A synthesis of the history of third millennium north-western Scandinavia

Northern Worlds – landscapes, interactions and dynamics

Research at the National Museum of Denmark

Proceedings of the Northern Worlds ConferenceCopenhagen 28-30 November 2012

Edited byHans Christian Gulløv

PNMPublications from the National Museum

Studies in Archaeology & History Vol. 22

Copenhagen 2014

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 3 17/09/14 10.22

Publications from the National MuseumNorthern Worlds – landscapes, interactions and dynamicsResearch at the National Museum of DenmarkProceedings of the Northern Worlds ConferenceCopenhagen 28-30 November 2012

© The National Museum of Denmark and the authors, 2014

All rights reserved

Edited by Hans Christian GulløvTechnical edition: Marie Lenander PetersenLinguistic revision and translation: David YoungCover design and layout by Donald Geisler JensenSet with Adobe Garamond Pro and UniversPrinted in Denmark by Narayana Press, GyllingPublished by University Press of Southern DenmarkCampusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense MISBN: 978 87 7674 824 1

Cover photo: Rock carvings, Hjemmeluft, Alta, Finnmark, North Norway, photographer Ditlev L. Mahler, 2010

The proceedings are funded by The Augustinus Foundation

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 4 17/09/14 10.2298281_Nordlige verdener_004_r1.indd 1 23/09/14 08:57

Per Kristian MadsenPreface 9

Hans Christian GulløvIntroduction 11

I. LandscapesPeter Emil Kaland

Heathlands – land-use, ecology and vegetation history as a source for archaeological interpretations 19

Use and tracesDitlev Mahler

Shetland – the Border of Farming 4000-3000 BC 49

Alison SheridanShetland, from the appearance of a ‘Neolithic’ way of life to c. 1500 BC: a view from the ‘mainland’ 67

Christian Koch MadsenNorse Pastoral Farming and Settlement in the Vatnahverfi Peninsula, South Greenland 95

Cosmos and perceptionFlemming Kaul

The northernmost rock carvings belonging to the Scandinavian Bronze Age tradition 115

Lars JørgensenNorse religion and ritual sites in Scandinavia in the 6th-11th century 129

contents


Ulla OdgaardClash of Concepts – Hunting rights and ethics in Greenlandic caribou hunting 151

Environment and changesMorten Fischer Mortensen, Peter Steen Henriksen, Charlie Christensen, Peter Vang Petersen and Jesper Olsen

Late glacial and early Holocene vegetation development in southeast Denmark – palaeoenvironmental studies from a small lake basin close to the Palaeolithic site of Hasselø 169

Kevin EdwardsEarly farming, pollen and landscape impacts from northern Europe to the North Atlantic: conundrums 189

Richard OramFrom ‘Golden Age’ to Depression: land use and environmental change in the medieval Earldom of Orkney 203

Noémie Boulanger-Lapointe and Claudia BaittingerStudies of the growth of arctic willow (Salix arctica) and arctic bell-heather (Cassiope tetragona) in the High Arctic 215

II. InteractIonsCharlotte Damm

Interaction: When people meet 227

Networks and communicationChristina Folke Ax

Good connections – Networks in the whaling and sealing community on Rømø in the 18th century 241

Einar ØstmoShipbuilding and aristocratic splendour in the North, 2400 BC-1000 AD 257

Anne Lisbeth SchmidtSkin Clothing from the North – new insights into the collections of the National Museum 273

Peter Andreas ToftSmall things forgotten – Inuit reception of European commodities in the Historic Thule Culture 293

Objects and exchangeAnne Pedersen

Skagerrak and Kattegat in the Viking Age – borders and connecting links 307

Helle Winge HorsnæsAppropriation and imitation – A Barbarian view on coins and imitations 319


Gitte Tarnow IngvardsonTrade and Power – Bornholm in the Late Viking Age 325

Lisbeth M. ImerThe tradition of writing in Norse Greenland – writing in an agrarian community 339

Maria Panum BaastrupContinental and insular imports in Viking Age Denmark – On transcultural competences, actor networks and high-cultural differentiation 353

Preservation and decayMartin Nordvig Mortensen, Inger Bojesen-Koefoed, David Gregory, Poul Jensen, Jan Bruun Jensen, Anne le Boëdec Moesgaard, Nanna Bjerregaard Pedersen, Nataša Pokupčić, Kristiane Strætkvern and Michelle Taube

Conservation and drying methods for archaeological materials modified for use in northern areas 369

Henning Matthiesen, Bo Elberling, Jørgen Hollesen, Jan Bruun Jensen and Jens Fog Jensen Preservation of the permafrozen kitchen midden at Qajaa in West Greenland under changing climate conditions 383

III. dynamIcsChristian Wichmann Matthiessen and Richard D. Knowles

Scandinavian Links: Mega Bridges/Tunnels Linking the Scandinavian Peninsula to the European Continent 395

Continuity and discontinuityBjarne Grønnow, Martin Appelt and Ulla Odgaard

In the Light of Blubber: The Earliest Stone Lamps in Greenland and Beyond 403

Peter Steen HenriksenNorse agriculture in Greenland – farming at the northern frontier 423

Mobility and organizationEinar Lund Jensen

Settlement policy in a colonial context – discussions on changing the settlements structure in Greenland 1900-1950 433

Christopher PrescottA synthesis of the history of third millennium north-western Scandinavia 449

Lasse SørensenFarmers on the move – The expansion of agrarian societies during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages in Scandinavia 463


Techniques and environmentJens Fog Jensen and Tilo Krause

Second World War histories and archaeology in Northeast Greenland 491

Niels Bonde, Claudia Baittinger, Thomas Bartholin, Helge Paulsen and Frans-Arne Stylegar Old Houses in Greenland – Standard Houses for Greenland. Dendrochronological studies 511in timber houses

contrIbutors 521

Index 525


449a synthesis of the history of third millennium north-western scandinavia

regions. The common practice of relegating specific cases to more or less illustrate a pre-defined global model means that the latter meets little resistance from the specific historical cases. Genuinely un-derstanding history (i.e. what happened, where it happened and why it happened then and there), synthesising specific cases to generate abstractions and utilising the dynamic tension between the spe-cific and the general, readily become the casualties of most “grand narratives”.

