Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 May 2014
Coarse ‘dwelling-place’ pottery is usually of little interest in the study of Neolithic cultures, for which reason it rarely receives the same attention as forms of ware that is of better workmanship, technically and artistically. Still, within the category ‘coarse pottery’ there may be details of no little significance to comparative archaeology. As an example, I propose in the following to discuss briefly a single type of vessel within European Corded-Ware or Battle-Axe cultures, starting out from some finds in Denmark where the type has not previously attracted attention.
A few years ago an examination was made of a Stone Age settlement at Selbjerg, on the islet of Øland in the Limfiord, Northern Jutland; traces were observed of several Neolithic settlements in conjunction with a regular culture deposit and shell mound. One important discovery was pottery of the South Scandinavian Pitted-Ware Culture. Higher up in the deposit were fragments of pottery which were determinable as of Late Single Grave Culture. At least eight vessels were represented, including a beaker of flower-pot type and one or two large, coarse vessels. It has been possible to reconstruct the form of the best preserved specimen (fig. 1). It had measured about 35 cm. in height and presumably had a flat base (some bottom sherds may perhaps be parts of this vessel, but they have been omitted from the drawing). As the sole form of decoration it has an applied clay moulding just below the rim. Both rim and moulding are formed into waves by finger pressure.
In better condition is a vessel (pl. III, a) recently excavated at Ravnholt, in the parish of Gesten, South Jutland. The upper part could be pieced together completely and the bottom was in such a state of preservation that it could be reconstructed; only a few sherds of the intermediate wall could not be fitted in. In all probability the vessel was about 40 cm. in height with a diameter of 35 cm. across the rim. It is relatively thin walled, the material is coarse and gravelly; both inside and out the surface presents a curious striation, as if the wet clay prior to kilning had been smoothed off with a whisk of straw or something else that was rough. On its outer side the edge of the rim is drawn out into small waves (pl. III, c), and about 2 cm. below it is a wavy moulding formed by finger pressure from one side. Otherwise the vessel is quite plain.
page 65 note 1 Marseen, O., ‘Fangstfolk paa Selbjerg’, Kuml, 1953, p. 102 ff.Google ScholarBecker, C. J., ‘Die mittel-neolithischen Kulturen in Südskandinavien’, Acta Arch., XXV, 1954, p. 85Google Scholar.
page 65 note 2 Acta Arch., XXV, p. 87, fig. 17Google Scholar.
page 65 note 3 Kuml, 1953, p. 115, fig. 14, 1 and fig. 15, 1–3, 6Google Scholar.
page 65 note 4 l.c., fig. 14, 1. Type: Glob, P. V., Aarbøger, 1944, p. 112, P. 1Google Scholar.
page 65 note 5 Nat. Mus. Copenhagen No. 713/53. Found by Mr Leo Novrup, schoolmaster at Stavshede.
page 67 note 1 Becker, C. J., Aarbøger, 1947, pl. XXVIIIGoogle Scholar = Glob, P. V., Danske Oldsager, 11, 1952, 184Google Scholar.
page 67 note 2 Winther, J., Lindø 1, 1926, fig. 117Google Scholar; Troldebjerg, I, 1935, fig. 32Google Scholar; Blandebjerg, 1943, fig. 23, a: Mathiassen, Therkel, ‘Bundsø’, Aarbøger, 1939, p. 36, fig. 21, 9Google Scholar; Acta Arch., XV, 1944, p. 87, fig. 7, 3Google Scholar (Trelleborg). Becker, C. J., Aarbøger, 1954, p. 180, fig. 36 (Kornerup)Google Scholar. Of technically the same type are some sherds of so-called Grooved Ware pottery from the submerged surface of the Essex Coast, at Clacton (Piggott, Stuart, Proc. Prehist. Soc., 1936, p. 190, fig. 4, 2Google Scholar). The similarity between the British and Scandinavian sherds is probably accidental.
page 67 note 3 Schnittger, B. and Rydh, Hanna, Grottan Stora Förvar, 1940, p. 67 ff.Google Scholar, pls. LVII–LIX: Magnusson, Märta, ‘Wulstkeramik in skandinavischen Funden aus dem Spätneolithikum,’ Medd. från Lunds Univ. Hist. Mus., 1949, p. 269 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 1–2. Danske Oldsager, II, 572Google Scholar.
page 67 note 4 Mathiassen, Therkel, ‘Havnelev-Strandegaard’, Aarbøger, 1940, p. 11Google Scholar: Troels-Smith, J.. Aarbøger, 1953, p. 39, fig. 25, 5Google Scholar: Becker, C. J., Aarbøger, 1954, p. 131, figs. 4–5Google Scholar (Store Valby).
