Earthen Long Barrows and Timber Structures: Aspects of the Early Neolithic Mortuary Practice in Denmark

1979 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 301-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Madsen
Keyword(s):  
Northern Europe ◽  
Timber Structures ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Mortuary Practice ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Derivative System ◽  
The Many ◽  
Neolithic Cultures ◽  
Early Phases

More than twenty years have elapsed since Stuart Piggott suggested the possibility of a connection between the primary Neolithic cultures of Britain and the early phases of the Funnel necked Beaker (TRB) Culture of northern Europe (Piggott 1956). What appeared at that time to many scholars, not least in Denmark, to be a very far fetched idea, must today in the light of the many new Danish excavations be considered seriously. Piggott pointed to three categories of finds which could possibly be advanced as indicators of contact: Pottery, causewayed camps and ‘unchambered’ earthen long barrows. In all three areas decisive new results have been obtained, and although this paper deals with the earthen long barrows, both the pottery and the causewayed camps will be briefly commented upon.C. J. Becker's division of the Danish early Neolithic pottery into four major classes, the A, B, non-megalithic and megalithic C types of pottery, is still useable for the general categorization of site inventories (Becker 1948). The neat derivative system that he built, with A originating somewhere in eastern Europe, followed by B, and terminating with two contemporary C-groups, is however no longer warranted, and especially not with reference to the radiocarbon dates. Nor can the clear-cut typological division of the pottery into the four groups be maintained, since many types of pots and ornamentation occur in more than one group. For instance the B type beaker, with lines of twisted cord beneath the rim, is an integral part of the inventory of non-megalithic C sites, and also occurs in connection with megalithic C pottery.

MEGALO NISI GALANIS (6300–1800 bc): CONSTRUCTING A CULTURAL SEQUENCE FOR THE NEOLITHIC OF WEST MACEDONIA, GREECE

2019 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Michael Fotiadis ◽  
Areti Hondroyanni-Metoki ◽  
Alexandra Kalogirou ◽  
Yannis Maniatis ◽  
Anna Stroulia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Bronze Age ◽  
Early Bronze Age ◽  
Neolithic Period ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
History Of ◽  
Middle Bronze Age ◽  
Surrounding Landscape ◽  
Early Phases

Scores of Neolithic sites have been excavated in west Macedonia since the 1990s, yet the majority are relatively short-lived installations, lacking high-resolution stratigraphies and sequences of radiocarbon dates. Megalo Nisi Galanis, a large mound in the Kitrini Limni basin, near modern Kozani, is a rare exception to that pattern. Systematically surveyed and excavated in 1987–9 and 1993, this site covers a large part of the Neolithic period in a stratified, radiocarbon-dated sequence capped in places by thin deposits of the Early Bronze Age. We present here the critical details of that sequence and relate them to evidence from other, recently excavated sites in west Macedonia. Megalo Nisi Galanis was first settled in the Early Neolithic (late seventh millennium bc), was intensively occupied until the early phases of the Final Neolithic (around 4500 bc), and continued to be inhabited, albeit sparely or intermittently, until the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age, about 1800 bc. By the end of occupation, the mound covered more than eight hectares and rose up to five metres above the surrounding landscape. We attend closely to features of that landscape that are likely to have played an important role in the history of occupation of the site and Kitrini Limni in the course of the Holocene.

scholarly journals Chronology Issues of the Neolithic Cultures in the Volga-Kama Basin

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (37) ◽  
pp. 42-54
Author(s):  
Alexander A. Vybornov ◽  
◽  
Marianna A. Kulkova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Steppe Zone ◽  
Volga Region ◽  
Forest Steppe ◽  
Neolithic Period ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Forest Zone ◽  
Middle Volga Region ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Lower Volga Region ◽  
Neolithic Cultures

In the article, the questions of the chronology of the Neolithic cultures in the Volga-Kama basin are discussed. This discussion is based on the significant series of radiocarbon dates obtained on the different organic materials in several last years. The dates were obtained as tradition scintillation technique, as well as AMS method. There was established the different age of cultural complexes on the same site and the time of transition from early to later Neolithic was determined in the Northern Cis-Caspian region. The beginning of the early Neolithic and the final of the later stage were clarified. The Neo-Eneolithic period in the Lower Volga region has been verified. The frameworks of the Early Neolithic and coexistence of Mesolithic and Neolithic societies in the forest-steppe zone of the Volga region were considered. The low border of the Neolithic period in the forest zone of the Middle Volga region was established. In the Cis-Kama region, the chronological frameworks of the Kamskaya culture were determined and the chronological ratio between complexes of unornamented, pricked and combed ornamented ceramics were explained.

