end of one kind of body and the beginning of another kind of body?’ Toilet instruments and ‘Romanization’ in southern England during the first century AD. In Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, edited by A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove, pp. 96–107. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Itenau, A. 1988 The concept of the person and the ritual system: an Orokaiva view. Man 25: 35–53.

Jenkins, R. 1996 Social Identity. Routledge, London and New York.

Kalicz-Schreiber, R. and Kalicz, N. 1998–2000 The role of Bell Beakers in refl ecting social relations in the Early Bronze Age of Budapest. Archaeologiai Értesító 125: 45–78.

Kim, J. 2005 Formation and change in individual identity between the Bell Beaker Culture and the Early Bronze Age in Bavaria, South Germany. BAR International Series 1450. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Kossina, G. 1902 Die indogermanische Frage archäologisch beantwortet. Zeitschrift Für Ethnologie 34: 161–222.

Küchler, S. 1993 Landscape as memory: the mapping of process and its representation in Melanesian society. In Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, edited by B. Bender, pp. 85–106. Berg, Oxford.

Leenhardt, M. 1997 [1947] Do Kamo: la Persona y el Mito en el Mundo Melanesio. Spanish edition. Paidós, Barcelona.

Lemercier, O. 1998 The Bell Beaker phenomenon in the Southeast of France. The state of research and preliminary remarks about the TGV-excavations and some other sites of the Provence. In Some New Approaches to The Bell Beaker ‘Phenomenon’. Lost Paradise…? Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the “Association Archéologie et Gobelets”. Feldberd (Germany), 18th–20th April 1997, edited by M. Benz and S. van Willingen, pp. 23–41. BAR International Series 690. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Lemercier, O. 2004a Explorations, implantations et diff usions: le “phénomène” campaniforme en France méditerranéenne. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 101(2): 227–238.

Lemercier, O. 2004b Historical model of sett ing and spread of Bell Beaker Culture in the Mediterranean France. In Similar but diff erent: Bell Beakers in Europe. Poznań Symposium, Poland, 26–29 May 2002, edited by J. Czebreszuk, pp. 193–202. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.

Lévy-Bruhl, L. 1985 [1927] El Alma Primitiva. Península, Barcelona.

LiPuma, E. 1988 The Gift of Kinship. Structure and Practice in Maring Social Organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

LiPuma, E. 2001 Encompassing Others. The Magic of Modernity in Melanesia. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Makarowicz, P. 2003 Northern and southern Bell Beakers in Poland. In The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers, edited by J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt, pp. 136–154. BAR International Series 1155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. 1935 Origen y Cronología del Vaso Campaniforme. Sociedad Española de Antropología, Etnografía y Prehistoria XIV(2–3): 257–259.

Mizoguchi, K. 1990 The “materiality” of Wessex Beakers. Scott ish Archaeological Review 7: 175–185.

Mizoguchi, K. 1992 A historiography of a linear barrow cemetery: a structurationist’s point of view. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 11(1): 39–49.

Mizoguchi, K. 1993 Time in the reproduction of mortuary practices. World Archaeology 25(2): 223–235.

Montelius, O. 1900 Die Chronologie der Ältesten Bronzezeit in Nord-Deutschland und Skandinavien. F. Vieweg und Sohn, Brawnschweig.

Moore, H. 1996 [1986] Space, Text and Gender: an Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya. The Guiford Press, New York.

Needham, S. 2005 Transforming Beaker culture in North-West Europe: Processes of fusion and fi ssion. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 171–217.

Oliveira Jorge, V. 1995 Reutilizaçoes e reaproveitamentos de materiais em sepulturas megalíticas do Nordeste Alentejano. In 1º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular: Actas, Porto, 12–18 de Outubro de 1993, edited by V. Oliveira Jorge, pp. 131–137. Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia y Etnologia, Porto.

Petrie, F. 1901 Diospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh & Hu. The Egypt Exploration Found, London.

Price, T. D., Grupe, G. and Schröter, P. 1994 Reconstruction of migration patt erns in the Bell Beaker period by stable strontium isotope analysis. Applied Geochemistry 9(4): 413–417.

Price, T. D., Grupe, G. and Schröter, P. 1998 Migration in the Bell Beaker period of central Europe. Antiquity 72(276): 405–411.

Price, T. D., Knipper, C., Grupe, G. and Smrcka, V. 2004 Strontium isotopes and prehistoric human migration: the Bell Beaker period in Central Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 7(1): 9–40.

Prieto-Martínez, P., Lantes Suárez, O. and Martínez Cortizas, A. 2008 O Campaniforme Cordado de Forno dos Mouros (Toques. A Coruña). Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos 55(121): 31–51.

Renfrew, C. 1990 Arqueología y Lenguaje. La Cuestión de los Orígenes de los Indoeuropeos. Crítica, Barcelona.

Rojo-Guerra, M. A., Garrido-Pena, R., Morán-Dauchez, G., García-Martínez de Lagrán, I. and Kunst, M. 2005a Del enterramiento colectivo a la tumba individual: el sepulcro monumental de La Sima en Miño de Medinaceli, Soria, España. Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología 71(1): 11–42.

Rojo-Guerra, M. A., Kunst, M., Garrido-Pena, R., García-Martínez de Lagrán, I. and Morán Dauchez, G. 2005b Un Desafío a la Eternidad: Tumbas Monumentales del Valle de Ambrona. Junta


de Castilla y León, Consejería de Educación y Cultura, Valladolid.

Rojo-Guerra, M. A., Garrido-Pena, R. and García-Martínez de Lagrán, I. 2006a Un peculiar vaso Campaniforme de Estilo Marítimo del Túmulo de La Sima, Miño de Medinaceli (Soria, España): Refl exiones en torno a las técnicas decorativas campaniformes y los sistemas de intercambios a larga distancia. Trabajos de Prehistoria 63(1):133–147.

Rojo-Guerra, M. A., Garrido-Pena, R., García-Martínez de Lagrán, I., Juan-Treserras, J. and Matamala, J. C. 2006b Beer and Bell Beakers: drinking rituals in Copper Age Inner Iberia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72: 243–265.

Rowlands, M. 1993 The role of memory in the transmission of culture. World Archaeology 25: 141–151.

Salanova, L. 1998 Le statut des assemblages campaniformes en contexte funéraire: la notion de “bien de prestige”. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95(3): 315–326.

Salanova, L. 2000 La Question du Campaniforme en France et dans les Îles Anglo-Normandes. Productions, Chronologie et Rôles d’un Standard Céramique. Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifi ques, Paris.

Salanova, L. 2001 Technological, ideological or economic European union? The variability of Bell Beaker decoration. In Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Riva del Garda, Trento, Italy, May 1998), edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 91–102. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Salanova, L. 2003 Heads North: Analysis of Bell Beakers graves in Western Europe. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 5: 163–169.

Salanova, L. 2004 The frontiers inside the western Bell Beaker block. In Similar but diff erent: Bell Beakers in Europe. Poznań Symposium, Poland, 26–29 May 2002, edited by J. Czebreszuk, pp. 63–76. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.

Salanova, L. 2005 The origins of the Bell Beaker phenomenon: Breakdown, analysis, mapping. In Bell Beakers in the Iberian Peninsula and their European Context, edited by M. A. Rojo-Guerra, R. Garrido-Pena and I. García Martínez de Lagrán, pp. 7–18. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.

Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1982 Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 129–153. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Shennan, S. 1976 Bell Beakers and their context in Central Europe. In Glockenbecher Symposium (Oberried, 1974), edited by J. L. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 231–239. Fibula-van Dishoeck, Bussum and Haarlem.

Shennan, S. 1982 Ideology, change and the European Early Bronze Age. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 155–162. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sherratt, A. 1981 Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In Patt ern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond, pp. 261–305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sherratt , A. 1983 The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World. World Archaeology 15(1): 90–104.

Sherratt , A. 1987 Cups that Cheered. In Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean. Defi nition, Interpretation, Theory and New Site Data. The Oxford International Conference 1986, edited by W. H.

Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 81–114. BAR International Series 331(i). British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Sherratt , A. 1991 Sacred and profane substances: the ritual use of narcotics in Later Neolithic Europe. In Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion (Oxford, 1989), edited by P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates and J. Toms, pp. 50–64. Oxford University Committ ee for Archaeology, Oxford.

Strahm, C. 1997–1998 Le Campaniforme: Phénomène et culture. In L’énigmatique civilisation campaniforme, pp. 6–13. Hors-Série d’Archéologie 9. Editions Faton, Dĳ on.

Strahm, C. 2004 Le phénomène campaniforme et les composantes autochtones non campaniformes. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 101(2): 201–206.

Strathern, M. 1988 The Gender and the Gift . Problems with the Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Sørensen, M. L. S. 1997 Reading dress: the construction of social categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 5(1): 93–114.

Tchérémissinoff , Y. 2006 Les sépultures simples et plurielles du Campaniforme et du Bronze ancien dans le Bassin Rhodanien et ses zones d’infl uences. BAR International Series 1531. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Thomas, J. 1987 Relations of production and social change in the Neolithic of north-west Europe. Man 22(3): 405–430.

Thomas, J. 1991 Reading the Body: beaker funerary practice in Britain. In Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion (Oxford, 1989), edited by P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates and J. Toms, pp. 33–42. Oxford University Committ ee for Archaeology, Oxford.

Thomas, J. 2000 Death, identity and the body in Neolithic Britain. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6(4): 653–668.

Thomas, J. 2005 Ceremonies of the Horseman? From megalithic tombs to Beaker burials in Prehistoric Europe. In Bell Beakers in the Iberian Peninsula and Their European Context, edited by M. A. Rojo-Guerra, R. Garrido-Pena and I. García Martínez de Lagrán, pp. 107–121. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.

Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. 1992 The Axe and the Torso: symbolic structures in the Neolithic of Brittany. In Interpretative Archaeology, edited by C. Tilley, pp. 225–324. Berg, Oxford/Providence/New York.

Thomas, J. and A. Whitt le 1986 Anatomy of a tomb-West Kennet revisited. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5(2): 129–156.

Tilley, C. (ed.) 1990 Reading Material Culture. Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Treherne, P. 1995 The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3(1): 105–144.

Turek, J. 2000 Being a Beaker child. The position of children in Late Eneolithic society. Památky Archaeologické 13: 422–436.

Turek, J. 2004 Craft symbolism in the Bell Beaker burial customs. Resources, production and social structure at the end of Eneolithic period. In Graves and Funerary Rituals during the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age in Europe (2007–2000 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Cantonal Archaeological Museum, Sion (Switzerland), October 4th–7th 2001, edited by M. Besse and J. Desideri, pp. 147–156. BAR International Series 1284. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Lucía Moragón62

Turek, J. 2006a Beaker barrows and the houses of dead. In Archaeology of Burial Mounds, edited by L. Šmejda, pp. 170–179. ArchaEOlogica, Plzeň.

Turek, J. 2006b Bell Beaker gendered cups in Central Europe. In Prehistoric Pott ery: Some Recent Research, edited by A. M. Gibson, pp. 63–68. BAR International Series 1509. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Turner, T. 1995 Social body and embodied subject: Bodiliness, subjectivity and sociality among the Kayapo. Cultural Anthropology 10(2): 143–170.

Vander Linden, M. 2003 Competing Cosmos. On the relationships between Corded Ware and Bell Beaker mortuary practice. In The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers, edited by J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt, pp. 11–19. BAR International Series 1155. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Vander Linden, M. 2004 Polythetic networks, coherent people: A new historical hypothesis for the Bell Beaker phenomenon. In Similar but diff erent: Bell Beakers in Europe. Poznań Symposium, Poland, 26–29 May 2002, edited by J. Czebreszuk, pp. 35–62. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.

Vander Linden, M. 2005 Identity and Change: The inception of the Bell Beaker phenomenon in the Central Mediterranean area. In Elements of Being: Mentalities, Identities and Movements, edited by D. Hofmann, J. Mills and A. Cochrane, pp. 86–95. BAR International Series 1437. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Vander Linden, M. 2006a From Whom the Bell Tolls: Social Hierarchy vs. Social Integration in the Bell Beaker Culture

of Southern France (Third Millennium BC). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16(3): 317–332.

Vander Linden, M. 2006b Le phénomène campaniforme dans l’Europe du 3ème millénaire avant notre ère. BAR International Series 1470. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Vander Linden, M. 2007a For equalities are plural: reassessing the social in Europe during the third millennium BC. World Archaeology 39(2): 177–193.

Vander Linden, M. 2007b What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe? Antiquity 81: 343–352.

Vicent, J. M. 1990 El Neolitic: transformacions socials i economiques. In El canvi cultural a la Prehistoria, edited by J. Anfruns and E. Llobet, pp. 241–293. Columna, Barcelona.

Vicent, J. M. 1991 Arqueología y Filosofía: la Teoría Crítica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 48: 29–36.

Vicent, J. M. 1995 Early social complexity in Iberia: some theoretical remarks. In The Origins of Complex Societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia, edited by K. T. Lillios, pp. 177–183. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 8. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Vicent, J. M. 1998 La prehistoria del modo tributario de producción. Hispania LVIII–3(200): 823–839.

Viveiros de Castro, E. 2004 Perspectivismo y multinaturalismo en la América indígena. In Tierra Adentro. Territorio Indígena y Percepción del Entorno, edited by A. Surrallés and P. García Hierro, pp. 37–80. IWGIA, Copenhagen.

6

Late Neolithic Expansion to Norway. The beginning of a 4000 year-old shipbuilding tradition

Einar Østmo

IntroductionThe received picture of the Late Neolithic as a time of establishment of sett led agricultural communities in Norway has been renewed and strengthened in recent years by new fi nds and intensifi ed studies. This concerns new discoveries and excavations of monumental graves, mostly in Southeast Norway (Østmo 2002a, 2002b and forthcoming), as well as excavations of sett lement sites with remains of two-aisled houses, of which several have come to light in recent years (Bakka 1976b; Børsheim 2005; Diinhoff 2005; Gjerpe and Bukkemoen 2008; Hemdorff 1993; Hemdorff and Krøger 1991: 4; Høgestøl 1990: 120; Johnson and Prescott 1993; Rønne 2005; Østmo 1979). Nowhere is this more striking than in Rogaland, Southwest Norway. However, the presence of numerous archaeological fi nds of Late Neolithic artefacts of South Scandinavian types in this region was noted already by Worsaae and interpreted by him as imports from Jutland (Worsaae 1869: 7). This view has held true ever since, and has been renewed whenever the SW Norwegian Late Neolithic has been considered (Apel 2001; Brøgger 1909: 127, 1937; Ebbesen 1980; Gjessing 1920: 174, 1945: 402; Jensen 2002: 82; Kaul 1998: 80; Kvalø 2004, 2007; Lund 1938: 37; Marstrander 1950: 81; Myhre 1998, 2004; Møllerop 1963: 7; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Solberg 1993, 1994: 113; Østmo 2005).

The Bell Beaker Culture in Norway In Rogaland, it is the presence of fi nds att ributable to infl uences from the Bell Beaker culture (BBC) and the early Jutish Late Neolithic which forms the empirical basis for this view. Actual BBC pott ery is however scarce,

and has been found only in one case, at the Slett abø sett lement site on the coast of Jæren. However, at that site, a number of pressure-fl aked fl int points with tang and barbs were also found, indeed similar to the ones found in the recently famous Amesbury burial from Southwest England (Fitzpatrick 2002), and generally considered characteristic of the Western European BBC (Skjølsvold 1972, 1977). A search has identifi ed as many as about fi ft y of these points in various South Norwegian museum collections, predominantly from the districts of Jæren and Lista (Østmo 2005; cf. also Myhre 1979) (Figure 6.1). This is a considerable number, in view of the circumstance that such points seem to be quite rare elsewhere in Scandinavia, although complete surveys are not available. In Denmark, P. V. Petersen reports that they can be found only rarely, if across most of the country (Petersen 1999: 92; cf. Forssander 1936: 128; Glob 1952: 70). They appear to be rare in Sweden as well (Apel and Darmark 2007: 49; Kaelas 1952). In Southwest Norway it is striking that this group of fi nds is not preceded, as it were, by earlier fi nds of similar southern origin. Indeed, virtually no fi nds exist of Middle Neolithic artefacts that might have been imported from Jutland to Southwest Norway.

The so-called ‘BBC points’ are however accompanied not only by the much more numerous Late Neolithic points which have a concave base without tang, but also by the numerous and more visible (and therefore more easily encountered as stray fi nds) early fl int daggers of Late Neolithic types (type I etc.: Lomborg 1973) (Figure 6.2), which caught the att ention of Worsaae and his contemporaries almost 150 years ago. Type I daggers occur in concentrations in the Oslo Fiord region in Southeast Norway, but even more conspicuously in Rogaland in Southwest Norway, while the fi nds that

Einar Østmo64

have come to light along the almost 400 km separating the two regions are considerably less numerous. There is a trickle of fi nd spots further towards the north along the western coast of Norway, until something resembling a concentration of fi nds again occurs on the north-western stretch of the coast aft er another 400 km or so. But the densest concentration certainly is the one in Jæren in the southwest.

It is instructive to consider where the Late Neolithic points and daggers were produced. Clearly, the points were part of the equipment of Late Neolithic archers, as seen in Late Neolithic archery graves not only at Amesbury, but also in several Danish fi nds (Sarauw 2007), and equally in some south-eastern Norwegian (and Swedish) stone cist burials (Østmo forthcoming). Also accompanying some of these burials are fl int fl akes of a size and shape making them suitable as blanks for such points (cf. Apel 2001: 217). If this is indeed what they were, it must imply that archers were expected to produce their own points when the need arose, as was clearly the case concerning the late fourth millennium BC so-called ‘Ice Man’ from Hauslabjoch in the Ötztal Alps (Spindler 1994). Pressure-fl aked

points made of local stone are a quite common feature on sett lement sites from the Late Neolithic in Norway, in the mountains as well as on the coast. The fl int daggers are however another matt er, and there can be litt le doubt that most of the daggers encountered in South Norway were produced by specialists in South Scandinavia, at least initially foremost in the fl int-rich Limfj ord region in North Jutland (Apel 2001).

Late Neolithic and Bronze Age seafaringIt seems obvious that a direct connection across the sea from Jutland to Lista and Jæren, where the Skagerrak meets the North Sea, lay behind this sudden appearance of imports from the south. Together with sett lement site fi nds and palynological evidence (Høgestøl and Prøsch-Danielsen 2006), this adds up to the conclusion that South-west Norway was the target of an expansion

Figure 6.1: Map showing fi nds of pressure-fl aked points with tang and barbs in Norway.

Figure 6.2: Map showing fi nds of type IA fl int daggers in Norway. Based on Scheen (1979) and Holberg (2000) with revisions.

6. Late Neolithic Expansion to Norway. The beginning of a 4000 year-old shipbuilding tradition 65

northward from Jutland starting just aft er the middle of the third millennium BC. As indicated by the fi nds just mentioned, this formed part of the expansion of the BBC in its northern guise. There is every reason to believe that this was a complex cultural process, involving a web of historical, technological, economical and even what we would term political considerations (cf. Prieto-Martínez 2008; Østmo 2009).

On this occasion we shall however consider one specifi c condition without which the expansion across Skagerrak could not have happened. It concerns the boats that were available at the time to carry people across the stretch of open sea from Jutland. In fact, the diff erence in the presence of South Scandinavian artefacts in Southwest Norway between the Middle and Late Neolithic is so striking that the conclusion seems inevitable that Late Neolithic ship building technology must have been a novelty, incorporating several then recent inventions. Were it not so, one would be forced to suppose that suitable ships existed earlier, however for inscrutable reasons without actually being used to cross Skagerrak or similar stretches of open sea in the north. This frankly unlikely idea will not be pursued further.

Archaeological fi nds of actual vessels dated to the Neolithic period in Scandinavia are few, and restricted to log boats or dugouts from inland waters in Denmark (a summary of these and a few Swedish fi nds may be found in Hallgren (2008: 53); for more detail, see Crumlin-Pedersen (2003: 218)), hardly of relevance to the question of what sort of vessel that was used in other waters. A couple of fi nds of what may have been espings or expanded dugouts intended for coastal waters may be more to the point. One such has been found in Helsinki and dated by palynology to before the local post-glacial establishment of Picea, at the latest the Middle Neolithic (Hallgren 2008: 53; cf. Luho et al. 1956: 19). The other possible esping fi nd is the charred remains of a vessel used as a funeral coffi n in a late Neolithic burial at Kiaby, Villands härad, Scania (Järbe 1950; cf. Strömberg 1952). Gad Rausing suggests that

this could have been a heat-expanded dugout (Rausing 1984: 34).

No particularly enlightening technical details are revealed by these vessel fragments. However, dugouts have apparently been in use in the Nordic countries throughout history into the modern age regardless of what other types of boats that were in use at various times (Arisholm and Nymoen 2005). But they never seem to have been used on a regular basis in the open sea, and it may be that some form of more refi ned shipbuilding technology would have had to be developed before people in Scandinavia could safely contemplate sailing away from the coasts.

Another source of information about prehistoric seafaring in Scandinavia is of course the rock carvings and other images of ships (Figure 6.3). It is no exaggeration to say that rock carving pictures of ships exist by the tens of thousands throughout Scandinavia. Generally, they fall into two or three diff erent categories, which may or may not have been connected historically. The fi rst two categories concern pictures considered to belong to the world of the hunters and fi shermen of the Stone Age, and will not concern us here, even if boat pictures (probably representing hide boats) are present on some of them (cf. Engedal 2006). The third category is the South Scandinavian Bronze Age rock carvings, famously abundant above all in West Sweden, but known in considerable numbers also elsewhere in Sweden and indeed in Norway, and, certainly due to natural reasons such as the scarcity of suitable rock surfaces, in smaller numbers in Denmark and North Germany. In Sweden and Norway, where they are numerous, they are known above all in the coastal regions from where we also possess archaeological fi nds testifying to a fairly well developed Bronze Age society.

The rock carvings of the Bronze Age clearly belong to one continuous artistic tradition, according to many studies both old and recent, extending from the Early Bronze Age before the middle of the second millennium BC and well into the Pre-Roman Iron

Figure 6.3: Early Bronze Age rock carving of two ships at Berget, Hole, South Norway.

Einar Østmo66

Age around the beginning of our era or even later. It seems reasonable to assume that this continuity of making ship pictures refl ects a continuity in the use and indeed in the construction of the actual vessels of the age, which must have been the models for the pictures or constituted the frame of reference for how boats worked and looked, for the rock carving artists as well as their public.

Now, dated to about the same age as the younger end of the Bronze Age rock art tradition, there is the Hjortspring boat, excavated at Als in south Denmark in 1921–1922 (Crumlin-Pedersen and Trakadas 2003; Rosenberg 1937; see Figure 6.4). Clearly a forerunner of later Scandinavian ships, it is a sewn, plank-built canoe intended to be paddled by 22–24 oarsmen, dated to the fourth century BC. Adorned with two impressive beaks or horns at each end it strongly resembles the later among the Bronze Age ship images to be found in the rock carvings, and it is generally assumed that this vessel is representative of the sort of boat pictured on the rocks at its time. This, then, amounts to a strong argument that Bronze Age boats were plank-built, too. The Hjortspring boat and all later Nordic ships of the Iron and Viking ages, and even well into the Mediaeval period, were constructed in basically the same way, the hulls being built as self-contained shells. A recent fi nd of the remains of a Pre-Roman or possibly Late Bronze Age plank-built boat from Haugvik in Sømna, North Norway,

lends support to this view (Sylvester 2006). This is exactly contrary to both traditional shipbuilding in the Mediterranean and elsewhere in continental Europe and Britain, and to the hide boats of the circumpolar North (cf. Clark 2004; Crumlin-Pedersen 1970, 2003), hulls in these cases being constructed either as a kind of developed raft s or as skeletons covered with and carrying the sheathing or planking. This makes it diffi cult to imagine any signifi cant cross-cultural contact regarding basic constructional characteristics between the shipbuilding traditions of Scandinavia and those found elsewhere in Europe.

For these various reasons, Scandinavian Bronze Age boats probably resembled the Hjortspring boat and later Scandinavian, clinker-built boats – at least concerning the basic construction of the hull. The beginning of this tradition may be what we see the eff ects of at the beginning of the Late Neolithic, around 2400 cal. BC, in the distribution of South Scandinavian artefact types of north of the Skagerrak.

This may have had to do with the circumstance that the Late Neolithic was a time of introduction (or re-introduction aft er an interval of almost one thousand years, cf. Klassen 2000) of metallurgy to South Scandinavia. Admitt edly, Late Neolithic copper axes are very few in Norway. But Helle Vandkilde lists no fewer than 32 such axes with a likely date to the early Late Neolithic from Denmark (Vandkilde 1996: 178). It seems possible to envisage that the availability of metal

Figure 6.4: The fourth century BC Hjortspring boat from Als, Denmark. Reconstruction drawing from Crumlin-Pedersen and Trakadas (2003).


tools may have facilitated for instance the preparation of planks for shipbuilding purposes to such a degree that it made construction of more complicated, ocean-going boats possible in a way it had not been previously. In the same vein, Seán McGrail has suggested that in general, conjoined boats came in use only when metal tools became available (McGrail 2001).

The new, Late Neolithic developments in Scandinavian shipbuilding may actually have taken place where the expansion towards the north seems to have originated, that is, in Denmark. Judging from the maps published by Vandkilde (1996), it is striking how the early Danish fl at and low-fl anged copper axes predominantly have been found in the landscapes surrounding the Belts and the Limfj orden, precisely where the need for seaworthy vessels may have been pressing.

During the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age, boats appear to have always been propelled by paddling. Estimations of the carrying capacity of paddled Bronze Age vessels based on various experiences, but above all on the experiments carried out with ‘Tilia Alsie’, an exact reconstruction of the Hjortspring boat, suggest that the crossing of the Skagerrak from Jutland to South Norway could be made in the course of one long summer’s day (Vinner 2003: 117; Østmo 2005: 72). The shortest distance across the Skagerrak, from Hanstholm in North Jutland to Flekkerøy near Kristiansand, is 111 km or just over 60 nautical miles; distances of approximately 65 nautical miles however apply to most of the coast of Sørlandet from Arendal to Mandal across to the northwest coast of Jutland, in particular Hirtshals and Hanstholm. This distance, therefore, was probably close to the upper limit of what could be achieved with the technology and sailing skills at that time, sailing being in all likelihood confi ned to daytime hours. Navigation was certainly based on sea-marks, and traditional Nordic sea-faring would forever retain its basic character of coastal sailing, even when ultimately reaching all the way across the Atlantic to America during the Viking Age. Astronomical navigation does not appear to have been practiced on a regular basis in Northern Europe in prehistoric times. The sailing season was always during the summer, and the bright Nordic summer nights do not lend themselves to stellar navigation, nor do the frequently overcast skies. Moreover, all available sources seem to agree that sailing, even across the oceans, in principle was an extension of coastal navigation, as famously described in the Icelandic Landnámabók regarding the Viking Age sailing route from Norway to Greenland:

‘Af Hernum af Noregi skal sigla jafnan í vestur til Hvarfs á Grœnlandi, og er þá siglt fyrir norðan Hjaltland, svo að því að eins sjái það, að allgóð sé sjávar sýn, en fyrir

sunnan Færeyjar, svo að sjór er í miðjum hlíðum en svo fyrir sunnan Ísland, að þeir hafi af fugl ok hval.’ (Benediktsson 1968: 33).

In English the passage reads: ‘From Hernar [modern Hennøy] in Norway one must sail a direct course west to Hvarf [modern Cape Farewell, Greenlandic: Uummannarsuaq] in Greenland, in which case one sails north of Shetland so that one sights land in clear weather only, then south of the Faroes so that the sea looks half-way up the mountainsides, then south of Iceland so that one gets sight of birds and whales from there.’ (Jones 1968: 162).

This is succinctly summed up by Uwe Schnall: ‘Die Hochseeschiffahrt der Wikinger ist eine Weiterentwicklung ihrer Küstenschiff ahrt und nicht grundsätzlich von dieser unterschieden’ (Schnall 1975: 181; see also Christensen 1993).

Nordic sefaring: A long historyAlthough the present paper out of necessity only presents a very condensed account of some aspects of the long maritime prehistory of Scandinavia, the picture that seems to emerge is one of three main phases of prehistoric shipbuilding, each corresponding to a period of aristocratic splendour in antiquity. What we see in the Late Neolithic in western Norway, however dimly, may actually have been the beginning of the great Nordic seafaring and shipbuilding tradition, to which thousands of Bronze Age rock carving pictures of boats and ships also bear witness. The Late Neolithic expansion across the Skagerrak prepared the way for the establishment of Bronze Age communities almost as far north as at the Arctic Circle (cf. Bakka 1976a; Kaul and Rønne 2008), with a culture basically similar to that found in North Jutland at the time. The next phase was the development of rowed ships like those from Nydam and those shown on the earliest of the Gotland picture stones (Lindqvist 1942), obviously linked with the splendiferous culture of the Roman Iron Age and the Migration period (Østmo 2003). The establishment of Iron Age chiefdoms and of sea routes to the Continent and Britain may thus be viewed as historically descending from the Late Neolithic expansion. Finally, the introduction of the sail during the Late Iron Age, perhaps only in the eighth century AD (Kastholm 2009), prepared the way for the creation of the ships so central to Viking Age culture, and eventually for the opening of the sea route across the Atlantic to Iceland, Greenland and America (Brøgger and Shetelig 1950; Ingstad 1985; Østmo 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008).

Einar Østmo68

ReferencesApel, J. 2001 Daggers, Knowledge and Power. The Social Aspects of

Flint-Dagger Technology in Scandinavia 2350–1500 cal BC. Coast to coast-book 3. University of Uppsala, Uppsala.

Apel, J. and Darmark, K. 2007 Den fl athuggna pilspetsens fylogeni. In Stenåldern i Uppland. Uppdragsarkeologi och eft ertanke, edited by N. Stenbäck, pp. 31–65. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Societas archaeologica Upsaliensis, Upplandsmuseet, Uppsala.

Arisholm, T. and Nymoen, P. (eds.) 2005 Stokkebåter. Nytt om Sørumbåten og andre sørnorske stokkebåtfunn. Skrift nr. 49. Norsk Sjøfartsmuseum, Oslo.

Bakka, E. 1976a Arktisk og nordisk i bronsealderen i Nordskandinavia. Miscellanea 25. Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab, Museet, Trondheim.

Bakka, E. 1976b Fire vestnorske kystbuplassar frå yngre steinalder. Iskos 1: 35–39.

Benediktsson, J. (ed.) 1968 Íslendingabók. Landnámabók. Íslenzk fornrit 1. Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, Reykjavík.

Børsheim, R. L. 2005 Toskipete hus i neolitikum og eldste bronsealder. Primitive Tider 7: 49–59.

Brøgger, A. W. 1909 Den arktiske stenalder i Norge. Videnskabs-Selskabets Skrifter II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse 1909, No. 1. Kristiania.

Brøgger, A. W. 1937 Opdagelsenes nye århundre. Norsk geografi sk tidsskrift VI-1936/1937: 171–203.

Brøgger, A. W. and Shetelig, H. 1950 Vikingeskipene: deres forgjengere og ett erfølgere. Dreyer, Oslo.

Christensen, A. E. 1993 Vikingenes verdensbilde, skipsbygging og navigasjon. Norsk Sjøfartsmuseum. Årsberetning 1992: 151–159.

Clark, P. (ed.) 2004 The Dover Bronze Age Boat in Context: society and water transport in prehistoric Europe. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1970 Skind eller træ? En studie i den nordiske plankebåds konstruktive oprindelse. In Sømand, fi sker, skib og værft . Introduktion til maritim etnologi, edited by O. Hasslöf, H. Henningsen and A. E. Christensen, pp. 213–239. Rosenkilde og Bagger, Copenhagen.

Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 2003 The Hjortspring boat in a ship-archaeological context. In Hjortspring. A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship in Context, edited by O. Crumlin-Pedersen and A. Trakadas, pp. 209–232. Ships and Boats of the North, Vol. 5. The Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, Roskilde.

Crumlin-Pedersen, O. and Trakadas, A. (eds.) 2003 Hjortspring. A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship in Context. Ships and Boats of the North, Vol. 5. The Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, Roskilde.

Diinhoff , S. 2005 Tidlige jordbrugsbosætninger på Vestlandet med spor eft er toskipede langhuse. Primitive Tider 7: 41–48.

Ebbesen, K. 1980 Flintafslag som off er. KUML 1980: 147–157.Engedal, Ø. 2006 På bølgje og berg – båten i røynd og risting.

In Samfunn, symboler og identitet. Festskrift til Gro Mandt på 70-årsdagen, edited by R. Barndon, S. M. Innselset, K. K. Kristoff ersen and T. K. Lødøen, pp. 171–182. UBAS Nordisk 3. University of Bergen, Bergen.

Fitzpatrick, A. P. 2002 ‘The Amesbury Archer’: a well-furnished Early Bronze Age burial in southern England. Antiquity 76(293): 629–630.

Forssander, J. E. 1936 Der ostskandinavische Norden während der ältesten Metallzeit Europas. Skrift er utgivna av Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund XXII. C. W. K. Gleerup, Lund.

Gjerpe, L. E. and Bukkemoen, G. B. 2008 Nordby 1 – Toskipede hus fra neolitikum-bronsealder og boplasspor fra jernalder. In Hus, boplass- og dyrkningsspor. E18-prosjektet Vestfold. Bind 3, edited by L. E. Gjerpe, pp. 7–38. Varia 73. Fornminneseksjonen, Kulturhistorisk museum, Oslo.

Gjessing, G. 1945 Norges steinalder. Norsk Arkeologisk Selskap, Oslo.

Gjessing, H. 1920 Rogalands stenalder. Rogalands Kulturhistorie. Skrift er utgitt av Stavanger Museum. Stavanger.

Glob, P. V. 1952 Danske Oldsager. II. Yngre stenalder. Gyldendalske Boghandel, Copenhagen.

McGrail, S. 2001 Boats of the World, from the Stone Age to Medieval Times. Oxford University Press Oxford.

Hallgren, F. 2008 Identitet i praktik. Lokala, regionala och överregionala sociala sammanhang inom nordlig tratt bägarkultur. Coast to Coast-Books 17. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Universityof Uppsala; Department of Archaeology, University of Gothenburg, Uppsala.

Hemdorff , O. 1993 Hus fra eldste bronsealder funnet på Talgje. frá haug ok heiðni 1993(4): 24–26.

Hemdorff , O. and Krøger, F. 1991 Fornminner og funn - årets utgraving på Sørbø i Rennesøy. frá haug ok heiðni 1991(4): 3–9.

Høgestøl, M. 1990 Glimt fra årets utgravinger i Rennesøy. frá haug ok heiðni 1990(4): 118–123.

Høgestøl, M. and Prøsch-Danielsen, L. 2006 Impulses of agro-pastoralism in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC on the south-western coastal rim of Norway. Environmental Archaeology 11(1): 17–32.

Holberg, E. 2000 Klokkebegerkulturens symboler. Senneolitikum i Rogaland og Nordland sør for polarsirkelen. Unpublished Hovedfag thesis, University of Bergen.

Ingstad, H. 1985 The Norse Discovery of America. Volume two. The historical background and the evidence of the Norse sett lement discovered in Newfoundland. Norwegian University Press, Oslo.

Järbe, B. 1950 An Inhumation Burial from the Stone Cist Period at Kiaby. Meddelanden från Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum 1949–1950 III: 1–26.

Jensen, J. 2002 Danmarks Oldtid. Bronzealder 2.000–500 f. Kr. Gyldendal, Copenhagen.

Johnson, T. and Prescott , C. 1993 Late Neolithic houses at Stokkset, Sande in Sunnmøre. In Minneskrift Egil Bakka, edited by B. Solberg, pp. 70–89 Arkeologiske Skrift er fra Historisk Museum 7. Universitetet i Bergen, Bergen.

Jones, G. A. 1968 A History of the Vikings. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Kaelas, L. 1952 En Klockbägarpilspets från Fjärrestadsgånggrift en i Skåne. Fornvännen 47: 165–175.

Kastholm, O. T. 2009 De gotlandske billedsten og rekonstruktion af vikingetidens sejl. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 2005: 99–204. Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskrift selskab, Copenhagen

Kaul, F. 1998 Ships on Bronzes. A Study in Bronze Age Religion and Iconography. Studies in Archaeology & History Vol. 3, 1. Publications from the National Museum, Copenhagen.

Kaul, F. and Rønne, P. 2008 Ved den ytt erste grense. Spor 2008(2): 24–27.

Klassen, L. 2000 Frühes Kupfer im Norden. Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Kupferfunde der Nordgruppe der Trichterbecherkultur. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrift er 36. Højbjerg.


Kvalø, F. 2004 Facing the sea in Bronze Age Norway: the ship, the sea and society. In The Dover Bronze Age Boat in Context: society and water transport in prehistoric Europe, edited by P. Clark, pp. 148–152. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Kvalø, F. 2007 Oversjøiske reiser fra Sørvest-Norge til Nordvest-Jylland i eldre bronsealder – en drøft ing av maritim realisering og rituell mobilisering. In Sjøreiser og stedsidentitet. Jæren/Lista i bronsealder og eldre jernalder, edited by L. Hedeager, pp 13–134. Oslo Arkeologiske Serie 8. Unipub Institutt for arkeologi, konservering og historiske studier, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo.

Lindqvist, S. 1942 Gotlands Bildsteine. II. Kungl. Vitt erhets historie och antikvitets akademien, Stockholm.

Lomborg, E. 1973 Die Flintdolche Dänemarks. Nordiske Fortidsminder, Serie B, 1. Copenhagen.

Luho, V., Hyyppä, E. and Gustafsson, C. 1956 En i Helsingfors funnen stenålderskanot. Finskt Museum LXIII. Helsingfors.

Lund, H. E. 1938 Sjøhandelsveier og handelsvarer til og fra Rogaland i bronsealderen. (En preliminær studie over bronsealderens kulturhistorie i Rogaland). Stavanger Museums Årsheft e 1936–37: 35–55.

Marstrander, S. 1950 Jylland-Lista. Viking. Tidsskrift for norrøn arkeologi XIV: 63–85.

Møllerop, O. 1963 Fra Rogalands eldre bronsealder. Stavanger Museum. Årbok 1962: 5–58. Stavanger.

Myhre, B. 1979 Spor ett er Klokkebegerkulturen i Rogaland. frá haug ok heiðni 1979(4): 298–303.

Myhre, L. N. 1998 Historier fra en annen virkelighet. Fortellinger om bronsealderen ved Karmsundet. AmS-småtrykk 46. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Myhre, L. N. 2004 Trialectic Archaeology. Monuments and space in Southeast Norway 1700–500 BC. AmS-Skrift er 18. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Østmo, E. 1979 Steinalderbøndenes hus. Universitetets Oldsaksamling 150 år. Jubileumsårbok 1979:80–87. Universitetets oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2002a Senneolitt iske hellekister i Syd-Norge. En interimrapport. In Situ. Västsvensk Arkeologisk Tidskrift 2000–2001: 5–25.

Østmo, E. 2002b «- et stykke forarbeidet gul fl int. » Nytt om senneolitt iske hellekister i Norge. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer. Skrifter 1: 325–331. UKM – En mangfoldig forskningsinstitusjon, Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2003 Da nordboene lærte seg å ro. En teknologisk nyvinning for sjøfarten i tidlig jernalder. Viking LXVI: 7–29.

Østmo, E. 2005 Over Skagerak i steinalderen. Noen refl eksjoner om oppfi nnelsen av havgående fartøyer i Norden. Viking. Norsk arkeologisk årbok LXVIII: 55–82.

Østmo, E. 2006 Skipsmotivet på helleristninger fra jernalderen på Østlandet. In Klink og seil – Festskrift til Arne Emil Christensen, edited by T. Arisholm, K. Paasche and T. L. Wahl, pp. 57–72. Norsk Sjøfartsmuseum/Kulturhistorisk museum, Universitetet i Oslo. Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2008 Some Notes on the Development of Shipbuilding and Overseas Connections in Scandinavian Prehistory. In Facets of Archaeology. Essays in Honour of Lott e Hedeager on her 60th Birthday, edited by K. Chilidis, J. Lund and C. Prescott , pp. 265–274. Oslo Arkeologiske Serie 10. Unipub, Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2009 The Northern Connection. Comment to M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez: ‘Bell Beaker Communities in Thy: The First Bronze Age Society in Denmark’. Norwegian Archaeological Review 42(1): 86–89.

Østmo, E. forthcoming Senneolitt iske hellekister i Sør-Norge. Norske oldfunn. Kulturhistorisk museum, Universitetet i Oslo.

Petersen, P. V. 1999 Flint fra Danmarks Oldtid. Høst & Søn, Copenhagen.

Prescott , C. and Walderhaug, E. 1995 The Last Frontier? Processes of Indo-Europeanization in Northern Europe: The Norwegian Case. Journal of Indo-European Studies 23(3–4): 257–280.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2008 Bell Beaker Communities in Thy: The First Bronze Age Society in Denmark. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2): 115–158.

Rausing, G. 1984 Prehistoric Boats and Ships of Northwestern Europe. Some Reflections. Från Forntid och Medeltid 8. Gleerup, Lund.

Rønne, O. 2005 Hus og gård i senneolitikum på Svinesund. Primitive Tider 7: 61–69.

Rosenberg, G. 1937 Hjortspringfundet. Nordiske Fortidsminder, Copenhagen.


Scheen, R. 1979 De norske fl intdolkene. En typologisk-kronologisk analyse. Unpublished Magister thesis, University of Oslo.

Schnall, U. 1975 Navigation der Wikinger. Schrift en des Deutschen Schiff artsmuseums 6. Gerhard Stalling Verlag, Oldenburg and Hamburg.

Skjølsvold, A. 1972 Slett abø i Ogna. Foreløpig orientering om en boplass med bosett ing fra yngre steinalder og bronsealder. Viking XXXVI: 5–82.

Skjølsvold, A. 1977 Slett abøboplassen. Et bidrag til diskusjonen om forholdet mellom fangst- og bondesamfunnet i yngre steinalder og bronsealder. AmS-Skrift er 2. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Solberg, B. 1993 Western Norway in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Can loose finds contribute to our understanding of demography and social stratifi cation? In Minneskrift Egil Bakka, edited by B. Solberg, pp. 118–138. Arkeologiske Skrift er fra Historisk Museum 7. Universitetet i Bergen, Bergen.

Solberg, B. 1994 Exchange and the Role of Import to Western Norway in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Norwegian Archaeological Review 27(2): 111–126.

Spindler, K. 1994 The man in the ice. The preserved body of a Neolithic man reveals the secrets of the Stone Age. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Strömberg, M. 1952 Die Bestatt ungsformen in Schonen während des Spätneolithikums. K. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund Årsberätt else 1951–1952(VII): 159–186.

Sylvester, M. 2006 Haugvikbåten fra Sømna – en plankebygd båt fra yngre bronsealder eller førromersk jernalder. Viking. Norsk arkeologisk årbok LXIX–2006: 91–106.

Vandkilde, H. 1996 From Stone to Bronze. The metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXXII. Moesgård, Aarhus.

Vinner, M. 2003 Sea trials. In Hjortspring. A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship in Context, edited by O. Crumlin-Pedersen and A. Trakadas, pp. 103–118. Ships and Boats of the North, Vol. 5. The Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, Roskilde.

Worsaae, J. J. A. 1869 Om nogle norske Oldsagfund. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1868: 1–12. Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskrift selskab, Copenhagen.

7

Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway – the role of metal and metalworking

Lene Melheim

IntroductionIn large parts of Europe the third millennium BC was characterized by processes of technological and social transformation, processes in which the emergence of indigenous metal industries seems to have played a signifi cant role. From c. 2000 cal. BC Scandinavia witnessed not just the arrival of tin-bronze and local metal industries, but also a marked increase in the quantities of metal in circulation. The archaeological image of the latt er part of the Late Neolithic period, i.e. 1950–1700 cal. BC, is thus one of an incipient Bronze Age. Not so in Norway. The paucity of metal fi nds from the last two millennia BC is striking. This is all the more conspicuous in consideration of the fact that Norway has rich and readily available natural metal deposits. For decades Norwegian archaeologists have debated the role of metals in the Bronze Age proper. The dominant view, verging on what Fredrik Barth (1990) has labelled ‘myopic localism’ (cf. Prescott this volume), has been that Bronze Age life was very much a continuation of the Stone Age. To emphasize the lack of impact made by the arrival of metals the period was rhetorically labelled the ‘Stone-Bronze Age’ (Gjessing 1944). No wonder then, that the role of metallurgy in the period preceding the Bronze Age has received very litt le att ention. By arguing that the circulation and consumption of metals played a signifi cant role already from the Late Neolithic onwards, I would rather argue for a ‘Bronze-Stone Age’ – if indeed the Late Neolithic should be regarded as part of the Stone Age. Presenting some overlooked metal fi nds I suggest that metals and metallurgy arrived in Norway in the wake of the Bell Beaker phenomenon, possibly as early as c. 2400 cal. BC.

The Bell Beaker phenomenon and the spread of metallurgical skills Partly due to new analytical methods like isotope analysis, migration is now once again considered a central element in the cultural transformation processes of Europe in the third millennium BC (e.g. Evans et al. 2006; Grupe et al. 1997; Price et al. 1998; Price et al. 2004). The spread of the specialized skills of the time, metallurgy, advanced pressure-fl aking techniques and pottery styles is now once again linked to the movement of people, and the Bell Beaker phenomenon considered a direct trigger for the spread of metallurgy (Apel 2001; Brodie 1997; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: 140; O’Brien 2004: 563, Prieto-Martínez 2008; Vander Linden 2007). Although a lot of work still needs to be done to map the historical processes, not least the social relations that made the spread of metallurgy possible, there seems at present litt le doubt that the Bell Beaker phenomenon represents a metallurgical expansion, and that metal prospecting and metal exchange were among the driving forces behind population movement.

Gordon Childe’s (1930: 4–11, 44, 1939: 113–117) old concept of the travelling metallurgist has found some support in newly discovered archaeological remains from the Bell Beaker period in The British Isles, perhaps most vividly represented by a man buried in Wessex c. 2400 cal. BC, nicknamed the Amesbury Archer. Besides making up the region’s richest Beaker burial with a pair of gold earrings, three copper daggers, 16 tanged and barbed arrowheads and fi ve beakers, the grave goods also give some hints about the man’s skills – his profession – or, perhaps as suggested by Martyn Barber (2003: 125–126), the

7. Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway – the role of metal and metalworking 71

status that was ascribed to particular skills, and how these skills tended to be appropriated by the elite. A polished stone accompanying the Amesbury Archer is interpreted as a metallurgical tool. Similar stones have been documented in Beaker burials in the Low Countries, and are there interpreted as anvils for hammering metals (Harrison 1980: 25–27). Oxygen isotope analysis of the Archer’s teeth indicates that he originated in the Alpine region, i.e. Switzerland, Germany or Austria, and sett led in Britain. I agree with Barber that a simple deduction from grave goods to profession in life may be fl awed. However, on a more general level, a scenario outlined from the grave goods and data on the man’s origin – of immigrants possessing metallurgical competence – seems from the present knowledge to fi t well into the already established archaeological scenario of a sudden arrival of metallurgy in The British Isles in the mid-third millennium BC (O’Brien 2004: 563).

The discovery of the fi rst Late Neolithic mine in The British Isles in 1992 has been crucial in revitalizing ideas about Bell Beaker influence leading to the adoption of metallurgy. The Ross Island mine in Killarney in Ireland, dated to 2400–1900 cal. BC, has been explicitly linked to Bell Beaker groups through excavation of a nearby mine camp with fi nds of beakers (O’Brien 2004: 314). The investigations have largely confi rmed ideas put forward in the 1960s and 1980s, that one Irish mine supplied most of Ireland and parts of Britain with raw material for copper axes in the early phase of metallurgy (O’Brien 2004: 550–551). The Ross Island excavation has contributed to turning the tide, or, as Paul Craddock lucidly put it:

‘The study of a single mine can sometimes change our perception of a whole culture, as exemplifi ed by Ross Island [ ...] and the Beaker Culture. The eponymous vessels were once believed to have belonged to a semi-nomadic people who roamed over Western Europe in search for pastures and metals, thereby ushering in the metal ages over much of that vast region. More sophisticated archaeological treatment of the data argued that this was too simplistic and the poor Beakers were down graded to being, amongst other things, a ‘peer-polity interaction’, whatever that is. The excavations at Ross Island, however, found that the mining operations were accompanied exclusively by sherds of Beaker pott ery, the only examples to have been found in the south-west of Ireland, and the indigenous late Neolithic pott ery was totally absent, rather suggesting that the original scenario may have been correct aft er all’ (Craddock 2003: 8).

A number of spectacular finds from the Iberian Peninsula serve to illustrate how intimately metallurgy was related to Bell Beaker identity, speaking in terms of symbolic ‘branding’. The att ested use of

Bell Beakers as vessels for copper smelting (Guerra-Doce 2006: 252–253; Prieto-Martínez 2008: 135) is one example indicating that the hallmark of Bell Beaker groups – the Bell Beaker – was explicitly linked to metallurgy. Another is the rare fi nds of crucibles decorated with Bell Beaker ornaments (Harrison et al. 1975: 273–275).

Bell Beaker arrivals in Norway?In Scandinavia, new discoveries and archaeological perspectives have provoked a renewed interest in the Late Neolithic period in general and the Bell Beaker phenomenon in particular (Holberg 2000; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Prieto-Martínez 2008; Sarauw 2007; Vandkilde 1996, 2005; Østmo 2005). Whereas some researchers stress the continuity from previous Corded Ware groups by isolating the ‘true’ Bell Beaker elements and preferring the more generalized term Beaker for the local material assemblages, others freely use the term Bell Beaker, thus implying that the cultural milieu of Late Neolithic Scandinavia was equal to and had a similar genesis to Bell Beaker communities elsewhere in Europe. By this, it is also meant that the period represents the onset of the Bronze Age in terms of material culture and group structure. In my view, judging by sett lement patt erns, technology, cosmology and social stratifi cation, the Late Neolithic period appears to have had more in common with the Bronze Age than the preceding Middle Neolithic period, especially in areas where agriculture had not already gained foothold.

In Norway, contrary to traditional archaeological interpretations which focus on gradual evolution, it is now argued that dramatic events in the latt er part of the third millennium BC led to rapid cultural transformation and extensive domestication of the landscape through the establishment of stable farms and fi elds (Myhre and Øye 2002: 38–75; Prescott 2005; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995). For the fi rst time in Norwegian prehistory, agriculture made a real diff erence, from this time on playing a continuously structuring role. Whereas only a handful of Late Neolithic house remains had been documented before the turn of the millennium (e.g. Johnson and Prescott 1993), archaeological rescue excavations of the last decade have produced a large number of longhouses and acres (e.g. Bjerck and Åstveit 2008; Børsheim 2005; Bårdseth 2008; Diinhoff 2005; Gjerpe and Bukkemoen 2008; Glørstad 2004; Rønne 2005; overview in Soltvedt et al. 2007: 77–86).

On the basis of marked changes in the distribution of prestige items at the transition to the Late Neolithic,

Lene Melheim72

it has been suggested that Middle Neolithic exchange routes and contact networks decreased in importance when technological innovation enabled overseas sailing, and that the initial Bell Beaker contacts were then established across Skagerrak, the strait between Northern Jutland and Southern Norway (Kvalø 2007; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Østmo 2005). Evidence of early Bell Beaker culture, represented by the sole fi nd of a Bell Beaker at Slett abø in Rogaland (Skjølsvold 1977), and by the diagnostic barbed and tanged fl int arrowheads (Myhre 1979; Østmo 2005), are concentrated along the southwestern coast. Although not traditionally considered part of the Bell Beaker ‘package’, items like bifacial fl int daggers, spearheads, sickles and arrowheads, shaft -hole axes, pott ery with cord-imprints, various ornaments of bone, pearl and amber, fl anged axes, slate wrist-guards, wedge-shaped slate pendants for testing metal and quern-stones also arguably belong to the same cultural phenomenon (cf. Holberg 2000; Prescott 1991a). Together, these fi nds testify to the range of Beaker infl uence along most of the 2000 km long Norwegian coast. Judging from the fact that metallurgy followed in the wake of Bell Beaker material culture on the Continent and in The British Isles, it is perhaps not too daring to see also the scatt ered remains from early metallurgy as well as a handful of early metal fi nds – small tools and weapons of tin/copper/bronze and ornaments of gold and bronze – against a Bell Beaker background.

Turning to Denmark, altogether 340 metal fi nds have been ascribed to the Late Neolithic (LN), only 72 of these from the LNI (Vandkilde 1996: 177–210). Of particular interest is the marked increase in metal fi nds from LNI to LNII (Vandkilde 1996: 162–163). Whereas the former period is considered an experimental phase with some local metal production, the latt er represents the fi rst authentic metal-using period in South Scandinavia. Metallurgy became integral to the local communities, more metal was in circulation, and metal was allott ed a more prominent role both for practical purposes and in social interaction, as it became the principal signifi er of status (Vandkilde 1996: 283). Aft er this formative phase, it is argued, a true hierarchy with socially distinguished individuals and conspicuous consumption was reached in the Early Bronze Age (Vandkilde 1996: 288). This culture-historical outline is clearly generated by an evolutionary model, in which metallurgy gradually permeates and transforms society. Instead, I here advocate a dramatic and rapid process that also aff ected the outskirts of Scandinavia.

When it comes to Norway, the Late Neolithic has not traditionally been considered a metal-using period. Whereas small bronze items occur in Late Neolithic

stone cists elsewhere in Scandinavia, no such fi nds are known from Norway. Evidence of a Copper Age preceding the Bronze Age was long sought for, and metal analysis was early applied in an att empt to identify unalloyed copper – but without success (Brinkmann and Shetelig 1920: 39; Sebelien 1923, 1931). Despite this, it seems that the idea of metal use was fully in keeping with traditional views of the Late Stone Age. For instance, Håkon Shetelig readily accepted the presence of fragments of copper alloys in a typical hunter-gatherer sett ing, when excavating the Ruskeneset rock shelter near Bergen in Hordaland (Figure 7.1). He did not, however, consider metal as very central to the activities at the site: ‘It seems certain that the Stone Age people of Ruskeneset were acquainted with bronze, though in such small amounts that it did not aff ect the tool or weapon assemblage’ (Brinkmann and Shetelig 1920: 40, my translation). Metal was typically regarded a luxury phenomenon of litt le practical and social relevance. The faunal material quickly became the most central theme of debate and the scarce metal fi nds were soon forgott en.

On the basis of fl int daggers, bifacial arrowheads and a tooth-shaped bone pendant, Shetelig dated the main activity at the Ruskeneset site to the Late Neolithic, although the greenstone adzes, slate points, simple bone hooks etc. certainly belong in an earlier part of the Neolithic. Later, the identification of a fragment of a Bronze Age crucible, reckoned a chronological marker of a Bronze Age phase, has contributed to reconsiderations of the chronology. Another Late Bronze Age/Pre-Roman Iron Age trait is the shard of a thin-walled soapstone vessel, not to mention the many bifacial arrowheads with straight or convex bases. The presence of a Bronze Age phase has been supported by 14C dates covering the time span 1300–800 cal. BC (Indrelid 1996: 102–103). The scenario suggested by the presence of the crucible, i.e. that metallurgy was practiced at a site fi rst and foremost considered a hunting and fi shing station, is however harder to fi t into the traditional view that metal was of litt le practical signifi cance. Three peculiar burial fi nds contribute strongly to a new understanding of the cultural context for the Ruskeneset fi nds.

The skeletal remains of altogether three individuals appeared in a layer of silt beneath the cultural layer, presumably originally interred in a small ‘room’ formed by the angle between two large blocks of stone. At least one skeleton, the best preserved specimen, was reported to be buried in a ‘sitt ing’ position. A heavily re-sharpened fl int dagger found near the skeletons and interpreted as a grave gift , belongs to Lomborg’s type Ix and thus to the earliest part of the Late Neolithic (Holberg 2000: 85). Later, a skeleton has been 14C-dated


to 2190–2110 cal. BC, corresponding to LNI (Indrelid 1996: 232–233). Crouched, sitt ing and hocker positions are common in Beaker burials across Europe (e.g. Harrison 1980). The burial practice may indicate that the people buried at Ruskeneset operated within a Bell Beaker cultural sphere, or – possibly – that they were Bell Beaker immigrants. In the period in question, the site where the skeletons and the crucible were found lay on the opposite side of a small bay from the site with the 14C-dated Bronze Age layer. Judging from the context, a Late Neolithic date for the crucible is as likely as a later Bronze Age date, and if so, Bell Beaker infl uence is the most evident explanation. This suggestion fi nds litt le support in traditional views of the period. However, a diff erent perspective on early metallurgy is emerging from recent fi nds and reconsiderations of artefact chronology. Indeed the presence of metals and metallurgy at Ruskeneset needs to be reconsidered, notably in light of the renewed focus on Bell Beaker migration. In the following I

shall argue that several metal fi nds that have earlier been ascribed to the Bronze Age (Figure 7.2), actually belong in the Late Neolithic.

