In: Brink, K., Hydén, S., Jennbert, K., Larsson, L. & Olausson, D. (eds.), Neolithic Diversities. Perspectives from a conference in Lund, Sweden. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8, No. 65, 2015
This article aims to investigate ritual and social traditions and innovations as reflected in the... more This article aims to investigate ritual and social traditions and innovations as reflected in the megalithic monuments. The basis is a case study from Zealand, Denmark, one of the areas in the TRB north group with the highest amount of megalithic tombs. Different aspects of the dolmens and passage graves in northwest Zealand are compared, like their architectural forms and expressions, the work input into the different monument types, the mode of burying the dead, the distribution and the number of the tombs. This analysis shows that the dolmens are manifold in architectural expression and thus must have had different ritual functions. In contrast, the architectural forms of the passage graves are more homogeneous. Aspects of outer expression (mound) and the principle of accessibility resemble traits of the open dolmen chambers, but they also show innovations such as elaborate architecture and more space for many collective burials. A comparison of the number and spatial setting of the tombs shows that the numerous dolmens are widely distributed, while the much fewer passage graves seem to be placed more centralized in somehow regular distances from each other. But there are also marked concentrations of several passage graves close to each other. It is argued that the stone architecture of the dolmens was innovative and that these tombs were built gradually, finally covering vast parts of the study area. By contrast the upcoming of the passage graves seems to reflect an intentional introduction of new ways of burying the dead with innovative architecture, death ritual and spatial setting with a clear element of centralization. The challenges that are connected to a social interpretation of these graves are discussed with regard to the societies building the tombs, the people buried there and the living society using the tombs.
Uploads
Papers by Almut Schülke
Jelling (Denmark) as part of a landscape of communication. By
applying this perspective, the site is analysed in its broader
spatial context by investigating its topographical location,
accessibility and communicative potential in
terms of physical interaction and movement, and
by discussing social aspects that might have played
a role in the movement and communications to
and from the site. The placement of Jelling in Jutland is discussed with regard to five main questions:
- Where was the monument complex placed in topographical terms?
- How could the site be physically reached?
- Which social aspects might have been important for transport and communications to and from the site?
- How was the location perceived?
- And finally, why was the complex placed where it was?
This study therefore does not focus on the physical aspects of the surrounding landscape alone, but seeks to integrate historical, social and sensual aspects related to it.
To explore this possibility, we ask whether there are conditions in our research, or circumstances in its underlying framework that have contributed to the strong coastal focus. How did today’s concepts and knowledge of the Stone Age coastal settlement come about, and what roles have been played by the natural environment and topographical character of the landscape? How has this influenced our perception of Stone Age settlement, and what other factors have been important?
We identify five main factors that each work toward strengthening the coastal focus in different ways. Furthermore, we examine strengths and challenges of the coastal concepts employed in present research and suggest possible future exploration of Stone Age coasts within a broader perspective of a ‘landscape of practice’. Although the coast was central to the people of the Stone Age, this article argues that a one-sided focus on the coast and coastline may hinder a broader knowledge of Stone Age society and human life.
(loose) human bones can be identified. Together with sites found in wetlands with seemingly selected types of bones, these bear witness to a broad range of mortuary practices, including inhumation, the fragmenting of corpses and the circulation of selected bones. This is in line with practices observed in other parts of Northern Europe; a special closeness to finds from Western Sweden is observed. As in other areas it is most likely that only a small number of people were actually buried, while most
of them received other treatment in death, not easily visible archaeologically. The identification of these various phenomena will hopefully make it possible to identify other find contexts in future,
and will be important when discussing social and ritual aspects of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer societies, not least regarding studies on genetics and mobility.
object’s form, material, and decoration is unique, each of the three aspects have parallels in Middle and Late Mesolithic cultural traditions. Stylistically, the decorative motifs are similar to other pieces of portable ‘art‘ known from the Middle and Late Mesolithic periods, while the material resembles sandstone knives known from Norwegian sites. However, it is difficult to determine the function of the object. Through a visual analysis of the object, and with the help of the RTI technology, changes in the object’s form and decoration can be observed. These changes indicate several layers of meaning that are embedded in the Brunstad object, and can be interpreted with regard to aspects of the object’s changing meaning over time, mobility, and social contexts in which it was used.
distribution and their spatial relation to each other are discussed. For the case study area, it can be shown that the wetland deposits mark settlement areas that date back at least to the EN I – if not to the Late Mesolithic – located at lake sides. The megalithic tombs are placed differently, witnessing a broadened use of the inland from the late EN I and EN II onwards, indirectly indicating agrarian economy. They are often placed close to communication routes. These results are discussed regarding the neolithisation process. The question of whether wetland depositions and megalithic tombs witness a break in ritual expression or a change or inversion of ritual opens up new perspectives of understanding social, ritual and economic changes in the 4th millennium BC.