scholarly journals Some Data on Pottery of Osipovskaya and Mariinskaya Cultures of the Lower Amur Region

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ю.Б. Цетлин ◽  
В.Е. Медведев
Keyword(s):  
Amur Region ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Technological Processes ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Lower Amur Region ◽  
Ethnocultural Groups ◽  
History Of ◽  
Neolithic Cultures ◽  
Comprehensive Study

Статья посвящена результатам всестороннего изучения гончарных традиций в технологии, формах и орнаментации посуды у носителей осиповской и мариинской неолитических культур в российском Приамурье. Осиповская культура является древнейшей на земном шаре, и ее керамика отражает первые этапы становления гончарного производства в истории человечества. Керамика мариинской культуры характеризует следующий этап развития гончарства и относится к раннему неолиту на этой территории. Авторы приходят к выводу, что эти культуры оставлены разными в этнокультурном плане группами древнего населения. The paper describes results of the comprehensive study of pottery traditions through the prism of technological processes, shapes and ornamentation of vessels developed by the Osipovka and Mariinskoye Neolithic cultures in the Russian Amur Region. The Osipovka culture is the earliest on our planet and its pottery reflects first stages of pottery development in the history of humanity. The Mariinskoye pottery characterizes the next period of pottery development and is dated to the Early Neolithic of this region. The authors conclude that these cultures were left behind by different ethnocultural groups of the earliest population.

scholarly journals Materials of the early Neolithic of the Yarlukovskaya Protoka site (point 222) on the Upper Don

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-229
Author(s):  
Roman Viktorovich Smolyaninov ◽  
Aleksey Aleksandrovich Kulichkov ◽  
Elizaveta Sergeevna Yurkina
Keyword(s):  
Silty Clay ◽  
Mixed Complex ◽  
Cultural Layer ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Stone Artifacts ◽  
Left Tributary ◽  
Clay Ceramics ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Neolithic Cultures

This paper analyzes materials located in the floodplain of the Matyra River (left tributary of the Voronezh River) of the Yarlukovskaya Protoka (point 222) in the Gryazinsky District of the Lipetsk Region. It was investigated in 1963, 1964, 1967 and 1968 by Vsevolod Levenok. The materials of three early Neolithic cultures of VI Millennium BC were revealed here. The materials of the Yelshanskaya culture are represented by corollas and bottoms of 12 vessels. Almost all dishes, except one bottom and several walls, have no ornament, with the exception of one or two rows of conical pit. All ceramics are well smoothed. Ceramics were made from silty clay. The location of materials in the cultural layer confirms the earlier occurrence of the Yelshanskaya culture ceramics. The ceramics of the Karamyshevo culture is represented by fragments from three vessels. The dishes are predominantly decorated with small oval pricks composed in horizontal and vertical rows. Ceramics were made from silty clay. Ceramics of the Srednedonskaya culture are represented by corollas and rounded bottoms of 15 vessels. It is decorated with triangular prick or small comb prints. Ceramics were made from silty clay. At Yarlukovskaya Protoka site 304 stone artifacts were discovered, mainly of flint. This industry could be described as flake-blade technique. The monument is a mixed complex - stratigraphic and planigraphic readable observations of stone inventory location could not be done.

scholarly journals Radiocarbon dates, climatic events, and social dynamics during the Early Neolithic in Mediterranean Iberia

2016 ◽  
Vol 403 ◽  
pp. 201-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Bernabeu Aubán ◽  
Oreto García Puchol ◽  
Michael Barton ◽  
Sarah McClure ◽  
Salvador Pardo Gordó
Keyword(s):  
Social Dynamics ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates

Acral Junctional Nevus Versus Acral Lentiginous Melanoma In Situ: A Differential Diagnosis That Should Be Based on Clinicopathologic Correlation

2011 ◽  
Vol 135 (7) ◽  
pp. 847-852
Author(s):  
Francisco Bravo Puccio ◽  
Cesar Chian
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Picture ◽  
Correct Diagnosis ◽  
Complete Excision ◽  
Acral Lentiginous Melanoma ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Melanoma In Situ ◽  
Histopathologic Findings ◽  
Cell Proliferations ◽  
Early Phases