Still, large scale analysis of Neolithisation is prob-ably not the most characteristic form of study in ar-chaeology. Most publications present more-or-less local investigations of Neolithic contexts. However, as most such constricted studies do not engage and contextualise finds in a larger chrono-geographical scale, they remain rather inexplicable outside their prescribed parameters. Not only do they fail to gen-uinely explain the large scale spatial-chronological patterns that we actually observe, the small-scale phenomena remain enigmatic in terms of explana-tion and context. Indeed, emphasis on local, detailed studies readily “results in myopic localism, so that we can only compare places and culture in terms of highly abstracted and partial structures” (Barth 1990: 641), leading to “the dissolution of understanding into lo-cal incommensurable and fragmentary “tellings” of our experience” (Wylie 1995: 52-53). Despite program-matic proclamations and theoretical arguments, the

neolithisation: a starting point and a premise disposed ofIn global history, two narratives are intertwined: the spread of early agriculture and the conceptual category of “the Neolithic”. There is a structural logic to this interconnectedness, despite some al-ternative approaches. The Neolithic is conceptually largely defined with reference to agriculture and/or stock keeping practices. In terms of archaeological categorisation, the supra-criterion for the Neolithic is finding remains of agricultural production and consumption. On the other hand, the earliest traces of agriculture are usually framed in a narrative of a Neolithic lifestyle expanding in time and space.

An expression of this is found in virtually all textbooks and numerous research articles that trace the expansion of agriculture from the Fertile Cres-cent to the Scandinavian Peninsula as a step-by-step process. The outcome of such syntheses is typically illustrated with a map of the chrono-geographical spread of agro-pastoralism from the south-east to the north-west (Prescott 2009; Robb [with com-ments] 2013).

However, the maps and their inherent subsump-tion of most initial agro-pastoral developments under the term “Neolithisation”, perhaps relay an unfortunate notion of processual uniformity across time and space. Models on a continental scale can-not genuinely describe or explain what happened in

a synthesis oF the history oF third millennium

north-Western scandinavia

Christopher Prescott


450 dynamics – mobility and organization christopher prescott

tices, regional interaction, technology and the social and ideological constitution of society seem to be equally, if not more, important factors in the trans-formation of mid-third millennium Scandinavia.

norwegian prelude 1: before 2750 bc, the time of the southern scandinavian Funnel beaker phaseThe situation in southern Norway during the Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic A (EN and MNA, 3950-2750 BC) is perhaps best described as a patch-work of cultures and social groups. The coast from Lista in the south-west up to the Arctic Circle is characterised by largely maritime-oriented hunter-gatherer groups, but also by seasonal inland terres-trial visits and settlements. The material inventories are characterised by varying assemblages of arte-facts, i.e. ”Neolithic” elements like ground basaltic axes and adzes, some flint axes and pottery. How-ever, all of the data demonstrate production based on wild resources, e.g. along the rich coastal streams or the reindeer regions in the highlands. The pat-terns of interaction indicate movements of people, materials and ideas, but this interaction is based on small scale, serial coastal or terrestrial movements. These chronologically “Neolithic” phases represent a continuation of practices established in the Me-solithic (Prescott & Walderhaug 1995; Glørstad 2009, 2013).

There are, however, also more substantial mate-rial indications of Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB) influences in the south-east, particularly around the Oslo Fjord. Here, it is with good reason often argued, some form of TRB-societies established themselves. From a western “break line” in Telemark and east to the Swedish border (and continuing into Bohuslän), a handful of megalithic tombs have been found, authentic TRB ceramics have been re-covered and a small concentration of point-butted flint axes, with increasing amounts of thin-butted and thick butted flint axes through time, have been discovered (Glørstad 2009; Østmo 1988; Østmo & Skogstrand 2006; Prescott 1996).

Recently, spurred by new finds and re-evaluation of older evidence, it has been suggested that this TRB-region should be extended down along the coast of the Skagerrak to the southernmost part

above critique is relevant for most vocal or domi-nant theoretical schools “since trait distribution and diffusionism were demolished as defensible scholar-ship” (Barth 1990: 641) – i.e. processualism, post-processualism and the various materiality and ANT archaeologies (Glørstad & Prescott 2009; Prescott & Glørstad 2012; Robb 2013).

Of course, the general and the specific, the concrete and the abstract, and the small scale and the large scale will usually diverge. In the case of the phenomena we study under the titles of “Neo-lithic” and “early agriculture”, there will never be a definitive historical synthesis or understanding. Still, methodological and theoretical advances po-tentially provide for better approximations of what happened in history (Trigger 1998: 23), and there is value in challenging the application of concepts, re-evaluating data and re-interpreting the histori-cal record with the aim of creating a dynamic and mutually responsive field of discourse between top-down generalisations and small-scale studies.

At the Northern Worlds conference in Copenha-gen November 2012, I was entrusted with discuss-ing the spread and context of early agro-pastoralism to southerly Norway, i.e. north-western Scandinavia (fig. 1). For an archaeologist based in this region, the subject is of course of interest in itself. However, apart from attempting to generate as accurate a re-cord as possible, and as relevant and valid interpre-tations as possible for the region, the emerging pat-terns from north-west Scandinavia confront both the large-scale blue prints of the Neolithic and the local incommensurable and fragmentary narratives, but also some of the conceptual priorities at heart when Neolithisation and early agriculture become the priorities and focus of our historical narratives.

The argument that is explicated below chrono-logically revolves around one of the most pro-nounced periods of rapid and far-reaching trans-formation, i.e. around 2400 BC. Traditionally, the central issue in archaeology concerning this epoch is the beginning and ensuing evolution of agriculture. In the argument presented below, agro-pastoralism is but one factor discussed, and not primarily in terms of the introduction of “cultivation” or “ani-mal keeping”. The important factor at this time is the establishment of permanent farms as institutions and installations in the landscape. Maritime prac-



North of the proposed “Skagerrak TRB-region”, i.e. along the coast north of Lista, TRB-elements are fewer (mainly flint axes and possibly a few pot sherds). A more regional expression in basaltic axes/adzes, ceramics and elements like slate indus-tries point not only towards interaction with TRB-regions but also to the northern hunter-gatherer groups. Among the most marked settlement features along the western coast are the semi-sedentary settle-ments, with thick cultural deposits, located along rich coastal streams teeming with fish, fowl and ma-rine mammals (Bakka 1993; Bergsvik 2012; Brink-mann & Shetelig 1920; Olsen 1992; Skjølsvold 1977). Macrofossil plant materials and bone have been recovered on these sites. Containing only wild species in the EN and MN-levels and reflecting the immediate environment, these faunal and plant as-semblages underscore the hunter-gatherer economy.