Recent decades have seen a growing interest in the chaîne opératoire approach and technological analysis, and their relevance for studying intra-site activity and development of skill, and for describing ancient technologies has been demonstrated. Technological and cultural relationships in the North European Stone Age have also been discussed within this frame. In this article, we take a new approach, employing variation in lithic technological craft traditions as proxy for investigating long-term development and variability in lines of communication.
This study addresses three chronological contexts of the Latvian Stone Age, based on techno¬logical analysis of 26 sites. In describing the overall development in stone technology during the period c 10500–2900 calBC, the article demonstrates not only technological variations but also af¬firms fluctuation/change in directions of social contacts throughout the Stone Age, demonstrating variation in knowledge transmission and communication routes across large geographical areas.
This paper presents the results from the archaeological investigation of two Mesolithic sites, lok. 24 and lok. 25, at Brunstad in Stokke, south of Tønsberg in Vestfold, Southeast Norway. At their time of use the two sites, separated only by a rocky outcrop, were situated by a cove on a small island in the archipelago of the Oslo Fjord. A total of c. 16,000 artefacts, predominantly of flint, were recorded, as well as c. 60 hearths. Radiocarbon dates witness to repeated stays on this island between c. 6400 and 5600 cal. BC. Towards the south lok. 24 was delimited by a small marsh, which also existed at the time when the Brunstad sites were inhabited. Four complete and two fragmented stone adzes found directly in the wetland, may indicate deliberate (ritual) depositions. The find of a decorated, broken sandstone plate from the northern edge of the wetland might strengthen such an interpretation. On lok. 25 an inhumation was uncovered. In a carefully stone-lined grave-pit, an adult individual had been buried with flexed hip and knees. The grave, dated to c. 5900 BC, is the first recorded Mesolithic grave in East Norway, and one of very few Mesolithic graves from Norway overall. The grave and traces of other ritual actions are discussed in relation to the settlement site as well as in a wider Scandinavian context.
Jelling (Denmark) as part of a landscape of communication. By
applying this perspective, the site is analysed in its broader
spatial context by investigating its topographical location,
accessibility and communicative potential in
terms of physical interaction and movement, and
by discussing social aspects that might have played
a role in the movement and communications to
and from the site. The placement of Jelling in Jutland is discussed with regard to five main questions:
- Where was the monument complex placed in topographical terms?
- How could the site be physically reached?
- Which social aspects might have been important for transport and communications to and from the site?
- How was the location perceived?
- And finally, why was the complex placed where it was?
This study therefore does not focus on the physical aspects of the surrounding landscape alone, but seeks to integrate historical, social and sensual aspects related to it.
To explore this possibility, we ask whether there are conditions in our research, or circumstances in its underlying framework that have contributed to the strong coastal focus. How did today’s concepts and knowledge of the Stone Age coastal settlement come about, and what roles have been played by the natural environment and topographical character of the landscape? How has this influenced our perception of Stone Age settlement, and what other factors have been important?
We identify five main factors that each work toward strengthening the coastal focus in different ways. Furthermore, we examine strengths and challenges of the coastal concepts employed in present research and suggest possible future exploration of Stone Age coasts within a broader perspective of a ‘landscape of practice’. Although the coast was central to the people of the Stone Age, this article argues that a one-sided focus on the coast and coastline may hinder a broader knowledge of Stone Age society and human life.
(loose) human bones can be identified. Together with sites found in wetlands with seemingly selected types of bones, these bear witness to a broad range of mortuary practices, including inhumation, the fragmenting of corpses and the circulation of selected bones. This is in line with practices observed in other parts of Northern Europe; a special closeness to finds from Western Sweden is observed. As in other areas it is most likely that only a small number of people were actually buried, while most
of them received other treatment in death, not easily visible archaeologically. The identification of these various phenomena will hopefully make it possible to identify other find contexts in future,
and will be important when discussing social and ritual aspects of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer societies, not least regarding studies on genetics and mobility.
object’s form, material, and decoration is unique, each of the three aspects have parallels in Middle and Late Mesolithic cultural traditions. Stylistically, the decorative motifs are similar to other pieces of portable ‘art‘ known from the Middle and Late Mesolithic periods, while the material resembles sandstone knives known from Norwegian sites. However, it is difficult to determine the function of the object. Through a visual analysis of the object, and with the help of the RTI technology, changes in the object’s form and decoration can be observed. These changes indicate several layers of meaning that are embedded in the Brunstad object, and can be interpreted with regard to aspects of the object’s changing meaning over time, mobility, and social contexts in which it was used.
