CHAPTER TEN POTS, PITS AND PEOPLE: HUNTER-GATHERER POTTERY TRADITIONS IN NEOLITHIC SWEDEN ÅSA M. LARSSON In c. 4000 BC agriculture is introduced in south Sweden together with the Funnel Beaker culture. However, 600 years later eastern Sweden undergoes a “de-Neolithisation” and subsistence is now focused on sealhunting. The coastal settlements are remarkable for their large quantities of pottery with large pit impressions being the most common trait, from which the name Pitted Ware Culture derives. However, in some regions agricultural groups continue to exist: the Funnel Beaker Culture and later the Battle Axe Culture. All groups are most commonly identified by their distinct pottery styles, not just shapes and decoration, but also techniques and context of use. I suggest that potters were important social agents in these societies, since they both created and perpetuated a notion of identity within and between groups. This identity can be sensed not just in the different approaches to the making of pots, and the teaching framework that was part of the socializing structure, but also in the ways in which the pots were used and deposited by members of the Pitted Ware and Battle Axe cultures respectively. The appearance of hybrid forms not until the very end of the period highlights the fact that choices in technology and decoration were highly conscious. The disappearance of this cultural dichotomy in the Late Neolithic is interestingly mirrored in the pottery which loses both its visual and ritual manifestation in the material. Archaeology may have come a long way as a discipline in the last 150 years, with the major events in our prehistory mapped out, and profound theoretical insights made into human society and material culture. Yet there are still sub-conscious evolutionary paradigms that we find it difficult to dispose of. While hunter-gatherers are no longer automatically viewed as having a miserable hand-to-mouth existence, with little or no ideological complexity, we still tend to expect a step-by-step development 240 Chapter Ten of society as naturally given. We now recognize that some groups may chose to keep their hunting economy even when brought into contact with “advanced” domesticated cultures, due to ecology, climate or strong cultural norms. But the strange case of the “de-Neolithisation” of the Pitted Ware culture in southern Scandinavia still causes intense debate and deep division among many researchers. In fact, no other archaeological culture is as profoundly questioned, debated and even denied in Scandinavia as the Pitted Ware culture (PWC). What makes this uncertainty extraordinary is the fact that this is also the culture responsible for the incomparably largest quantity of artefacts from the Swedish Stone Age. One would expect controversy when there are few and poorly preserved remains, but not when our collections are overflowing with stone tools, pottery sherds and animal bones. There are many causes for this controversy, and this article will not attempt to unravel them all. I will mainly try to demonstrate how a comprehensive approach to pottery – technology, use, practice and deposition – must be considered when we try to study the phenomenon of the PWC and its relation to contemporary neighbouring cultures. The Neolithic in Sweden Unlike the hunter-gatherers of Finland and Russia, populations in Sweden did not adopt pottery technology until the very end of the Mesolithic (though see Halén 1994 on comb ceramics in northernmost Sweden), and then only in the southern-most part of Scandinavia in the form of Ertebølle pottery. By c. 4000 BC, however, cultivation of cereals and domestication of cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were introduced as part of the Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) across south Sweden, at least as far north as the river Dalälven. With the new economy followed a fairly homogenous regional pottery tradition, similar in both style and technology from Skåne in the south to Uppland in the north (Welinder 1998; Segerberg 1999; Hallgren 2000; 2008, this volume). There are no convincing indications that this change was the result of a full-scale migration, though an infusion of new spouses or smaller group movements may certainly have taken place. There is an aspect of settlement continuity from the Mesolithic, in that the TRB was a mixed economy with a continuous importance of fishing and hunting. Especially in eastern central Sweden, osteological remains from seasonal settlements by the coast and in the archipelago prove that seal hunting was still an important part of subsistence. The material culture at these sites do not, however, differ in any way from the inland settlements on the glacial Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 241 eskers, with long-houses and bones from cattle as well as wild terrestrial mammals. The model suggested is one of spring to autumn in the inland, with winter to spring seal hunting by the coast (Apel et al. 1995, Hallgren this volume). Fig. 10-1. Map of southern Baltic Sea region: The thick line marks the region referred to as south Sweden in the article, and the thinner line marks the sub-regions. Eastern central Sweden is marked by an oval. During the Middle Neolithic the Baltic Sea level was much higher, and the lake Mälaren of eastern central Sweden was a deep bay stretching into Närke (Modified after Åkerlund 1996: Fig 2:1a). By 3400/3300 BC major changes appear in both material culture and burial practices. For instance, a range of new types of ceramic vessels appear and the decorative style changes significantly, and most observable to archaeologists, megalithic tombs for collective burials are being constructed – dolmens and passage tombs. These new pottery types are also strongly associated with the megaliths (Malmer 2002). The mentioned changes appear in southern and western Sweden, but hardly at all in 242 Chapter Ten eastern Sweden where a different trajectory is followed (Fig. 10-1). There appears here over time new local types of material culture, and a new subsistence system, with strong influences from neighbouring huntergatherers in the north and east. This is what has become known as the Pitted Ware culture. Pitted Ware culture The abundant quantities of pottery at the Pitted Ware settlements make them fairly easy to discover. In fact, some of the earliest Stone Age sites identified by archaeologists in the latter half of the 19th century were Pitted Ware sites, then known as East Swedish Settlement culture. The vessels found display a wide variety of motifs in many different combinations, but present on almost all the reconstructed vessels was at least one horizontal row of large, deep pits. Based on this, the new name pitted-ware (gropkeramik) was introduced early in the 20th century. The pottery will be discussed further below, but I will first present an overview of the economy of the Pitted Ware culture. Bones from cattle, sheep/goat and pig are common on settlements from Early Neolithic in eastern central Sweden (Hallgren 2008). In contrast, Pitted Ware sites contain bones from elk, deer, beaver, seal and porpoise, and pig (wild boar or domesticated is difficult to ascertain), whereas bones of cattle and sheep/goat are extremely rare (Welinder 1998; Malmer 2002). On Middle Neolithic TRB sites in western and southern Sweden, over 90% of the faunal material belong to domesticated animals, and the majority of these are from cattle (Welinder 1998:97ff). Diet analyses also confirm that the MN TRB population had a subsistence quite dependent on terrestrial mammals (Lidén 1995; Lidén et al. 2004). In the Early Neolithic grain impressions on pottery and carbonized cereals of Triticum and Hordeum are found all over the TRB region, including eastern central Sweden. There are also indications from pollen analyses from bogs, that cultivation was practiced locally in eastern central Sweden in the Early Neolithic. By the Middle Neolithic there is a growing reliance on farming of cereals in the megalithic TRB areas, but in eastern Sweden evidence for farming rapidly declines. Whereas the pollen analyses from western and southern Sweden show an increase in humanimpact on the environment during the Middle Neolithic phase A (MN A), in eastern Sweden there is evidence of a regression of the open landscape (Ahlfont et al. 1995; Welinder 1998). The climate is not colder during this period than in the previous one, in fact the MN A was as warm or warmer Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 243 than the previous period (Grudd et al. 2002). The only notable difference is an increased salinity in the Baltic Sea (Emeis et al. 2003). While PWC is initially an eastern central Sweden phenomenon, it quickly spreads along the east coast southwards, and to the large islands Gotland and Öland. By 3100 BC there are sites with notably similar material culture and subsistence found in north-east Skåne. Pitted Ware culture