by Chris Fowler
Ifantidis, F. 2011. Cosmos in fragments: Spondylus and Glycymeris adornment at Neolithic Dispilio, Greece. In F. Ifantidis and M. Nikolaidou (eds), Spondylus in prehistory, 123–137. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Jeunesse, C. 1995. Les groupes régionaux occidentaux du Rubané (Rhin et Bassin Parisien) à travers les pratiques funéraires. Gallia Préhistoire 37, 115–154.
Jeunesse, C. 1996. Variabilité des pratiques funéraires et différenciation sociale dans le Néolithique ancien danubien. Gallia Préhistoire 38, 249–286.
Jones, A. 2002. A biography of colour: colour, material histories and personhood in the early Bronze Age of Britain and Ireland. In A. Jones and G. MacGregor (eds), Colouring the past. The significance of colour in archaeological research, 159–174. Oxford: Berg.
Kalicz, N. and Szénászky, J. 2001. Spondylus-Schmuck im Neolithikum des Komitats Békés, Südostungarn. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 76, 24–54.
Karali, L. 1991. Parure en coquillage du site de Dimitra en Macédoine protohistorique. In R. Laffineur and L. Basch (eds), Thalassa. L’Égée préhistorique et la mer, 315–324. Liège: Université de Liège.
Karali-Yannacopoulous, L. 1992. La parure. In R. Treuil (ed.), Dikili Tash: Village préhistorique de Macédoine orientale I: fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961-1975), BCH Supplément 24, 159–164. Athens: École française d’Athènes.
Karali, L. 1999. Shells in Aegean prehistory. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Kirk, T. 1998. Constructs of death in the early Neolithic of the Paris Basin. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of north-western Europe, 102–126. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.
Kogalniceanu, R. 2012. Adornments from the Hamangia cemetery excavated at Cernavoda. In R. Kogalniceanu, R.G. Curca, M. Gligor, and S. Stratton (eds), Homines, Funera, Astra. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropology, June 2011, University of Alba Iulia, 81–96. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Korošec, J. 1959. Neolitska naseobina u Danilu Bitinju. Zagreb: JAZU.
Kostov, R.I. 2007. Arheomineralogiya na neolitni i halkolitni artefakti ot Bulgaria i tyahnoto znachenie v gemologyata. Sofia: Sv. Ivan Rilski.
Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. 1999. The Neolithic use of Theopetra Cave in Thessaly. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic society in Greece, 142–152. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Mărgărit, M. 2012. Shell adornments from the Hamangia cemetery excavated at Cernavoda - Columbia D. Techno-typological analysis. In R. Kogalniceanu, R.G. Curca, M. Gligor, and S. Stratton (eds), Homines, Funera, Astra. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropology, June 2011, University of Alba Iulia, 97–106. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Mateiciucová, I. 2004. Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery culture (LPK). In A. Lukes and M. Zvelebil (eds), LBK dialogues. Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture, 91–107. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Miller, M. 2003. Technical aspects of ornament production at Sitagroi. In E. Elster and C. Renfrew (eds), Prehistoric Sitagroi: excavations in northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Volume 2: the final report, 369–382. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Müller, J. 1997. Neolitische und chalkolitische Spondylus-Artefakte. Anmerkungen zu Verbreitung, Tauschgebiet und sozialer Funktion. In C. Becker, M.-L. Dunkelmann, C. Metzner-Nebelsick, H. Peter-Röcher, M. Röder, and B. Terzan (eds), Chronos. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel, 91–106. Espelkamp: Marie Leidorf.
Newell, R.R., Kielman, D., Constandse-Westermann, T.S., Van Der Sanden, W., and Van Gijn, A. 1990. An inquiry into the ethnic resolution of Mesolithic regional groups: the study of their decorative ornaments in time and space. Leiden: Brill.
Nieszery, N. 1995. Linearbandkeramische Gräberfelder in Bayern. Eselkamp: Marie Leidorf.
Nieszery, N. and Breinl, L. 1993. Zur Trageweise des Spondylusschmucks in der Linearbandkeramik. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 23, 427–438.
Nikolaidou, M. 2003. Catalog of items of adornment. In E. Elster and C. Renfrew (eds), Prehistoric Sitagroi: excavations in northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Volume 2: the final report, 383–401. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Papathanassopoulos, G. 1996. Alepotrypa Cave, Diros. In G. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic culture in Greece, 216–229. Athens: N.P. Goulandris Foundation.
