The Neolithic Coastal Settlements - Cosmology and Ideology in a Baltic Sea Perspective

20

Niclas Björck

The Neolithic Coastal SettlementsCosmology and Ideology in a Baltic SeaPerspective

AbstractIn my research on the Neolithic in eastern Sweden, and in particular southern Norrland,I have continually noticed that the archaeological material deviate from traditionalarchaeological narrative. Traditionally it has been thought that innovations continu-ally influenced eastern Sweden from the southwest, but in the area of research this is notat all self-evident and influences from north and east are as marked. I will discussanomalies in the traditional narrative to illustrate the flaw in a generalized model ofdiffusion from southwest. The new perspective on the Neolithic of eastern Swedenmotivates a deconstruction of the archaeological cultures that are often held as self-evident. A perspective based on social theory is suggested with the aim to create aninterpretation built upon houses, settlement site organization and settlement pattern.Cosmological and ideological aspects are interpreted as being reflected in certain arti-facts and monuments. Such artifacts aid a re-interpretation of the Neolithic in easternSweden and southern Norrland.

Key words: Neolithic, housing, settlement organisation, settlement pattern, society,cosmology.

Niclas Björck, National Heritage Board, Archaeological Excavations DepartmentUV GAL, Kungsgatan 62, SE-753 18 Uppsala, Sweden, [email protected]

IntroductionNeolithic cultural classification has been developed and reinterpreted byarchaeologists throughout the twentieth century in order to give a betterunderstanding of the period. The result, however, is open to discussion.Cultures have been created using certain particular artefacts. Linked tothese traditional cultural classifications are preconceived ideas as to life-styles, nutritional economy, burial customs, and building practices. It hasbecome an end in itself to adapt new materials to the right cultural cat-egory rather than trying to understand societies. Perhaps it is necessary toleave behind outdated nomenclature and look in a more unbiased way atthe material. The following is an attempt at such a new understanding ofthe Neolithic. The aim is to achieve a perspective based on several as-pects and analytical levels, rather than just using isolated artefacts andtypological elements and their inherent associations.

21

The Neolithic Coastal Settlements

It scarcely needs to be pointed out that this form of research requiresanalytical and interpretative strategies completely different from those usedfor attributions of artefacts to assumed cultures. When attempting to dis-cuss communities it is necessary that analysis should take place on a levelwhere reflections of small-scale society might reasonably be found. Sucha vision demands an empirical basis so good that details appear within theterritories of prehistoric society. My assumption is that this is not neces-sarily a large area, hence good resolution in the archaeological material isessential. It is quite clear that we will never be able to obtain a total picturefrom the remains of societies which disappeared thousands of years ago,but it is just as obvious that the picture we produce for ourselves can reston a more or less well-established foundation. The main aim of the large-scale empirical groundwork has been to assemble substantial material thatreflects society as comprehensively as possible. This has been achievedthrough large-scale excavations and surveys carried out with this specificobjective in mind (Björck 1998; 1999a; 2000a; 2000b; Björck & Björck1999). After consideration for which levels it might be meaningful to seekpatterns of significance for social organisation, my choice has fallen onhousing, settlement organisation and settlement patterns. Integrating bothlarge- and small-scale factors help develop a hermeneutic understandingof society. A prerequisite when reconstructing communities is chronology.I have tried to create such a chronology through a combination of shore-line dating, C-14 dating and typology.

Even when patterns can be detected it is important to remember thatmaterial remains are often not a direct reflection of the society of the time,but rather a distorted reflection of ideological conventions (cf Burström1991; Hodder 1982). Serveral interpretations of discovered patterns aretherefore possible.

A social perspectiveSociety is the focal point of this analysis and therefore an introductorydiscussion in order to define my understanding of the term is justified. Inearlier work society was often regarded as a social organism and analo-gies to biology were common (Hobbes 1651; Durkheim 1978). Nowa-days, however, such models are out of fashion and they have been re-placed by subjective/hermeneutic and objective/positivist stances. Roughlyspeaking, when such stances are used within social theory, they give riseto a group of theories which emphasise the systemic/structural aspects of

22

Niclas Björck

society (Structuralism, Functionalism) and another group with the empha-sis on the individual/agency (Action theory) (Giddens 1984:xvii). Thesedifferent starting points lead to methodological collectivism or individual-ism as basic premises in explaining social phenomena. These theories, ofcourse, contribute penetrating reasoning, but the fact that they either havea systemic or an individual perspective that can not be combined is inevi-tably a problem.

Anthony Giddens has tried to solve the problematical relation betweenindividual and structure. The structure is both the necessary medium forand the result of individual actions (Giddens 1979; 1984). When agentsreproduce structure it is also in their power to change it. In “The Constitu-tion of Society” Giddens defines agent, power, action, routine, system,institution and structure as phenomena that taken together form compo-nents of social practice (Giddens 1984). Freedom to act (agency) is theprerequisite for being an agent (Giddens 1979:8; 1984:33). Values, normsand rules are to be found among active subjects (agents) and change ininterplay between individuals and institutions. Individuals own the powerboth to reshape and preserve, and the means for reshaping are differentkinds of capital that the agents have at their disposal.