Abstract Context.—Acral lentiginous melanoma is the most prevalent clinical presentation of melanoma in ethnic groups other than whites and also occurs in significant numbers in North America and Europe. Despite a clear-cut clinical picture, histologic findings seen in partial biopsies may be too subtle and deceive pathologists dealing with such cases. Objectives.—To make pathologists aware of the histologic findings during early phases of acral lentiginous melanoma (including the in situ phase), to compare those findings with what is seen in acral junctional nevus, and to highlight their similarities and differences. This review will also emphasize the important clinical and dermatoscopic findings to be considered when diagnosing acral lentiginous melanoma. Data Sources.—Review of published articles on the epidemiology; the clinical, dermatoscopic, and histopathologic findings; and the molecular biology of acral lentiginous melanoma as well as the personal experience of the authors when dealing with such cases. Conclusions.—Acral lentiginous melanoma is a clinicopathologic entity with a clear-cut clinical picture: a diameter larger than 0.7 mm; ill-defined, darkly pigmented, flat lesion with irregular borders on acral locations; and the presence of mostly single-cell proliferations of melanocytes along the dermo-epidermal junction. Along with a few additional criteria, these findings should be sufficient to allow the pathologist to make the diagnosis and to recommend complete excision. Fluent communication between clinician and pathologist will facilitate a correct diagnosis.

The Emergence of Cremations in Eastern Fennoscandia: Changing Uses of Fire in Ritual Contexts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarkko Saipio
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Northern Europe ◽  
Northern Eurasia ◽  
Archaeological Research ◽  
Late Neolithic ◽  
Mortuary Ritual ◽  
Cultural Layers ◽  
Germanic Languages ◽  
Neolithic Cultures

Since the 1980s, a rapid increase in the number of Mesolithic and Neolithic cremation burials discovered has prompted a substantial re-evaluation of the position of cremation as a prehistoric mortuary ritual in northern Eurasia. Sporadic but persistent appearances of cremation in a wide variety of cultural contexts from early Mesolithic to late Neolithic have undermined the traditional models seeing cremation and inhumation as two radically different ways to treat the deceased. In studies of north-western Europe, from British Isles to southern Scandinavia, it is now widely recognized that inhumation and cremation co-existed in many Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures traditionally treated as textbook cases of mortuary practices emphasizing the corporeal integrity of the deceased. Importantly, the unexpected appearances of cremation are only one part of a wider challenge to the traditional assumption of dominance of primary burial in Mesolithic and non-megalithic Neolithic cultures of northern Europe. One important aspect of this challenge are finds of scattered burnt and unburned human bones in Mesolithic and Neolithic cultural layers, suggesting that articulated pit inhumations may actually represent exceptional cases (e.g. Hallgren 2008; Larsson 2009). North-eastern Europe still remains a white area in regional studies of pre- Bronze Age appearances of cremation in northern Europe. This border generally coincides with the language barrier between Germanic languages and various ‘eastern’ languages in terms of local archaeological research traditions. On the other hand, the border also roughly coincides with many genuine differences in archaeological record. Therefore, there is an obvious danger that differences in archaeological research histories and differences in archaeological phenomena become intermingled, creating ill-founded generalizations and assumptions. This chapter examines the earliest known cases of cremation in Eastern Fennoscandia, the area consisting of Finland, the Kola Peninsula, and Russian Karelia (Fig. 11.1). It is currently the easternmost part of northern Europe where confirmed cases of Mesolithic and Neolithic cremation have appeared so far. Such cases are currently few and little studied but they have a potential to redefine the whole study of prehistoric mortuary rituals in the area. In most of Eastern Fennoscandia acidic soil usually does not preserve any unburned bone material older than about a thousand years.

Cremation and the Use of Fire in Mesolithic Mortuary Practices in North-West Europe

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Gray Jones
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
Northern Europe ◽  
British Isles ◽  
Mortuary Practice ◽  
North West ◽  
Northern France ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Secondary Burial ◽  
Late Mesolithic