Late Neolithic metalwork: copper, bronze, gold and tinParadoxically, the potentially oldest Norwegian metal fi nd comes from the Varanger Fiord close to the Finnish and Russian borders, the northernmost part of the Norwegian mainland. The cold-hammered copper dagger from Karlebotn has been interpreted as a local product imitating slate or bone work (Schanche 1989: 63–64). The fact that the Karlebotn dagger was found in an Early Metal Period context, corresponding roughly with the Late Neolithic, makes it one of very few, perhaps the only, object bearing witness to the existence of a Copper Age in Norway. The dagger is fairly fl at and thin, the shoulders square, and the tapered handle

Figure 7.1: The Ruskeneset rock shelter by the Nordås lake. In front Shelter 2 with documented Bronze Age layers. The site where the skeletons and crucible fragment were found, Shelter 1, was destroyed during construction of the road in the back of the picture. Photo Bergen Museum.

Lene Melheim74

has a small hole. It was fi rst compared to Continental bronze daggers of the Middle Bronze Age. However, the Karlebotn dagger, contextually dated to c. 2000 BC, appears to be 800 years older than its Central European ‘cousins’. It had been deposited in a midden along with two miniature bone human fi gurines. The hole in the handle was manufactured with a technology identical to that of a bone handle from the same midden. Signs of grinding were considered traces of secondary re-working through techniques usually applied in the slate industry.

Anders Huggert (1996: 78) has later drawn att ention to similar copper daggers found in the Circumpontic region (cf. Chernykh 1992: 152). In fact, a number of metal finds are known from early contexts in Fennoscandia (Huggert 1996: 70–74). To account for the northern fi nds, it has been proposed that interior groups in Finnmark bartered furs and other materials for metal with metal-producing groups in Karelia and Central/East Russia (Olsen 1994), or that metal circulated within a system of redistribution (Schanche 1994: 195). Against this background it seems evident that the Karlebotn dagger is a product of Circumpontic origin, inspired from the early copper-using cultures in Karelia or Caucasia which produced daggers to which it bears some resemblance.

An alternative scenario, which has not yet been discussed in depth, is that the dagger was imported from areas further south, or manufactured in Karlebotn from southern prototypes. Looking to Southern Scandinavia, the Karlebotn dagger bears some resemblance to a

number of tanged fl at daggers generally associated with the Bell Beaker culture, i.e. a dagger from Blekinge in Sweden and another specimen from Aalborg in Denmark (Oldeberg 1942: 30; Vandkilde 1996: 180–181). The latt er resembles the Karlebotn dagger in shape, although it is about twice as long, and it is not completely fl at like the Karlebotn piece. Neither the size nor the morphological details need be conclusive, since in general, early daggers are fairly heterogeneous (Vandkilde 1996: 181). The possibility that the Karlebotn dagger was inspired by Bell Beaker daggers, or is a (reworked) Bell Beaker import, should therefore be kept open.

An amber butt on has later been identifi ed among the bone butt ons found in the bott om layers of the Karlebotn midden (Ramstad 2006: 133). These miniature bone sculptures of excellent handicraft may be drawn in as circumstantial evidence for long-distance exchange. Amber unequivocally indicates exchange since it occurs in nature only in a few areas. Although bone items are seldom discussed as prestige goods it is worth keeping in mind that bone and antler have traditionally been considered plausible northern products to have been bartered for metals (Johansen 1981: 137; Østmo 2005). It is evident, especially from Late Neolithic grave fi nds that ornaments made from bone and antler, e.g. bone needles replicating metal needles or vice versa, were highly appreciated prestige items (Prescott 1991a: 71). It is therefore perhaps not as evident as it might seem at fi rst glance that the Karlebotn dagger necessarily belonged in a regional exchange system. It may just as well have come from farther away.

Figure 7.2: Late Neolithic metal fi nds mentioned in the text.

No. Object Material Place Context County Date

C38005g Awl Tin Lundevågen, Farsund Cairn Vest-Agder LN I: 2475–2220 cal.

BC

S3585 Noppenring Gold Braut, Klepp Bog Rogaland LN I–II

B4513 Noppenring Gold Klokkhammer, Farsund Mound Vest-Agder LN II (–EBA IA)

S7825 Flanged axe Bronze Bersagel, Sandnes Cairn Rogaland LN II

C7978 Flanged axe Bronze Berge, Sauherad Single fi nd Telemark LN II

C25254 Flanged axe Bronze Rolighet, Larvik River Vestfold LN II

Ts8458bg Dagger Copper Karlebotnbakken, Nesseby Midden Finnmark LN I–II: 2000 BC


Recently, against the traditional idea that all fl anged axes belonged in the Early Bronze Age, a number of fl anged axes from Southern Norway has been dated to the Late Neolithic on the basis of morphology (Figure 7.3). Two fl anged axes have already been re-dated to the LNII on the basis of comparisons to the Danish material, ascribed to Vandkilde’s class A: an axe from Rogaland identifi ed as an A5 or Store Heddinge type (Aakvik 2000: 19–20) and an axe from Telemark identifi ed as an A2 or A3 axe (Groseth 2001: 36). Since the Telemark axe is trapezoidal rather than parallel-sided it probably belongs to type A2, the Hjadstrup axes. These are considered local products (Vandkilde 1996: 72). A re-examination of the axe material in the Oslo collection has revealed that another axe from Vestfold should be ascribed to the A3, Gallemose type. Two or three additional axes may be ascribed to the Late Neolithic judging from the low fl anges, although they are diffi cult to match with Vandkilde’s typological scheme. Moreover, as pointed out by Einar Østmo (2005: 68), a larger bulk of the early fl anged axes traditionally assigned to the Early Bronze Age – altogether nine axes in Southern Norway – may equally well belong in the LNII (cf. Aakvik 2000: 117–18). The highly exclusive

Langquaid axes, appearing in European fi nds as of the fi nal Neolithic, occur in pairs in two of the most spectacular hoard fi nds from Western Norway, i.e. the Aurland hoard and the Blindheim hoard. The best preserved axe in the Aurland hoard is in fact among the largest axes of its kind, 26cm long. However, judging from fi nd combinations, the Aurland and Blindheim axes belong in the Early Bronze Age. Still, we are left with another fi ve axes of this type – single fi nds which may date from the LNII. In comparison, only three Langquaid axes are known from the Danish area (Vandkilde 1996: 103). On the basis of metal composition, the Danish specimens are placed in the Early Bronze Age. Especially the high amount of tin is said to point towards a late date.1 All the early Norwegian axes belong in tin classes 5 or 6, i.e. they have a relatively high content of tin when compared to the bulk of early Danish axes. Also, when looking at trace elements, a slight deviation from the Danish patt ern is visible. It appears that all the early Norwegian axes belong to metal groups which are more unusual in early axes in Denmark.2 This may either be taken to indicate that the axes are not Late Neolithic aft er all or, that Norwegian metalwork follows a diff erent patt ern.

Figure 7.3: Metal composition of potential LNII fl anged axes. Typologi, metal groups and tin types aft er Vandkilde (1996).

No. Place County Type Metal group Tin class

C25254 Rolighet Vestfold Gallemose A3 FA 6 (8,9 %)

C7978 Berge Telemark Hjadstrup A2 FB1-2 5 (7,2 %)

S7825 Bersagel Rogaland Store Heddinge A5 Not analysed Not analysed

B3295a Steine Sogn og Fjordane Langquaid B4 B2 6 (9,2 %)

B3295b Steine Sogn og Fjordane Langquaid B4 B2 6 (8 %)

B4191 Håheim Sogn og Fjordane Langquaid B4 B2 5 (7 %)

B7952 Kvåle Sogn og Fjordane Langquaid B4 FB1-2 6 (9,1 %)

C11059 Borge Østfold Langquaid B4 B2 5 (6,2 %)

C13875 Skalstad, Buskerud Langquaid B4 FA 5 (6,3 %)

T7852 Fævåg Sør-Trøndelag Langquaid B4 FB1-2 or FA 5 (7,8 %)

B12372 Blindheim Møre og Romsdal Langquaid B4 Not analysed Not analysed

B12373 Blindheim Møre og Romsdal Langquaid B4 Not analysed Not analysed

Lene Melheim76

Whereas the Danish specimens are considered to have been imported in alloyed form from Central Europe, the same scenario may not apply to Norway. If the metal used for casting the Norwegian axes derived from other sources, the Danish trends need not be relevant. The unusually high tin values may for instance indicate that already alloyed copper arrived in Norway from other sources, or, that Norwegian groups had access to unalloyed tin. Recently, it has been suggested that the metal groups in question instead of coming from one centralized producer, as argued by e.g. David Liversage (2000: 85), derived from a range of diff erent pyrite ore sources (Northover 2008). Pyrite ore is extremely frequent in Norway and the composition with arsenic and nickel as main impurities could for example stem from copper mined in the Kvikne area in Hedmark, which is one of the obvious areas in which to look for prehistoric mines in Norway (Melheim 2009).

Another group of artefacts indicate that not only bronzes, but also gold objects circulated in Norway in the Late Neolithic, namely the gold noppenringe (Figure 7.4). In Norway, all spiral rings have traditionally been ascribed to the Early Bronze Age (Marstrander 1977: 41–45). The twisted end on a spiral ring from Lista and another specimen from Klepp in Rogaland is however diagnostic for the noppenringe. A recent chronological grouping of early Danish metal fi nds has demonstrated that the type has its main concentration in the LNII, diff ering from later spiral rings (Vandkilde 1996: 200). In Denmark, altogether eight noppenringe of gold and six of copper or bronze from burials and bog fi nds have been ascribed to the LNII.

The Lista noppenring is made of a doubled-up wire with fi ve windings, one end twisted and the other loop-ended. The fi nd circumstances are somewhat unclear. Bergen Museum was informed that the ring came from a burial mound in Vanse when they bought it in the late nineteenth century. This background was later seen in conjunction with two arm rings, one in gold, the other in bronze, which were retrieved from a mound at Klokkhammer in Vanse in 1874 and subsequently sold (Appel 2003: 248–249; Hauge 2007: 46; Stylegar 2007: 64). It thus seems fairly likely that the gold noppenring originates from Klokkhammer, and that it represents an early burial fi nd. A number of the Danish noppenringe have been retrieved from burial contexts, mounds or stone cists (Vandkilde 1996: 199, 203). The concurrent deposition of bronze and golden noppenringe is also documented in Denmark, for instance in the Late Neolithic Skeldal multi-type hoard, where a pair of gold rings and a pair of bronze noppenringe were interred together (Vandkilde 1988: 120–122). Whereas the Lista ring is typologically very similar to those from the Skeldal hoard, the gold noppenring from Klepp, although sharing the windings and the twisted end, is diff erent in several respects. Morphology and metal composition indicate that it may be a thousand years older than earlier believed. It is made of two thin, hammered gold threads, wound four times and twisted at the end. The other end has been torn open, but appears to originally have been twisted too. It was retrieved from a bog and probably represents a deliberate deposition. Angular cross-sections are in general an Early Bronze Age trait, but

Figure 7.4: Gold noppenringe from Braut, Klepp in Rogaland (left ) and Klokkhammer, Lista in Vest-Agder (right). Photo: Bergen Museum and Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger.


also occurs earlier, for instance in the Skeldal hoard. The Klepp specimen is however thinner, fl at rather than rectangular in cross-section – and the twisted end is certainly an early trait.

Metal analyses support an early date for the two south-west coast noppenringe. When it comes to the Lista specimen, it was compared with Hartmann’s gold type A3, which clusters in the Danube area, presumably coming from the Siebenbürgen Erzgebirge in Romania (Marstrander 1977: 44; cf. Hartmann 1970: 41). The composition is congruent with Danish noppenringe analyses, remarkably high in silver, low in copper and with low or no tin content. The Lista specimen with 25% silver is comparable to four of the Danish specimen with values ranging from 20–28% (Vandkilde 1996: 202, fi gure 201). The composition of the Klepp specimen, which has 45% silver, 4,3 % copper and no trace of tin, is highly unusual and may very well be explained as being made from unalloyed gold naturally leading silver (Marstrander 1977: 44–45). One possible source is electrum, naturally occurring silver-blended gold (Hartmann 1970: 9–10). We know that electrum was utilized to make Bell Beaker ornaments. In general, it is assumed that silver contents above 20% point to a Central European rather that British or Irish origin, and the absence of tin indicates an origin in an area without tin deposits (Vandkilde 1996: 187–188). The Braut spiral ring’s metal composition does have parallels in Danish gold fi nds from the LNI, when the combination of high silver and copper occurs frequently in hammered metalwork, i.e. ornaments with oar-shaped ends and lunulae (Vandkilde 1996: figure 180). Thus, the metal composition points towards an early date, possibly LNI. Hammering was frequently used in LNI metalwork, the twisted end(s) are however, as far as I know, an LNII trait. Possibly, this anomaly represents a cold-hammered LNI ring re-worked in the LNII.

The identifi cation of Late Neolithic noppenringe among the precious metal fi nds from Rogaland and Vest-Agder indicate that metal objects circulated in the region from an earlier point in time than archaeologists have yet realized, and were sometimes interred in burials. This fact may serve as circumstantial evidence in the discussion about the rare fi nd of a tin awl at Lista. Excavations at Lundevågen in 1992 resulted in the highly surprising and sensational fi nd of a tin awl in a burial mound which was 14C-dated to 2475–2220 cal. BC, i.e. LNI (Ballin and Jensen 1995: 336). Potentially, the awl is thus among the earliest documented pieces of metal in Norway. It was however automatically ascribed to the Bronze Age, and the fi nd has therefore, although still quite sensational, not fi gured in the debate about early metal culture in Norway.

The awl appeared in the fill of a small mound or cairn built of middle-sized boulders and sand, situated at an elevation of 26 m.a.s.l. with a good view of the bay (Ballin and Jensen 1995: 238–239). Plundering had altered its shape from round to oval. Scattered in the fill was also a rubber stone, thirteen flakes of flint and quartz, one blade fragment and some fragments of burnt bone, whereof two pieces were identified as possibly human. Beneath the fill, there was a depression in the bedrock filled with ashes and coal, interpreted as a grave chamber. Whereas the awl and the burnt human bones were considered as belonging to the grave, the other finds were believed to have come from a settlement site that had been disturbed when sand was collected to build the cairn. On the basis of typology, the awl was dated to the Bronze Age and was suggested as belonging to a secondary burial related to the construction of the cairn, whereas the coal from the ‘chamber’, dated to the Late Neolithic, was held to represent an earlier burial. It was presupposed that an unburnt skeleton had been interred in the chamber, and that the ash horizon came from a ritual cleansing of the site.

The Lundevågen awl is britt le and broken in several pieces, about half of one end is missing, the mid-section has been fl att ened through hammering, and the cross-section varies from spherical to rectangular. Although the broken end appears to be slightly more rectangular than the other, it is unclear whether this end was once shaped like a tang or a pointed end; this is of some relevance for the dating. Awls made of bronze are well-known fi nds throughout the Bronze Age: the earliest documented awls from Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany date to the Early Bronze Age (EBA) (e.g. Vandkilde 1996: 117, 120, 145, 218, fi gures 102 and 109). Some of these awls correspond to Late Neolithic European types, but are dated to EBAI through fi nd associations. Although certainly a rare prestige item, awls occur relatively frequently in rich Beaker graves all over Europe (Harrison 1980: 26–27, 48, 50, 111, 138, 149, fi gure 12), for instance in a ‘smith’s grave’ in Lunteren in the Low Countries, representing the earliest manifestation of metalworking in the area. On the Continent and in Britain, awls of the rhomboid type with a swelling in the middle concentrate in periods corresponding to the Scandinavian Late Neolithic (Henshall and MacInnes 1967–68: 84; Waldren 1979: 52–62). The awl from Lundevågen may very well, judging from typological criteria, belong in the Late Neolithic or the Early Bronze Age, a proposition supported by the Late Neolithic radiometric date of coal from the central grave.

Lene Melheim78

Contrary to most awls, the Lundevågen specimen is made of tin. Tin in its pure state is of limited practical value – it has a low melting point and thus easy to shape, but breaks readily unless lead or some other alloy is added (Penhallurick 1986: 3). Unalloyed tin is highly exotic during the period in question. The awl should therefore be considered a prestige item or perhaps a talisman (Sheridan 2003). The use of pure tin seems to have been limited to very special objects, possibly with a magical purpose, and is rare also in Bronze Age contexts. There is litt le doubt that an LNI date would be remarkably early for a tin awl, since copper was not alloyed with tin in Southern Scandinavia until the LNII. Elsewhere in Europe, tin appears somehow earlier – in the British Isles in the late third millennium BC. It has however been argued concerning lead, that in an early experimental phase before being used as an alloy, it was used for small ornaments (Hunter and Davis 1994: 829). This may also apply to tin. Also, the fact that the earliest tin alloys on the Continent were small items like awls is indicative of an early date for the Lundevågen awl.

Late Neolithic metallurgy in the Årdal highlands I started out discussing fi nds from the Ruskeneset rock shelter and suggested that both the burials and the limited traces of early metallurgy are best understood within a Bell Beaker scenario. It is perhaps not a mere coincidence that the earliest traces of metallurgy thus far unearthed in Norway comes from another rock shelter, i.e. Skrivarhelleren, situated at 800 m.a.s.l. in the Årdal mountains in Sogn og Fjordane county. Excavations here in the late 1980s produced numerous metallurgical fi nds, and a surprisingly early date for the bott om layers – indicating that the shelter was in use from the beginning of the Late Neolithic (Prescott 1991a, 2006). The Skrivarhelleren fi nds indicate that the people visiting the shelter were acquainted with metals and that they also practiced metallurgy in Late Neolithic times, at what appears to be a seasonally inhabited pastoralist sett lement site. Among several metal fragments contextually dated to the LNII is a small piece, interpreted as having been chopped to be re-melted (Prescott 1991a: 78). It is thus an important fi nd when it comes to understanding the role of bronze in this mountain region, and among the strong indications that metalworking took place in Skrivarhelleren already in the Late Neolithic. The chopped piece was found near a hearth, interpreted as having been used in the melting of bronze due to the presence of iron oxides, traces of sintering indicating

temperatures at 1100–1200°C, and microscopic traces of bronze (Prescott 1991a: 81). A wedge-shaped slate pendant is also of relevance to metallurgy. The type, which has a bi-conical perforation from the top to the front, is well-known from Late Neolithic contexts, by some considered a symbol of a Bell Beaker expansion to Scandinavia and the arrival of metal production (Prescott 1991a: 58–60; cf. Lomborg 1973: 149). It has been proposed that black slate pendants were used as touchstones. In Scania, a gold-silver alloy was detected on two out of c. 50 analyzed pendants (Ahlberg et al. 1976). The pendant from Skrivarhelleren was examined in an optical microscope to see if it had been used as a touchstone, but no trace of metal was spott ed. However, systematic spectrographic or electron microprobe analysis is necessary to provide more conclusive results, as especially copper erodes easily. The negative result is thus not conclusive.

More research is needed to draw conclusions regarding the character of the metallurgy in Skrivarhelleren, be it solely casting and melting, or perhaps also smelting of copper ore from the Årdal Valley/Gruvefj ellet one day’s journey to the west, as recently suggested by Christopher Prescott (2006). If this is really the case, may prospecting for metals perhaps explain the presence of Bell Beaker artefacts in the shelter? Besides the slate pendant, other objects hinting at Bell Beaker infl uence are fragments of a shaft -hole axe, fl int daggers and other bifacial lithics, most prominently the intact type 1B-dagger deposited at a small elevation c. 300 m from the shelter. Also, a metal rivet head possibly belonging to a LNII halberd or dagger (Prescott 1991a: 79; cf. Vandkilde 1996: 192–199), and the numerous examples of small bone, shell and slate ornaments in Skrivarhelleren, e.g. the needles, beads, a spatula and a small plug interpreted as a lip stud, echo ornaments from Bell Beaker burials in The British Isles (Prescott 1991a: 65–76). Prescott has pointed out that the many diff erent materials documented in the shelter, i.e. metals, pumice, bear bones, lake fi sh bones, blackthorn etc. indicate contacts with several diff erent and partly distant regions (Prescott 1991b). The location of the shelter is of particular interest in this respect, situated as it is along the historically and archaeologically well-documented route between Eastern Norway and the fi ords of Western Norway.

The rich material from Skrivarhelleren is another strong indication that Bell Beaker infl uence coincided with early metallurgy also in peripheral Norway. Instead of seeing the Bell Beaker movements across Europe as spatially continuous, it is oft en envisioned as enclaves or pockets (e.g. Vander Linden 2007). This model stresses the importance of kin networks and


alliances for the maintenance of contacts and continued reproduction of the Beaker cultural package. Whether we should envision actual immigration, visiting prospectors, or local people partaking in networks involving Bell Beaker groups is still an open question, but a connection seems evident.

Culture-historical implications Taken together, the traces of early metallurgy in rock shelters on the west coast and the identifi cation of several Late Neolithic metal fi nds – represented here by a copper dagger, bronze axes, gold noppenringe and a tin awl – radically changes our perception of the Late Neolithic in Norway and must be of consequence for future models of cultural change in this era. Metals and metallurgy appear to have had a much stronger standing in material culture and real life than earlier envisioned on the basis of the idea of a continued Stone Age cultural reproduction. Metal culture appears to have gained foothold already

in the LNI, although as in Denmark, fi nds are far more numerous from the LNII onwards. Indications of conspicuous consumption and ritual hoarding of metal artefacts, deposited in burial contexts or individually, cluster in the central areas. The richest evidence of early metallurgy, on the other hand, comes from what appears to be peripheral locations – even in a Norwegian sett ing. However, from a bird’s eye view, there’s a surprisingly good overlap between areas with early Bell Beaker infl uence (judging from Bell Beaker diagnostic material like fi nds of tanged and barbed arrowheads) and areas with early metal fi nds or traces of metallurgy (Figure 7.5).

These preliminary results lead to an array of new questions that must be addressed by future research into the topic. One of these has been debated by Norwegian archaeologists for decades, in a Bronze Age setting: given the low numbers, should we consider Late Neolithic metal artefacts as exotic prestige items without practical consequences or any real impact on social reproduction? Or should we instead take them at face value as evidence that metal technology had arrived? Should we consider the remote locations of the few documented production sites evidence that metallurgy had a far wider distribution than hitherto suggested, and so to say reached every corner of the peripheral, rocky land? Or, should we instead consider the sites rare and unique evidence of historical episodes, prospecting groups visiting the mountain regions in search of raw materials – metals and perhaps also other products from the wilderness? Nevertheless, the exploration of the role of Bell Beaker groups in the spread of metallurgy must be central to any approach to these questions.

Notes1. Whereas 13% of the Danish class A axes and 67% of the

class B axes belonged to tin class 5, tin class 6 is more unusual, comprising respectively 8% and 24% (Vandkilde 1996: fi gure 46).

2. In Denmark, FB1–2 metal is highly unusual in class A axes at 1%, increasing to 23% in class B axes, but fi rst reaching its climax in the late class C and D groups of axes. The FA metal appears fi rst among class B axes, but is nevertheless very rare in Denmark, making up only 5% and 7% of the class B and C axes (Vandkilde 1996:fi gure 44). The new and prominent FB1–2/‘AsNi’ metal takes over completely in EBAI, suggested to have come from one supplier in the Eastern Alps (Liversage 2000: 85). The FA metal is related to the FB1–2 metal and encompassed by Liversage’s (2000) wider grouping of ‘AsNi’ (or FAARDMET),

Figure 7.5: Overlapping distributions of arrowheads and early metal fi nds in Southern Norway. Triangles: Tanged and barbed arrowheads (aft er Østmo 2005). Rings: Early metal fi nds in areas with Bell Beaker infl uence.

Lene Melheim80

ReferencesAakvik, J. 2000 Med blikket vendt mot sør! Et materialstudie av

eldre bronsealder på Vestlandet. Unpublished Hovedfag thesis, University of Bergen.

Ahlberg, M., Akselsson, R., Forkman, B. and Rausing, G. 1976 Gold traces on wedge-shaped artefacts from the Late Neolithic of Southern Scandinavia analysed by proton-induced x-ray emission spectroscopy. Archaeometry 18(1): 39–49.

Apel, J. 2001 Daggers, Knowledge and Power. The Social Aspects of Flint-Dagger Technology in Scandinavia 2350–1500 cal BC. Coast to coast-book 3. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala.

Appel, L. K. 2003 ‘Enten fi nder jeg Vei – eller jeg baner mig Vei!’ Arkeologen Anders Lund Lorange på Lista 1877. In Snartemofunnene i nytt lys, edited by P. Rolfsen and F. Stylegar, pp. 239–268. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museum Skrift er 2. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museum, Oslo.

Ballin, T. B. and Jensen, O. L. 1995 Farsundprosjektet. Stenalderbopladser på Lista. Varia 29. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Barber, M. 2003 Bronze and the Bronze Age. Metalwork and Society in Britain c. 2500–800 BC. Tempus Publishing, Stroud.

Barth, F. 1990 The guru and the conjurer: Transactions in knowledge and the shaping of culture in Southeast Asia and Melanesia. Man, New Series 25(4): 640–653.

Bjerck, H. and Åstveit, L. I. 2008 Ormen Lange Nyhamna. NTNU Vitenskapsmuseets arkeologiske undersøkelser. Tapir, Trondheim.

Brinkmann, A. and Shetelig, H. 1920 Ruskenesset. En stenalders jagtplads. Norske Oldfund. Bind III, Kristiania.

Brodie, N. 1997 New perspectives on the Bell-Beaker culture. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(3): 297–314.

Børsheim, R. 2005 Toskipede hus i neolitikum og eldste bronsealder. Primitive tider 7:49–59.

Bårdseth, G. A. 2008 (ed.) Evaluering – resultat. E6-prosjektet Østfold. Band 5. Varia 69. Fornminneseksjonen, Kulturhistorisk museum, Oslo.

Chernykh, E. N. 1992 Ancient metallurgy in the USSR. The Early Metal Age. Translated by Sarah Wright. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Childe, V. G. 1930: The Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press, London.

Childe, V. G. 1939: The Dawn of European Civilization. London.Craddock, P. 2003 Introduction. In Mining and Metal Production

Through the Ages, edited by P. Craddock and J. Lang, pp. 7–8. The British Museum press, London.

Diinhoff , S. 2005 Tidlige jordbrugsbosætninger på Vestlandet med spor eft er toskibede langhuse. Primitive tider 7: 41–48.

Evans, J. A., Chenery, C. A. and Fitzpatrick, A. P. 2006 Bronze Age childhood migration of individuals near Stonehenge, revealed by strontium and oxygen isotope tooth enamel analysis. Archaeometry 48 (2): 309–321.

Gjerpe, L. E. and Bukkemoen, G. B. 2008 Kapitt el 2. Nordby 1 – Toskipede hus fra neolitikum–bronsealder og boplasspor fra jernalder. In E18-prosjektet Vestfold Bind 3, edited by L. G. Gjerpe, pp.7–38. Varia 73. Fornminneseksjonen, Kulturhistorisk museum, Oslo.

Gjessing, G. 1944 Steinalder – bronsealder – steinbronsealder? Viking VIII: 15–29.

Glørstad, H. 2004 Svinesundprosjektet. Bind 4. Oppsummering av Svinesundprosjektet. Varia 57. Fornminneseksjonen, Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer. Oslo.

Groseth, L. 2001 Å fi nne sted. Økonomiske og rituelle landskap i Telemark i sen-neolitikum og bronsealder. Varia 53. Oldsaksamlingen, Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer. Oslo.

Grupe, G., Price, T. D., Schröter, P., Söllner, F., Johnson, C. M. and Beard, B. L. 1997 Mobility of Bell Beaker people revealed by strontium isotope ratios of tooth and bone: a study of southern Bavarian skeletal remains. Applied Geochemistry 12: 517–525.

Guerra-Doce, E. 2006 Exploring the signifi cance of Beaker pott ery through residue analyses. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25(3): 247–259.

Harrison, R. J. 1980 The Beaker Folk. Copper Age archaeology in Western Europe. Thames and Hudson, London.

Harrison, R., Quero, S. and Priego, M. C. 1975 Beaker metallurgy in Spain. Antiquity XLIX: 273–278.

Hartmann, A. 1970 Prähistorische Goldfunde aus Europa. Spektralanalytische Untersuchungen und deren Auswertung. Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 3. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Berlin.

Hauge, S. 2007 Symbolsk alkymisme. Maktrelasjoner i bronsealderen i Farsund og Lyngdal. Unpublished Hovedfag thesis, University of Oslo.

Henshall, A. S. and MacInnes, I. J. 1967–68 A Beaker Grave at Springwood, Kelso, Roxburghshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 100: 79–85.

Holberg, E. 2000 Klokkebegerkulturens symboler. Senneolitikum i Rogaland og Nordland sør for polarsirkelen. Unpublished Hovedfag thesis, University of Bergen.

Huggert, A. 1996 Early Copper Finds in Northern Fennoscandia. Current Swedish Archaeology 4: 69–82.

Hunter, F. and Davis, M. 1994 Early Bronze Age lead – a unique necklace from southeast Scotland. Antiquity 68: 824–30.

Indrelid, S. 1996 Frå steinalder til vikingtid. Strilesoga, Vol. 1. Eide forlag, Bergen.

Johansen, Ø. 1981 Metallfunnene i østnorsk bronsealder. Kulturtilknytning og forutsetninger for en marginalekspansjon. Universitetets Oldsaksamlings Skrift er, Ny rekke 4. Oslo.

Johnson, T. and. Prescott , C. 1993 Late Neolithic houses at Stokkset, Sande in Sunnmøre. In Minneskrift Egil Bakka, edited by B. Solberg, pp. 70–89. Arkeologiske Skrift er fra Historisk museum nr. 7. Bergen.


Kvalø, F. 2007 Oversjøiske reiser fra Sørvest-Norge til Nordvest-Jylland i eldre bronsealder – en drøfting om maritim realisering og rituell mobilisering. In Sjøreiser og stedsidentitet. Jæren/Lista i bronsealder og eldre jernalder, edited by L. Hedeager, pp. 13–134. Oslo Archaeological Series 8. Oslo.

Liversage, D. 2000 Interpreting Impurity Patt erns in Ancient Bronze: Denmark. Det kongelige nordiske oldskrift selskab, København.

Lomborg, E. 1973 Die Flintdolche Dänemarks. Studien über Chronologie und Kulturbeziehungen des südskandinavischen Spätneolithikums. Nordiske fortidsminder. Serie B in quarto 1. Copenhagen.

Marstrander, S. 1977 Bronze Age Gold Finds in Norway. Universitetets Oldsaksamlings Årbok 1975/76: 41–57.

Melheim, L. 2009 Kobberimport eller kobberproduksjon? In Det 10. nordiske bronsealdersymposium i Trondheim 5.–8. oktober 2006, edited by G. Grønnesby and M. M. Henriksen, pp. 20–35.Vitark 6 – Acta archaeologica Nidrosiensia. Tapir akademisk forlag, Trondheim.


Myhre, B. 1979 Spor ett er klokkebegerkulturen i Rogaland. Fra haug ok heidni 4(7): 298–303.

Myhre, B. and Øye, I. 2002 Jorda blir levevei. 4000 f.Kr.–1350 e.Kr. Norges landbrukshistorie, Bind 1. Samlaget, Oslo.

Northover, P. 2008 Analysis of Bronze Age metalwork from Norway. Unpublished report. Department of Materials, University of Oxford.

O’Brien, W. 2004 Ross Island. Mining, Metal and Society in Early Ireland. Bronze Age Studies 6. Department of Archaeology, National University of Ireland, Galway.

Oldeberg, A. 1942 Metalteknik under förhistorisk tid. Del I. Kommisionsverlag Ott o Harrassowitz Leipzig, Lund.

Olsen, B. 1994 Bosetning og samfunn i Finnmarks forhistorie. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2005 Over Skagerak i steinalderen. Noen refl eksjoner om oppfi nnelsen av havgående fartøyer i Norden. Viking LXVIII: 55–82.

Penhallurick, R. D. 1986 Tin in antiquity. Its mining and trade throughout the ancient world with particular reference to Cornwall. The Institute of metals. Book 325. Institute of Metals, London.

Prescott , C. 1991a Kulturhistoriske undersøkelser i Skrivarhelleren. Arkeologiske rapporter 14. Historisk museum, Universitetet i Bergen, Bergen.

Prescott , C. 1991b Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Developments on the Periphery of Southern Scandinavia. Norwegian Archaeological Review 24(1): 35–48.

Prescott , C. 2005 Sett lement and economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of Southern Norway: Some points and premises. In Konstruksjonsspor og byggeskikk. Maskinell fl ateavdekking – metodikk, tolkning og forvaltning, edited by M. Høgestøl, L. Selsing, T. Løken, A. J. Nærøy and L. Prøsch-Danielsen, pp. 127–136 . AmS-varia 43. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Prescott , C. 2006 Copper production in Bronze Age Norway? In Historien i forhistorien. Festskrift til Einar Østmo på 60-årsdagen, edited by H. Glørstad, B. Skar and D. Skre, pp. 183–190. Skrift er nr. 4. Kulturhistorisk museum, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo.

Prescott , C. and E. Walderhaug 1995 The last frontier? Processes of Indo-Europeanization in Northern Europe: The Norwegian case. Journal of Indo-European Studies 23(3/4): 257–281.

Price, T. D., Grupe, G. and Schröter, P. 1998 Migration in the Bell Beaker period of central Europe. Antiquity 72(276): 405–411.

Price, T. D., Knipper, C., Grupe, G. and Smrcka, V. 2004 Strontium Isotopes and Prehistoric Human Migration: The Bell Beaker Period in Central Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 7(1): 9–40.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2008 Bell Beaker communities in Thy: The fi rst Bronze Age Society in Denmark. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2): 115–158.

Ramstad, M. 2006 Perler og mennesker 4000 f. Kr. Om miljøet rundt ravfunnene fra Finnmarks steinalder. In Samfunn,

symboler og identitet – Festskrift til Gro Mandt på 70-årsdagen edited by R. Barndon, S. Innselset, K. Kristoff ersen and T. Lødøen, pp. 129–146. Universitetet i Bergen arkeologiske skrift er, Nordisk nr. 3. Bergen.

Rønne, O. 2005 Hus og gård i senneolitikum på Svinesund. Primitive tider 7: 61–69.


Schanche, K. 1989 Nye funn fra yngre steinalder i Varanger. Viking LII: 53–71.

Schanche, K. 1994 Gressbakkentuft ene i Varanger. Boliger og sosial struktur rundt 2000 f. Kr. Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap, Universitetet i Tromsø. Tromsø.

Sebelien, J. 1923 De forhistoriske bronsers sammensætning og oprindelse og deres relative alder som bruksmetal sammenlignet med jernet. Videnskapsselskapets skrift er 1. Matematisk-naturvitenskapelig klasse nr. 5. Kristiania.

Sebelien, J. 1931 Further analyses of old bronzes. Avhandlinger utgitt av det norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo II. Historisk-fi losofi sk klasse nr. 3. Oslo.

Sheridan, A. 2003 Supernatural power dressing. British Archaeology 70. Council for British Archaeology. Electronic document, htt p://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba70/feat3.shtml, accessed March 2009.

Skjølsvold, A. 1977 Slett abøboplassen. Et bidrag til diskusjonen om forholdet mellom fangst- og bondesamfunnet i yngre steinalder og bronsealder. Skrift er 2. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Soltvedt, E.-C., Løken, T., Prøsch-Danielsen, L., Børsheim, R. L. and Oma, K. 2007 Bøndene på Kvålehodlene. Boplass-, jordbruks- og landskapsutvikling gjennom 6000 år på Jæren, SV Norge. AmS-Varia 47. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Stylegar, F. A. 2007 Farmers, mariners and lords of long-ago. Archaeology and prehistory in the Agder region. Reports from the Department of Regional Development, Vest-Agder County Council.

Vander Linden, M. 2007 What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe. Antiquity 81: 343–352.

Vandkilde, H. 1988 A Late Neolithic hoard with objects of bronze and gold from Skeldal, Central Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 7: 115–135.

Vandkilde, H. 1996 From Stone to Bronze. The Metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Archaeological Society Publications XXXII. Aarhus.

Vandkilde, H. 2005 A Review of the Early Late Neolithic Period in Denmark: Practice, Identity and Connectivity. Electronic document, htt p://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2005_vandkilde_high.pdf, accessed May 2008. Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel.

Waldren, W. H. 1979 A Beaker Workshop Area in the Rock Shelter of Son Matge, Mallorca. World Archaeology 11(1): 43–67.

8

Historical ideal types and the transition to the Late Neolithic in South Norway

Håkon Glørstad

The transition to the Late Neolithic – a watershed in Norwegian history?In 1996 Christopher Prescott concluded his analysis of the Neolithic of Norway with rejecting most of the evidence in favour of an agrarian economy before the transition to the Late Neolithic. The Late Neolithic thus represented a true watershed in Norwegian prehistory, where the economy and many social institutions were dramatically altered, making up the fundament of Bronze and Iron Age societies in the country. Prescott ’s conclusion marked a clear reintroduction of a historical perspective in Norwegian Stone Age archaeology.

According to Prescott , there was only one relatively clear exception to the continuation of a pure hunter and gatherer way of life throughout the Early and Middle Neolithic in the area. This was the sett ling of Funnel Beaker (TRB) farmers around the Oslo Fjord in the Early Neolithic (Prescott 1996). Most researchers have concluded the same way as Prescott did, concerning the introduction of agriculture in the Oslo Fjord area, but the economic importance of this strategy has been highly debated (Glørstad and Prescott 2009).

The Oslo Fjord area in particular and the eastern part of Norway in general, are exceptional areas of the country. The geographic and climatic conditions connect this landscape closely to the Swedish west coast and South Scandinavia, thus the history and prehistory of this these landscapes have been tightly interwoven. Keeping the focus on the Neolithic, not only the TRB culture connects this area to southern Sweden and Denmark. The Middle Neolithic Batt le Axe Culture (BAC), dated to the second half of this sub-period, is also well represented in this area, in relative contrast to the rest of Norway. The nature and history of the BAC is not comprehensibly investigated and understood

in Norway, and the period is described as a ‘black box phase’ (Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; cp. Leach 1973 for terminology). The chronology of the phase is also under debate. Although a relative chronology has been in use for a long time (e.g. Edenmo 2008; Forssander 1933; Hinsch 1954; Malmer 1962, 2002), there is no generally accepted and reliable absolute chronology (Edenmo 2008: 113–114). This contrasts to research on the Danish Single Grave Complex, where the chronological development on Jutland is extensively 14C-dated (Ebbesen 2006: 27–29).

Most researchers and scholars discussing the Batt le Axe Culture in south-east Norway have concluded that the economy and the social development bear strong resemblance to the development in South Scandinavia (Hinsch 1955; Malmer 1962; Mikkelsen 1989; Østmo 1988). Thus agriculture has been considered as an integral part of the economy and of greater importance than in the Early Neolithic period (Mikkelsen 1989: 189, 198, 225; Reitan 2009; Østmo 1988: 228). The problem with this conclusion is that it is solely based on pollen analysis and the distribution of stray fi nds from the period. The only known sites are typical hunting and fi shing sites at the coast or in the mountain areas (e.g. Ingstad and Müller 1965; Mikkelsen 1989: 218; Østmo 2008a), where the location, the composition of artefacts and dietary components clearly point back to the hunter and gatherer economy of the Early Neolithic and Late Mesolithic (Glørstad 2008).

The aim of this paper is to discuss the transition from Middle to Late Neolithic in Eastern Norway based on a case study from the southern part of Østfold County. I wish to demonstrate that although both the Batt le Axe Complex and some agricultural activity is present in the Oslo Fjord area in the Middle Neolithic, there is

8. Historical ideal types and the transition to the Late Neolithic in South Norway 83

still good reason to describe the transition to the Late Neolithic as a watershed in the culture-history of the area. Thus, the perspective of a dramatic historical event introduced by Prescott can also be a valuable perspective for the Oslo Fjord region. In my opinion, it is a challenge to develop a model for explaining some central aspects of this crucial process of change, to add some substance to the black box perspective.

Explaining change by ideal typesThe sociologist Arne Kommisrud has presented a thorough analysis of Max Weber’s methods and theories for explaining historical and sociological phenomena. His central point is that Weber’s concept of ideal types is still a very current and forceful analytical tool (Kommisrud 1995; Weber 1978). This opinion has gained support among scholars in several disciplines and the concept of ideal types is adopted even in very popular and widely distributed books (e.g. Bauman 2008; Kershaw 2008).

By ideal types Weber means abstracted models or analytical tools for analysing historical or present social situations. These ideal types emphasise particular aspects of the social reality, thus the case under study can be constructed in a certain manner. The most well-known example is probably the three fundamental types of authority, based respectively on charisma, tradition and bureaucracy. Weber does not claim that these forms of authority usually appear as pure types. In an actual historical sett ing the phenomenon under analysis can be characterised by all these forms of power to various degrees. Thus, the ideal types do not describe reality – they analyse and construct it (Weber 1978: 19–22).

In anthropology and archaeology this concept of ideal types has more or less indirectly been central to the work of Marshall Sahlins. In 1963, for instance, he presented the authority systems in bands, tribes and chiefdoms as two variants of the three most famous Weberian ideal types of authority, that is, charismatic and traditional authority (Sahlins 1963; Weber 1978: 212ff ; see discussion in Odner 1979: 8–9). In a recent book, Apologies to Thucydides: understanding history as culture and vice versa, Sahlins (2004) develops these ideas even further. Here, he claims that the historical development on the Fĳ i Islands in the 1850s share fundamental similarities with the historical development in classical Greece, because the cultural organisation of Greek and Fĳ ian societies were centred around the same basic opposition. According to Sahlins, it was the structural logic in the competitive situation that shaped the social formation. The outcome

of this historical conjuncture of competition was however not determined – the social or cultural structures gave only a framework for the historical development (compare Baumann 2008: 35). He thus identifi es similarly structured, competitive systems in very diff erent historical sett ings. The feuds at Fĳ i and the Peloponnesian war have already been mentioned, but Sahlins also claims that the relations between the Soviet and the U.S. in the Cold War have structural similarities with the older cases (Sahlins 2004: 17).

Thus, according to Sahlins, a historical scenario based on competing social entities can be analysed according to an ideal typical model, the way Weber conceived. The theoretical framework for my analysis is the assumption that two structurally opposed, yet interrelated models of social organisation, such as Sahlins identifi es in ancient Greece, can constitute a fruitful model for analysing the introduction of Late Neolithic culture in eastern Norway.

Case study – Svinesund, Østfold, South-East Norway

General trends in the Stone Age occupation at Svinesund In order to combine the two central themes discussed this far, that is, the possibility of crucial social changes at the transition to the Late Neolithic and the ideal-typical models of explanation formulated by Weber, I want to introduce a source material excavated and published at the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century (Glørstad 2004; Rønne 2003a, 2003b). At Svinesund, Østfold, the corridor of the new highway between Oslo and Gothenburg cuts across what was an island in the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Svinesund is situated at the eastern shore of the Oslo Fjord, and had well-developed contact relations to South Scandinavia throughout the Stone Age (Figure 8.1). Then and now, the Svinesund area is not the most central area for farming, there are however several suitable areas for such activities. Today, the soil is heavily leached, but this process was probably not as apparent in the Neolithic (cp. Hallgren 2008). The prehistory of the ancient ‘Svinesund Island’ was thoroughly investigated before the highway was built, and the presence of sites in the corridor of the highway is well documented. Sett lement sites were mapped from c. 20–70 m above present sea level (Figure 8.2). The majority of these sites are considered to be coast-bound sett lements. The land rise in the area is considerable, thus the prehistoric sett lements are chronologically ordered in the terrain, where the oldest sites are found at the highest levels. Figure 8.3

Håkon Glørstad84

Figure 8.1: The location of Svinesund in Østfold and Norway.

Figure 8.2: The Svinesund area with the sea level raised 20m above the present. Stone Age sites recorded are marked as polygons. The planned highway is marked as a black line across the prehistoric island.

Figure 8.3: The distribution of Stone Age sites at the diff erent levels above present sea level. The trend line is marked.

Figure 8.4: Simplified shoreline displacement curve for the Svinesund area. Data from Sørensen (1999).


shows the number of recorded sett lement sites sorted as a function of their relation to the present sea level. Figure 8.4 shows the shoreline displacement curve. One obvious trend in this data material is that the Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic represent periods of intensive coastal sett lement. When it comes to the Late Mesolithic material, this trend is generally documented all over Scandinavia (e.g. Larsson 2003). In Norway this also seems to be a common patt ern in the Early and following stages of the Middle Neolithic (Bakka and Kaland 1971; Bergsvik 2002a, 2006; Glørstad 2004; Olsen 1992). In this perspective, the data material from Svinesund thus seems to confi rm the general trends of sett lement developments in the Stone Age of Norway. Of particular interest to my discussion is the marked decrease in the number of sites towards the end of the Neolithic. This is an interesting observation, because the land rise is much slower in the latt er part of the Neolithic than in the preceding periods. If the previous sett lement patt ern was continued, one should expect high densities of coastal sett lement sites also at the end of the Neolithic period. Hence, there seems to be strong indications in this data material for a marked decline in coastal sett lements in the fi nal part of the Middle Neolithic or in the Late Neolithic.

Late Neolithic farmsteads at SvinesundThis observation is matched by another data set from Svinesund. Approximately 50 m above present sea level, a level representing the shore in the Late Mesolithic, two areas of intensive occupation from the Late Neolithic were excavated. At a site called Stensrød, three longhouses were found. 14C-datings and the relative positioning of the houses indicate that the same area was continuously occupied for several hundred years, where new buildings were erected when the old ones became unsuitable for use (Glørstad 2004: 69–70; Rønne 2003b). The dates span from the beginning of the Late Neolithic and into the Bronze Age. In the Late Neolithic, Stensrød was situated several hundred meters away from the shoreline. The house typology and the datings clearly indicate stable agrarian sett lement at the Svinesund Island in the Late Neolithic, because the house type is well-documented on agrarian sites in Scandinavia (Biwall et al. 1997; Björhem and Säfvestad 1993; Jensen 2001: 508–510; Larsson 1995; Nielsen 1998). This is also confi rmed by the situating of the sett lement away from the coast, in the area most suitable for agriculture, and by macro-fossils in context.

Near Stensrød, at the site Torpum 9, a fossilised fi eld with several clearance cairns was found (Figure 8.6). A small bog overlaying two of the cairns made

it possible to date the agrarian activity. The bog was established in the fi nal part of the Late Neolithic (2150–1870 BC, T-15859, Høeg 2003), consequently the cairns and the fi elds must be contemporary, or more likely, dated prior to this phase. Sickles of fl int made by pressure fl ake technology and 14C-datings of carbonised barley found on the site enhances the impression of considerable agrarian activity in the Late Neolithic (Rønne 2003a).

To summarise, at Svinesund both tilled fi elds and farmsteads clearly indicate the presence of a well-developed agrarian way of life in the Late Neolithic. The impression of intensive agrarian activity organised from regular farms in this period is also enhanced by general pollen analysis (Høeg 2002), and by charcoal dated to the Late Neolithic from several sites from the Svinesund Island, where no other Neolithic activity is observed. This is interpreted as a general deforestation of the landscape for pasture (Glørstad 2004: 70).

Determining the oldest agrarian sett lement at SvinesundThis pattern of intensive agricultural activity, permanently sett led farmsteads, well-tilled fi elds in combination with an artefact inventory of interregional character, is not unique for the Svinesund area. This is a general trend in Late Neolithic Scandinavia. What makes the Svinesund material of particular importance is the possibility of documenting this way of life as a radical separation from the previous manners of social life in the area.

Due to the construction of the highway, sett lement sites situated from 28 to 55 m above the present sea level were excavated. This period covers the time span in the shoreline displacement curve from the Middle Neolithic (c. 2800 BC) back to the beginning of the Late Mesolithic (c. 6300 BC) (Johansen 2003, 2004). The most intensive excavations were all situated at levels higher than 32 m above present sea level. Except for the two Late Neolithic sites discussed, all other Stone Age sites surveyed or investigated are interpreted as coastal sett lements. Figure 8.5 shows all the 14C-datings available from the Svinesund excavations in chronological order. As indicated by the fi gure, human activity, documented by 14C-datings, is recorded as a fairly continuous line of dates from approximately 6000 BC to 3600 BC, that is, from the Late Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic. Then, there is a gap of c. 1300 years, until 2300 BC, before human occupation is again documented by the datings. From Figure 8.3 we remember that this gap is not due to the lack of sites in this period. In my opinion the most logical explanation of the lacuna is that the period with no dates represents

Figu

re 8

.5: 1

4C-d

atin

gs fr

om in

vest

igat

ed si

tes a

t the

pre

hist

oric

Svi

nesu

nd Is

land

. Not

e the

lacu

na b

etw

een

the E

arly

and

Lat

e Neo

lithi

c dat

ings

. Unc

alib

rate

d da

tes B

P al

ong

vert

ical

axi

s. (s

ourc

e G

lørs

tad

2004

).


continuous coastal sett lement. These sites are situated at levels lower than the levels with excavated sites. The settlements documented from approximately 2300 BC therefore represent the fi rst phase in the prehistory of the Svinesund area where sett lement sites are not located at the shoreline. To put it another way, the sett lement sites from the Late Neolithic represent the fi rst phase of agrarian sett lement and farmsteads in the area. These farmsteads are situated on the same locations where Mesolithic coastal sett lements were excavated. Consequently, if there had been such occupation at an earlier stage on the island, this activity should have been detected when coastal sett lements from the older phases were investigated. There are therefore solid reasons to claim that the Late Neolithic represents a marked break in the historical development in the Stone Age. Coastal sett lements where hunting and fi shing are the documented activities, and where the sites seem to be part of a local, logistical site system of movement in the landscape, are replaced by a full-scale agrarian economy and farmsteads not located by the shoreline, but on the sites most suitable for agriculture. This transition also represented clear breaks in the house-building tradition and the artefact inventory (Glørstad 2004).

No sites dated to the second half of the Middle Neolithic are excavated at Svinesund, but such sites are documented through terrain surveys where the sett lement patt ern in the area was mapped. The sites recorded were all located at the shoreline. In addition, three axes were also found during the project period. One ritually deposited thick-butt ed fl int axe, normally considered to be a Middle Neolithic B (MNB) type, was found on a small terrace above Stenrød (Johansen 2003). However, this axe could also be from the beginning of the Late Neolithic (cp. Jensen 1973: 84–85 for similar dates in South Scandinavia). A similar, completely worn-out axe was found at the fossilised fi eld at Torpum 9 (Rønne 2003a). This has probably been used on this site in agrarian activity in the Late Neolithic. Thus, the ritual deposition could be interpreted as part of the establishment of farmsteads in the area at the beginning of the Late Neolithic (Glørstad 2004). The third axe is a stray fi nd from a cultivated bog in the middle of the island. It is a thick-butt ed axe with a concave edge, very typical of the Batt le Axe Culture. The axe has been heavily burnt – but it is not certain when this took place, or whether the axe was primarily deposited in the bog (Glørstad and Johansen 2001). Finally, three axes of MNB

Figure 8.6: Clearance cairns documented at Svinesund. Two of the cairns were covered by a shallow bog (‘myr’ on the photo). The cairns are indicated on the photo by drawn lines (source Rønne 2003a).

Håkon Glørstad88

type are previously recorded as stray fi nds from an area of the island very rich in coastal sites (Østmo 1988: 54). The material from the MNB phase thus gives no clearer indications of a diff erent sett lement patt ern than do the trends documented from the Late Mesolithic. The axes from defi ned contexts should most likely be dated to the transition between the MNB and the Late Neolithic (LN).

The general signifi cance of the Svinesund case

Deforestation of the landscapeThe obvious change in the sett lement patt ern at the transition to the Late Neolithic is a common feature in Scandinavia. In the regions surrounding the Svinesund area, that is, eastern Norway and western Sweden, pollen analyses show the fi rst unambiguous sign of agriculture: cereal growing, pastures and a general opening of the landscape (Berglund 1969, 2003; Hafsten 1956; Heimann 2005; Prøsch-Danielsen 1996; Prøsch-Danielsen and Simonsen 2000). This corresponds with the stray fi nds material. Stone shaft -hole axes, fl int

daggers and sickles, all of North European types, are very common fi nds, with a much wider distribution than artefacts from older agrarian complexes, such as the TRB and the BAC (Hinsch 1954; Mikkelsen 1989; Østmo 1978, 1988).

Conform architecture Another striking indication for a clear change at the transition to the Late Neolithic can be observed in the architecture. From the Early and fi rst part of the Middle Neolithic the huts are either round or oval buildings with a sunken fl oor (Boaz 1997), or irregular buildings, where posts as well as natural formations are used in the construction of roof and walls (e.g. Ingstad 1970; Johansen 2002; Østmo 1988). This heterogeneous material is easily contrasted against the very regular longhouse of the Late Neolithic. Almost identical house grounds have been found at both sides of the Oslo Fjord (Figure 8.7) (Gjerpe and Bukkemoen 2008; Rønne 2003b), and similar houses are also documented at several places in western Norway (Børsheim 2004, 2005; Dinhoff 2004, 2005; Johnson and Prescott 1993; Prescott 2005; Skjølsvold 1980). This house type is

Figure 8.7: The longhouses excavated at Svinesund (source Rønne 2003b).


obviously imported as a housing technology from more southerly parts of Scandinavia (Børsheim 2004; Johnson and Prescott 1993).

Disappearance of coastal sites with fl int industryAnother category of sources that logically cannot be considered decisive, but still worthy of consideration, is the absence of two types of source material in the Late Neolithic which are very common in the previous periods. These are large coastal sites, and an abundant fl int industry. Along the coast of South Norway large and intensively occupied sites are well-documented from the Early to the Middle Neolithic (Bang Andersen 1981; Bergsvik 2002a; Ingstad 1970; Ingstad and Müller 1965; Olsen 1992; Skjølsvold 1977; Østmo 2008a). The majority of the sites got their main phase of habitation before the MNB period. At some sites a phase of occupation can also be documented from the second half of the Middle Neolithic (see for example overview in Østmo 2008a: 185). However, this trend seems to stop rather abruptly at the transition to the Late Neolithic. At one of the best documented examples, the Slett abø sett lement site from Rogaland, the youngest 14C-date is from the transition between the Middle and Late Neolithic (T-739, 3790±70 BP or 2350–2130 cal. BC: Skjølsvold 1977: 177). The sett lement was established in the Early Neolithic (Glørstad 1996, 2005). A very long period of occupation thus ended with the introduction of typical Bell Beaker material, including the only known bell beaker from Norway (see also Prieto-Martínez 2008).

The close connection between hunting and fi shing sites and a large-scale stone and fl int industry seem to be a general trend in the Scandinavian Mesolithic and Neolithic (e.g. Jonsäter 1984: 39; Persson 1991: 174). Likewise, agrarian sites are characterized by a scarcity of debris from such production. Instead, ceramics dominate the artefact assemblage. The disappearance of the coastal sites with their large-scale stone tool industry can thus be another indication of a signifi cant alteration of the sett lement system and economy.

Use of metalsThe absence of a large-scale fl int industry is puzzling, because it is likely that people needed sharp and hard edges also in the Late Neolithic. Some of the tools needed were probably made of organic materials. However, this was presumably also the case in previous periods. One possible, but by no means decisive, explanation for the absence of fl int tools, can be that they were replaced by metal tools in the Late

Neolithic. There is some South Scandinavian evidence for enhanced importance of copper and bronze for tool production in the Late Neolithic (e.g. Prescott 1996: 85, 2006; Vandkilde 1996: 262–272). Excavations in very marginal environments in western Norway have also given evidence for early use of metal (Prescott 1991). More research is however needed before defi nite conclusions can be drawn (Prescott 2006; Melheim this volume). In the absence of any decisive evidence, it must still be fair to claim that there are some indications for considerable changes in the edged-tool technology in the LN period.

In summary, at the Svinesund Island there seems to be relatively strong evidence for a marked change in the sett lement system, economy, architecture and artefact inventory at the transition to the Late Neolithic around 2350 BC. This shift can be considered part of a similar development in a much larger part of Scandinavia, including most of Norway and Sweden. Agriculture and South Scandinavian infl uence can be detected in the Oslo Fjord area throughout most of the Neolithic, but the Late Neolithic evidence still points towards a signifi cant and fast alteration of social life at the transition to this period.

A new concept of living and communicating

Agriculture and farms Even though agriculture seems to be present before the Late Neolithic in eastern Norway, its scale is dramatically increased during this period. The adoption of a new agrarian economy can be termed an economic revolution in the country (Prescott 1991), altering the landscape and people’s lifeways. This new economic system probably also more effi ciently secured the means of living for a larger population than the older economic systems (cp. Persson 1999: 166ff ). Most likely, this new economy produced a larger and more predictable surplus than the previous sporadic agricultural activity combined with hunting, fi shing and gathering (Prescott 1995: 135ff , 2005). This mode of production has since then been the common way of securing biological reproduction in the country until the beginning of the twentieth century.

This intensification is, as already pointed out, matched by a signifi cant alteration of the artefact inventory as well as the distribution of South Scandinavian artefacts and design, and maybe also by the import of metal objects. It is thus tempting to assume that a whole concept of living and organising the world was distributed along with the economic changes.

Håkon Glørstad90

The almost identical longhouses that can be found all over Scandinavia can be interpreted as a material structure central to this reorganisation of life. Single farms, animal husbandry, and permanent fi elds were also part of the package. It is noticeable that the same economic system was adopted in very diff erent ecological sett ings. This is clearly indicated by the pollen diagrams (Myhre and Øye 2002: 44), and the extensive distribution of heavy shaft -hole stone axes (Glørstad and Uleberg 2002). These axes are interpreted as heavy-duty tools for clearing arable land and pastures (Østmo 1975, 1978).