Giddens makes a distinction between system and structure. Structureforms only the abstract idea and is totally free from acting subjects. Eventhough structure has only a virtual existence it can be assumed to be mani-fested in the remains of social practice, as for example in reflections ofagency, institutions or social systems. Remains thus reflect not only thesystem, but can also show structural characteristics (Giddens 1984:17).By reason of ontological security human beings tend to follow traditionand thus follow and reproduce routine. This is the psychological explana-tion as to why social practice reflects routine and structure. Theoretically,then, seeing structural characteristics in archaeological material ought tobe possible and hence remains from the Neolithic can be seen as an ex-pression of social practice manifested in physical space. “Structure” is adimension in the material that lies beyond the purely functional. Settle-ments in the material world are not a direct reflection of structure, butconstitute a picture camouflaged by events controlled by unique factors,e.g. local topography, the make-up of the group, the function of the place,possibly seasonal variations, or quite simply chance. It is therefore una-voidable that a major part of what we find on separate sites consists offunctional solutions to everyday problems, and are actually no more thanthat.

23


In consequence much of what we find in settlements may result fromgames of chance and does not always go with a consciously structuredspace. Patterns that are repeated, however, may reflect routine, and hencestructure. It is therefore necessary to try to find a way of distinguishingstructure from the temporary solutions of flexible individuals to everydayproblems. It is my hope that it is possible to observe structure indirectlythrough the evidence of organisational structures repeated in several dif-ferent places. It is, however, important to point out that the structuresdiscussed should not to be regarded as inflexible conformities to a law inwhich people have been imprisoned. Here the duality of structure is im-portant, i.e. the fact that the acting subject is both influenced by, and caninfluence, structures/systems.

Anthony Giddens works with three distinct types of consciousness, themost important being practical and discursive consciousness. Practicalconsciousness is what we do but cannot explain, while the discursive typeis that which can be explained. It is particularly the practical type of con-sciousness and unspoken rules that form the basis of what is important forunderstanding people’s actions. A major part of our actions can be sum-marised as routine, which is a basic element in daily life and embraceseverything done out of habit. He also exploits three types of time ele-ments. Dureé is day-to-day time and is controlled mainly by routine. Daseinis a type of periodicity limited by the length of life of the individual, whilelongue dureé is the time element of institutions. Both dureé and dasein areinterwoven with longue dureé.

All societies are structured over time and in relation to physical space.Social life has an arena and within Gidden’s structuration theory, spatialgeography within which the social system works is known as a locale.This is defined not only as the physical surroundings or framework foraction but should also be regarded as a social phenomenon. The partici-pants create and maintain the physical framework for their actions throughtheir deeds, but the physical surroundings in their turn also structure man’sactions.

Another important aspect of the structuration theory is time-spacedistanciation. This element of structuration theory is developed from therelation between means of communication and social organisation. Thismay be a means to better prerequisites for evaluating the reasonablenessof interpreting observed patterns as indications of limitations and scale ofrelevance for the locale of prehistoric societies. Spatial patterns of settle-ments in the landscape are used in an attempt to delimit the locale. During

24

Niclas Björck

the neolithic all communication can be assumed to have been face to face.In this context the time taken to travel between different settlements dis-tributed across a landscape with the aid of neolithic technology is of sig-nificance.

The RegionThe traditional, and still-acclaimed, picture of the Neolithic of southernNorrland is that of a remotely-situated fringe of the widely spread ar-chaeological cultures (Ekholm 1909; Lindqvist 1916; Bagge 1938; Welinder1998; Hallgren 1996; Hallgren 1998; Burenhult 1999). This whole ideastructure should be questioned and replaced by a perspective based onsocial categories. People in southern Norrland saw themselves assuredlyas living at or near the centre of their own society and not as peripheral toa unit that they could scarcely imagine. The fact is that the landscape ofEastern Sweden during the Neolithic is of a radically different characteras compared with southern and western Sweden. The clay plains typicalof those areas are only to be found in the inner parts of the provinces ofÖstergötland and Närke while settlements in the remaining parts of east-ern Sweden, from Småland in the south to the area of investigation in thenorth, have mainly been part of a huge archipelago (Fig.1). The characterof the landscape is unique to the region and should, in my opinion, beconsidered when attempting to understand social development in the area.

The basic settlement pattern during the Neolithic period consists ofsettlements lying in groups at a distance of 10-25 kilometres from eachother along the coast. A settlement structure which, apart from certainlocal characteristics, has been observed across the whole of eastern Swe-den (Ahlbeck et al 1996: figs. 233, 326; Björck & Björck 1999; Olsson1996: figs. 3-6). In the area of investigation such a settlement pattern areobvius (Fig.2). The very deep, broken-up archipelago in the provinces ofUppland and Södermanland tends to make the pattern less clear but it is,nevertheless, observable. To quote Ann Segerberg, “Irrespective of wherein the landscape the settlements are to be found, most of them appear tolie in assembled groups” (Segerberg 1999:31).

ChronologyDating with the aid of shoreline displacement can be characterised as atype of horizontal stratigraphy. Horizontal stratigraphy can be used on all

25


Figure 1. The enormous archipelago of Eastern Sweden from northern Småland tosouthern Medelpad with the area of investigation marked. During the cause of theNeolithic the landscape changed markedly and the presented archipelago reconstructsthe situation approximately 4500 BP (horizon 3) (Archipelago reconstruction L. Anders-son SGU 2000).

26

Niclas Björck

Figure 2. The area of investigation from Northern Uppland to Southern Hälsinglandwith the six settlement areas along the coast, marked as circles. The circles are 6kilometres in diameter. Reconstructed shorelines of several horizons are presented(horizons 1, 2, 3, and 4).

27


remains which are complex and not constructed in one phase, e.g. cem-eteries, settlements and cultivated landscapes (Gräslund 1974:38 f). Shore-line dating has, however, greater value than horizontal stratigraphy, sincethe sea, with its one-way displacement in the north, sorts the material in aknown and definite order. This sorting process means that shoreline/hori-zontal stratigraphy is similar to standard archaeological/vertical stratigraphy,where the earliest lies always at the bottom. In the context of shorelinedisplacement of northern Sweden this results in the oldest level being situ-ated on the highest altitude.