Pappa, M. and Veropoulidou, R. 2011. The Neolithic settlement at Makriyalos, northern Greece: evidence from the Spondylus gaederopus artifacts. In F. Ifantidis and M. Nikolaidou (eds), Spondylus in prehistory, 105–121. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Pavúk, J. 1972. Neolitisches Gräberfeld in Nitra. Slovenská Archaeologia 20, 5–106.
Perlès, C. 2001. The early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raczky, P. 1994. Two late Neolithic ‘hoards’ from Csóka (Čoka) Kremenyák in the Vojvodina. In Lőrinczy, G. (ed.), A kőkortól a közepkorig. Otto Trogmayer Festschrift, 161–172. Szeged: Mora Ferenc Múzeum.
Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as action at a distance: questions of integration and communication. In J.A. Sabloff and C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (eds), Ancient civilization and trade, 3–59. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Riggins, S. 1994. Introduction. In S. Riggins (ed.), The socialness of things. Essays on the socio-semiotics of objects, 1–10. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Rodden, R.J. 1964. Recent discoveries from prehistoric Macedonia. An interim report. Balkan Studies 5, 109–124.
Séfériadès, M. 1995. Spondylus gaederopus: the earliest European long-distance exchange system. A symbolic and structural archaeological approach to Neolithic societies. Poročilo raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 22, 233–256.
Séfériadès, M.L. 2003. Note sur l’origine et la signification des objets en spondyle de Hongrie dans le cadre du Néolithique et de l’Énéolithique européens. In E. Jerem and P. Raczky (eds), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag, 353–373. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
Shackleton, N. and Renfrew, C. 1970. Neolithic trade routes re-aligned by oxygen isotope analysis. Nature 228, 1062–1065.
Sherratt, A. 1976. Resources, technology and trade. An essay in early European metallurgy. In G. de G. Sieveking, I. Longworth, and K. Wilson (eds), Problems in economic and social archaeology, 557–581. London: Duckworth.
Siklósi, Zs. 2004. Prestige goods in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin. Material manifestations of social differentiation. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 55, 1–62.
Siklósi, Zs. and Csengeri, P. 2011. Reconsideration of Spondylus usage in the middle and late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin. In F. Ifantidis and M. Nikolaidou (eds), Spondylus in prehistory, 47–62. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Skeates, R. 1995. Animate objects: a biography of prehistoric ‘axe-amulets’ in the central Mediterranean region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 279–301.
Spataro, M. 2007. Everyday ceramics and cult objects: a millennium of cultural transmission. In M. Spataro and P. Biagi (eds), A short walk through the Balkans. The first farmers of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent regions. Trieste: Società per la preistoria e protostoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 149–160.
Stig Sørensen, M-L. 2000. Gender Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Todorova, H. 2002. Die geographische Lage der Gräberfelder (mit drei Karten). Paläoklima, Strandverschiebungen und Umwelt der Dobrudscha im 6–4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In H. Todorova (ed.), Durankulak Band II. Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder, 17–24. Berlin: Anubis.
Trubitt, M. 2003. The production and exchange of marine shell prestige goods. Journal of Archaeological Research 11, 24–77.
Tsuneki, A. 1989. The manufacture of Spondylus shell objects at Neolithic Dimini, Greece. Orient XXV, 1–21.
Vencl, S. 1959. Spondylové šperky v podunajském neolitu. Archeologické rozhledy 11, 699–742.
Whittle, A. 2003 The archaeology of people. Dimensions of Neolithic l
ife. London: Routledge.
Willms, C. 1985. Neolitischer Spondylus Schmuck: hundert Jahre Forschung. Germania 63, 331–343.
Woodward, A. 2002. Beads and beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British early Bronze Age. Antiquity 76, 1040–1047.
Zachos, K. 1999. Zas Cave on Naxos and the role of caves in the Aegean late Neolithic. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic society in Greece, 153–163. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
* * *
* Received June 2009, revised December 2011
CHAPTER 34
AMBER*
TONY AXELSSON, MORTEN RAMSTAD, AND ANDERS STRINNHOLM
INTRODUCTION
IN southern Scandinavia, amber was used throughout the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Amber was naturally available only in limited areas along the shorelines of southern Scandinavia and the east Baltic. During the transition to the fourth millennium, large quantities of amber start being distributed over a large area of northern and north-eastern Europe (here defined as Scandinavia, the Baltic region, and north-west Russia).