A consequence of this perspective is that agriculture per se is not the decisive factor in the Late Neolithic transformation of Scandinavian societies. Agriculture was just one component in a lifestyle communicated and experienced through a new way of organising the everyday world. Numerous books and articles in archaeology and anthropology has emphasised the importance of the house for incorporating a certain world view and ethos (Bourdieu 1973, 1991, 2005; Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995; Cunningham 1973; Deetz 1977; Foucault 1994; Lévi-Strauss 1983, 1987; Sahlins 1976; Wagner 1972; Yates 1989). The adoption of a very uniform architecture at the transition to the Late Neolithic can be interpreted as a material matrix for naturalising the world in a certain manner (Prescott 2005). This framework for a specifi c lifestyle was very likely combined with certain ways of recreating the landscape. The forest was replaced by open pastureland, and the local environment surrounding the farm was physically defi ned as a dualistic world of cultivated and untilled land. Even the tools used in this work were new, either imported from specialised production centres in South Scandinavia (Apel 2001), or created locally in a new design. Of particular importance is the simple stone shaft -hole axe (Lekberg 2002). This axe, used for clearing the ground for farming, is a new way of designing heavy-duty axes. Prior to the Late Neolithic, such axes were always made with a massive blade, and thus shaft ed completely diff erently.

Seafaring and boat technologyThe spread of this Late Neolithic complex can very likely be connected to a tremendous development in boat and seafaring technology, making it possible to cross large distances of open water (Kvalø 2007; Østmo 2005, 2008b). The much wider distribution of South Scandinavian Late Neolithic artefacts certainly indicates more extensive and stable communication systems when compared to previous periods. But there are also details in this picture which deserve some further comments. The Late Neolithic marks

the beginning of artefact distribution from South Scandinavia straight across the Skagerrak Sea to south-western Norway (Apel 2001; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Skjølsvold 1977; Solberg 1994; Østmo 2005). This is a clear change in the distributional patt erns of foreign Neolithic artefacts to South Norway. Einar Østmo has interpreted this new line of distribution as the fi rst sign of overseas voyages. Prior to this, sea traffi c was kept along the coast. He believes this communicative leap is due to a whole new way of building boats, making them more stable and capable for sea travelling. He concludes that the introduction of boats made of timber planks in the Late Neolithic probably enabled people to cross the Skagerrak Sea (Østmo 2005, 2008b; see also Kvalø 2007: 53 with references).

The fi nal Neolithic phase on the Slett abø site is clear evidence for this overseas contact. The bell beaker mentioned is produced of clay from northern Germany (Rosenquist and Rosenquist 1977). But the site also showed a marked presence of “bell beaker points”, that is, bifacial fl int points with a tang and barbs, usually associated with the Bell Beaker complex. Such points have a marked westerly distribution in Norway, with the Jæren district in Rogaland as the central area (Myhre 1979; Prescott 2005; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Østmo 2005).

Warriors and feuds In his article in this anthology, Østmo touches upon another important subject concerning Late Neolithic society in South Norway: the presence of a warrior ideology, where daggers and archery where important weapons. In Late Neolithic graves from eastern Norway, arrowheads, prefabricates of such, and daggers are the most common fi nds (Østmo this volume). Østmo thus interprets these graves as warrior graves. His results echo the research of Torben Sarauw in Denmark. He has identifi ed a similar warrior complex in the Danish material. Infl uence from the Bell Beaker complex made bows and arrows, and daggers and spears the main equipment for the warriors (Sarauw 2007, 2008).

Implementing a new lifestyle in a heterogeneous historical context The Late Neolithic is characterised by traits such as rapid spread of a homogenised culture, marine expansion, breakthrough of agriculture as a subsistence economy, (a possible) introduction of metals; and a fi rm and regular organisation of space and economy, irrespective of the local geographical and ecological sett ing.


It is crucial to keep in mind that this expansion did not take place in virgin nature. At the transition to the Late Neolithic, all the central districts of the country were sett led by well-established communities. These landscapes included many different biotopes and environments. Here, economical strategies were well adapted to the local ecology. At several sites a stable tradition of occupation can be traced throughout the Early and Middle Neolithic (Bakka and Kaland 1971; Bergsvik 2002a; Olsen 1992; Skjølsvold 1977). Knut Andreas Bergsvik has recently tried to summarize the evidence on the southern part of the Norwegian west coast. He draws a picture of small, well-organised, sedentary societies located at optimal resource nodes in the landscape. These communities, he argues, were characterised by strict social control and limited movement for the majority of the population. Only big-men and special task groups, connected to the big-man’s network, made journeys to foreign landscapes and people. Because of the small geographic scale of the organised social units, social life appeared heterogeneous and regionalized (Bergsvik 2002b, 2006).

Bergsvik emphasises that this patt ern of organisation can be recognised throughout the whole Middle Neolithic (Bergsvik 2002a). Although he identifi es a small change in the MNB period, incorporating a somewhat more intensive use of land resources, the main trend in the archaeological record is the continuation of the sett led, marine-oriented way of life within strict (ethnic) borders (Bergsvik 2002a: 312, 315). The sources used for identifying an increased use of the land resources in the MNB period, that is, stray fi nds of thick-butt ed, straight-edged stone axes, are not exclusively dated to the second half of the Middle Neolithic (Hinsch 1954: 166–168; Malmer 1962: 543–554). In my opinion, all reliable sources therefore seem to enhance Bergsvik’s main conclusion: The Middle Neolithic was a period of social stability and control, continuing the sett lement system of the Early Neolithic.

Discussion – A model for explaining the changes

Athens and Sparta as ideal types The ideal typical model in the Weberian sense of the term, discussed by Sahlins in the sett ing of the Peloponnesian war, can also process the Norwegian Neolithic data in an interesting manner. Sahlins’ argument describes two different principles for organising power relations in social life, where Athens and Sparta constitute their archetypes. Athens

represented a social system where power was based on a principle of hegemony without sovereignty (Sahlins 2004: 103). The Athenians had infl uence over a quite large area of the Mediterranean, but they did not actually rule this territory. Unlike the European empires of modern times, which forcefully imposed their state organisation on other peoples and countries, the Athenian system of power was based on a dual strategy of fear and att raction. They presented their city, organisation and culture as the most splendid and att ractive way of life to hope for – a school of Greece. And for those who did not immediately accept this image, they used the very strong and mobile navy to force trough their hegemony. Thus, via taxation, trade, cultural infl uence, defencive alliances – and the violence of the fl eet as the last trump card – Athenians saw their interests executed from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Lion. Through its maritime abilities Athens dominated many other self-organised polities, without assuming the rule of them (Sahlins 2004: 103–111).

Contrary to this system of power, the Spartans based their rule on a system more familiar to traditional archaeological view on power and infl uence. They had strong military control of a much smaller territory. This control was mainly land-based. Thus, the Spartan army physically controlled the population on the Peloponnesus. Whereas Athens was dependent on wide-reaching trade and commerce as well as a socially and physically mobile population, Sparta was self-suffi cient and exclusive regarding people, production, distribution and consumption (Sahlins 2004: 69–82).

The argument of Sahlins is of particular interest for two reasons. Firstly, Sahlins shows that these cultural forms are connected to each other in a competitive and centrifugal manner, exaggerating internal diff erences. Thus, he claims, it was only aft er Athens fully realised its way of life as an expansive, mercantile and naval city state, that Sparta appeared as the closed, implosive, land-based, self-suffi cient society known from the classical literature (Thukydides 1999 [c. 400 BC]). Secondly, Sahlins claims that these social types are ideal types and not unique products of the Mediterranean history of the fi rst millennium BC. He is therefore able to show the same logic at work in the Fĳ i Islands in the 1850s, but he also fi nds close parallels in Renaissance Italy and the Cold War (Sahlins 2004: 17, 45).

This last point deserves some brief remarks. The Athenian ‘archetype’ of social organisation of power has on several occasions been of signifi cant importance to European history. Today this type of power aff ects social relations in most parts of Europe. We are, and even prefer to be, under the hegemony of the U.S.A. This ensures military security and relatively free exchange of people, goods and ideas. Thus,

Håkon Glørstad92

the Athenian school of Greece, as described by Thucydides in particular, appears as a very familiar and modern invention of social life. Liberal, democratic European states, and even more the U.S.A. consider the Athens of Pericles as the cradle of the Western World. In a traditional historical perspective this resemblance could be explained by some kind of historical continuity or renaissance – a reinvention of a certain way of life. The point of Weber, however, is that this resemblance and feeling of familiarity need not be due to any direct historical connection. Weber adheres to a constructionist or Kantian framework of research. The ideal types are rational tools for organising, investigating and understanding historical situations. Thus the qualities of the model are not abstracted from a confusing empirical reality. Instead, the models are constructed by the researcher and therefore the trajectories and structures detected are intellectual constructions (Weber 1978: 20). Unlike evolutionary theory, the use of ideal types as analytical tools does not imply a necessary or unavoidable outcome of a historical conjuncture. On the contrary, the models

pay much more att ention to the distinctiveness of the historical record (Roth 1978: xxxvii). In recent times, Weber’s way of overcoming the opposition between conceptual realism and nominalism, or history and sociology (Roth 1978: xxviii, Weber 1978: 19), has been followed up in the work of Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Waquant 1993) and Zygmunt Bauman (2008: 31–32, 34–36). Sahlins too arrives very close to this Weberian solution in his discussion of history versus culture (Sahlins 2004).

The MNB–LN transition analysed by historical ideal typesReturning to the Norwegian record, there are some striking parallels between the situation Sahlins describes in ancient Greece and the transition to the Late Neolithic in Norway (Figure 8.8). The rapid expansion of a certain assemblage of tools, technology, economy and ideology initiating the Late Neolithic of Norway can be an example of the development of a social system sharing some basic similarities with

Figure 8.8: Areas discussed in the text.


famous mercantile, seafaring nations such as the Athenian. True, there were no city states, batt leships, armies or monetary system in Norway as there were in Greece. But I will suggest that the marine mobility and the ability to always recreate a familiar sett ing irrespective of the local context were crucial qualities of the Late Neolithic transformation. These were also key qualities of the classical Athenian society. Sea-going boats were of signifi cant importance to this way of life, and this seafaring technology was probably part of a larger social constellation, giving humans the world in a certain manner.

I think the very regular and fi xed shape of the single farms and the massive adoption of a similar economy, irrespective of the local sett ing, indicate that a whole new way of life was introduced to Northern Europe. This recreation of a familiar agenda – the single farm system with longhouses and permanent fi elds – could be interpreted as the recreation of an idealised way of life, just as Athens was the eternal school of Greece.

Sahlins’ argument, that the Athenian way of life was interrelated with its antithesis, the Spartans’ can be relevant also in the Norwegian context. In western Norway, the appearance of bell beakers (Skjølsvold 1977), certain bifacial arrowheads (Østmo 2005) and fl int daggers produced in the Vendsyssel area of Jutland (Apel 2001) at the transition to the Late Neolithic, represent the fi rst convincing evidence of direct contact across the Skagerrak Sea. This contrasts sharply with communication to and from South Norway in the Early and Middle Neolithic. The presence of South Scandinavian artefacts from the TRB complex of the fi rst part of the Neolithic and the Batt le Axe (BA) complex in the MNB are obviously a result of transport along the coast, on sheltered waters or by land. Here, the Oslo Fjord area represents the central node in the network. The landscape is, as already mentioned, geographically closely related to South Scandinavia. The distribution of South Scandinavian TRB artefacts can be interpreted as traces of a small-scale exchange network, where distribution followed the principles of down-the-line exchange of people and status objects (Glørstad 2004, 2005, 2008; compare Hallgren 2008; Petersson 2009). This patt ern is also characteristic of the BAC in Norway: although the artefacts of this complex had a somewhat wider distribution than the objects of the South Scandinavian TRB complex, the core area is still the fertile agricultural districts around the Oslo Fjord, where contact southwards is most easily maintained (Hinsch 1954).

Admitt edly, there are in the TRB period and in the Batt le Axe complexes indications of exchange and travel over longer distances. For instance, it appears that people were crossing the Katt egat and

were sailing from Öland to Gotland (Blomqvist 1989: 168; Österholm 1988; Österholm 1989: 185ff ). These voyages, however, took place with land in sight during most of the journey. Most likely, the journeys were undertaken with dug-out canoes that were paddled. Only for a few hours was land out of sight (Glørstad 2008; Lindström 2003; Österholm 1988). Studies of the distribution of batt le axes around the Baltic Sea from the MNB period have even indicated that such long-distance contacts were short-lived, unstable and dependent on certain distinguished individual entrepreneurs. Most likely such contact was established by big-men of local societies (Lindström 2003), parallel to the situation Bergsvik describes for western Norway (Bergsvik 2006). The invention of plank boats and the regular crossing of the Skagerrak Sea from Jutland to western Norway at the transition to the Late Neolithic (Østmo 2005), is however a remarkably different phenomenon.

Many scholars see the development of the diff erent BA complexes in the second half of the Middle Neolithic as the outcome of tensions and confl icts in social relations in Northern Europe (Damm 1991; Ebbesen 2006; Larsson 1998). Contemporary research has established a marked diff erence in the sett lement patt ern between the Single Grave Culture (SGC)/Batt le Axe Culture on the one hand, and the TRB Culture/Pitted Ware Culture on the other (Ebbesen 2006; Edenmo 2008; Larsson 1998; Prieto-Martínez 2008). It is noticeable that the majority of these studies indicate that the BAC was more connected to the interior in its initial stage than the preceding sett lement systems in the area.

Although a clear transformation of the sett lement structure cannot be established at the transition from MNA to MNB in South Norway, Gaute Reitan’s recent study from eastern Norway seems to indicate that the BAC had a more upland-oriented distribution than the fi nds from the TRB complex (Reitan 2005, 2008). In my opinion, the distribution patt erns identifi ed by Reitan could indicate that the exchange system (Edenmo 2008; Lindström 2003) expanded along the land- or river-bound communication routes. Also the main areas where artefacts of the BAC can be found outside the areas where the South Scandinavian TRB Culture is identifi ed, that is, Rogaland and Trøndelag (Hinsch 1955), are indeed accessible by inland travel or via sheltered coasts. These routes of communication probably gave social life in Northern Europe a marked localistic character. Small communities were allowed to develop a distinct quality and a locally defi ned image (Ebbesen 2006: 172; Edenmo 2008: 243; Edenmo et al. 1997: 138; Kristiansen 1982; Vandkilde 2001, 2005). Several scholars have remarked that there is litt le

Håkon Glørstad94

fundamentally new in the BAC/SGC when compared to the TRB complex in Scandinavia (e.g. Edenmo et al. 1997; Hodder 1990). Although such claims oversimplify the archaeological record, the Norwegian sources at least demonstrate that the introduction and distribution of the BAC is closely related to the distribution of the TRB complex (Hinsch 1954; Østmo 1988). Thus, it is reasonable to claim that the same basic trends in social life were, to a large degree, repeated from one period to the other.

At the key site of Slett abø in Rogaland, it is evident that the Late Neolithic inventory at fi rst is integrated in the existing social system. Judging from this case, it is not very likely that the abrupt change in technology, economy and artefact assemblage is due to a replacement of the entire population (cp. Prescott 1991; Prescott and Melheim 2009; Vander Linden 2007). A more likely explanation is that the benefi ts of adopting a new way of life were so overwhelming that no one could refute – and refering to the Athenian example, the costs of denying the brand new world could be terror and violence eff ectuated by a mobile force. Thus, the image of Late Neolithic created by scholars such as Østmo and Sarauw displays an effi cient system of feuding and fi ghting, based on archery and mobility (Sarauw 2008; Østmo 1997, 2005, 2008b). The new system of overseas travel and feuding could have reached Norway from the south as a potential of terror, but also as an att ractive image.

One might ask why the people of Norway should embrace this new way of living instead of continuing their traditional life as hunters and gatherers. One obvious reason could have been the reproductive benefi ts of agriculture, the classical argument for why people adopted this economy (Boserup 1965). The weakness of such a theory is that the people of South Norway had been well aware of agriculture for more than 1600 years without adopting this kind of economy (Prescott 1996). I therefore assume that they also were aware of the potential of increased production by tilling the land and domesticated animals. A secondary product revolution (Sherratt 1981) at the transition to the Late Neolithic is also unlikely. The use of milk and draught-power from animals was already known in the TRB culture (Johannsen 2006; Thorpe 2009).

Contrary to these models, which explain the transition to the Late Neolithic mainly as a change in the subsistence strategy, I think Bergsvik’s interpretation of the coastal communities of Middle Neolithic western Norway could offer some more realistic answers (Bergsvik 2002a, 2006). He portrays the period as one of strong individual restriction and administrative hierarchy. Under such conditions, a foreign system granting farms and food for everyone, and the mastery

of one’s own destiny as a sett ler and farmer, as long as one stayed friendly and loyal to some remote, however powerful, elite, could have been very att ractive. The massive immigration from Europe to America was upheld on such promises and may be a recent example of the allure of such arguments. According to this line of reasoning, it could have been the new organisation of social life in individual farms, an accelerating enforcement of the right to private property and control of one’s own life, as well as access to specialised fl int products and metallurgy (Apel 2001; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005), that were cornerstones in the new ideology. Several scholars have claimed that from the Late Neolithic onwards, the mountain areas in South Norway were used in a new manner. Hunting for trade replaced or was added to the old subsistence economy (Gustafson 1978; Mikkelsen 1989: 296–312; Prescott 1995: 178; Solberg 1994: 123). This could be part of an exchange network connecting small farming units and households in Norway with the continental elites.

This article is not the place for a full discussion of the range and implication of the Bell Beaker culture (BBC) in Scandinavia. Recent research has however indicated that this complex spread rapidly along the Atlantic coast, where the Vendsyssel area of Jutland became a centre of infl uence in Northern Europe (Prieto-Martínez 2008). The nature of the societies which used the BAC, SGC and BBC inventories, and the meaning of these artefacts in the social-material fabric, are highly debated (lately Prieto-Martínez 2008; Prieto-Martínez et al. 2009). However, most scholars claim that these societies where hierarchical and to various degrees controlled by elites (Apel 2001; Ebbesen 2006; Edenmo 2008; Lindström 2003; Vandkilde 1996). Thus the diff erence between the BA complex and the BB complex/Late Neolithic in Norway is neither a question of presence or absence of social hierarchy, nor the presence or absence of farming. Both agriculture and some kind of elite control seem to be present in both MNB and LN. The social dialectics described in the ideal-typical model of Sahlins, however, seem to explain some of the important tensions, and thus lines of development, present in Scandinavia in the fi nal Neolithic phase.

ConclusionThe MNB period seems to be characterized by land-based or land-dependent movements and exchange. Power is managed by physical control over relatively small social groups (Bergsvik 2006; Ebbesen 2006; Edenmo 2008; Kristiansen 1982). Interregional heterogeneity and development of many diff erent


local trends in the material culture also seems to characterise the period. According to Fredrik Barth (1969), such a patt ern is most likely due to interests in preserving social diff erences, because of intensive contact and competition.

This mode of organising social relations and managing power contrasts with the Late Neolithic material. At least for a short period, the Bell Beaker complex overlaps or tangents the BAC/SGC (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: 112; Prieto-Martínez 2009; Vandkilde et al. 1996: 187), thus for a period there must have been overtly diff erent options for social conduct. The Bell Beaker complex, initiating the Late Neolithic in Norway, replaces social heterogeneity by wide-ranging social-material homogeneity; a marine subsistence economy with an agrarian way of life; a non-conform ordering of space with a very regulated organisation of buildings and space; coastal settlements with sett lements predominantly located at every place suitable for agriculture; land-dependent contact and exchange with contact via overseas traffi c, and, fi nally, establishes a mobile and effi cient power system with light, effi cient boats and archery. In the Norwegian sett ing this watershed probably established Vendsyssel on Jutland as a centre of power/infl uence, where direct contact to south-western Norway was established across the Skagerrak (Apel 2001; Prescott 2009; Østmo 2005, 2008b).

All these systematic diff erences between the MNB and the LN can, in my opinion, be paralleled with the fundamental oppositions in the relations between the land-based Spartans and the Athenians’ sea power. I think the Late Neolithic expansion in Norway could be an example of the spread of an ideology and way of life sloganized as ‘pomp and terror’, establishing a certain way of life in all possible sett ings, and contributing to the rapid homogenisation of social-material relations in a very wide area. Such a system ends the previous history of the landscape and instead directs the historical references towards a foreign, but still familiar centre (cp. Bradley 2002: 28).

Thus, the ‘black box’ problem of the Norwegian MNB could productively be reanalysed by using historical ideal types, as this concept is defi ned by Weber, particularly a model where social tension enhances cultural diff erences and where sea might and innovation is contrasted to land-based control and conservation. The use of these ideal types of social organisation thus structures the archaeological record into a dramatic and historically specifi c development, introducing a system of social organisation to Northern Europe that has been of crucial importance to the historical trajectory in the area. The Viking Age, and our own present post-war history as subordinate of an

American hegemony, these both materialise within the same basic social structures, giving European history its distinction – but not its outcome (cp. Sahlins 2004: 288–292; Weber 1978: 19–20).

The Svinesund material from eastern Norway clearly exposes the fundamental turning point in Norwegian prehistory at the fi nal stage of our Stone Age. Most likely, the specifi c combination of a certain agrarian (surplus) economy, the great potential for power and control through sea-faring in the Norwegian sett ing (as the name of the country still indicates), and a very rich upland for extracting luxury and status products, made the breakthrough of this new way of life more visible here than in more southerly parts of Europe. Structural tensions in the very long-lived traditions for restriction and control in the small-scale societies that preceded the Late Neolithic, based on coastal economies in particularly favourable biotopes, could have been a prime social motivator for the total restructuration of society. Thus new, and certainly a larger number of, lineages and clans could have gained power and infl uence in the new social sett ing.

ReferencesApel, J. 2001 Daggers, Knowledge & Power. The Social Aspects of

Flint-dagger Technology in Scandinavia 2350–1500 cal BC. Coast to coast-books 3. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Uppsala.

Bakka, E. and Kaland, P. E. 1971 Early Farming in Hordaland, Western Norway. Problems and Approaches in Archaeology and Pollen Analysis. Norwegian Archaeological Review 4(2): 1–35.

Bang-Andersen, S. 1981 En fangstboplass på Eigerøy – boplassbruk og miljøtilpasning i sørvestnorsk yngre steinalder. Skrift er 6. Arkeologisk Museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Barth, F. (ed.) 1969 Ethnic groups and boundaries. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Bauman, Z. 2008 Konsumtionsliv. Daidalos, Gothenburg. Berglund, B. 1969 Vegetation and human infl uence in South

Scandinavia during Prehistoric time. Oikos Supplement 12: 9–28.

Berglund, B. 2003 Human impact and climate changes—synchronous events and a causal link? Quaternary International 105: 7–12.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2002a Arkeologiske undersøkelser ved Skatestraumen. Bind I. Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universitetet i Bergen, Bergen.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2002b Task Groups and Social Inequality in Early Neolithic Western Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Review 35(1): 1–27.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2006 Ethnic boundaries in Neolithic Norway. BAR International Series 1554. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Biwall, A., Hernek, R., Kihlstedt, B., Larsson, M. and Torstensdott er Åhlin, I. 1997 Stenålderns hyddor och hus. In: Regionalt och Interregionalt, Stenåldersundersökningar i

Håkon Glørstad96

Syd- och Mellansverige, edited by M. Larsson and E. Olsson, pp. 265–300. Arkeologiska Undersökningar Skrifter 23. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm.

Björhem, N. and Säfvestad, U. 1993 Fosie IV. Bebyggelsen under brons- och järnålder. Malmöfynd 6. Malmö museer, Malmö.

Blomqvist, L. 1989 Megalitgravarna i Sverige: typ, tid, rum och social miljö. Theses and papers in archaeology, New series 1. Akademitryck, Stockholm.

Boaz, J. 1997 Steinalderundersøkelsene på Rødsmoen. Varia 41. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Boserup, E. 1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. Aldine, Chicago.

Bourdieu, P. 1973 The Berber House. In Rules and Meaning. The Anthropology of Everyday Knowledge, edited by M. Douglas, pp. 98–110. Penguin Education, Harmondsworth.

Bourdieu, P. 1991 Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bourdieu, P. 2005 The Social Structures of the Economy. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. D. 1993 Den kritiske ett ertanke. Grunnlag for samfunnsanalyse. Norwegian edition. Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo.

Bradley, R. 2002 The past in prehistoric societies. Routledge, London.

Børsheim, R. 2004 Toskipede hus i neolitikum og eldste bronsealder. Primitive tider 7: 49–60.

Børsheim, R. 2005 Toskipede hus i neolitikum og eldre bronsealder. In Konstruksjonsspor og byggeskikk: maskinell fl ateavdekking – metodikk, tolkning og forvaltning, edited by M. Høgestøl, L. Selsing, T. Løken, A. J. Nærøy and L. Prøsch-Danielsen, pp. 109–122. AmS-varia 43. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Carsten, J. and Hugh-Jones, S. 1995 About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cunningham, C. E. 1973 Order in the Atoni house. In Right and Left , edited by R. Needham, pp. 204–238. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Damm, C. 1991 Continuity and Change: an Analysis of Social and Material Patt erns in the Danish Neolithic. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Deetz, J. 1977 In Small Things Forgott en: the Archaeology of Early American Life. Doubleday, New York.

Diinhof, S. 2004 Tidlige jordbrugsbosætninger på Vestlandet med spor eft er toskibede langhuse. Primitive tider 7: 41–48.

Diinhof, S. 2005 Den vestnorske agrarbosætning. Fra sen stenalder til folkevandringstid. Arkeologiske resultater fra et tiår med fladeafdækninger på Vestlandet. In Konstruksjonsspor og byggeskikk: maskinell flateavdekking – metodikk, tolkning og forvaltning, edited by M. Høgestøl, L. Selsing, T. Løken, A. J. Nærøy and L. Prøsch-Danielsen, pp. 75–86. AmS-varia 43. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Ebbesen, C. 2006 The Batt le Axe Period. ATTIKA, Copenhagen. Edenmo, R. 2008 Prestigeekonomi under yngre stenåldern:

gåvoutbyten och regionala identiteter i den svenska båtyxekulturen. Occasional papers in archaeology 43. Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia, Uppsala universitet, Uppsala.

Edenmo, R., Larsson, L., Nordqvist, B. and Olsson, E. 1997 Gropkeramikerna – fanns de? Materiell kultur och ideologisk förändring. In Regionalt och Interregionalt,

Stenåldersundersökningar i Syd- och Mellansverige, edited by M. Larsson and E. Olsson, pp. 135–205. Arkeologiska Undersökningar Skrift er 23. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm.

Forssander, A. 1933 Die Schwedische Bootaxtkultur und ihre kontinentaleuropäischen Voraussetzungen. Borelius, Lund.

Foucault, M. 1994 Overvåkning og straff : det moderne fengsels historie. Norwegian edition. Gyldendal, Oslo.

Gjerpe, L. E. and Bukkemoen, G. 2008 Nordby 1 – Toskipede hus fra neolitikum-bronsealder og boplasspor fra jernalder. In E18-prosjektet Vestfold, Bind 3, Hus, boplass- og dyrkningsspor, edited by L. E. Gjerpe, pp. 7–38. Varia 73. Kulturhistorisk museum, Fornminneseksjonen, Oslo.

Glørstad, H. 1996 Neolitt iske smuler. Små teoretiske og praktiske bidrag til debatt en om neolitt isk keramikk og kronologi i Sør-Norge. Varia 33. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Glørstad, H. (ed.) 2004 Svinesundprosjektet bind 4. Oppsummering av Svinesundprosjektet. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Fornminneseksjonen Varia 57. Oslo.

Glørstad, H. 2005 Tangen – En neolitt isk boplass fra Kragerø kommune, Telemark. Noen betraktninger omkring boplassens kulturmiljø og Traktbegerkulturens vestgrense. Viking 68: 25–54.

Glørstad, H. 2008 Nære ting fra en fj ern fortid. Samfunnsliv i steinalderen for 7600 år siden. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Glørstad, H. and Johansen, K. B. 2001 Rapport fra supplerende arkeologiske forundersøkelser ved Svinesund. Reguleringsplan for E6 4-felt Riksgrensen-Svingenskogen. Archaeological Report submitt ed to Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Fornminneseksjonen 15.06.2001. Available at Topografi sk arkiv, University of Oslo, Oslo.

Glørstad, H. and Uleberg, E. 2002 200 års fl id for massenes føtt er eller digitalisering av Oldsaksamlingens funn fra steinalder. In UKM – En mangfoldig forskningsinstitusjon, edited by E. H. Hofseth, pp. 73–82. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer Skrift er 1, Universitetet i Oslo.

Glørstad, H. and Prescott , C. (eds.) 2009 Neolithisation as if history matt ered. Processes of Neolithisation in North-Western Europe. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Gustafson, L. 1978 Stegaros: et boplassområde på Hardangervidda: ressursutnytt else i forhistorisk tid. Unpublished Magister thesis, University of Bergen.

Hafsten, U. 1956 Pollen-analytic investigations on the Late Quaternary development in the inner Oslofjord area. Universitetet i Bergen Årbok 1956. Naturvitenskapelig rekke 8. University of Bergen, Bergen.

Hallgren, F. 2008 Identitet i praktik: lokala, regionala och överregionala sociala sammanhang inom nordlig tratt bägarkultur. Kust till kust-böcker 17. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Uppsala, Uppsala.

Heimann, C. 2005 Förflutna rum: landskapets neolitisering i sydvästra Värmland. Göteborgs universitet, Institutionen för arkeologi, Göteborg.

Hinsch, E. 1954: Yngre steinalders stridsøkskulturer i Norge. In Universitetet i Bergen Årbok 1954. Historisk-Antikvarisk rekke 1, pp. 1–2237. University of Bergen, Bergen.

Hinsch, E. 1955 Traktbegerkultur-Megalitkultur. En studie av Øst-Norges eldste, neolitt iske gruppe. In Universitetets Oldsaksamling Årbok 1951–1953, pp. 1–237. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Hodder, I. 1990 The Domestication of Europe. Social Archaeology. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.


Høeg, H. 2002 Pollenanalytiske undersøkelser av Møllermosen og myr ved Berg stadion i Halden kommune, Østfold. In Svinesundprosjektet Bind 1. Utgravninger avslutt et i 2001, edited by H. Glørstad, pp. 117–139. Varia 54. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Oldsaksamlingen, Oslo.

Høeg, H. I. 2003 Pollenanalytiske undersøkelser av liten myr og rydningsrøys på boplassen Torpum 9 samt gammelåkerlag på Stensrød. In Svinesundprosjektet Bind 2. Utgravninger avslutt et i 2002, edited by H. Glørstad, pp. 331–346. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Fornminneseksjonen Varia 55. Oslo.

Ingstad, A. S. 1970 Steinalderboplassen Rognlien i Eidanger. In Universitetets Oldsaksamling Årbok 1967–1968, pp. 19–142. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Ingstad, A. S. and Müller, K. V. 1964 Sluppan. Viking XXIX: 77–112.

Jensen, J. 2001 Danmarks Oldtid. Stenalder, 13000–2000 f.Kr. Gyldendal forlag, København.

Jensen, J. Aa. 1973 Myrhøj, 3 hustomter med klokkebægerkeramikk. KUML 1972: 61–122.

Johansen, K. 2002 Hvor gamle er Rødsmyratuft ene? Primitive tider 5: 103–116.

Johansen, K. 2003 Torpum 1 – En boplass fra første del av nøstvetfasen. In Svinesundprosjektet bind 2. Utgravninger avslutt et i 2002, edited by H. Glørstad, pp. 5–42. Varia 55. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Fornminneseksjonen, Oslo.

Johansen, K. 2004 Vestgård 5 – En boplass fra mellomneolitikum. In Svinesundprosjektet bind 3. Utgravninger avslutt et i 2003, edited by H. Glørstad, pp. 145–148. Varia 56. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Fornminneseksjonen, Oslo.

Johannsen, N. 2006 Draught catt le and the South Scandinavian economies of the 4th millennium BC. Environmental Archaeology 11(1): 35–48.

Johnson, T. and Prescott , C. 1993 Late Neolithic houses at Stokkset, Sande in Sunnmøre. Minneskrift Egil Bakka, edited by B. Solberg, pp. 70–89. Arkeologiske Skrift er fra Historisk museum 7. Historisk Museum, Universitetet i Bergen, Bergen.

Jonsäter, M. 1984 Äldre stenålder – tiden före 3000 f.Kr. Yngre stenålder – tiden 3000–1500 f.Kr. In Från fl intverkstad till processindustri. De första 9000 åren i Västsverige speglade av UV Västs undersökningar 1968–1980, edited by A. Furingsten, M. Jonsäter and E. Weiler, pp. 9–48. Riksantivarieämbetet, Kungälv.

Kershaw, I. 2008 Hitler. Norwegian edition. Historie og Kultur, Oslo.

Kommisrud, A. 1995 Verdier og konfl ikt: forklaringer i Max Webers historiske sosiologi. Spartacus, Oslo.

Kristiansen, K. 1982 The Formation of Tribal Systems in Later European Prehistory: Northern Europe, 4000–500 B.C. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. A. Seagraves, pp. 241–280. Academic Press, London.

Kristiansen, K. and Larsson, T. B. 2005 The rise of Bronze Age society: travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kvalø, F. 2007 Oversjøiske reiser fra Sørvest-Norge til Nordvest-Jylland i eldre bronsealder. In Sjøreiser og stedsidentitet, edited by L. Hedeager, pp. 11–134. Oslo arkeologiske serie 8. Unipub, Oslo.

Larsson, L. 1998 Boplatser, bebyggelse och bygder. Stridsyxekultur i södra Skåne. In Stridsyxekultur i Sydskandinavien, edited by L.

Larsson, pp. 53–76. Report series 36. Institute of Archaeology, University of Lund, Lund.

Larsson, L. 2003 The Mesolithic of Sweden in retrospective and progressive perspectives. In Mesolithic on the Move. Papers Presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, edited by M. Larsson and E. Olsson, pp. xxii–xxxii. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Larsson, M. 1995 Förhistoriska och tidligmedeltida hus i södra Sverige. In Hus och gård i det förurbana samhället, edited by O. Kyhlberg, pp. 23–64. Arkeologiske undersökningar 14. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm.

Leach, E. 1973 Concluding address. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 761–772. Duckworth, London.

Lekberg, P. 2002 Yxors liv, människors landskap: en studie av kulturlandskap och samhälle i Mellansveriges senneolitikum. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Uppsala.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1983 The Way of the Masks. English edition. Jonathan Cape, London.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1987 Anthropology and Myth. Lectures 1851–1982. English edition. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Lindström, J. 2003 Long distance distribution of batt le axes in northern Europe – some aspects of the contacts between Denmark, Sweden and Finland 2800–2300 BC. In Uniting the Sea: Stone Age Societies in the Baltic Sea Region, edited by C. Samuelsson and N. Ytt erberg, pp. 147–160. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Uppsala, Uppsala.

Malmer, M. P. 1962 Jungneolitische Studien. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8o, 2. CWK Gleerups Förlag, Lund.

Malmer, M. P. 2002 The Neolithic of South Sweden: TRB, GRK, and STR. The Royal Swedish Academy of Lett ers, History and Antiquities, Stockholm.

Mikkelsen, E. 1989 Fra jeger til bonde. Utviklingen av jordbrukssamfunn i Telemark i steinalder og bronsealder. Skrift er, ny rekke 11. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Myhre, B. 1979 Spor ett er klokkebegerkulturen i Rogaland. Frå haug ok heidni 7(2): 298–303.

Myhre, B. and Øye, I. 2002 Jorda blir levevei, 4000 f.Kr.–1350 e.Kr. Norges landbrukshistorie 1. Samlaget, Oslo.

Nielsen, P. O. 1998 De ældste langhuse. Fra toskibede til treskibede huse i Norden. In Hus och tomt i Norden under förhistorisk tid, edited by O. Kyhlberg. Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 33: 9–30.

Odner, K. 1979 Evolusjonistiske modeller. Occasional papers in social anthropology 1. Department of Social Anthropology, University of Oslo, Oslo.

Olsen, A. B. 1992 Kotedalen – en boplass gjennom 5000 år, bd 1. Historisk Museum, Universitetet i Bergen, Bergen.

Österholm, I. 1989 Bosätt ningsmönstret på Gotland under stenåldern: en analys av fysisk miljö, ekonomi och social struktur. Stockholms universitet, Institutionen för arkeologi, Stockholm.

Österholm, S. 1988 I utriggarkanot over Östersjön. Populär arkeologi 6(1): 26–30.

Østmo, E. 1975 Tømmerhogst og nyrydning – om slitespor på skaft hulløkser. Nicolay 21: 9–13.

Østmo, E. 1978 Schaft lochäxte und landwirtschaft liche Siedlung. Eine Fallstudie über kulturverhältnisse im südöstlichsten Norwegen im Spätneolithikum und der älteren Bronzezeit. Acta Archaeologica 48: 155–206.

Håkon Glørstad98

Østmo, E. 1988 Etableringen av jordbrukskultur i Østfold i steinalderen. Skrift er, Ny rekke 10. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Østmo, E. 1997 Horses, Indo-Europeans and the Importance of Ships. Journal of Indo-European studies 25(3–4): 285–326.

Østmo, E. 2005 Over Skagerak i steinalderen. Noen refl eksjoner om oppfi nnelsen av havgående fartøyer i Norden. Viking LXVIII: 55–82.

Østmo, E. 2008a Auve: en fangstboplass fra yngre steinalder på Vesterøya i Sandefj ord, 1, Den arkeologiske del. Norske oldfunn 28. Kulturhistorisk museum, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2008b Some notes on the development of Shipbuilding and overseas connections in Scandinavian prehistory. In Facets of Archaeology. Essays in Honour of Lott e Hedeager on her 60th Birthday, edited by K. Chilidis, J. Lund and C. Prescott , pp. 265–274. Oslo Archaeological Series 10. Oslo Academic Press, Oslo.

Persson, P. 1991 Inte bara Pilane och Lunden – om tidigt mellaneolitiska boplatser i Bohuslän. In Västsvenska Stenåldersstudier, edited by H. Browall, P. Persson and K.-G. Sjögren, pp. 143–178. GOTARC serie C. Arkeologiska skrift er 8. Göteborgs universitet, Göteborg.

Persson, P. 1999 Neolitikums början. Kust till kust-böcker 1. Institutionen för Arkeologi. Göteborgs universitet, Göteborg.

Petersson, H. 2009 The processual legacy and new directions in Scandinavian Neolithic research. In Neolithisation as if history matt ered. Processes of Neolithisation in North-Western Europe, edited by H. Glørstad and C. Prescott , pp. 169–192. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Prescott , C. 1991 Late Neolithic and Bronze Age developments on the periphery of Southern Scandinavia. Norwegian Archaeological Review 24(1): 35–48.

Prescott , C. 1995 Aspects of Early Pastoralism in Sogn, Norway. Acta Archaeologica 66: 163–190.


Prescott , C. 2005 Sett lement and economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of Southern Norway: Some points and premises. In Konstruksjonsspor og byggeskikk. Maskinell fl ateavdekking – metodikk, tolkning og forvaltning, edited by M. Høgestøl, L. Selsing, T. Løken, A. J. Nærøy and L. Prøsch-Danielsen, pp. 127–136. AmS-Varia 43. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Prescott , C. 2006 Copper production in Bronze Age Norway? In Historien i Forhistorien. Festskrift til Einar Østmo på 60-årsdagen, edited by H. Glørstad, B. Skar and D. Skre, pp. 183–190. Skrift er 4. Kulturhistorisk Museum, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo.

Prescott , C. 2009 History in prehistory – the later Neolithic/Early Metal Age, Norway. In Neolithisation as if History Matt ered. Processes of Neolithisation in North-Western Europe, edited by H. Glørstad and C. Prescott , pp. 193–216. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Prescott , C. and Walderhaug, E. 1995 The Last Frontier? Processes of Indo-Europeanization in Northern Europe: The Norwegian Case. Journal of Indo-European Studies 23(3–4): 257–280.

Prescott , C. and Melheim, L. 2009 The fi rst Bronze Age Communities in Scandinavia. Comments on M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez: ‘Bell Beaker Communities in Thy: The First Bronze Age Society in Denmark’. Norwegian Archaeological Review 42(1): 89–92.

Prieto-Martínez, P. 2008 Bell Beaker Communities in Thy: The First Bronze Age Society in Denmark. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2): 115–158.

Prieto-Martínez, P., Vander Linden, M., Vankilde, H., Makarowicz, P., Czebreszuk, J., Østmo, E., Prescott , C. and Melheim, L. 2009 Comments on and reply from M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez: ‘Bell Beaker Communities in Thy: The First Bronze Age Society in Denmark’. Norwegian Archaeological Review 42(1): 71–100.

Prøsch-Danielsen, L. 1996 Vegetation history and human impact during the last 11 500 years at Lista, the southernmost part of Norway: based primarily on professor Ulf Hafsten’s material and diary from 1955–1957. Norsk geografi sk tidsskrift 50(2): 85–99.

Prøsch-Danielsen, L. and Simonsen, A. 2000 Palaeoecological investigations towards the reconstruction of the history of forest clearances and coastal heathlands in south-western Norway. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9: 189–204.

Reitan, G. 2005 Neolitikum i Buskerud: skikk, bruk og erverv i et langtidsperspektiv. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Oslo.

Reitan, G. 2009 Off er det? – om den sosiale funksjonen til off er og gaver i neolitikum. Primitive tider 11: 31–50.

Rosenquist, A. M. and Rosenquist, I. T. 1977 Rapport om foreløpig mineralogisk undersøkelse av keramikk fra Slett abø, Ogna, Rogaland. In Slett abøboplassen, edited by A. Skjølsvold, pp. 182–302. Skrift er 2. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Roth, G. 1978 Introduction to Economy and Society. In Economy and Society, by M. Weber, pp. xxxiii–cx. University of California Press, Berkley.

Rønne, O. 2003a Torpum 9a og Torpum 16 – boplasser med spor fra nøstvetfasen, senneolitikum, bronsealder og eldre jernalder. In Svinesundprosjektet bind 2. Utgravninger avslutt et i 2002, edited by H. Glørstad, pp. 143–182. Varia 55. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Fornminneseksjonen, Oslo.

Rønne, O. 2003b Stensrød – boplass med spor fra nøstvetfasen, senneolitikum, bronsealder og eldre jernalder. In Svinesundprosjektet bind 2. Utgravninger avslutt et i 2002, edited by H. Glørstad, pp. 187–219. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer, Fornminneseksjonen Varia 55. Oslo.

Sahlins, M. 1963 Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 3: 285–303.

Sahlins, M. 1976 Culture and Practical Reason. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sahlins, M. 2004 Apologies to Thucydides: Understanding History as Culture and Vice Versa. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sarauw, T. 2007 Male symbols or warrior identities? The ‘archery burials’ of the Danish Bell Beaker Culture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(1): 65–87.

Sarauw, T. 2008 Danish Bell Beaker pott ery and fl int daggers – the display of social identities? European journal of Archaeology 11(1): 23–48.

Sherratt, A. 1981 Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In Patt ern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond, pp. 261–305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Skjølsvold, A. 1977 Slett abøboplassen. Skrift er 2. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Skjølsvold, A. 1980 Boplassen på Nygård i Ogna: The Nygård site – a neolithic dwelling place in Rogaland, SW-Norway. AmS-varia 6. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Solberg, B. 1994 Exchange and the role of import to Western Norway in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Norwegian Archaeological Review 27(2): 112–126.


Sørensen, R. 1999 En 14C datert og dendrokronologisk kalibrert strandforskyvningskurve for søndre Østfold, Sørøst-Norge. In Museumslandskap. Artikkelsamling til Kerstin Griffi n på 60-årsdagen, edited by L. Selsing and G. Lillehammer, pp. 59–70. AmS-Rapport 12, Bind A. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Thorpe, N. 2009 Becoming Neolithic in Southern Britain. In Neolithisation as if history matt ered. Processes of Neolithisation in North-Western Europe, edited by H. Glørstad and C. Prescott , pp. 23–64. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Thukydides 1999 [c. 400 BC] Peloponneserkrigen. Norwegian edition, translated by H. Mørland. Thorleif Dahls kulturbibliotek. Aschehoug, Oslo.

Vander Linden, M. 2007 What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe? Antiquity 81: 343–352.

Vandkilde, H. 1996 From Stone to Bronze. The Metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXXII, Aarhus.

Vandkilde, H. 2001 Beaker representations in the Danish late Neolithic. In Bell Beakers today. Pott ery, people, culture, symbols

in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the international colloquium, Riva del garda, 11–16 May 1998, edited by F. Nicolis, pp. 333–360. Uffi cio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Vandkilde, H. 2005 A Review of the Early Late Neolithic Period in Denmark: Practice, Identity and Connectivity. Electronic document, htt p://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2005_vandkilde_high.pdf, accessed 01.01.2009.

Vandkilde, H., Rahbech, U. and Lund Rasmussen, K. 1996 Radiocarbon Dating and the Chronology of Bronze Age Southern Scandinavia. Acta Archaeologica 67: 183–198.

Wagner, R. 1972 Habu. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Weber, M. 1978 Economy and society: an outline of interpretive

sociology. University of California Press, Berkeley.Yates, T. 1989 Habitus and social space: some suggestions about

meaning in the Saami (Lapp) tent c. 1700–1900. In The Meaning of Things. Material Culture and Symbolic Expressions, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 249–262. HarperCollins Academic, London.

9

The last hunter-fi shers of western Norway

Knut Andreas Bergsvik

IntroductionDuring the transition to the late Neolithic signifi cant cultural changes took place in western Norway. The populations who previously had few external contacts were now integrated in the Scandinavian exchange networks. New tools, weapons and raw materials were introduced. A fi nal introduction of agriculture took place, and there was a major shift in the world-view of the populations. This important transition has puzzled archaeologists for quite a while, because the changes happened so quickly across such a large area, because the population – the traditional sedentary hunter-fi shers who already lived there – were very successful and well adapted, and because it would have been an extremely laborious task to push husbandry and cultivation in these densely forested and rocky landscapes. However, the changes really happened and they proved to be irreversible; western Norway was from now on a part of a larger world. People never regained their isolated and independent position at the north western margins of Europe.

In this paper I will focus on the social processes that led to these changes. I will argue that most important social and cultural changes happened just before the late Neolithic, in the middle Neolithic B (MNB) period (c. 4100–3800 BP/2600–2300 cal BC). During the MNB, local leaders in western Norway (today’s counties Hordaland, Sogn og Fjordane, and Sunnmøre) became increasingly involved in exchange networks that extended into southern, eastern and possibly middle areas of Norway. Through these networks, they became more familiar with the practical as well as the ideological aspects of agriculture, and had increasingly access to new tools and raw materials which were effi cient for their building up of personal prestige. Perhaps as unintended consequences

of these involvements, the traditional subsistence-sett lement patt erns, lithic industry, and cosmology of the sedentary hunter-fi shers became less important and were replaced by a new economy and ideology.

History of research and problemsPrevious scholars have discussed at length how and why the changes happened. Gutorm Gjessing (1945: 18) argued that they were mainly the result of immigration, fi rst by ‘batt le-axe people’, later by the ‘dagger-period farmers’. Erik Hinsch was in agreement with this, but he added that the changes could partly also be the results of trade relations (Hinsch 1956: 191 ff ). During the 1970s and 1980s the general view of the transition to farming changed towards indigenous explanations. Egil Bakka and Peter Emil Kaland mainly stood for an indigenous view, although they did not rule out the possibility of husbandry (and perhaps also cereal cultivation) being introduced ‘…by a Batt le axe culture population’ in Hordaland (Bakka and Kaland 1971: 28, 30). Later, Asle Bruen Olsen argued that agriculture was adopted by the hunter-fi sher populations, and it was necessary to look at the latt er part of the middle Neolithic in order to understand the process (Olsen 1988). From the 1990s onwards, the transition has received increased att ention. In 1995 Christopher Prescott and Eva Walderhaug suggested that the changes came as a result of pressure from groups related to the ‘batt le axe culture’ some of which possibly had immigrated into eastern Norway. This led to a stressed situation for the egalitarian hunter-fi shers in eastern as well as western Norway, followed by a resignation and an integration of the ‘foreign’ elements in their culture.

9. The last hunter-fi shers of western Norway 101

This ‘preparatory stage’ opened up for immigration, primarily from Jylland, during the succeeding period (Prescott and Walderhaug 1995, see also Prescott 2009). Jostein Aksdal was basically in accordance with this view; however, he added that the western regional groups were probably also active in the process (Aksdal 1996, 2000). The active role of the western populations was also argued by this author (Bergsvik 2002a). Recently, Asle Bruen Olsen has pointed out that there was a confrontation between ‘two historical traditions’, but he has not elaborated how this confrontation was played out socially (A. B. Olsen 2009a). Thomas Bruen Olsen, on the other hand, was largely in agreement with Prescott and Walderhaug, and argued that the contact with the ‘batt le axe culture’ during the MNB had an undermining eff ect on the egalitarian western hunter-fi shers (T. B. Olsen 2009b).

There is no doubt that what we can observe in the LN (Late Neolithic) and early BA (Bronze Age) in western Norway were results of a major cultural transformations, and that hierarchy was an important aspect of the new ideology. It appears that the process leading up to this during the MNB is interpreted by Prescott , Walderhaug, and T. B. Olsen as politically imbalanced. It is, however, a question whether it is appropriate to describe the process as one of ‘pressure’ towards the indigenous populations. A problem is that these authors do not have specifi c suggestions as to how this pressure worked in practice and why the indigenous populations would have been pressed. T. B. Olsen points out that conservative, collective institutional structures existed in western Norway during the MNA, and that they were weakened during the MNB. However, if such a weakening happened, one would assume that it was the result of some new choices which aff ected these structures. What were these choices, who took them, and who gained from them; how did the tension between agency and structure look like? I argue that there is generally a lack of agents in the above interpretations, and this has partly to do with these authors’ interpretations of the western Norwegian groups as egalitarian. By insisting on equality, and in strong collective controls of ambitious individuals, this leads to problems in explaining how tension created change.

One may, however, ask how egalitarian the western hunter-fi shers actually were, and also question the level of social inequality that characterised the relevant ‘batt le-axe’ people outside this region during the MNB. In this context, therefore, it is necessary to briefl y refer the current status on the research on the social organisation and landscape perceptions of the LM/EN/MNA hunter-fi shers of western Norway, and also neighbouring ‘batt le axe’ groups. This is important, because it makes up the

regional social and ideological background or structure to which the MNB changes took place.

The Middle Neolithic backgroundMesolithic and Neolithic western Norway is relatively well researched as a result of a large number of excavations and publications during the last 30 years. The investigations show that the LM (Late Mesolithic), EN (Early Neolithic) and MNA (Middle Neolithic A) sett lement sites tend to concentrate on the coast. These sites are large and numerous, and they are situated at att ractive locations in terms of fi shing, hunting, and communication. Some of the sites have abundant faunal and botanical data, indicating that their inhabitants utilised a broad spectrum of marine as well as terrestrial wild resources. Pollen evidence may also indicate that agriculture was also practiced on a small scale, at least during the MNA (e.g. Bergsvik 2001, 2002a; Hjelle et al. 2006; Huft hammer 1992; A. B. Olsen 1992). Recent research particularly on the LM and EN and also on the MNA indicates that these hunter-fi sher societies were strongly regulated. First of all, many groups were sedentary in the sense that they lived at the same residential sites during most of the year and that they also returned to these sites aft er temporary seasonal absences. These sites tend to concentrate around a series of tidal current channels (Bergsvik 2001, 2002a; Huft hammer 1992; A. B. Olsen 1992). Second, there were marked social boundaries between several relatively small territories along the coast. This probably meant that subsistence related mobility for the sedentary groups included the fj ords in the eastern direction. However they did not extend very far in the north/south direction along the coast (Bergsvik 2006; Bergsvik & A. B. Olsen 2003; Olsen and Alsaker 1984; Solheim 2009). Third, extensive networks cut across these boundaries for the exchange of lithic raw materials, blanks, and fi nished stone tools. Marriage partners may also have been included in these exchange networks (Bergsvik 2006, 2010; A. B. Olsen and Alsaker 1984; Solheim 2009). Finally, people were extremely tied to the shorelines at the coast for location of sett lements as well as production of rock art. Such a strong connection to the shores would obviously have a been a practical result of them primarily being hunter-fi shers, but this preferred ‘middle position’ between the land and the sea would probably also have to do with a deeply rooted cosmology which was relevant for most of the hunter-gatherers in northern and eastern Scandinavia during the late Mesolithic as well as Neolithic periods (Bergsvik 2009; Bradley 2000; Helskog 1999; Zvelebil and Jordan 1999).

Knut Andreas Bergsvik102

Some form of social inequality was, most likely, important for the establishment and the long-term maintenance of such a regulated system. It is argued that ‘big men’ types of leaders organised and controlled diff erent types of task-group moves within the social boundaries, the quarrying of lithic raw materials and particularly the mobility related to the cross-boundary relations. This control made them into important middlemen for the distribution of valuable goods as well as information (Bergsvik 2002b). On the basis of this, it may be argued that when confronted with the ‘batt le axe culture’ during the transition to the MNB, these groups were not residentially mobile and they were not egalitarian. Instead, similar to many late Stone Age hunter-gatherers in rich northern European environments (e.g. Fisher 2002; Zvelebil 2006), they were sedentary, territorial, and were, most likely, organised by principles of ‘moderate’ social inequality.

Another important question is the nature of social organisation that characterised the MNB groups outside western Norway. In theory, there were three relevant areas: the areas around the Oslo fj ord in eastern Norway, Rogaland in southwest Norway, and Trøndelag in Middle Norway. Particularly relevant here is the impact of the ‘batt le axe culture’. The general signifi cance of this culture has been discussed in a large number of works (e.g. Ebbesen 2006; Edenmo 2008; Glob 1945; Hinsch 1956; Malmer 1962). It is the practice of husbandry and cultivation, certain types of axes and pott ery, and intentional deposits in the form of graves and ritual off erings, which provide the basis for defi ning populations as belonging to the ‘batt le axe culture’. These populations were interrelated through various kinds of gift exchange networks, shared a common ideology related to agriculture, and to burials of their dead in single graves. It is quite likely that an individual, aggressive ideology – symbolised by the batt le axes – was also an important aspect (Damm 1991; Kristiansen 1982) and that this in turn triggered geographical expansions related to husbandry into peripheral areas that had not previously been occupied by agricultural populations.

In Rogaland, Eastern Norway and Trøndelag, relatively many batt le axes and imported fl int axes, and also some pott ery related to the ‘batt le axe culture’ have been found, most of them stray fi nds. Some graves have also been identifi ed in eastern Norway as well as in Trøndelag. Until now, no agricultural sites have been surveyed and excavated. Excavations have only taken place at sites along the coastline, and in the alpine areas. These sites indicate that hunting and fi shing was still important during the MNB in these regions. The stray fi nds indicate, however, that there

were expansions into the inland from the coast to a larger degree than people had done in the preceding periods (Amundsen 2000; Berg 1986; Hansen 2005; Hinsch 1956; Høgestøl and Prøsch-Danielsen 2006; Indrelid 1994; Kalseth 2007; Malmer 1962; Mikkelsen 1989; Østmo 1988; Reitan 2005, 2009). Based on the relatively large number of batt le axes and the presence of batt le axe graves it can probably be argued that groups around the Oslo fj ord were a part of the ‘batt le axe culture’, and that their expansions into the inland were partly related to husbandry and cultivation. A few such ‘batt le axe culture’ groups may also have been present in Trøndelag and Rogaland. This meant that, in contrast to the EN and MNA, when the northern European ‘Neolithic’ cultures were more distant, the indigenous hunter-fi shers in western Norway were during the MNB more closely surrounded by people that had diff erent ideas than themselves on the importance of cultivation and husbandry, on geographical expansions related to agriculture, and possibly also on how such expansions could be used as a vehicles for increasing the power of ambitions individuals.

Nevertheless, even if these neighbouring groups may have had a geographically more expansive ideology than what was the case in western Norway; one should not overestimate their abilities in terms of concrete pressure on the hunter-fi shers. In his work on the MNB in western Norway, Jostein Aksdal has a reasonable view on this problem. He argues for a balanced model, where leaders from the ‘batt le axe culture’ and leaders from western Norway created a common social fi eld where artefacts as well as information were exchanged (Aksdal 2000: 116ff ). I believe that such a model has many advantages. Instead of looking at the changes during the MNB as a weak ‘culture’ giving way to a strong ‘culture’ on a very general scale, the process itself should be studied. Below I will try to develop this model further, on the basis of data from western Norway on the most important changes during the MNA–MNB transition.

Changes during the MNA–MNB transitionUntil the 1990’s, very few MNB sites had been excavated, and the period was diffi cult to grasp in terms of basic subsistence as well as in the use of material culture. During the last few years, however, several investigations of the MNB have been performed in the fi eld as well as on museum collections (Bergsvik 2002a; Olsen 2004; A. B. Olsen 2009; T. B. Olsen 2009). These investigations have fi rmly distinguished the MNB as a chronologically signifi cant period, a period


in which there were a number of fundamental changes in subsistence and sett lement, in the use of landscapes, and in the regional social relations.