A shoreline chronology is based on several simple assumptions. Thefirst is a continually regressive shoreline displacement without interruptionand the second is that the remains have been localised by the shore. Boththese assumptions must be examined critically and argued for since condi-tions vary between different regions. However, if they are seen to becomplied with, shoreline displacement is a potentially powerful instrumentfor establishing a chronology. Critics (Christiansson 1963:18; Löfstrand1973:24f; 1974:7; Strinnholm 2000) are, with reason, doubtful about thesort of work where different periods are demarcated within one site by

Figure 3. Diagram of the number of settlements related to height above sealevel. The levels have been corrected and correspond to the levels that applyto the Gävle isobase. The sites has been divided into sizegroups. The sizes ofcultural layers vary in the interval from 100 up to 26000 m2, the majority ofthe sites are found in the interval 1000 to 5000 m2.

28

Niclas Björck

the fact that a few metres above sea level separate them (e.g. Bagge1951). Despite the fact that there is probably, in many cases, substanceeven in such period divisions, it is clear that questioning is justified. In thisanalysis, however, it is a question of a very large material that has beengathered with uniform methods. The empirical basis for creating a shore-line chronology is therefore completely altered relative to the materialswhich have been the object of the above-mentioned criticisms. The chro-nology is based on more than 250 sites distributed over a period which,judging by C-14 dates, covers c. 2000 years. The sites are situated withina vertical level difference of 14 metres. In practice this usually impliesmany kilometres, and sometimes many tens of kilometres, in horizontalshoreline displacement. Measurements of the lowest levels of settlementshave shown four distinct altitude intervals with a wealth of sites separatedby altitude intervals where few settlements occur (Fig. 3). It is these thatprovide the basis for the proposed chronology (Fig. 4). The fact that suchvariations in the effects of shoreline displacement coincide over areas ofmany tens of kilometres can scarcely be explained in any other way thanthat the settlements lay directly by the shore and that the speed of shore-line displacement varied in accordance with eustatic movement. For thedevelopment of archaeology in southern Norrland it is important that shore-line dating is appraised on its merits.

The shoreline data has not been pressed to its limits. A slightly morerough-and- ready classification was deemed adequate owing to the factthat C-14 dates and shoreline displacements are able to complement andsupport each other. The horizontal classification is sufficiently rough forthe horizons to be separated by means of C-14 dates.

Period BP BC Duration Meter above seaHorizon 1 5150-4850 4000-3700 300 years Ca 53-49,8Horizon 2 4850-4600 3700-3400 300 years Ca 49,7-47,5Horizon 3 4600-4300 3400-3000 400 years Ca 46,5-43,5Horizon 4 4300-4000 3000-2600 400 years Ca 42,1-39Horizon 5 4000-3700 2600-2300 300 years Ca 38-36SN 3700-3500 2300-1800 500 years Ca 36-34

Figure 4.Table of the local Southern Norrland chronology as it appears in thematerial compiled in the 1990s. It may be noted that the Neolithic coastalsettlements have been used in an unbroken sequence from the early up untilLate Neolithic in the region. The levels above sea are the interval relevant forGästrikland and Northern Uppland. The intervals are thus in part caused bylocal differences in land-rise, though it might also be a result of the duration ofeach horizon.

29


During the Early and Middle Neolithic the food economy, material cul-ture, location of settlements, and stationary groups along the coast indi-cate continuity. The distinction between Early and Middle Neolithic siteshas been found to be irrelevant. There is nothing in the archaeologicalmaterial from Southern Norrland that indicate any major change takingplace during this period.

HousingAll known housing from Neolithic coastal settlements in Eastern Swedenare considered in the following discussion (Ahlbeck et al 1997; Apel et al1997b; Bagge 1938; 1941; Biwall et al 1997; Björck & Björck 1999; Björck1998; 2000; Browall 1986; Ekholm 1929; Florin 1958; Frödin 1911; Gruberet al 1999; Göthberg et al 1995; Halén 1994; Larsson 1995; Lindqvist et al1999; Nihlén 1925; Papmehl-Dufay 1999; Welinder 1971; Österholm 1993).The hut foundations have usually proved to be small, with a dwelling areaof 7-14m2. No fires have been lit inside the house but heat has probablybeen provided, when necessary, by means of heated-up stones carried infrom outside or oil being burnt (cf Storå 2001). These small huts can prob-ably most accurately be described as “sleeping spaces”, while the sur-rounding dwelling area is, to judge by the evidence, just as much part ofthe dwelling space as the huts themselves. Functions such as cooking,eating, socializing can be assumed to have been executed in the surround-ing area. This means that the huts, despite their small size, may very wellhave functioned as a dwelling for a family. These types of houses (rela-tively small huts with no internal hearth) have Mesolithic precursors in theregion (Björck et al 2000; Biwall et al 1997:283; Hallgren et al 1995; Larsson1994).This indicates that the dwellings which are characteristic for theNeolithic coastal settlements have developed on a local basis and havedeep roots in the local Mesolithic.

House design varies in form and appearance but can be divided intothree groups based on archaeologically observable characteristics, whichin their turn have been divided into subsidiary groups. The main groups arebased on the floor surface relative to the surrounding land surface; sunken,raised, or at ground level. These types can be used to look for tendenciesof both a spatial and chronological nature. A certain amount of regionalvariations, based on the basic theme, can be identified within the maincategory of Neolithic coastal settlements. Simple round posthole circleswith the floor surface at ground level are concentrated in a coherent area

30

Niclas Björck

from Småland to Uppland. Stone circles, on the other hand, are to befound in the far south of Norrland, in Småland and the Mälaren Valley.Sunken-floor huts belong, above all, to the Norrland region, but single ex-amples of such settlements are also to be found, for example, in the prov-ince of Gästrikland (Björck 2000b; Halén 1994; Runesson et al 2001).