A contested subject is agriculture and stock keeping, whether in the assumed TRB areas or oth-erwise (Hjelle et al. 2006; Prescott 1996; Rowley-Conwy 1995, 2011). Indeed, the search (if with meagre and ambiguous results) north along the western coast has been intensive and provides more representative data than the pattern of investiga-tions in the assumed TRB-regions. The evidence to shore up interpretations of agro-pastoralism is

of the country, to Lista (Glørstad 2009; Kilhavn 2013). Though TRB-finds are less concentrated, and no megaliths have been identified, there are ceramics that may be viewed as TRB-ceramics, in light of contemporary Swedish finds. There is also a somewhat enigmatic ditch and palisade monu-ment at Hamresanden outside of Kristiansand, with TRB-ceramics (Glørstad 2009). Although there are variations in the distribution of flint axes, the pre-dominant settlement pattern throughout the region is still oriented towards wild resources, and especial-ly maritime resources. Interaction seems to be based on coastal seafaring and terrestrial movements, and is primarily oriented towards the east. There are no farm settlements, no fields, no ard traces, no bones of domesticated species, no charred cereals (one kernel was found in Bohuslän, Sweden, and directly dated (Westergaard 2008), nor cereal im-prints in the ceramics. Interpretations of agriculture are based on circumstantial arguments: Neolithic artefacts located on glacial sediments assumed to be advantageous for early agriculture; TRB-culture taken to indicate agrarian practices; and pollen dia-grams with a few cereal pollens, an ecological profile indicative of opening of the landscape and growth conditions for weeds associated with grazing/culti-vation.

Fig. 1. Scandinavia north to the Arctic Circle. Shaded areas show the Nordic Bronze Age region (after Bakka 1976).

This is approximately the region af-fected by the mid-third millennium

transformation and the transition to the Nordic Late Neolithic (after Prescott &

Glørstad in press).



towards the Bronze Age. However, it has long been recognised that the archaeological record suggests that large parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula and southern Scandinavia were moderately unaffected (Shetelig 1936), continuing either from the previ-ous hunter-gatherer traditions (Prescott & Walder-haug 1995; Bergsvik 2012) or earlier Neolithic style mixed agro-economies (e.g. Iveresen 2013).

In western Norway, it has been argued that sys-tematic cultivation and the construction of long-houses happened at this time, and that they were bound up with Battle Axe influences (Olsen 2009). This argument is based on the distribution of thick-butted basaltic axes and interpretation of radiocar-bon dates from purported cultivation horizons and a longhouse. However, the axes, discussed by Kil-havn (2013), are out of context and cannot with any certainty be ascribed to the Battle Axe culture or a concurrent chronological phase. The suggested typological age is based on a dubious comparison with axes presented in Malmer (1962). Indeed, comparable specimens are found in context at the early Late Neolithic/Bell Beaker site of Myrhøj in Jutland (Jensen 1973). Whether all the proposed cultivation horizons are actually traces of cultivation is questionable. The radiocarbon interpretations are based on values from single dates that cannot be contextualised typologically or stratigraphically, and all the values referred to span a longer dura-tion than the Middle Neolithic B/Battle Axe phase (2750-2400/2350 BC), extending into the Late Neolithic (Prescott 2012). Though the subsistence evidence is patchy, it would seem that the produc-tion practices from the preceding period continue, i.e. are based on wild resources.

In eastern Norway, this also seems to hold true; however, there is a marked anomalous development. Throughout the MNB, there is a “sprinkling” of Battle Axe culture finds, mostly out of primary con-text (Hinsch 1956). In the late phase of the MNB3/Battle Axe period, up to ten graves of Battle Axe type have been recovered, their distribution describ-ing an easterly N-S corridor from the Oslo fjord region towards Trøndelag in mid-Norway (Hinsch 1956). Though quantitatively limited, and at the moment indistinct in their wider context of impact, the graves are a qualitative expression of people with Battle Axe practices and mortuary rituals. Though

primarily based on palynology (Hjelle et al. 2006; Myhre 2002; Prøsch-Danielsen 1996; Prøsch-Dan-ielsen & Simonsen 2000), with the occurrences of weeds and plant assemblages indicative of opening of the landscapes and of a few cereal and plantago pollen. Elements of this pattern turn up already in the Mesolithic (Kilhavn 2013; Prøsch-Danielsen 1996). Numerous reports of more direct evidence have been refuted (Prescott 1996), but recently a cattle tooth is directly dated (but without published identification, summarily reported in Myhre 2002). This tooth and the above mentioned barley kernels from Bohuslän, Sweden, are the sole direct sources of potential relevance. A major issue in evaluating the potential for a very small-scale, peripheral and highly dispersed agro-pastoralism from 3950 to 2400 BC is how it could be sustained in practice. To the extent analogical models are offered, they usually refer to modern patterns of fisher-farmer/hunter-farmer practices in historical market econo-mies or pastoralists in a symbiotic relationship on the periphery of state societies. Apart from empiri-cal and methodological concerns, no sophisticated cultural, economic and biological analogies or theo-retical models that can explain adoption and repro-duction over 1500 years have been put forward (ref. Rowley-Conwy 2013).

Though the presence of very small-scale agricul-ture and stockholding in the EN and MN is enig-matic and contested (Hjelle et al. 2006; Prescott 1996; Rowley-Conwy 1995, 2011, 2013), there is virtually no dispute concerning the economic basis: wild marine and terrestrial resources. For the regions in south-eastern Norway deemed to be part of the TRB-complex, this poses an interesting case: are we dealing with people and societies that adopted/brought with them most aspects of TRB-culture (like lithics, ceramics, mortuary practices and elements of architecture) but did not adopt archaeology’s evolu-tionary criterion of Neolithisation: agriculture?

norwegian prelude 2: 2750-2400 bc, the time of the southern scandinavian battle axe phaseThe Battle Axe/Single Grave/Corded Ware (CW) phase of Scandinavian prehistory is often accorded a major role in the transformation of Scandinavia



anthropology of large parts of Scandinavia in pre-history, the focus on an agro-Neolithic agenda has probably been a red herring. However, around the transition to the Late Neolithic, probably 2400-2350 BC, the evidence is unequivocal concerning the cul-tivation and use of cereals, as well as stock keeping of sheep, goats and cattle. The evidence is found in the bone material, the charred cereal kernels, the fossil faeces, the fossil fields and the pollen diagrams. The evidence is found from at least central Norway, po-tentially as far north as Lofoten, to the south. Dating this transition in production and economy is based on combinations of radiocarbon (e.g. directly dat-ing cereal kernels and bones), associations with ty-pological elements and stratigraphy (Prescott 2012). The introduction of agriculture can thus be placed to around 2400-2350 BC, i.e. with the transition to the Late Neolithic – a conclusion no longer subject to serious dispute. For prehistoric archaeology, this is a surprisingly accurate and delimited approximation for phenomena that impact a tremendous area. Fur-ther refining chronology, or generating chronological models, is important for understanding the historic-ity of the events that impacted this part of Scandina-via, as the discussion below displays.