Changes in subsistence and sett lementBotanical (pollen) data from contexts dated to the MNA indicate that small-scale cultivation of barley (Hordeum type) and wheat (Triticum type) may have taken place during this period. During the MNA there is also a slight increase in the occurrences of ribwort plantain pollen (Plantago lanceolata) and also pollen from light-demanding herb species, which together may indicate small-scale grazing activity. The pollen evidence is collected from the coastal sedentary residential sites themselves, or from bogs close to the residential sites. Among these sites, Kotedalen at Fosnstraumen is the most important. From the MNB, the pollen evidence indicating cultivation and grazing continue around these sites (Hjelle et al. 1992; Hjelle et al. 2006). Although disputed (Glørstad 2009; Prescott 1996; Rowley-Conwy 1995), this may indicate that agriculture was closely related to these hunter-fi sher occupations. During the last few years, new data has been produced which may support a theory of changes in the agricultural activities during the MNB. Excavated, radiocarbon dated fi elds and pollen diagrams indicate that collection of leaf fodder and cultivation from now on took place in areas that previously had not been occupied by the hunter-fi sher populations. Such sites are present in the deep fj ords as well as at some locations at the coast (Hjelle et al. 2006; Olsen 2009a). Asle Bruen Olsen, who has been in charge of the excavations of a large number of prehistoric fi elds in western Norway during the last few years, estimates that about 20 per cent of these fi elds have bott om layers radiocarbon dated to the MNB (A. B. Olsen personal communication).

Although botanical data indicate that a small element of agriculture may have been present during the MNA and was gradually gett ing more substantial during the MNB, the faunal material from the residential sites clearly indicates that people in both these periods still relied heavily on hunting and fi shing (Hjelle et al. 2006; Huft hammer 1992). This is supported by the fi ndings of hunting gear (various types of projectile points) at the sites. The residential sites themselves dated to the MNA as well as MNB can also generally be characterised as hunter-fi sher sites based on site locations. The large majority of the surveyed and excavated sites is situated at the coast, very close to the contemporary shoreline, and may thus generally support a theory of a continued subsistence-sett lement

patt ern at least partly based on hunting and fi shing throughout the MNB.

Nevertheless, when looking closer at these hunter-fi sher sites, it is apparent that there were changes going on during the transition to the MNB. At the coast of western Norway, the isostatic uplift during the period c. 4000 to 1700 cal BC was 5–10 m depending on local geological circumstances (Kaland 1984). This resulted in relatively slow changes in the coastal landscapes. In att ractive areas, therefore, shore bound residential sites from succeeding periods tend to lie in stratigraphical sequences spanning most of the Stone Age. In such sequences, thick cultural layers dated to the MNA are covered by layers from the MNB. This has been interpreted to indicate that the traditional hunter-fi sher sett lement patt erns persisted at least until the transition to the LN (Bergsvik 2002a: 313). In a recent contribution, however, Thomas Bruen Olsen has investigated these MNB layers in more detail. Based on a survey of excavated Stone Age sites in western Norway, he was able to identify cultural layers dated to the MNB at only nine sites at the coast (T. B. Olsen 2004: 74). A similar detailed quantitative investigation has not yet been performed for the MNA, but the number of large sites and layers deposited generally seems to be much higher in that period (e.g. Bergsvik 2002a; Kristoff ersen and Warren 2001; Nærøy 1994; A. B. Olsen 1992). Furthermore, T. B. Olsen argues that there seem to be a change in the character of the MNB layers compared to the MNA. While a large number of MNA residential sites areas have thick, black deposits, the layers at MNB sites are much less substantial (T.B. Olsen 2004: 102).

The MNA period was twice as long as MNB. The factor of sites per time unit therefore has to be considered. It should also be noted that the MNB cultural layers are usually situated in the upper strata in the stratigraphical sequences at these complex hunter-fi sher sites. This means that they have been somewhat more exposed to recent agricultural activity and disturbance than the deeper layers. Nevertheless, even if these factors are accounted for, the low number of MNB sites and the less substantial character of the layers probably indicate that changes took place during the the MNB, which partly had to do with a turnover in terms of subsistence and sett lement patt erns. One possible implication is that there was a change from a sedentary system in the MNA to a more seasonal sett lement patt ern in the MNB (T. B. Olsen 2004: 102). Alternatively, it had to do with a decrease in the sizes of the sedentary groups who occupied these sites; there may have been a demographic leak – related to agriculture – towards new landscapes.


Changes in the use of landscapesThe changes in the use of landscapes are most clearly seen in the long-term distribution of stray-fi nds. A large number of adzes or other stone tools, which may stem from plowed-up residential sites, caches or ritual deposits, are stored at the regional museums. They are mainly found by non-archaeologists, thus representing an unbiased sample in terms of site locations. When treated with caution, they make up an important database for research. Several distribution studies from western Norway of stray fi nds show that while the MNA adzes are fi rst of all found in the coastal areas, whereas MNB axes as well as LN artefacts have to a large degree been found in areas that are favaourable for primitive agriculture (Aksdal 2000; Bakka and Kaland 1971; Berg 1986; Gjerland 1984; Hinsch 1956; Johnsen 1993). Nevertheless, this change in the regional distribution of adzes/axes already during the MNB has not, until now, been used as an argument for a major introduction of agriculture this early, mainly because of a lack of substantial palynological data. As pointed out above, however, palynological data

available today seem to indicate a somewhat stronger agricultural element during MNB than what has been recorded before. In the light of this, I will look closer at the contexts of the stray fi nds.

A method of distinguishing between fi nd-spots that can be related to hunting/fi shing and agriculture is to study the elevation of the fi nds. As pointed out above, there is a general agreement that the MNA hunter-fi sher populations at the coast of western Norway almost without exception located their residential sites very close to the contemporary shorelines. One might therefore expect that stray-fi nds from this period would also mainly be found close to the sea. Furthermore, if there was a change going on during the MNB related to the increased importance of agriculture, one might expect that stray-fi nds from this period were picked up at sites that were not only related to the ancient shores, but also to terrain that was fi rst of all favourable for agricultural activity.

The North-West part of Hordaland and the Gulen municipality (shaded area in Figure 9.1) were chosen for more detailed studies. The following artefact-

Figure 9.1: The area of analysis in western Norway. Shaded area is the test-district for the distribution (elevation) of Vestland adzes, and fl int/stone axes/adzes. Place names or county names mentioned in text are marked.


types were used (Figures 9.2 and 9.3): Vestland adzes (altogether 37 found in this area), thin-bladed fl int axes (1), thin bladed fl int adzes (5), thick bladed fl int adzes with hollow edges (1), thick bladed fl int axes (1), thick bladed fl int adzes (7), and thick-butt ed stone axes (24). No batt le axes have been found in the relevant districts. The Vestland adzes are primarily dated to the MNA, although they also occur at sites younger than this period (Bergsvik 2002a; Nærøy 1993; A. B. Olsen 1981, 1992). The above fl int axes/adzes as types appear in graves related to the ‘batt le axe culture’ in Southern Sweden. Their time of use was, however, not entirely restricted to this period. It is possible that some of them were already introduced during the EN/MNA, and some clearly also continued to be used in the succeeding LN period (Hinsch 1956; Malmer 1962, 1975). Hinsch has argued that the thick butt ed stone axes found in Norway mainly were deposited during the LN (Hinsch 1965: 167f). However, in light of the above data on early agriculture, I fi nd it unreasonable that the majority of these axes generally were deposited later in western Norway than their main period of use in Southern Sweden. Concerning the fl int implements, a MNB dating is supported by data from the residential sites from this period. At such sites from the MNA, ground fl int fl akes (from fl int adze/axe heads) are more or less absent. At MNB sites, however, such fl akes are quite common (Bergsvik 2002a: 296; A. B. Olsen 2004). This indicates clearly that imported axes/adzes of fl int were used extensively in this area already during the MNB. On the basis of these considerations, I assume that at least a large part of the Vestland adzes as well as the imported fl int/stone adzes/axes used in this study were

deposited during the MNA and MNB respectively.The relevant Vestland adzes and the thick-butt ed

stone axes have been classifi ed by this author, whereas Evy Berg’s classifi cations are used for the fl int axes/adzes (Berg 1986: appendix 1). The elevation of all the artefacts was recorded, based on archive information and evaluation of maps. By comparing the age of the artefact to the relevant (extrapolated) shoreline displacement curve (Kaland 1984), a vertical distance from the shoreline (contemporary to the age of the artefact) was calculated. Shorebound residential sites during the Middle Neolithic were usually situated less than 10m above the contemporary shorelines. During this period, these shorelines were situated 10–15m above today’s shorelines depending on local isostatic conditions. In order to ‘fi lter out’ all shorebound fi nd-spots, 30m.a.s.l. was used as a distinctive marker: sites above 30m were termed interior fi nd-spots, while those situated lower than 30m were termed shorebound fi nd-spots.

Figure 9.2: Stone axes/adzes found in North-West Hordaland/Gulen. Vestland adze (Bergen Museum no. B4960) and thick-butt ed stone axe (B8887). Drawn by Ellinor Hoff .

Figure 9.3: Flint axes/adzes found in North-West Hordaland/Gulen. Thin-bladed fl int axe (B12735), Thin-bladed fl int adze (B5428), thick bladed fl int adze with hollow edge (B12745), and thick bladed fl int adze (B8889). Drawn by Ellinor Hoff .


The result is presented in Figure 9.4. This shows that the Vestland adzes were mainly found along contemporary shorelines. Only a relatively small share has been found in the interior. According to the initial expectations, this result is not surprising. It is perhaps likely that most of these artefacts stem from ploughed-up residential MNA (and possibly also MNB) hunter-fi sher sites and/or ritual deposits along the shores. The Vestland adzes found above 30m.a.s.l. may be interpreted in diff erent ways. Considering that agriculture was known and practiced already during the MNA, some of them may have been off ered or lost during such activities. Another possibility is that they were deposited according to the traditional hunter/fi sher landscape perceptions, in which the interior also played a role (Bergsvik 2009).

The distribution patt erns of the imported fl int and stone implements diverge markedly from this. In fact, the number of axes/adzes found at interior fi nd-spots is in fact slightly higher than the number of fi nds at shorebound locations. Supportive to this result is Thomas Bruen Olsen’s recording of the elevation of the entire collection of thick-butt ed stone axes (160) in the counties Hordaland, Sogn og Fjordane and Sunnmøre (T. B. Olsen 2004: 84ff ). His result coincides with the present result by that almost equal shares of these axes found at shorebound and interior locations. The marked diff erence between the distribution of the

Vestland adzes and the other axes/adzes show that interior landscapes had become much more att ractive during the MNB. This may, of course, have to do with the hunter-fi shers being more preoccupied with the terrestrial wild resources than they had been during the MNA. However, a perhaps more likely alternative is that the interior landscapes were from now on more actively used for off erings as well as for dwelling and agricultural practice at some distance from the contemporary shorelines. If this is correct, the area of analysis would, during the MNB, have been a landscape in which people identifi ed with a traditional hunter-fi sher culture and a farming culture at the same time. A question is how this cultural mixture was organised.

Some information about this is provided by the distribution of the fl int/stone axes/adzes. Although many of these implements have been found at locations in the fj ords, many of the fi nd spots are situated relatively close to the outer coast. This indicates that the MNB expansion related to agriculture initially may have happened in the fj ords, and at interior locations at the coast, close to the traditional hunter-fi sher sett lements from the EN and MNA. Based on this it could be argued that the expansion itself was in fact initiated from these coastal sett lements; the pioneer agriculturalists established themselves in familiar areas, which were already well known from interior

Figure 9.4: The relation to the shoreline for Vestland adzes (dark grey) and South Scandinavian fl int/stone adzes/axes (light grey) found in the test-district in northern Hordaland and Gulen.


hunting expeditions as well as mobility related to the collection of wild plants. This means that these early farmers would have the knowledge of the best conditions for growth, but they would also have a network for security, socially as well as economically. In periods of meagre harvests, they may have had the opportunity to go back to hunting and fi shing in ‘own’ territories. They may also have had the benefi t of the good will of their relatives – who still occupied the old hunter-fi sher sites close to the shorelines.

Changes in regional exchange networksDuring the late LM, EN, and MNA there were extensive, social networks within western Norway. There are, however, relatively few indications of the networks extending beyond this region this early. A relatively low number of imported TRB axes has been found in the region (Bergsvik and Østmo 2011), shards of TRB pott ery are also relatively uncommon at the sites (A. B. Olsen 1992; Østmo and Skogstrand 2006), and agriculture was practised at a low level (Hjelle et al. 2006; Høgestøl and Prøsch-Danielsen 2006). It is generally agreed that TRB tools/pott ery and domesticated animals and plants were acquired by the local populations during sporadic contacts, and should probably not be interpreted as a result of extensive contact networks towards southern and eastern groups (but see Hallgren 2008: 247ff for a diff erent view). The few imported specimen of slate knives, daggers, and spears of northern origin should probably also be seen as a result of infrequent contacts in the northern direction (Bergsvik 2006; Søborg 1988). All in all, western Norway appears to have strong, indigenous, regional traditions during these periods.

This changed during the MNB. Although several common MNA tool-types, such as adzes/chisels of the Vestland type and points and knives of slate, continued to be used during the MNB period, a number of new elements were introduced. These include crescent-formed sandstone knives with straight, linear edges and decorative elements (notches and zig-sag lines) on slate points and knives (Figure 9.6 A and C) (Bergsvik 2002a; T. B. Olsen 2004, 2009). As already pointed out, however, several new tool-types were imported, such as thick-bladed and thin-bladed fl int axes/adzes/chisels, rectangular stone adzes with hollow edges, (MNB) batt le axes, and D-points of fl int (Berg 1986; Aksdal 2000; Hinsch 1956; Malmer 1975). A number of the thick butt ed stone axes may also have been imported, but some of these were clearly also made in western Norway (see below). These changes indicate that the social networks extending beyond western

Norway were much more frequent and stable during the MNB than during the preceeding periods – people were increasingly relating to a larger world.

At the same time, there are several traits indicating a much greater focus on the local, than was the case during the MNA. According to T.B. Olsen (2004), this is a general trend in western Norway and is particularly clear in the use of lithic raw materials. Sites at Skatestraumen, Bremanger, Nordfj ord, will be used to illustrate this development.

At Skatestraumen, a large number of Mesolithic and Neolithic sites have been excavated, and among them 1. Haukedal (Figure 9.5) was occupied during the MNA as well as in the MNB (Bergsvik 2002a: 103ff ). This site shows increased use of a local raw material during the MNB. It accounts particularly for white quartz of medium quality, which is very common in bedrock outcrops close to the sites (Figure 9.7). This raw material was used for scraping and cutt ing.

Figure 9.5: The site 1. Haukedal at Skatestraumen during excavation.


Interestingly, there are also fi ndings of possible D-points of fl int and fragments of ground fl int axes at the site (Figure 9.6B). The fi ne quality of these fl int implements indicate that they were imported from southern Scandinavia via populations in the south or east. Such exotica were occasionally taken to western Norway before, but they almost never found their way to the residential sites (Bergsvik and Østmo 2011).

As pointed out above, MNB groups in western Norway were related to a network that extended beyond the boundaries of this region. These relations were more frequent and stable than what was the

case during the MNA. It is, therefore, not surprising to fi nd fragments of tools for southern Scandinavian origin at their residential sites. What is new and intriguing about the above patt ern is the marked orientation towards the local raw materials. In the case of Skatestraumen, one might argue that such a local orientation does not imply a signifi cant change compared to the MNA, considering that the MNA sites in this area were dominated by slate (Figure 9.7). Slate was also a raw material that could be quarried in the Devonian formation in Sunnfj ord and Nordfj ord, very close to Skatestraumen. There was, however, a

Figure 9.6: (A) Crescent-formed sandstone knife with straight, linear edge. (B) Fragments of ground fl int axes and fragments of possible D-points. (C) Slate projectile points decorated with notches. The artefacts have been found at site 6. Haukedal (A) and site 1. Haukedal (B and C). Photo: Svein Skare.


marked diff erence between the distribution patt erns of slate during the MNA and similar distributions of quartz/quartzite during the MNB. While the Devonian slate during the MNA was spread across vast distances northwards and eastwards along the coast, there was not a similar network for the distribution of quartz and quartzite during the MNB. If such a network was operative during the MNB, one would expect to find white quartz in some quantities at sites further south along the coast. This is not the case. Interestingly, however, while the amounts of slate at the sites are signifi cantly reduced compared to earlier, other presumably local types of quartz or quartzites are dominant at these sites. This indicates a marked orientation towards the local also in these areas.

Moreover, Devonian slate is not the only lithic raw material that seems to loose importance during the MNB. The same happens to greenstone and diabase, which had been crucial for the production of adzes (among them Vestland adzes) in this region since about 7000 cal BC. At the diabase-quarry at Stakaneset, Flora, the top layer of the production refuse heaps has been radiocarbon dated to about 2500 cal BC, while shoreline displacement curves at Bømlo indicates a halt in the greenstone production at Hespriholmen about the same time (A.B. Olsen and Alsaker 1984: 78). Supportive of this is the low number of thick butt ed stone axes (hand) classifi ed as diabase and greenstone compared to the dominance of these raw materials for older adzes. According to A.B. Olsen and Alsaker, only one such axe has been made of diabase and only ten of

greenstone (A.B. Olsen and Alsaker 1984: 92). Relevant for this discussion is also the regional spread of these axes. It appears that the diabase specimen was found only 5 km from Stakaneset, whereas those classifi ed as greenstone were found within a radius of only 100 km from the Hespriholmen quarry. Compared to the LM and EN/MNA distributions of these raw materials, these are short distances, and indicate small-scale distributions also of diabase and greenstone during the MNB.

Social and ideological implicationsThis overview of the MNA–MNB transition indicates that there were signifi cant changes in three important aspects of the society. First of all, although the hunter-fi sher sites and coastal sett lement areas continued to be occupied throughout the MNB, the site data indicate that the occupations became less intensive than before. This may be related to an increase in the importance of agriculture during the MNB. Second, stray fi nds indicate that pioneer expansions – probably related to agriculture – happened both in the fj ord areas and at inland locations close to the traditional hunter-fi sher sett lements at the coast. Third, the external social relations were strengthened. This is indicated by much more frequent imports of artefacts of south Scandinavian origin. Furthermore, it appears that several quarried raw materials with western origin lost their importance during the transition to the MNB. At

Figure 9.7: Percentages of lithic raw materials used during the MNA phase 5 and MNB phase 6 at the site 1. Haukedal at Skatestraumen.


the same time, there was an increased use of local rocks with inferior qualities in combination with a marked element of exotic fl ints at the residential sites.

In my view, the above new trends are signifi cant for the understanding of the social processes that took place during the MNB. They indicate that the changes were initiated from the inside, on the terms of the hunter-fi sher populations themselves. In my view, a so-called ‘agency approach’ might be useful in order to understand what was happening. This is a materialistic model focussing primarily on the social fi eld, and is commonly applied to transitions to agriculture (Bender 1978; Fisher 2002; Jennbert 1984; Price 2000). The approach has the basic tenet that there in every society will be ambitious individuals. Furthermore, it is argued that social inequality develops under conditions of resource abundance, not stress, and that control of other people is achieved by the use of debt created by various methods (Hayden 1995). Although many agree on these basic principles, the model has also been subject to some critique. In the context of the development of social inequality among egalitarian societies, Polly Wiessner points out that agency approaches oft en fail to take account of the structure (institutions and ideology) within which the agents operated; that the pathways for such individuals are oft en portrayed as more straightforward than they actually are (Wiessner 2002: 234). She argues that even if ambitious individuals make strategic choices, increased personal power and prestige are not the necessary outcomes of these choices.

If applying such an approach, the following scenario may be relevant: During the EN and MNA, a political system was probably established in western Norway in which big-men types of leaders stood for the majority of the social relations that extended beyond the social and territorial boundaries between the sedentary local groups. In order to achieve and keep their status, these leaders were dependent upon such networks across the boundaries, because the networks for one supplied them with goods that could be presented at feasts and given away as gift s. Political leaders of this sort are continuously working to have something new to present at such occasions. The problem during the MNA was that, immediately outside the western Norwegian region, people lived more or less in the same fashion as themselves, and their material culture was essentially of the same kind. Tools and raw materials that moved in the western Norwegian networks were, therefore, fi rst of all of regional origin. This changed in the MNB. During this period, it appears that the ‘batt le axe culture’ was established in eastern Norway and perhaps in Rogaland and Trøndelag. In these areas, new items were introduced,

such as batt le axes, fl int axes, thick butt ed stone axes, and D-points. Access to these new tools was important for ambitious individuals in western Norway, because they would att ract att ention when presented at feasts, and also because many of them were of good quality and could actually replace the traditional regional lithic raw materials. Considering that it was greenstone, diabase, rhyolite, chert, slate, and mylonite that were distributed in the regional networks during the MNA, it was these regional raw materials that were replaced by the new ones from the south and east.

Such a theory of replacement may to a large extent explain the marked decrease in the use of regional raw materials, and it may also explain the increased use of the local raw materials. The traditional regional raw materials had probably been scarce resources, but they were abundant enough to cover the needs for ordinary tool production. This was probably not the case with the imported fl int tools, because these were too few. Thus, when the imported tools replaced the traditional regional types in the exchange networks, they at the same time created a demand for raw materials that could not be supplied by the local big-man. In order to satisfy this demand, people turned to local sources and outcrops of quartz and quartzite.

The new turn towards areas outside the region for the supply of raw materials and tools was probably important for the transformation of the society during the MNB. Most likely, the disappearance of the traditional regional raw materials created an ideological vacuum. As have been pointed out by several authors, (e.g. A. B. Olsen and Alsaker 1984; Walderhaug 1994), raw materials such as greenstone and diabase may have constituted a significant ideological capital for the populations in western Norway. Important conceptions may also have been related to rhyolite, chert, mylonite, and slate. Therefore, when adzes, points and knives from regional raw materials disappeared during the MNB, people not only lost tools that were eff ective and practical. They also lost a number of regionally common important ideological connotations that had been associated with these tools. The connotations related to the new local raw materials were probably not as encompassing, because these were, as we have seen, diff erent all over the area. Left in the inter-group networks were, therefore, tools and raw materials that could not be related to regional values, traditions, stories, or myths; the imported thick butt ed stone axes, fl int axes/adzes, and D-points were probably associated with quite diff erent values and traditions.

Recent discussions of the signifi cance of artefacts for social and cultural constitutions are relevant for this problem (e.g. Glørstad 2008; Gosden 2005; Olsen 2003).


In this context, the ‘extended’ signifi cance of material culture (Robb 2004) might help understanding what these values were about. I argue that there were at least three cultural aspects related to those artefacts, which were new for the people in western Norway, and which may have contributed to triggering the changes referred to above: (1) agriculture as a dominating economy (2) the use of inland locations for dwelling and working, and (3) the idea of hereditary social inequality. The information about these aspects of the material culture was probably transferred during the exchanges themselves, or by individuals that married into the groups (e.g. Jennbert 1984).

(1) The flint axes and possibly also some of the thick-butt ed stone axes were produced southern Sweden and imported from there. In Southern Scandinavia, agriculture was already a important element in the subsistence during the MNB. It is quite likely that these types of axes in the area of origin were used for work related to agriculture, such as clearing of landscapes, tree-felling, harvesting of leaf fodder, and that these activities were closely connected to the artefacts themselves. During the EN and MNA, TRB fl int axes and stone axes were imported to western Norway, however, compared to during the MNB, these imported axes were relatively few compared to the regional types, and the “agricultural impact” was correspondingly weaker (Bergsvik and Østmo 2011). When the MNB types of axes started to dominate during the MNB, their ‘original’ functions related to agriculture would infl uence their new owners much stronger towards clearing the forests for grazing or cultivation.

(2) As pointed out above, the traditional hunter-fi shers in western Norway were extremely connected to the shores. Lowland interior sites are only minimally present, and only a few small sites (probably fi eld camps from short hunting and gathering expeditions) used by western populations have been found in the mountains (Indrelid 1994; Randers 1986). The LM/EN/MNA regional adzes of the indigenous populations may also have been related to the marine environment, considering that one of their main functions probably was to scoop out canoes. The above data on the distribution study of axes, which shows that MNB stone axes were to a much larger extent found at inland locations, may indicate not only that agriculture had become more important, but

also that there had been a symbolic break with the traditional marine focus; a loosening up of the traditional strong relation to the shores. This may have had to do with diff erent “prescriptions for use” for the MNB axes. They had no marine connotations; instead, the imported axes were probably related to inland work and expansions.

(3) Traditionally, batt le axes are seen as objects of prestige, and may have been part of exchange systems between partners among whom leadership was hereditary (e.g. Edenmo 2008). Very few batt le axes have been found in western Norway. However, considering that quite a few fl int axes/adzes and thick-butt ed, straight edged stone axes have been found in graves from this period (Malmer 1975), it may be argued that these types of axes were related to ‘batt le axe’ elites in eastern and southern Scandinavia. When imported to western Norway, therefore, the ideas of a more hierarchical system were related to these objects, and this may have been att ractive for the regional leaders.

On the basis of this it can be argued that when these new artefacts entered into the networks and daily life of the MNB populations in western Norway, it was not only the functional aspects of the material culture that was important, but also the ‘… conditions, plans, and meanings humans surround it with’ (Robb 2005: 137). This ‘extended’ signifi cance of the artefacts may have been important for the cultural change, because the above three aspects were probably central elements of the “batt le axe culture” as a symbolic system; it is perhaps easier to introduce new ideas if they are connected to material culture, than if they are not.

Concerning the human agents, it is diffi cult to say how conscious the regional leaders were about this new symbolic system and of the potential it represented for them in increasing their own power. It is possible that they were not that conscious – at least not about the eff ect on the overall regional culture. The process and the changes are perhaps best described as ‘unintended consequences of action’ (Giddens 1984: 27); the leaders in western Norway unwound the networks for distribution of regional tools and raw materials because they wanted new and att ractive tools for their social competition with other leaders in this region. However, by doing this, they at the same time plugged themselves and the rest of the population into a new culture and a new symbolic system – represented by these new artefacts – which they gradually made their own. But at the same time, during this process, they weakened from within the


ideological basis for their traditional hunter-fi sher society, and in this way the core elements in the western Norwegian cultural repertoire disappeared. This may have implied a lift ing of the previously strong restrictions on individuals on where to travel, how to make a living, and where to dwell (see also Glørstad this volume). As a consequence if this, it is also a question whether these leaders in fact weakened the fundament of their own political infl uence. Later, during the LN and early BA, some individuals or families clearly managed to build up strong positions at key areas in the region. This power was mainly based on agricultural surplus and participation in elite exchanges. However, before this happened, the above data indicate that there was a general demographic dispersal during the MNB and that the traditional regulated system of sedentism, social boundaries and regional networks for distribution of raw material disintegrated. These institutions were partly held up by leaders, and when the leaders themselves lost interest and changed focus, they at the same time lost their own legitimacy and control. Thus, ironically, the steps that were taken towards increasing the individual prestige, may, at least temporarily, have led to more egalitarian structures during the MNB.

ReferencesAksdal, J. 1996 Neolitikum i Vest-Noreg. Sosiale prosessar i

eit regionalt perspektiv. Unpublished Cand. Philol. thesis, University of Bergen.

Aksdal, J. 2000 The batt le-axe culture in western Norway. Form, function and context. In Form-Function-Context: Material Culture Studies in Scandinavian Archaeology, edited by D. Olausson and H. Vandkilde, pp. 105–120. Almquist & Wicksell International, Stockholm.

Amundsen, Ø. M. 2000 Neolitt kum i Agder og Telemark. En komparativ analyse av keramikk og fl intøkser. Unpublished Cand. Philol. thesis, University of Oslo.

Bakka, E. and Kaland, P. E. 1971 Early farming in Hordaland, Western Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 4(2): 1–35.

Bender, B. 1978 Gatherer-hunter to farmer: a social perspective. World Archaeology, 10(2): 204–222.

Berg, E. 1986 De neolitt iske fl intøksene i Vest-Norge. Typologisk-kronologisk inndeling. Bakgrunnen for fl intøksenes oppkomst og forholdet til de lokale tradisjonene. Unpublished Cand. Philol. thesis, University of Bergen.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2001 Sedentary and mobile hunter-fi shers in stone age western Norway. Arctic Anthropology, 38(1): 2–26.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2002a Arkeologiske undersøkelser ved Skatestraumen. Bind 1. Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universitetet i Bergen 7. Bergen University Museum, Bergen.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2002b Task groups and social inequality in early Neolithic western Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 35(1): 1–25.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2006 Ethnic Boundaries in Neolithic Norway. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1554. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2009 Caught in the middle: functional and ideological aspects of Mesolithic shores in Norway. In Mesolithic Horizons. Papers Presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, edited by S. McCartan, R. Shulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman, pp. 602–609. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2010 Marrying the enemy: technology and regions in early Neolithic Norway. In The Archaeology of Technology and Regions, edited by Barndon, R., A.jr. Engevik and I. Øye, pp. 109–126. Edwin Mellen Press, New York.

Bergsvik, K. A., & Olsen, A. B. 2003 Traffi c in stone adzes in Mesolithic western Norway. In Mesolithic on the Move, Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, edited by L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffl er and A. Åkerlund, pp. 395–404. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bergsvik, K. A., & Østmo, E. 2011 The experienced axe. Chronology, condition, and context of the TRB Axes in Western Norway. In Stone Axe Studies III, edited by M. Edmonds and V. Davis, pp. 7–20. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Bradley, R. 2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge, London.

Damm, C. 1991 Continuity and Change. An Analysis of Social and Material Patt erns in the Danish Neolithic. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University.

Ebbesen, K. 2006 The Batt le Axe Period. Stridsøksetid. Att ika, København.

Edenmo, R. 2008 Prestigeekonomi under yngre stenåldern. Gavoutbyten och regionala identiteter i den svenska båtyxekulturen. Opia 43. Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala.

Fisher, A. 2002 Food for Feasting? An evaluation of the explanations of the neolithisation of Denmark and southern Sweden. In The Neolithisation of Denmark – 150 Years of Debate, edited by A. Fisher and K. Kristiansen, pp. 343–393. J.R. Collis Publications, Sheffi eld.

Giddens, A. 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Gjerland, B. 1984 Bergartsøkser i Vest-Noreg. Distribusjon sett i forhold til praktisk funksjon, økonomisk tilpasning of tradisjon i steinalderen. Unpublished Mag. Art. thesis, University of Bergen.

Gjessing, G. 1945 Norges stenalder. Norsk Arkeologisk Selskap, Oslo.

Glob, P. V. 1945 Studier over den jyske enkeltgravskultur. Det kongelige Nordiske Oldskrift selskab, København.

Glørstad, H. 2008 Celebrating Materiality – The Antarctic Lesson. In Materiality. Six Essays on the Materiality of Society and Culture, edited by H. Glørstad and L. Hedeager pp.173–211. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Glørstad, H. 2009 The northern province? The neolitisation of Southern Norway. In Neolithisation as if History Matt ered. Processes in Neolithisation in North-Western Europe, edited by H. Glørstad and C. Prescott , pp.135–168. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Gosden, C. 2005 What do objects want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(3): 193–211.

Hallgren, F. 2008 Identitiet i praktik. Lokala, regionala sociala samanhang inom nordlig tratt bägerkultur. Coast to Coast 17.


Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Uppsala.

Hansen, O. E. 2005 Stridsøkskulturenes etablering i Østfold. En migrasjonshypotese. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Oslo.

Hayden, B. 1995 Pathways to power. Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In Foundations for Social Inequality, edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, 15–86. Plenum Press, New York and London.

Helskog, K. 1999 The shore connection. Cognitive landscape and communication with rock carvings in northernmost Europe. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 32(2): 73–94.

Hinsch, E. 1956 Yngre steinalders stridsøkskulturer i Norge. A. S. John Griegs Boktrykkeri, Bergen.

Hjelle, K. L., Huft hammer, A. K. and Bergsvik, K. A. 2006 Hesitant hunters: a review of the introduction of agriculture in western Norway. Environmental Archaeology, 11(2): 147–170.

Hjelle, K. L., Huft hammer, A. K., Kaland, P. E., Olsen, A. B. and Soltvedt, E. C. (eds) 1992 Kotedalen – en boplass gjennom 5000 år. Bind 2: Naturvitenskapelige undersøkelser. Historical Museum, University of Bergen, Bergen.

Huft hammer, A. K. 1992 De osteologiske undersøkelsene fra Kotedalen. In. (eds) Kotedalen – en boplass gjennom 5000 år. Bind 2. Naturvitenskapelige undersøkelser, edited by K. L Hjelle, A. K. Huft hammer, P. E. Kaland, A. B. Olsen, and E.C. Soltvedt, pp. 9–64. Historical Museum, University of Bergen, Bergen.

Høgestøl, M., and Prøsch-Danielsen, L. 2006 Impulses of agro-pastoralism in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC on the south-western coastal rim of Norway. Environmental Archaeology, 11(1): 19–34.

Indrelid, S. 1994 Fangstfolk og bønder i fjellet. Bidrag til Hardangerviddas førhistorie 8500–2500 før nåtid. Universitetets Oldsaksamlings skrift er. Ny rekke nr. 17. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Jennbert, K. 1984 Den produktiva gåvan: Tradisjon och innovation i Sydskandinavien för omkring 5300 år sedan. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 4º. Nº 16. CWK Gleerup, Lund.

Johnsen, T. 1993 Sein-Neolittisk tid i Sogn og Fjordane. Unpublished Cand. Philol. thesis, University of Bergen.

Kaland, P. E. 1984 Holocene shore displacement and and shorelines in Hordaland, Western Norway. Boreas 13: 203–242.

Kalseth, J. 2007 Mønstergyldige økser – en kontekstuell studie av neolitiske økser i Trøndelag. Unpublished Cand. Philol. thesis, NTNU University of Trondheim.

Kristiansen, K. 1982 The Tormation of Tribal Systems in Later European Prehistory: Northern Europe, 4000–500 B.C. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands and B. A. Segraves, pp 241–280. Academic Press, London.

Kristoff ersen, K. and Warren, E. J. 2001 Kulturminner i trekant-traséen. De arkeologiske undersøkelsene i forbindelse med utbygging av Trekantsambandet i kommunene Bømlo, Sveio og Stord i Sunnhordland. Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universitetet i Bergen 6. Bergen University Museum, Bergen.

Malmer, M. P. 1962 Jungneolithische Studien. CWK Gleerups Förlag, Lund.

Malmer, M. P. 1975 Stridsyxekulturen i Sverige og Norge. LiberoLäromedel, Lund.

Mikkelsen, E. 1989 Fra jeger til bonde. Utviklingen av jordbrukssamfunn i Telemark i steinalder og bronsealder.

Universitetets Oldsaksamlings skrift er. Ny rekke nr. 11. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Nærøy, A. J. 1993 Chronological and technological changes in Western Norway 6000–3800 BP. Acta Archaeologica, 63 (1992): 76–95.

Nærøy, A. J. 1994 Troll-prosjektet. Arkeologiske undersøkelser på Kollsnes, Øygarden k., Hordaland, 1989–1992. Arkeologiske rapporter 19. Historical Museum, University of Bergen, Bergen.

Olsen, A. B. 1981 Bruk av diabas i vestnorsk steinalder. Unpublished Mag. Art. thesis, University of Bergen.

Olsen, A. B. 1988 Økonomisk tilpasning i vestnorsk yngre steinalder. In (eds.) Festskrift til Anders Hagen. Arkeologiske skrift er 4, edited by S. Indrelid, S. Kaland and B. Solberg, pp. 242–251. Historical Museum, University of Bergen, Bergen.

Olsen, A. B. 1992 Kotedalen – en boplass gjennom 5000 år. Bind 1: Fangstbosetning og tidlig jordbruk i vestnorsk steinalder: Nye funn og nye perspektiver. Historical Museum, University of Bergen, Bergen.

Olsen, A. B. 2009 Transition to farming in western Norway seen as a result of rapid replacement of landscapes. In Mesolithic Horizons. Papers presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, edited by S. McCartan, R. Shulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman, pp. 589–596. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Olsen, A. B. and Alsaker, S. 1984 Greenstone and diabase utilization in the stone age of Westen Norway: Technological and socio-cultural aspects of axe and adze production and distribution. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 17(2): 71–103.

Olsen, B. 2003 Material Culture aft er Text: Re-Membering Things. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 36(2): 87–104.

Olsen, T. B. 2004 Egger av tid og rom. Transformasjonen av steinalderens fangstsamfunn i Vest-Norge. Unpublished Cand. Philol. thesis, University of Bergen.

Olsen, T. B. 2009 The phase of transformation in western Norway. Mesolithic Horizons. Papers presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, edited by S. McCartan, R. Shulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman, pp. 583–588. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Østmo, E. 1988 Etableringen av jordbrukskultur i Østfold i steinalderen. Universitetets Oldsaksamlings skrift er. Ny rekke nr. 10. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo.

Østmo, E., & Skogstrand, L. 2006 Nye funn av traktbegerkeramikk ved Oslofj orden. Viking LXIX: 69–90.


Prescott , C. 2009 History in prehistory – the later Neolithic/Early Metal Age, Norway. In Neolithisation as if History Matt ered. Processes in Neolithisation in North-Western Europe, edited by Glørstad, H. and C. Prescott , pp. 193–21. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Prescott, C. and Walderhaug, E. 1995 The last frontier? Processes of indo-europeization in Northern Europe: the Norwegian case. The Journal of Indo-European Studies, 23(3–4): 257–278.

Price, T. D. 2000 The introduction of farming in northern Europe. In Europe’s First Farmers, edited by T. D. Price, pp. 260–300. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Randers, K. 1986 Breheimenundersøkelsene 1982–1984 I:Høyfj ellet. Arkeologiske rapporter 10. Historical Museum, University of Bergen, Bergen.


Reitan, G. 2005 Neolitikum i Buskerud. Unpublished Cand. Philol. thesis, University of Oslo.

Reitan, G. 2009 Off er det? – om den sosiale funksjonen til off er og graver i neolitikum. Primitive Tider 11: 31–50.

Robb, J. 2004 The Extended Artefact and the Monumental Economy: a Methodology for Material Agency. In Rethinking Materiality. The Engaging of Mind with the Material World, edited by E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden and C. E. Renfrew, pp.131–139. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 1995 Making the fi rst farmers younger: the West European evidence. Current Anthropology, 36(2): 346–353.

Solheim, S. 2009 En sosialt konstruert grense i vestnorsk tidligneolitt ikum. Primitive Tider 11: 51–62.

Søborg, H. C. 1988 Knivskarpe grenser for skiferbruk i steinalderen. In Festskrift til Anders Hagen. Arkeologiske skrift er 4, edited by S. Indrelid, S. Kaland and B. Solberg,

pp. 225–241. Historical Museum, University of Bergen, Bergen.

Walderhaug, E. M. 1994 Ansiktet er av stein: Ausevik i Flora – en analyse av bergkunst og kontekst. Unpublished Cand. Philol. thesis, University of Bergen.

Wiessner, P. 2002 The vines of complexity. Egalitarian structures and the institutionalization of inequality among the Enga. Current Anthropology, 43(2): 233–269.

Zvelebil, M. 2006 Mobility, contact, and exchange in the Baltic Sea basin 6000–2000 BC. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 178–192.

Zvelebil, M., & Jordan, P. 1999 Hunter gatherer fi sher ritual landscapes – questions of time, space and representation. In Rock Art as Social Representation, edited by J Goldhahn, pp. 101–127. British Archaeological Reports International series 794. Archaeopress, Oxford.

10

Third millennium transformations in Norway: modeling an interpretative platform

Christopher Prescott

What if history is not cyclical and slow moving, but arrhythmic and – at times almost stationary, but also capable of accelerating suddenly like a sports car? What if collapse does not arrive over a number of centuries, but comes suddenly, like a thief in the night? (Niall Fergusson 2010: 22).

Evolutionists tend to be more comfortable with nonrandom, gradualistic theories. I think this is a deep prejudice of western philosophical traditions, not a refl ection of nature’s way. (Stephen Jay Gould 1983: 31).

In the second half of the third millennium BC, social life in what is present-day Norway was rapidly and dramatically transformed (Glørstad this volume; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Prieto-Martínez 2008, 2009). A fundamentally continuous historical trajectory throughout much of coastal and southern Norway based on hunter-gatherer economies, from the de-glaciation to around 2400 BC, was terminated. Likewise, any Funnel Beaker Culture or Corded Ware related societies around the Oslo fj ord or in southwest Norway also came to an end. A new Bronze Age context was initiated and became rapidly established through a remarkably extensive and heterogeneous region. The most reasonable interpretation of the data (Prescott 1996, 2005, 2009) is that with the transition to the Late Neolithic period, between 2400 and 2350 BC, a political economy based on an agro-pastoral mode of production was established throughout southerly and coastal Norway at least to Trøndelag, but probably even north of the Arctic Circle to Troms and the 69th parallel. Concurrently, a farm-based sett lement structure is established, compellingly expressed by the long houses that occur as of this time, here as otherwise in Scandinavia (based on data i.a. from Artursson 2009). Along with agro-pastoral production practices,

the long-houses suggest novel relationships to and perceptions of the landscape, as well as a new model of household organization. Lithic technology becomes dominated by bifacial techniques, whilst styles in most lithic artifacts are now best understood in reference to metal models (Lomborg 1973; Müller 1902; also Apel 2001; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Sarauw 2008; Vandkilde 1996: 267). Although not empirically proven, there are recent and sound arguments suggesting that these late third millennium lithic styles were accompanied by an initial introduction of copper-based metallurgy, also in Norway (Melheim this volume). The general cultural expressions, as well as the more direct distributional evidence of for example type 1 fl int daggers, suggest that from this time on southerly and coastal Norway was an integral part of the Nordic region (Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; also see Glørstad this volume; Prieto-Martínez 2008, 2009; Sarauw 2008), which again was linked to broader continental and Western Europe. Regional networks of interaction shift in geographic focus throughout the Late Neolithic (LN) and Bronze Age. The focus for Scandinavian developments around the Middle Neolithic B3 to Late Neolithic 1 was northern Jutland in Denmark (Prescott 2009; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Sarauw 2008; Østmo 2008), and this region is clearly of direct importance for developments in southwestern Norway, and conceivably slightly more indirect importance – mediated through the Danish islands and Sweden? – for the Oslo fj ord region and easterly southern Norway.

An expanded geographic perspective that contextualizes smaller scale studies in a broad northwestern European context is warranted in view of several arguments. First of all there is a local and systemic perspective. From at least 3950 to 2400 BC,

Christopher Prescott 116

hunter-gatherers in most of Norway were probably knowledgeable of variable agro-pastoral ways of life and thereto associated cultural streams. And indeed, people and groups in Norway interacted with Neolithic Funnel Beaker and Corded Ware regions, acquired Scandinavian materials (e.g. fl int), Neolithic objects (e.g. fl int axes) and learned to master technologies more or less associated with the Neolithic (e.g. production of ceramics). Still, outside of limited areas around the Oslo fj ord and in southwest Norway, they actively chose to remain hunter-gatherers and not adopt a “Neolithic way of life” supported by agro-pastoral modes of production. The economic situation of the above two areas is not understood in detail, direct evidence is sparse, but in all probability there was a degree of agricultural production into the Middle Neolithic B (MNB, 2800–2400 BC) in eastern Norway infl uenced by or an expression of the Corded Ware Culture (CWC).

The late third millennium transition becomes all the more remarkable in that archaeology has not identifi ed credible explanatory local factors (like demographic build-ups, environmental crises or readily apparent nutritional benefi ts) that would generate farm-based modes of production or, more importantly, that could explain the switch in production. In empirical terms, att empts at constructing explanatory models of indigenous evolutionary processes that would or could lead to the situation identifi ed around the transition to the Late Neolithic, remain unconvincing and inaccurate. The material expressions – bifacial fl aking, distribution of daggers, two-aisled long houses, ceramics and potentially metallurgy – accentuate the Northern European scale of developments. Reasons for the remarkable third millennium changes must therefore, virtually by default, be sought within a broader geographical context, as part of a European trajectory. So, whilst the history of southerly Norway during the Early and Middle Neolithic (3950–2350 BC) generally diverges from that of southern and Baltic Scandinavia, the late third millennium events in Norway, and the associated material expression found in the archaeological record, coincide with developments in northwestern Europe in general and Jutland in particular. The most compelling premise is therefore that there is a causal relationship. Furthermore, since late third millennium developments seem to cut across and contemporaneously transform disparate societies in Scandinavia (compare Artursson 2009; Glørstad this volume; Prieto-Martínez 2008; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Vandkilde 2005), it seems that this spread of a budding Bronze Age way of life was not driven by local, small scale or common structural processes of evolution.

The mechanisms involved in the dramatic re-routing of the historical trajectory in Norway and most of

Northern Europe have been the subject of some discussion involving factors like migration, technology, prospecting, social tensions, elite completion or continuous evolutionary development (as articles in this volume amply illustrate). A signifi cant focus for some Norwegian research from the late 1980’s and on has been to create an understanding – an interpretative platform – of just what the situation is (e.g. Holberg 2000; Prescott 1996; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; articles in this volume). Though responses to some questions remain tentative or unresolved (for example a resolution of events from the MNB3 to the LN1 c. 2450–2350 BC, accurate dating of the introduction of LN metallurgy practices, the relationship between developments in eastern Scandinavia/Oslo fj ord versus western Scandinavia/southwestern Norway), there is now a reasonable historical scenario that can be summed up as the Late Neolithic introduction of a comprehensive initial Bronze Age package. It is also reasonable to infer that Bell Beaker developments in western Scandinavia were pivotal in historical terms (Prieto-Martínez 2008, 2009), that southwestern Norway (Lista and Jæren) served as bridgeheads for the introduction for the Bell Beaker package (Berg-Hansen 2010, Marstrander 1950; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Østmo 2008), that the dissemination and adoption of the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age structures and practices rapidly – within a generation – transformed or replaced hunter-gatherer societies to/with Bronze Age type societies along the coast (Prescott 1996). Eastern Norway, the Oslo fj ord region, with deeper Corded Ware traditions was also transformed (Glørstad this volume), but probably less through the direct western Scandinavian connection and more through the diverse processes of interaction from Jutland to the CW- eastern Scandinavian regions (e.g. Apel 2001; Vandkilde 2005) – processes that hopefully will be studied at greater depths in the future.

The above underscores the essential importance of the external Bell Beaker Culture influence in interpreting transitions. The diverse point of departure for the transformations in Scandinavia is exemplifi ed by the Norwegian situation: Eastern Norway’s CW-infl uenced societies, partially agro-pastoral Middle Neolithic societies with obscure cultural affi nities in parts of southwest Norway, and the hunter-gatherer societies along the coast and inland, demonstrate the variable situation that was replaced by greater homogeneity in the Late Neolithic. The late third millennium processes that affected what may be regarded as the three type regions in Norway, were probably also diff erent. But these transformative forces cut across all pre-existing social structures to create an unprecedented cultural homogeneity.

10. Third millennium transformations in Norway: modeling an interpretative platform 117

Expansion to the north and inlandAs indicated above, there are numerous shared Bell Beaker features in the material culture of northern Jutland and southwest Norway (Apel 2001; Marstander 1950; Myhre 1979; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Sarauw 2008; Østmo 2008). There is also a strong chronological correlation. The connection southwestern Norway – Jutland has been proposed in numerous previous cultural historical studies, if at times with hazy chronological resolution (e.g. Hagen 1988: 107; Marstrander 1950; Shetelig 1925:60ff ), however, several recent articles have with increasing detail and confi dence associated developments in southwestern Norway to developments in Jutland (Prescott 1996, 2009; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Prieto-Martínez 2009; Sarauw 2008; Østmo 2008). It is reasonable to argue that the material expressions seen from round 2400–2350 BC are an expression of the expansion of the northern Bell Beaker Culture (BBC) (Prescott 1996; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Prescott and Melheim 2009; Prieto-Martínez 2009, this volume; Østmo 2008, 2009).1 Thus the LN1 transition should be seen and contextualized within the general problem of understanding the BBC in western and Northern Europe. Furthermore, developments can hardly be understood without incorporating some movement of people – mechanisms of migration – from Jutland to Norway (Prescott 2009; Prescott and Walderhaug 1995). As Jutland and Norway are separated by an open stretch of sea, the Skagerrak Strait, processes of migration and the reproduction of the ensuing institutions of alliances between Jutland and southwestern Norway are interesting cases that emphasize maritime knowledge and travel as political forces at the time and into the Early Bronze Age (Kvalø 2007; Østmo 2008, this volume).

However, the continued and extremely rapid spread of the LN1-package (replacing hunter-gatherer societies along 1000 km of coastline, in the fj ords, valleys and highlands of the interior) in many ways also represents an intriguing problem. The history of how this could come about echoes traditional archaeological debates concerning the spread of Bell Beaker Culture and institutions within a region from northern Africa and western Italy to Britain and northern Europe.

Using the scenario of a rapid and dramatic transition in Norway as an interpretative platform, and redefi ning this event as part of the broader transition to the Bronze Age in western Europe through the Bell Beaker Culture, (as a opposed to a unique regional or local set of evolutionary developments), promotes two important perspectives. First, a comprehensive and consistent historical framework is created. This framework is in

line with empirical, methodological and theoretical constraints and expressions found in the historical case at hand – if somewhat at odds with national and regional political preferences expressed within processual and post-modern archaeologies. The former emphasizes regional and local long-term developments based on a perception of the environment as unique, the geography isolative, the techniques of production specifi c to these conditions, and in combination virtually molding culture in the region (originally formulated by Brøgger 1925, see Bergsvik this volume for a recent discussion based on a local perspective). Second, as there is no preceding production or socio-cultural situation that could be construed as an evolutionary predecessor to what happens 2400–2350 BC, the Norwegian case off ers a particularly lucid and coherent case of the general western European transition subsumed under various Bell Beaker labels. Norway’s climate and restricted agro-pastoral resources (today 3% of Norway is cultivated, substantially less would have been available in the LN due to technological factors and higher sea level), combined with rich marine and terrestrial wildlife resources, helps to isolate factors of relevance to developments in the late third millennium. Furthermore, the variable natural environments (from coast, valley to highlands) and the long coastline stretching 1000 km from Atlantic to sub-Arctic climate zones, also serves to isolate determinative facets and factors in third millennium events. The marginal environments, the peripheral geographical position, and the context created by the preceding prehistory of Norway serve to create a contrastive case study of the third millennium’s BBC-driven transformation to Bronze Age society, and a context for bett er understanding of the mechanisms at the heart of the process that transformed Norway, Scandinavia and Western Europe.

Modelling change or: what happened?Though numerous questions remain to be explored, the last twenty years has seen the articulation of a relatively coherent and consistent general narrative of what happened during the late third millennium. The intensive communication across open stretches of the Skagerrak Strait and the interaction along the long coast support arguments that a quantum leap in maritime technologies was prerequisite to developments. The cultural expression, so clearly bound up with metal, indicates that some degree of copper alloy metallurgy is essential. A political economy bound to modes of agro-pastoral production att ests to the importance of that production, but also to the social institution of


the farm. From various sources we can also glean the incipient rise of hierarchical ideology, male warrior veneration, and probably Indo-European modes of ideology and language.

In a broader research historical perspective the rapid spread of Bell Beaker Culture and the traits associated with it have been related to a number of explanatory theories, usually aligned with broader disciplinary and theoretical trends in archaeology (e.g. Bradley 1984; Childe 1958; Clarke 1976; Gilman 1981; Harrison 1980; Hodder 1990; Malmer 1962; Price et al. 2004; Shennan 1982; Sherratt 1981, 1983; Vander Linden 2007; Vandkilde 2005; also articles in this volume). These theories include various implicit and explicit types of migration and diffusion, resource prospecting, technological innovation, changing modes of production (e.g. the secondary products revolution), elite competition, internal social differentiation and the adoption of external symbols, environmental crisis and processes of (self-) domestication. Still, ‘underlying reasons for this structural modifi cation remain unclear’ (Vander Linden 2006: 349), and in this regard the Norwegian case shares the predicament of European BBC studies in that it is not clear how and why things happened.

An explanatory premise: Migration to southwest Norway

‘…migration has been avoided. …[However] viewing the actions of individuals within specifi c historical contexts, migration can be understood as a behavior that is typically performed by defi ned subgroups (oft en kin-recruited) with specifi c goals, targeted on known destinations and likely to use familiar routes. Kinship linkage and access to information limit many of these behaviors. …, migration can be viewed as a process that tends to develop in a broadly predictable manner once it begins. Social organization, trade relationships, and transportation technology constrain some of these processes. It is by examining in these ways that we can rescue the useful migrationist baby from the properly discarded bathwater’ (Anthony 1990:395f, emphases by author).

The present author has previously suggested that migration to southwestern Norway initiated the process leading to the LN transformation (Prescott and Walderhaug 1995). The prominent Bronze Age regions in Lista and Jæren are relatively small areas with varied soil cover and a mild climate, containing areas suitable for agro-pastoral production. In many ways they are comparable to northern Jutland. These regions face sections of the North Sea and Skagerrak – relevant for maritime communication with Jutland, when appropriate technology, institutions and

knowledge allowed predictably safer movements across open stretches of sea (Kvalø 2007; Østmo 2008, this volume). Lista and Jæren are comparatively untypical geographies in a Norwegian context.

Apart from the validity of the migration concept in the context of third millennium Scandinavia, its use has a broader discursive and interpretative role. Re-introducing the concept of migration, but within a modern framework, is a necessary step to understand developments in southwestern Norway through the (re-)creation of a large-scale historical perspective. In a meta-perspective, this approach is one way of countering the ‘myopic localism’ ensuing from the demolition ‘of trait distribution and diff usionism as defensible scholarship’ (Barth 1990: 641 in regard to anthropology) inherent to prevalent practices in both processual and post-processual archaeologies.

But migration is not a sufficient explanatory mechanism, and the importance and nature of this factor certainly varied throughout the extensive area aff ected by the events played out during the third millennium. There were probably migratory events and processes on variable scales and with diff erent trajectories. Migration (in a neo-geographical as opposed to a cultural historical sense, e.g. Anthony 1990, 1992; Burmeister 2000; Kristiansen 1989; Manning 2005) is a necessary element in an explanation of western Scandinavian and southwest Norwegian developments, though even in the moderately coherent case of southwest Norway it enters into a complex suite of cultural, technological, social and ideological processes that must be used to place the archaeological data into perspective (Prescott 2009).

However, the goal of the present article is not to re-address the hypothesis of migration to southwest Norway. This hypothesis is primarily a premise for investigating a further and perhaps more elusive theme: the rapid spread of LN1 inventories and the establishment of farm societies along the Norwegian coast and into the highlands. There are good reasons to assume that some forms of migration played an essential role in the late third millennium expansion along the coast. There are also good reasons to assume that such movements were not large scale migrations in a cultural historical sense, and that migration entered into dialectic processes with pre-existing structures and forces. Developments should thus be understood in light of a suite of factors played out locally, like involved institutions (e.g. networks, alliances and genealogy), technologies (boats, metallurgy and farming), social tensions (revolt against leveling mechanisms in ‘egalitarian’ societies, generational stress), elite strategies and identity – as well as movement of people.


Ecological premises: Distance, natural environments and the human ecological sett ingThe numerous indications of a rapid spread of the LN1-package north along the coast to Trøndelag, and indeed potentially even farther north along the coast to Nordland and Troms, are fascinating. The sheer distances involved represent an interpretative challenge, though on the other hand the long coastline and many fj ords would create an eff ective communication infrastructure for groups with effi cient maritime technology. But the Norwegian case becomes even more striking in light of the environments involved. These include the relatively mild, but demanding Atlantic coastal regions from Rogaland and north along the coast, but also fj ords and valleys stretching inland and into the highlands and mountains. In terms of food production the limited soils suitable for cereal cultivation were utilized, whilst pastures along the coast and into the mountains were also drawn into production. Cultivation and herding were probably the economic base, and the most important economic and structural element, but wild resources were also utilized. These included marine mammals, fish and shellfish, as well as lowland and highland plants and terrestrial faunal resources. Mineral resources, like soapstone, quartzite and perhaps copper were exploited. All in all, the production potential is varied and potentially rich. But the exploitation of many of these resources would have demanded specifi c knowledge as well as familiarity with the environments. The seasonally diffi cult climate conditions from a relatively mild but stormy coast to inland and highlands variably snow-covered up to 6–7 months a year, the in some places treacherous navigable waters, and the variable availability of the wild resources would place a premium on accumulated environmental knowledge and technologies specifi cally adapted to the natural environment.

In terms of the human aspect of ecology, a long tradition of Stone Age research in Norway demonstrates that the spread of Late Neolithic elements over this large and tremendously varied region did not happen in a sett ing devoid of human habitation or even in regions of relatively low population density (see Bergsvik this volume; Glørstad this volume). There was signifi cant sett lement of peoples throughout the region with established networks and social borders – and with extensive knowledge of the land they lived in and on. It is thus likely that the Late Neolithic transformation actively involved the indigenous populations.

In summary, the rapid transition to a Bell Beaker-style agro-pastoral society in southerly and coastal

Norway around the transition to the LN, 2400–2350 BC, happened in a heterogeneous set of pre-contexts; a varied and rich, but demanding, natural environment primarily inhabited by well-adapted hunter-gatherer groups. From this, the two propositions on which to base further discussion follow. First, the spread of the ‘Bell Beaker package’ was externally conditioned and related to movement of people, i.e. migration, albeit probably varying in scale and structure. Second, the transition beyond southwest Norway was concurrently a migratory process and an internal process dependent on tensions triggered by the dialectics of internal structures and external factors, ultimately leading to the demise of pre-existing hunter-gatherer structures. The interworking between these external and internal forces is probably the foundation for understanding the third millennium transition in Norway.