distribution and their spatial relation to each other are discussed. For the case study area, it can be shown that the wetland deposits mark settlement areas that date back at least to the EN I – if not to the Late Mesolithic – located at lake sides. The megalithic tombs are placed differently, witnessing a broadened use of the inland from the late EN I and EN II onwards, indirectly indicating agrarian economy. They are often placed close to communication routes. These results are discussed regarding the neolithisation process. The question of whether wetland depositions and megalithic tombs witness a break in ritual expression or a change or inversion of ritual opens up new perspectives of understanding social, ritual and economic changes in the 4th millennium BC.
Recent decades have seen a growing interest in the chaîne opératoire approach and technological analysis, and their relevance for studying intra-site activity and development of skill, and for describing ancient technologies has been demonstrated. Technological and cultural relationships in the North European Stone Age have also been discussed within this frame. In this article, we take a new approach, employing variation in lithic technological craft traditions as proxy for investigating long-term development and variability in lines of communication.
This study addresses three chronological contexts of the Latvian Stone Age, based on techno¬logical analysis of 26 sites. In describing the overall development in stone technology during the period c 10500–2900 calBC, the article demonstrates not only technological variations but also af¬firms fluctuation/change in directions of social contacts throughout the Stone Age, demonstrating variation in knowledge transmission and communication routes across large geographical areas.
This paper presents the results from the archaeological investigation of two Mesolithic sites, lok. 24 and lok. 25, at Brunstad in Stokke, south of Tønsberg in Vestfold, Southeast Norway. At their time of use the two sites, separated only by a rocky outcrop, were situated by a cove on a small island in the archipelago of the Oslo Fjord. A total of c. 16,000 artefacts, predominantly of flint, were recorded, as well as c. 60 hearths. Radiocarbon dates witness to repeated stays on this island between c. 6400 and 5600 cal. BC. Towards the south lok. 24 was delimited by a small marsh, which also existed at the time when the Brunstad sites were inhabited. Four complete and two fragmented stone adzes found directly in the wetland, may indicate deliberate (ritual) depositions. The find of a decorated, broken sandstone plate from the northern edge of the wetland might strengthen such an interpretation. On lok. 25 an inhumation was uncovered. In a carefully stone-lined grave-pit, an adult individual had been buried with flexed hip and knees. The grave, dated to c. 5900 BC, is the first recorded Mesolithic grave in East Norway, and one of very few Mesolithic graves from Norway overall. The grave and traces of other ritual actions are discussed in relation to the settlement site as well as in a wider Scandinavian context.
large-scale analyses of the archaeological and geological development of coastal areas, the exploration of coastal environments with interdisciplinary methods, the discussion of the character of coastal settlements and their possible networks, social and economic practices along the coast, as well as perceptions and cosmological aspects of coastal areas. Together, these topics and approaches contribute in an innovative way to the understanding of the complexity of topographically changing coastal areas as both border zones between land and sea and as connecting landscapes. Providing novel insights into the study of the Mesolithic as well as coastal areas and landscapes in general, the book is an important resource for researchers of the Mesolithic and coastal archaeology.
What is considered „too much“ unfolds in material, social and mental spheres of individuals and groups; coping can materialize and has relational qualities of materiality, temporality and spatiality. How can these spheres be opened up epistemologically in the interplay of archaeological theory and archaeological materials and methods? Which coping perspectives are relevant, both in the archaeological sciences and (post)humanities? In which way(s) are materialities involved? Which interpretative challenges exist?
Fields of inquiry might be:
- Food surplus to cope with (un)certainty and/or as causation of emerging complexities
- The social-political dominance of the excessive materiality, spatiality and temporality of monumental architecture and the challenge to construct and maintain such buildings
- Social practices of coping with the excessive material consequences caused by environmental change (e.g sea-level changes, volcanic eruptions, earth quakes) that drastically transform settlement spaces.
We invite papers that discuss coping with excess and overabundance from an epistemological point of view, combining theories and scientific methods based on case studies of the Palaeolithic to the Roman Period.
Deadline February 11, 2021
und der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorien in der Archäologie e.V. (AG
TidA e.V.)
auf der Tagung des West- und Süddeutschen Verbandes für
Altertumsforschung (WSVA)
vom 1. bis 5. April 2019 in Würzburg