With ethnographical material one has been able to state that an impor-tant factor behind the form of dwellings is the length of time one plans tostay in one place. Small band communities aiming to live only for a shorttime in one place sometimes erect a house for the whole group. If, on theother hand, one intends to stay for a longer period each household buildsits own house (Lindholm et al 1996:76). The housing discussed here indi-cates that in the coastal settlements it was a matter of separate house-holds using these hut foundations. Osteological material indicate that siteshave often been used all the year round.

Settlement organisation and significance – thestructured spaceNeolithic coastal settlements are assumed to suffer a total lack of thoseorganisational regularities which otherwise commonly appear in more orless all cultural history, ethnographical and anthropological research. Theregularities one has in mind are those connected with man’s ability tocreate types, and repeatedly achieve the same forms of housing (Baudou1992; Göthberg et al 1995; Lindholm et al 1996:76 ff; Loeffler 1999;Lundberg 1997; Tilley 1999:46).

Is it really possible that Neolithic settlements in Eastern Sweden lacksuch regularities? During the 1990s the image of Neolithic coastal settle-ments in Eastern Sweden as structureless occupation layers has beenchallenged (Ahlbeck et al 1996; Apel et al 1997; Björck 1998; Björck &Björck 1999; Halén 1994; Papmehl-Dufay 1999). The coastal settlementsexcavated on a large scale usually consist of a number of freestanding hutfoundations: usually 3-8 huts grouped round a common space (Fig.5).Normally it can be assumed that all the huts have been in contemporane-ous use. When necessary they have been repaired or replaced by newones in roughly the same place, and this indicates that these sites have hada permanent organisation. There is thus a basic structural similarity be-tween all sites: the huts as the private sphere are grouped in such a waythat create common/public central sphere. There are great variations inthe way ethnographically recorded hunting and gathering groups organise

31


their settlements. If, however, one begins with actions and behaviour it ispossible to break down the variants in structures and make them compa-rable. Such a procedure shows that diversity is often a matter of varia-tions on a common theme. A fairly widespread, cross-cultural character-istic is that settlements are formed partly by public spaces and partly byindividual/family areas. The household, therefore, usually has a privatesphere and these individual or family areas are orientated towards a publiccentral area where one spends much time (Lindholm et al 1996:76). Thesettlement organisation observed on coastal neolithic sites is thus a varianton a theme that is well known from ethnographical material. Just as is thecase with housing, there are also contemporaneous analogies to this sortof organisation in coastal settlements in the east and north, e.g. Lillbergetin Överkalix and Lavamäki in Kaukola (Halén 1994; Hårdh 1993:71f).

Outside the circle of huts structures with a ritual and cult function havein several cases been found. This can be exemplified by hut foundationVII at Fräkenrönningen, Bollbacken 3, the Fågelbacken dead house andVedmora 7 (Ahlbeck et al 1996; Apel et al 1997; Björck 1998; Björck &Björck 1999). This can be interpreted as meaning that ritual was to someextent spatially separated from the everyday living space. In band com-

Figure 5. An interpretation of the organisational structure of the Neolithic coastalsettlements, exemplified by a selection of sites.

32

Niclas Björck

munities social relations are usually maintained in everyday life rather thanthrough rituals and rules. Most groups of less complex type, therefore, didnot have special places for ritual use. We can, thus, interpret this as anindication that the society studied here was more complex, and that thepopulation in the coastal villages would have had common institutions andrituals, or even ritual specialists. Bearing in mind the lifestyle and, forinstance, common artefacts such as clay figurines, the existence of ananimistic belief system and even shamans should be considered.

The settlement patternIn the intensely surveyed area of southern Norrland and northern Upplandthere are between thirty to ninety sites in each settlement group (district)(Fig.2). The districts are separeted by stretches of coast that lack Neolithicsites. Settlements are not evenly distributed within districts, but occur in anumber of separate territories. There are commonly two, or sometimesthree, such territories within each district in every horizon. In the separateterritories there are normally three to seven contemporary settlementsmore or less densely assembled. I believe that these districts and territo-ries can be interpreted as a reflection of social organisation.

If these districts are analysed more closely certain patterns and changesare shown to occur over time. A number of the changes are specific toseparate groups and may be caused by gaps in the source material or bythe play of chance circumstances. Others, however, take place parallelwith each other across the whole area, and can therefore be regarded asreflecting more general processes. In the six districts (fig. 2) studied indetail the following tendencies are strikingly similar. A hasty growth takesplace during horizons 1-3 (c. 4000-3000 B.C.) and a similarly hasty col-lapse during the period 3000-2300 B.C. (Fig. 6). The tendencies are simi-

District Horizon 1 Horizon 2 Horizon 3 Horizon 4 Accumulated areaDalälv 1,4 % 22,7 % 63,8 % 12 % 190 936 m2

Mårtsbo 6,1 % 25,9 % 54,9 % 13,2 % 112 786 m2

Gavleån 21,5 % 13,4 % 39,5 % 25,6 % 94 855 m2

Testeboån 5,1 % 2,8 % 84,1 % 8 % 82 289 m2

Hamrånge 2,7 % 22,9 % 67,7 % 6,7 % 80 507 m2

Skärjån 0 % 61,2 % 38,3 % 0,5 % 8 111 m2

Average 6,2 % 24,8 % 58 % 11 % 94 914 m2

Figure 6. Distribution of the number of settlement surfaces per group in therespective chronological horizons (the right-hand column shows the area of settle-ment surfaces from which the statistics have been calculated). The calculations arebased on 255 sites.