Diff usion, migration and sociology of knowledge

‘…, proximate causes of prehistoric migrations are probably lost forever, – we can only hope to identify structural conditions that made migrations more or less likely to occur.’ (Anthony 1992: 174).

The striking archaeological features of the LN-transition are the novel material expressions of comprehensive systems of knowledge. Features of this system of knowledge can be deduced from practices (e.g. cultivation), social organization (farm institutions and regional interaction), architecture (long houses), style (the metal shapes of the lithics), technology (bifacial fl aking, copper metallurgy, and seafaring vessels), cosmology/ideology (predominance of masculine symbols), symbols (as seen in the weapons, retrospectively seen in the rock carvings,) and conceivably language (arguably Indo-European). Thus an important facet of the LN-transition is the replacement of one system of knowledge with another. This entails a concurrent transfer of knowledge. The sociology of knowledge can reasonably be inferred to encompass two parties at a given moment: the sender of knowledge and the recipient. Three structural features thus suggest themselves: The nature of the transmitt er, the context of the recipient, and the meeting of the two. To further explore this theme, anthropology provides some analogies that are valuable for envisioning developments in Norway.

Anthropology and history are sources of generalized perspectives concerning specific patterns found in archaeology, and in the present case helps to verbalize and conceptualize an understanding of


the forces and structures at work in the specific case of third millennium Scandinavia – that is, the historical meaning of the archaeological patt erns. Here, Fredrik Barth’s experiences and studies from Asia are particularly benefi cial. Aft er conducting fi eld studies in New Guinea, Barth engaged in a completely diff erent context, Bali. Despite all the diff erences and distance between New Guinea and Bali, when in Bali he was ‘transported back to New Guinea, and a sense of the undercurrent of Melanesian features’, and he was ‘reminded of particular, overtly Indian, images and concepts that crop up here and there in New Guinea,...’. He set out to understand and explain this observation, engaging theoretical and methodological issues in cultural disciplines. His methodological and theoretical considerations are of relevance to third millennium Scandinavia.

‘Ever since trait distribution and diffusionism were demolished as defensible scholarship, anthropology has stood without any methodology for such comparisons, or for systematic regional work in general …. The stress on in-depth contextual knowledge, …., results in myopic localism, so that we can only compare places and cultures in terms of highly abstracted and partial structures.” (Barth 1990: 641).

Building on experiences concerning Bali and New Guinea, Barth calls for ‘a perspective which allows us to address and unite a wide range of themes’ and to help account for his observations concerning the distribution of cultural traits he turns to a sociology of knowledge.

To illustrate the impact of various knowledge sociologies, Barth comparatively describes ethnographic cases, and uses these to delimit more general features or ideal types. He turns fi rst to the Baktaman, a mountain Ok group in inner New Guinea (see Barth 1990, also 1989) and describes how knowledge in that context remains valuable only if it is coveted and shared by as few as possible. Sociologically, the reproduction of cultural forms occurs during the interaction between novices and initiators, and here secrecy is at the heart of the system. This system has very limited potential for development and dispersion. Barth then turns to another kind of practice, exemplifi ed by a quote from a Muslim teacher on Bali, Guru Maxfuz: ‘There is no merit from … knowledge unless you teach it.’ From this comparison Barth identifi es two ideal types, the conjurer/initiator who hedges knowledge, and the Guru who must reproduce and transmit it. The diff erences are interesting in themselves, but, more importantly, they have diverse formative consequences as they represent ‘the wellsprings of two diff erent informational economies’. The respective impact of the

Guru and the initiator/conjurer will be very diff erent. The former with a tremendous potential to spread cultural traits and transform – and perhaps evolve himself – the latt er contained and with litt le potential to create historical dynamics.

The situation encountered in late third millennium Norway probably illustrates an ideal type with similarities to that characterized by Barth’s ‘Guru’. The rapid spread of a new social and cultural order indicates a very active communication of a comprehensive system of knowledge – knowledge transmitt ed in a variety of situations on a scale, from voluntary acceptance based on the alluring nature of exotic paraphernalia and lifestyle via threat of force (see Glørstad this volume: pomp and terror), to probable actual use of social and physical force, based on the classic sources of social power; economy, ideology, military and political (Mann 1986). The transference of knowledge, the threat of force and the enticement of a Beaker style of life necessitates the physical presence of people from Beaker groups, i.e. some form of migration. The rapid adaptation of a ‘Bell Beaker package’ to a variety of environments also indicates a tremendous structural capacity to learn and adapt on behalf of both immigrants and the acculturated indigenous groups.

The identifi cation of the ideal types of knowledge systems described by Barth has implications concerning the historical trajectory, as ‘... the two roles propel a multiplicity of actors to do quite diff erent things, and take quite diff erent things into consideration.’ (Barth 1990: 642). In terms of the discussion of the Bell Beaker world, systems of knowledge conceivably structured the parameters of historical trajectories and social practices. For example, the role of the above quoted Balinese Guru Maxfuz was not only to teach, but to travel and learn – as has also been implicitly argued for Scandinavia’s Bronze Age elites (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005; Kvalø 2007 ) empirically based on the exotica that virtually defi nes the period and analogically argued in reference to Mary Helms’ (1988) ethnographic studies from the Pacifi c. And indeed a strong propensity for travelling and learning must have been socio-ideologically sanctioned throughout western Scandinavia, and a driving force when the heterogeneous areas, variable resources and challenging environments were drawn together into a fi eld of interaction within a common cultural context in the late third millennium BC.

As far as the evidence stands today, there is litt le direct evidence of the scale of migration in Norway. However, the ecological aspects discussed above in relation to conceptual aspects inherent to Barth’s sociology of knowledge, as well as some western


European archaeo-biological analogies (Parker Pearson et al. 2007; Price et al 2004), indicate that migration might have entailed limited numbers of people. Could a few immigrants from societies with a sociological ideal type similar to Barth’s ‘Guru’ have the impact seen in Norway? Though available data cannot decisively resolve the issue beyond the circumstantial arguments outlined above, Barth’s study provides analogies demonstrating what potentially might be at stake – how the movement of a few individuals in a favorable historical context can create monumental societal changes and alter the long-term historical trajectory. So, in response to the question posed above: yes, it is conceivable that a few individuals with a Guru-type approach to knowledge could have a substantial and far-fl ung impact.

The above discussion is concerned with migratory scale and the potential impact of a few people on indigenous societies. Another issue in the Norwegian case concerns the large geographical scale. An additional conceptual analogy from Barth’s discussion of the sociology of knowledge is useful here. Barth (1990: 646) describes another example of a Guru type of knowledge system, and the impact carriers of knowledge systems may have, to illustrate “a breathtaking lesson”: the spread of Buddhist Mahayana/Tibetan monasticism in Bhutan. The arrival of this system of belief can be traced through historical sources back to Buddha (Nepal/ northeastern India) in the mid fi rst century BC, and its ensuing broad distribution from there. Contemporary Buddhism of Bhutan is the result of a ‘re-export’ from west to east, the Guru Rimpoche brought Buddhism to east to Bhutan from the valley of Swat in western Pakistan in the 8th century AD – and in the process permeated the region with Sanskrit. From here there was penetration of Buddhism through SE Asia ‘so that today you can att end a performance of the Hindu epic Ramayana in Bali, as far from where it was authored as is Norway.’ In this Barth sees a ‘model [that] may provide the key to the remarkable historical penetration of Indian civilization into South East Asia, which involved neither conquest nor large-scale population movements.’ (op. cit. 647). The historical accounts thus indicate that the movement of a few Gurus can explain far-reaching cultural and societal change, also language, and the distribution of fairly homogeneous cultural traits in an area that in size is comparable to that of the Bell Beaker Culture’s distribution. The case of Buddhism, though historically specifi c, is of potential general relevance, e.g. also to third millennium Scandinavia. It illustrates the need for a fl exible att itude to migration, and the diverse set of discrete episodes played out through a span of time in an enormous geography. These events lead to a

homogeneous cultural expression, and a common fi eld of communication and interaction. A complex history poses a challenge to archaeology, as variable historical processes would readily be masked by a homogenous archaeological outcome, bluntly categorized as singular phenomena and readily explained as e.g. ‘diff usion’ or ‘acculturation’ or localized agency operating in a temporal and spatial vacuum.

The spread of Sanskrit in Barth’s historical account above is particularly interesting in light of contentions concerning the spread of Indo-European languages in the third millennium, also to Scandinavia. The spread of Indo-European languages into northern Europe has been the subject of some debate (Kristiansen 2005; Mallory 1989: 257–261; Renfrew 2005), though at times virtually ontologically taboo in prehistoric archaeology. The historical-anthropological case referred to here, as well as explicit discussion of shift s to Indo-European languages in light of other, more general discussions of language shift s (Ehret 1988, also discussion below), indicate that a situation including migration, internal social unrest, external pressures and enticements may lead to the adoption of a new language associated with new economic, political, ideological or military institutions perceived as advantageous. Thus a well documented transformation of society, economy and material culture could arguably be accompanied by a hypothesized shift to an Indo-European language. Archaeologically, virtually by the method of elimination, the Bell Beaker period is the most, if not the only, reasonable candidate for the spread and fi nal entrenchment of a common Indo-European language throughout Scandinavia (and not just Corded Ware core areas of southern and eastern Scandinavia), and particularly Norway (Prescott and Walderhaug 1995).

The model of Muslim or Buddhist Gurus should not be taken as a blanket model or description of what happened in Scandinavia 4500 years ago. But the cases used by Barth to describe ideal types, and comparatively identify some of their limitations and potentials, illustrate a set of the structural elements that might have contributed to the particular historical trajectory of the late third millennium. Barth has discussed sociological situations characterized by an open informational ideology generating broad transactions in knowledge, a system that encouraged a strong propensity to learn and a system that was geographically mobile and expansive. Here, the migration of a limited number of individuals or small groups of families lead to the transmission of a comprehensive system of knowledge – probably including broad dissemination of language and ideology – and a rerouting of a region’s historical


trajectory that still impacts the world. There is no reason to assume that the fundamental processes here have not been played out on variable scales and in various societal sett ings, also in prehistorically societies.

The third millennium transmission in Scandinavia was probably also driven by strong political and economic forces within the expanding Bell Beaker influenced groups. Movement within the groups carrying the Nordic Late Neolithic package did not happen in an idealistic vacuum. It was probably driven by an inherently expansive pastoral ideology, bolstered by a male warrior ideal, wanderlust, ideologically encouraged travelling or knowledge seeking, but also resource prospecting in a world rapidly embracing metallurgy and trade in exotica. These resources are found in abundance in Norway (Johansen 1983; Melheim this volume; Prescott 1995: 137f). The dissemination and accumulation of knowledge was probably accompanied by the four ideal types of sources of power; economy, ideology, military and political (Mann 1986). The relevance of these factors is the theme of much discussion concerning late prehistory in Europe. I therefore leave these, to focus on another factor that explains the rapid third millennium transition; qualities inherent in the expansive groups and internal conditions of the hunter-gatherer societies.

Qualities leading to expansionIf inherent sociological qualities partially explain why systems of knowledge could be disseminated or indeed transplanted when people met, and that characteristics elucidated through the above discussion of the Guru ideal type must have been present, they do not explain the forces involved in the initial migratory movements. What drove BBC-infl uenced people to move north along the coast of Norway and into the interior? In terms of economy, it has previously been argued that the drive for pastures in societies with strong pastoral components could have been a motivation (Prescott 1995: 134). In terms of technology and production, the strong emphasis on metal re-renders the old idea of travelling prospectors as relevant (Childe 1957, Melheim this volume). On a more general level, the BBC-world’s drive for exotic objects (like pelts and antler, e.g. Prescott 1995: 137f) could have fuelled a prestige exchange, creating a dynamic political economy conducive to drawing ever new groups into alliances and networks. From the more political side of this political economy, competition between newly unleashed entrepreneurs could have generated an intense vying for new regions of infl uence.

Internal premises – oppression and a historical opening for the entrepreneur?In using the wellsprings of two diff erent informational economies to characterize dynamic and expansive contexts of the Guru, Barth inherently also characterizes structural outcomes in the New Guinean society in which the Conjurer operated. In another context, appropriating a term from Gilsenan used in a 1977 review, Barth (1989: 48) describes the broader societal context of the Conjurer ideal type with the term entropy, a steady degradation of a society founded in inertia. Though not necessarily advocating the inclusion of that term in archaeological discourse, the inherent implications in the observations leading to Gilenan/Barth’s use of the term, that the price of mechanisms of equality is an oppressively stable society, echoes other trends in anthropology and archaeology questioning the developmental ladder of social evolutionary archaeology. Since the 1960’s it has been common for archaeologists to implicitly or explicitly think in neo-evolutionary terms, and regard egalitarian societies as an evolutionary step. Hunter-gatherer societies (and the earliest Neolithic, as Gimbutas argued) are mostly characterized as egalitarian. An alternative to the evolutionary view is that egalitarian societies are not considered to be a primordial or utopian evolutionary step, but instead the result, if with many unintentional consequences (in the spirit of Giddens’ [1984] structuration), of an actively created strategy to promote certain power relations, constantly thwarting aspirations to build hierarchies, and to spread or hinder the accumulation of wealth (Wiessner 2002; Sundström 2003). Such societies could in Lévi-Strauss’ (1966) terms of the Neolithic paradox be called cold – societies that have countered forces of history (Glørstad and Prescott 2009). The mechanism and outcome of strategies to maintain such societies would have been experienced by segments of such societies as oppressively leveling, with ascribed statuses. One would envision that typical tensions generated by such oppression would run along lines of generation, gender and variable skill. It has been suggested that the hunter-gatherer societies of the Neolithic period in Norway were such cold societies (Glørstad and Prescott 2009: 9).

From this line of reasoning one could argue that the rapid acceptance of BBC modes of thought and society in southern Norway is tied to a breakdown in internal mechanisms designed to level wealth and power, and to check ‘entrepreneurs’; the restless young, the ambitious hunter, herder or sailor. Thus the rapid acceptance would have been triggered by the manifest presence of an alternative to the traditional order, the


BBC-package, fuelling mounting internal pressures within hunter-gatherer societies. The combination of internal stress and external alternatives and pressure conceivably exacerbated strain – the new life style was a threat that had to be countered by the established order, but was also an alternative for the disenchanted in a quest to break the mould of their own oppressively inert societies.

In material terms the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker package off ered prestigious and luring new objects and technologies that could enhance prestige internally and be used to confi rm external relations between elites (e.g. Clarke 1976; Harrison 1980). In a Norwegian context, the BBC package was a comprehensive material, social, economic and cognitive alternative in opposition to the existing order (Glørstad this volume). The newcomers’ network off ered an infrastructure of trade and political power (Johansen 1983; Prescott 1995: 137). There was thus a medium and capital for internal transformation, as well as the allure of exotica and a cosmopolitan world, and a societal model.

If the acceptance of the above was voluntary by sub-groups within the old society, there were still probably real threats from expansive external BBC-groups. These probably had a demographic growth potential (Vander Linden this volume), expansive social organization, warrior ideology and weapons (Prescott 1995: 136ff ; Sarauw 2008). These aspects probably represented a perceived peril to be countered – by adopting the ideology and social organization of the external groups? – but also a very real military, economic and political force that transformed through coercion. Still, it was probably ‘soft power’, the threats and enticements of a dynamic social order that generated ideological, material and political economic incentives and tools for those who would challenge traditions, which was most infl uential in facilitating change and made the way of life embodied by BBC immigrants so alluring. Håkon Glørstad (this volume) refers to Sahlins and historical analogies of classical Athens and Sparta explored by him to identify ideal types of power strategies: Sparta represents terrestrial brute force, Athens represents maritime mobility and trade, and an appealing ideological ideal. Glørstad thus suggests that the force of the BBC-package was not in the power of numbers or military organization, though the military expression and the expansiveness were probably felt as a very really threat of power use, but by the simple att ractiveness of the culture and its expressions in opposition to the traditional order. The ideological, social and material att ractiveness was the driving force, and off ered a vehicle for segments within hunter-gatherer societies to uproot traditional power structure. In short, the BBC lifestyle probably appealed

to sub-groups in the traditional societies – younger, entrepreneurial segments who felt frustrated with the oppressive leveling mechanisms of the old egalitarian societies.

In summary, we can hardly envision the necessary transmission of knowledge without some movement of groups – migration. On the other hand, the internal transformation probably appropriated existing communication networks, enhanced by new technologies, and disseminated systems of knowledge (Barth 2002). The process was, in regional terms, not founded in local historical roots/developments, but in the intersecting of specifi c historical conditions that rapidly lead to the collapse of the traditional way of life, be it hunter-gatherer or Neolithic, and the establishment of a new.

Economic strategies as an impetus for changing identity?Above, a suite of social forces (migration, sociology of knowledge, an alluring culture, force and threat of force, internal tension, and ideology) as well as structural qualities of the societies involved have been suggested as elements in the rapid transformation of society and culture. In more recent years, economy and production have generally been allotted a less important role in explaining societal change; archaeologists have had a preference for symbolic, cognitive or localized agency as explanatory factors. However, the widely distributed modes of production, socio-economic technologies and political economy are defining and outstanding features of the third millennium archaeological record. In archaeological terms a dramatic feature of history in Norway, especially in areas without a pronounced Middle Neolithic record of agricultural production, is the introduction of a new mode of production – cultivation and herding – and a farm-based Bronze Age economy. Modes of production carry in them structural properties, and economically driven choices in a given historical situation can have fundamentally long term transformative impacts. A fundamental change in mode of production and economy can also be part of a broader change in cultural identity – which seems to be the situation in third millennium Norway.

Again, there are historical and ethnographic accounts emphasizing economy that serve to illustrate the economic forces and structures in profound transformations in society, economy and expressions of identity like those we see in the third millennium. For example, Gunnar Haaland (1969) describes the plight


of Fur sedentary hoe cultivators in the Lower Wadi, Sudan. Haaland demonstrates that socio-cultural and structural properties restrict a farmer’s opportunities to convert surplus production into other sectors. Farm products may be consumed, but may neither be used as capital or currency. Rights to land are limited to what a farmer can cultivate at any given time for his households own subsistence, but are in principle otherwise held in common. There are no individual property rights and there is no trade in land. For the entrepreneurially minded farmer two strategies remain whereby agricultural surplus can be used in capital investment. The farmer can organize voluntary communal undertakings like clearing a fi eld or building a house through ‘beer parties’ (participants have free access to beer during the work). An essential incentive here is that he provides the beer. The scope of these undertakings is limited, as they can be organized for only a few culturally defi ned kinds of projects, and because the more resources (beer) poured into them, the less effi cient the labor becomes, and the cost-benefi t equation deteriorates. Furthermore, Haaland points out that his system does not fundamentally overcome limitations in a multicentre economic system – values within one subsystem cannot otherwise be converted to another. The alternative for an entrepreneurial Fur cultivator with a surplus in need of being invested is to become a nomad pastoralist. Becoming a pastoralist allows for investment, conversion to capital and the accruement of a further surplus, but also the agrarian surplus to herds. The animal stock is regarded as convertible capital. For the Fur farmer come pastoralist the switch to pastoral nomadism is not simply a question of livelihood. It entails changing life style, values, and practices – initiating the practice of ethnic change and becoming a pastoral Baggara.

The structural qualities in Haaland’s study serve to demonstrate how the totality of practices, identities and concepts can be bound together. In the case of 2400–2350 BC in Norway, the BB-package conceivably off ered an ideology and political-economic structures at odds with the limitations of the hunter-gatherer societies – they were virtually incommensurable. This ideology and social organization off ered the entrepreneur an att ractive alternative to break out of the oppressive leveling mechanisms and opened for economic strategies and political aggrandizement. Initially, these were probably a response to individual and group choices – but they quickly, if unintentionally, set society on the path to the Bronze Age. In what by all criteria seems to be a comprehensive political economic package (production, societal organization, ideology, technology and symbolic expression),

economy was conceivably an incentive (enticing the entrepreneur to seek an alternative to oppressive egalitarian status quo allowing aggrandization), a driving force (providing political and cultural tools to initially challenge egalitarian structures and forces, and then generate an ongoing historical process), a broader transformative force (fundamentally creating new identities) and an outcome (a Bronze Age economy and farm society).

Conclusion: History, ideal types and modelsI would like to think that this article’s scenarios concerning the third millennium BC are based on valid methodological, theoretical and empirical arguments. Furthermore, that these arguments generate insights through realigning scale and structures, and employing analogies and ideal types not explored in most contemporary narratives of the third millennium to create the workings of a historical narrative. The validity of this approach – fundamentally emphasizing the historicity of third millennium Norway – was not so much inspired by biologists like Gould, historians like Fergusson (cited at the out start of this article), sociologists like Weber and Giddens or anthropologists like Barth, as confi rmed and developed through the discussion they represent in other disciplines. The fundamental theoretical questions raised here are relevant on a broader scientifi c front concerned with change, humans and science.

This paper’s scenario of rapid transformation 2400–2350 BC is dependent on new technologies (ships and metallurgy), new institutions of production and economy based on the farm and a new ideology. It conceivably entails a switch in identity, symbolic repertoire and language. The history of how these sweeping changes were accepted when they were is the result of complex social processes (migration, knowledge transactions, and competition), as well as inherent qualities of the Bell Beaker Culture and external pressures on older societies (competition from expansive agro-pastoralists) – as well as the internal qualities of and tensions within pre-existing traditional, indigenous societies – whether ‘Neolithic’ agriculturists or hunter-gatherers.

The relative importance of each factor, and the processes at work, certainly varied throughout southerly Norway, but the underlying forces that transformed not only Norway or western Scandinavia, but large parts of Western Europe, were the same. The end result of diverse processes was a period of socio-cultural equifi nality and a trajectory initiating


the Bronze Age. The approach to the archaeological data and the historical narrative generated from it are historical; the scenario and its interpretations address events as the result of a fortuitous combination of opportunities, forces and choices made by people at a certain point in history. The rapid speed, European scale and dramatic course of events is a challenge to the small scale process of gradualist, nonrandom development a priori preferred in prehistoric archaeology on a very specifi c level.

It is perhaps a paradox that to explore specifi c history and anthropology, we must turn to generalizations and abstractions. Taking archaeological data seriously is not the same as reading fi nds directly or returning to cultural historical archaeology. Models and ideal types generated through anthropology and history provide us with concepts and languages to create descriptions, but also ‘go to the core and identify the dynamo’ (Barth 1990) that might have created the changing patt erns that arise from archaeological record (c.f. Weber 1978).

Ideal types, models and empirical patt erns are not evidence or history in themselves, nor do the constellations outlined in this article represent an historical truth. But combining them to conceptualize the forces and mechanisms at work in a prehistoric context:

‘we [can] go to the core and identify the dynamo that generates … conceptions, institutions and expressions, and thus avoid the all-to-common exercise of merely coining names for phenomena that remain unexplained’ (Barth 1990).

Or in the present case: att empt to a write a history of one of Scandinavia’s most important epochs, and defi ne the inception of structural qualities that would come to defi ne history in the ensuing millennia.

Note1. This is based on a concept of the BBC not solely defi ned

by a specifi c burial assemblage and ceramics, but on the variable assemblages from a comprehensive set of social situations. The archaeological expression includes traditional BBC elements like ceramics, wrist guards, and geometric motifs arranged in bands, but also the early dual-aisled long houses, bifacial points with a tang and/or barbs, type 1 fl int daggers, some potentially early tin and copper artifacts and early agro-pastoral modes of production.

ReferencesAnthony, D. W. 1990 Migration in archeology: the baby and the

bathwater. American Anthropologist 92/1: 896–914.Anthony, D. W. 1992 The Bath Refi lled: Migration in Archeology

Again. American Anthropologist 94: 174–176.Apel, J. 2001 Daggers of knowledge and power. The Social Aspects of

Flint-dagger Technology in Scandinavia 2350–1500 cal. BC. Coast to Coast Book 3. Uppsala University, Uppsala.

Artursson, M. 2009 Bebyggelse och samhällsstruktur. Södra och mellersta Skandinavien under senneolitikum och bronsålderen 2300–500 f.Kr. Riksantikvarieämbetet Arkeologiska undersökingar Skrift er 73, Stockholm.

Barth, F. (ed.) 1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries .Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Barth, F. 1989 Cosmologies in the making. A generative approach to cultural variation in New Guinea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Barth, F. 1990 The Guru and the Conjurer: Transactions in knowledge and the shaping of culture in Southeast Asia and Melanesia. Man 25: 640–653.

Barth, F. 2002 An anthropology of knowledge. Current Anthropology 43(1): 1–18.

Berg-Hansen, I. M. 2010 På sporet av tidlig gårdsstruktur. Kjelsvika – en marginal bosetning fra bronsealder og jernalder i et sentralområde på Lista, Vest Agder fylke. Viking 2010, 121–142.

Bradley, R. 1984 The Social Foundations of prehistoric Britain. Themes and Variations in the Archaeology of Power. Longman, London.

Brøgger, A. W. 1925 Det norske folk i Oldtiden. Oslo, Instutt for sammenlignende kulturforskning.

Burmeister, S. 2000 Archaeology and Migration. Approaches to an archaeological proof of Migration. Current Anthropology 41(4): 539–567.

Childe, V. G. 1957 The Dawn of European Civilization. Paul Kegan, London.

Childe, V. G. 1958 Valediction. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 1: 1–8.

Clarke, D. L. 1976 The Beaker network – social and economic models. In Glockenbecher Symposion, Oberreid, 18–23 März 1974, edited by J. L Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 459–476. Fibula, Bussum.

Ehret, C. 1988 Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic shift . Antiquity 62: 564–574.

Fergusson, N. 2010 Complexity and collapse. Empires on the edge of chaos. Foreign Aff airs 89: 18–32.

Giddens, A. 1984 The Constitution of Society. Outline of a Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Oxford.

Gilman, A. 1981 The development of social stratifi cation in Bronze Age Europe. Current Anthroplogy 22(1): 1–23.

Glørstad, H. and Prescott , C. 2009 Neolithisation as if history matt ered. In Neolithisation as if History Matt ered – Processes of Neolithisation in North-West Europe, edited by H. Glørstad and C. Prescott , pp. 9–22. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Gould, S. J. 1983. Senseless signs of history. In S. J. Gould The Panda’s Thumb: More Refl ections in Natural History, pp.00–00. Penguin, London.

Haaland, G. 1969 Economic determinants in ethnic processes. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, edited by F. Barth, pp. 58 73. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Hagen, A. 1977 Norges Oldtid. Ny utgave. J. W. Cappelens forlag, Oslo.


Harrison, R. J. 1980 The Beaker Folk. Copper Age Archaeology in Western Europe. Thames and Hudson, London.

Helms, M. 1988 Ulysses´ Sail. An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge and Geographical Distance. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Hodder. I. 1990 The Domestication of Europe. Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Blackwell, Oxford.

Holberg, E. 2000 Klokkebegerkulturens symboler: Senneolitikum i Rogaland og Nordland sør for polarsirkelen. Master thesis, University of Bergen.

Johansen, Ø. 1983 Bronsealderproblemer – en teori om mellomhandlervirksomhet. In Foredrag ved det 1. Nordiske bronsalder-symposium på Isegran 3.–6. Oktober 1977, edited by S. Marstrander pp. 24–47. Varia 9, Universitetets Oldsaksamlig, Oslo.

Kristiansen, K. 1991 Prehistoric migrations – the case of the Single Grave and Corded Ware Cultures. Journal of Danish Archaeology 8(1989): 137–151.

Kristiansen, K. 2005 What language did Neolithic pots speak? Colin Renfrew‘s European farming-language-dispersal model challenged. Antiquity 79: 679–691.


Kvalø, F. 2007 Oversjøiske reiser fra Sørvest- Norge til Nordvest-Jylland i eldre bronsealder – En drøft ing av maritim realisering og rituell mobilisering. In Sjøreiser og stedsidentitet. Jæren/Lista i bronsealder og eldre jernalder, edited by L. Hedeager pp. 11–134. Oslo Archaeological Series 8, Oslo Academic Press, Oslo.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966 The Savage Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lomborg, E. 1979 Die Flintdolche Dänemarks.Studien über Chronologie und Kulturbeziehungen des südskandinavischen Spätneolithikums. Nordiske Fortidsminder. Ser. B–bd.1. Universitetsforlaget i København, Copenhagen.

Marstrander, S. 1950 Jylland-Lista. Viking. Tidsskrift for norrøn arkeologi. XIV: 63–86.

Mallory, J. P. 1989 In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth. Thames and Hudson, London.

Malmer, M. P. 1962 Jungneolithische Studien. Acta archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8°. Gleerup, Lund.

Mann, M. 1986 The Sources of Social Power. A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D- 1760. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Manning, P. 2005 Migration in World History. Routledge, New York.

Müller, S. 1902 Flintdolkene i den nordiske stenalder. Nordiske Fortidsminder 1. Nordiske Oldskrift -selskab, Copenhagen.

Myhre, B. 1979 Spor ett er klokkebegerkulturen i Rogaland. Fra Hauk ok heidni 4(7): 298–303.

Østmo, E. 1997 Horses, Indo-Europeans and the importance of ships. Journal of Indo-European Studies 25(3–4), 285–326.

Østmo, E. 2008 Some notes on the development of shipbuilding and overseas connections in Scandinavian prehistory. In Facets of Archeology. Essays in Honour of Lott e Hedeager on her 60th birthday, edited by K. Childis, J. Lund and C. Prescott , pp. 265–274. Oslo Archaeological Series 10., Oslo Academic Press, Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2009 The northern connection: Bell Beaker Culture infl uences north of Skagerak. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2): 87–89.

Pearson, M. P., Clearl, R., Marshall, P., Needham, S. and Pollard, J. et al. 2007 The Age of Stonehenge. Antiquity 81: 617–639.

Prescott , C. 1995. From Stone Age to Iron Age. A Study from Sogn, Western Norway. British Archaeological Report International Series 603. Tempus Reparatum, Oxford.


Prescott , C. 2005 Sett lement and economy in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age of Southern Norway: Some points and premises. In Konstruksjonsspor og byggeskikk. Maskinell fl ateavdekking – metodikk, tolkning og forvaltning, edited by M. Høgestøl, L. Selsing, T. Løken, A. J. Nærøy and L. Prøsch-Danielsen, pp. 127–136. AmS-Varia 43, Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger.

Prescott , C. 2009 History in prehistory – the later Neolithic/Early Metal Age, Norway. In Neolithisation as if History Matt ered: Processes of Neolithisation in North-West Europe, edited by H. Glørstad and C. Prescott , pp. 193–216. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Prescott , C. and Melheim, A. L. 2009 The fi rst Bronze Age communities in Scandinavia. Comments on M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez: ‘Bell Beaker communities in Thy: The fi rst Bronze Age Society in Denmark’. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2): 89– 93.

Prescott , C. and Walderhaug, E. 1995 The Last Frontier? Processes of Indo- Europeanization in Northern Europe. The Norwegian Case. Journal of Indo-European Studies 3–4: 257–280.


Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2008 Bell Beaker communities in Thy. The fi rst Bronze Age society in Denmark. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2): 115–158.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2009 Reply to comments from Marc Vander Linden, Helle Vandkilde, Przemyslaw Makraowicz, Janusz Czebreszuk, Einar Østmo, and Christopher Prescott and Lene Melheim. Norwegian Archaeological Review 42(1): 71–100.

Renfrew, C. 2005 Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Penguin, London.

Sarauw, T. 2008 Danish Bell Beaker pott ery and fl int daggers the display of social identities? European Journal of Archaeology 11(1): 23–48.

Shennan, S .J. 1982 Ideology, change and the European Early Bronze Age. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sherratt, A. 1981 Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In Patt erns of the Past. Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, N. Hammond and G. Isaac, pp. 261–305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sherratt , A. 1983 The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World. World Archaeology 15: 90–104.

Shetelig, H. 1925 Norges Forhistorie. Problemer og resultater i norsk arkæologi. Institutt et forsammenlignende kulturforskning. H. Aschehoug, Oslo.

Sundström, L. 2003 Det hotade kollektivet: neolitiseringsprocessen ur ett östmellansvenskt perspektiv. Kust till kust-böcker no. 6, Uppsala University, Dept. of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala.


Vander Linden, M. 2007 What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe? Antiquity 81: 343–352.

Vandkilde, H. 1996 From Stone to Bronze. The Metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXXII, Aarhus.

Vandkilde, H. 2005 A Review of the Early Late Neolithic Period in Denmark: Practice, Identity and Connectivity. www.jungsteinSITE.de Dec. 15, 2005.

Weber, M. 1978 Economy and Society: an Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Wiessner, P. 2002 The vines of complexity: Egalitarian Structure and the Institutionalization of Inequality among the Enga. Current Anthroplogy 43: 233–71.

11

Technology Talks: material diversity and change in Northern Norway 3000–1000 BC1

Marianne Skandfer

IntroductionAccording to Lind (2000, 2001) northernmost Norway did not become part of Europe until late medieval times, when Finnmork2 (meaning literally ‘The Land of the Finns (Sámi)’) was Christianised by the Catholic Church. To Lind, Europe as a unitary concept is a product that springs out of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church did not missionize, but went hand in hand with a whole set of shared cultural, social and political structures. This view sees ‘Europeanization’ as a late phenomenon associated with state structures.

In this paper I suggest that North Norway was networked into Europe (and Eurasia) at a much earlier date. I will present some of the transformations in the archaeological record in northern Norway during the third and second millennia BC, in order to investigate to what extent these changes can be related to the transitional processes in European prehistory occurring in the third millennium BC. With technology as a point of departure, I argue that communities in northern Norway were embedded in networks of cultural, social and political relations on various levels and to diff erent parts of Scandinavia, Fennoscandia, Central and Eastern Europe. In this paper, the present-day division between Nordland and North-Trøndelag counties constitutes the southern limit of what is treated as North Norway (Figure 11.1).

The archaeological recordUntil around 1980 the Stone Age and its ‘slate complex’ was considered to last up to around BC/AD in northern Norway. Although regional variations and chronological changes were observed, the general

impression was that of continuity and stability within the hunter-fisher-gatherer (HFG) societies. From around 1980, new methodological, technological as well as theoretical tools were implemented in North Norwegian archaeology. Several issues relevant to this paper were investigated, such as the introduction of farming, the typological and chronological order for asbestos-tempered pott ery and the age and duration of semi-subterranean dwelling structures. Recently, these and chronologically related issues have been re-examined, placing focus on the archaeological material itself. Litt le of this has so far been published, and much is available in unpublished MA and PhD theses in Norwegian only. In the following, I will give a brief presentation of the latest insights into changes

Figure 11.1: Map of north Norway with names mentioned in the text.

11. Technology Talks: material diversity and change in Northern Norway 3000–1000 BC 129

in lithic technology, the re-introduction of pott ery, the introduction of metal and changes in dwellings, as well as the use of hunting-pit systems and the introduction of farming, between c. 3500 and c. 900 BC. Several features in the archaeological record, among them rock carvings and changes in grave types, are left out of this presentation.

Stone implementsThe stone technology in northern Norway can broadly be divided in two: 1) locally produced implements, mostly in slate but also in local chert, quartzite and quartz, and 2) imported objects, mostly in fl int.

The stone technology in Finnmark County goes through several changes during the third century BC (Helskog 1980: 52; Olsen 1994: 56; Hesjedal et al. 1996: 209; Sommerseth 1997: 62–67): several older forms disappear or become rare aft er c. 3600–3000 BC, whereas others become far more common. Also, new types are introduced and maintained up to the second millennium BC. These changes occur within a continuum of the polished slate technology which is maintained into the last millennium BC. A peculiar new trait from around 2000 BC is the inventory of miniature slate tools (knives and axes/adzes) (Andreassen 2002: 80–81; Jørgensen 1986: 65; Munch 1962: 20; Schanche 1989: 66; Simonsen 1975: 281). In the second millennium BC, a new type of point with straight or concave base prevailed in northernmost Norway. Particularly in the interior regions it is represented by bifacially retouched points of hard, fi ne-grained local raw materials such as chert and quartzite (Hood and Olsen 1988; Olsen 1994: 103). Their equivalents along the coast are commonly in polished slate. According to Olsen (1994: 107), slate technology had a very limited signifi cance in Finnmark in the last millennium BC.

For the HFG communities in the southern parts of Troms and Nordland counties, however, Andreassen (2002: 80–82) has recently suggested that polished slate tools, including miniatures, were part of the material repertoire in the last millennium BC.

In two recent MA theses Valen (2007) and Holberg (2000) have examined the distribution and fi nd contexts for selected imported stone and bronze implements of southern Scandinavian types from the Neolithic and Bronze Age in northern Norway (Figure 11.2). The oldest fi nds are various axes related to the early farming Funnel Beaker complex (TRB) further south in Scandinavia and Central Europe. TRB pott ery is not part of the northern TRB-related archaeological inventory. The axes are found in the coastal areas up to southern Troms County. From 3000/2800–2350 BC the number of imported stone implements related to the more southerly agricultural societies increases dramatically, and they are now distributed throughout the whole coastline of the northern region, however with concentrations in the same southernmost areas where the earliest imported tools were found. Two items relating to this period have been found in Finnmark. Both Valen (2007: 57) and Holberg (2000: 87) note that several of the fi nd contexts for the axes and daggers from this, as well as the following period, point to knowledge of South Scandinavian ritual grave- and deposition practices, as the weapons are deposited under or close to rocks, in or close to water, or in grave mounds. The bifacially retouched points, on the other hand, are related to dwelling sites (Holberg 2000: 87).

In the period 2350–1700/1500 BC, more items have been found also in northern Troms and western Finnmark, including three fl int daggers in the Alta Fjord (Valen 2007: 62). The number of fi nds in southern Nordland is further increased, and now includes

Figure 11.2: Imported fl int implements from the South Scandinavian Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, found at the Nordland coast. Photos: Christian Roll Valen © and Ole Bjørn Pedersen, © NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet.

Marianne Skandfer130

fl int adzes, but the distribution patt ern is largely maintained. Holberg (2000: 87) points out that the TRB forms are mainly found along the outer coast, always in relation to strategic locations and oft en close to small but fertile patches of sheltered agricultural land. The distribution of Bronze Age ceremonial stone axes, dated from c. 1700 BC, seem to present a somewhat diff erent picture from that of the older stone imports: the previously mentioned concentrations in specifi c areas of the Nordland and southernmost Troms regions are lacking, and instead the nineteen axes display an even distribution along the coast, now also including the inner fj ords (Valen 2007: fi gure 19).

Pott ery The earliest pott ery in northern Norway is part of the Comb Ceramic Tradition that prevailed over large portions of Finland, Russia and the Baltic region from 5300 to 2500 BC. In Norway, however, this pott ery is present only in the period from 5300 to

4500 BC, and only on the coast and inland areas of easternmost Finnmark (Skandfer 2005). Aft er a more than two millennia long aceramic period, pott ery was re-introduced to hunter-gatherer groups in northern Norway and northernmost Finland in the form of asbestos-tempered ceramics around c. 2000 BC (Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 3; Skandfer n.d.). This new pott ery technology thus broke through what had been the north-western limit of the Comb Ware tradition since c. 5300 BC. Six asbestos ceramic groups have been suggested by Jørgensen and Olsen (1988) for northern Norway. Their defi nitions are based on mainly normative observations of rim shape, wall shape and bott om shape, amount of asbestos temper, colour and ornamentation/patterning. Jørgensen and Olsen (1988: 13) admit that there are gradual transitions between the suggested groups with oft en overlapping elements. The two earliest, Lovozero and Pasvik ceramics, were introduced simultaneously to diff erent parts of northern Fennoscandia, including Finnmark, around 2100/1900 BC (Figure 11.3), and

Figure 11.3. Distribution of Lovozero and Pasvik ceramics (based on Jørgensen and Olsen 1988) and metals of eastern origin (based on Bakka 1976 with later additions). Note that the two inland sites with Lovozero ceramics in Jørgensen and Olsen (1988: fi gure 15) are not found in their presentation of the sites, although they state that this ceramic group is found both along the coast as well as in the interior (Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 59).


Finnish researchers regard them as variants within the same group (Carpelan 2003: 52 in Halinen 2005: 95; Carpelan 2004: 34; Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 58, 67). A second pott ery phase can be suggested with the introduction of Textile-impressed ceramics and so-called Imitation Textile (IT) ceramics, dated from around 1800/1700 BC to around 900/500 BC (Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 67–68; Olsen 1994: 105). In contrast to the earliest variants, these are found in all parts of northern Norway although perhaps most commonly along the west coast (Figure 11.4).

The youngest asbestos ceramics are the Kjelmøy and Risvik Wares, with maximum datings respectively to c. 1400 BC–AD 100 and c. 1100 BC–AD 400 (Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 65). Based on several recent 14C-datings it has been suggested that both variants should probably be designated to shorter periods; the Kjelmøy ceramics to c. 900/700 BC–0/AD 100 (Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 65; Olsen 1994: 106) and the Risvik ceramics to 880–400 BC (Andreassen 2002: 71). In south-western Norway there are numerous fi nds that render this date too limited. Here, Risvik/Nordvestnorsk asbestos ceramics appears c. 1700 BC and remains in use as late

as the Pre-Roman Iron Age (see Prescott 1991; Ågotnes 1986). In the following, however, the Kjelmøy and Risvik Wares will gain litt le att ention, as in northern Norway they date aft er the primary chronological focus of this paper.

MetalThe probably earliest fi nd of a metal object in northern Norway is a copper dagger or spear point from a midden wall of a semi-subterranean house in Karlebotn, Varanger. The tool has been polished as well as hammered (Schanche 1989: 62–64, 66–67, fi gure 10). The period of use for the house has been dated to 2200–1530 BC. However, new evaluations of the stratigraphic context of the dagger/spear point and new datings show that the midden as well as the copper implement is older than the house, dating to around 3000 BC. The early dating corresponds to datings of a few copper items of eastern origin in Finland. (Hood and Helama 2010). Two hammered copper items from dwelling sites in eastern Finnmark, a point and a plate, are dated to the fi rst part of the second millennium

Figure 11.4: Distribution of Textile-impressed and Imitation Textile ceramics (based on Jørgensen and Olsen 1988).


BC by assumed association with Lovozero ceramics (Gjessing 1935: 32–33, 39–42, 1942: 340–341; Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 31–32; Olsen 1994: 125). In addition, two soapstone casting moulds for bronze daggers or spear points suggested to be of Seima-Turbino types from the second millennium BC have been found in a probable depot in Jarfj ord, South Varanger (Bakka 1976: 13–14; Olsen 1994: 125–126; Simonsen 1963: 244–245). A stray fi nd of six copper plates from an Early Metal Age site in Kautokeino, interior Finnmark, could possibly also date to the second or early fi rst millennium BC. Outside Finnmark, fragments of two soapstone moulds have been found in Kolvika, Nordland, one of them resembling the fi nd in Jarfj ord (Jørgensen 1986: 68), thus suggesting an easterly technological relation also in this region.

In contrast to the picture presented above, all 18 bronze objects of Nordic or South Scandinavian types dated from around 1500/1300 BC onwards have been found in Nordland and the southernmost parts of Troms, and most of them are from the latt er part of the Bronze Age. The oldest fi nd is a cast bronze dagger, whereas the younger ones are both weapons (swords, knives and socketed axes) and beauty items (hair pin, knob, shaving knife, tweezers and necklaces). A soapstone mould for socketed axes has also been found (Valen 2007: 65; see also Jørgensen 1986). Most of the Nordic bronzes are found in contexts that can be interpreted as ceremonial or ritual deposits (bogs, by large rocks, in pairs or in grave mounds) (Bakka 1976: 26–27; Jørgensen 1989).

Sometime aft er 900 BC (Hood and Olsen 1988; Olsen 1984: 66–68, 1994: 108), with the introduction of iron technology in combination with cast bronze technology from the Ananino societies in Central Russia, metal use becomes more frequent in the northern hunter-fi sher communities. In northern Finland iron smelting is dated from c. 400 BC (Kotivuori n.d.).

DwellingsSemi-subterranean houses are known along the coast from around 5000 BC, but from around 4000/3700 BC clusters of small square, rectangular or slightly oval semi-subterranean houses were established regularly along the northernmost Norwegian coast (Helskog 1980; Hesjedal et al. 1996: 204; Olsen 1994: 69; Schanche 1988). This building technology is most common in the northern and north-eastern parts of the region – south of Lofoten in Nordland few such houses are known (Benonisen 2005). The clusters of houses, together with the fact that none of the houses are superimposed on older structures, indicate that several were used simultaneously (see Helskog 1983; Helskog 1984; Olsen 1994 for a discussion). This structuration of

coastal dwelling sites is continued into the third and second millennia BC, but seems to be given up in the last millennium BC (see however Skandfer 2009c, n.d. on re-use of the ‘Gressbakken house’ foundation). Semi-subterranean houses older than c. 2000 BC are not known from inland northern Norway (Skandfer 2009c; Skandfer and Bruun 2006).

An enlargement of the houses is documented from c. 3200/3000 BC in Varanger (Helskog 1980, 1984; Olsen 1994: 71; Simonsen 1963), culminating in the large, rectangular ‘Gressbakken house’ in northernmost coastal Norway around 2100 BC. However, there is a variation in house size and plan both before and during the ‘Gressbakken phase’ which has gained litt le att ention (see however Engelstad 1988; Johansen 1998).

The houses have been related to a marine economy and a semi-sedentary or possibly sedentary coastal life (Olsen 1994; Renouf 1988, 1989; Schanche 1994) within a suggested short use-period, c. 2400/2100–1800 BC (Olsen 1994:85; Schanche 1994). However, recent investigations in both western and eastern inland Finnmark (Skandfer 2009c; Skandfer and Bruun 2006) have demonstrated that corresponding dwellings are also situated along the larger salmon rivers and close to critical locations along the reindeer migration routes. Inland, the main use-period lies between 2100 BC and 1300 BC, which is in bett er concordance with Johansen’s (1998: 76) suggestion that this kind of building tradition is abandoned only in the inner part of Varanger Fjord around 1800 BC, whereas it is maintained for several centuries in other parts of Finnmark. A closer look at the available datings shows that a more probable date for the abandonment also in inner Varanger lays around 1600 BC.

Hunting pits Dating hunting pits is a diffi cult matt er. In most cases in northern Fennoscandia no charcoal can positively be directly related to the construction. Also, discerning which layer represents the construction phase, alternatively a reconstruction phase can be diffi cult. Dating small charcoal pieces or organic content from a supposed natural surface underneath the earth wall surrounding the pit has thus lately been the most common method. Although the representativity of the existing material with respect to dating is questionable, reindeer hunting-pit systems seem to be established in large scale from c. 2500 BC in interior Finnmark (Furset 1995, 1996). This represents a marked intensifi cation in the exploitation of reindeer, from what seem to be a more limited use of the hunting-pit technology from the Mesolithic onwards. A comparison of published datings of hunting pits from interior northern Norway and northern Finland shows an almost identical picture, suggesting that reindeer hunting-pit technology was


taken up around 4000 BC, but that it reached a marked peak in the period c. 2500–1500 BC, a smaller peak around 1200–700 BC, and relatively litt le use aft er that (Hood 2009, personal communication; see Halinen 2005: 84; Klaussen 2008:39). FarmingThe question of when farming was introduced to northern Norway has traditionally been addressed mainly through stray finds, graves and a small number of Iron Age farms suggesting relations to farming societies further south (Johansen 1976, 1979). A cross-disciplinary study of pollen analyses related to archaeological sites in the late 1970s suggested that pastures had been cleared and cereals grown in favourable parts of coastal northern Norway perhaps as early as 4000 BC, but at least earlier than 1200 BC (Vorren 1973, 1976b, 1979; Vorren and Nilsen 1982). These conclusions have been criticised methodologically as well as archaeologically: cultivated cereals (such as Hordeum) can been diffi cult to distinguish from wild species, the indicators for farming are few and the archaeological material does not support the suggested major shift in subsistence (Rowley-Conwy 1983).

Vorren (in Valen 2007: 32) has recently re-evaluated his interpretations concerning the earliest dates of farming in northern Norway, now suggesting a very limited introduction at the earliest around 1700/1600 BC (Valen 2007: 32). In her examination of the age of coastal heath grazing areas which were regularly burnt as a means of enriching the soil, Tveraabak (2004) fi nds that this practice was taken up along the Nordland coast from c. 1500/1100 BC. Parallel to the pollen analyses, osteological and macrofossil analyses of cultural layers in caves in Nordland were carried out (Hultgreen 1988, 1989; Hultgreen et al. 1985; Johansen 1982, 1990; Johansen and Vorren 1986; Utne 1973, 1989). The dates relating to sheep/goats and catt le as well as cereals do not support the suggested early age for the introduction of farming. Instead, they relate early husbandry and agriculture to the latt er part of the Early Bronze Age, from c. 1400 BC onwards (Johansen 1990; Valen 2007: 31–32). Based on re-evaluations of the indications of early farming activity, Valen (2007: 43) concludes that possible att empts at farming must have been of only marginal economic importance before c. 1400 BC. All things considered, it seems that from around 500–400 BC there is a marked increase in farming activity along the coast of northern Norway (Arntzen 2008:45; Johansen 1990:3, 15–16; Tveraabak 2004; Valen 2007: 43). New results from an excavation in southern Troms, however, suggests slash-and-burn farming around 900–850 BC (Arntzen 2010). In a recent article Høeg (2000: 87) suggests periods of husbandry and cultivation of barley

around c. 1900–450 BC (3500–2400 BP), on a high latitude in Kárasjohka/Karasjok in interior Finnmark, based on a pollen sample. Thus far, this result has not been confi rmed by archaeological investigations or by means of more pollen analyses.On the contrary, pollen analyses from three sites in the Báhčaveadji/Pasvik River Valley lowland, south-easternmost Finnmark, do not display early traces of farming (Høeg and Skandfer in prep).

Turning towards technology The fundamental theoretical assumption of this paper is that individuals and communities interact with material culture in such a way that the material culture comes to play an active role in the emergence and maintenance of social relations, identities and roles. This includes artefacts as well as other parts of the physical surroundings. This interaction is situated within ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger 1998), i.e. groups of individuals participating in communal activity, where they are continuously experiencing and creating a shared identity through engaging in and contributing to the practices of their communities. Within these communities of practice, knowledge and meaning are constantly negotiated, making the engagement in the world meaningful. According to Wenger (1998) this negotiation of meaning is a process of communal learning. It is done through reifi cation – making something abstract tangible and subject for mutual understanding and participation – active involvement in re-contextualising the reifi ed meaning. The constant and active negotiation of meaning makes communities of practice open to change, if the change is considered or recognised as meaningful.

For HFGs in general and prehistoric HFG societies in particular, it can be diffi cult by archaeological means to identify the level of ‘communities’ or ‘groups’ and even more so to identify how individuals consciously or unconsciously act as catalysts or entrepreneurs for change or maintenance of socio-cultural structures shared by larger groups. However, we need to acknowledge the role of individuals within groups. In this respect I fi nd Hayden’s (1998) concept of ‘aggrandizers’ fruitful, with certain limitations concerning the biased focus on the strategic self-maximizing individual as well as the cross-cultural aspirations of the model. Aggrandizers are individuals who strategically create debt, social bonds, wealth and power, within as well as between communities of practice (see also Roscoe 2000; Sahlins 1963). Although, according to Hayden, their primary goal is always personal wealth and power, and although they may push the limits of their community values


and norms, they cannot reach their goals without the acceptance and participation of at least a portion of the community. Further, Hayden acknowledges that an important precondition of success for aggrandizers in HFG societies is the community’s ability to generate surplus reliably within its existing technology and labour (Hayden 1998: 22). In egalitarian and more socially complex HFG societies, mainly personal qualities determine who have the potential to become successful aggrandizers, and since partaking in various networks was probably more necessary and valuable than the archaeological objects resulting from them, the aggrandizers would have been important as ‘gatekeepers’ in the establishment, maintenance and abandonment of various networks.

Technology in prehistoric archaeology is commonly regarded a basically practical and material phenomenon, although the social context has gained focus through the concepts of technological style and chaîne opératoire (Dobres and Hoff man 1994; Lechtmann 1977; Lemonnier 1989, 1993; Stark 1998). The technological activity in a society can, according to Lemonnier (1989: 156), be seen as four elements, all of them embedded in social contexts: 1) on what technology is practised, 2) with what it is practised, 3) how actions and movements are organised in operational sequences, and 4) conscious or unconscious knowledge. These are all important aspects related to practical performance, and as Sackett (1982, 1985, 1990) has convincingly argued, the choice of means to produce a certain tool/object – and thereby also the end form of that tool/object – is not arbitrary, but the outcome of specifi c socio-cultural constraints. However, more important in this paper is not that but how technology is involved in social dimensions – in the communities of practice. It is therefore useful to introduce the concept of techné (gr.) to describe the wider meaning of technology applied here (see Ingold 1993). Techné refers to the skilled method involved in producing an object or accomplishing an objective. It involves the knowledge of practical principles of doing or making within a social context: the embodied, internalised knowing what as opposed to an intellectual knowing how. The practical principles in a techné can be shared within a community of practice, smaller or larger. In this paper, technology is broadly defi ned as techné or skilled involvement in materials, objects and the larger environment, within a social context. In a wide concept of technology even the means by which communities interact must be viewed as technology.

In addressing the meaning of imported objects in a society, Hayden (1998) sets up a distinction between practical and prestigious technology, where the primary objective of practical technology is high effi ciency in the making of the objects, whereas prestigious technology

has its focus on high investment of time, whether it be related to the production or the procurement of the object. This should not be confused with Binford’s (1977, 1979) distinction between expedient and curatory technologies, although also here invested time is an important factor. However, in Binford’s distinction the tools are valued according to their practical use, the production is performed within a single sett lement system, and imported items are not discussed (see however Mauss (2002 [1923–24]) on the value of time in gift exchange). A distinction between practical and prestigious items is oft en, according to Hayden (1998), equivalent to a distinction between domestic and imported objects. Prestigious technology viewed as exclusive based on its complex fabrication, and thus limited availability need not, however, be restricted to imported goods, but could perhaps more oft en be related to imported technologies/skills. In this respect it should also be noted that most technological processes – not least in so-called traditional societies – from the procurement of raw materials to production sequences and the use and deposition of objects, include ritual elements.

DiscussionNo doubt several changes in the archaeological record from the third millennium BC onwards in northern Norway refl ect responses to interaction with communities outside the region. This phenomenon is far from restricted to the last three millennia BC. Despite an overall stability in the HFG economy and material culture for several millennia, change related to participation in long-distance networks is evident during the entire Stone Age, and several periods of intensifi cation and/or reorientation and/or consolidation of networks can be identifi ed (Damm 2006; Ramstad 2006; Skandfer 2005, 2009a, 2009b). Instead of viewing the HFG communities in northern Norway as passive receptive entities for these infl uences, they should be seen as dynamic communities, constantly interacting, transmitt ing and negotiating knowledge to make it meaningful within a local context. The changes taking place in the last three millennia BC, however, can also be seen as catalysts in the process towards marked cultural and social diff erentiations in northern Norway – between a Sámi and a non-Sámi population. In this section, my primary focus is how these impulses are taken up and given meaning in the local communities of practice – the techné of implementing new elements – and secondly, what information these processes provide us concerning why and how change is brought about in the third and second millennia BC.


Considered as a whole, the presented material indicates that several changes occurred at the transition between the third and the second millennium BC in northern Norway, and it can be suggested that at least two major contact networks were active. In the whole region there was a change in the technology of polished slate tools, displayed in new forms, several of them resembling copper and bronze weapons of eastern types. A more marked emphasis on the transition between blade and shaft could also be related to a new concern for making metal-like objects. This does not necessarily mean that the hunter-gatherer communities now had regular and direct access to a variety of metal objects. An alternative possibility is that this change resulted from changes in stone technology in other parts of the large southeast-stretching network with which they were already well associated. Perhaps as early as c. 3700/3000 BC expansionist groups with traditions for copper and bronze metallurgy, in association with warfare, fortifi ed sett lements and catt le breeding, were established on both sides of the Urals (Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007: 27). These were in close contact with local HFGs with polished stone technology traditions in the forest-steppe region to the northwest, which seem to be part of the older contact network stretching north-westwards.

Simultaneously, other parts of the stone material in northern Norway point to more direct contact with the metallurgist societies themselves. From the second millennium BC, particularly in the interior regions, a new bifacial technology is practiced, in the shape of points with straight or slightly concave bases, or with short triangle shaft s. These are identical to points found in large quantities in cemeteries belonging to the metallurgical traditions around the Urals from around 2000/1900 BC (Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007: 64, 79, 106, 108, fi gures 1.8, 2.10, 2.17, 2.26). The specialized bifacial reduction technique is a re-introduced technology along with the ceramics at this time, and apparently initially restricted to some communities in the inland. Interestingly, the bifacially retouched points seem to have a local variant in polished slate – the ‘Sunderøy type’ – along the North Norwegian coast. The making of variants of metal or metal-related bifacially retouched weapons in slate, has traditionally been viewed as a compromise due to lack of appropriate raw materials. However, from a wider technological point of view it could be argued that these changes in lithic technology represent local experiencing and creating of shared identity, both internally in the community as well as externally towards larger networks. The presence of miniature slate tools from the same time suggests, according to Andreassen (2002: 80–81), that the technology of

polished slate is in its last phase, when these objects have lost their practical functions. If this is true, their presence hints about how technology or skill in tool production includes ritual elements, and how these can be reaffi rmed within a context of change. Contrary to the inland-oriented bifacial reduction technique and the polished slate variant of bifacial points found along the coast, the changes in the traditional slate reduction skills related to miniatures is wide-spread and could display one way of engaging in and contributing to the shared maintained practices and meanings of the local communities.