The discussion of Neolithic elements in the EN and MN is largely concerned with “the introduc-tion of the earliest agriculture”. Events around 2400-2350 BC transcend this theme: it is a ques-tion of the rapid and full-scale establishment of the farm institution. Two institutions of the farm society are important. First there is the farmhouse itself. Archaeologically, this is represented by the dual-aisled, post-supported long house. Though a few authors (e.g. Artursson 2009; Kyhlberg 1995; Olsen 2009) have tried to stretch the age of these houses back in time or argue an evolution out of local Scandinavian traditions, such arguments are unsustainable. These houses come in to use with the transition to the Late Neolithic (fig. 2). In Norway, they are found in a variety of environments from the Swedish border in Østfold to Sunnmøre in mid-Norway. Recent reports of the first Late Bronze Age longhouse in northern Norway (Sjögren & Arntzen 2009: 4) are a sign that future investigations may potentially also turn up LN houses here. The re-mains of these houses are not simply evidence of construction technology, shared architectural ex-

unfashionable in contemporary Scandinavian ar-chaeology, Hinsch’s initial interpretation of a lim-ited migration and the establishment of short-lived settlements seems the most reasonable explanation (Hinsch 1956; Østmo 1988). Three factors should be emphasised as relevant to the present argument: the general distribution of Battle Axe elements is easterly; it represents a terrestrial and coastal (as op-posed to a maritime) landscape expression; and it is chronologically and geographically not a precur-sor to later graves (e.g. LN2 cist graves, see Østmo 2011).

poised for a transformation: a heterogeneous patchworkThe above review demonstrates that through-out the Neolithic (and probably the Mesolithic, see Glørstad 2013) there is development but it is within a framework of continuity of practices. The mode of production is primarily based on wild re-sources. The mode of interaction is based on small scale movements along the coast and there is also a marked terrestrial orientation. Though Neolithic elements and techniques, “things” in modern ma-teriality discourse, are present, they do not seem to fundamentally impact basic social or economic practices, or interaction and settlement patterns. The areas most strongly affected by external Neo-lithic streams in both TRB and CW-phases are ori-ented towards the east and the Baltic, and primarily arise from small-scale, predominately coastal move-ments from Bohuslän to the Oslo fjord, and then along the Agder-coast facing Skagerrak. The cultural expression is variable, with enclaves of CW-groups in the East, descendants of TRB-groups along the Agder coast to the Lista region and a patchwork of hunter-gatherer groups along the coast to the north. None of these are immediate dynamic sources for the events that follow around 2400-2350 BC.

the transition to the late neolithic: unprecedented changeThe archaeological record for early agriculture in the EN and MN in Norway, and other parts of Scan-dinavia for that matter, is at best ambiguous. With regard to actually understanding the history and



proximity to a farmyard with multiple generations of longhouses (Glørstad 2012; Rønne 2002).

Another agro-pastoral practice established at this time, related to practices in the full-fledged farm in-stitution, is transhumance. For example, the high-lands accessible from western Norway (fig. 3) were drawn in to a transhumant system as of this time (Prescott 1997). This practice gave access to numer-ous resources, like milk and wool, but also wilder-ness products like furs, antlers and pelts. As in re-cent periods, these products entered an economic system of exchange and interaction that conceivably extended far beyond local subsistence – though products like flint daggers, amber and bronzes com-ing in are more visible in the archaeological record.

beyond agrarian modes of productionOther transformations include lithic technology; bifacial techniques replace older blade and pol-ished slate techniques in the production of points,

pressions or mechanical settlement patterns. They are expressions of a fundamentally new relationship with the landscape, new modes of production, new social relationships within the family-based produc-tion unit, property rights and new social relations between groups. They are year-round residences in an agrarian context and each house probably lasted for at least a generation. Continuity, the reconstruc-tion of houses in the Late Neolithic and into the Bronze Age, frequently occurs in Norway (Børsheim 2005; Diinhoff 2005; Johnson & Prescott 1993; Rønne 2002; Valum 2009), as indeed throughout the Nordic region of Scandinavia (Artursson 2009). This suggests continuity in the location of the site of the farmyard. Such house structures are therefore best interpreted as the farmsteads within a socio-economic system built on the institution of the farm and reproduced over millennia. The farm context of these houses is emphasised by occurrences of cleared and arded fields, the oldest occurrences being dated to this time, and indeed sometimes identified in

Fig. 2. One of the Late Neolithic 1 houses at Stensrød, Svinesund in Østfold (Eastern Norway). This house intersects another Late Neolithic 1 house. Both houses were constructed on a slightly elevated patch of sandy ground. Photo: Håkon Glørstad.



logical ideal and style that represent the beginning of the age of metal (Melheim 2012). The expres-sion is also strongly masculine and warrior-associat-ed, and this (along with the Bell Beaker elements) demonstrates that the processes in operation are not the result of a belated evolution to the Neolithic. Instead, it is tied to the expansion of an expanding metal age culture and web of societies in western and northern Europe (fig.4). These patterns rep-resent the beginning of Bronze Age society in this region (Prescott & Melheim 2009; Prieto-Martínez 2008).

modes of interactionOne of the important expressions found in the ma-terial above is modes of interaction around 2400 BC. Whilst communication lines in the preceding

knives, scrapers, dagger, sickles etc. (Mjærum 2012; Prescott & Walderhaug 1995). Local production of bifaces is archaeologically concurrent with the initial import of large amounts of bifacial flint from Jutland, produced at workshops there. This is above all symbolised by the type 1 flint daggers that are found in such large numbers in south-west Norway (Apel 2001; Scheen 1979). Other objects from the earliest phase around 2400 BC demon-strate the shift in cultural practices: a Bell Beaker, barbed-and-tanged points, wrist guards, amber beads, decorated slabs in funerary monuments and a few metal objects (Holberg 2000; Lindblom 1982; Lødøen 1993; Melheim 2012; Myhre 1979; Prescott 2012b; Prescott & Walderhaug 1995; Prie-to-Martínez 2012; Skjølsvold 1977; Østmo 2008).

The occurrence of the metal forms (and possibly metal objects) underscores a material and techno-

Fig. 3. Skrivarhelleren in Årdal (790 m asl, the lenticular rock face in the middle of the picture) is a rock shelter above the eastern-most reaches of the Sognefjord (western Norway). Material from the shelter indicates that initial use is associated with Bell Beaker influences around the transition to the Late Neolithic 1. There is evidence of the exploitation of both wild (terrestrial and marine) and domesticated resources. Suprisingly, evidence of metal casting is found from the Late Neolithic 2 to the Late Bronze Age. Although definitive evidence is lacking, Late Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement might be associated with the rich copper deposits found in the area. Photo: Christopher Prescott.



ating and practising navigational know-how and landing in a “foreign” harbour – is an indication of hierarchy in the social organisation and part of an elite’s culture of travel (as argued for the Early Bronze Age by Kvalø (2007) for this region, Kris-tiansen & Larsson (2005) for Europe).