33


lar irrespective if one studies the number of sites or size of cultural layerson the sites. Settlements are greatest in number, aswell as, in size duringhorizon 2 and especially horizon 3. During horizon 1 the sites have a cleartendency to be situated by the mouths of small rivers or farther up alongboth larger and smaller rivers. During horizon 2 the connection betweenriver mouth and settlement becomes ever clearer and fewer sites arelocated upstream. This development continues during horizon 3. The maindistricts in the inner archipelago, usually adjacent to small rivers or rivermouths, exist during the whole of the growth period, the Early and olderMiddle Neolithic (horizons 1-3). During horizon 3, however, separate sitesbegin to be established farther out in the archipelago and during horizons4/5 the settlements move in their entirety to these areas (Fig. 6). I havepreviously interpreted this as changes in the availability of seals, possiblycaused by human actions (Björck 1999b).

SocietyOld evolutionary divisions into band, tribe, chiefdom and state have, duringrecent years, been re-evaluated. The distinction between band and tribe isoften difficult to make in low-technological societies and is nowadays re-garded as an exaggerated generalisation. A prehistoric community is noteither a band or a tribe but a can be situated anywhere along a slidingscale between these models. The degree of organisation present in pre-historic societies must be based on a detailed study of archaeological ma-terial and not, as so often earlier on, on rough generalisations from, forexample, food economy or consumption patterns. Previously one imag-ined simple connections: hunting societies were assumed to have simpleforms of organisation (band) and agricultural societies more complex ones(tribes). Bands were usually assumed to consume food directly while tribalsocieties had a storage economy. The lifestyle of the band is one of highmobility while tribes were assumed to be more sedentary. As evidencedby the North-west Coast Indians (the Kwakiutl, Nootka and Tsimshian) itis not quite this simple. There are populations with a food economy basedon fishing and hunting that have developed a complex form of tribal soci-ety (Mulk 1994:186; Price & Brown 1985; Sahlins 1968). Arguments mustbe sought in the actual societies or in the remains there of.

The frequent use of ceramics in coastal settlements can be interpretedas an indication that a storage economy was developed during the period(jmf Nunez 1986). Osteological material indicates that settlements in the

34

Niclas Björck

archipelago were often used all year round. Departing from this it is alsoself evident that other premises are needed if we are to progress fromempty analytical categories (cultures) to societies. Principles of descentform a good basis for reaching this point. Principles of descent are essen-tial if we are to understand how membership of corporate groups is gov-erned. Such principles take the form of institutions or systems in the socialmodel of structuration theory. The most widespread principles are thosegoverned by patrilinear, matrilinear, or undifferentiated bilateral (i.e. throughboth male and female lines) kinship. The latter system is judged less likelythan unilinear systems in this context. The common feature of unilinearsystems is that the individual relinquishes relationship with half of his/herbiological kindred and sees them as married-in relatives. This enables atight boundary to be drawn round culturally-defined blood relatives. Ofparticular interest is where the couple dwell after marriage since this is ofimportance for the organisation of society. Uxorilocality (when a couplesettles near the woman’s family) is a tradition that occurs in certain, butnot all, matrilinear societies. Patri- and matrilocality can be distinguishedfrom the above by the fact that a couple settles in the man’s or the wom-an’s parents’ dwelling respectively, with resulting different types of largefamilies. (Divale 1977; Hallgren 1998:187 f). When a couple remains inthe woman’s home matrilocality is usual, but if they settle in the man’shome the tendency is rather towards virilocality, i.e. a couple settles nearthe man’s family.

It ought often to be possible to distinguish between these principles,even within archaeology, since dwellings are organized according towhether the couple becomes part of an extended family or has its ownhousing. When it comes to the long houses normally associated withpastoralists or farmers, for example the Battle-axe culture (STY) or theMegalithic Funnel-Beaker culture (TRK), the house sizes can be inter-preted as indicating a system that was patri- or matrilocal. Sometimesthey have been argued to be purely matrilocal (Hallgren 1998). In thecoastal settlements the size and form of the housing indicates instead thatthe system was either virilocal or matrilocal and thereby used by nuclearfamilies. Purely in terms of statistics everything speaks in favour ofvirilocality, since it is this system which is most widespread. Such an inter-pretation also finds support in the way of life and food economy. Learningmarine hunting strategies, to do with methods, places, times and seasons,surely demanded a long period of “apprenticeship”. It was thus importantfor hunters to know their hunting territories well. The premise here fa-

35


vouring virilocality, of course, is that the hunt was carried out by men.Further, it is assumed that specialised knowledge of places and ways ofgoing about things was communicated through participation in this activityfrom early years. Both are assumptions that I find to be probable.

Communication during the Neolithic was by word-of-mouth, which giveslow values for time-space distanciation. These limitations in the potentialfor communication provide an argument for a society as reflected in theNeolithic coastal settlements being much smaller in scale than the culturesusually discussed. Experimentally it has been shown that one would havebeen able to do day stages of 50 km along the coast with a canoe (Österholm1997:169ff). This should be viewed as a maximum value and normally onewould probably have travelled at a lower rate. The maximum distanceprovides prerequisites for contacts over large areas. It ought to have beenpossible to travel in one day from centrally-situated Testebo southwardsto the River Dalälven or northwards to Järvsö (fig. 2). Using the samestarting point Södertörn is situated three day stages to the south andHudiksvall three day stages to the north. From the outermost islands in theUppland archipelago it was roughly a one-day stage to Åland. Communi-cation could, and probably did, also take place more or less frequentlyover large areas. The fact that such journeys were possible does not,however, mean that areas of this size were socially integrated. Hypoth-eses as to sizes of communities may perhaps instead be based on spatialpatterns in materials. With reference to time-space distanciation, areaswhere less than one day stage there and back can be assumed to havebeen of a reasonable size for the local community. Larger areas may havebeen integrated in alliance systems through, for example, marriage, and areasonable level for such a locale is perhaps a maximum of three daystages (cf fig. 1).