Although metal objects and metal-related fi nds from the second millennium BC are rare, they seem to form a patt ern: the earliest as well as the majority of objects are found in north-easternmost Norway, and they are all daggers (or spears) and casting moulds for such. This indicates that only a few communities took part in the earliest metal exchange, and since the traded weapons were associated with warriors in the socially stratifi ed, metal-producing societies in which they originated, they point towards the presence of aggrandizers in the HFG communities. Although the re-evaluation of the context of the Karlebotn ‘dagger’ indicates that it actually was in use around 3000 BC, it may serve as an example of the presence of such aggrandizers and of a social network to be withheld at least through the next two millennia. Whilst Olsen (1994: 126) proposes that the dagger or spear head could have been shaped by hammer within a local Finnmark context, I agree with Schanche (1994: 63–64), who suggests that it mediates between two sets of socio-culturally embedded practices: it is an imported object of a production technology unfamiliar to the local group, but in addition it is polished locally to resemble the familiar slate daggers or points. The polishing of the surface suggests that the local community neither had the technology to produce or destroy/remake such an item, leaving it potentially exotic and rare, in accordance with Hayden’s (1998) defi nition of prestigious technology. But, at the same time, it indicates that the dagger (or spear point) was re-contextualised within the slate tradition, thereby being ascribed a local context of meaning. The copper tool could be the result of one or a few individuals’ engagement in a stable and extensive eastern network, whereas its material context indicates that this individual activity was made possible by the social support of the community.

From the second millennium BC moulds for bronze daggers of Central-Russian types are found in the northern region (Carpelan 1975: 29). Their presence suggests that members of the local communities now knew the intricate technology of bronze casting.


However, there are no indications that social stratifi cation in the form of individually accumulated wealth, warfare or communal religious practices followed alongside this new technological skill. Instead it seems to have been negotiated and incorporated within the established communities of practice. The local practicing of metal technology would imply that the eastern-oriented HFG communities made themselves technologically independent at least in some respects (knowledge of smelting and moulding, though perhaps not procurement of metal raw materials) of the socio-cultural structures from which the metal technology and metal tool use originated. However, they probably were dependent on others to obtain their raw materials.

Asbestos-tempered pottery was introduced to northernmost Norway around 2000 BC, seemingly initially to the interior and easternmost Finnmark regions. As was the case for the bifaces and gradually for the bronzes, the pott ery was produced locally. This implies that the intricate technology of asbestos pott ery production (see Damm in press), as well as the technology of pott ery use, became known to at fi rst a limited number of HFG communities. The pott ery production sequence did not only include the technology of procuring materials, of tempering and forming clay, of drying and fi ring, but particularly in its fi rst phase also involved careful imitation of styles: of shapes, sizes and decoration. The earliest pott ery thus indicates direct contact with members of other pott ery producing societies. Pott ery technology, including asbestos temper, was part of the local material culture in Finland and north-western Russia throughout the Younger Stone Age (Carpelan 1979; Lavento 2001: 20), and similar pott ery to the Lovozero-Pasvik variants in Norway have been noted in the metallurgical Seima-Turbino societies (Carpelan 2004).

With the introduction of Textile and Imitation Textile (IT) pott eries slightly later in the second millennium BC, pott ery technology was spread out in the whole northern region, including western and coastal areas. This technology also seems to include the use, if not necessarily the local production, of woven implements (textiles, mats or baskets, presumably mostly of plant fi bres) with which to leave imprints on the surfaces of the vessels (Bergman 1995:190; Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 19; Lavento 2001: 20–23, 47; Meinander 1954; Shishlina et al. 2000; Sulimirski 1970). Textile-impressed pott ery emerged also in middle and southern Finland, Karelia, West-central Russia and the Baltic states around 2000 BC (Lavento 2001), but neither textile-impression nor asbestos temper seems to be common in the Volga-Uralic bronze producing societies (Koryakhova and Epimakhov 2007), although variants of asbestos pott ery have been observed, as mentioned above.

Whereas the earliest Lovozero and Pasvik ceramics in Finnmark seem to represent styles found also in northernmost Finland and on the Kola peninsula (Carpelan 2004: 34), the slightly later Textile and IT pott ery styles are local or regional northern variants, diff ering in several aspects from the more south-eastern-bound Textile ceramic tradition of most of Finland and the neighbouring areas during the Late Neolithic and Early Metal Age (Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 75; Lavento 2001: 31). When it comes to technological characteristics, this involves, among other things, the use of asbestos as temper (2001: 47). For Finland, Lavento (2001: 31) suggests that the Finnish Textile ceramic tradition does not extend beyond the Kemĳ oki River system to the north. This is supported by Halinen’s (2005) analyses of HFG dwelling sites in northernmost Finland, where instead Lovozero-Pasvik, northern Textile and IT Wares have been identifi ed regularly.

Within a very short period of time pott ery technology was implemented throughout northern Norway. The shared and simultaneous technology of making pots with textile impressions in eastern Fennoscandia could refl ect a negotiation and strengthening of the social relations between diff erent northern and south-eastern communities in the early second millennium BC. At the same time the suggested northern style indicates that a new order of network relations was reifi ed through pott ery technology: a geographically distinct tradition of pott ery making soon seems to have developed. Also, it looks as if this diff erentiation was more related to the technologies of procuring and processing the clay than to the decoration of the vessels: asbestos is the single most important temper throughout the pott ery producing era in northern Norway, ending around AD 300.

It has been suggested that the dispersal of Lovozero pott ery from the east westwards was related to a break-down or change in the established social structures in northern Fennoscandia around 2500/2000 BC, as expressed in larger dwellings and increased sedentism (Jørgensen and Olsen 1988: 74). I believe, in accordance with Carpelan (2003: 52 in Halinen 2005: 95), that the introduction of asbestos-tempered pottery to northernmost Norway (and Finland) is instead related to increased mobility entailing intensifi ed use of the interior region and an infl ux of individuals or smaller groups from neighbouring eastern hunter-gatherer communities around the transition from the third to the second millennium BC. However, in contrast to Carpelan, I don’t believe the original local population began to make the diff erent Pasvik and Textile/Imitation Textile pott ery in order to express their distinction from the Lovozero immigrants and their new network.


My argument consists of three parts. First, the pott ery technology seems to be introduced alongside several other new technological skills, during a period of expansion and migration in the north-western Eurasian area in general. It was catalysed by the expansive and competing metallurgical communities’ need for trading partners and their wheeled horse- and ox-chariots which rendered long-distance possible and fast transport of bulk products, as well as people, even over land (Chernykh 2008: 84–86; Koryakhova and Epimakhov 2007; Kuzmina 2000). This probably applies more to the steppe zone. In the northern forest zone, rivers would have been the most important channels of transportation. Several shared material expressions over these vast areas, long before the asbestos-tempered pott ery technology was introduced to northern Fennoscandia, suggest that at least several of the new technological inputs probably followed well-established network relations. Second, the proposed increase in sedentism along the coast, on the basis of the large semi-subterranean ‘Gressbakken houses’, is contradicted by the presence of similar houses in the interior. The inland dwellings, along with the hunting-pit systems established in the same areas, are instead indicative of a mobility pattern with probably more regular movements between the coast and the interior than earlier. I suggest that these were practised by a kind of collectors’ societies relying on delayed return from intensive hunting and fi shing of nutrition-rich migratory and thus only seasonally available resources (see Friesen 1999), such as reindeer

and salmon (Skandfer n.d.). Third, the large clusters of houses and the symmetrical fl oor plan of the dwellings have led the ‘Gressbakken society’ to be interpreted as consisting of sedentary communities marked by social confl ict, with asymmetrical power relations involving elder men controlling younger male hunters as well as females (Myrvoll 1992; Olsen 1984: 211–212, 1994: 88–96; Schanche 1994). This interpretation is based on the assumption that the houses were used for a very limited period of time, perhaps only 200 years, but as mentioned earlier new research shows a longer use-period as well as indications of mobility between coastal and inland resources (Johansen 1998; Skandfer 2009c; Skandfer and Bruun 2006). It may also be relevant to point out that this social interpretation is based on a direct and literal transmission of a well-known structural Marxist ‘package’ without taking context into consideration. With technology as a starting point, I suggest that the ‘Gressbakken houses’ represent continuity in the techné of building semi-subterranean houses instead of a fundamental break in dwelling organization. The houses were a stable and stabilizing element, actively given meaning in a time of adjustments in networks and economy, possibly also in prosperity.

An examination of the relationship between ‘Gressbakken houses’ and the contemporaneously introduced early asbestos-tempered pott ery suggests diff erent correlations between the two phenomena (see Table 11.1). All the four Lovozero pott ery fi nds along the Finnmark coast can be related to coastal

Inner Varanger fjord

Outer Varanger fjord

Inland Finnmark

Iversfjord, Outer

Tana fjord

Slettnes, Western Finnmark

Excavated houses (total) 12 4 8 4 6

Houses with less than 10 sherds of ceramics 3* 0 0 1 0

Houses with more than 30 sherds of ceramics 1** 2 0 2 5

Houses with early (L/P) ceramics 1 0 0 1 0

Houses with later (T/IT) ceramics 0 0 0 1 5

Houses with latest (K) ceramics 3 2 0 1 0

Table 11.1: Regional variation in asbestos-tempered pott ery related to excavated ‘Gressbakken houses’.

Excavated “Gressbakken houses” in selected parts of Finnmark, with relation to early and later asbestos tempered ceramics, Kjelmøy (and Risvik) ceramics held aside. * For one of the sites the chronological relation between the house and the midden with asbestos tempered pott ery is uncertain. ** The sherds belong to one vessel of a late Kjelmøy variant dated to 1885 + 75 BP deposited in the middle of a house.


‘Gressbakken’ house grounds. In the inland region, however, the earliest Lovozero and Pasvik asbestos pottery styles are never found associated with ‘Gressbakken houses’. Although datings are few, both dwelling sites with ‘Gressbakken houses’ as well as open sites can be assigned to the second millennium BC in the inland (Blankholm 2009 personal communication; Olsen 1994: 109; Skandfer 2009c), but the early asbestos pottery is here associated only with the open dwellings. It is possible that the open dwelling sites with the earliest Lovozero and Pasvik pott ery could be older than the establishment of ‘Gressbakken houses’, alternatively that there was a technology and/or identity differentiation between the communities occupying the two types of dwellings. This could suggest that the pott ery (along with bifacially retouched points?) was brought in by newcomers who possibly also intensifi ed the hunting-pit technology, and that the ‘Gressbakken houses’ were built by initially competitive HFG groups moving seasonally inland from the coast shortly aft er (see also Olsen 1994: 129). The latt er’s motivation could have been to establish a reliable surplus for securing some kind of participation in the eastern networks (Hood 1992; Hood and Olsen 1988; Olsen 1984: 217, 1994: 129–130). However, the relation between intensifi ed reindeer hunting and eastern interaction is not yet fully understood. Since eastern HFG peers with rich access to large game were the most probable partners in the interaction, it seems unreasonable to assume that the relation can simply be explained as direct trade. Further, the ‘Gressbakken houses’ generally display regional variations in both age and inventory: Lovozero pott ery is very uncommon, yet not totally unknown in coastal ‘Gressbakken’ sett lements. Later, Textile pott ery becomes part of the house inventories in western parts of Finnmark, although not in the oldest houses (prior to c. 1800 BC) in inner Varanger Fjord or in the interior. The temporal and regional variations in the introduction of the new pott ery technology, its relation to ‘Gressbakken houses’ and the intensifi ed use of the interior and of interior resources, suggest that the new technologies were negotiated and given meaning locally. Consciously or unconsciously, the local HFG communities of practice embedded them in established socio-cultural structures.

The socio-cultural implications of the technologies behind the stone and bronze implements of South Scandinavian origin found in the more southerly regions of the study area, i.e. coastal Nordland and southernmost Troms, seem to show a quite diff erent picture, indicating a diff erent integration of material culture types. First of all, all the implements seem to be imported, possibly with the exception of the bifacially

retouched points found on dwelling sites (Holberg 2000: 87). However, being made of non-local fl int, these also could be imports. The technologies related to the stone and metal tool production sequences were not practiced locally, and furthermore they were not spread into or imitated by neighbouring HFG communities, who used polished slate and asbestos-tempered pott ery in their technological inventories. This in itself indicates that the imported South Scandinavian material types belonged to particular segments of the northern population, possibly with kin relations to farming societies further south in Trøndelag, and also to particular activities of ritual character. The stone tools and bronzes of South Scandinavian types gradually seem to display not only a shared South Scandinavian identity, but also internal gender status diff erences as indicated by weapons and various personal adornments for both males and females. It seems that the South Scandinavian material relation was shared within communities of practice comprising whole local societies.

A related diff erence between the north-eastern-oriented HFGs and the south-western-oriented coastal societies in Nordland and Troms concerns the deposition of many of the imported ‘southern’ objects, which oft en displays knowledge of ritual practices and religious beliefs held in the societies from which the objects originated. Some of the items are found as goods in individual graves, indicating that they marked some kind of individually based status, whereas other depositions suggest that the items, as well as the deposition practice, represent collective activities and a shared identity. However, ritual depositions are also proposed for objects found outside the geographical areas where most of these fi nds are located. This opens for consideration as to whether the South Scandinavian imports were regarded as rare prestige items for individuals only within the local communities. There seems to be a clear distinction not only in area of origin for the technologies found in the South Scandinavian enclaves in Nordland and southernmost Troms on the one hand, and the vast eastern-oriented HFG areas surrounding them, but also with respect to the social meaning of the new technologies. The eastern metal objects, the bifacially retouched points and the pott ery can mostly be related to hunting activities and are as a rule found in sett lement contexts. The Nordic bronzes, on the other hand, include individual adornments in addition to weapons and tools (daggers, points and chisels), and most of the bronze and stone implements are found in contexts that can be interpreted as ceremonial or ritual deposits (bogs, by large rocks, in pairs or in grave mounds) (Bakka 1976: 26–27; Holberg 2000; Jørgensen 1989; Valen 2007).


The technological contrasts observed here could suggest that imported South Scandinavian objects and rituals were being played out as prestigious items and activities with religious connotations, both within small-scale South Scandinavian socio-cultural sett ings along the coast of Nordland and southern Troms, as well as in contact situations between these communities and eastern-oriented HFG communities. According to Hayden (1998: 12), one of the most important social roles for prestige items is to put individuals or families in debt or to establish reciprocal obligations. They thereby play a central role in strategies for constructing debt, social ties, wealth and power (i.e. Bourdieu 1996a; Mauss 2002 [1925]). The continued deposition of South Scandinavian objects along the northern coast throughout the end of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age could be seen as att empts to construct and maintain ties to the eastern-oriented HFGs, perhaps to secure peace and access to resources and areas. It seems the HFGs incorporated neither the practical nor the socio-economic technologies from South Scandinavia in their local communities of practice.

The sites where South Scandinavian object types have been found form clusters in certain coastal areas in Nordland and southernmost Troms, and these are maintained throughout the period under discussion. On a more micro-scale level, it has been suggested that the clusters have distinct topographical features in common, and that both rock carvings and ritual deposits lie close to small tracts of fertile and weather-sheltered agricultural land and at strategic points along the outer coast (Holberg 2000; Kaul and Rønne 2008). It seems that coastal Helgeland saw an intensifi cation of relations southwards along the coast in the Late Neolithic, c. 2200–1700 BC (Bakka 1976). This could be the result of a gradual integration of the local population into Bronze Age subsistence strategies, including agriculture, as well as ideology (Kaul and Rønne 2008). Although the empirical evidence is fragmentary, I believe it cannot be denied that the fi nd concentrations represent the expansion of small numbers of hunting-fi shing-farming immigrants from further south sometime around 2000 BC, bringing a whole ‘package’ of related technologies and particular skills in farming as well as ritual and cosmological practices into areas in which they may have previously invested in establishing social alliances as well as limited ritual and domestic sites. These investments are evident in the older Neolithic pieces found in the region. These farming communities were enclaves in a region where eastern-oriented HFGs were the majority. The dwelling inventory shows that the early farmers were also hunters and fi shers, probably with a particular reliance on marine resources, and thus

were potential competitors to the original local HFG communities. The lack of shared technologies and a boundary maintained through several millennia indicate that a stable situation was established, and that separate technologies were important in negotiating and maintaining diff erent identities. Although ‘hybrid’ contexts are found, such as a grave mound with both a fl int dagger and a polished slate point (Kaul and Rønne 2008: 26), the new technologies introduced to northern Norway from the third millennium BC onwards were unevenly distributed between two diff erent sets of communities of practice.

Conclusion: Europe or Beyond?In this paper, the inclusive northern Fennoscandian approach has been suspended to focus on the variety within the material from diff erent parts of northern Norway between c. 3000 and 900 BC. During this period of time, the HFGs in the region are in contact with at least two technologically discernable traditions. It is suggested that both traditions are brought to the region by individuals or small groups of immigrants. However, how they are given meaning in the new local context seems to differ quite radically. The mobile lifeways practiced in the north-eastern region facilitated the rapid distribution of new impulses, constituting an important dynamic force in the spread of technology. The eastern technologies were adopted by HFG groups or individuals from societies characterized by social stratifi cation, expansive warfare and catt le breeding, but it seems that apart from technology-inherent rituals/skills, the socio-cultural structures did not follow aft er. The archaeological material suggests instead that the eastern-oriented HFGs incorporated the new technologies within their communities of practice, reaffi rming regional and local identity through their participation in the north-eastern network. It seems that technological skills relating to the production of pott ery, bifacial points and possibly also cast bronzes came along with the new material culture. This would simultaneously have led the eastern-oriented HFG communities to technological independence from their eastern network partners. Perhaps this refl ects that the eastern metal-producing societies were very distant, and that the new technologies were brought by skilled individuals to the HFG communities in northernmost Norway through well-established interaction with closer HFG peers. These peer HFG societies formed a large buff er-zone between the expansive metal-producing societies in the Volga-Ural region and the HFG societies of northern Fennoscandia.


In contrast, the technologies related to the South Scandinavian objects found in concentrations along the coast of southernmost northern Norway are imported as fi nished objects inscribed with specifi c meaning, as indicated in the patt ern of their deposition. This suggests that the tools and implements represent new subsistence technologies and intertwined cosmological and ritual skills, probably in combination with a social structuration based on status diff erentiations. It seems that small enclaves along the coast were incorporated into the West-European Bronze Age society, and aft er the initial phase of colonisation the technological traditions were not spread further north or east. The southern-oriented hunter-fi sher-agriculture communities could probably be viewed as being part of the West European socio-cultural structure in the second millennium BC; they were small outliers of the western European Bronze Age society. The archaeological material suggests very limited technological exchange with their neighbouring Eurasian-oriented HFGs, indicating litt le interaction between these non-peer societies living with a small buff er zone between them in North Norway.

Notes1. All dates are calibrated.2. Medieval Finnmork had a much wider distribution than

present-day Finnmark It comprized the coastal as well as interior areas sett led by the Sámi, from Finnmark down to NorthTrøndelag, as well as interior Norway as far as Hedmark , South Norway.

AcknowledgementsI wish to thank Håkon Glørstad and Christopher Prescott for inviting me to contribute to this volume, and for their valuable to-the-point comments on my paper. I thank my colleagues in the ‘Early Networking in Northern Fennoscandia’ group situated at the Centre of Advanced Studies (CAS), Oslo 2008–2009, and invited discussants at our third seminar at Sem in April 2009, for constructive responses to the fi rst draft of this paper. Special thanks to Charlott e Damm, Mika Lavento, Bryan Hood and Christian Roll Valen for comments on a second version. I thank Bryan Hood for producing the maps, and Christian Roll Valen and Vitenskapsmuseet, University of Trondheim, for lett ing me use their photos in Figure 11.2. I am also very grateful to Torvald Falch and the rest of my family for making it practically possible for me to att end the CAS group during spring 2009.

ReferencesÅgotnes, A. 1986 Nordvestnorsk asbestkeramikk. Karform,

godsstruktur, utbredelse og datering. Arkeologiske skrift er fra Historisk Museum 3. Bergen.

Andreassen, D. M. 2002 Risvikkeramikk. En analyse av teknologisk stil på Nordkalotten i sein steinbrukende tid. MA thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø. Available at htt p://www.ub.uit.no/munin/handle/10037/87.

Arntzen, J. E. 2008 Fosfatanalyse som innfallsvinkel til forsking på tidlig jordbruk i Nord-Norge: et case study fra eldre til yngre jernalder på Skålbunes, Bodø kommune, Nordland. MA thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø. Available at htt p://www.ub.uit.no/munin/ handle/10037/1742.

Arntzen, J. E. 2010 Arkeologiske spor ett er jordbruk. In Den første gården i Nord-Norge. Tromura 39, edited by J. E. Arntzen and I. Sommerseth. pp. 109–126.Tromsø Museum, Tromsø.

Bakka, E. 1976 Arktisk og nordisk i bronsealderen i Nord-Skandinavia. Miscellanea 25. Trondheim.

Benonisen, V. 2005 Bosetningsmønstre i Lofoten i yngre steinalder og tidlig metalltid: en empirisk undersøkelse med utgangspunkt i hustuft ene. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Bergman, I. 1995 Från Döudden till Varghalsen. En studie av kontinuitet och förändring inom ett fångstsamhälle i övre Norrlands inland, 5200 f.Kr.–400 e.Kr. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 7, Umeå.

Binford, L. R. 1977 Fourty-seven trips. A case study in the character of archaeological formation processes. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 24–36. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Binford, L. R. 1979 Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3): 255–273.

Bourdieu, P. 1996a [1977] Om symbolsk makt. In Symbolsk makt, pp. 38–47. Norwegian edition. Pax forlag, Oslo. Originally published 1977, Annales 3: 405–411.

Carpelan, C. 1975 En översikt över den förhistoriska tiden i området kring Kemi älv. In Kemĳ oki 8000 – laxälv i norr, edited by J. A. Erä-Esko, pp. 1–81. Statens historiska Museum, Stockholm.

Carpelan, C. 1979 Om asbestkeramikens historia i Fennoskandien. Finsk Museum 1978: 5–25.

Carpelan, C. 2004 Environment, archaeology and radiocarbon dates. Notes from the Inari Region, Northern Finnish Lapland. Iskos 13: 17–45.

Chernykh, E. 2008 The ‘Steppe Belt’ of stockbreeding cultures in Eurasia during the Early Metal Age. Trabajos de Prehistoria 65(2): 73–93.

Damm, C. 2006 Interregional contacts across northern Fennoscandia 6000–4000 BC. In Peoples, Material Culture and Environment in the North. Proceedings of the 22nd Nordic Archaeological Conference, University of Oulu, 18–23 August 2004, edited by V. P. Herva, pp. 131–140. Studia humaniora ouluensia 1. Oulo.

Damm in press From entities to interaction in the Early Metal Age: replacing pots and people with networks of transmission. In Proceedings from the Linguistic map of prehistoric northern Europe symposium, Rakvere, Estonia, edited by R. Grünthal. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, Helsinki.

Dobres, M. A. and Hoff man, C. R. 1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(3): 211–258.


Engelstad E. 1988 Pit-houses in Arctic Norway. An investigation of their typology using multiple correspondence analysis. In Multivariate Archaeology. Numerical Approaches in Scandinavian Archaeology, edited by T. Madsen, pp. 71–84. Jutland Archaeological society publications 84. Århus.

Friesen, T. M. 1999 Resource structure, scalar stress, and the development of Inuit social organization. World Archaeology 31(1): 21–37.

Furset, O. J. 1995 Fangstgroper og ildsteder i Kautokeino kommune. Rapport fra forskningsutgravning 24. jul–3. september 1994. Stensilserie B 37. Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Furset, O. J. 1996 Fangstgroper i Karasjok kommune. Rapport fra forskningsutgravning 3. juli–4. august 1994. Stensilserie B 39. Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Gjessing, G. 1935 Fra steinalder til jernalder i Finnmark. Etnologiske problemer. Institutt for Sammenlignende kulturforskning, C, 3: 3.

Gjessing, G. 1942 Yngre steinalder i Nord-Norge. Institutt for Sammenlignende kulturforskning B, 24. Oslo.

Halinen, P. 2005 Prehistoric hunters of northernmost Lapland. Iskos 14: 1–222.

Hayden, B. 1998 Practical and prestige technologies: the evolution of material systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(1): 1–55.

Helskog, E. T. 1983 The Iversfj ord Locality. A Study of Behavioural Patt erning During the Late Stone Age of Finnmark, North Norway. Tromsø Museums Skrift er 19. University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Helskog, K. 1980 The chronology of the younger Stone Age in Varanger, North Norway, revisited. Norwegian Archaeological Review 13: 47–54.

Helskog, K. 1984 The younger Stone Age sett lements in Varanger, North Norway. Acta Borealia 1: 39–69.

Hesjedal, A., C. Damm, B. Olsen and I. Storli 1996 Arkeologi på Slett nes: dokumentasjon av 11.000 års bosetning. Tromsø Museums Skrift er 26. University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Hood, B. 1992 Prehistoric Foragers of the North Atlantic: Perspectives on Lithic Procurement and Social Complexity in the North Norwegian Stone Age and the Labrador Maritime Archaic. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusett s, Amherst.

Hood, B. C. and Helama, S. 2010 Karlebotnbakken Reloaded. Shift ing the Chronological Signifi cance of an Iconic Late Stone Age Site in Varangerfj ord, North Norway. Fennoscandia archaeologica Vol. 27, pp. 35–43.

Hood, B. and Olsen, B. 1988 Virdnejávre 112. A Late Stone Age–Early Metal Period site in interior Finnmark, North-Norway. Acta Archaeologica 58: 105–125.

Holberg, E. 2000 Klokkebegerkulturens symboler. Senneolitikum i Rogaland og Nordland sør for Polarsirkelen. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen.

Hultgreen, T. 1988 Yngre steinalder i Rana. En analyse av kyst og innlandsbosetninga mellom 4000–2000 BC. Unpublished Magister thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Hultgreen, T. 1989 Stiurhelleren – en boplass fra den tidligste jordbruksfasen i Nord-Norge. In Framskritt for fortida i nord. I Povl Simonsens fotefar, edited by R. Bertelsen, P. K. Reymert and A. Utne, pp. 115–122. Tromsø Museums Skrift er XXII. University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Hultgreen, T., Johansen, O. S. and Lie, R. W. 1985 Stiurhelleren i Rana. Dokumentasjon av korn, husdyr og sild i yngre steinalder. Viking XLVIII: 83–102.

Høeg, H. I. 2000 Pollenanalytiske undersøkelser i Finnmark, Nord-Norge. AmS-Varia 37: 53–97.

Høeg, H. I. and Skandfer, M. in prep Pasvikdalens eldre kulturhistorie belyst ved arkeologiske og pollenanalytiske undersøkelser.

Ingold, T. 1993 The temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25(2): 152–174.

Johansen, H. 1998 Fra yngre steinalder til tidlig metalltid i Finnmark: en kritisk diskusjon av tolkninger og begreper med utgangspunkt i hustuft ene. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Johansen, O. S. 1976 På spor etter det eldste jordbruket i Nord-Norge – II. Hva kan oldfunnene fortelle? Ottar 89: 19–24.

Johansen, O. S. 1979 Early farming north of the Arctic Circle. Norwegian Archaeological Review 12(1): 22–32.

Johansen, O. S. 1982 Det eldste jordbruket i Nord-Norge. En arkeologisk oversikt. In Introduksjonen av jordbruk i Norden. Foredrag holdt ved fellesnordisk symposium i Oslo april 1980, edited by T. Sjøvold, pp. 195–208. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi, Oslo.

Johansen, O. S. 1990 Synspunkter på jernalderens jordbrukssamfunn i Nord-Norge. Stensilserie B 29. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Johansen, O. S. and Vorren, K. D. 1986 The Prehistoric Expansion of Farming in to “Arctic” Norway: A Chronology Based on 14C dating. Radiocarbon 28(2A): 739–747.

Jørgensen, R. 1986 The Early Metal Age in Nordland and Troms. Acta Borealia 2: 61–87.

Jørgensen, R. 1989 Criteria for dating prehistoric graves – Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age? Acta Borealia 6: 28–41.

Jørgensen, R. and Olsen, B. 1988 Asbestkeramiske grupper i Nord-Norge. Tromura Kulturhistorie 13, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Kaul, F. and Rønne, P. 2008 Ved den ytt erste grense? Spor 2 (2008): 24–27.

Klaussen, M. 2008 Strategisk villreinfangst i Troms. En analyse av fangstgropanlegg og deres beliggenhet, oppbygging og bruk. MA thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø. Available at htt p://www.ub.uit.no/munin/handle/10037/1760.

Koryakova, L. N. and Epimakhov, A. V. 2007 The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron ages. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kotivuori, H. n.d. Age of Iron. Available at htt p://www.barentsinfo.org/?deptid=15153

Kuzmina, E. 2000 The Eurasian Steppes: the transition from early urbanism to nomadism. In Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Sett lements. Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age, edited by J. Davis-Kimball, E. M. Murphy, L. Koryakova and L. T. Yablonsky, pp. 118–125. BAR International Series 890. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Lavento, M. 2001 Textile Ceramics in Finland and on the Karelian Isthmus. Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja 9, Helsinki.

Lemonniere, P. 1989 Bark capes, arrowheads and concorde: on social representations of technology. In The Meaning of Things. Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 156–171. Harper Collins, London.


Lind, K. E. 2000 Det europeiske fellesskapet før EU: fra Roma til Nord-Norge i mellomalderen. Ott ar 229: 42–47.

Lind, K. 2001 The European Community before the EU. From Rome to the Arctic in the Middle Ages. In IV European Symposium for Teachers of Medieval Archaeology, edited by M. Valor and M. A. Carmona, pp. 85–98. Universidad de Sevilla – Universidad de Cordoba, Sevilla and Cordoba.

Mauss, M. 2002 [1923–24] The gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. English edition. Routledge, London. Originally published 1925, Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques, L’Année Sociologique.

Meinander, C. F. 1954 Die Kiukaiskultur. Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja 53. Helsinki.

Munch, J. S. 1962 Boplasser med asbest-keramikk på Helgelandskysten. Acta Borealia 7: 1–46.

Myrvoll, E. 1992 Stil og samfunn. En analyse av materiell symbolisme og sosiale relasjoner i Varanger 2200 f.Kr.–Kr.f. Unpublished Magister thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Olsen, B. 1984 Stabilitet og endring. Produksjon og samfunn i Varanger 800 f.Kr.–1700 e.Kr. Unpublished Magister thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Olsen, B. 1994 Bosett ing og samfunn i Finnmarks forhistorie. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Prescott , C. 1991 Kulturhistoriske undersøkelser i Skrivarhelleren. Arkeologiske rapporter 14. Historical Museum, University of Bergen, Bergen.

Ramstad, M. 2006 Perler og mennesker 4000 f.Kr. Om miljøet rundt ravfunnene fra Finnmarks steinalder. In Samfunn, symboler og identitet – Festskrift til Gro Mandt på 70-årsdagen, edited by R. Barndon, S. M. Innselset, K. K. Kristoff ersen and T. K. Lødøen. Universitetet i Bergen Arkeologiske Skrift er 3, pp. 129–146. University of Bergen, Bergen.

Renouf, M. A. P. 1988 Sedentary coastal hunter-fi shers: an example from the younger Stone Age of northern Norway. In The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 102–115. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renouf, M. A. P. 1989 Prehistoric Hunter-Fishers of Varangerfj ord, Northeastern Norway. BAR International Series 487. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Roscoe, P. 2000 New Guinea leadership as ethnographic analogy: a critical review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(2): 79–126.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 1983 Kommentar til T. Sjøvold (red. av) Introduksjonen av jordbruk i Norden, og M. Zwelebil (red. av) From Forager to Farmer in the Boreal Zone. Journal of Danish Archaeology 2: 205–209.

Sackett , J. 1982 Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 59–112.

Sackett , J. 1985 Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari: a reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity 50(1): 154–166.

Sackett , J. 1990 Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochrestism. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M. W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 32–43. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sahlins, M. D. 1963 Poor man, rich man, big-man, chief: Political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5: 285–303.

Schanche, K. 1988 Mortensnes: En boplass i Varanger. En studie av samfunn og materiell kultur gjennom 10.000 år. Unpublished Magister thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Schanche, K. 1989 Nye funn fra yngre steinalder i Varanger. Viking 52: 53–71.

Schanche, K. 1994 Hus og samfunn i Varanger omkring 2000 f.Kr. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Shishlina, A., Golikov, V. P. and Orfi nskaya, O. V. 2000 Bronze Age textiles of the Caspian Sea maritime steppes. In Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Sett lements. Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age, edited by J. Davis-Kimball, E. M. Murphy, L. Koryakova and L. Y. Yablonsky, pp. 109–117. BAR International Series 890. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Simonsen, P. 1963 Varanger-funnene III. Fund og udgravninger i Pasvikdalen og ved den østlige fj ordstrand. Tromsø Museums Skrift er 7:3. Universitetsforlaget, Tromsø/Oslo.

Simonsen, P. 1975 Veidemenn på Nordkalott en 2. Tromsø Museum, University of Tromsø. Tromsø.

Skandfer, M. 2005 Early, northern Comb Ware in Finnmark: The concept of Säräisniemi 1 reconsidered. Fennoscandia Archaeologica XXII: 3–27.

Skandfer, M. 2009a ‘All change?’ Exploring the role of technological choice in the Early Northern Comb Ware of Finnmark, Arctic Norway. In Origins of Ceramics and Hunter Gatherers of Northern Eurasia, edited by P. Jordan and M. Zvelebil, pp. 347–374. Left Coast Press, London.

Skandfer, M. 2009b History as if Neolithisation matt ered: the transition to tounger Stone Age in northern Fennoscandia. In Neolithisation as if History Matt ered. Processes of Neolithisation in North-Western Europe, edited by H. Glørstad and C. Prescott , pp. 85–103. Bricoleur Press, Lindome.

Skandfer, M. 2009c Ethics in the landscape: Prehistoric archaeology and local Sámi knowledge in interior Finnmark, northern Norway. Arctic Anthropology 46: 89–102.

Skandfer, M. n.d. Change and recollection: House structures and social identity in Finnmark 2000 BC–AD 300. In Networks, Interaction and Emerging Identities in Fennoscandia and Beyond, edited by C. Damm and J. Saarikivi. Mémoires de la Societé Finno-Ugrienne, the Finno-Ugrian Society, Helsinki.

Skandfer, M. and Bruun, I. 2006 De eldste husene i Pasvik. Varanger årbok 2006: 106–117. Sør-Varanger historielag, Vadsø historielag, Vardø historielag, Kirkenes, Vadsø, Vardø.

Sommerseth, I. 1997 Tidlige skifergjenstander på Slett nes. Problemer omkring typologi, kronologi og fortidig mangfold. Stensilserie B 53. Published MA thesis, Institute of Archaeology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Sulimirski, T. 1970 Prehistoric Russia: An Outline. J. Baker, London.

Sundquist, Ø. 2000 Funksjon, relasjon, symbol. Kjelmøykeramikk og tidlig jernbruk i Finnmark. Tromura, Tromsø Museums rapportserie 32. University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Tveraabak, L. U. 2004 Lowland Calluna Heath Vegetation Along the Coast of North Trøndelag and Nordland, Norway: Present State, Development and Changes During the last 4–5000 years. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Utne, A. 1973 En veidekulturs-boplass i Lofoten. Storbåthallaren ved Nappstraumen. Unpublished Magister thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Utne, A. 1989 Bosetning i huler og hellere. In Framskritt for fortida i nord. I Povl Simonsens fotefar, edited by R. Bertelsen, P. K. Reymert and A. Utne, pp. 105–113. Tromsø Museums Skrift er XXII. University of Tromsø, Tromsø.


Valen, C. R. 2007 Jordbruksimpulser i neolitikum og bronsealder i Nord-Norge? En revisjon av det arkeologiske gjenstandsmaterialet og de naturvitenskapelige undersøkelsene. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Vorren, K. D. 1973 Myra forteller historie. Årbok for Senja 1973: 27–32.

Vorren K. D. 1976 På spor ett er det eldste jordbruk i Nord-Norge, 1, Hva kan botanisk forskning fortelle? På sporet ett er fortidens mennesker i Nord-Norge. Ott ar 33: 13–18.

Vorren, K. D. 1979 Anthropogenic infl uence on the natural vegetation in coastal North Norway. Development of

farming and pastures. Norwegian Archaeological Review 12(1): 1–22.

Vorren, K. D. and Nilssen, E. 1982 Det eldste jordbruk i Nord-Norge: en palaeoøkologisk oversikt. In Introduksjonen av jordbruk i Norden: foredrag holdt ved fellesnordisk symposium i Oslo april l980, edited by T. Sjøvold, pp. 173–193. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi, Oslo.

Wenger, E. 1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

12Cultural reproduction from Late Stone Age to Early

Metal Age – a short discussion of the cultures in Finland, the northern part of Fennoscandia and

Karelia, 3200 cal. BC to 1500 cal. BC

Mika Lavento

IntroductionThe large area from Central Sweden to Russian Karelia and up to the White Sea has traditionally been approached archaeologically in reference to the ceramics. Most archaeologically defi ned periods have been presented with ceramics as the starting point. It follows that evidence uncovered by archaeologists has been expressed in terms of ‘cultures’, and that these cultural entities have been equated with large populations or population complexes. The emergence of ceramic groups has been interpreted both as the result of changes in local traditions and as waves from abroad that heavily infl uenced local populations. Moreover, a commonly adopted and important explanation for ‘cultural’ change has been connected to the variation in climate. Through the concept of culture, prehistory has been structured into ‘blocks’ which are simple to handle for researchers but remain based on the assumption that ceramic groups are more or less equivalent to the whole cultural and social life of humans.

The cultures defi ned through ceramic typologies have mostly very large geographic distributions and they lasted for various, but usually long, chronological spans. In practice, these archaeological cultures are artifi cial constructions made by the archaeologists and thus not easily comparable with each other. Therefore, more contemporary research has focused on identifying local bands or other groups and populations that lived in their geographically limited territories, in more or less active contact with others.

This perspective allows us to see prehistory in a more detailed way – comparable to the perspective assumed by the ethnographers or anthropologists (for example Itkonen 1948; Tanner 1929) who recorded the hunter-gatherers of the late nineteenth century in Lapland.

The more local perspectives have been supported by increased chronological as well as geographical insights into the distribution of diff erent ceramic groups. New Archaeology aff ected the methodology of dating, e.g. 14C-dates were connected with the shoreline displacement chronology. Concurrent with improved dating methods, pott ery typologies have also become increasingly detailed. As a consequence, it is feasible to focus on the local level of analysis.

The Late Neolithic in eastern and northern Europe was a complex of variable cultures. From the Late Neolithic onwards, the complexity of cultures increased at an intensifi ed pace. The discussion in my article begins from around 3200 BC, because several important changes are approximately dated to this time horizon in Northern Fennoscandia.

Corded Ware ceramics and the Batt le Axe Culture The geographical distribution of the Corded Ware is large. Thus, what archaeologists have conceptualised as the Corded Ware Culture is likely an aggregate of several smaller groups integrated through networks of varying intensity and duration. The Batt le Axe

12. Cultural reproduction from Late Stone Age to Early Metal Age 145

Culture in Finland can be identifi ed as one of the small groups in the Corded Ware Complex. On the basis of shoreline displacement chronology, Aarne Äyräpää (1952) divided the Corded Ware axes in Finland into two main groups, including fi ve subtypes together. The scheme is considered valid even today. Torsten Edgren has further refi ned the Corded Ware ceramic typology by separating nine ceramic types (Edgren 1970: 19).

Around 3200 BC, several changes appear in Northern Fennoscandia. The Batt le Axe culture is assumed to emerge in the Baltic countries already at this time (Carpelan 2002: 22; Lang 1998; Loze 1979, 1992). The early dating of the process is at odds with the accepted chronology of southern Scandinavia, where the process did not begin before 2800 cal. BC (Malmer 2002). The Finnish data available so far, however, supports an early dating of the Batt le Axe Culture.

The diverging nature of the Batt le Axe Culture in relation to previous traditions was observed at an early stage of archaeological research (Europaeus 1922; Pälsi 1915), and does not refl ect continuity from any earlier indigenous tradition. Virtually nothing from the Batt le Axe Culture can be unequivocally related to earlier habitation sites or sett lement patt erns. On the contrary: ceramics, stone implements, agriculture, the location of sites and even certain raw materials indicate a defi nite change. Researchers in Finland, Russia and in the Baltic countries found it imperative to postulate the hypotheses that there were immigrants, i.e. invading groups who arrived to the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea from the south. In Finland the traditional assumption was that the expansive groups who took new lands arrived from across the Gulf of Finland with their own pott ery tradition, the Corded Ware ceramics. In the coastal zone of Finland, remains of burials of the Batt le Axe culture are known and a few sett lement sites have also been excavated. Finnish researchers have assumed, on the basis of 14C dating of some graves, that the Batt le Axe groups reached the coastal zone of Finland as well as the coast of the Karelian Isthmus almost synchronously (Carpelan 2004). In the interior, however, the infl uence of Batt le Axe groups was almost non-existent. Contacts between Batt le Axe groups were vigorous across the Baltic Sea (Edgren 1970) (Figure 12.1).

In Finland, the northern border of the Batt le Age culture was fi rmly given a location in Kauhava, in central Ostrobothnia (Äyräpää 1952: 5–6) despite contradicting evidence. The argument for this delimitation of the Battle Axe groups is that the northernmost Corded Ware ceramic vessel was found there. Nevertheless, imitations of Batt le Axes are also known north of Kauhava.

Christian Carpelan has recently argued out that the Batt le Axe culture did not have such a rigid border, as a single sherd of Corded Ware ceramics was found by the River Kemĳ oki in Rovaniemi, southern Lapland (Carpelan 2004: 19–20). It has been assumed that later, immediately aft er c. 2800 cal. BC, a separate infl uence was present on the western side of the Bothnian Gulf in Norrland (see Baudou 1995). Carpelan has further suggested that c. 2500 cal. BC the direction of the infl uence may have changed. He states that in Lapland infl uence came from the south (today’s Finland) between 2500–2300 cal. BC, but aft er this period connections with the Scandinavian Bronze Axe culture are visible (Carpelan 2004: 59–60). Condensing Carpelan’s argument, we can say that the fi rst and early wave of Corded Ware populations reached the southern part of Lapland from Finland, but in the later phase the waves came there through Norrland. Äyräpää suggested (1973: 207) that the Corded Ware had contacts to the groups who lived in the area to the north and east of the River Oulujoki. In the light of recent chronologies, the fi rst wave – the fi rst visitors from the Batt le Axe culture – may have arrived almost synchronously with infl uence from Estonia, c. 3200 cal. BC. This wave may have reached the northern areas, too.

According to Carpelan (2004: 19), a second wave took place c. 2500–2300 cal. BC, but this infl ux had its origin in Norrland. Although there perhaps was a border of the Finnish Corded Ware along the water course of the River Oulujoki, the western infl uence came from Scandinavia and it also reached northern Norway (Olsen 1994) as well as the Kola Peninsula (Gurina 1997: 152). It clearly indicates that some kind of batt le axes were spread and made outside of the sett lement area of the Batt le Axe population.

Aarne Europaeus (later Äyräpää, Europaeus 1922: 103–109, 1952) divided the Finnish batt le axes into two main types. It proved to be very challenging for Äyräpää to compare batt le axes from diff erent areas. This is refl ected in his dissertation (Äyräpää 1933) which includes but a single map. Mats P. Malmer (1962) separated the subtypes of batt le axes in southern Sweden. In Norrland, the period has been discussed in the Norrland region, too, by e.g. (Baudou 1995). A few archaeologists in northern Norway (e.g. Olsen 1994) and Russia (e.g. Gurina 1997; Žul’nikov 1999) have dealt with the theme as well. One evident problem is that Batt le Axe culture is only poorly known in the northern region. Still, it remains essential that the infl uence of the culture was refl ected in this region, although aft er these basic works, litt le empirically-based typological research has been published in Fennoscandia. One of the few exceptions is the division

Mika Lavento146

of axe types suggested by Christian Carpelan (2004), on the basis of which the northernmost border of the Corded Ware culture in Finland is suggested.

Animal husbandry and agriculture in the Batt le Axe CultureThe first experiments with cultivation may have taken place in the second half of the third millennium BC and at the turn of the second millennium BC (Mökkönen 2011. This phenomenon is visible in the archaeological material in Finland, though not very clearly. The most reliable evidence has been recorded by the paleobidogists in Finland and the northern part of Fennoscandia, both in pollen profi les and in macrofossils (see Vuorela 1999; Vuorela and

Lempiänen 1988). As for crop cultivation, the most indisputable archaeological implication is grind stones. According to Äyräpää, they were known from several Batt le Axe sites. Although his interpretation concerning the change of economy was widely accepted among Finnish archaeologists, his observations concerning the find contexts of the grind stones have been questioned later. Only a few of them have come from undisturbed contexts. In addition, some of those from clear contexts have a connection with a later cultural phase, the Kiukainen culture, which succeeded the Corded Ware phase in the coastal zone c. 2300–1600 cal. BC (Edgren 1970: 55). Direct archaeological evidence of agriculture as a means of subsistence in the Batt le Axe culture is lacking in Finland. Nevertheless, in the light of all-European development, it is likely that the

Figure 12.1: Batt le Axe culture and the Late Neolithic Asbestos Ware cultures in Finland, nothern Fennoscandia and the Karelian Isthmus.


domestication of catt le and cultivation of barley was part of the economy at least in the end of the third millennium BC at the sites in Finland.

So far, no acceptable corresponding data has been discovered in Karelia or on the Kola Peninsula which means that the question of the earliest cultivation on the Karelian Isthmus is an open question. Today the most convincing hypothesis is that cultivation was adopted by the hunter-and-fi sher populations as a result of the contacts they had with southern and western coastal populations. It is likely that the populations whose culture belonged to a later phase of the Corded Ware played an active role in the spread of agriculture in large areas.

Climatic changes are frequently considered important to explanations of ‘cultural’ change. For instance, in Finnish archaeology the history of Corded Ware groups has often been tied to the climate and its fl uctuations (Äyräpää 1939). Thus the long discussions among the Finnish archaeologists about the role of agriculture are commonly associated with the changes of the temperature in a marginal area (Edgren 1999). Throughout the Late Neolithic, northern Fennoscandia and Karelia were inhabited by hunters and fi shers. Cultivation played only a marginal role in the economy. Hence, the ‘Neolithic’ is a period when pott ery was made but agriculture not widely practiced. It seems that the introduction of early agriculture and the introduction of metal were accepted from several directions and via several contact networks almost simultaneously.

The striking technological novelties, agriculture and animal husbandry, were connected with Batt le Axe populations in the debate by Aarne Äyräpää (1939: 120–122). He contended that environmental conditions were favourable in the zone that was occupied by Batt le Axe groups. Äyräpää argued that Batt le Axe sites could be found only on the warmer, maritime side of the January –8°C isotherm (Äyräpää 1955: 195–196).

Based on Äyräpää’s and, later, Edgren’s (1970; comp. Edgren 1999) arguments, Finnish researchers agree that the new Streitaxtkultur population sett led in the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea with an agro-pastoral economy that diff ered considerably from the indigenous groups there. Battle Axe groups are often considered as superior to hunters and fi shers, a relationship refl ected, e.g., in that the Central European batt le axes of metal were copied in stone in the North. On a local level, the Batt le Axe sites known to Äyräpää were all located in places which diff ered from those inhabited by the indigenous population earlier. The Batt le Axe sites are not as shore-bound as those of hunter-fi sher groups. Instead, Batt le Axe groups chose locations that allowed animal husbandry.

The surrounding cultures of the Corded Ware

The Finnish Corded Ware complex and the development in Russia Äyräpää’s (1933) dissertation integrated the Finnish Corded Ware in a larger geographical context. He saw the Corded Ware as a complicated phase in the prehistory of Russia. Large Neolithic cultures like the Comb Ware had been defi ned in the Finno-Ugrian regions of Russia and Fennoscandia. Here, the same kind of ceramics had been recognizable in areas far away from each other and it had been possible to compare relatively similar material in diff erent regions. But for Äyräpää (1933), the Corded Ware did not represent a material category that would readily allow comparisons. It was a complex of numerous types of ceramics that could not be confi dently linked with each other geographically or typologically. Despite diffi culties, Äyräpää was able to argue that the Batt le Axe culture was relatively late in Russia. It could be connected fi rst of all with the Fatyanovo and Middle-Dnepr cultures, the infl uence of which can be traced in Poland and the Baltic countries, and fi nally, in Finland (Äyräpää 1933: 149–154).

More or less contemporary with the early phase of the Baltic Batt le Axe Culture was the Volosovo culture in the Volga-Oka region, the beginning of which dates roughly between 3600–2500 cal. BC. It was followed by the Fatyanovo culture developed in SW Russia (Krajnov 1992) approximately 2500–1900 cal. BC. Its infl uence spread widely in the eastern area of distribution of the Corded Ware. The infl uence is also traceable in Finland. Although Fatyanovo culture was a kind of hybrid of the late Batt le Axe culture, the former is still separated from the latt er. The connections between populations producing Corded Ware and those making late Fatyanovo ceramics may have taken place in Karelia, or in particular, in the region on eastern side of Karelia (Kosmenko 1996). As of c. 1500 cal. BC there were large-scale network systems from the basins of River Dnepr and River Desna leading up to the north. In addition to the ceramics, the batt le axes would probably yield important information, too (Carpelan and Parpola 2001; Krajnov 1992). There are interesting connections between them and the cultures in northern Fennoscandia that can be elucidated in future studies.

The Corded Ware reached the coastal area of the Karelian Isthmus but has not been found in the northern part of it, in the area of the Karelian republic where the infl uence of late Volosovo culture may have dominated. The Balanovo culture developed in the Middle Volga region, between River Oka and River Kama.

Mika Lavento148

Pyheensilta ceramicsIn the Finnish archaeological material, a local Late Stone Age development is visible in Pyheensilta ceramics (c. 3200–2800 cal. BC), mostly found on the eastern coastal zone of the Baltic Sea. The eponymous site is located in the municipality of Mynämäki, in SW Finland. This type of ceramics has been termed ‘the fourth [and last] phase of Comb Ceramics’ (Meinander 1940) and its vessels are a kind of hybrid of characteristic Comb Ware pott ery.

The Pyheensilta phase is partly simultaneous with the late phase of ‘proper’ Comb Ware (phase III, c. 3500–2800 cal. BC), but the Pyheensilta vessels may refl ect even wider geographical contacts. It has sometimes been suggested that an eastern infl uence can be observed in the Pyheensilta ceramics from as far east as the region of Middle Volga (Chalikov 1986; Vikkula 1988), though it is also a matt er of discussion whether the Pyheensilta Ware did spread in the inland. All in all, it is a very complicated group (Vikkula 1988) with a need for further research. These ceramics were not taken into consideration in Äyräpää’s models. According to him they could be considered a kind of “additional” group within the Comb Ware. He never fundamentally discussed the ceramics, though he originally identifi ed it as a period (Luho 1948). However, Pyheensilta ceramics existed in the areas sett led by Batt le Axe populations along the coast. This crossing infl uenced the typology of the Batt le Axe ceramics so much that material characteristics from both east and west are included in the defi nitions now. In addition, the relationships may have existed to west (Sweden) and east (Russia) during its period of use.

Aft er the Corded Ware Culture

Kiukainen culture in Finland: the end of Batt le Axe cultureIn the south-western coastal zone of Finland, the Kiukainen culture was a kind of hybrid of the Corded Ware and a local tradition. It has fi rst and foremost been seen as a group which developed locally in the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea in Finland. As far as we know today it dates to c. 2300–1600 cal. BC (Carpelan 1999). The picture of the Kiukainen culture was developed by several researchers (Ailio 1909; Europaeus 1922). C. F. Meinander (1954a) defi ned a few decisive att ributes to distinguish the Kiukainen

phase both chronologically and geographically (Figure 12.2).

The Kiukainen culture can be interpreted as a hunter-gatherer group mainly separated from the Corded Ware by the ceramics, as well as by some stone implements. Kiukainen sett lements are found in approximately the same coastal zone as the preceding Batt le Axe populations, but Kiukainen sites are not found at the same kind of locations as those of the Batt le Axe culture. Dwellings were again situated on by the marine and inland lake shorelines – as had been the case for previous hunter and fi sher groups. Though many characteristics of the material culture of the Batt le Axe culture disappeared, several other characteristics of the Batt le Axe phase prevailed during the Kiukainen culture.

During the Batt le Axe culture, the societies had their roots in the west and south and the social network was largely directed towards a large area here. The Kiukainen population’s interaction was largely focused on an internal, regional network though it had some connections with populations on the western and southern coasts of the Baltic Sea. The evidence for western and southern infl uence is scanty, and communication is primarily visible on the basis of imported southern Scandinavian fl int. Infl uence also came from Estonia, and was related to the Late Corded Ware there. This is observable in the Kiukainen ceramics as well as in the ceramics in the southern part of the inland in Finland. It is also important to note what happened to the social characteristics in these societies. Although the traditional assumption (Meinander 1954a) was that agriculture did not belong to the Kiukainen phase, we now know that agriculture was practised by the Kiukainen populations. It thus follows that researchers now consider Finland to be the northern border zone of an extensive, Neolithic-agricultural-tradition. Cultivation and animal husbandry continued, and was expanded and intensifi ed among the Kiukainen population. It now seems understandable that in Finland, and otherwise in the interior of Fennoscandia, the closer to the beginning of the Early Metal Age we are, the fewer sett lements related to hunter-fi shers are found. This indicates a demographic decline in the hunting and fi shing populations of Fennoscandia and northwest Russia by Late Neolithic times. The phenomenon has been observed and recently reported in all the involved countries, though with some variations (Kosmenko 1996, 2006; Lavento 2001; Norberg 2008; Okkonen 2003; Tallavaara et al. 2009).


The development in Russia at the end of the NeolithicAt the end of the Neolithic, around 1900 cal. BC the Pozndyakovo culture began in the southern part of the Upper Volga region. The Middle Volga was sett led by the Abashevo culture (Bader and Popova 1987). Along the southwest part of the River Oka developed the Textile pott ery groups (Carpelan 1999). The emergence of Textile ceramics as well as the Seima phenomenon represented the spread of tremendous new cultural impulses in the whole of European Russia and in northern Fennoscandia. The network system is one of the largest found in the archaeological material in this region during the second millennium BC. The

infl uence proceeded from the Middle Volga region towards the west. This can be observed through the ceramics and the early bronze artefacts made of raw materials from sources in the Ural Mountains.

It is not easy to explain why and how the Seima phenomenon developed and functioned. It has oft en been explained with reference to metal prospectors or small, but aggressive groups of men who destroyed local groups. The ensuing social and cultural upheaval thoroughly changed the cultural expression later found by archaeologists. The key phase of its infl uence dates between 1600–1400 cal. BC, followed by a phase when local cultures are again more visible in the archaeological material (Chernykh and Kuzminykh 1987).

Figure 12.2: Kiukainen culture, Middle-Zone region and the Late Neolithic Asbestos Ware cultures in Finland, nothern Fennoscandia and the Karelian Isthmus.

Mika Lavento150

Asbestos Ware and Textile Pott eryNeolithic Asbestos ceramics can be identifi ed as a separate entity within the material from inland Finland and Karelia in Russia. In Russia, fi ve types of Neolithic Asbestos Ware have been separated (Žhul’nikov 1991). In Finland, there are three Late Neolithic ceramic types which are called Kierikki, Pöljä, and Jysmä (Lavento and Hornytzkyj 1996; Meinander 1954b; Siiriäinen 1967). The production of Asbestos Ware started concurrently with the expansion of the later subtype of the Early Comb Ware in the inland. In practice, although the Late Comb Ware and the Pyheensilta types (Vikkula 1988) continued their existence in the coastal zone, Asbestos Ware came into ever more use (Carpelan 1999). In the inland, the new pott ery tradition was Asbestos Wares, and these can be divided into several sub-groups from c. 3100 to 1900 cal. BC. The populations who made Neolithic Asbestos Ware naturally concentrated on environments where asbestos minerals were available. Such an area continues from southern Finland to Karelia during the Neolithic but it does not cover Lapland.

In the inland, the asbestos- and organic-tempered types of ceramics played a central role, and were a natural part of lively contact networks throughout a vast area in the east (Figure 12.3) although asbestos minerals were available mostly in northern Scandinavia and Karelia. Although asbestos was the prevailing temper, diff erent kinds of organic temper were also used in the Late Neolithic ceramics.

Already in the Late Neolithic, sources of the valuable raw material, asbestos, provided good conditions for trade from the Lake Saimaa district to all directions, Karelia included. The most important sources of material were in the centre of the region, in the northern part of Lake Saimaa drainage. It was possible to fi nd raw asbestos in Finnish Lapland or Norway, but for some reason these sources were not exploited until the Early Metal Age. Because the relatively small region in the northern part of Lake Saimaa exhibits large dwelling sites with dwelling depressions, it is reasonable to assert that a centre developed here, and this may have had considerable impact on groups throughout large areas. The asbestos sources of this area were needed throughout the region and the asbestos was distributed through a network between the groups. The process is worth discussing because such a network may have implied a system of social relations with other important meanings and implications. Aft er the asbestos network’s peak the populations in the distribution area virtually disappeared at the beginning of the second millennium BC.

A new cultural stream in the inland began with the large scale phenomenon of the eastern Textile ceramics.