There are probably developments in boat tech-nology, maritime know-how and social institutions. Compared to all other forms of travel, maritime travel is the least vulnerable to predation and is therefore virtually a premise for explosive expan-sion in trade and communication. There are two important types of nodal points for maritime travel in this region: passing through bottle necks along the coast (to avoid open stretches that are difficult

Early and Middle Neolithic hugged the coast or were terrestrial, the distribution of type 1 daggers demonstrate that there is now a western orienta-tion in Scandinavia, and that open stretches of the sea, like Skagerrak between Jutland and south-west Norway, are crossed on a regular basis. Some of the sea stretches here are difficult to safely navigate even today due to marine streams, storms and harbour conditions (Kvalø 2007). Thus, at this time when paddled boats laden with cargos, passengers and crews, maintained regular interaction across open stretches of sea, it has been argued that there was a shift in maritime technology (Østmo 2012), and that implementing this maritime technology and practice – building boats, assembling crews, cre-

Fig. 4. The westernmost part of the Sognefjord in Årdal, western Norway. The Sognefjord stretches 220 km inland from the west-ern coast, providing an efficient route for boat transportation into the interior and upland. The Skrivarhelleren rock shelter is located in the upland valley that is a continuation of the fjord. The picture is taken from the path leading up to the copper mines at Blåberget, that lies a few hundred meters farther up the mountain. Apart from e.g. native copper and cuprite, oxidized ores are found in the numerous copper deposits in Årdal. The photograph thus symbolizes transformative elements that are argued to be essential to third millennium events and the creation of the Nordic Late Neolithic/ Bronze Age region: agro-pastoralism, metals and maritime transpor-tation. Photo: Christopher Prescott.



primarily from graves, to the BB as a socio-cultural movement). For the present author, the scenario that best fits the archaeological patterns is a process of BB-establishment in western Scandinavia and its evolution into the Nordic Late Neolithic (LN) re-gion within a short time span (less than 100 years). This process includes interaction between north-western BB-groups and the Nordic SGC, dissemi-nation of knowledge, migration of BB-groups into western Scandinavia and a rapid transformation into the Nordic LN and its spread throughout the Nordic region. The LN replaced a previous patch-work of diverse economic, cultural and social con-figurations from the west to the Baltic, and from northern Germany to the Arctic Circle. Thus the BB-phase was probably spurred by migration into Jutland, while the rest of Scandinavia was trans-formed through various processes and the relatively homogeneous Nordic LN1 was established.

The spread to south-western Norway, and from there along the coast northwards, seems dramatic (Prescott 2012). But perhaps modern perceptions of national borders and terrestrial priorities create a skewed impression of geography? If the geography created by modern national boundaries is ignored in regard to prehistoric societies with strong mari-time institutions and capacities (Prieto-Martínez 2008: fig 2, 2012: fig 4.6), the North Sea region from northern Germany to at least central Norway is bound together by the sea. In this geography, Jut-land and south-west Norway become nodal points of transformation and power around the transition to the LN1: Jutland for the whole Nordic region and Lista/Jæren for the long coast of Norway.

equifinality: diverse paths, a comparable resultThe above scenario is a response to large scale pat-terns. These pivot around the rapid transformation of a cultural geography containing a patchwork of MN-period societies to the moderately homoge-neous Nordic LN. It is also predicated on the most pronounced socio-historical event and expression that can be associated with the period, the Bell Bea-ker culture. Finally, it is constructed in reference to anthropological concepts. It is, however, more nar-rative than explanatory.

to navigate) and ports (fig. 5). These, and especially the former, would provide excellent platforms for building regional political and economic power. It is precisely areas like Lista in south-west Norway and Limfjord in northern Jutland that develop such strong expressions of power, interaction and mari-time landscape orientation at this time.

When travelling between Limfjord and south-west Norway, gaining permission to land in foreign harbours without fear of attack would probably be based on alliances. Alliances are based on the most important organisational principles in pre-state so-cieties: the concepts of kinship and common de-scent. Thus the material expression on both sides of the Skagerrak is an indication of perceptions of kin-ship. The shared material expressions and the rapid establishment of the institutional ties these expres-sions symbolise are probably tied to three concur-rent social mechanisms: migration, marriage and identity change.

From anthropology to historyThe above is largely oriented towards the broad an-thropological structures that come into operation at this time. The more specific historical background is tied to the Bell Beaker culture (BB) of western and northern Europe. As far as we can archaeologi-cally determine, developments related to the BB in south-west Norway are concurrent with and direct-ly related to BB-developments in Jutland, especially around Limfjord (Glob 1944; Prieto-Martinez 2008; Sarauw 2007, 2008; Vandkilde 2001). De-velopments in Jutland do not seem to evolve out of the preceding Single Grave culture (a regional Corded Ware-variant), and have been pivotal to the incorporation of Jutland and western Scandi-navia into maps of the European Bell Beaker cul-ture (compare Harrison (1980) with Vander Linden (2007); Prieto-Martínez 2012).

There is some contention concerning chronol-ogy (and therefore historical process). This is partly empirical (i.e. until recently limited chronologi-cal data and few comprehensive reviews), partly methodological (i.e. the vagaries inherent in dat-ing methods and their application) and partly con-ceptual (i.e. archaeological positions that vary on a scale from the BB as a typological expression of pots



factor – particularly along the rich maritime coastal passages, with their streams teeming with life. Here there was substantial, well-adapted settlement that had resisted substantial change for hundreds of years.

I have previously suggested that three different models of transformation in the Nordic region of Norway, in part describing three different spatial steps, are relevant (Prescott 2009, 2012). These include the establishment of BB-settlements in Lista and Rogaland, the transformation of societ-ies farther north along the coast and the transfor-mation of south-eastern Norway. In this argument, the transformation of the core regions of Lista and Jæren in Rogaland is largely the result of migration from/expansion of BB-regions in Jutland. With the establishment of settlements here, concepts of lin-eage and kinship extending across open stretches of water were established. Along the coast, minor migrations and movements triggered change in the indigenous communities, creating new and more explicit hierarchic structures here and linking these communities to Nordic networks. Eastern Norway was changed by some of the same mechanisms,

In a situation where the outcome – the Nor-dic LN – is remarkably homogeneous, it would be tempting to assume that the process leading up to this historical event was homogeneous throughout the region. However, the starting point for under-standing the transformation of Scandinavia should include the preceding socio-cultural diversity and the dissimilar environmental conditions that con-stitute variable human ecological situations. A large area is involved and it is but part of the rapid third millennium transformation of Western Europe. For a short period, there is a disparate situation between western Scandinavia with its marked BB-phase and the rest of Scandinavia around 2400 BC. It would thus seem highly unlikely that all of Scandinavia was transformed in the same fashion.