Amber, as is well known, cannot be dated. Consequently, only a rough chronological classification of objects/shapes based on their various contexts is possible. Therefore, our endeavours to analyse changes in importance and use are, of necessity, relatively simplified. By exploring the handling and use of amber prior to and after the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, we trace the transformation and cultural expressions connected to amber to gain insight into changing concepts of material culture, personhood, and materiality, transcending the evolutionary frameworks which dominate this period.
MESOLITHIC AMBER AND PERSONAL ADORNMENTS
From the Mesolithic onwards, amber is relatively rare. Its distribution is generally limited to regions close to natural deposits.
According to Lars Larsson, Mesolithic amber was predominantly used in its natural form and generally only minimally worked with minor alterations of the surface. At most, holes are drilled to make the amber easier to hang or to attach to clothing. From Skateholm in southern Sweden, there are some examples of amber as grave good (Larsson 1988, 2001). In cases with more advanced working/decoration, the resulting object is always based on an animal motif (Larsson 2001, 68). Four of the eight Mesolithic zoomorphic figurines from Denmark depict bears (Larsson 2000; Mathiassen 1960; Vang Petersen 1998). Carved decoration can occur on these figurines and on simpler pendants (Andersen 1981). It usually consists of tiny hollows or lines in geometric patterns or ‘fringes’ (Mathiassen 1960).
In contrast to the rarity of amber objects, Mesolithic burials from the Baltic area and south Scandinavia reveal a great variety of adornments made from perforated animal teeth and shells, used as pendants, headgear, necklaces, strings, and on garments (Kannegaard and Brinch Petersen 1993; Larsson 2001; Zagorska 2004; Zagorskis 2004). On a very general level, Mesolithic personal adornments systematically reference and make use of the natural world to negotiate and express personhood, material objects, and relations to nature (cf. Fowler 2004, 132–39). Even though there is much variation in the number, types, and position of grave goods, neither age, gender, nor status differentiation seems well marked or standardized (Blankholm 2008, 124–26).
TRANSITIONS
The transition to the Neolithic saw significant changes in the working of amber and the traditions connected with this material. Large quantities of amber now appear in different contexts in southern Scandinavia, the Baltic area, southern Finland, and the north-western regions of Russia. Although less frequent, amber was now distributed as far north as the White Sea and northern Fennoscandia. This extensive distribution can be related to a dramatic expansion in long-distance exchange networks reaching northwards from both sides of the Baltic Sea. In spite of the great distances involved, the radiocarbon dates from many burials are virtually identical throughout northern Europe, giving crucial insight into the instrumental use and importance of amber early on.
For instance, at Dragsholm in Denmark, only 2m from a late Mesolithic double burial of two women rich in animal tooth pendants, a flat male inhumation from the very beginning of the early Neolithic, with 60 amber beads, a greenstone battleaxe, nine projectile points, a bone wrist guard, and pottery has been documented (Price et al. 2007; Brinch Petersen 2008).
In the large Latvian burial ground of Zvejnieki, in the 315 graves dating from the seventh to the third millennium BC, amber replaces the animal tooth pendants prevalent in earlier graves (Zagorska 2001, 121; 2006, 9–94; see also Taffinder 1998, 57ff). Whilst irregular and naturally shaped amber pieces are found in Baltic votives, settlement sites, and workshops, these are not common ornaments in graves, which mostly contain pendants, beads, and various dress ornaments (Zagorska 2001, 121; see also Bērzinš 2001; Loze 2001).
From the Baltic region, amber was redistributed throughout the first half of the fourth millennium in the sub-Neolithic Comb Ceramic complexes of Karelia, Finland, and north-west Russia, where pendants and especially beads in graves are frequent, ranging from a dozen to several hundreds (Halinen 1999, 173ff; Torvinen 1978; Oshibkina 2001; Loze 2001; Zhulnikov 2008; Zimina 2003; Katiskoski 2004).