is also found in regions not previously part of the TRB community – i.e. Dalarna and Hälsingland in the north (Holm 2006), and on the islands of Åland in the east (Stenbäck 2003). Radiocarbon dating has not yet been able to ascertain the exact time of PWC appearance in all these regions, but the earliest confirmed dates are from eastern central Sweden (Edenmo et al. 1997; Olsson 1997; Björck et al. 2004). It seems as if PWC spreads southwards to Småland, Öland and Skåne over the next 100-200 years (Browall 1991). There are some intriguing similarities between Pitted Ware material culture and the Finnish Comb Ware culture. The latter was a huntinggathering culture which adopted pottery technology in the Mesolithic, well before their western neighbours across the Baltic Sea. Comb Ware appears on the Åland islands 5000 BC, a thousand years before the people of the Swedish mainland starts making funnel beakers (Hallgren 2004). The Comb Ware vessels are extensively decorated with comb impressions and rows of pits, though the prevalence of pits on the vessels varies somewhat over time. Comb Ware is present in Finland through the Early and most of the Middle Neolithic. It is therefore interesting that, as stated above, in the Middle Neolithic the Åland islands become part of the PWC material culture. Several archaeologists have noted an eastern influence on PWC, in the extensive use of pits and later comb decoration on the pottery, but also in the making of zoo- and anthropomorphic clay figurines, which is attested in both Finland and the Baltic states (e.g. Wyszomirska 1984; Timofeev 2000; Nordquist 2001). Also, the late Comb Ware style III (or Uskela), from the end of the early Neolithic, is mainly found along the Finnish coast and apparently tempered with calcareous material (Stenbäck 2003: 69ff), which as we shall see is a defining trait of some PWC pottery. It is unlikely that any full-scale migration is the cause of the changes since, as we shall see below, the pottery in Sweden changes slowly over centuries from the funnel beakers to the pitted-ware vessels. Also, the PWC pottery, though undoubtedly influenced by Comb Ware, is quite distinct in shape and style. There can be no doubt, however, that eastern Comb Ware culture, and northern Slate culture, act as strong influences on the cultural changes taking place in eastern Sweden at this time. The former in terms 244 Chapter Ten of pottery and figurines, the latter in terms of extended production and use of slate arrows and tools. To complicate matters further, on the west coast of Sweden, in southern Norway, and in northern Denmark, there are also sites with evidence of seal hunting, and pottery dissimilar to the megalithic tradition but somewhat similar to PWC vessels. Based mainly on an identification of economy with culture, Becker suggested that the Pitted Ware culture was actually a pan-Scandinavian phenomenon (Becker 1950). The theory was accepted by some archaeologists, but criticized by others. There are some notable differences between the east and west seal-hunters/fishers. The western group is defined by the extensive use of flint blade technology, whereas the pottery is only partly similar, and deposited only in small quantities at settlements (Strinnholm 2001). Meanwhile, eastern PWC sites only rarely contain flint arrows – or any flint material at all, which had to be imported from other regions. Slate and quartz are the preferred materials for arrows and knives, and ground stone for axes. The complication arises from some sites in flint-rich Skåne, where the classical appearance, production and use of pitted-ware is combined with a thriving flint arrow industry. However, as Meinander noticed, the production and use of the tanged blade arrows on PWC sites is almost completely confined to Skåne, and mainly western Skåne at that (Meinander 1964). The controversial issue is too extensive to cover in this short chapter. I will here define Pitted Ware culture as those sites with evidence of a predominating hunting-gathering economy, and extensive production and use of pottery of the types that I will present below. The west coast sites should be considered separately, a view which many Swedish archaeologists share (e.g. Nielsen 1979; Wyszomirska 1984; Carlie 1986; Papmehl-Dufay 2006). A final note on the economy of the east coast Pitted Ware culture. On the early sites, as we have seen, there is some sparse evidence of cultivation and pig husbandry. These sites also have a larger relative amount of terrestrial wild animals (mainly moose), in addition to marine mammals (seal). Almost all settlements are situated by water, and the absolute majority of them are found by the contemporary sea shore. However, there seems to be a chronological shift in that the earlier sites are found on the coast and mainly inner archipelago, and those dated to the Middle Neolithic B (c. 2900-2300 cal. BC) tend to be found on islands and even in the outer archipelago (Welinder 1976, 1978). These sites also have a much smaller amount of pig bones and terrestrial wild mammals, and are completely dominated by seal bones, and to lesser extent beaver, fowl and fish. Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 245 It has been suggested that these changes are the result of economic specialisation in answer to the appearance of the Battle Axe culture in the inland at this period, whose economy seems based on small-scale farming, sheep and inland hunting (Welinder 1978; Larsson in press). Recent diet analyses on human bones in PWC burials from both Gotland and eastern central Sweden confirm a diet completely dominated by seals, and to a lesser extent fish (Eriksson 2003; Fornander 2006). Unfortunately, BAC burials in eastern central Sweden contain virtually no osteological remains, though an analysis of a BAC burial in Skåne gave the result of a completely terrestrial diet for that individual (Lidén et al. 2004). This, then, is the basis of the ongoing debate and controversy in Scandinavian archaeology: Why was a domesticated economy abandoned in MN A? Was it abandoned? Were the seal-hunting pitted-ware makers part of the same social structure as the agricultural settlements, only occupying a distinct economic/seasonal niche? Are the PWC sites simply ceremonial and ritual gathering places? Was the PWC a distinct ethnic group? Was it several, only loosely connected, social groups? In short: what does the Pitted Ware culture represent? Approaching culture through practice – Pitted-ware pottery “[T]he most powerful meanings are generated, not only by the symbolism that is encoded in artifacts, but even more forcefully by the sequential, socially embedded sociotechnical activities that produce these artifacts.” (Pfaffenberger 1999: 148, orig. emphasis) Seemingly, every archaeologist interested in the Pitted Ware culture suggests a new theory or social model. It is evident that this is not due to different access to the material, but rather to different theories of the relationship of human society to material culture, which may be more or less consciously articulated. From the Stone Age, we have no written testimonies and only a fraction of the cultural remains of past lives at our disposal. I therefore believe that, when we analyse the material culture, we must by necessity work with versions of practice theory at least as a base for interpretations of social and cultural identity. In traditional societies, crafts are an integral part of the social structure, both constituted by it and re-constituting it as it is transmitted to new generations. When studying an aspect of material culture, it is therefore essential not just to analyse style, function and context, but also the chaîne opératoire of production (Dietler and Herbich 1998). What materials are chosen, what techniques employed, 246 Chapter Ten where is it practiced and by what segment of society? Naturally, these are not easy questions to answer, but there is a surprising amount of information available in the artefacts themselves, as I hope to show. I will now present Pitted Ware culture as seen through the pottery – starting with “classical” archaeological issues like style, function and context, but then moving on to technological aspects like choice of clay and temper. I will also make some comparisons with contemporary neighbouring cultures. I wish to show that Pitted Ware people had a distinct way of relating to pottery, but also that the organisation of the pottery craft lends insight into the social structuring of their society, and that this suggests the PWC was not a religious or economic sub-group within a larger cultural structure. I will also hope to show that despite long term co-existence with farming communities, the hunter-gatherer potters did not change either style or technique in any profound way to accommodate these supposedly “superior” societies. By the end of the Middle Neolithic B there do appear some interesting hybrid types of vessels, but