Cremation is not widely recognized as a form of mortuary treatment amongst the hunter-gatherer communities of Mesolithic north-west Europe (broadly defined as c.9300 cal. BC to c.4000 cal. BC). Instead, the period is perhaps most well known for some of the earliest inhumation cemeteries in northern Europe, the most familiar being the Scandinavian sites of Skateholm I and II (Scania, Sweden) (Larsson 1988a) and Vedbæk-Bøgebakken (Zealand, Denmark) (Albrethsen and Brinch Petersen 1977) and those on the coast of northern France, Teviéc and Hoëdic (Morbihan, France) (Péquart et al. 1937; Péquart and Péquart 1954). As concentrations of well-furnished burials they have long provided the focus for discussions of Mesolithic mortuary practice as well as social status and group organization (e.g. Clark and Neeley 1987) and, more recently, cosmology (e.g. Zvelebil 2003), personhood (e.g. Fowler 2004), sexuality (e.g. Schmidt 2000) and the ritual practice of handling the body (e.g. Nilsson Stutz 2003). However, discoveries within the last two decades have increased the evidence for the practice of cremation (as well as other forms of treatment, such as secondary burial) amongst the huntergatherers of the Mesolithic, both in terms of the geographic distribution of the practice and its temporal spread throughout the period. Although rare in comparison to inhumation, cremation can now be seen to have been practiced throughout both the early and late Mesolithic and, whilst evidence is currently sparse within the modern areas of Germany and the British Isles, examples are known across Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, northern France, and the Republic of Ireland (totalling at least thirteen sites with cremated remains amongst over 100 sites with human bone in this area, see Fig. 2.1 and Table 2.1). Additionally, whilst preparing this chapter, a new discovery of cremated remains deposited in a large pit was made at Langford (Essex, England) and directly dated to the late Mesolithic, representing the first example from England (Gilmour and Loe 2015). It is worth noting here that there are also several more sites with human remains (usually disarticulated or ‘loose’ human bones) which are described as ‘charred’ or ‘burnt’ but for the purposes of this chapter I consider ‘cremated remains’ to refer to bone or a body that has undergone the mortuary rite of cremation (transformation of a corpse by burning) and burnt bone as the incidental or deliberate burning of dry and/or disarticulated bone (after McKinley 2013: 150).

scholarly journals Dispersals as demographic processes: testing and describing the spread of the Neolithic in the Balkans

2020 ◽  
Vol 376 (1816) ◽  
pp. 20200231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Vander Linden ◽  
Fabio Silva
Keyword(s):  
Food Production ◽  
Population History ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Theme Issue ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Demographic Processes ◽  
South Eastern Europe ◽  
Density Dependent Dispersal

Although population history and dispersal are back at the forefront of the archaeological agenda, they are often studied in relative isolation. This contribution aims at combining both dimensions, as population dispersal is, by definition, a demographic process. Using a case study drawn from the Early Neolithic of South-Eastern Europe, we use radiocarbon dates to jointly investigate changes in speed and population size linked to the new food production economy and demonstrate that the spread of farming in this region corresponds to a density-dependent dispersal process. The implications of this characterization are evaluated in the discussion. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Cross-disciplinary approaches to prehistoric demography’.

The Neolithic transition and European population history

Antiquity ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 78 (301) ◽  
pp. 708-710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Crombé ◽  
Mark Van Strydonck
Keyword(s):  
World Wide ◽  
Recent Progress ◽  
European Population ◽  
Population History ◽  
The Other ◽  
Early Neolithic ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Neolithic Transition ◽  
Regional Approach ◽  
Absolute Dating

In volume 295 of Antiquity M. Gkiasta et al. (2003) discussed the results of two sets of analysis carried out on a “new” database of radiocarbon dates: one for the whole of Europe examining the spread of the Neolithic, and one regional approach looking at the relation between Mesolithic and Neolithic dates. Although we are convinced of the potential of both approaches, we do have some major comments on the methodology.First of all the analyses were conducted on a highly incomplete database. As the authors state on their p. 48, the analysed database currently includes over 2600 samples. Many of them, however, had already been collated in Gob’s Atlas of 14C dates (1990). Although the authors have included new dates, we do not believe that this has been done very systematically. For the Belgian territory, for example, virtually all the dates used in the article were those published by Gob – 16 Mesolithic dates and 30 Neolithic dates. The authors justify this by referring to the bad state of publication and public availability of radiocarbon dates in Europe. This certainly does not hold for the Belgian territory. In the last decade over a hundred new Mesolithic and Neolithic dates have been produced, the majority published in journals available world-wide such as Radiocarbon (Van Strydonck et al. 1995; 2001a), Antiquity (Crombé et al. 2002), Archaeometry (Cauwe et al. 2002) proceedings of the international congresses such as 14C and archaeology (Crombé et al. 1999) and The Mesolithic in Europe (Crombé 1999), and the IRPA- datelists (Van Strydonck et al. 2001b; Van Strydonck et al. 2002). The authors assert that these “shortcomings” to the database probably do not affect their conclusions. This is a rash and provocative statement, which minimises all recent progress in absolute dating of the European Mesolithic and Neolithic. We believe that for the Belgian situation a hundred new dates can make a difference. In recent years, for example, these new dates have allowed a thorough revision of Mesolithic chronology (Crombé 1999; Van Strydonck et al. 2001a) and a refinement of the (early) Neolithic chronology (Jadin & Cahen 2003). This will certainly also be the case for the other study-areas in Europe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document