On the coast and some parts of southwest Finland, Textile-impressed ceramics emerged c. 2200 cal. BC. In southern and middle Finland up to the River Kemĳ oki, the prevailing ceramic type was Textile pott ery. In the area to the north of Arctic Circle ceramics did not come into use until c. 1900 cal. BC. In southern and northern Lapland the prevailing ceramic types were Lovozero Ware and soon aft er this the Imitated Textile ceramics, followed by more local types of asbestos-tempered Ware. The earlier textile-impressed ceramics which emerged during the fi nal phase of the Corded Ware in the Baltic countries (Kriiska et al. 2005) represented the fi rst fl ow of infl uence from south towards north. In Finland, this period has been interpreted as a phase of development of the Kiukainen ceramics (Meinander 1954a) and the emergence of an intermediate ceramic zone in the south-western

Figure 12.3: The asbestos centres in Finland and the distribution area of the raw material.


part of inland Finland (Carpelan 1979) at the turn of third to second millennium BC. Kiukainen ceramics can be considered to be a type that preceded the ‘proper’ Textile ceramics, as the surface of the ceramic fragments exhibits textile-impressions. Textile ceramics are found throughout an extensive area in the Baltic countries, Russia, Finland and northern Scandinavia aft er c. 1800 cal. BC. Although the textile-impression is only a technological feature, it implies a considerable cultural and social impact of the connection to the east (Lavento 2001).

In the fi nal phase of the Neolithic, changes can also be defi ned on the basis of quartzite as a raw material and some characteristic implements made of it. The use of this raw material began already before 2000 BC (Holm 1991). The distribution of quartzite can, however, not be readily used to draw cultural borders. The use of quartzite is very widespread and exceeds the distribution of the diff erent types of Asbestos Ware in Finland and Karelia. The same technology was used to produce quartzite arrowheads over a very large territory. Still, bifacial quartzite points with straight bases are a very characteristic fi nd type, recognizable in almost all cases either by the form or by bifacial striking technology in the north.

Bronze Age and Early Metal Age Copper was known during the Late Neolithic but the fi rst bronze implements were brought via the Seima network aft er c. 1700 cal. BC. Around 1500 cal. BC the Bronze Age was established on the coast of Finland. In recent discussions concerning early metal objects, it is argued that copper objects in the inland should be att ributed to the Late Neolithic or Eneolithic. So far, only two cold-hammered copper objects are known, the copper adze from Kukkosaari in Suomussalmi in Kainuu district (Huurre 1984) and the copper ring from the Sola site in Polvĳ ärvi, eastern Finland (Taavitsainen 1982). Both fi nds were made in eastern Finland close to watersheds where rivers run either to the Baltic Sea or to Lake Onega in Russia. The number of copper fragments is higher, as at least thirteen copper fi nds have been uncovered in Stone Age contexts, mostly from sett lements. Their cultural connections are related to either the Comb Ware or the Asbestos Ware or later ceramic types (for details see e.g. Lavento 2001: 119–120). In northern Norway from Trondheim, in Norrland in Sweden as well as all over Karelia and on the Kola Peninsula, metallurgy developed as a result of continued eastern infl uence, originating in regions from around the Upper and Middle Volga at the beginning of the Early Metal Age.

In Finland, copper was not in use among the Corded Ware populations, but was fi rst known among inland populations – indigenous groups with an economy based on hunting and fi shing. An initial appearance of copper may have taken place even as early as 2600 cal. BC. Metal came to the region from the sources in Karelia on the western side of Lake Onega (Žhuravlev 1996). In Karelia the Asbestos Ware was the prevailing ceramic type during the period (Žhu’lnikov 1991, 1999). The amount of native copper in the excavation fi nds remained minute and copper was rarely cold-hammered in a manner that allowed it to be used as an implement. The most probable source of metal was in Pegrema – a restricted area where native copper was available (Žhuravlev 1996). Pegrema is located on the eastern side of Lake Onega, to the north of Petrozavodsk. Despite its peripheral location and limited occurrence, raw copper may have played an important role in the emergence of metal. So far, no sources of native copper are known in Finland although the existence of local raw material cannot be ruled out from the geological point of view.

In the northern parts of all Nordic countries as well as in Karelia, scholars have observed that the Neolithic village-like large dwelling sites practically disappear before the beginning of the Early Metal Age (c. 1900 cal. BC). The sites of the Early Metal Age are very oft en smaller than in the Middle Neolithic. Although archaeological evidence and scientifi c interpretations suggest that these observations are valid, the reason for the changes remains obscure.

Early archaeologists like Julius Ailio (1909) and A. M. Tallgren (1931), observed that in the Early Metal Age (or Bronze Age), settlements were fewer in number than they had been during the Typical Comb Ware, which apparently represented the population maximum of the Neolithic (Figure 12.4). Ailio and Tallgren partially explained the problem with reference to climatic deterioration. Still what they particularly identifi ed as relevant was metal and the Early Metal Age. Because the number of sites and fi nds from the beginning of the twentieth century BC was very small, they could not recognise that the population began to increase at the beginning of the second millennium BC soon aft er the minimum. Today we know that the number of sites and fi nds increased at that time, indicating the spread of a new type of culture.

Considerable social changes began already during the population decline, in the Late Neolithic. In the coastal zone of Finland, the most striking and abundant archaeological feature of a new population were cairns. The more than 10,000 known cairns are connected with the infl uence from Scandinavia. The spread of Scandinavian Bronze Age culture is visible

Mika Lavento152

in several other groups of artefacts found in both the cairns and from stray fi nds. The primary function of the cairns is assumed to be graves. However, many other meanings are connected with them. These monuments are usually built on the top of bedrock or moraine formations. One of the most discussed new suggestions during recent years has been to consider them as sacred border marks between small groups (Antt onen 1996). The suggestion has been questioned because the empirical data are weak. Several other interpretative avenues are plausible: graves indicating ancestors, places where younger generations could meet their forefathers or “archives of memories” that legitimised land ownership (Lavento 2009).

In connection with the arrival of bronze in NE Scandinavia, the technology of metallurgy also

developed. Traditionally, the arrival of the new metal – bronze – has been described in light of the spread of bronze axes from southern Scandinavia towards north and east. This took place no earlier than c. 1800 cal. BC. The new axes on the coast were initially Scandinavian socketed axes (Meinander 1954b).

Although textile-impressed ceramics came from Estonia already during the last phase of the Corded Ware culture, the eastern textile pott ery spread from the region of the rivers Oka and Volga and it was more or less connected with the spread of Seima axes – i.e. the Seima phenomenon (Chernykh and Kuzminykh 1989). In Finland, the emergence of the Textile ceramics of this kind is currently AMS-dated c. 1800 cal. BC (Lavento 2001). An important issue at stake in regard to social phenomena is to understand how the western

Figure 12.4: The coastal Bronze Age populations and Textile ceramics in inland Finland, Karelia and Northern Fennoscandia.


and eastern traditions got in contact with each other, and how these relations evolved. For the time being, we know that connections existed between inland and the coastal zones, and detailed studies are a task for the future.

The eastern Seima axes belonged to a large phenomenon that is clearly visible in the northern coniferous zone, both in Russia and in the northern Fennoscandia. Nearly at the same time, c. 1600 cal. BC, the fi rst fl anged bronze axes of a Scandinavian type arrived in Finland. The western and the eastern axes have clear centres of distribution, but their distributions also overlap. This indicates communication between the coastal and inland populations. Textile ceramics have been found on the coast, which means that the borders between inland and coastal populations were not stable or at least that the inland populations utilized the coastal resources in some cases.

According to one model, the earliest bronze axes from the Volga region to reach the region of northern Fennoscandia were Seima(-Turbino) axes which were brought to Finland and Sweden c. 1600–1400 cal. BC (Carpelan 1999; Lavento 2005). Aft er a relatively short phase of active external interaction triggered by the spread of bronze implements, a phase represented in the archaeological material by the local Maaninka type of axe followed. The distribution area for most axe types covered the northern coniferous zone from the Ural Mountains in the east to Fennoscandia in the west, and the Maaninka axes were in use in a small territory inside contemporary Finland (Lavento 2001: 122). This can probably be interpreted as a stabilization of the local sett lement, and deteriorating contacts between the Volga region and inland Finland. Because the number of metal axes is small and no specifi c ceramic tradition developed during the period, archaeologists have not been able to defi ne any specifi c local culture.

The two axe types mentioned earlier represent the eastern infl uence in culture. They were followed by two others which were more widely distributed and implied many complicated relations. The Akozino-Mälar axe is found in a large area, indicating some kind of connection between east and west (Kuz’minykh 1996). The Akozino-Mälar axes spread as of c. 1200 cal. BC (Meinander 1985). Its origins have been explained in two ways: by referring to the Lake Mälar area in Sweden or to the Middle Volga region. Both possibilities should been taken into account. But it is also possible that they developed more or less independently in two separate regions and mixed types emerged later in the region of inland Finland. The last tradition, the Ananino axe, was the end of Bronze Age in the northern coniferous zone in northern Russia and Scandinavia. The character

of the axe type was again international, indicating the continuation of large network complexes in the area.

It is remarkable that the Bell Beaker tradition did not reach the eastern part of the Baltic Sea. Instead, strong connections developed between the populations living in the northern coniferous zone – in the area between the Baltic Sea and River Volga region. Where the borders which fi ltered the Bell Beaker phenomenon were located, remains obscure. Later, during the Early Metal Age, the Seima phenomenon reached the northern and eastern parts of Scandinavia and Karelia, radically sweeping away the local cultures.

Conclusion The rapid dispersion of Corded Ware Culture elements represents the fi rst cultural stream in eastern and northern Fennoscandia during the period in focus in this article. This process may have begun already soon aft er 3200 cal. BC although in Scandinavia it took place as late as 2800 cal. BC. The basis for the early chronology is the 14C dates from the graves in Finland and other Baltic countries. Corded Ware populations sett led in the coastal region, but they actively communicated with inland hunter-fisher groups far away from the coast. On the coast, the Neolithic hunter-fi sher groups lost their position at the beginning of the Corded Ware phase. In a process of acculturation, important features characteristic of the Batt le Axe populations were adopted by the hunter-fi sher groups. The economy changed as a result of animal husbandry and agriculture. Batt le axes were the key implement of the Corded Ware people. The inland hunter-fi shers also made batt le axes, but the manner in which they were produced degenerated and the stone axe types became simpler. Not all types of batt le axes spread inland but some types were produced within the local populations during the fi nal phase of the Neolithic.

At the end of the 3rd millennium BC the Batt le Axe culture began to merge with the local hunter and fi sher culture along the eastern shores of the Baltic. The previous network systems more or less prevailed or they were reproduced by new ones. Both southern Scandinavia as well as Estonia continued to be the contact areas. What happened in the southern part of the inland Finland was in some way connected with these relations. The processes are visible to the archaeologists today in the late Neolithic textile impressions in ceramics. The relations were not strong and they did not profoundly change the culture there.

Mika Lavento154

During the Early Metal Age and the later phase of the eastern Textile ceramics, partially refl ect cultural processes driven by external contacts. These processes began c. 1900–1800 cal. BC and they reached their most eff ective phases from c. 1600 cal. BC. The development of several local ceramic types began during the fi rst millennium BC.

Considerable developments did take place before, during and aft er the Corded Ware. The reader may conclude that the area discussed was beyond the main cultural complexes that characterized Western and central Europe in that time. Admittedly, the Bell Beaker groups did not infl uence the north. The eastern connections are of far greater importance to archaeological interpretation. Northern Fennoscandia and Karelia belong to the northern coniferous zone that covers large areas from the Ural Mountains in the east to the Scandinavian Mountains in the west. This fi eld of communication determined developments of the whole period in question.

ReferencesAilio, J. 1909 Die Steinzeitlichen Wohnplatzfunde in Finland

I–II. Helsingfors.Antt onen, V. 1996 Ihmisen ja maan rajat: ’pyhä’ kultt uurisena

kategoriana. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 646. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, Helsinki.

Äyräpää, A. 1933 Über die Streitaxtkulturen in Russland: Studien über die Verbreitung neolithischer Elemente aus Mitt eleuropa nach Osten. Eurasia septentrionalis antiqua 8. Helsinki.

Äyräpää, A. 1939 Suomen kivikauden kulttuurimuodot. Suomalaisen tiedeakatemian Esitelmät ja Pöytäkirjat 1937: 101–126.

Äyräpää, A. 1952 Veneenmuotoisten vasarakirveiden kivikautisia jäljitt elyjä. Suomen Museo LIX: 5–28.

Äyräpää, A. 1955 Den yngre stenålderns kronologi i Finland och Sverige. Finskt Museum LXII: 5–52.

Äyräpää, A. 1973 Båtyxkulturen i Finland. Eft er manuscript för föredrag hållet I Stockholm 1950. In Opera selecta, pp. 185–211. Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos, moniste 9. Helsinki.

Bader, O. N. and. Popova, T. B. 1987 Pozdnyakovskaya kultura. In Epoha bronzy lesnoj polosy SSSR, edited by B. A. Rybakov, pp. 131–135. Arheologiya SSSR. Nauka, Moscow.

Baudou, E. 1995 Norrlands forntid – ett historiskt perspektiv, 3rd ed. Kungl. Skytt eanska samfundets handlingar 45. CEWE-förlaget, Bjärsta.

Carpelan, C. 1979 Om asbestkeramikens historia i Fennoskandien. Finskt Museum 85: 5–25.

Carpelan, C. 1999 Käännekohtia Suomen esihistoriassa aikavälillä 5100–100 eKr. In Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan, edited by P. Fogelberg, pp. 249–280. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki.

Carpelan, C. 2002 Esihistorian vuosiluvut, ajoitukset ja kronologiat. In Ennen, muinoin: miten menneisyyttämme

tutkitaan, edited by R. Grünthal, pp. 18–27. Tietolipas 180. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, Helsinki.

Carpelan, C. 2004 Corded Ware Culture in northern Finland. In Early in the North, vol. 5, edited by M. Lavento, pp. 47–62. Iskos 13. Helsinki.

Carpelan, C. and Parpola, A. 2001 Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in Archaeological Perspective. Mémories de la Société Fenno-Ougrienne 242: 55–150.

Chalikov, A. 1986 Archäeologische Denkmale vom Pyheensilta-typ in Finnland und ihre östlichen Analogen. Fennoskandia archaeologica III: 35–50.

Chernykh, E. N. and Kuz’minykh, S. V. 1987 Rannĳ bronzovyj vek lesnoj policy Evropeĳ skoj chasti SSSR. Pamjatniki sejminsko-turbinskogo tipa Evrazĳ . In Epoha bronzy lesnoj policy SSSR, edited by B. A. Rybakov, pp. 84–105. Arheologiya SSSR, Moscow.

Chernykh, E. N. and Kuz’minykh, S. V. 1989 Drevnyaya metallurgĳ a severnoj Evrazii. Seimsko-Turbinskogo fenomen. Nauka, Moscow.

Edgren, T. 1970 Studier över den snörkeramiska kulturens keramik i Finland. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja – Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift 72. Helsinki.

Edgren, T. 1999 Käännekohtia Suomen kivikaudessa. In Pohjan poluilla, Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan, edited by P. Fogelberg, pp. 281–293. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki.

Europaeus, A. 1922 Fornfynd från Kyrkslätt och Esbo socknar. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja – Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift XXXII(1): 1–208.

Gurina, N. N. 1997 Istoriya kultury drevnego naseleniya Kolskogo Polyostrova. Arheologičeskaya izycheniya 32. Institut istorii materialnoi kultury RAN. St.-Petersburg.

Holm, L. 1991 The Use of Stone and Hunting of Reindeer. A Study of Stone Tool Manufacture and Hunting of Large Mammals in the Central Svandes c. 6000–1 BC. Archaeology and Environment 12. Umeå.

Huurre, M. 1984 Kainuu from the Stone-Age to the Bronze Age. In Finds and Cultural Connections. Fenno-ugri et Slavi, edited by T. Edgren, pp. 42–50. Iskos 4. Helsinki.

Itkonen, I. 1948 Suomen lappalaiset vuoteen 1945, vols I–II. WSOY, Helsinki.

Kosmenko, M. G. 1996 Brozovyj vek. In Arheologiya Karelii, edited by M. G. Kosmenko and S. I. Kochkurkina, pp. 185–215. Karel’skĳ nauchnyj tšentr, institute yazyka, literarury i istorii, Petrozavodsk.

Kosmenko, M. G. 2006 Problemy izytchenia etnicheskoj istorii bronzovogo veka – rannego srednevekovya v Karelii. In Problemy etnokylturnoj istorii naseleniya Karelii (Mezolit – crednevekove), edited by S. I. Kochkurkina and M. G. Kosmenko, pp. 158–229. Karel’skĳ nauchnyj tšentr, institute yazyka, literarury i istorii, Petrozavodsk.

Krajnov, D. A. 1992 On the problem of origin, chronology and periodization of the Fatyanovo-Balanovo cultural community. In Die kontinentaleuropeischen Gruppen der Kultur mit Schnurkeramik, edited by M. Buchvaldek and C. Strahm, pp. 321–327. Schurkeramik symposium 1990. Praehistorica XIX. Univerzita Krakova, Prague.

Kriiska, A., Lavento, M. and Peets, J. 2005 New AMS Dates of the Neolithic and Bronze Age Ceramics in Estonia: preliminary results and interpretations. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 9(1): 3–31.


Kuz’minykh, S. V. 1996 Osteuropäische und fennoskandische Tüllenbeile des Mälartyps: ein Rätsel der Archäologie. Fennoscandia archaeologica XIII: 3–27.

Lang, V. 1998 Some aspects of the Corded Ware Culture east of the Baltic Sea. In The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia I, edited by K. Julku and K. Wiik, pp. 84–104. Historica Fenno-Ugrica. Societas Historiæ Fenno-Ugricæ, Turku.

Lavento, M. 2001 Textile ceramics in Finland and on the Karelian Isthmus. Nine Variations and Fugue on a Theme of C. F. Meinander. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja – Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift 109. Helsinki.

Lavento, M. 2005 Coastal and Inland Early Metal Period in Finland – cultural, territorial, and economical zones? In Mellan sten och järn, Rapport från det 9:e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet, Göteborg, edited by J. Goldhahn, pp. 755–769. Göteborgs universitet. Institutionen för arkeologi, Göteborg.

Lavento, M. 2009 Deconstructing Memories in Archaeology: burial cairns as signs of memories. In Memory, Society, and Material Culture. Papers from the Third Theoretical Seminar of the Baltic Archaeologists (BASE), Latvia, October 5–6 2007, edited by A. Šnē and A. Vasks, pp. 29–43. Interarchaeologica 3. BASE, Riga.

Lavento, M. and Hornytzkyj, S. 1996 Asbestos types and their distribution in the Neolithic, Early Metal Period and Iron Age Pott ery in Finland and Eastern Karelia. In Pithouses and Potmakers in Eastern Finland: reports of the Ancient Lake Saimaa Project, edited by T. Kirkinen, pp. 41–70. Helsinki Papers in Archaeology 9. Helsinki.

Loze, I. 1979 Pozdnĳ i neolit i rannjaja bronza Lubanskoj ravniny. Akademĳ a nauk Latvĳ skoj SSR, Riga.

Loze, I. 1992 Corded Pott ery Culture in Latvia. Praehistorica XIX: 313–320. Univerzita, Krakova.

Luho, V. 1948 Suomen kivikauden pääpiirteet. Otava, Helsinki.Malmer, M. P. 1962 Jungneolithische Studien. Acta archaeologica

Lundensia Series in 8: o, 2. Habelt, Bonn.Malmer, M. P. 2002 The Neolithic of South Sweden. TRB, GRK and

STR. The Royal Swedish Academy of Lett ers History and Antiquities, Stockholm.

Meinander, C. F. 1940 Pyheensilta stenåldersboplats. Finskt Museum XLVI: 28–43.

Meinander, C. F. 1954a Die Kiukaiskultur . Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja – Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift 53. Helsinki.

Meinander, C. F. 1954b Die Bronzezeit Finnlands. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja – Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift 54. Helsinki.

Meinander, C. F. 1985 Akozino, Achmylovo och mälaryxorna. Finskt Museum 92: 15–34.

Mökkönen, T. 2011 Stuies on Stone age housepits on Fennoscandia (4000–1000 cal BC). Changes in ground plan, site, location and degree of sedintism. Helsinki. htt p://ethesis.helsinki.fi

Norberg, E. 2008 Boplatsvallen som bostad i Norrbottens kustland 5000 till 2000 för vår tideräkning. En studie av kontinuitet och förändring. Studia Archeologica Universitatis Umensis 23. Umeå.

Okkonen, J. 2003 Jättiläisen hautoja ja hirveitä kiviröykkiöitä – Pohjanmaan muinaisten kivirakennelmien arkeologiaa. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B Humaniora 52. Oulu.

Olsen, B. 1994 Bosetning og samfunn i Finnmarks forhistorie. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Pälsi, S. 1915 Riukjärven ja Piiskunsalmen kivikautiset asuinpaikat Kaukolassa. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja – Finska Fornminnesföreninges Tidskrift 28: 1. Helsinki.

Siiriäinen, A. 1967 Yli-Iin Kierikki. Asbestikeraaminen asuinpaikka Pohjois-Pohjanmaalla. Suomen Museo 74: 5–37.

Taavitsainen, J-P. 1982 A copper ring from Suovaara in Polvijärvi, Northern Karelia. In Fennoscandia Antiqua I: 41–49. Helsinki.

Tallavaara, M., Pesonen, P. and Oinonen, M. 2009 Prehistoric population History in eastern Fennoscandia. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 251–260.

Tallgren, A. M. 1931 Suomen muinaisuus. Suomen historia 1. Porvoo, WSOY.

Tanner, V. 1929 Antropogeografi ska studier inom Petsamo-området I. Skolt-lapparna. Fennia 49(4).

Vuorela, I. 1999 Viljelytoiminnan alku Suomessa paleoekologisen tutkimuksen kohteena. In Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan, edited by P. Fogelberg pp. 143–151. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki.

Vuorela, I. and Lempiäinen, T. 1988 Archaeobotany on the site of the oldest cereal grain fi nd in Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 25: 33–45.

Vikkula, A. 1988 Östersjön som en förutsätt ning för mellan- och senneolitisk utveckling. In XVII Nordiska arkeologmötet i Åbo 1985, pp. 59–66. Iskos 7. Helsinki.

Žhul’nikov, A. M. 1991 Problema hronologii i periodizatsii poznego eneolita Karelii. In Hronologiya i periodizatsiya arheologicheskih pamjatnikov Karelii, edited by S. I. Kochkurkina, pp. 126–147. Karel’skĳ nauchnyj tšentr, institute yazyka, literarury i istorii, Petrozavodsk.

Žhul’nikov, A. M.1999 Eneolit Karelii (pamyatniki s poristoj i asbestoj keramikoj). Petrozavodskĳ gosydarstvennyj universitet; Karel’skĳ gosydarstvennyj kraebedtšeskĳ muzej, Petrozavodsk.

Žhuravlev, A. P. 1996 Pegrema: kulturnyj kompleks . Petrozavodsk.

13

Tracing pressure-fl aked arrowheads in Europe

Jan Apel

IntroductionThis article takes as its starting point the two slightly diff erent traditions of pressure-fl aked arrowheads existing in Scandinavia during the third millennium BC and whose historical and geographical development and relationships involve large parts of Europe. Pressure-fl aked arrowheads are known to exist already in the fi ft h millennium BC in north Scandinavia (Halén 1994; Skandfer 2005) and Finland (Manninen et al. 2003). These traditions most probably had an eastern origin (Darmark MS). It remains unclear exactly how this early phase of lancet-shaped bifacial arrowhead relates to the well established custom of producing bifacial arrowheads with straight bases in local raw materials in Northern Scandinavia during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (2350–1000 BC) (Forsberg 1989; Hietala 2005; Holm 1991). Hypothetically, these technological traditions could have historic continuity, but there seems to be a hiatus in the production of bifacial points in the region, which rather indicates that they represent two or more separate historical events in which this technology was introduced to northern Fennoscandia from the east.

During the course of the third millennium BC southern Scandinavia is aff ected by cultural infl uences from continental Europe that are refl ected in the fl int technology. In southern Scandinavia the earliest evidence of surface pressure-fl aking is dated to the middle of the third millennium BC when lancet-shaped projectile points were introduced to the eastern parts of southern Scandinavia from the Central European Corded Ware complex (Larsson 1999; Vang Petersen 1999). Around 2350 BC tanged and barbed arrowheads were introduced to Jutland as part of the gradual expansion of the European Bell Beaker complex to the north (Sarauw 2006). These

arrowheads were made with a technique that involved both soft -hammer percussion and pressure fl aking and in the fl int-rich areas of southern Scandinavia magnifi cent arrowheads were produced.

Thus, during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, two distinct technological traditions produce pressure-flaked arrowheads in Scandinavia: one tradition in southern Scandinavia where arrowheads were produced in high quality fl int, and another tradition in northern Fennoscandia where arrowheads were produced in local raw materials of high quality, predominantly quartzite and quartz. In the central parts of Scandinavia simple pressure-fl aked arrowheads were produced in south Scandinavian fl int, however with a pronounced lack of the skill that characterises the south Scandinavian arrowheads. This lack of skill most likely related to the fact that the population of central Scandinavia lacked local access to high quality fl int, and therefore had to rely on fl int fl akes that were distributed along the same Late Neolithic exchange networks that also distributed fl int daggers (Apel 2001). In this context this tradition is regarded as a local variation of the southern tradition.

The northern part of the Mälaren Valley in eastern central Sweden was a border zone where these two diff erent traditions of making bifacial projectile points met (Figure 13.1); a northern tradition, in which projectile points were made from local raw materials through a combination of percussion fl aking and pressure fl aking, and a central Scandinavian tradition, in which projectile points were made from imported, south Scandinavian fl int fl akes through edge-pressure fl aking (Apel and Darmark 2007; Apel et al. 2005). These traditions demarcate a classic cultural barrier between south and north Sweden with roots back

13. Tracing pressure-fl aked arrowheads in Europe 157

to the Mesolithic. This cultural barrier is also a long lasting division between hunter-gatherers/herders in the north and farming communities in the south. In this paper it is suggested that these two traditions may share a distant common origin and that they have been formed by diff erent historical cultural-historical trajectories. It is therefore relevant to inspect a large geographical area, the whole of Europe and the near East, over a long period of time 6000–1000 BC.

Pressure fl aking and the technical production sequenceWhat type of archaeologically defi nable units are suitable to use in studies concerning the dynamics between on the one hand material cultural phenomena directly subjected to evolutionary processes, such as selection and drift , and on the other essential cultural phenomena which, due to the inherent cultural conservatism of humans, are reproduced almost

intact through the centuries? It has been suggested that a formulation of a relevant taxonomy of the cultural elements of a tool tradition should be based on a detailed mapping of the technological syntax, i.e. the ideas, materials and gestures included in every single production sequence constituting the technology (Darmark and Apel 2008). All of these features can be cultural-specific. In this context it is important to distinguish between individual technological elements and technological syntaxes. A technological element can be defi ned as an instant event consisting of a combination of a gesture, a tool, a core and an intention. A technological syntax, on the other hand, consists of an ensemble of technical components that are chronologically structured into a sequence that ideally result in a fi nished artefact with the desired characteristics (Apel 2008; Apel and Darmark 2007; Darmark MS). If a technology is complex enough, it is likely that such syntaxes will be transmitt ed vertically from parent to child or at least within a fairly close-knit group, as the grammar of a language. The geographical diff usion of individual technical elements happens to a much greater extent horizontally between unrelated people – as the loanwords in a language (Darmark MS). By articulating such a distinction regarding archaeological materials, tools are created which help us understand continuity and change over time and space. Thus, in this context we regard the surface pressure fl aking technique as a form of cultural virus that, due to its effi ciency, is diff used over large areas (Darmark MS).

In the summer of 2005, a series of experiments (Figure 12.2) were conducted in order to create a distinction between pressure fl aking and percussion fl aking by looking at the shape of the negative scars on fi nished projectile points, as well as waste by-products deriving from the making of the projectile points (Darmark and Apel 2008). The aim of the experiments was to balance the knowledge of the operative scheme of projectile point making which comes from practical experience, with a formal way of identifying pressure fl aking in waste by-products as well as in fi nished projectile points. These experiments have been presented in greater detail elsewhere (Darmark and Apel 2008) but it should be mentioned here that we succeeded in independently determining the technique used in about 50% of the fl akes stemming from production. More intuitively, the experiments provided an understanding of how the technique would appear on fi nished projectile points. This understanding formed the basis for the study that is presented below.

Figure 13.1: The geographical distribution of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pressure-fl aked arrowhead traditions in Fennoscandia (From Apel and Darmark 2007). 1. The northern tradition where bifacial arrowheads were made in local raw materials with a combination of percussion and pressure techniques. 2. The central Scandinavian tradition where bifacial arrowheads were produced with a simple pressure fl aking technique on imported thin fl akes from southern Scandinavia. 3. The southern tradition where bifacial arrowheads were produced on local high quality fl int with a combination of percussion and pressure techniques.

Jan Apel158

Pressure-fl aked arrowheads in Europe and the Near East, 6000–1000 BCEarly Holocene evidence of the use of surface pressure fl aking occurs within the Pre-Pott ery Neolithic of Anatolia and the Levant. During this time (c. 7500–6000 BC) pressure fl aking is used for the retouching of large blades into unifacial and bifacial projectile points. The production of large so-called Byblos and Amuq points continues for a short period of time into the Early Ceramic Neolithic Age. However, during the sixth millennium a conceptual division is made in the fl int craft and the large blades formerly used as blanks for projectile points are henceforth used mainly within agriculture as tools for harvesting (Rosen 1997) or threshing (Anderson, et al. 2004; see also Knutsson 2007), whereas small blades and fl akes are used to produce arrowheads (Copeland 1996: 332:2, 337: 14–15; Rosen 1997: 39). Small points (<4 cm) begin to be made using pressure retouching from 5900–5500 BC during the Late Neolithic period. The most common shapes are the tanged Haparsa point, the oval, shouldered Nizzanim point, and the almond-shaped Herzeliya point (Bar-Yosef 1981: 560ff ). It is likely that these points should be viewed in connection with arrows used in archery. In the Levant, the production of these points ceases during the transition to Late Ceramic

Neolithic Age, and survives only in the desert regions of Negev, Sinai and southern Jordan (Rosen 1997: 43). During the late Ceramic phase few arrowheads are found in the Anatolian area, from the Balkan Peninsula to the southeast. In the south, the cultures of the Middle East also seem to be experiencing a decline in the use of pressure fl aking in the retouching of points. Also in Syria, at the Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad site (5900–5000 BC), the technique is poorly represented. Instead, on the levels 6–4 (5200–5100 BC), unifacial/bifacial pressure retouching occurs in the production of transverse arrowheads on the one hand, and small tanged ones, so called Ubaid/Haparsa points on the other (Copeland 1996). The arrowhead tradition does not form part of the Neolithic package which moves up through the Balkan Peninsula – the Fikirtepe culture beginning around 6000 BC (Özdoğan 1999: 212) – nor does it occur within the Linear Pott ery tradition (Gronenborn 1999: 169f; Ošibkina 1996: 27ff ). The Early Neolithic stone industry does not seem to be based on pressure retouching in Greece either (Wĳ nen MS), which is where the fi rst European agricultural societies appear (Runnels 2004).

According to the latest fi ndings, agriculture is introduced in Egypt, in Fayium south of Cairo, between 6000 and 5000 BC, possibly somewhat earlier, although

Figure 13.2: Bifacial arrowheads made in fl int from the Lejre 2005 experiments. The fl akes represent the production waste that was retrieved aft er using a 5 mm mesh. Left : Arrowhead manufactured with a combination of percussion and pressure fl aking. Right: Arrowhead manufactured solely with simple pressure technique (the central Scandinavian tradition).


not before 7000 BC (Hassan 2002: 63; Wett erström 1993/1995: 201). Bifacial, pressure-fl aked arrowheads, which are not known in the area before this period (Wenke et al. 1988), are part of this agricultural package. There are factors indicating that the impulses for this fi rst phase came from the Levant. In the E75-8 site in Napta Playa, remains of sheep/goats that have not existed naturally in the area but have their origin in the Levant, have been dated to about 5500 BC (Smith 1989: 74). It has also been pointed out that the presence in Egypt of domesticated animals and plants and other ideas which have their origin in southwest Asia, indicates the existence of contacts between these areas during this period (Smith 1989; Trigger 1983). These ideas include for instance sharpened stone axes and various kinds of bifacial arrowheads (Hassan 1988).

The conclusion of this line of reasoning is that agriculture is introduced in Egypt relatively late, if one takes into consideration the early datings that exist of agriculture in the Levant and Turkey. Instead, the Neolithisation takes place almost simultaneously in many parts of the Mediterranean region (Wenke and Casini 1989: 141f). However, surface pressure fl aking does not reach the earliest Neolithic cultures immediately east of Mesopotamia; neither the Siyalk culture in present-day Iran, nor the Jeitun culture in present-day Turkmenistan, are associated with projectile points of any kind. Here hunting is done using a bludgeon or a sling (Mellaart 1975: 187f, 212f).

In the western parts of North Africa, the introduction of bifacial thinning using pressure fl aking is associated with the introduction of farming (Rahmani, personal communication; see also Clarke 1970), which is traditionally set at about 5000 BC. According to Clarke (1970: 200), bifacial arrowheads are associated with the earliest Neolithic phase in the northwest of North Africa (Neolithic of Capsian Tradition). Therefore it seems as if bifacial pressure fl aking follows farming west during the fi rst wave of distribution south of the Mediterranean. However, this is not true for the earliest spread of agriculture west along the north shores of the Mediterranean, which takes place earlier and can be placed in connection with the Cardial Ware tradition. In Greece, the Balkan Peninsula, Italy, France and the Iberian Peninsula, bifacial thinning using pressure fl aking is not included in the introduction of agriculture. The production of bifacial arrowheads using pressure fl aking does not emerge on the Iberian Peninsula until the middle fourth century BC (Zilhao, personal communication). Moreover, this applies for the spread of the agricultural package north along the dell of the Danube in connection with the early Linear Pott ery culture. Prior to 3500 BC, bifacial thinning using

pressure fl aking is associated with agriculture only in the Levant, Anatolia, and northern Africa. There are no indications of bifacial thinning using pressure fl aking in the northern and central parts of Europe which are aff ected by the Linear Pott ery complex. During the Early Neolithic phase, the stone craft in these regions is characterised by a microlith-based technique which relates to neighbouring Mesolithic traditions where transverse arrowheads, for instance, can be connected to the use of a bow.

In central Europe, surface pressure fl aking appear as early as 4000 BC. Since it seems as if the surface pressure technique is reintroduced to Europe from the Levant and Anatolia along two diff erent routes (Figure 13.3) we must expect a fair amount of blending between diff erent traditions. In north Europe, pressure fl aking is introduced from two diff erent areas which in turn share a common area of origin; on the one hand from the east around 3000 BC in connection with an early expansion of the Corded Ware culture, on the other in connection with the expansion of the Bell-Beaker culture from the Iberian Peninsula which begins around 3200 BC. In the Netherlands, the Schipluiden site, which is situated by the coastline and has been dated to c. 3500 BC, eighty-eight triangular, bifacial, fl int arrowheads and large amounts of waste by-products have been gathered (Van Gĳ n et al. 2006: 142ff ). Use-wear analyses of forty-one points from the site show that seventeen points have impact damage and a linear polish which is oft en associated with archery (Van Gĳ n et al. 2006: 158).

It is important to point out that the social context of the pressure-fl aked, bifacially thinned arrowheads has changed in this later phase. If the bow was associated with hunting during the second phase, it is later associated with individual graves starting with the appearance of the infl uences at the north of the coast of the Black Sea around 5000 BC and from there farther west into central Europe. This could indicate that the bow should be regarded as a weapon and part of a warrior’s equipment during this period, rather than anything else. Ethnographically, lithic projectile points have been used in connection with either warfare or large game hunting, while the hunting of small game is carried out using organic points (Ellis 1997).

The various Neolithic cultures of the former Soviet Union display ample evidence of the use of surface pressure fl aking. From the Baltic states in the west to the Primorsky Krai in the east surface pressure fl aking is used in diff erent ways; to shape projectile points, knives, microlithic inserts and zoomorphic/anthropomorphic fi gurines. Several of these industries are based on blades, such as the cultures of Upper Volga (Ošibkina 1996: 166ff ), of the Volga-Kama river

Jan Apel160

basins (Ošibkina 1996: 243ff ), or the Novopetrovsk culture in the Priamur (Ošibkina 1996: 318f), while fl akes seem to constitute the primary blanks in other industries, such as is the case at the Starodubskoe II site on the Sakhalin Island (Ošibkina 1996: 328). The Baltic Narva Culture is characterised as a ‘poor’ lithic industry, and the blanks employed seem to have been fl akes, modifi ed by edging into small projectile points (Ošibkina 1996: 136ff ).

Bifacial thinning using pressure fl aking appears to reach southern Russia and Ukraine during the Early Chalcolithic period. Triangular, bifacially retouched points constitute an important element within the Tripolye culture, which comprises present-day Romania (where the tradition is called Cucuteni), Moldavia and western Ukraine (Klochko 2001: 21f). The earliest phase, Tripolye A, is dated to the period 5700–4200 BC, based on twenty-nine datings (Tjernych and Orlovskaja 2004). The development of Cucuteni-Tripolye is followed by the formation of similar groups farther east. From this period copper ‘awls’ are known from graves in this area and it is likely that they in fact were copper tips for pressure fl aking tools (Klochko 2001). Such copper awls have also been connected to pressure fl aking in Late Neolithic Italy (Pearce 2000).

Between the rivers Dnieper and Don, pointed-bott om pott ery and stone artefacts are found, belonging

to the so called Skelya culture which has been dated to around 4550(?)–4100 BC. Blades and triangular, surface-retouched arrow- and spearheads can be noted among the stone artefacts (Rassamakin 1999: 76f). Judging from the correlation between height and width, these are not blade arrowheads but are more likely to have been made from fl akes.

Similar fl ake arrowheads with a triangular shape occur within the Khvalynsk culture further east, around the river Volga. The Khvalynsk culture seems to be infl uenced by Skelya and has been dated to c. 5000–4500 BC (Rassamakin 1999: 61, 107, 111). A similar material culture is found east of the Black Sea, in the north Caucasian Zakubanskaya culture where the same kind of triangular, bifacial points are found (Rassamakin 1999: 110).

In the middle of the Chalceolithic period (c. 3800–3400 BC), the projectile points change their appearance somewhat. Several kinds of points are found in the Konstantinovka culture by the river Don, both in sett lement contexts and as grave off erings. On the one hand there are large, bifacial leaf-shaped points, and on the other a kind of point with a slanting tang, as well as fl uted points (Rassamakin 1999: 120f).

Further east, in present-day Kazakhstan, the local Mesolithic tradition, infl uenced by the regions stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Aral Sea in the

Figure 13.3: Late Holocene surface pressure fl aking in the Old World with principal routes of diff usion (From Darmark in press).


southwest, evolves into the fi rst Neolithic culture of the region, the Atbasar culture (Kislenko and Tatarintseva 1999: 187ff ). In connection with this, a production of triangular, bifacially thinned projectile points begins in the fi ft h millennium BC. As concerns dating this fi ts in very well with the Khvalynsk/Skelya cultures in the west. During the course of the fourth millennium, both the leaf- shaped points and those with a slanted tang appear in the area. Pressure-fl aked bifacials constitute an important element within the subsequent Botai culture (Kislenko and Tatarintseva 1999: 203ff ).

In Finland, bifacial points made from quartz or fl int appear in connection with the transition to the typical Comb Ceramic period around 3900 BC. However, their production seems to cease at the transition to the late Comb Ceramic period 500 years later. During the Early Metal Age, the production of bifacials re-emerges in a somewhat diff erent shape, using fl int, quartz and quartzite (Manninen et al. 2003). Simultaneously, around 4150 BC (Kriiska 2001), the same kinds of rhombic and almond-shaped points occur also in Estonia as part of the typical Comb Ceramic period (Jaanits 1982: 71). Comb Ceramic points made from Russian fl int have also been found in northern Sweden (Halén 1994), but bifacial technology seems to have had no impact until later (Holm 1991). However, there are considerably earlier datings of pressure retouched points on the North Calott e; on the Kola Peninsula there are datings as far back as to 4600 BC (Gurina 1997). Even earlier datings have been obtained from the early northern Comb Ceramic culture at the Varangerfj ord containing elements of bifacials made by pressure fl aking, recently presented by Skandfer (2005). Here the craft seems to exist as early as 5500 BC. However, it should be noted that these points have been dated only with reference to the shoreline.

In south Scandinavia, pressure fl aking is part of the technological recipe within the younger Pitt ed Ware Culture of Denmark, Western Sweden and Southern Norway (Vang Petersen 1999: 79ff ), where projectiles are fashioned from blades employing surface pressure fl aking. True bifacially thinned points made with pressure fl aking occur in southern Scandinavia around 2500 BC. It is a matt er of at least two diff erent kinds: an eastern one which is related to the Corded Ware complex of northern Europe, and a western one which has its origin in the Bell-Beaker culture of Western Europe. In Scania and the southeast of Denmark, a number of lancet-shaped Corded Ware points have been found which are common south of the Baltic Sea, in Mecklenburg and central Germany (Larsson 1999; Vang Petersen 1993: 92). In western Scandinavia, bifacial points occur in graves around 2350 BC, along with bell-beakers and slate wrist guards (Sarauw

2006). Bell-Beaker points are relatively common in western Norway as well (Østmo 2006), but only a handful of these points have been found in Sweden, especially in the western parts of the country. This distribution patt erns follows closely the distribution of the contemporary pressure-flaked Danish flint daggers of Type IC (Apel 2001) and no doubt the contacts over the north sea (Skagerrak) during the late third millennium BC was possible due to advances in maritime technology (Kvalø 2007; Østmo 2005) The points which can be connected to the Bell-Beaker complex are mainly of two kinds: one kind, which is common in the archers’ graves on Jutland (Sarauw 2006), consists of triangular, bifacially thinned points with a deep indentation in the base (Vang Petersen 1993: 92f), and the other, which in Scandinavia has been gathered primarily as stray fi nds, is made up of triangular, bifacially thinned points with a small tang. The latt er type originated in Early Neolithic North Africa/Iberian Peninsula and is known in the Bell Beaker contexts of west Europe. Aft er this, bifacial points made from south Scandinavian fl int using pressure fl aking are common in the south and central parts of Scandinavia, until the fl int points are driven out of competition by metal points at the end of the Bronze Age. Northern Mälardalen constitutes the northern border of this tradition.

SummaryFrom 4000 BC and onwards surface pressure fl aking is incorporated on a large scale into the technologies of Northern Africa and Western Europe, Scandinavia included. In Eastern Europe, South-west and Northern Asia surface pressure fl aking continues to be used even though there is evidence of a decline in the technology. To what extent this patt ern is a result of analogous (local innovation) or homologous development (cultural transmission) is a matt er of debate. However, we wish to stress certain fi ndings. Firstly, the idea of using bifacial surface pressure fl aking for the production of tools, primarily projectile points, infi ltrates all of Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East during the Holocene. Even though the process encompasses several thousands of years for the region as a whole, the technology gets a vast distribution during a comparatively narrow period of time. Secondly, we get the impression that the technology consequently constitutes a clear taxonomic break, in that it oft en replaces earlier technologies with which it has few similarities. These factors speak in favour of the technology being diff used rather than locally developed, even though the exact routes of

Jan Apel162

transmission remain obscure and those proposed in this paper need to be viewed as speculative. Another interesting observation is the fact that the bifacial technology at hand in no easy way can be seen as being part of a ‘cultural package’ together with other Neolithic elements such as pott ery or domesticates. If we accept the idea that bifacial technology is diff used rather than autocthonically developed, the diff usion follows other routes and/or time schedules than the diff usion of traditional Neolithic cultural elements. The observed patt ern indicates that the technique had selective value because it was eff ective, safe and resulted in aesthetically att ractive artefacts. Thus, to use the language analogy discussed in the introduction of this paper, it should be regarded as a successful ‘loanword’ that spread rapidly between different populations. However, while the surface pressure technique remained the same, the technological syntax used to produce arrowhead blanks varied locally and regionally according to cultural choices as well as to factors such as the quality of available raw material, mobility patt erns and economy.

Judging from the data gathered, it seems as though the change which occurs in the Middle East during the Ceramic Neolithic period – when the production of macro blades is reserved for agriculture, whereas the points become smaller in size and are oft en made from fl akes – has consequences in many parts of Eurasia and northern Africa as well. Bifacial thinning using pressure fl aking is part of the Neolithic package which reaches Egypt around 5500 BC, and which quickly covers the entire Maghreb region all the way to Spain. The Neolithisation of the Black Sea region which occurs somewhat later (c. 5000 BC) is also characterised by the existence of pressure retouched points, not least in grave contexts. The datings collected indicate that there is certain slowness in the adoption of the technique in central and northern Europe, with relatively late datings. One obvious exception from the patt ern are early dates from the North Calott e, where the use of bifacial pressure fl aking begins almost simultaneously with the change described in the Middle East.

In Scandinavia, the surface pressure flaking technique was introduced at several points in time and in diff ering economic and environmental contexts. During the fifth millennium BC an introduction took place among the hunter-gatherer populations of northern Fennoscandia. This tradition of making bifacial arrowheads in northern Scandinavia using local raw materials may have had historical continuity until the Bronze Age but it is also possible that the technique was abandoned or forgotten and then reintroduced from the east on several occasions. In southern Scandinavia this way of making bifacial

arrowheads was independently introduced from two cultural spheres: from the Corded Ware tradition around 2500 BC and from the Bell Beaker tradition around 2350 BC. In eastern central Sweden the north and south tradition were practised side by side over at least 1000 years until arrowheads for large game and warfare were beginning to be made in iron.

From a regional perspective it may appear as if these techniques are unrelated. They were practised on each side of a well known natural and cultural border, the river Dalälven, and they may refl ect diff erent ethnic groups. However, looking at the distribution of the surface pressure technique in time and space it seems as if the northern and central Scandinavian traditions discussed in this paper may have deeper historical roots transcending traditional cultural historical and economical borders.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank the organizers of the session for inviting me to present this paper and Kim Darmark for help with the manuscript and permission to use material from our joint research project. Thanks also to the Berit Wallenberg Foundation for generous support.

ReferencesAnderson, P., Chabot, A. and van Gĳ n, A. 2004 The functional

riddle of ‘glossy’ Canaanean blades: the apogee of the Mesopotamian threshing sledge. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17(1): 87–132.

Apel, J. 2001 Daggers, Knowledge & Power. Coast to coast-books, Uppsala.

Apel, J. 2008 Knowledge, know-how and raw material – the production of Late Neolithic fl int daggers in Scandinavia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(1): 91–111

Apel, J. and Darmark, K. 2007 Den fl athuggna pilspetsens fylogeni. Mellansvenskt stenhantverk ur ett kulturevolusjoniskt perspektiv. In Stenålder i Uppland. Uppdragsarkeologi och eft ertanke, edited by N. Stenbäck, Arkeologi E4 Uppland – Studier vol. 1. Uppsala.

Apel, J., Darmark, K. and Sundström, L. 2005 Hantverkstraditioner som möts. Uppland 2005: 60–68

Bar-Yosef, O. 1981 The ‘Pre-Pott ery Neolithic’ period in the Southern Levant. In Préhistoire du Levant. Chronologie et organisation de l’espace depuis les origins jusqu’au Vie millénaire, edited by J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville, pp. 551–571. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifi que No. 598. Paris.

Clarke, J. D. 1970 The Prehistory of Africa. Thames & Hudson, London.

Copeland, L. 1996 The fl int and obsidian industries. In Tell Sabi Abyad. The Late Neolithic Sett lement, edited by P. M. M. G.


Akkermans, pp. 285–339. Report on the Excavations of the University of Amsterdam (1988) and the National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden (1991–1993) in Syria. Leiden.

Darmark, K. 2010. MS Surface pressure fl aking in northern Eurasia at the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition – a technological virus? In The Legacy of Gutorm Gjessing, edited by C. Westerdahl, pp. 00–00. British Archaeological Report International Series S2154, Archaeopress, Oxford

Darmark, K. and Apel, J. 2008 The dogma of Immaculate Perception. An experimental study of bifacial arrowheads and a contribution to the discussion on the relationship between personal experience and formalized analysis in experimental archaeology. In Technology in Archaeology, edited by M. Sørensen and P. Desrosiers, Proceedings of the SILA workshop: The Study of Technology as a method for gaining insight into social and cultural aspects of Prehistory. The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, November 2–4, 2005, 00–00. PNM, Publications from the National Museum, Studies in Archaeology & History vol. 14. Copenhagen.

Darmark, K. in press Surface pressure flaking in Eurasia – mapping the diff usion and evolution of technique related att ributes in the production of projectile points. In The Emergence of Pressure Knapping: From Origin to Modern Experimentation, edited by P. Desrosiers and N. Rahmani. Springer, New York.

Ellis, C. J. 1997 Factors infl uencing the use of stone projectile tips: an ethnographic perspective. In Projectile Technology, edited by H. Knecht, pp. 37–79. Plenum Press, New York.

Forsberg, L. 1989 Ett försök att urskilja sociala territorier i Norrland under bronsåldern och förromersk järnålder. In Regionale forhold i Nordisk Bronzealder, edited by J. Poulsen, pp. 169–174. Jysk Arkeologisk selskabs Skrift er XXIV.

Gronenborn, D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme: hte transition to farming in southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13: 123–210

Gurina, N. N. 1997 Istorija kul’tury drevnego naselenija Kol’skogo poluostrova. Saint Petersburg. (Гурина, Н. Н. 1997 История культуры древнего населения Кольского полуострова. Санкт Петербург.)

Halén, O. 1994 Sedentariness during the Stone Age of Northern Sweden in the light of the Alträsket site 5000 BC and the Comb ware site Lillberget, c. 3900 BC. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series 4:o. No 20. Lund.

Hassan F. A. 1988 The Predynastic of Egypt. Journal of World Prehistory 2(2): 135–178.

Hassan, F. A. 2002 Holocene environmental change and the transition to agriculture in south-west Asia and northeast Africa. In The Origins of Pott ery and Agriculture, edited by Y. Yasuda, pp. 00–00. Lustre Press, Roli Books, New Dehli.

Hietala, M. 2005 Pronssikautisen jousiaseen rekonstruoiminen ja käytt ö Oulun Hangaskankaan hautalöydön perusteella. Pro Gradu essay. Oulu University, Oulu.

Holm, L. 1991 The Use of Stone and Hunting of Reindeer. A Study of Stone Tool Manufacture and Hunting of Large mammals in the Central Scandes c. 6000–1 BC. Archaeology and Environment 12. Umeå.

Jaanits, L., Laul, S., Lõugas, V. and Tõnisson, E. 1982 Eesti Esiajalugu. Publisher, Tallinn.

Kislenko, A. and Tatarintseva, N. 1999 The Eastern Ural Steppe at the End of the Stone Age. In Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe, edited by M. Levine, Y. Rassamakin,

A. Kislenko and N. Tatarintseva, pp. 183–216. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge.

Klochko, V. 2001 Weaponry of Societies of the Northern Pontic Culture Circle: 5000–700 BC. Baltic-Pontic Studies 10. Poznan.

Kriiska, A. 2001 Stone Age Sett lement and Economic Processes in the Estonian Coastal Area and Islands. University of Helsinki. Helsinki.

Kvalø, F. 2007 Oversjøiske reiser fra sørvest-norge til nordvest-jylland i eldre bronsealder. In Sjøreiser og stedsindentitet. Jæren/Lista i bronsealder og eldre jernalder, edited by L. Hedeager, pp. 11–134. OAS vol. 8.University of Oslo, Oslo.

Larsson, L. 1999 Fyrverkeri i eld och fl inta. Ett massbrännoff er från stridsyxetid. Populär arkeologi 1999 (1)

Manninen, M., Tallavaara, M. and Hertell, E. 2003 Subneolithic bifaces and fl int assemblages in Finland – outlining the history of research and future questions. In Uniting Sea. Stone Age Societies in the Baltic Sea Region. Proceedings from the First Uniting Sea Workshop at Uppsala University January 26–27, 2002, edited by C. Samuelsson and N. Ytt erberg, pp. 161–160. Occasional Papers In Archaeology. Uppsala.

Mellaart, J. 1975 The Neolithic of the Near East. Scribner. London.Ošibkina, S. V. 1996 Arkheologiya. Neolit Severnoy Evrazii.

Moscow. (Ошибкина, С. В. 1996. Археология. Неолит Северной Евразии. Москва.)

Østmo, E. 2005. Over Skagerak i steinalderen. Viking LXVI: 7–29.

Özdogan, M. 1999. Çayönü In Neolithic in Turkey: the Cradle of Civilizations edited by M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen, pp. 35–63. Ancient Anatolian Civilizations Series 3, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Pearce, M. 2000 What this awl means: understanding the earliest Italian metalwork. In Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean Sett ing. Studies in honour of Ellen Macnamara, edited by D. Ridgway, F. R. S. Ridgway, M. Pearce, E. Herring, R. D. Whitehouse and J. B. Wilkins, pp. 67–73. Accordia Specialist Studies on the Mediterranean vol. 4. London.

Rassamakin, Y. 1999 The Eneolithic of the Black Sea Steppe: dynamics of cultural and economic development 4500–2300 BC. In Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe, edited by M. Levine, Y. Rassamakin, A. Kislenko and N. Tatarintseva, pp. 59–183. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge.

Rosen, S. A. 1997 Lithics Aft er the Stone Age. A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Alta Mira Press. Walnut Creek/London/New Delhi.


Skandfer, M. 2005 Early, Northern Comb Ware in Finnmark: the concept of Säräisniemi 1 reconsidered. Fennoscandia Archaeologica XXII: 3–27.

Smith, A. B. 1989 The Near Eastern Connection. Early to mid-Holocene relations between North Africa and the Levant. In Late Prehistory of the Nile Basin and the Sahara, edited by L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobusiewicz, pp. 69–77 Polish Academy of Science, Poznan.

Tjernych, E. N. and Orlovskaja, L. B. 2004 Radiouglerodnaja chronologija Eneolititjeskich kul’tur jogo-vostotjnoj Evropy: Rezultaty i Problemy Issledovanij. Rossijskaja Archeologĳ a 4: 24–37. (Чёрных, Е. Н. and Орловская, Л.Б. 2004. Радиоуглеродная хронология Енеолитических

Jan Apel164

культур юго-восточной Европы: Резултаты и проблемы исследований. Российская Археология 4: 24–37)

Trigger, B. G. 1983 The rise of Egyptian civilization. In In Ancient Egypt: A Social History, edited by B. Trigger, B. J. Kemp, D. O’Connor and A. B. Lloyd, pp. 1–70. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

van Gĳ n, A., Van Betuw V., Verbaas, A. and Wentik, K. 2006 Schipluiden. A Neolithic Sett lement on the Dutch North Sea Coast c. 3500 cal BC. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 37/38. Leiden University, Leiden.

Vang Petersen, P. 1993 Flint fra Danmarks Oldtid. Höst & Sön, Copenhagen.

Wenke, R. J. and Casini, M. 1989. The Epipaleolithic–Neolithic transition in Egypt´s Fayum depression. In Late Prehistory

of the Nile Basin and the Sahara, edited by L. Krzyzaniakand and M. Kobusiewicz. Poznan Archaeological Museum. Poznan.

Wenke, R. J., Long, J. E. and Buck, P. E. 1988 Epipaleolithic and Neolithic subsistence and sett lement in the Fayyum Oasis of Egypt. Journal of Field Archaeology 15(1): 29–51.

Wett erström, W. 1996 Foraging and farming in Egypt: the transition from huntering and gathering to horticulture in the Nile valley. In The Archaeology of Africa. Food, Metals and Towns, edited by T. Shaw, P. Sinclair, B. Andah and A. Okpoko. Routledge. London.

Wĳ nen, N. manus The Early Neolithic I sett lement at Sesklo. Electronic document, http://www.unige.ch/lettres/archeo/introduction_seminaire/neolithique/wĳ nen.html, 2011–08–30.

14The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European

languages: an archaeological model

Kristian Kristiansen

Introduction: theoretical frameworkIn order to understand the spread of language we need fi rst to understand the social and economic dynamics of the societies that carried those languages we study. Language is in this respect a secondary product of social organisation, and it is social processes of migration, conquest, travels and trade that may lead to language change. In this article I identify two theoretical and methodological strategies that I consider necessary in order to link models of language spread with archaeological models of political and social expansion.

First,when studying the historical expansion and diversifi cation of Indo-European (IE) languages we are confronted with a methodological problem: pots do not speak, and consequently we will never be able safely to identify and date Proto-Indo-European (PIE) languages on archaeological grounds alone. Instead we need to employ linguistic and textual evidence of social and religious institutions in IE speaking societies whose att ributes can be identifi ed empirically in the archaeological record. New institutions are evidence of fundamental changes in social organisation that may also include language.

In order to reconstruct the expansion of the earliest Indo-European languages it is therefore necessary to identify in the archaeological record those social and religious institutions that characterized the early forms of Indo-European speaking societies according to linguistic evidence. Thus, linguistic and archaeological evidence are complementary: linguists are able to reconstruct those social institutions that characterized the early, reconstructed Proto-Indo-European languages, but they cannot date them. Archaeologists on the other hand can date the archaeological evidence of such institutions in time

and space, if the archaeological record is good enough. Rather than start looking for singular elements such as wagons or horses, we should identify a ‘package’ of archaeological traits that constituted an institution. To day we are in a situation where this is possible. It is exemplifi ed in my recent book with Thomas Larsson (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: 251–319, fi gures 2, 3 and 112).