Present-day Norway serves as a case in point. The environments from the Atlantic coastal region, with its mild climate, to semi-Arctic areas; from coastal landscapes, glacial deltas and acidic forests, through the valleys and fjords and into the upland interior, all pose very different adaptation challeng-es over distances of more than a thousand kilome-tres. Perhaps more essential is the human ecological

Fig. 5. The Slettabø site in Rogaland (southwest Norway) was excavated by Arne Skjølsvold in the 1960’s. The site has numerous phases from the Neo-lithic and through the Bronze Age, but is best known for its early Bell Beaker/Late Neolithic 1 phase. A bell-beaker and numerous barbed-and-tanged flint points were recovered from this phase of settlement. In terms of func-tion, Slettabø’s Bell Beaker phase may seem enigmatic today; a cultural deposit between a small valley and a barren ridge, facing inland. However, taking land rise and sedimentation into account, 4500 years ago the site would have been located on an island by an inlet – and well-suited as a pro-tected harbour allowing ready access to the North Sea coast and the Skager-rak Strait. The site highlights the strong maritime orientation inherent to Bell Beaker/Late Neolithic culture. Photo: Arkeologisk museum, Univer-sity of Stavanger.



identity and language, there was always the threat of force. And indeed the many barbed-and-tanged points (cf. Østmo 2012: fig 6.1) were conceivably weapons representative of a threat of violence.

concluding commentsThe transformation of mid-third millennium BC Norway (and Scandinavia) entailed the adoption of the farm institution with its spatial, materialised and stable relations between the landscape and peo-ple, and between people. The archaeological mate-rial expresses a more extensive new social, ideologi-cal and economic order. This order is related to new patterns of interaction, primarily maritime-based, that created a field of interaction, initially within northern Europe but rapidly also on much grander scales. Much of this was made possible by new social and material technologies – that both enabled and engendered the changes and their future develop-ments. As such, the changes seen in Scandinavia are part of the socio-political and material movement in western and northern Europe, archaeologically subsumed under the label “Bell Beaker”. It includes hierarchy, metal, warrior ideals and probably lan-guage (Kristiansen 2012).

To understand this historical development, nu-merous sociological and anthropological mecha-nisms are suggested in different landscapes and times. These include neo-geographical concepts of migration as process, the variable impact of differ-ent types of knowledge systems, the stresses found in small scale “egalitarian” societies, the social em-beddedness of maritime practices, the threat of use of force and hierarchical ideologies.

This is a tentative outline for investigating and explaining a dramatic and pivotal part of Scandina-via. It will be amended, expanded and challenged in the future. However, I believe it encompasses some vital features that will be central to any future analy-sis of the region’s long-term history. First, this is not an evolutionary tale of a final Neolithic thrust, an isolated development or a metaphysical relationship between people and “things”. It is a specific history played out in time and space, leading to the rapid establishment of the Nordic Late Neolithic. This history of human actions and their consequences must be explained and verbalised in relation to the

through external diffusionary influence and auton-omous societies that chose to adopt the new LN mode of society and culture.

The interpretative models appeal to a suite of factors. Important here are both forces external to and internal forces in the indigenous societies. Cen-tral to arguments concerning the latter case of in-digenous transformation is that more or less “egali-tarian” hunter-gatherer societies were not unified entities, but rife with internal tensions, and that we should not necessarily assume that entrenchment and expansion of social power was the result of ex-ternal elite bonding with indigenous elders/elites. Instead, it is easy to envision other groups – like suppressed young men with entrepreneurial aspira-tions – adopting externally provided cultural, social and technological “capital” to further their interests. It is important here that the actions undertaken by individuals and groups around the transition to the LN were not necessarily intended to create the far-reaching trajectory they engendered. As Anthony Giddens (1982: 32) maintained: “History is not an intentional project” (cf. Giddens 1986).

Central elements to the historical and anthro-pological models suggested are processes of migra-tion along the modular lines suggested by Anthony (1990, 2008), e.g. movements of a few individuals, as well as actual full-scale establishment of settle-ments. The movements are tied to ideal types of knowledge sociologies (after Barth 1990), the struc-ture and type of which create significantly different modes of action and have significantly different im-pacts and historical consequences.

The forces behind various types of BB expansion, apart from demography (Vander Linden 2012), are probably tied to resource prospecting, pastoral ex-pansionist practices and political motives, i.e. war-rior ideologies. The indigenous acceptance is envi-sioned as bound up with entrepreneurs seeking to convert values between multi-centred economies (in reference to Barth 1969; Haaland 1969), ac-cumulate wealth and therefore subvert the levelling mechanisms of oppressive, egalitarian societies. In this situation, the networks, the objects, the ideolo-gy and the politics that accompanied the BB-culture would have been enticing (Glørstad 2012; Prescott 2012). Though transitions would often have been non-violent, if dramatic to the degree of shifting



Børsheim, R. L. 2005. Toskipede hus i neolitikum og eldste bronsealder. In Høgestøl, M., Løken, T., Nærøy, A. J., Selsing, L. & Prøsch-Danielsen, L. (eds.), Konstruksjon og byggeskikk. Maskinelle flateavdekking – metodikk, tolking og forvaltning. AmS-Varia 43, pp. 109-122. Stavanger, Arke-ologisk museum i Stavanger.

Brinkmann, A. & Shetelig, H. 1920. Ruskenesset: en stenalders jagtplass. Kristiania, Norske oldfunn 3.

Diinhoff, S. 2005. Den vestnorske agrarbosætning. Fra sen stenalder til folkevandringstid. In Høgestøl, M., Løken, T., Nærøy, A. J., Selsing, L. & Prøsch-Danielsen, L. (eds.), Konstruksjon og byggeskik. Maskinelle flateavdekking – me-todikk, tolking og forvaltning. AmS-Varia 43, pp. 75-86. Stavanger, Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger.

Giddens, A. 1982. Profiles and critiques in social theory. Berke-ley, University of California Press.

Giddens, A. 1986 [1984]. The Constitution of society. Outline of a theory of structuration. Oxford, Polity Press.

Glob, P. V. 1944. Studier over den jyske enkeltgravskultur. Aar-bøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, Copenha-gen.

Glørstad, H. 2009. The Northern Province. The Neolithisa-tion of Southern Norway. In Glørstad, H. & Prescott, C. (eds.), Neolithisation as if History Mattered – Processes of Neolithisation in North-West Europe, pp. 135-168. Lin-dome, Bricoleur Press.

Glørstad, H. 2012. Historical ideal types and the transition to the Late Neolithic in South Norway. In Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. (eds.), Becoming European. The transformation of third millennium Europe and the trajectory into the mil-lennium BC, pp. 82-99. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Glørstad, H. 2013. Where are the Missing Boats? The Pioneer Settlement of Norway as Long-Term History. Norwegian Archaeological Review 46(1): 57-80.