A few amber beads are known from different contexts at settlement sites along the coast of the Barents Sea in Arctic Norway, including in burial cairns dated to the very early fourth millennium (Ramstad 2006, 2009). These amber finds are more than 2,000km from their natural sources. A few burials with contemporary early dates and amber beads are also known from the northern regions of Finland and Sweden (Halén 1994, 171).
These examples illustrate strong affiliated depositional practices and usage of amber in roughly contemporary burials found over the larger northern European landscapes. The large number of amber in some graves seems to indicate a more direct focus on individuality than in the preceding Mesolithic. Depositing amber objects within particular monuments at settlements sites or in their close vicinity, such as burial cairns and longbarrows (Price 2000, 277; Ramstad 2006, 141; Blankholm 2008, 129; see also Olsen 1994, 82–84; Núňez and Okkonen 2005, 26), represents a transition in the relationship between people, material objects, and settlements, and seems to indicate societies with new sets of engagement, and display, of individuality.
The widespread use of amber confirms that the transition to the fourth millennium BC was characterised by an intensification and consolidation of extensive networks (e.g. Price 2000; Núňez and Okkonen 2005; Zvelebil 2006; Damm 2006). Long-distance trade involving artefacts of non-local origins is one element in new concepts of power and prestige, whilst the importance of amber in burials may indicate systems of ceremonial exchange (Zhulnikov 2008).
AMBER AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS IN NORTHERN EUROPE
Long-distance movements of objects indicate a significant degree of social interaction and information flow between groups living at different localities in different regions. Amber exchange most likely created ties and commitments, and thereby a sense of integration and shared values amongst different societies in northern Europe. Moreover, the amber objects themselves may, by their sole appearance and effect in different social environments, have shaped or moulded new social conditions in the societies they reached.
Since the circulation of goods also informs us about a society’s dominant cultural values (Appadurai 1986), the introduction and widespread use of amber during this period cannot be separated from its historical, cultural, and social context. The questions being asked are: what underlies the demand for amber, what does the development of these new exchange networks reveal about social values, and to what extent are old and new ideas about material culture, personal adornments, and social identities being restructured?
Over large parts of northern Europe, the transition to the fourth millennium marks a period when older Mesolithic systems seem to undergo profound structural changes. Southern Scandinavia witnessed the introduction of farming and a ‘Neolithic package’ through the establishment of the Funnel Beaker complexes. Hunting and fishing continued as main subsistence strategi
es around the Baltic (middle Neolithic Narva complexes) and the regions further to the north (middle sub-Neolithic Comb Ceramic complexes covering northern landscapes of the Baltic, Finland, and north-west Russia; Aceramic Slate complexes in central and northern parts of the Scandinavian peninsula). For these regions, a Mesolithic prolongation in spheres such as subsistence can be argued. However, there are notable changes in economic strategies, material culture, and symbolic and ritual expressions. At a general level, a shift from mobile towards more sedentary settlement patterns occurs amongst different indigenous forager complexes in the central and northern parts of northern Europe. In regions like Fennoscandia these changes were manifested by clusters of semi-subterranean houses in village-like arrangements, which together with intensification of accumulated cultural layers, burial cairns, and heaps of fire-cracked rocks (in tons) mark the transition towards a more ‘built’ environment than that of the Mesolithic (Olsen 1994; Lundberg 1997; Pesonen 2002; Núňez and Okkonen 2005; Damm 2006).
Although differently caused and expressed across the mosaic of culture complexes in northern Europe, deep-rooted transformations of ideology, rules, and restrictions seem to occur. This must also have affected conceptions of personhood and individuality, as well as social boundaries and group affiliation, all probably now defined by new means of social control.
As a number of studies have addressed, valuables such as amber represent more than just commodities; they were passed from hand to hand over large areas through different spheres of use and meaning. Thus, value was not only inherent to the object itself, but also intimately associated with the relations of which it formed a part (e.g. Thomas 1996; Gosden and Marshall 1999; Fowler 2004). Life histories hence also extend to material objects. By accumulating time and history, movement and exchange, objects and people were constantly transformed and increasingly enmeshed with each other. Thus, the amber beads are not only an exotic raw material, but just as much appreciated for the ‘exotic and/or valuable’ life histories they gathered. Consequently, amber objects probably meant different things to different people, and were ascribed new meanings in different cultural environments. Despite this, there are also shared conceptions in the initial Neolithic use of amber as grave goods in the different regions, most notably the relation to individual adornment.