there are strong indications that in this case the PWC potters influenced and changed craft traditions in the Battle Axe culture as much as the reverse. Pitted-ware pottery – style and shape The most noted aspect of pitted-ware pottery is its quantity. It is not uncommon that PWC sites yield well over a 100 kg of pottery, or several hundred kilos, and on the settlement/cemetery of Ajvide on Gotland (still not completely excavated) there is now over 3000 kg of pottery recovered. No other prehistoric culture in Sweden, before or after, can boast of such an abundance of ceramics. PWC pottery is produced over a period spanning a thousand years, c. 3300-2300 BC. Needless to say, there are a lot of changes occurring during this time, yet these are more gradual than abrupt, and many aspects continue despite these changes. Attempts to divide PWC pottery into typological types have as yet been successful only in a very limited sense. Due to the fairly rapid shore displacement in Sweden after the Ice Age, shore-bound settlements tend to drift spatially over time. This was seized upon by archaeologists early on, and crude typologies based upon theories of evolution of decoration from simple to complex, or horizontal to vertical, were published. Most of these have later been proven wrong. I will not discuss in detail the various styles and vessel shapes of pitted-ware. There are several publications that have already done this in some detail, though sadly few in another language than Swedish. PWC Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 247 pottery is as known for its multitude of decorations and patterns, as its quantity on settlements, which makes any quick overview almost impossible. The major work that was to define pitted-ware pottery phases in Swedish archaeology was written by Axel Bagge, about the site Fagervik in Östergötland (Bagge 1951). The slope at Fagervik had been inhabited in periods, from the end of the Early Neolithic to the end of the Middle Neolithic. Bagge attempted to divide these periodic settlements based on the pottery material, which was considerable – almost 170.000 sherds from 484 m2, over 45.000 of which were decorated. However, his was not simply a study of style, rather he tried to combine decoration, vessel shape and the ceramic ware itself, when he concluded that there were five main phases of occupation, starting with Funnel Beaker culture, continuing through three phases of Pitted Ware culture, and ending with a phase of Battle Axe culture. Fig. 10-2. Vessel profiles from Fagervik, Östergötland: Fagervik I (late TRB) have mainly profile (a), but also (b); Fagervik II (early PWC) had mostly profile (b), but sometimes (a); Fagervik III (PWC) mainly profile (c), occasionally (b); Fagervik IV (late PWC) only profile (c). (Bagge 1951: Fig 8) What made Bagge’s study quite unusual for its time, was that he actually placed a heavier emphasis on ware, shape and surface treatment, than on style elements. He noted that though several decorations were similar in phase I and II, the former mostly had a typical funnel-beaker shape, sparse but coarse stone temper, and a fine surface treatment, while the latter had more s-shaped vessels, greater variety of temper and little or no surface treatments (Figs. 10-2a-b, 10-3a). It is important to note that pit impressions are quite common on funnel beakers from Fagervik and other 248 Chapter Ten parts of eastern central Sweden, even decidedly large ones which are in no way different from the eponymous pitted-ware pots. There are also stylistic elements like cross-hatching occurring in both groups. This has caused some confusion among Swedish archaeologists, who have not always taken the time to read through Bagge’s German-language text. For instance, it has led to a debate about the earliest date of the Pitted Ware culture based on dates from “Fagervik I”-style pottery (Edenmo et al. 1997: fig. 5:32). The phases I-V have sometimes been taken to mean typological phases within a culture, however, Bagge only meant them as settlement phases. He himself was quite convinced that Fagervik I was Funnel Beaker culture, II-IV Pitted Ware culture, and Fagervik V Battle Axe culture – and that the site had been settled many different times over a period of several centuries. Stylistic differences between Fagervik I and II include that, whereas cord lines are quite common on the funnel-beakers (F I), it is very rare to almost non-existent on the F II-vessels. Fagervik II-patterns are often applied with chisel stamp, and while most decorations are horizontal, there are also vertical and geometrical patterns similar of those used on megalithic TRB pottery (Fig. 10-3a). Most decorations are made by incision and drawn lines. On the whole, there are some distinct similarities in style between Fagervik II and the contemporary megalithic TRB of southern and western Sweden. Still, the ceremonial vessel types of the latter are completely missing from the material. Apart from the vessel shape that lacked the pronounced funnel necks of the earlier TRB vessels, the surface treatment is no longer as carefully executed. It gives the impression of being a continuation of earlier pottery traditions, with only limited changes in craft and some stylistic influences from western and southern areas. On Fagervik III-vessels herring-bone motifs are common, as well as a multitude of other patterns and decorations. Comb stamps are increasingly becoming more common than drawn lines, and vertical patterns are rare (Fig. 10-3b). These vessels are defined mainly through their shape, where the neck ends in a marked, carinated shoulder (Fig. 10-2c). This shoulder marking is considered defining of “proper” pitted-ware pottery and is in use until the end of the Middle Neolithic. Another important aspect is that an increasing amount of pottery sherds from these vessels are very porous when found today. This was not the case when the vessels were in use, but is the result of using calcareous materials as temper, which has then been partly dissolved in the acidic soil. This calcareous temper has been shown to be both lime stone, and bones (see below). Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 249 Fagervik IV was the final PWC style, almost always tempered with calcareous material, surface covering comb stamps and wolf-tooth pattern (Fig. 10-3c). The vessel could have a very short neck and sometimes an only barely noticeable shoulder. In this phase pit incisions are actually rarer, and even absent on most vessels. Bagge mainly meant for his preliminary study to be relevant as a local chronological sequence, but as he died before publishing anything else on the matter, the Fagervik phases became the standard way of dividing pitted-ware pottery into chronological phases all over eastern Sweden. Indeed, the general traits highlighted by Bagge do occur all over the region, to varying degrees. However, its use is presently mainly limited to a rather crude division of “early MN A”, “late MN B” or “somewhere in between…”, and it is still unclear to what extent the three styles coexisted. While Bagge defined three PWC pottery phases, they are not equal in quantity in his material – Fagervik III accounting for almost 95% of the sherds. Other sites that represent a more limited time span may have mainly Fagervik II or IV, but even so, it is the Fagervik III types that occur in the extreme quantities that have come to define PWC settlements. While they may very well represent a considerable time span of anything up to 800 years, there may be other factors that underlay this dominance in the material. There seems to be a common practice of extensive production and depositing of pottery within the PWC quite unlike almost any other period of Swedish prehistory. While the population eventually abandoned farming and animal husbandry, pottery craft was not only maintained, but expanded. Other researchers have occasionally tried to tackle the large, unwieldy pottery material, and its excess of decorations, patterns and combinations. Österholm studied the pottery from Ajvide, Gotland and created a table of 78 different decorations, some being similar patterns created through different techniques (Österholm 1989). Apart from noting that pit incision was the incomparably most common decoration, followed by crosshatching, herring-bone and short vertical lines/comb stamps, there was little else in the manner of “rules” governing the style on the pots. The combinations of motifs are simply too varied. Different types of carinated shoulders are ubiquitous, and the body of the vessels can be either straight or slightly convex, ending in a rounded or pointed base. These rounded/pointed bases are found on most pitted-ware vessels, from Skåne in the south to Hälsingland in the north. 