page 67 note 5 Grimm, P., Jahresschrift d. Sächs.-Thür. Länder, XXIX, 1938, pl. VIIGoogle Scholar: Jazdzewski, K., ‘Kultura puharów lejkowatych’, Bibl. Preh., II, 1936, figs, 10, 31, 858, 898Google Scholar: Stocky, A., La Bohême Préhistorique, 1, 1929Google Scholar, pl. LXXXVII, 10, XCVIII, 8–13: Benesch, F., Die Festung Hutberg, 1941, fig. 15, pl. XVI, 3 ff.Google Scholar
page 67 note 6 e.g. Buttler, W., Handbuch der Urgeschichte Deutschlands, 11, 1938, fig. 31, pl. 18, 4Google Scholar: Reinerth, H., Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit in Süddeutschland, 1923, pl. VIII, 1Google Scholar; V, 3, 6; VI, 1: Tackenberg, K., Die Beusterburg, 1951, p. 8 and pl. 1, 2Google Scholar.
page 67 note 7 Gatermann, H., Die Becherkulturen in der Rheinprovinz, 1943, fig. 19Google Scholar. Zurek, J., Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses, IV, 1953, pl. IIIGoogle Scholar.
page 68 note 1 Aarbøger, 1944, p. 270, Type F. 1Google Scholar.
page 68 note 2 Forhistorisk Museum, Aarhus 3535. Excavation 1894, by Mr H. Jensen, schoolmaster at Hammer. Report in Forhistorisk Museum.
page 68 note 3 Glob Type E 2 = Danske Oldsager, II, 347Google Scholar.
page 68 note 4 Forhistorisk Museum, Aarhus, 3685. Excavation 1895 as No. 3535.
page 68 note 5 See maps Aarbøger, 1944, figs. 113 (first period) and 115–16.
page 69 note 1 Holwerda, J. H., Prähistorische Zeitschrift, V, 1913, p. 444, fig. 9, 31Google Scholar: van Giffen, A. E., De Hunebedden in Nederland, 1925/1928, pl. 154, A 80Google Scholar = Proc. Prehist. Soc. for 1936, p. 200, fig. 10Google Scholar: Jacob-Friesen, K. H., Die ‘Sieben Steinhäuser’ im Kreise Fallingbostel, 1925, fig. 11, bGoogle Scholar. Wegewitz, W., Die Gräber der Stein- und Bronzezeit im Gebiet der Niederelbe, 1949, p. 18, fig. 14Google Scholar.
page 69 note 2 van Giffen, A. E., De Hunebedden in Nederland, text vol. II, p. 302, fig. 15, 1, 4Google Scholar: Asmus, W. D., Nach. aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte, 17, 1948, p. 32, fig. 23, a–bGoogle Scholar: Struwe, K., Die Einzelgrabkultur in Schleswig-Holstein. Offa-Bücher N.F. 11, 1955, pl. 16, 18 (Grave No. 939)Google Scholar.
page 69 note 3 Beltz, , Vorgeschichtliche Altertümer Meckl.-Schwerin, 1910, pl. 18, 163 (Ostorf)Google Scholar: Schwabedissen, H., ‘Aufdeckung eines Wohnplatzes der Großsteingräberkultur im Heidmoor, Berlin, Kr. Segeberg’, Nachrichtenblatt f. Deutsche Vorzeit, 16, 1940, pl. 15, 2Google Scholar and Germania, XXXI, 1953, p. 231Google Scholar: Reinerth, H., ‘Ein Dorf der Großsteingräberleute’, Germanen-Erbe 8, 1939, 232, fig. 9Google Scholar: Wegewitz, W., Die Gräber der Stein- und Bronzezeit, 1949, p. 21, fig. 18Google Scholar: Dehnke, R., Die Tiefstichtonware der Jungsteinzeit in Osthannover, 1940, p. 76, pl. VII, 10Google Scholar. = Germania 32, 1954, p. 273, fig. 1, 1Google Scholar: Erdniss, J., ‘Steinzeitliche Siedlungskeramik von der Mittelweser’, Mannus, 33, 1941, p. 541, fig. 1, cGoogle Scholar.
page 69 note 4 Wegewitz, W., Gräber der Stein- und Bronzezeit, p. 20Google Scholar: Stegen, K., Germania, 32, 1954, p. 281Google Scholar.
page 69 note 5 Reinerth, H., Germanen-Erbe, 8, 1939, p. 232Google Scholar: Erdniss, J., Mannus, 33, 1941, p. 542Google Scholar: Kilian, L., Haffküstenkultur und Ursprung der Balten, 1955, p. 121Google Scholar.