Glørstad, H. & Prescott (eds.) 2009. Neolithisation as if History Mattered - Processes of Neolithisation in North-West Europe. Lindome, Bricoleur Press.

Haaland, G. 1969. Economic determinants in ethnic process-es. In Barth, F. (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, pp. 58 73. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.

Harrison, R. B. 1980. The beaker folk. Copper Age archaeology in Western Europe. London, Thames and Hudson.

Hinsch, E. 1956. Yngre steinalders stridsøkskulturer i Norge. Årbok Universitetet i Bergen / Humanistisk serie 1954/1. Bergen, University of Bergen.

Hjelle, K. L., Hufthammer, A. K. & Bergsvik, K. A. 2006. Hesitant hunters: a review of the introduction of agricul-ture in western Norway. Environmental Archaeology 11(2): 147-170.

Holberg, E. 2000. Klokkebegerkulturens symboler: Senneoliti-kum i Rogaland og Nordland sør for polarsirkelen. Master’s thesis, University of Bergen.

ideal types/mechanisms studied and elucidated in the social sciences, but brought into dialectic dis-course with the specific patterns and evidence at a given place and time – replacing “dualism with duality” (Giddens 1986: 36f ). This relationship between the general and specific is mirrored in the scale of inquiry: the local and regional patterns must be understood in relation to broader European de-velopments, whilst the broad trends outlined for northern Europe are only meaningful in reference to the actual case studies of events played out in the landscapes and places where people lived.

The outcome of this approach applied to the materials, landscapes and patterns of the third mil-lennium is a dramatic historical narrative of water-shed events that changed the course of history in Norway and Scandinavia.

referencesAnthony, D. W. 1990. Migration in archeology: The baby and

the bathwater. American Anthropologist 92: 896-914.

Anthony, D. W. 2008. The horse, the wheel and language. How Bronze-age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the mod-ern world. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

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. Uppsala, Uppsala University.

Artursson, M. 2009. Bebyggelse och samhällsstruktur. Södra och mellersta Skandinavien under senneolitikum och bronsålder 2300–500 f. Kr. Riksantikvarieämbetets Arkeologisk un-dersökningar Skrifter 73. Stockholm, Riksantikvarieämbe-tet.

Bakka, E. 1976. Arktisk og nordisk i bronsealderen i Nordskandi-navia. DKVNS Miscellenea 25, Trondheim.

Bakka, E. 1993. Ramsvikneset – A sub-Neolithic dwelling place in western Norway. In Solberg, B. (ed.), Minneskrift Egil Bakka. Arkeologiske Skrifter fra Historisk museum 7, pp. 21-69. Bergen, Historisk museum.

Barth, F. 1969. Introduction. In Barth, F. (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, pp. 9-38. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.

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.

Bergsvik, K. A. 2012. The last hunter-fishers of western Nor-way. In Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. (eds.), Becoming Euro-pean. The transformation of third millennium Europe and the trajectory into the millennium BC, pp. 100-114. Oxford, Oxbow Books.



Myhre, B. 2002. Landbruk, landskap og samfunn 4000 f. Kr.-800 e.Kr. In Myhre, B. and Øye, I. (eds.), Norges Land-brukshistorie 1, pp. 11-214. Oslo, Det Norske Samlaget.

Olsen, A. B. 1992. Kotedalen - en boplass gjennom 5000 år. Fangstbosetning og tidlig jordbruk i vestnorsk steinalder: Nye funn og nye perspektiver. Bergen, University of Bergen.

Olsen, A. B. 2009. Transition to farming in western Norway seen as a rapid replacement of landscapes. In McCartan, S., Schulting, R., Warren, G. & Woodman, P. (eds.), Me-solithic Horizons, pp. 587-594. Oxford, Oxbow.

Østmo, E. 1988. Etableringen av jordbrukskultur i Østfold i Steinalderen. Universietets Oldsaksamlings Skrifter. Ny rek ke 10. Oslo, Universitetet i Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2008. Auve. En fangstboplass fra yngre steinalder på Vesterøya i Sandefjord. I. Den arkeologiske del. Norske Old-funn XXVIII. Kulturhistorisk museum, Oslo, Universite-tet i Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2011. Krigergraver. En dokumentarisk studie av sen-neolithiske hellekister i Norge. Norske Oldfunn XXVI. Kul-turhistorisk museum, Oslo, Universitetet i Oslo.

Østmo, E. 2012. Late Neolithic Expansion to Norway. The beginning of a 4000 year-old shipbuilding tradition. In Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. (eds.), Becoming European. The transformation of third millennium Europe and the trajectory into the second millennium BC, pp. 63-69. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Østmo, E. & Skogstrand, L. 2006. Nye funn av traktbegerkera-mikk ved Oslofjorden. Børsebakke og Vøyenenga. Viking. Norsk arkeologisk årbok LXIX.

Prescott, C. 1996. Was there really a Neolithic in Norway? An-tiquity 70(267): 77-87.

Prescott, C. 1997. Aspects of early pastoralism in Sogn. Acta Archaeologica 66(1995): 163-190.

Prescott, C. 2009. History in prehistory – the later Neolithic/Early Metal Age, Norway. In Glørstad, H. & Prescott, C. (eds.), Neolithisation as if History Mattered-Processes of Neo-lithisation in North-West Europe, pp. 193-216. Lindome, Bricoleur Press.

Prescott, C. 2012. Third millennium transformations in Nor-way: modeling an interpretative platform. In Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. (eds.), Becoming European. The transformation of third millennium Europe and the trajectory into the mil-lennium BC, pp. 115-127. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Prescott, C. & Melheim, A. L. 2009. The first Bronze Age communities in Scandinavia. Comments on M. Pilar Pri-eto-Martínez: “Bell Beaker communities in Thy: The first Bronze Age Society in Denmark”. Norwegian Archaeologi-cal Review 41(2): 21-24.

Prescott,C. & Walderhaug, E. 1995. The Last Frontier? Pro-cesses of Indo-Europeanization in Northern Europe. The Norwegian Case. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 3-4: 357-280.

Iveresen, R. 2013. Beyond the Neolithic transition - the ‘de-Neolithisation’ of South Scandinavia. In Larsson, M. & Debert, J. (eds.), NW Europe in Transition. The Early Neo-lithic in Britain and South Sweden, pp. 21-27. BAR Inter-national Series 2475. Oxford, Hadrian Books.

Jensen, J. A. 1973. Myrhøj. 3 hustomter med klokkbægerkera-mik. KUML 1972, pp. 61-122.

Johnson, T. & Prescott, C. 1993. Late Neolithic houses at Stokkset, Sande in Sunnmøre. In Solberg, B. (ed.), Min-neskrift Egil Bakka. Arkeologiske Skrifter fra Historisk mu-seum 7, pp. 70-89. Bergen, Historisk museum.