This method is grounded in traditional archaeological hypothesis testing based on correspondence between a hypothesis and a set of diagnostic traits, in this case derived from texts, and a set of material correlates. The degree of correspondence between the diagnostic features of the hypothesis and the archaeological features defi nes the degree of verifi cation. In this way archaeology provides a spatial and temporal framework for institutions derived from texts, based on preserved oral traditions, often of unknown date.

Second, there is yet another prerequisite for explaining the expansion of early Indo-European languages based on population expansion: we must be able to identify a build-up of population in the proposed region of origin, before their expansion into new areas, and secondly we must be able to account for the expansion in social and economic terms. Such concentrations of population can be documented in the areas of proposed origin for Pre-Proto-Indo-European speaking populations and for Pre-Proto-Celtic speaking populations.

In the western steppe in the fi ft h to fourth millennium stratifi ed, Chalcolithic societies were developing in the Balkan-Carpathian region, only to collapse or be transformed during the later part of the fourth millennium BC (Chernykh 1992: 26–53; Sherratt 2003). Stretching from the Rumanian Black Sea coast to the

Kristian Kristiansen166

northeast of the Dniester-Dnieper Rivers the proto-urban communities of the Tripolje Culture created a barrier towards the west during this period. It represents what Mallory has called the fi rst of three fault lines to be passed in order to explain the expansion of Indo-European languages. But more importantly they provide the demographic foundation for the later peopling of the steppe and the light soils of Central and Northern Europe. These proto-urban communities were organised around fortifi ed sett lements with two-story houses arranged in concentric circles, the largest sett lements being from 100–400 ha, and containing 5000–15,000 people (Videjko 1995). Each community with satellite sett lements would hold from 6000–20,000 people, and a local group of several communities from 10,000 to 35,000 people. Their interaction with steppe communities and later abandonment or transformation into pastoral groups from the later fourth millennium onwards is still a matt er of debate (Chapman 2002; Dergachev 2000; Manzura 2005), but it opened up for a westward expansion into Central and Northern Europe of the new social and economic practice. Some have called this a ‘barbarization’ or decline of the Neolithic (Kruk and Milisauskas 1999; Rassamakin 1999: 125ff , 154).

Also, on the Iberian Peninsula we fi nd complex Chalcolithic societies with a concentrated population living inside huge fortifi ed sett lements. They stretched from Zambujal at the Tagus estuary in Portugal to south-east Spain, with Los Millares as the most well-known example. These complex societies collapsed and were transformed into small expanding, maritime Bell Beaker groups in the second quarter of the third millennium BC and they brought with them not only new metallurgical skills, but also skills in boat-building and mining (Case 2004). Their expansion was both toward the western Mediterranean, to North Africa and Sicily (Guillaine et al. 2009), and northward to France and north-western Europe (Prieto-Martínez and Salanova 2009). From here they moved into Central Europe (Heyd 2007), and mixed with Corded Ware groups, creating Proto-Celtic in the process, to be discussed later. They also crossed the channel to the British Isles (Needham 2002, 2005: fi gure 3). Here, I also refer to recent summaries of research in two conference proceedings (Czebreszuk 2004; Nicolis 2001).

The following is a synthesis of this new archaeological evidence and what it tells us about the expansion of the earliest Indo-European institutions, and consequently languages from the late fourth until the early second millennium BC, which marks the early and middle part of the Bronze Age in western Eurasia.

New archaeological evidence for the expansion of agro-pastoral economiesToday it can be stated with some certainty that the third millennium BC was a period of major social and economic changes over wide areas in western Eurasia (Anthony 2007; Kohl 2007; Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007; Kuzmina 2002; Sherratt 1997). Furthermore, that this change was in part linked to a complex patt ern of interaction, from travels and small-scale population movements to some large-scale migrations. It was based upon the formation of a new economy, and a concomitant new social and religious order of society, with a tremendous capacity for expansion and social incorporation. Regional series of 14C dating defi ne the beginning of this major expansion within a rather narrow time span during the early part of the third millennium BC (Czebreszuk and Müller 2001). This scenario is supported by new evidence from science, ecology and metallurgy.

Recent developments in strontium isotope analysis of teeth and bone are producing new and compelling evidence of the movement of individuals in later prehistory (Ezzo et al. 1997; Grupe et al. 1997; Montgomery et al. 2000; Price et al. 1997; Price et al. 2000), now detailed by DNA studies of burials (Haak et al. 2008). Also, anthropological evidence testifi es to a change of population in some regions, such as Denmark and Poland in the early third millennium BC (Dzieduszycka-Machnik and Machnik 1990; Petersen 1993). Similar evidence is now being presented from Sweden as well (Ahlström 2009). A population taller than previous Neolithic people emerges on the scene, and leads to a general rise in the stature of the population from the late third millennium onwards. In Denmark the average height of males increases with 7 cm from the Megalith period of the late fourth millennium to the early Bronze Age of the late third millennium BC.

A second area of new research concerns the ecological and economic transformations taking place in the steppe and forest steppe regions. Here new palaeo-botanical research and 14C dating of buried soils under barrows has revealed the early formation of grasslands and steppe environments, and their systematic use for large herds of grazing animals (Anthony 1998; Kremenetski 2003; Shishlina 2000, 2003). During the late fourth and early third millennium BC the Yamna tribal groups north of the Black Sea in the Pontic steppe practiced small-scale pastoral herding, moving locally between summer and winter pastures, using four-wheeled vehicles. Rich grasslands and higher levels of humidity than today secured this economic transformation and its

14. The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages: an archaeological model 167

widespread geographical adaptation, even into the Balkans, the Carpathians and Hungary, but also to the east (Ecsedy 1994; Harrison and Heyd 2007: fi gure 45; Heyd in press; Kalicz 1998; Kuzmina 2002; Shishlina 2008: fi gure 138) (Figure 14.1). From here the new agro-pastoral economy and its warlike social organisation was adopted in Central and Northern Europe, where it is named Corded Ware Culture (Central Europe) and Single Grave Culture (North-Western Europe). Within this large region we see the same picture emerge as on the steppe: a rapid decimation of the forest and the establishment of large open areas for grazing the herds in a mixed economy with some farming (Müller et al. 2009: fi gure 3). Recent sett lement evidence from Central Europe from the later phase of the Corded Ware Culture indicates that catt le dominated, but that also domesticated horse was found in some numbers. Pigs were rare, as they need forests to roam in, and sheep were also uncommon, primarily being a source of meat. Deer-hunting provided extra meat and antler (Müller et al. 2009: 135 ff .). Much the same picture is found on the steppe (Chernykh et al. 1998: Abb. 10–11; Morales et al. 2003: table 22.3). Also here agriculture played a minor role but increased through time as supplementary production (see Bunyatyan 2003; Gershkovich 2003; Morales Muniz and Antipina 2003; Otroschchenko 2003; Pashkevich 2003).

The third area of new research is in the fi eld of metallurgy. E.N. Chernykh and his colleagues have conducted a long-term research project, which has made it possible to identify diff erent metallurgical provinces during the third and second millennium BC (Chernykh 1992; Chernykh and Kuzmina 1989; Chernykh et al. 2002). In recent years, work has been conducted in collaboration with Spanish colleagues to detail this evidence, especially the ecological impact of large-scale mining (Chernykh et al. 1998; Vicent Garcia et al. 1999, 2000, unpublished manuscript). The Caucasus and the Carpathians provided most of the copper during the third and second millennium BC, while on the steppe the mining area of Kargaly in the Urals produced huge amounts of copper during the Bronze Age (an estimated 150,000 tons), which was distributed over the whole steppe region (Chernykh 2002). Deforestation was an immediate result, but must have been compensated for by imports of wood from further away. Huge smelting and production sites in the mountains are packed with catt le bones from meat consumption. It suggests an intensive production and exchange of food and metal, indicating a widespread division of labour between steppe societies and mining societies. Recent palaeo-botanical research has demonstrated that the area was completely deforested already during the Bronze Age (Díaz-del-Rio et al.

Figure 14.1: The distribution of the Yamna culture and the Corded Ware/Single Grave Cultures of the early third millennium BC (from Kristiansen 2007: fi gure 1. Reworked from Mallory and Mair 2000: fi gure 53).


2006 ). It is thus reasonable to assume that much of the copper was distributed in raw form and later re-melted at centres like Sintashta.

Finally, a new burial ritual accompanied the expansion of these new agro-pastoral economies. It focused on individual burials of family groups of males and females that were covered by a low mound or kurgan (or tumulus) (Figure 14.2). The graves were oft en dug into the ground, and therefore they are also called pit graves. Later burials would sometimes be added on top of previous burials and each time a new layer was added to the barrow.

The expansion of this mobile agro-pastoral economy was rapid and sometimes dramatic, as evidenced in a recently analysed multiple burial from Saxony-Anhalt, the result of a massacre on a small family group of

thirteen individuals (Meyer et al. 2009). During the Early and Middle Neolithic periods there were still large forest reserves preserved in Europe, although mainly on lighter soils. However, during the early third millennium BC these areas were colonised by expanding pastoral herders and warriors with an apparently never-ending appetite for new pastures. They rapidly burned down the forests to create grazing lands for their animals, as evidenced in pollen diagrams (Andersen 1995, 1998; Kremenetski 2003; Odgaard 1994). As land-use was extensive it demanded much larger tracts of open land to feed people and animals than in a more sedentary agrarian economy, and to facilitate communication and travels they employed ox-drawn, four-wheeled wagons (Burmeister 2004). The mobile lifestyle is also exemplifi ed by the use of

Figure 14.2: The new burial ritual of single graves covered by a mound (kurgan/tumulus) accompanied the expansion of the new agro-pastoral economies from the Urals to Scandinavia. This example from Jutland shows how the earliest graves were pit graves dug into the ground, later graves were added on top of each other and covered with a new mound (from Kristiansen 1984: fi gure 6).


mats, tents, and wagons, which are sometimes found in burials (Ecsedy 1994; Shishlina 2008: fi gures 27–28). Figure 14.3 shows a simplifi ed pollen diagram from north-western Jutland in Denmark that illustrates the sudden and rapid decline of forest in the early third millennium, and the fi nal decimation of the forest during the middle of the second millennium with the expansion of Bronze Age societies. The decimation of the forest during less than hundred years is due to a massive immigration of a new population with a new economy and social organization.

The newcomers practiced some cultivation of cereals, especially barley (Robinson and Kempfner 1987), but the economy was based on animal products, and these agro-pastoral societies expanded through a combination of warfare and recruitment of new members through patron-clientrelations and other means of social dominance, including language. This was in some areas replaced by mass migrations, as in the case of western Jutland. Small houses or huts appear during the later stage of the Corded Ware and Single Grave Culture (Liversage 1987; Müller et al. 2009).

From the mid-third millennium this inland economic system, variously termed Corded Ware, Single Grave and Batt le Axe cultures, was complemented

by a maritime counterpart in the form of the Bell Beaker cultures that expanded along the western Mediterranean and along the Atlantic façade before they moved inland, but never further east than Hungary and they always sett led in small pockets. They were travelling artisans that were well received because of their skills (Heyd 2007; Price et al. 2004, Vander Linden 2007). Through hybridisation between the Corded Ware/Single Grave Culture and the expanding Bell Beaker Culture there emerged a hybrid Beaker Culture. This new culture experienced a rapid expansion that transformed society in much the same way as the Corded Ware and Single Grave Culture had transformed temperate Europe.

The Bell Beaker people brought with them metallurgical knowledge, in addition to maritime skills, and they migrated as skilled artisans according to recent strontium isotope analyses of teeth and bone (Price et al. 2004). The beginning of the second millennium saw the integration between these two social and cultural traditions, supplemented with a new bronze technology that made it possible to mine and distribute large quantities of metal throughout Europe. But before turning to the second millennium, I shall briefl y summarize the major new institutions

Figure 14.3: Simplifi ed pollen diagram from Thy, North-western Jutland, Denmark (from Kristiansen 2009: fi gure 1).


Figure 14.4: Initial Bekaer dispersals and cultural interactions in north-west Europe, mid-third millennium BC (from Needham 2005: fi gure 3).


of the third millennium and their historical context in the emerging, urbanized Bronze Age economies of the Near East and Anatolia.

The origin of the family, personal property and gender divisionsI have demonstrated that there is mounting archaeological and scientifi c evidence for the formation of a new historical epoch in temperate Europe by the third millennium BC, with antecedents in the later fourth millennium originating in the Pontic steppe and the Caucasus. The background to this historical change was in part linked to the rise of proto-state societies and urban life in Mesopotamia and the Near East that marked the beginning of the Bronze Age. Consequently there developed new needs to establish relations with the outer world to get access to a number of essential goods, such as copper, tin and later on also horses located outside their own territories. The so-called Uruk expansion of the mid to later fourth millennium BC (Algaze 1989; Stein 1999), created these new links that circulated copper from the Caucasus in exchange of new types of prestige goods and technological knowledge (Dolukanov 1994: 326ff .; Sherratt 1997). From this interaction there emerged new ranked chiefdoms in the Caucasus, called the Maikop Culture, by the late fourth millennium BC.One of the important archaeological expressions of the Maikop Culture is rooted in the practice of burying their chiefl y lineages in large kurgans or barrows (Rezepkin 2000). But other social institutions were adopted as well. The early city-states of Mesopotamia had developed new means for trade and exchange that demanded new concepts of property and its transmission. This in turn entailed a new economic and legal defi nition of family and inheritance (Diakonoff 1982; Postgate 2003; Yoff ee 1995). These new concepts were selectively adapted to a different and less complex social and economic environment in Anatolia and the Caucasus, as well as the Aegean (Rahmstorf 2010). This is the formation of the Maikop Culture in the Caucasus with royal kurgans and Mesopotamian imports (Sherratt 2003). It led to the formation of new institutions based upon a new concept of rank linked to movable, personal property, mainly in the form of prestige goods and animals (herds). This new social organisation was ritually manifested in a new type of kurgans with individual burials and rich personal grave goods. It was quickly transmitt ed to steppe societies where it caught on and was wedded to a new expansive pastoral economy of mobile wealth of herds of animals (Kohl 2001; Rothman 2003).

I thus propose that transmission of a new family structure from the city-states of the south (the Uruk expansion) with new defi nitions of family, property and inheritance helped to facilitate the social formation of a new mobile agro-pastoral society in the steppe region and beyond. It constituted the monogamous family group as a central social and economic institution based on a patrilineal kinship system. It favoured the accumulation of mobile wealth through expansion and the formation of external alliance systems (discussion in Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: 142–250; Rowlands 1980), and mobile wealth could be carried along and even transmitt ed between generations. The new barrow ritual of individual burials furnished with these very same symbols of wealth represented the ritualised institutionalisation of these new principles as they were now also transferred to the land of death, when property had to be transmitt ed and redistributed.

Another important institution that was introduced from the early city-states to their closer peripheries in Anatolia and Caucasus was that of organised warfare under royal or chiefly command. In the Eurasian societies of the third millennium BC the male warrior became a new ideal and was att ributed to the institution of chiefl y leadership (Vandkilde 2006). It was materialised in the universal role of the carefully executed war axe in precious stone, copper, silver or gold, later supplemented with the composite bow. But already now we can begin to see the contours of a more complex division of social roles and institution. Specialists, such as the metal smith, begin to appear in burials, and ritualised, priestly functions are also demonstrated in grave goods, from the steppe to Central Europe. A more complex society of warriors, priests, craft specialists and herders/farmers is emerging, although yet in embryonic form (Hansen 2002; Müller 2002; Schwarz 2008; Shishlina 2008). Its expansion was facilitated by the demographic surplus that emerged when the large Tripolje sett lements of tens of thousands of people were dissolved during the mid to late fourth millennium BC and had to fi nd a new way of living in dispersed family groups.

From the new institutionalised roles of leadership linked to warriors, priests and craft smen, and the new rules of family and kinship to control property and mobile wealth, there also followed new and stricter defi nitions of gender roles (Harrison and Heyd 2007: fi gures 45–48).

Figure 14.5 presents a model of this social organisation and its basic components. They are composed by the family barrow or tumulus, which became the ritualised extension of a new kinship system where the transmission of mobile property


(herds) played a crucial role through inheritance and partnerships. The barrow thus defi ned ritually the free man, his family and his property, and it also defi ned the male warrior as heading a new institution of chieft ainship. Male and female genders are strictly and rigorously demarcated in burial ritual through the orientation of the body, laying on left or right side. This ritual institution remained stable throughout western Eurasia during several hundred years, and it speaks of a social and ritual commonality of vast geographical proportions, but also of a highly regulated society.

There can be no doubt as to the important role of gender, although male burials always outnumber female burials. Mobile societies of herding often exhibit a strongly gendered division of labour, and this we see reproduced in burial rituals throughout the third and second millennia in Eurasia. Although some agriculture was part of the economy, more so in Central and Northern Europe, herding was the dominant economic strategy. In an agro-pastoral society of herding based upon property of animals and their produce, rules of transmission and of inheritance

become important. Therefore, there had to be chiefs in charge of maintaining and performing a corpus of ritualised rules.

To summarize, during the third millennium BC there emerged a new social and economic order in western Eurasia. By the mid-third millennium BC common ritual and social institutions were employed from the Urals to Northern Europe within the temperate lowland zone. As stated by Philip Kohl:

‘Major transformations in the prehistory of Eurasia were marked by fundamental developments in the production and exchange of materials basic to the reproduction of and consolidation of societies stretching from the Eurasian steppes to the ancient Near East and northern Europe. Whatever model one adopts, this certainly was an interconnected world.’ (Kohl 2003: 21).

A western branch characterised by Bell Beakers expanded further along the Atlantic seaboard. Aft er 2000 BC this social formation was wedded to a new metal economy and the formation of a new chariot driving warrior elite that originated southeast of the Urals.

Figure 14.5: Model of basic material and institutional components of western Eurasian societies of the third millennium BC (from Kristiansen 2009: Figure 2).


The expansion of the chariot and of warrior aristocracies With the introduction of the chariot, the composite bow, the long sword and the lance, warfare took on a new social, economic and ideological signifi cance from the beginning of the second millennium BC (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: 170–85). This was among other things refl ected in burial rituals where chiefl y barrows became a dominant feature of this new institution. A new class of master artisans emerged to build chariots, breed and train horses, produce and train others in the use of, the new weapons. This package of skills was so complex that it demanded the transfer of people, horses and warriors to be properly adopted. Once adopted this package changed the nature of society, as it introduced a whole series of new economic and social demands, as well as a new ideology of aristocracy linked to warfare and political leadership. Thus, it represented a new institution of warrior aristocracies and their att ached specialists that changed Bronze Age societies throughout Eurasia and the Near East.

The adoption of the new institutions of warrior aristocracies and chariots happened so rapidly that

it is impossible to trace its origin with archaeological dating methods. But its westward expansion is now well dated through a series of calibrated 14C dates to the fi rst centuries of the second millennium BC (Kuznesov 2006). What we can demonstrate, however, is that it spread as a package, and we can further demonstrate its impact on local societies. I shall also briefl y discuss how it spread – through warfare or through travels and trade. First we need to identify its geographical expansion.

To encircle this new institution and its geographical impact I have chosen to map the cheek pieces employed for the horses. They can be found in burials where the horses were buried with the warrior and the chariot, but they are also found in sett lements. Figure 14.6 shows the structured distribution of three interregional networks of travels, trade and possibly conquest. This initial expansion of the chariot complex took place along three regional trajectories. A steppe tradition employing bone bits with circular cheek pieces extending from the Urals to the Carpathians, an Anatolian, Near Eastern/East Mediterranean tradition employing bronze bits of similar type as the steppe, and an east Central European tradition employing

Figure 14.6: Distribution of the three major types of bits in the chariot complex in Eurasia and the east Mediterranean during early to mid-second millennium BC. It demonstrates the existence of three interregional networks, which met in the Aegean and the Carpathians (from Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: fi gure 79).


antler cheek-pieces. Horse bits were part of a warrior/chariot package that included new types of long swords, bow and arrow, and lance with a similar distribution. The three traditions meet in the Aegean and in the Carpathians (Boroffk a 1998; Penner 1998). From here new regional links were established with the east Mediterranean and northern Europe (David 2001; Engedal 2002; Kristiansen 1998: fi gure 191; Larsson 1999a, 1997, 1999b). Thus the new chariot warrior aristocracy was distributed along these regional trading links to northern Europe, and possibly to the east Mediterranean, if not already reached from the Near East (to be discussed below). The three distributions are further unifi ed by a specialized style of waveband decoration linked to these objects, which are mostly foreign to the local style tradition, and represented an international elite style (David 1997; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: fi gures 77–78).

The distribution of this new package thus fulfi ls the criteria for the expansion of a new institution adapted to local traditions throughout Eurasia and the Near East. In all probability it also lead to language changes in some regions, in others it added a new terminology to an existing language. However, in the initial phase of the earlier second millennium it was still unifi ed by a number of common traits, among them the specialized waveband decoration and also the employment and trade in large well-bred steppe horses, as they emerge in early Mycenaean burials at Dendra (Payne 1990). As it demanded the transfer of new skills, craft smanship and horses, we have to envisage the migration of small groups of warriors, craft smen and horse breeders that were welcomed at the chiefl y courts along the networks just described (Raulwing and Meyer 2004). The occurrence of identical or nearly identical objects in the Carpathians, Mycenae and Anatolia underpins that direct personal contacts and long distance travels were involved in the creation and expansion of the new institution. We cannot exclude that conquests were also part of the scenario in some regions, where the package appears as ‘intrusive’, such as the emergence of the shaft grave dynasties in Greece with their links to the steppe region, both in terms of burial ritual and anthropological type (Angel 1972; Manolis and Neroutsos 1997; but cf. Day 2001). However, in other regions, such as Anatolia and Caucasus it corresponds to the period of the Old Assyrian Karum trade, which also included copper traded from the Caucasus (Barjamovic 2005). Here it led to the formation of highly stratifi ed chiefdoms or proto-states, which buried their dead in richly furnished chamber tombs under large barrows in the Trialeti Culture (Puturidze 2003), strongly infl uenced from the Near East through the old Assyrian trade network (Rubinson 2003). The

Old Assyrian merchants were able to exploit the new Bronze Age world-system by trading tin from Asia, probably Uzbekistan (Parzinger and Boroffk a 2002), and selling it with a profi t in the Hitt ite city states of Anatolia, several thousand kilometres from its source. Thus, multiple historical processes, peaceful and violent, were at work during the early centuries of the second millennium BC, whose impact we are only beginning to understand, but that they were part of an interlinked Bronze Age world seems undeniable.

It adds strength to our historical scenario that textual evidence from Anatolia, Egypt and the Near East describe this period as one of disruption, which was linked among other things to the spread and adaptation of the Indo-European ‘chariot package’, which demanded both skilled specialists and the import and training of horses from the steppe. It coincides with disruptions and social changes, including conquest migrations over large areas from the Near East and the Levant to Central Asia and India. According to Robert Drews:

‘The new rulers are in most cases a dominant minority, constituting only a tiny fragment of the population. This was especially true of the Aryan rulers in Mitanni and the Aryan and Hurrian princes in the Levant; it seems also true of the Kassites in Babylon and the Hyksos in Egypt. The Aryan speakers who took over Northwest India may have gone there en masse but were nonetheless a minority in their newly acquired domain’ (Drews 1988: 63).

The origin and spread of the earliest Indo-European languages: a social expansionist modelIn conclusion: we can identify a sequence of archaeological stages of migrations and social transformations that may account for the early westward expansion of IE languages, because they introduced new social and economic institutions, as well as rituals, that correspond to the evidence from the earliest IE languages. 1) Mid to late fourth millennium BC – Proto-Indo-European

and Hitt ite: the formation of the Maikop Culture with their royal kurgans in the Caucasus during the mid- to later fourth millennium and its expansion both northwards into the steppe, and southwards into northern Anatolia, can most probably be linked to the early formation of Proto-Indo-European (to the north) and early Hitt ite (in northern Anatolia). It implies that Hitt ite is probably the oldest among the Indo-European languages as it diverged already during the mid to late fourth millennium BC (Anthony 2007: 287–300).


2) A slightly later version of the Maikop Culture expanded into the steppe and led to the formation of the Yamna Culture and Proto-Indo-European languages there, which would mainly expand towards the west during the early third millennium BC, although an eastern satellite expansion might account for Tocharian. The reconstruction of the earliest Proto-Indo-European language and its institutions corresponds rather precisely to the archaeological record of western Eurasia during this period. The original Proto-Indo-European phase can be located to the late fourth and early third millennium expansion of the Yamna Culture from the Pontic steppe into Hungary, and heavily infl uencing the Balkans (including northern Greece), and northern Italy (Harrison and Heyd 2007: fi gures 43 and 50).

3) In the latter regions the Proto-Indo-European language would later become Proto-Greek and Proto-Italic, according to some interpretations. Others would put this at a much later date of the early second millennium BC in the Bronze Age, linked to the chariot expansion. However, there is much that speaks in favour of a cultural and language connection between the Danube and northern Italy (Proto-Italic, to continue during the Bronze Age), in Italy refl ected in the Remedello Culture. Later there would also be some Bell Beaker infl uence in northern Italy forming an early link to Proto-Celtic (Harrison and Heyd 2007: fi gure 40). The Italic language would expand throughout the

peninsula no later that the tweft h century BC when more than 100,000 people of the Terra Mare Culture left the Po valley in a huge exodus (Brea et al. 1997: fi gure 445, Biett i Sestieri 2005: fi gure 4).

4) In the temperate zone the further westward expansion in the shape of the Corded Ware/Single Grave Culture followed rapidly during the early to mid-third millennium BC through acculturation and subsequent migrations (from c. 2850 BC). It corresponds in all probability to the formation proto-Germanic. Already during the Bronze Age it would come to diverge into West and East-Germanic, as well as Proto-Norse (Kristiansen 2009).

5) From the mid-third millennium BC the hybridization between northern Corded Ware/Single Grave Cultures and southern and western Bell Beaker Cultures resulted in the formation of Proto-Celtic languages that stretched from the Iberian peninsula to the British Isles, further into France and Switzerland/northern Italy (Harrison and Heyd 2007). It became the dominant language of the Atlantic seaboard to the west, whereas the smaller pockets of sett lements in Central Europe were in all probability overtaken by Germanic during the Bronze Age.

6) Aft er 2000 BC the development and expansion of new social formations and of new languages shift ed to eastern Eurasia (Figure 14.7). Originating southeast of the Urals we now witness the expansion of chariot driving warrior aristocracies, this time mostly directed towards the south and east. They

Figure 14.7: The Late Bronze Age expansion of the chariot-using Andronovo Culture towards the east and southeast (from Kristiansen 2007: fi gure 2, reworked from Mallory and Mair 2000: fi gure 158).


expanded through conquest into Mesopotamia and founded the Mitanni kingdom, and through central Asia and into Pakistan and India, where they founded the kingdoms of the early Rig Vedic literature. On their way they also sett led in Iran (Hiebert 1998). This eastward expansion can safely be identifi ed with the expansion of the early Indo-Iranian languages, and the correspondences between the institutions and rituals of the early Rig Veda, and the archaeological record of the Sintastha Culture that later transformed into the eastern Andronovo Culture are striking (Kuzmina 2001, 2007; Mallory 1998).

This model of language expansion based on a mixture of social expansion through migrations/conquest and social incorporation makes sense of both the archaeological and the linguistic record, because the archaeological record of the third and second millennia corresponds to the social and ritual institutions of the reconstructed Proto- and Mature-Indo-European languages. From the second millennium onwards the institution of dual leadership and twin gods, derived from the introduction of the chariot with two charioteers is introduced throughout western Eurasia (Kristiansen in press). Based on their close connection with the technological innovation of the late third and early second millennium: chariot and horsemanship, the Divine Twins as they are defi ned in the Rig Veda and later European sources, cannot be much older than c. 2000 BC. The dual leadership, however, may originate in the third millennium BC, as we have a number of double male burials during this period. The tumulus barrow is also a sun symbol, so its role in Indo-European religion dates back to this period as well. Also the recurring beaker in male burials was linked to ritual drinking, as it contained mead or beer (Klassen 2005; Kock 2003). Rich female burials with two sun-shaped amber discs may further refer to a ritual role in the sun cult. The dominant war axe, or rather axe hammer, which is found in male burials from the Urals to Scandinavia in the early third millennium BC, may be a symbol of the oldest of gods – the sky god. It is supported by the fact that his name, Di(e)yeus (West 2007: chapter 4), is shared from India to Scandinavia in Proto-Indo-European language. This early phase also marks the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Near East.

However, it is not until the Bronze Age proper in Europe from 2000 BC onwards that a richer material culture, and outstanding conditions of preservation in oak coffi n burials in Denmark allows us to reconstruct the religious institutions linked to the sun cult and the Divine Twins, as well as their earthly representatives.

By this time the second and third generation of young gods, headed by the Divine Twins, had taken precedence. More complex Bronze Age societies with a new warrior class, chariots and horses demanded new gods with new functions, which also redefi ned the role of an earlier pantheon of fi rst and second generation gods, as we have seen (Parpola 2004–2005). These new gods are oft en referred to as young and shining and their roles were numerous. By acting as mediators between the sky and the earth, between the divine and the profane, they instituted a divine, ritualized leadership based upon dual kings or twin chiefs (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: 251–356).

By employing the archaeological record as a model to be tested on the linguistic evidence, it is now possible to identify the institutional correspondences of language in time and space, and it situates the early expansion of Indo-European languages safely in the beginning of the third millennium BC (toward the west), and early second millennium BC (towards the southeast and southwest). It renders Colin Renfrew’s previous model of the homeland of Indo-European languages in the early Neolithic of Anatolia obsolete, but for the later periods there is now a general agreement between the models.

This article presents a general historical overview; there still remains much to be done in detailing the evidence and the correspondences between language and archaeology.

Select readings1) The most recent and exhaustive interpretation

of the archaeology of the early Indo-European languages is David Anthony’s The Horse, the Wheel and Language (Princeton University Press 2007). It mainly covers the steppe region. I have adopted a slightly lower absolute chronology, as there are unresolved problems with the calibration of 14C dates due to the reservoir eff ect in human bones of 13C (fi sh diet), and the probable use of old wood in many barrow constructions.

2) The archaeological and social reconstruction of the early impact of the Yamna Culture and of Bell Beaker Cultures in Central Europe and northern Italy is now fully analysed in a seminal article by Richard Harrison and Volker Heyd (2007): The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland), in Praehistorische Zeitschrift 82: 129–214.

3) The enigma of the Tarim mummies, of Tocharian and the eastern expansion of Indo-European


languages is well presented and discussed in a book by J. P. Mallory and Victor Mair: The Tarim Mummies. Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West (Thames and Hudson 2000). Most recently Elena Kuzmina summaries her research on the archaeological formation of Indo-Iranian in the book The Origins of the Indo-Iranians (Brill 2007).

4) Finally, the archaeological history of early Indo-European languages in northern Europe is presented in an article by Kristian Kristiansen: ‘Proto-Indo-European Languages and Institutions: An Archaeological Approach,’ published in the book Departure from the Homeland: Indo-Europeans and Archaeology, edited by Marc Vander Linden and Karlene Jones-Bley (Washington D.C. 2009). The same author presents a general model of western Eurasia during the third and early second millennium in the article ‘Eurasian Transformations: Mobility, Ecological Change, and the Transmission of Social institutions in the Third Millennium and the early Second Millennium B.C.E.’, in The World System and the Earth System. Global Socio-environmental Change and Sustainability since the Neolithic, edited by A. Hornborg and C. Crumley, pp. 149–62 (Left Coast Press 2007).

ReferencesAhlström, T. 2009 Underjordiska dödsriken. Coast to Coast Book

18. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg. Algaze, G. 1989 The Uruk expansion. Cross-cultural exchange

in Early Mesopotamian civilization. Current Anthropology 30(5): 571–608.

Andersen, S. T. 1995 History of vegetation and agriculture at Hassing House Mose, Thy, northwest Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeology 1992–1993: 39–57.

Andersen, S. T. 1998 Pollen analytical investigations of barrows from the Funnel Beaker and Single Grave Cultures in the Vroue area, West Jutland, Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeology 1994–1995: 107–133.

Angel, J. L. 1972 Human skeletons from grave circles at Mycenae. In Ho taphikos kyklos B ton Mykenon, edited by G. E. Mylonas, pp. 379–397. The Archaeological Society of Athens, Athens.

Anthony, D. W. 1998 The opening of the Eurasian steppe at 2000 BCE. In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, edited by V. H. Mair, pp. 94–111. Institute for the Study of Man in collaboration with The University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, Washington, D.C.

Anthony, D. W. 2007 The Horse, the Wheel, and Language. How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.

Barjamovic, G. 2005 A Historical Geography of Ancient Anatolia in the Assyrian Colony Period. PhD Dissertation. University of Copenhagen.

Bietti Sestieri, A. M. 2005 A reconstruction of historical processes in Bronze and Early Iron Age Italy based on recent archaeological research. In Papers in Italian Archaeology VI, edited by P. Att ema, A. Nĳ boer and A. Ziff ero, pp. 9–24. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1452. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Boroffka, N. 1998 Bronze-und früheisenzeitl ichen Geweihtrensenknebel aus Rumänien und ihre Beziehungen. Eurasia Antiqua. Zeitschrift für Archäologie Eurasiens 4: 81–135.

Brea, M., Cardarelli, A. and Cremaschi, M. (eds) 1997 Le Terremare. La piu’ antica civiltà padana. Electa, Modena.

Burmeister, S. (ed.) 2004 Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im vorderen Orient und Europa. Verlag Phillip von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.

Case, H. 2004 Beakers and the Beaker Culture. In Similar but Diff erent. Bell Beakers in Europe, edited by J. Czebreszuk, pp. 11–34. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan.

Chapman, J. 2002 Domesticating the Exotic: the Context of Cucuteni-Tripolye Exchange with the Steppe and Forest-steppe Communities. In Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia, edited by K. Boyle, C. Renfrew and M. Levine, pp. 75–91. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge.

Chernykh, E. N. 1992 Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Chernykh, E. N. 2002 Ancient Mining and Metallurgical Production on the Border between Europe and Asia: The Kargaly Center. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 3(11): 88–106.

Chernykh, E. N. and Kuzmina, S. V. 1989 Ancient Metallurgy in the Northern Eurasia (Seyma-Turbino Phenomenon). Nauka, Moscow.

Chernykh, E. N., Antipina, E. E. and Lebedeva, E. J. 1998 Produktionsformen der Urgesellschaft in den Steppen Osteuropas (Ackerbau, Viehzucht, Erzgegwinnung und Verhütt ung). In Das Karpatenbecken und die Osteuropäische Steppe, edited by B. Hänsel and J. Machnik, pp. 233–254. Leidorf, München.

Chernykh, E. N., Avilova, L. L. I. and Orlovskay, L. B. 2002 Metallurgy of the Circumpontic Area: From Unity to Disintegration. Der Anschnitt . Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau 15: 83–100.

Crubézy, E., Ludes, B. and Keyser, C. 2010 Indo-Européens et anthropologie biologique. Les Dossiers d’Archaeologie 338: 62–67.

Czebreszuk, J. (ed.) 2004 Similar but Diff erent. Bell Beakers in Europe. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan.

Czebreszuk, J. and Müller, J. (eds) 2001 The Absolute Chronology of Central Europe 3000–2000 BC. Rahden, Poznan/Bamberg.

David, W. 1997 Altbronzezeitliche Beinobjekte des Karpatenbeckens mit Spiralwirbel-oder Wellenbandornamnet und ihre Parallellen auf der Peloponnes und in Anatolien in frühmykenischer Zeit. In The Thracian World at the Crossroads of Civilizations, edited by P. Roman, pp. 247–305. Institutul Roma de Thracologie, Bucharest.

David, W. 2001 Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Donau-Karpatenraum, osteuropäischen Steppengebieten und ägäisch-anatolischen Raum zur Zeit der mykenischen Schachtgräber unter Berücksichtigung neuerer Funde aus Südbayern. Anados. Studies of Ancient World 1: 51–80.


Day, J. V. 2001 Indo-European Origins: the Anthropological Evidence. The Institute for the Study of Man, Washington D.C.

Dergachev, V. 2000 The Migration theory of Marĳ a Gimbutas. Journal of do-European Studies 28(3–4): 257–319.

Diakonoff , I. M. 1982 The structure of Near Eastern Society before the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. Oikemene 3: 1–100.

Díaz Del Río, P., López García, P., López Sáez, J. A., Martinez Navarett e, M. I., Rovira-Llorens, S., Vicent García, J. M. and De Zavala Morencos, I. 2006 Understanding the productive economy during the Bronze Age through archaeometallurgical and palaeo-environemntal research at Kargaly (Southern Urals, Orenburg, Russia). In Beyond the Steppe and the Sown: Proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology, edited by D. L. Peterson, L. M. Popova and A. T. Smith, pp. 343–357. Colloquia Pontica 13. Brill. Leiden.

Dolukhanov, P. 1994 Environment and Ethnicity in the Ancient Middle East. Worldwide Archaeology Series, Avebury, Aldershot.

Drews, R. 1988 The Coming of the Greeks. Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Dzieduszycka-Machnik, A. and Machnik, J. 1990 Die Möglichkeiten der Erforschung der sozialen Struktur frühbronzezeitlicher Menschengruppen in Kleinpolen – am Beispiel der Nekropole in Iwanowice. Godisniak, Knjiga XXVII, Centar za Balkanoloska Ispitivanja, Knjiga 26: 185–196. Sarajevo.

Ecsedy, I. 1994 Camps for eternal rest. Some aspects of the burials of the earliest Nomads of the Steppe. In The Archaeology of the Steppes. Methods and Strategies. Papers from an International Symposium held in Naples 9–12 November 1992, edited by B. Genito, pp. 167–177. Instituto Universitario Orientale, Naples.

Engedal, Ø. 2002 The Nordic Scimitar. External Relations and the Creation of Elite Ideology. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1050. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Ezzo, J., Johnson, C. M. and Price, T. D. 1997 Analytical perspectives on Prehistoric Migration: A Case Study from East-Central Arizona. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 447–466.

Grupe, G., Price, T. D., Schröter, P., Söllner, F., Johnson, C. M. and Beard, B. L. 1997 Mobility of Bell Beaker people revealed by strontium isotope ratios of tooth and bone: a study of southern Bavarian skeletal remains. Applied Geochemistry 12: 517–525.

Guillaine, J., Tusa, S. and Veneroso, P. 2009 La Sicile et l’Europe campaniforme. Archives d’Ecologie Préhistorique, Toulouse.

Haak, W., Brandt, G., de Jong, H. N., Meyer, C., Ganslmeier,R., Heyd, V., Hawkesworth, C., Pike, A. W. G., Meller, H. and Alt, K. W. 2008 Ancient DNA, strontium isotopes and osteological analyses shed new light on social and kinship organization of the later Stone Age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(47): 18226–18231.

Hansen, S. 2002 ’Ûberausstatt utt ungen’ in Gräbern und Horten der Frühbronzezeit. In Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? Tagung Bamberg 14–16. Juni 2001, edited by J. Müller, pp. 151–173. UPA full title?? 90. Bonn.

Harrison, R. and Heyd, V. 2007 The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland). Praehistorische Zeitschrift 82: 129–214.

Helms, M. 1998 Access to Origins. Affi nes, Ancestors and Aristocrats. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Heyd, V. 2007 Families, Prestige Goods, Warriors and Complex Societies: Beaker Groups and the third Millennium cal BC. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73: 327–381.

Heyd, V. in press Yamnaya Groups and Tumuli west of the Black Sea. In Ancestral Landscapes: Burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe; Balkans; Adriatic; Aegean, 4th–2nd millennium BC). International Conference, Udine/Italy, May 15th–18th 2008, edited by S. Müller-Celka and E. Borgna. Travaux de la Maisonde Orient et de la Méditerranée. Archéorient, Lyon.

Hiebert, F. T. 1998 Central Asians on the Iranian Plateau. A Model for Indo-Iranian Expansionism. In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, edited by V. H. Mair, pp. 148–162. The Institute for the Study of Man in collaboration with The University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, Washington, D.C.

Hiebert, F. T. 2002 Bronze Age Interaction between the Eurasian Steppe and Central Asia. In Ancient Interactions East and West in Eurasia, edited by K. Boyle, C. Renfrew and M. Levine, pp. 237–248. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge.

Kalicz, N. 1998 Östliche Beziehungen während der Kupferseit in Ungarn. In Das Karpatenbecken und die Osteuropäische Steppe, edited by B. Hänsel and J. Machnik, pp. 163–177. Leidorf, München.

Klassen, L. 2005 Refshøjsgård. Et bemærkelsesværdigt gravfund fra enkeltgravskulturen. (Refshøjgsgård. An extraordinary burial-fi nd from the Single Grave Culture). Kuml: 17–57. Aarhus.

Kock, E. 2003 Mead, chiefs and feasts in later prehistoric Europe. In Food, Culture and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, edited by M. Parker Pearson, British Archaeological Report International Series 1117: 125–43. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Kohl, P. 2001 Migrations and cultural diff usion in the later prehistory of the Caucasus. In Migration und Kulturtransfer. Der Wandel der vorder-und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, edited by R. Reichmann and H. Parzinger. Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Frankfurt a. M. Eurasien-Abteilung, Berlin. Kolloquien zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte vol. 6. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.

Kohl, P. 2003 Integrated interaction at the beginning of the Bronze Age. New evidence from the northeastern Caucasus and the advent of tin bronzes in the third millennium BC. In Archaeology in the Borderlands. Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, edited by A. T. Smith and K. S. Rubinson, pp. 9–21. Monographs 47. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kohl, P. 2007 The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Louwe Kooĳ mans, L. P., van den Broeke, P., Fokkens, H. and Van Gĳ n, A. (eds) The Prehistory of the Netherlands, volume 1. University of Amsterdam Press, Amsterdam.

Koryakova, L. and Epimakhov, A. 2007 The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kozintsev, A. G. 2008 The ‘Mediterraneans’ of southern Siberia and Kazakhstan, Indo-European migrations, and the origin of the Scythians: a multivariate craniometric analysis. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36(4): 140–144.


Kremenetski, K. 2003 Steppe and forest steppe belt of Eurasia: Holocene environmental history. In Prehistoric Steppe Adaptations and the Horse, edited by M. Levine, C. Renfrew and K. Boyle, pp. 11–29. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge

Kristiansen, K. 1984 Ideology and material culture: an archaeological perspective. In Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by M. Spriggs, pp. 72–100. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kristiansen, K. 1989 Prehistoric migrations – the case of the Single Grave Culture and Corded ware Cultures. Journal of Danish Archaeology 8: 211–225.

Kristiansen, K. 1998 Europe before History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kristiansen. K. 2001 Rulers and warriors: symbolic transmission and social transformation in Bronze Age Europe. In From Leaders to Rulers, edited by J. Haas, pp. 85–105. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Kristiansen, K. 2004 Institutions and material culture. Towards an intercontextual archaeology. In Rethinking Materiality: the Engagement of Mind and the Material World, edited by C. Renfrew and E. DeMarrais, pp. 179–193 . McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge.

Kristiansen, K. 2005 What language did Neolithic pots speak? Colin Renfrew’s farming-language-dispersal model challenged. Antiquity 79(305): 679–691.

Kristiansen, K. 2007 Eurasian transformations: mobility, ecological change, and the transmission of social institutions in the third millennium and the early second millennium B.C.E. In The World System and the Earth System. Global Socioenvironmental Change and Sustainability since the Neolithic, edited by A. Hornborg and C. Crumley, pp. 149–162. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Kristiansen, K. 2009 Proto-Indo-European languages and institutions – an archaeological approach. In Departure from the Homeland: Indo-Europeans and Archaeology, edited by M. Vander Linden and K. Jones-Bley, pp. 111–140. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 56. Washington D.C.

Kristiansen, K. 2011 Bridging India and Scandinavia – institutional transmission and elite conquest during the Bronze Age. In Interweaving worlds. Systemic interaction in Eurasia 7th to 1st Millenia BC: Essays from a conference in memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt , edited by T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and S. Bennett , pp. 243–265. Oxbow Books, Oxford

Kristiansen, K. and Larsson, T. 2005 The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmission and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kruk, J. and Milisauskas, S. 1999 Rozkwit i upadek spolecze´nstw rolniczych neolitu. The Rise and Fall of Neolithic Societies. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii. Nauk, Krakow.

Kuzmina, E. E. 1998 Cultural Connections of the Tarim Basin People and the Pastoralists of the Asian Steppes in the Bronze Age. In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, edited by V. H. Mair, pp. 63–92. The Institute for the Study of Man in collaboration with The University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, Washington, D.C.

Kuzmina, E. E. 2001 The fi rst migration wave of Indo-Iranians to the south. Journal of Indo-European Studies 29(1): 1–40.

Kuzmina, E. E. 2002 Origins of pastoralism in the Eurasian steppes. In Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse, edited by M. Levine, C. Renfrew and K. Boyle, pp. 203–232. McDonald institute Monographs, Cambridge.

Kuzmina, E. E. 2007 The Origins of the Indo-Iranians, edited by Mallory, J. P. Brill, Leiden.

Kuznetsov, P. F. 2006 The emergence of Bronze Age chariots in eastern Europe. Antiquity 80: 638–645.

Larsson, T. B. 1997 Materiell kultur och religiösa symboler. Arkeologiska studier vid Umeå Universitet 4. Umeå.

Larsson, T. B. 1999 Symbols in a European Bronze Age cosmology. In Communications in Bronze Age Europe. Transactions of a Bronze Age Symposium in Tanumstrand, Bohuslän, Sweden, September 7–5, 1995, edited by C. Orrling, pp. 9–17. Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm.

Larsson, T. B. 1999b The transmission of an élite ideology – Europe and the Near East in the second millennium BC. Rock Art as Social Representations, edited by J. Goldhahn, pp. 49–64. British Archaeological Reports International Series 794. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Liversage, D. 1987 Morten Sande 2 – A Single Grave Camp Site in Northwestern Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 6: 101–124.

Mallory, J. P. 1998 A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia. In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, vol. 1, edited by V. H. Mair, pp. 175–200. The Institute for the Study of Man in collaboration with The University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, Washington, D.C.

Mallory, J. P. and Mair, V. H. 2000 The Tarim Mummies. Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest People from the West. Thames & Hudson, London.

Manolis, S. K. and. Neroutsos, A. A. 1997 The Middle Bronze Age Burial of Kolona at Aegina Island, Greece: Study of the Human Skeletal Remains. In Das Mitt elbronzezeitliche Schachtgrab von Ägina, edited by I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, pp. 00–00. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Forshcungsinstitutt für Vor-und Frühgeschichte. Kataloge Vor-und Frühgeschichtliche Altertümer, vol. 27/Alt Ägina vol. IV, 3. Verlag Phillip von Zabern, Mainz.

Manzura, I. 2005 Steps to the steppe: or, how the north Pontic region was colonised. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24(4): 313–338.

Meyer, C., Brandt, G., Haaka, W., Ganslmeier, R. A., Meller, H. and Alta, K. W. 2009 The Eulau eulogy: bio-archaeological interpretation of lethal violence in Corded Ware multiple burials from Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 412–423.

Montgomery, J., Budd, P. and Evans, J. 2000 Reconstructing the lifetime movements of ancient people: a Neolithic case study from Southern England. European Journal of Archaeology 3(3): 370–385

Müller, J. (ed.) 2002 Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? Tagung Bamberg 14.–16. Juni 2001. UPA 90. Bonn.

Müller, J., Sergely, T., Becker, C., Christensen, A.-M., Fuchs, M., Kroll, H., Mischka, D. and Schüssler, U. 2009 A revision of Corded Ware sett lement patt ern – new results from the central European low mountain range. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75: 125–142.

Needham, S. 2002 Analytical implications for Beaker metallurgy in north-west Europe. In The Beginnings of Metallurgy in the


Old World, edited by E. Pernicka and M. Bartelheim, pp. 99–133. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden.

Needham, S. 2005 Transforming Beaker Culture in north-west Europe; Processes of fusion and fi ssion. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 171–217.

Odgaard, B. V. 1994 The Holocene vegetation history of northern West Jutland, Denmark. Opera Botanica 123: 1–171.

Nicolis, F. (ed.) 2001 Bell Beakers Today. Pott ery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe, vols 1–2. Provincia Autonoma di Trento Servizio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Parpola, A. 2004–2005 The Nasatyas, the Chariot and Proto-Aryan Religion. Journal of Indological Studies, Nos 16–17: 1– 63.

Pare, C. 2000 Bronze and the Bronze Age. In Metals Make The World Go Round. The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe, edited by C. Pare, pp. 1–38. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Parzinger, H. and Boroffka, N. 2002 Zur bronzezeitlichen Zinngewinnung in Eurasiaen. Die Bergarbeitersiedlung bei karnap, Uzbekistan. Godisnjak Jahrbuch, XXXII: 161–178. Sarajevo, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Pashkevich, G. 2003 Palaeoethnobotanical evidence of agriculture in the Steppe and the Forest-Steppe of east Europe in the Late neolithic and bronze Age. In Prehistoric Steppe Adaptations and the Horse, edited by M. Levine, C. Renfrew and K. Boyle, pp. 287–297. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Payne, S. 1990 Field report on the Dendra horses. Appendix to E. Protonotariou-Deilaki: The Tumuli of Mycenae and Dendra. In Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid, edited by R. Hägg, C. Gullög and C. Nordquist, pp. 103–106. Skrift er utgivna av svenska institutet i Athen, 4, XL. Stockholm.

Penner, S. 1998 Schliemanns Schachtgräberrund under der europäische Nordosten. Studien zur Herkunft der Mykenischen Streitwagenausstattung. Saarbrücker Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, vol. 60. Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, Bonn.

Petersen, H. C. 1993 An anthropological investigation of the Single Grave Culture in Denmark. In Populations of the Nordic Countries. Human Population Biology from the Present to the Mesolithic, edited by E. Iregren and R. Liljekvist, pp. 178–188. Institute of Archaeology Report Series 46. University of Lund, Lund.

Postgate, J. N. 2003 Learning the lesson of the future: trade in prehistory through a historian’s lens. Bibliotheca Orientalis LX(1–2) :6–25.

Prescott , C. and E. Walderhaug 1995 The last frontier? Processes of Indo-Europeanization in northern Europe: the Norwegian case. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 23(3–4): 257–278.

Price, T. D., G. Grupe and P. Schröter 1998 Migration in the Bell Beaker period of central Europe. Antiquity 72: 405–411.


Price, T. D., Manzanilla, L. and Middleton, W. D. 2000 Immigration and the ancient city of Teotihuacan in Mexco: a study using strontium isotope ratios in human bone and teeth. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 903–913.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. and Salanova, L. 2009 Coquilles et Campaniforme en Galice et en Bretagne: mécanismes de circulation et strategies identitaires. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 105(1): 73–93.

Puturidze, M. 2003 Social and Economic Shift s in the South Caucasian Middle Bronze Age. In Archaeology in the Borderlands. Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, edited by A. T. Smith and K. S. Rubinson, pp. 111–128. Monographs 47. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Rahmstorf, L. 2010 Indications of Aegean-Caucasian relations during the third millennium BC. In Von Majkop bis Trialeti. Gewinnung und Verbreitung von Metallen und Obsidian in Kauklasien im 4.–2. Jhr. V. Chr., edited by S. Hansen, A. Hauptman, I. Motzenbäcker and E. Pernicka, pp. 263–295. Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, Bonn.

Rassamakin, Y. 1999 The Eneolithic of the Black Sea steppe: dynamics of cultural and economic development 4500–2300 BC. In Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe, edited by M. Levin, Y. Rassamakin, A. Kislenko and N. Tatarintseva, pp. 59–182. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge.

Raulwing, P. and Meyer, H. 2004 Der Kikkuli-Text. Hippologische und methodenkritische Überlegungen zum Training von Streitwagenpferden im Alten Orient. In Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa, edited by S. Fansa and S. Burmeister, pp. 515–531. von Zabern, Mainz.

Rezepkin, A. D. 2000 Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Klady und die Majkop-Kultur in Nordwestkaukasien. Archäologie in Eurasien 10, Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden/Westfalen.

Robinson, D. and Kempfner, D. 1987 Carbonized grain from Morten Sande 2. Journal of Danish Archaeology 6: 125–129.

Rothman, M. S. 2003 Ripples in the Stream. Transcaucasia-Anatolian interaction at the beginning of the third millennium BC. In Archaeology in the Borderlands. Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, edited by A. T. Smith and K. S. Rubinson, pp. 95–110. Monographs 47. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Rowlands, M. 1980 Kinship, alliance and exchange in the European Bronze Age. In Sett lement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley, pp. 15–55. British Archaeological Reports British Series 83. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Rubinson, K. S. 2003 Silver vessels and cylinder sealings. Precious refl ections of economic exchange in the early second millennium BC. In Archaeology in the Borderlands. Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, edited by A. T. Smith and K. S. Rubinson, pp. 128–143. Monographs 47. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Sahoglu, V. 2005 The Anatolian Trade Network and the Izmir region during the early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24(4): 339–361.

Schwarz, M. 2008 Studien zur Sozialstruktur der Glockenbecherkultur im Bereich der Ostgruppe auf der Grundlage der Grabfunde. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 85. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn.

Sherratt , A. 1997/1991 Troy, Maikop, Altyn Depe: Early Bronze Age Urbanism and its Periphery. In Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe. Changing Perspectives, pp. 457–470. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Sherratt , A. 1999 Echoes of the Big Bang: The Historical Context of Language Dispersal. In Proceedings from the Tenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference Los Angeles, 1998, edited by K. Jones-Bley, M. E. Huld, A. Della Volpe and M. R. Dexter, pp. 261–282. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 32. Washington D.C.


Sherratt , A. 2003 The Baden (Pécel) culture and Anatolia: perspectives on a cultural transformation. In Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mitt el- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag, edited by E. Jerem and P. Raczky, pp. 415–429. Archaeolingua, Budapest.

Shishlina, N. (ed.) 2000 Seasonality Studies of the Bronze Age Northwest Caspian Steppe (English summaries). Papers of the State Historical Museum 120. Moscow.

Shishlina, N. 2001 The seasonal cycle of grassland use in the Caspian Sea steppe: a new approach to an old problem. European Journal of Archaeology 4: 323–346.

Shishlina, N. 2003 Yamna Culture pastoral exploitation: a local sequence. In Prehistoric steppe adaptations and the horse, edited by M. Levine, C. Renfrew and K. Boyle, pp. 353–367. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge.

Shishlina, N. 2008 Reconstruction of the Bronze Age of the Caspian Steppes. Life Styles and Life Ways of Pastoral Nomads. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1876. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Shishlina, N. I. and Hiebert, F. T. 1998 The steppe and the sown: interaction between Bronze Age Eurasian Nomads and agriculturalists. In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, edited by V. H. Mair, pp. 222–238. The Institute for the Study of Man in collaboration with The University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, Washington, D.C.

Shishlina, N. I., Golikov, V. P. and Orfi nskaya, O. 2000 Bronze Age textiles of the Caspian Sea maritime steppes. In Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Sett lements. Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age, edited by J. Davis-Kimball, E. M. Murphy, L. Koryakova and L. T. Yablonksy, pp. 109–117. British Archaeological Reports International Series 890. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Stein, G. J. 1999 Rethinking World-Systems. Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Vander Linden, M. M. 2007 What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe? Antiquity 91: 343–352.

Vandkilde, H. 2006 Warriors and Warrior Institutions in Copper Age Europe. In Warfare in Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspective, edited by T. Ott o, H. Thrane and H. Vandkilde, pp. 355–384. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.

Vicent Garcia, J. M., Rodriquez, A., Lopez, J., de Zavala, J., Lopez, P. and Martinez, M. 1999 Una propuesta metodologica para el estudio de la metalurgia prehistorica: el caso de Gorny en la region de Kargaly (Orenburg, Rusia). Trabajos de Prehistoria 56(2): 85–113.

Vicent Garcia, J. M., Rodriquez, A., Lopez, J., de Zavala, J., Lopez, P. and Martinez, M. 2000 Catastrofes eologicas en la estepa? Arqueologia del paisaje en el complejo minro-metalurgico de Kargaly (region Orenburg, Rusia). Trabajos de Prehistoria 57(1): 29–74.

Vicent Garcia, J. M., Rodriquez, A., Lopez, J, de Zavala, J., Lopez, P. and Martinez, M. unpublished manuscript Landscape, subsistence and metallurgical production during the Bronze Age in the mining and metallurgical complex of Kargaly (southern Urals, Orenburg, Russia). Paper delivered at the 7th annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Esslingen, session European Steppe of Bronze Age. Organizers: P. Kouznetsow and O. Motchalov.

Videjko, M. 1995 Grosssiedlungen der Tripol’e-Kultur in der Ukraine. Eurasia Antiqua. Zeitschrift für Archäologie Eurasiens 1: 45–48

West, M. L. 2007 Indo-Europen Poetry and Myth. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Yoff ee, N. 1995 Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 281–311.

Zdanovich, G. B. and Zdanovich, D. G. 2002 The ´Country of Towns’ of southern Trans-Urals and some aspects of steppe assimilation in the Bronze Age. In Ancient interactions: East and West in Eurasia, edited by K. Boyle, C. Renfrew and M. Levine, pp. 249–263. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge.

becoming european: the transformation of third millennium northern and western europe

Documents