The usual distances between districts appear to correspond to roughlyhalf the maximum distance. Such distances mean that one could travelthere and back to the nearest groups, without any great effort, in a day.Within respective settlement groups there are clusters of locales, territo-ries where the distance from each other between places is even shorter.Such areas have been locales integrated in dureé and can be assumed tohave been integrated societies.

If one links together data from housing, settlement organizations andsettlement patterns the separate housing may be interpreted as a dwellingfor a nuclear family. Sites with several huts may be interpreted as a dwell-ing for a group consisting of three to six such units (could be interpreted as

36

Niclas Björck

lineages). It has earlier been mentioned that within each district there are2-3 territories with, on average, seemingly 6 contemporary sites. In viewof the above it would appear plausible to interpret the territories as a unitconsisting of several lineage sites (could be interpreted as a minimal seg-ment). The interpretation that seems most likely is that the coastal villagesrepresent parts of a segmentary tribal society. The regular distances be-tween settlement groups correspond to a canoe journey of approx. 3-6hours. It was pointed out above that this corresponds to the limit for mak-ing daily contacts possible. Perhaps the uniform distances are caused byneeds of territories and possibilities for frequent contact?

Animistic shamanistic complexes during the NeolithicIn the concluding discussion the material is finally seen on a level whichcorresponds to traditional Neolithic cultures. Consequently phenomena arediscussed which may be assumed to have been distributed over, and inte-grated in, a large number of potentially different societies. I have chosento compare the Neolithic material from eastern Swedish with the Mega-lithic Funnel-Beaker culture (TRK) and the Battle-axe culture (STY).These concepts are usually used to describe farming/herding populationswho often lived in long houses and built megaliths or strongly ritualisedgraves (Knutsson1995; Blomqvist 1989).

When it comes to coastal settlements there are several divergenciesfrom the abovementioned cultures. The location of settlements directly bythe shore and the clear predominance of marine hunting in the food economyare obviously quite apparent. Here it is adhered to that these differencesare significantly more far reaching and even, for example, affect lifestyle,burial customs, building traditions, social organisation and ultimately cos-mology and belief. Comparing the distribution of artefacts and monumentswith ritual associations (megaliths and sculptured animal heads respectively)these types seem to have a more-or-less negative correlation (Fig. 7).

In attempting to define the eastern Swedish Neolithic cultures the fo-cus has usually been on similarities between the eastern and the south-western Sweden. In defining the special characteristics of eastern Swe-den the similarities with both the northern and eastern material are of justas great significance. These show that a simple diffusion from southernScandinavia is unlikely. Replacing this with an equally simple diffusionfrom the east or north is, however, in no way any better. Instead thatwhich is uniquely eastern Swedish should be brought out as a tradition of

37


its own. The eastern Swedish material has points of contact with concur-rent phenomena in all the named areas. It is probable that the degree ofinfluence from different areas varies between different societies withineastern Sweden as well as between different periods.

When it comes to ritual remains eastern Sweden would appear to beintegrated with a north easterly, probably animistic cosmology whoseequivalent has not been found in the megalithic areas (figs. 8). Perhapsthis is the explanation for the fact that the universally-prevailing burialcustoms in the region, with red ochre and inhumations, deviate so stronglyfrom the southern and western Swedish megalithic burial customs. Thiscould be interpreted as meaning that the gods of the farmers and hunterswere not the same.

Into this picture must be integrated artefacts such as slate rings, thecarving from Sätra in Gästrikland, pendants from Ista, Finnish adzes, Nylandspears, elk staves, bearhead clubs and, for instance, animal-head daggers.Many of these artefacts are, in my opinion, connected with beliefs andideas about the world. Such forms occur across the whole of north-east-ern Scandinavia and in certain cases the whole of Eurasia. They are inter-preted here as indications that an animistic world of ideas, presumablywith roots in the Mesolithic, influenced the thought world of the easternSwedish archipelago population. The rock-carving tradition that appearsduring the Neolithic is an expression of this cosmology and can be seen asthe “megaliths” of the hunters, i.e. in the sense of ideological monuments.

Figure 7. Distribution of elkstaves and animal-headartefacts (dots) and thenorthern border of megalithsin a Scandinavian perspective(line), note that if megalithsare found the elk staves areusually not and vice versa.Areas rich in megalithic gravesare marked grey(Mod.Blomqvist 1989; Lind-qvist 1994).

38

Niclas Björck

The same ideas have been expressed in graves, figurines, animal-headslate daggers and perhaps in the organisation of settlements.

Even if there are large-scale patterns, we should not be beguiled intobelieving that this necessarily means that a uniform culture or folk grouphas lived in these extensive areas. It is probable that separate communi-ties have created their own variations on these themes and that similaritiescan be explained through a joint history and parallel development just asmuch as by contacts. Thus any uniformity over and above a fundamentalcommon fund of ideas cannot be assumed even within areas character-ised by the animistic world of ideas. Instead we should be open to thoughtsof diversity and cultural mixing during the Neolithic period. As has beensuggested above societies were small scale and influenced from differentdirections.