250 Chapter Ten Fig. 10-3. Examples of the pitted-ware phases at Fagervik, Östergötland: II (MN A), III (MN A–B) and IV (late MN B). The porosity noticeable on sherds from mainly Fagervik III and IV is the result of dissolved calcareous temper. (from Bagge 1951). More recently, Ludvig Papmehl-Dufay has published an exhaustive study of pitted-ware pottery from Öland, and also compared this material to that found in other regions (Papmehl-Dufay 2006). His main material Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 251 came from two roughly contemporary sites on the east coast of northern and southern Öland, Köpingsvik and Ottenby. Apart from technical analyses, which will be discussed below, his analysis includes decoration elements and arrangements, parts of the vessel decorated, vessel shape, sherd thickness and rim diameter. One conclusion that he draws from this is that there is a very strong element of homogeneity in the appearance of the assemblages, both in terms of patterns and shape. However, on a detailed level there are also notable differences, in terms of arrangement of lines and comb stamps, and the shape of the pit incisions. He makes note of the fact that cylindrical pits are almost exclusively used in eastern central Sweden, and also on Köpingsvik. However, on PWC pots from Skåne and Blekinge, as wells as on vessels found at the southern Öland site Ottenby, pit impressions are often irregular and rectangular (PapmehlDufay 2006: 190). Papmehl-Dufay observes that his pitted-ware assemblages in general are homogenous in overall design, but that there are always a number of vessels deviating from the bulk of the material. Indeed, all over the eastern part of south Sweden the PWC vessel is quickly recognized by archaeologists due to the shape and general decoration. But on a detailed level there are still no clearly defined types. The decoration is either too general (herring-bone, pits, crosshatching etc) or too individual (various odd incisions, unique compositions etc). Ironically, this confusion is partly due to the large quantities of fragmented vessels, which actually make analysis more difficult for archaeologists. Context: the use and depositing of pottery As stated above, the majority of the pottery material is simply recovered from general settlement layers, sometimes in pits but also where there is no visible feature present. Sherds are found all over the sites, but there are almost always notable concentrations of sherds also (Olsson et al. 1994; Nilsson 2006; Sundström et al. 2006). In some cases these concentrations have been shown to contain remains of almost complete vessels, but in many cases vessels could not be reconstructed, despite the fact that the sherds often are quite large. What is interesting to note, considering the unmistakeable presence of pottery at settlement layers, is the relative scarcity of pottery in burials. Very few PWC burials contain whole vessels, despite very good preservation in cemeteries on Gotland and Öland, and even occasionally on the mainland. What does appear with some consistency in many burials, are individual sherds from one or several vessels, not enough to 252 Chapter Ten make up more than a small part of a pot. Pottery is also more likely to be found in the filling of the grave, rather than having been placed with the body (e.g. Lindholm 2003; Papmehl-Dufay 2006: 102f). The exception to this rule is the so-called mini-vessel, with a rim diameter of less than 10 cm, mostly conical in shape. They vary from actual miniatures, with carinated shoulder and decoration, to very simple “cups” made by crudely pinching a small clay ball (Fig. 10-4). They have been found in connection with several graves, but sometimes in the filling above, rather than immediately associated with the body itself (Janzon 1974: 104ff; Lindholm 2003). These mini-vessels also appear at settlement layers, as well as at clearly ritual spaces, such as the “seal-altar” by the Ajvide cemetery (Burenhult 1997: 44; Österholm 1997). The third type of pottery singled out in PWC contexts are bases. Complete vessel bases, with no remains of rim or neck, have been found in several burials on both Gotland and Öland (Janzon 1974: 104ff; Andersson 1998; Norderäng 2001; 2004; Papmehl-Dufay 2006: 54ff). What is interesting is that several of these were apparently placed upside-down in the grave (Fig. 10-4). This custom of depositing bases has also been noted on the mainland, e.g. in the burial at Södra Mårtsbo in Gästrikland (Björck et al. 2004), and at the recently excavated settlement Sittesta on Södertörn, with at least four bases found upside-down in situ (excavated by UV Mitt, RAÄ, the National Heritage Board). In the contemporary and regionally co-existing Battle Axe culture, beakers as burial gifts are a common occurrence with only sparse depositing of ceramics at settlements (Larsson in press). But the Pitted Ware practice seems to have been very different, with abundant depositing of fragmented vessels, and “be-headed” pots. In the funerary custom, broken pots and bases are also the norm, with only mini-vessels ever really included in an un-broken state. Also, what appears in the burials also appear in other contexts, with little or no differences between them. The increasingly common use of bone temper is extremely interesting considering this. In a manner of speaking, the potters were actually constructing the vessel as a body, with a bone skeleton and clay “flesh”. The fragmentation and “be-heading” of that body, and depositing of “dead” fragmented pots, is a signature mark of PWC tradition. Combined with the custom of making zoo- and anthropomorphic clay figurines, it suggests that the PWC had a concept of clay as potential life, becoming alive through the transforming fire. Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 253 Fig. 10-4. Complete vessels are uncommon in Pitted Ware burials, except as minivessels/cups. Additional grave traditions seem to be including “be-headed” bases, and/or individual sherds. (A) Examples of vessel bases from burials at Västerbjers, Gotland; (B) Grave 36, Adult (indet.), with a vessel base above the head; (C) Grave 42, Adult male, with a mini-vessel/cup by the head: (Stenberger et al. 1943); (D) Examples of mini-vessels from Siretorp, Blekinge (Bagge and Kjellmark 1939: Pl. 33) But what were the vessels actually used for, when “alive”? Evidence of secondary heating and occasional “food-crusts” on some vessels have been taken as proof that they were used for preparing food. Theories on production of train-oil from seal fats have also been proposed, but have yet to be proven. Recently the method of lipid analysis – remains of fats, oils and waxes from animals and plants – have been applied to several PWC materials in Sweden, mainly by Sven Isaksson of the Archaeological 254 Chapter Ten Research Laboratory of Stockholm University. Some of these results have already been published (see below), and more will be published shortly. The results strongly indicate that food preparation was an important use for the vessels, though some may have been water containers. There are interesting variations of the use of vessels coming to light with the aid of this laboratory analysis. From Köpingsvik, Öland, 17 out of 18 sherds had lipids from marine animals and/or fish, most of them also had evidence of vegetable lipids and from heating. Some contained lipids from terrestrial animals. However, the southern Öland site Ottenby, where 15 sherds were analysed, shows greater variation of use. Several sherds had only vegetable lipids, some also had terrestrial and/or marine animal lipids, and one very interesting sherd contained a combination of terrestrial animal, vegetables and beeswax (Papmehl-Dufay 2006: 214ff). At Postboda in northern Uppland, three separate but closely situated sites have been excavated. Postboda Sb is dated to the transition TRB/PWC, Postboda 1 to Middle Neolithic A (PWC), and Postboda 2, which was the largest site, had several phases of settlement contemporary with both Postboda Sb and Postboda 1 (Sundström et al. 2006). On the Postboda Sb site ten sherds were analysed and six contained lipids of marine animals/fish and vegetables. Two contained lipids from ruminants. The ten sherds from Postboda 2 (c. 3500-3000 BC) were different in style but very similar in use, whereas at the PWC site of Postboda 1 (c. 31002900 BC), interestingly none of the ten sherds contained any lipids from marine animals/fish. Instead, they were either empty of lipids or contained vegetable lipids, with one case of ruminant lipids (Isaksson 2006). Lipid analysis demands careful treatment of sherds by archaeologists to minimise the risk of contamination, and some laboratory samples often have to be declared unusable (Isaksson in Nilsson 2006). But as laboratory techniques and knowledge among archaeologists increase, this method will reward us with profoundly important insights into prehistoric activities. The potters craft – local and regional variations We have now covered aspects of decoration, vessel shape, context and use of pitted-ware ceramics. Is there anything left? All