page 69 note 6 e.g. the important settlements at Klein-Bünstorf, Kr. Uelzen (Dehnke, , Tiefstichtonware, p. 76, No. 47Google Scholar), and Hunte, 1, Lake Dümmer (Reinerth, , Germanen-Erbe, 8, 1939Google Scholar: ‘zahlreiche schnurverzierte Becher und sogar ein Zonenbecher’ (reprint, p. 13)).
page 69 note 7 Becker, C. J., ‘Ørnekul paa Nekselø’, Aarbøger, 1952, p. 60 ff.Google Scholar
page 69 note 8 e.g. Ischer, Th., Anz. f. Schweiz. Altertumsk, N.F. 21, 1919, fig. 18, 33Google Scholar (Burgäschi), fig. 19, 24–25 (Egolzwill), fig. 21, 23 (Vinelz) = Ebert, , Reallexikon, XI, pls. 122–24Google Scholar. Mortillet, , Músie Préhistorique, 1881, pl. LVI, fig. 535 (Robenhausen)Google Scholar: Vouga, P., Anz. f. Schweiz. Altertumsk., 1929, pl. XVII, 73Google Scholar (Auvevnier) = Antiquity, 11, 1928, p. 416Google Scholar: Reinerth, H., Die jüngere Steinzeit der Schweiz, 1926, fig. 52, 5Google Scholar. Vogt, E., Congr. Intern. Préhist. Zurich, 1950 (1953), pl. 3, 3Google Scholar. Hundt, H. J., ‘Neue neolithische Funde aus dem Straubinger Gebiet’, Germania, 30, 1952, p. 253, fig. 4, 8Google Scholar: Kimmig, W., ‘Ein schnurkeramischer Fund von Leiselheim’, Badisclie Fundberichte, 18, 1948/1950, P. 63, fig. 8Google Scholar.
page 69 note 9 Vogt, E., ‘Zum schweizerischen Neolithikum’, Germania, 18, 1934, pl. 12, 10Google Scholar.
page 69 note 10 Keller-Tarnuzzer, K., Jahresschr. Schweiz. Gesell. f. Urgeschichte, 1936, p. 16 ff.Google Scholar
page 69 note 11 Birkner, F., ‘Schnurkeramische Funde in der Fränkischen Schweiz’, Bayrische Vorgeschichtsblätter, 12, 1934, p. 68 ff.Google Scholar, pl. XI, I, 7.
page 69 note 12 Gaerte, W., Die steinzeitliche Keramik Ostpreussens, 1927, figs. 118–20, 250Google Scholar: Ehrlich, B., ‘Succase’, Elbinger Jahrbuch, 12/13, 1936, pl. XX, 1, n-oGoogle Scholar.
page 70 note 1 Zurek, J., ‘Le village néolitique de Rzucewo.’ Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses, IV, 1953, pls. II, III, XGoogle Scholar. L. Kilian, Haffküstenkultur, 1955, pls. XII, XXIII, XXIV, XXVII.
page 70 note 2 Ebert, , Reallexikon, X, pl. 65 dGoogle Scholar.
page 70 note 3 Butschkow, H., ‘Ein neuer schnurkeramischer Siedlungsfund von Gr. Lehna, Kr. Merseburg’, Nachrichtenbl. f. Deutsche Vorzeit, X, 1934, 109Google Scholar. Illustrated: Grimm, P., Mannus, 1940, p. 400Google Scholar.
page 70 note 4 Grimm, P., JSTL., 1938, p. 96, pl. VII, 2Google Scholar.
page 70 note 5 Umbreit, C., Mannus-Bibl., 56, 1937, pl. 23, hGoogle Scholar.
page 70 note 6 Petersen, Ernst, ‘Ein eigenartiger jungsteinzeitlicher Gefässrest aus Opperau, Kr. Breslau’, Altschlesien, IV, 1932, p. 66 ff.Google Scholar
page 70 note 7 Only coarse pottery of other types are known: applied bands with ‘ordinary’ finger-impressions (Forssander, , Die schwedische Bootaxtkultur, 1933, fig. 46Google Scholar), and straight bands with stabs on each side (Oldeberg, Studien über die schwedische Bootaxtkultur, 1953, p. 173 and fig. 221, 4Google Scholar).
page 70 note 8 Europaeus, A., Finska Fornminnesför. Tidskrift, XXXII, 1, 1922, p. 134 and pl. IX, 16Google Scholar.
page 70 note 9 Nationalmuseum, Helsingfors 9214: 75.
page 71 note 1 Becker, C. J., Acta Arch., 1954, pp. 71, 115Google Scholar.