Figure 8. Artefacts of ritual and cosmological significance, the Alunda elk andÅloppe figurine exemplifies artefacts that together with for instance northernNeolithic rock carvings can be interpreted as an indication of a widely spreadanimistic worldview. Perhaps this cosmology has its roots in the Mesolithic.Top left; a selection of elk staves carvings, center Alunda elk and bottom rightthe Åloppe elk figurine.

39


ReferencesAhlbeck, M., Anttila, K., Arthursson, M., Formisto, T., Fredman, P-O.,

Gräslund, E., Hadevik, C., Hallgren, A-L., Hulthén, B., Johnsson, C.,Lindström, H., Reisborg, S., Stark, K., Sundelin, G., Wikborg, J.,1996. Bollbacken - en sen gropkeramisk boplats och ett gravfältfrån äldre järnålder. RAÄ 258 Tortuna sn, Västmanland. (Red.Magnus Artursson).Tryckta rapporter från Arkeologikonsult AB 16.(stencil).

Apel, J., Bäckström, Y,. Hallgren, F., Hulth, H., Knutsson, K., Lekberg,P., Lindström, H., Matthing, O., Olsson, E., Steineke, M., Sundström,L., Söderblom, M., Thulin, B. 1997. Fågelbacken – ettfornlämningskomplex i östra Västmanland. Del 1. Lämningarfrån tidigneolitikum, mellanneolitikum och järnålder undersökta1993. Raä 73, 147 och 158 . (Red. Per Lekberg). Trycktarapporter från Arkeologikonsult AB 14. (stencil).

Bagge, A. 1938. Stenåldersboplatsen vid Fagervik i Krokeks s:n,Östergötland. Ett preliminärt meddelande. I:Meddelande frånÖstergötlands Fronminnes- och Museiförening 1937-1938 s 151-159.

Bagge, A. 1951. Fagervik. Ein Rückgrat für die Periodeneinteilung derostschwedischen Wohnplats- und Bootaxtkulturen aus demMittelneolithikum. I: Acta Archaeologica XXII. Köpenhamn.

Baudou, E. 1992. Norrlands forntid-ett historiskt perspektiv. Wikensförlag. Italien.

Biwall, A., Hernek, R, Kihlstedt, B., Larsson, Torstensdotter-Åhlin, I.1997. Stenålderns hyddor och hus – Syd och Mellansverige. I:Regionalt och Interregionalt - Stenåldersundersökningar i Syd-och Mellansverige. (Red. Mats Larsson och Eva Olsson).Riksantikvarieämbetet Arkeologiska undersökningar. Skrifter 23.Stockholm.

Björck M., Björck, N. 1999. Vedmora - En gropkeramisk boplats.Rapport 1999:02. Länsmuseet Gävleborg. Gävle.

Björck, M., Björck, N., Martinell, K., 2000. Vittersjö - Ett mesolitisktboplatsområde. Rapport länsmuseet Gävleborg. Gävle.

Björck, N. 1998. Fräkenrönningen - En by för 5000 år sedan.Rapport 1998:14. Länsmuseet Gävleborg. Gävle.

Björck, N. 1999a. Gropkeramiska boplatser i norra Uppland - Eninventering av neolitiska kustboplatser 1997. Länsstyrelsenmeddelandeserie nr 1999:11 Uppsala.

40

Niclas Björck

Björck, N. 1999b. Den neolitiska säljakten - Blomstring och kris. I:Arkeologi i Norden - del 1. (Red. G. Burenhult). Borgå.

Björck N. 2000a. Västeräng - En tidigneolitisk boplats i södraNorrland. Arkeologisk undersökning Valbo socken, Gästrikland,2000. Research reports 3/2000. Södertörns högskola. Stockholm.

Björck, N. 2000b. Projektet yngre stenålderns kustboplatser -Inventering av neolitiska kustboplatser 1995-1998. Rapport -Länsmuseet Gävleborg 2000:15. Gävle.

Blomqvist, L. 1989. Neolitikum. Typindelningar, tid, rum och socialmiljö. En studie med inriktning på västra Götaland. Falköping.

Browall, H. 1986. Alvastra pålbyggnad: social och ekonomisk bas.Theses and Papers in North-European Archeology 15. Stockholm.

Burström, M. 1991. Arkeologisk samhällsavgränsning. En studie avvikingatida samhällsterritorier i Smålands inland. Stockholmstudies in archaeology 9. Stockholm.

Christiansson, H. 1963. Norrland och Sydskandinavien – arkeologiskafrågeställningar och problemlösningar under ett sekel. I:TOR vol. IX.Uppsala.

Divale, W. T. 1977. Living floor area and marital residence: a replica-tion. Behavior Science Research 12.

Durkheim, É. 1978. Sociologins metodregler. Göteborg. Fransk orginalutgåva 1895.

Ekholm, G. 1909. Upplands stenåldersboplatser.I:Upplandsfornminnesförenings tidskrift XXVI. Uppsala.

Ekholm, G. 1929. De uppländska boplatsfynden kring Bälinge mossar.I:Fornvännen 1929 s 1-18

Florin, S. 1958 Vråkulturen. Stenåldersboplatserna vid Mogetorp,Östra Vrå och Brokvarn. Kungliga Vitterhets AkademinsHandlingar. Stockholm.

Frödin, O. 1911. Bohusläns fasta fornlämningar från hednatiden -Tanums härad. Stenåldern. Bidrag till kännedom om Göteborgoch Bohusläns fornminnen och historia, VIII:4. Göteborg.

Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in Social Theory, Action, struc-ture and contradiction in social analysis. Contemporary socialtheory. The MacMillan Press Ltd. London.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theoryof Structuration. Camebridge. London.

Gruber, G., Larsson, M. 1999. Åby - en gropkeramisk boplats.Rapportserie UV-öst 1999:19. Linköping.