these are of course very important aspects to consider when interpreting prehistoric social practices, but they still fall short of a full picture of pottery as an embedded practice in a traditional society, where craft traditions structure, and are structured by, social organisation, gender roles, kinship and relationships. Anthropologists’ re-awakened interest in material studies Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 255 has generated important research and theories, often deeply connected to versions of practice theory. Because of this, several archaeologists have become interested in the social aspects of craft, and have attempted to unravel the chaîne opératoire of different practices in order to study this issue, often revealing important aspects of both society’s structure and stratification. In fact, pottery has repeatedly been shown to depend on far more socially embedded choices, than on purely functional/technical. There are simply too many equally acceptable ways of making a pot for a specific purpose, for us to decide on the basis of clay type and temper which purpose the potter actually intended. More significantly, anthropological studies have shown that many practices are mostly sub-conscious, and choices are not always recognized as such – even when the potter is actually brought face-to-face with an alternative method. Crafts are embodied in a very true sense, movements, sequences and positions becoming routine and second nature through learning and repetition (Lackey 1993; Gosselain 1998; Minar 2001; Wallaert-Pêtre 2001). Many steps in the sequence of production, including making and decorating a pot, are never given a rationale, other than “this is how we do it”/”this is how the ancestors taught us to do it” (Barley 1983: 28; David et al. 1988: 375; Gosselain 1999: 206; Gosselain and Livingstone Smith 2005). Therefore, to practice a craft can be profoundly connected to identity on both a personal and communal level (Minar 2001). Nor are most potters interested in experimentation, unless there is a strong external pressure, such as a tourist/market economy (Nicklin 1971; Dietler and Herbich 1998; Maceachern 1998). This is not surprising, since it may take several weeks to make a batch of vessels, with heavy work included. From digging up clay and transporting it, making and adding temper, shaping and decorating the vessels, drying and finally firing them – only to see them crack and explode in the fire. A proven recipe is not something an experienced potter tampers with in normal circumstances. I will therefore turn to choice of clay and temper in PWC vessels, in an attempt to show how technological studies may in fact deepen our understanding of prehistoric social relationships. There are now a number of sites with microscopy analysis of PWC pottery to choose from, though only some have more than a few sherds analysed. I will compare the choices of clay and temper on a regional and super-regional level, and add a comparison between local sites in the case of temper use. This is part of a larger analysis of pottery craft in the Middle Neolithic which is included in my thesis, currently under completion. The microscopies included are both from previously published reports and my own research project. Chapter Ten 256 Clay Seleciton: Pitted Ware E Centr. Sw. Öland Gotland 0% 20% Fine 40% 60% Medium-coarse 80% 100% Coarse Fig. 10-5. Clay selection in pitted-ware ceramics in different regions. Based on microscopy of thin sections from eastern central Sweden (no. 75), Öland (no. 39), and Gotland (no. 14). Data from current project and other published studies: (Hulthén 1996; 1997; 1998; Segerberg 1999; Brorsson 2000; 2006; Nilsson 2006; Papmehl-Dufay 2006; Sundström et al. 2006) To start with clay selection, in Fig. 10-5 we can see a comparison between eastern central Sweden, Gotland and Öland. The number of sherds analysed from the regions differ significantly, but even though eastern central Sweden is represented by 75 microscopies from eleven sites spanning the whole of the Middle Neolithic, there is a remarkable consistency in the choice of fine clays. The only exception being three sherds with medium-coarse clay from two of the youngest sites, Bollbacken and Tibble. The contrast to Öland and Gotland is quite striking, as coarser clays were seemingly preferred in both regions. Both islands do have a lot of coarse clays occurring naturally, but in the case of Öland there is an added twist. Although clay prospecting of eleven sites resulted in seven cases of coarse clays, three medium-coarse and only one with fine clay, all but two of these clays were calcareous (Papmehl-Dufay 2006: 197). In contrast, none of the 39 microscopy analysed pitted-ware sherds contained calcium. A potter can sift a coarse clay to create a fine clay, but not remove the natural calcareous content of a clay. Characteristics of clay content and temper material indicated, however, that the pots most likely were produced from local material. Papmehl-Dufay’s interpretation is that the Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 257 potters of Öland had carefully selected a few optimal sites with noncalcareous clay (1999: 209f). This suggests that were willing to go through considerable trouble to obtain what they considered to be suitable clays, but that these clays did not necessarily have to be manually sorted to produce the right texture. What makes the dominance of fine clays in eastern central Sweden even more interesting, is the fact that the partly contemporary battle-axe vessels from this region are made with coarser clays in half the cases (Larsson 2008). Clay selection is generally a very sensitive subject for potters, often prescribed as the most hazardous stage of the process where people have to obey strong rules and prescriptions to avoid collection of bad or “spoilt” clay which will cause the vessels to break (Frank 1994; Gosselain 1999; Gosselain and Livingstone Smith 2005). The texture of a clay is a physically sensuous matter to the potter (Gosselain and Livingstone Smith 2005), and the fact that there seems to be such definite rules governing choice of clay within regions is definitely worth noting, just as the obvious differences between them are. This might suggest a regional level of social organisation and interaction. Choice of temper presents an even more interesting picture. PWC potters used a far wider selection of tempers than both the TRB and the BAC potters. The former used almost exclusively granite and the latter used granite and/or grog (crushed pottery) (Larsson 2008). Tempers repeatedly identified in PWC vessels include granite, sandstone/quartzite, quartz, natural sand, lime stone, bones and plant material. All these materials may be found singly or in combinations that further complicates the picture. On a regional level we can again note a marked difference in preferences (Fig. 10-6). Granite dominates in eastern central Sweden, followed by bone temper, whereas plant material is frequently used on Gotland and Öland, in combination with other types of temper. On Gotland lime stone is a common temper (not surprisingly considering most of the island is nothing but), and on Öland sandstone/quartzite is added to the clay. On Öland is also identified the use of natural sand, not yet known from other sites, and quartz temper has as yet only been identified in eastern central Sweden. Again we see a strong regional difference in the material, which is not immediately observable in decoration or vessel shapes. Chapter Ten 258 Temper Materials: Pitted Ware E Central Sw. Öland Gotland 0% Granite 20% Sst/Qzite 40% Quartz Nat. sand 60% Grog 80% Lime stone Bone 100% Plant mat. Fig. 10-6. Temper materials used in pitted-ware ceramics divided by regions. Based on microscopy of thin sections. Sst/Qzite = Sandstone/Quartzite. Two sherds from Ire, Gotland, contained some grog temper in addition to plant material and crushed granite. As yet, these are the only examples of pitted-ware with grog temper. Data from current project and other published studies: (Hulthén 1996; 1997; 1998; Segerberg 1999; Brorsson 2006; Nilsson 2006; Papmehl-Dufay 2006; Sundström et al. 2006) However, there are also seven sites with enough microscopies to make a local comparison potentially valid. In Fig. 10-7 they are shown in a roughly chronological sequence, with the oldest above and the youngest below. Postboda 1 and 2 (eastern central Sweden), Ottenby and Köpingsvik (Öland), are all dated to the Middle Neolithic A, whereas Ire (Gotland), Brännpussen and Bollbacken (eastern central Sweden), are dated to the Middle Neolithic B. The regional differences are here shown to be the result of even stronger local differences. Postboda 2 and 1 (Uppland), dated to the Early/Middle Neolithic transition and Middle Neolithic A respectively, have marked consistency in temper with granite completely dominating as a temper, in keeping with the preceding TRB tradition. Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden Pitted Ware Site Period Granite Sst/ Quartz Qzite Nat. sand Grog 259 Lime Bone stone Plant mat. No. TS Postboda 2, Up Postboda 1, Up EN/MN 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MN A 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 Köpingsvik, Öl MN A 1 9 0 2 0 3 0 6 18 Ottenby, Öl MN A 4 0 0 7 0 1 0 9 21 Ire, Go MN B 1 0 0 0 2 13 0 9 14 Bollbacken, Vs Brännpussen, Up MN B 12 3 0 0 0 2 8 2 26 MN B Temper total 7 1 2 12 3 0 0 19 0 20 32 14 12 12 2 19 27 27 113 Temper materials: Pitted Ware sites Postboda 2, Up Postboda 1, Up Köpingsvik, Öl Ottenby, Öl Ire, Go Bollbacken, Vs Brännpussen, Up 0% Granite 20% Sst/Qzite Quartz 40% Nat. sand 60% Grog Lime stone 80% Bone 100% Plant mat. Fig. 10-7. Temper materials used in pitted-ware ceramics divided by sites. Rough chronological order, with the oldest sites at the top. Sst/Qzite = Sandstone/Quartzite. TS = Thin section. Data from current project and other published studies: (Hulthén 1996; 1997; 1998; Segerberg 1999; Brorsson 2000; 2006; Nilsson 2006; Papmehl-Dufay 2006; Sundström et al. 2006) In contrast, Brännpussen (Uppland) and Bollbacken (Västmanland) from the end of the Middle Neolithic are markedly different from each other, despite the fact that they are perhaps no more than a days travel by boat apart. Köpingsvik and Ottenby on Öland are also practically 260 Chapter Ten contemporary and very close, yet the two show notable differences in choice of temper between them. The impression of local variation is further strengthened if one includes sites with only 3-4 thin sections analysed. Within the sites, however, there can be strong consistency in combination of tempers. Of the 20 sherds analysed at Brännpussen, for instance, eleven were tempered with a combination of bone and quartz, and eight solely with bone (Nilsson 2006: 34). Bollbacken has 26 sherds analysed, eleven of which were tempered solely with granite, seven solely with bone, and three solely with sandstone/quartzite (Hulthén 1996). Whether this is due to different functions of the vessels, or different family traditions within the settlement, is too soon to tell. Re-constructing a potting community What is the result when all these disparate strands are brought together? All across the Pitted Ware culture area in eastern Sweden there appears vessels of a decidedly similar character, with carinated shoulders, pit incisions, comb stamps, herring-bone, cross-hatching, vertical strokes in horizontal bands, and other similar decorations. They all occur in great quantities on most settlements, with deposition traditions of fragmented vessels, broken off bases placed upside-down, and mini-vessels. The depositional practice in burials is similar to that at the settlements, though complete larger vessels are very rare. But beneath this seeming unity is a diverse craft tradition on both a regional and local level. This might suggest that while there was a general ideal of how a pitted-ware pot should look, there was no strong pressure on potters to conform to a standard on how to make that vessel, nor any detailed proscription on exact ornamentation, as long as it did not deviate too much from the norm. The regional coherence notable in clay selection and smaller decoration details, such as the tool used to make a pit, could possibly be indicative of preferred marriage networks involving people trained as potters. Both clay selection and preferred tools might be less selfconscious choices of the PWC potters, who were simply relaying on the right “feel” of clay and whatever tool used by the teacher, who most probably had been a close family member. By contrast, temper recipes and decorative details seem to have been open to more conscious choices and preferences, within certain limits. This suggests a lack of a cohesive and formally organized potter community, with the development of many different “recipes” and practices over time on a local (family?) basis. The main importance of pitted-ware vessels on a communal level was visual Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 261 appearance, and perhaps societies openness to individual expression and experimentation by the potters lends valuable insight into PWC ideology. While potters must have occupied a central position in society, due to the importance of pottery in daily and ritual life, there was no ideological pressure for conformity to a pre-defined chaîne opératoire (see WallaertPêtre 2001). As a comparison, the contemporary battle-axe pottery craft was strongly regulated, not just on a regional level, but all over south Sweden in terms of style, shaping and temper (Larsson 2008). More than that, the BAC pottery craft represents a completely new formula from the very earliest vessels. The use of grog as temper, which is very common in BAC vessels, is new. So is shaping the pots through pinching, and the use of covered firing – a reduced atmosphere. Also, the preference for coarse clays in 66% of the analysed vessels is also unique in Neolithic pottery from the mainland. This, and several other aspects, suggest that within the BAC the pottery craft was controlled and standardized, with pottery specialists controlling the knowledge of how to make a “proper” pot. While this control seems to have been at its strongest initially, it existed in some form until the end of the Middle Neolithic B. The BAC and PWC material traditions co-exist in eastern Sweden for 500 years. While there have been suggestions that their relationship is actually a case of different ritual and economic aspects of a single cultural community (e.g. Carlsson 1987; Gill 1998), there are many aspects contradicting this model. Not least the basic differences in the manufacture and use of pottery, and the social structuring of the crafts. One interesting aspect of the two pottery traditions of the Middle Neolithic B is the use of bone temper in PWC pots and the use of grog in BAC beakers. With a very few exceptions there are no bone tempered BAC vessels and no grog tempered PWC pots. The exceptions are themselves quite revealing. The only PWC vessels with grog temper have been identified on Gotland, an island with otherwise few remains of the BAC. Of the 68 battle-axe pottery thin sections included in this study, only one (1) has been tempered with bone, and this beaker was found at the PWC settlement Bollbacken in eastern central Sweden, dated to the late MN B (Hulthén 1996; Larsson 2008). The thin sections are only a sample of the whole material of course, and there are some sherds from BAC beakers with a distinct porosity similar to that of pitted-ware, which might indicate presence of bone temper. However, these are also found at late PWC settlements, such as Tibble in Uppland. This suggests that temper made from crushed vessels and bones carried strong associations of more than function, which is hardly 262 Chapter Ten surprising. The use of bone to create a “skeleton” for the pot is striking, but many ethnographic sources make note of the fact that recycling old pots to make new ones has powerful connotations of life and death as well (Sterner 1989; Gosselain 1999). Another difference between BAC and PWC pottery is the use of cord decoration on the former and pit incision on the latter. Despite the close proximity of settlements and the fact that late PWC sites quite often contain a few BAC vessels, there is remarkably little diffusion of either decorative traits or technology. This must be due to conscious choices of the potters based on very clear notions of what their craft is and what it is not, and what their vessels communicate internally and externally. Hybridisation and changes at the end of the Middle Neolithic B There are exceptions that actually shed further light on the rules governing the pottery traditions (Graner and Larsson 2004). A few BAC beakers of the typical Swedish semi-globular shape do have a row of pit incisions. As with the bone tempered beakers, they can all be dated to the latest phase of the Middle Neolithic B, and they are all found in central Sweden, the “heartland” of the PWC, not in southern or western Sweden (Fig. 10-8). What little evidence there is of a diffusion of style and technology, it mainly moves from the hunter-gatherer PWC to the farming BAC than reverse. The late BAC vessels are more varied in execution and technology than the earlier beakers, whereas PWC pots from the Middle Neolithic B on the mainland are not tempered with grog, nor decorated with cord, angular bands, or vertical patterns, as are the contemporary beakers. There is another type of large hybrid vessel with straight walls, cord decoration like the beakers, though often coarser, and broad decorated rims like in the PWC tradition occurring on late settlements. What is interesting with these pots, in addition to their hybrid appearance, is that they are in fact most similar to the type of vessels used in the Late Neolithic. This