Kilhavn, H. 2013. Neolitikum i Agder: interne strukturer og eks-terne relasjoner i samfunn fra tidligneolitikum til seinneoliti-kum. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo.

Kristiansen, K. 2012. The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-Eu-ropean languages: an archaeological model. In Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. (eds.), Becoming European. The transforma-tion of third millennium Europe and the trajectory into the millennium BC, pp. 165-181. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Kristiansen, K. & Larsson, T. B. 2005. The rise of Bronze Age society. Travels, transmissions and transformations. Cam-bridge, Cambridge University Press.

Kvalø, F. 2007. Oversjøiske reiser fra Sørvest- Norge til Nor-dvest-Jylland i eldre bronsealder – En drøfting av maritim realisering og rituell mobilisering. In Hedeager, L. (ed.), Sjøreiser og stedsidentitet. Jæren/Lista i bronsealder og eldre jernalder. Oslo Archaeological Series 8, pp. 11-134. Oslo, Oslo Academic Press.

Kyhlberg, O. 1995. Hus & gård: hus & gård i det förurbana samhället: rapport från ett sektors forskningsprojekt vid Riks-antikvarieämbetet/projektledning. RAÄ Skrifter, Riksantik-varieämbetet. Arkeologiska undersökningar, bd. 13-14. Stockholm, Riksantikvarieämbetet.

Lindblom, I. 1982. Rugland – en sen-neolitisk boplass på Jæren, Sørvest-Norge. In Lillehammer, A. (ed.) Faggrens-er brytes. Artiklar tileigna Odmund Møllerop 7. desember 1982. AmS-skrifter 9, pp. 15-32. Stavanger, Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger.

Lødøen, T. K. 1993. Et gravfunn fra sein steinalder. Arkeo 2, pp. 4-7.

Malmer, M. P. 1962. Jungneolithische Studien. Acta archaeo-logica Lundensia. Series in 8° Lund, Gleerup.

Melheim, A. L. 2012. Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway – the role of metal and metal working. In Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. (eds.), Becoming European. The transformation of third millennium Europe and the tra-jectory into the millennium BC, pp. 70-81. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Mjærum, A. 2012. The bifacial arrowheads in Southeast Nor-way. A chronological study. Acta Archaeologica 83: 105-143.

Myhre, B. 1979. Spor etter klokkebegerkulturen i Rogaland. Fra Hauk ok heidni 4(7):298-303.



Sarauw, T. 2008. Danish Bell Beaker pottery and flint daggers the display of social identities? European Journal of Archae-ology 11(1): 23-48.

Scheen, R. 1979. De norske flintdolkene. Unpublished mag.art. thesis, University of Oslo.

Shetelig 1936 [1954]. Germanerenes avstamning under arke-ologisk synspunkt. Kunst og Kultur. Reprinted in Shetelig, H. 1947. Arkeologi, historie, kunst, kultur. Mindre avhand-linger, pp. 262-69. Bergen, John Griegs Forlag.

Skjølsvold, A. 1977. Slettabøboplassen. Skrifter 2. Arkeologisk museum, Stavanger.

Sjögren, P. & Arntzen, J. E. 2009. Agricultural practices in Arctic Norway during the first millennium B.C. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 22(1): 1-15.

Trigger, B. 1998. Archaeology and Epistemology: Dialoguing across the Darwinian chasm. American Journal of Archaeo-logy 102: 1-34.

Valum, M. S. 2009. Hellig eller profan? Hus og husoffer som kilde til kosmologi i senneolitikum og bronsealder på Lista i Vest-Agder fylke. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo.

Vander Linden, M. 2007. What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe? Antiquity 81(312): 343-352.

Vander Linden, M. 2012. Demography and mobility in North-Western Europe during the third millennium cal. BC. In Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. (eds.), Becoming Eu-ropean. The transformation of third millennium Europe and the trajectory into the second millennium BC, pp. 19-29. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Vandkilde, H. 2001. Beaker representations in the Danish late Neolithic. In Nicolis, F. (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International colloquium, Riva del garda, 11-16 May 1998, pp. 333-360. Ufficio Beni Archeologici, Trento.

Westergaard, B. 2008. Trattbägare i O-bygd. Arkeologiska undersökningar längs E6 i Bohuslän, delen Lugnet-Skee Bohuslän,Skee socken, Neanberg 1:14 och S:a Slön 2:4, Skee 1616. UV Väst Rapport 2008:40, Arkeologisk undersök-ning. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Mølndal.

Wylie, A. 1995. Feminist theories of social power: Some im-plications for a processual archaeology. Norwegian Archaeo-logical Review 25(1): 51-68.

Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. (eds.), 2012. Becoming European. The transformation of third millennium Europe and the tra-jectory into the millennium BC. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2008. Bell Beaker communities in Thy. The first Bronze Age society in Denmark. Norwegian Ar-chaeological Review 41(2), pp. 115-158.

Prieto-Martínez, M. P. 2012. Perceiving changes in the third millennium BC in Europe through pottery: Galicia, Britta-ny and Denmark as examples. In Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. (eds.), Becoming European. The transformation of third millennium Europe and the trajectory into the second millen-nium BC, pp. 30-38. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Prøsch-Danielsen, L. 1996. Vegetation history and human im-pact during the last 11500 years at Lista, the southernmost part of Norway. Based primarily on Professor Ulf Hafsten’s material and diary from 1955-1957. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 50: 85-99.

Prøsch-Danielsen, L. & 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.

Robb, J. 2013. Material culture, landscapes of action and emergent causation: a new model for the origins of the European Neolithic. Current Anthropology 54(6): 657-683.

Rønne, P. 2002. Stensrød – boplass med spor fra nøstvetfasen, senneolitikum, bronsealder og eldre jernalder. In Glørstad, H. (ed.), Svinesundprosjektet Bind 2, Utgravninger avsluttet i 2002. Varia 55, pp. 187-222. Oslo, Universitetets kul-turhistoriske museer.

Rowley-Conwy, P. C. 1995. Making first farmers younger: the West European evidence. Current Anthropology 36(2): 346-353.

Rowley-Conwy, P. C. 2011. Westward Ho! The Spread of Ag-riculture from Central Europe to the Atlantic. Current An-thropology 52(4): 431-451.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 2013. North of the Frontier: Early Domes-tic Animals in Northern Europe. In Colledge, S., Conolly, J., Dobney, K., Manning, K. & Shennan, S. (eds.), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe, pp. 283-312. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press.

Sarauw, T. 2007. Male symbols or warrior identities? The ‘ar-chery burials’ of the Danish Bell Beaker Culture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(1): 65-87.


A synthesis of the history of third millennium north-western Scandinavia

Documents

Transcript of A synthesis of the history of third millennium north-western Scandinavia