41


Gräslund, B. 1974. Befolkning - bosättning - miljö. Några synpunkter pådet forntida jägarsamhället i Norden. Fornvännen 1969. Stockholm.

Göthberg, H., Kyhlberg, O., Vinberg, A. 1995. Hus och gård -katalogdel. Hus & gård i det förurbana samhället - Rapportfrån ett sektorforskningsprojekt vid Riksantikvarieämbetet.Riksantikvarieämbetet arkeologiska undersökningar. Skrifter nr 13.Stockholm.

Halén, O. 1994 Sedentariness during the Stone Age of northernSweden in the light of the Alträsket site, 5000 B.C. and theComb ware site Lillberget, c.3900 B.C. Acta ArcheologicaLundensia. Series in 4:o. No 20. Lund.

Hallgren, F., Bergström, Å., Larsson, Å., 1995 Pärlängsberget - enkustboplats från övergången mellan senmesolitikum ochtidigneolitikum. Tryckta rapporter från Arkeologi konsult AB, nr 13.Upplands Väsby.

Hallgren, F. 1996. Etnisk dualism under mellanneolitikum. I: Bratt P.(red). Stenålder i Stockholmslän. Stockholm.

Hallgren, F. 1998. Etnicitet under stenåldern i Mellansverige och södraNorrland. I: Johnsen, B. & Welinder, S. (red). Etnicitet eller kultur.Mitthögskolan, Östersund.

Hobbes, T. 1651. Leviathan. Penguin Classics 1985. England.Hodder, I. 1992. Theory and practice in archaeology. Routledge,

London.Hårdh, B. 1993. Grundragen i nordens förhistoria. Lund.Knutsson, H. 1995. Slutvandrat. Aun 20. Uppsala universitet. Uppsala.Larsson, M. 1994. Stenåldersjägare vid Siljan. En atlantisk boplats vid

Leksand. I: Fornvännen 89. s. 237-250.Larsson, M. 1995. Svintuna- en gropkeramisk boplats med

hyddlämning. Rapportserie UV-Linköping 1995:8. Linköping.Lindholm, K. & Vogel, P. 1996. En tvärkulturell undersökning av mobila

jägare-samlare och deras boplatser. I:Kontaktstencil 40. Jeger -samlere Fellesnordisk råd for arkeologistudenter. Tromsö.

Lindqvist, A-K. Eriksson, L. 1999. Arkeologisk förundersökningBothniabanan delsträcka Svartby - Lillmosjön, NorraÅngermanland. Angaria 1998:1. Umeå.

Lindqvist, S. 1916. En upplänsk gårdsanläggning från stenåldern.I:Fornvännen 1916 s164-180. Stockholm.

Loeffler, D. 1999. Voullerim. Six thousand and Fifteen Years Ago. I:Current Swedish Archaeology. Vol.7. 1999 (ed. Burström, M. &Carlsson, A.). Stockholm.

42

Niclas Björck

Lundberg, Å. 1997. Vinterbyar ett bandsamhälles territorier iNorrlands inland 4500-2500 f. Kr. Studia Archaeoligica Universi-tatis Umensis 8. Umeå.

Löfstrand, L. 1973. Svensk stenåldersforskning 1901-51. Dengropkeramiska kulturen - ett sammandrag. stencil. UppsalaUniversitet. Uppsala.

Löfstrand, L. 1974. Yngre stenålderns kustboplatser.Undersökningarna vid Äs och studier i den gropkeramiskakulturens kronologi och ekologi. AUN 1. Uppsala Universitet.Uppsala.

Nihlén, J. 1925. Från det förhistoriska och medeltida Visby. Fornvännen.Olsson, E. 1996. Neolitikum i Stockholms län - källmaterial och

forskningsläge. (red Peter Bratt) I:Stenålder i Stockholm län. Tvåseminarier vid Stockholms länsmuseum. Stockholm.

Nunez, M. 1986. Om bosättningen på Ålandsöarna under stenåldern I:Åländsk odling 1986. s 13-28. Mariehamn.

Papmehl-Dufay, L. 1999. Myten om gropkeramikerna -klassificering och analys av neolitisk keramik från Vendel 1:1,Vendel sn, Uppland. Stockholm universitet. (Dupl.).

Runesson, Lindholm, Forsberg, L., Färgare, A., 2001. Bothnia bananobjekt 23. Rapport Raä Uv-mitt. Stockholm.

Sahlins, M. 1968. Tribesmen. New Jersey.Segerberg, A., 1999. Bälinge mossar – Kustbor I Uppland under

yngre stenåldern. AUN 26. Uppsala.Tilley, C. 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Blackwell Publishers.

Bodmin.Welinder, S. 1971. Överåda. A Pitted Ware culture site in Easter

Sweden. I:Meddelande från Lunds historiska museum 1971-1972, s 107-119. Lund.

Welinder, S. 1998. Neoliticum – Bronsålder 3900-500 f.Kr. I: Myrdal, J.(red.) Jordbrukets första femtusen år – 4000 f.Kr. – 1000 e.Kr.Natur och Kultur. Borås.

Österholm, I. 1993. Jakobs/Ajvide. Undersökningar på en gotlänskboplatsudde från stenåldern. Arkeologiska institutionen Stockholmsuniversitet.

Österholm, S., 1997. Forntidens båtar - ett försök i experimentellarkeologi. I:Ajvide och den moderna arkeologin. (Red. G.Burenhult). Falköping.

The Neolithic Coastal Settlements - Cosmology and Ideology in a Baltic Sea Perspective

Documents

Transcript of The Neolithic Coastal Settlements - Cosmology and Ideology in a Baltic Sea Perspective