period, starting around 2350 BC, spells the end of material diversity between coast and inland in southern Sweden. The material culture, burial customs and economy, is now strongly linked to continental groups. It is striking how unassuming the pottery suddenly becomes. There are no notable quantities found at settlements, no complex deposits in the stone cists or graves, just single vessels of quite unremarkable appearance. Apparently, when the dichotomy between coast and inland Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 263 populations disappeared, the need for displaying differences through pottery, in craft, style and practice, also disappeared. It is imperative to note that the agricultural BAC did not acculturate the hunting-gathering PWC, since they both disappear from the archaeological record at this time. It would be more correct to state that they are both swept up in the large-scale continental changes taking place at this time. If anything, it was the PWC pottery tradition that had the strongest impact on Late Neolithic pottery. It is worth noting that Late Neolithic vessels are seemingly neither tempered with bone nor grog, supporting the theory that these tempers represented far more than mere function. Fig. 10-8. Map of occurrence of “hybrid” vessels of the so-called “third group”, which is defined as a battle-axe beaker with row of pit impressions in the pittedware tradition. Hedningahällan and the cave Stora Förvar are both complex gathering sites, with remains from many different traditions. Examples of the “third group”: (A) Turinge, Turinge ps, Södermanland, drawing by Gunlög Graner (Lindström 2000) and (B) Vrå, Knivsta ps, Uppland, drawing by Eva Crafoord (Eriksson 2002). Not to scale. (Graner and Larsson 2004) 264 Chapter Ten Concluding remarks The Pitted Ware culture is a challenge to archaeologists, in that it highlights many prejudices that are still prevailing in the discipline. These are people abandoning agriculture and animal husbandry in favour of a hunting-gathering way of life. The culture is influenced by northern and eastern hunter groups, and spreads from the north southwards into territories dominated by the TRB for a long time. It co-exists with first the TRB and then the Battle Axe culture without notable material or economic changes, except to diverge more from its neighbours. In fact, the PWC seems to affect the farming communities as much, or even more, as it is itself affected by them. In short, the PWC does everything a culture should not according to the unspoken model of prehistoric development, where farmer replaces hunter, and change moves from south to north, and west to east. Hopefully, this chapter has highlighted the ways in which a focused study of pottery, not just functionally or stylistically, but of the guidelines and principles of the chaîne opératoire of the craft itself might bring new light to controversial issues surrounding cultural identity in prehistory. A ceramic vessel literally embodies learning, traditions, history, relationships and practice. Acknowledging this will bring much needed insight into prehistoric realities for archaeologists. Acknowledgements Funding for ceramic analysis was granted by the Berit Wallenberg Foundation. Birgitta Hulthén, at the Laboratory for Ceramic Research, Lund University, has helped with microscopy analyses of pottery for the project. She has also contributed with additional data, arguments, ideas, and unending enthusiasm. References Ahlfont, K., Guinard, M., Gustafsson, E., Olson, C. and Welinder, S. 1995. Patterns of Neolithic farming in Sweden. Tor 27(1): 133-184. Andersson, C. 1998. Kontinuitet i de mellanneolitiska samhällsstrukturerna. Aktuell Arkeologi VI: 65-75. Åkerlund, A. 1996. Human Responses to Shore Displacement. Living by the Sea in Eastern Middle Sweden during the Stone Age. Arkeologiska undersökningar, Skrifter nr 16. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet. Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 265 Apel, J. E., Bäckström, Y., Hallgren, F., Knutsson, K., Lekberg, P., Olsson, E., Steineke, M. and Sundström, L. 1995. Fågelbacken och trattbägarsamhället. Tor 27(1): 47-132. Bagge, A. 1951. Fagervik. Acta Archaeologica XXII: 57-118. Bagge, A. and Kjellmark, K. 1939. Stenåldersboplatserna vid Siretorp i Blekinge. Stockholm: Wahlström and Widstrand. Barley, N. 1983. Symbolic structures. An exploration of the culture of the Dowayos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Becker, C. J. 1950. Den grubekeramiske kultur i Danmark. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1950: 153-274. Björck, M., Persson, M. and Ulfhielm, B. 2004. Södra Mårtsbo - en neolitisk kustplats. Rapport 2004:14. Gävle: Länsmuseet Gävleborg. Brorsson, T. 2000. Gropkeramiken från Hedningahällan - en glimt av ett hantverk. KFL Rapport 00/0214. Lund University: The Laboratory for Ceramic Research. —. 2006. Godsanalys av tredje gruppens keramik - en studie av keramik från Torslunda, Tierp sn, Uppland. Rapport 2, 2006. Härslöv: Kontoret för Keramiska Studier. Browall, H. 1991. Om förhållandet mellan trattbägarkultur och gropkeramisk kultur. In Browall, H., Persson, P. and Sjögren, K.-G. (eds.) Västsvenska stenåldersstudier, Gotarc Serie C. Arkeologiska Skrifter No 8: 111-142. Gothenburg University: Department of Archaeology. Burenhult, G. Editor. 1997. Ajvide och den moderna arkeologin: Natur och Kultur. Carlie, A. 1986. Om gropkeramisk kultur i Skåne, speciellt Jonstorp. In Adamsen, C. and Ebbesen, K. (eds.) Stridsøksetid i Sydskandinavien, Arkæologiske Skrifter 1: 156-164. Köpenhamn: Forhistorisk Arkælogisk Institut. Carlsson, A. 1987. Three Stone Age Cultures in the Province of Södermanland, Eastern Central Sweden - Fact or Fiction? In Burenhult, G. and Malmer, M. P. (eds.) Theoretical Approaches to Artefacts, Settlement and Society: Studies in honour of Mats P. Malmer, BAR International Series 366(i): 231-239. Oxford. David, N., Sterner, J. and Gavua, K. 1988. Why Pots are Decorated. Current Anthropology 29(3): 365-389. Dietler, M. and Herbich, I. 1998. Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In Stark, M. T. (ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries: 232-263. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 266 Chapter Ten Edenmo, R., Larsson, M., Nordqvist, B. and Olsson, E. 1997. Gropkeramikerna - fanns de? Materiell kultur och ideologisk förändring. In Larsson, M. and Olsson, E. (eds.) Regionalt och interregionalt. Stenåldersundersökningar i Syd- och Mellansverige., Skrifter nr 23: 135-213. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet. Emeis, K.-C., Struck, U., Blanz, T., Kohly, A. and Voß, M. 2003. Salinity changes in the central Baltic Sea (NW Europe) over the last 10 000 years. The Holocene 13(3): 411-421. Eriksson, G. 2003. Norm and difference. Stone Age dietary practice in the Baltic region. Thesis and Papers in Scientific Archaeology 5. Stockholm University: Archaeological Research Laboratory. Eriksson, T. 2002. Keramiken. In Göthberg, H., Forenius, S. and Karlenby, L. (eds.) I en liten Vrå av världen. Arkeologiska undersökningar Vrå, Knivsta sn, Uppland, UV Uppsala Rapport 1997:66: 123-154. Uppsala: Riksantikvarieämbetet. Fornander, E. 2006. The Wild Side of the Neolithic. A study of Pitted Ware diet and ideology through analysis of stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in skeletal material from Korsnäs, Grödinge parish, Södermanland. Exam Paper. Stockholm University: Archaeological Research Laboratory. Frank, B. E. 1994. More than Wives and Mothers, The Artistry of Mande Potters. African Arts 27(4): 26-37, 93-94. Gill, A. 1998. Neolitiska kulturer i östra Mellansverige - en kritik. Aktuell Arkeologi VI: 77-88. Gosselain, O. P. 1998. Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In Stark, M. T. (ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries: 78106. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. —. 1999. In Pots We Trust. The Processing of Clay and Symbols In SubSaharan Africa. Journal of Material Culture 4(2): 205-230. Gosselain, O. P. and Livingstone Smith, A. 2005. The source. Clay selection and processing practices in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Smith, A. L., Bosquet, D. and Martineau, R. (eds.) Pottery manufacturing processes: reconstitution and interpretation, BAR International Series 1359: 33-47. Oxford. Graner, G. and Larsson, Å. M. 2004. Tredje gruppen och andra blandformer. Keramiska traditioner och strategier vid slutet av mellanneolitikum. In Holm, J. (ed.) Neolitiska nedslag. Arkeologiska uppslag, Arkeologiska undersökningar. Skrifter No 59: 107-140. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet. Grudd, H., Briffa, K. R., Karlén, W., Bartholin, T. S., Jones, P. D. and Kromer, B. 2002. A 7400-year tree-ring chronology in northern Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 267 Swedish Lapland: natural climatic variability expressed on annual to millennial timescales. The Holocene 12(6): 657-665. Halén, O. 1994. Sedentariness during the Stone Age of Northern Sweden. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. No 20. Lund: Department of Archaeology. Hallgren, F. 2000. Lineage Identity and Pottery Design. In Olausson, D. and Vandkilde, H. (eds.) Form, Function and Context., Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, No 31: 173-191. Lund: Almqvist and Wiksell. —. 2004. The Introduction of Ceramic Technology Around the Baltic Sea in the 6th Millennium. In Knutsson, H. (ed.) Coast to Coast - Arrival. Results and Reflections: 123-142. Uppsala University: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History. —. 2008. Identitet i praktik. Lokala, regionala och överregionala sociala sammanhang inom nordlig trattbägarkultur. Coast to Coast Books No. 17. Uppsala University: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History. Holm, L. 2006. Stenålderskust i norr. Bosättning, försörjning och kontakter i södra Norrland. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 19. Umeå University: Department of Archaeology and Saami Studies. Hulthén, B. 1996. Stenålderskeramiken från Bollbacken - en teknologisk studie. In Artursson, M. (ed.) Bollbacken, en sen gropkeramisk boplats och ett gravfält från äldre järnålder. RAÄ 258, Tortuna sn, Västmanland, Rapport nr 16: 210-239. Upplands Väsby: Arkeologikonsult AB. —. 1997. Stenålderskeramiken från Ire på Gotland. In Åkerlund, A., Bergh, S., Nordbladh, J. and Taffinder, J. (eds.) Till Gunborg. Arkeologiska samtal., SAR, Nr 33: 131-145. Stockholm University: Department of Archaeology. —. 1998. The Alvastra Piledwelling Pottery. Monographs 5. Stockholm: The Museum of National Antiquities. Isaksson, S. 2006. Analys av organiska lämningar i keramik från lokalerna Postboda 2 och 1 samt Postboda skjutbanan. In Sundström, L., Darmark, K. and Stenbäck, N. (eds.) Postboda 2 och 1. Säsongsboplatser med gropkeramik från övergången tidigneolitikummellanneolitikum i norra Uppland, SAU Skrifter 10: 172-177. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis. Janzon, G. O. 1974. Gotlands mellanneolitiska gravar. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. 268 Chapter Ten Lackey, L. M. 1993. Learning to be a potter in Acatlán. In Anderson, R. L. and Field, K. L. (eds.) Art in small-scale societies. Contemporary readings: 170-178. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Larsson, Å. M. 2008. The Hand that Makes the Pot...: Craft Traditions in South Sweden in the Third Millennium BC. In Berg, I. (ed.) Breaking the Mould: challenging the past through pottery, BAR International Series 1861, Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: Occasional Paper 6: 81-91. Oxford: Archaeopress. —. in press. Taking Out the Trash: On Excavating Settlements in General, and Houses of the Battle Axe Culture in Particular. Current Swedish Archaeology 15. Lidén, K. 1995. Prehistoric Diet Transitions. An Archaeological Perspective. Theses and Papers in Scientific Archaeology 1. Stockholm University: The Archaeological Research Laboratory. Lidén, K., Eriksson, G., Nordqvist, B., Götherström, A. and Bendixen, E. 2004. "The wet and the wild followed by the dry and the tame" - or did they occur at the same time? Diet in Mesolithic-Neolithic southern Sweden. Antiquity 78(299): 23-33. Lindholm, P. 2003. Gravspråk på olika nivåer. In Anund, J. (ed.) Landningsplats - forntiden, Arkeologiska undersökningar, Skrifter Nr. 49: 61-82. Stockholm: RAÄ. Lindström, J. 2000. Ett dödshus från stridsyxetid. Stockholms läns museum 2000:8. Maceachern, S. 1998. Scale, Style, and Cultural Variation: Technological Traditions in the Northern Mandara Mountains. In Stark, M. T. (ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries: 107-131. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Malmer, M. P. 2002. The Neolithic of South Sweden. TRB, GRK and STR. Stockholm: The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters History and Antiquities. Meinander, C. F. 1964. Kommentar till spånpilens historia. Finskt Museum 1962(69): 39-61. Minar, C. J. 2001. Motor skills and the learning process: The conservation of cordage final twist direction in communities of practice. Journal of Anthropological Research 57: 381-405. Nicklin, k. 1971. Stability and Innovation in Pottery Manufacture. World Archaeology 3(1): 13-48. Nielsen, S. 1979. Den grubkeramiske kultur i Norden, samt nogle bemærkninger om flækkepilespidserne fra Hesselø. Antikvariske Studier 3: 23-48. Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden 269 Nilsson, M.-L. Editor. 2006. Brännpussen - en mellanneolitisk kustboplats. UV GAL, Rapport 2004:2. Uppsala: RAÄ. Norderäng, J. 2001. Ajvideboplatsen. Rapport från arkeologisk undersökning 2000 av fornlämning nr. 171 på fastigheten Ajvide 2:1 i Eksta socken, Gotland. Visby: Gotland University College —. 2004. Ajvideboplatsen. Rapport från arkeologisk undersökning 2003 av fornlämning nr. 171 på fastigheten Ajvide 2:1 i Eksta socken, Gotland. Visby: Gotland University College Nordquist, P. 2001. Hierarkiseringsprocesser. Om konstruktionen av social ojämlikhet i Skåne, 5500-1100 f. Kr. Vol. 13. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Umensis. Umeå University: Department of Archaeology. Olsson, E. 1997. Nivå, kronologi och samhälle. Om östsvensk gropkeramik. In Åkerlund, A., Bergh, S., Nordbladh, J. and Taffinder, J. (eds.) Till Gunborg. Arkeologiska samtal., SAR, Nr 33: 441-453. Stockholm University: Department of Archaeology. Olsson, E., Granath Zillén, G. and Mohr, A. 1994. Korsnäs - en gropkeramisk grav- och boplats på Södertörn. UV Stockholm, Rapport 1994:63. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet. Österholm, I. 1989. Bosättningsmönstret på Gotland under stenåldern. Department of Archaeology: Stockholm University. —. 1997. Käutaltaret vid Ajvide. In Burenhult, G. (ed.) Ajvide och den moderna arkeologin: 75-84: Natur och Kultur. Papmehl-Dufay, L. 1999. Myten om gropkeramikerna. Klassificering och analys av neolitisk keramik från Vendel 1:1, Vendel sn, Uppland. CDuppsatser i laborativ arkeologi 98/99. Del 1. Exam Paper. Stockholm University: Archaeological Research Laboratory. —. 2006. Shaping an identity. Pitted Ware pottery and potters in southeast Sweden. Theses and Papers in Scientific Archaeology 7. Stockholm University: Archaeological Research Laboratory. Pfaffenberger, B. 1999. Worlds in the Making: Technological Activities and the Construction of Intersubjective Meaning. In Dobres, M.-A. and Hoffman, C. R. (eds.) The Social Dynamics of Technology: 147-164. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Segerberg, A. 1999. Bälinge mossar. Kustbor i Uppland under yngre stenåldern. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History: Uppsala University. Stenberger, M., Dahr, E. and Munthe, H. 1943. Das Grabfeld von Västerbjers auf Gotland. Monografier 30. Stockholm: Kungliga Vitterhets-, Historie- och Antikvitetsakademien. 270 Chapter Ten Stenbäck, N. 2003. Människorna vid havet. Platser och keramik på ålandsöarna perioden 3500-2000 f.Kr. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 28. Stockholm University: Department of Archaeology. Sterner, J. 1989. Who is signalling whom? Ceramic style, ethnicity and taphonomy among the Sirak Bulahay. Antiquity 63(240): 451-459. Strinnholm, A. 2001. Bland säljägare och fårfarmare. Struktur och förändring i Västsveriges mellanneolitikum. Coast to coast-book 4. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History. Sundström, L., Darmark, K. and Stenbäck, N. 2006. Postboda 2 och 1. Säsongsboplatser med gropkeramik från övergången tidigneolitikummellanneolitikum i norra Uppland. SAU Skrifter 10. Uppsala. Timofeev, V. I. 2000. On the Problem of the Scandinavian Pitted Ware Origin and the Definition of the Eastern Component in this Process. In Jaanits, L. and Lang, V. (eds.) De Temporibus Antiquissimis Ad Honorem Lembit Jaanits, Muinasaja teadus 8: 209-222. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus. Wallaert-Pêtre, H. 2001. Learning how to make the right pots: Apprenticeship strategies and material culture, a case study in handmade pottery from Cameroon. Journal of Anthropological Research 57: 471-493. Welinder, S. 1976. The Economy of the Pitted Ware Culture in Eastern Sweden. Meddelanden från Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum 1975-76: 20-30. —. 1978. The Acculturation of the Pitted Ware Culture in Eastern Sweden. Meddelanden från Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum 1977-78: 98110. —. 1998. Del 1. Neoliticum-bronsålder, 3900-500 f.Kr. In Welinder, S., Pedersen, E. A. and Widgren, M. (eds.) Jordbrukets första femtusen år. 4000 f.Kr.-1000 e.Kr, Det svenska jordbrukets historia: 11-236. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur/LTs Förlag. Wyszomirska, B. 1984. Figurplastik och gravskick hos Nord- och Nordösteuropas neolitiska fångstkulturer. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 4°, No 18. Lund: CWK Gleerup.