Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-n7qbj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T07:53:40.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Figurative Representations in the North European Neolithic—Are They There?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2024

Rune Iversen
Affiliation:
The Saxo Institute, Archaeology Section University of Copenhagen Karen Blixens Plads 8 2300 Copenhagen S Denmark Email: runeiversen@hum.ku.dk
Valeska Becker
Affiliation:
The Saxo Institute, Archaeology Section University of Copenhagen Karen Blixens Plads 8 2300 Copenhagen S Denmark Email: valeska.becker@hum.ku.dk
Rebecca Bristow
Affiliation:
The Saxo Institute, Archaeology Section University of Copenhagen Karen Blixens Plads 8 2300 Copenhagen S Denmark Email: rb@hum.ku.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a comprehensive survey of figurative finds from Neolithic northern Europe. The survey shows that the immediate absence of figurative representation in the region is real and that the almost complete lack of figuration stands out from the previous Mesolithic and the contemporary northern and northeastern European Neolithic hunter-gatherer groups. Furthermore, the absence of figurative representations contrasts strongly with the thousands of clay figurines that characterize the southeastern European and Anatolian Neolithic. The survey provides a well-documented basis for discussing the significant differences between a figurative southeastern European Neolithic and an imageless northwestern European Neolithic. We suggest that the absence of figurative representations indicates that severe socio-cultural and religious/ideological changes took place within the Neolithic communities as agriculture spread from southeastern Europe via central Europe to northern and western Europe.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0), which permits re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

Introduction

Clay figurines are characteristic of the southeast European Neolithic, where they occur in thousands. In southeastern Europe and southwest Asia/Anatolia, figurines seem closely linked to the rise and spread of early agricultural communities from the tenth millennium bce onwards, and they continue in use to a varying degree throughout the Neolithic and the succeeding Chalcolithic, c. 5000–3000 bce (Bánffy Reference Bánffy and Insoll2017; Bilgi Reference Bilgi2014; S. Hansen Reference Hansen2007; Monah Reference Monah2016). Compared to the rich figurative material characterizing southeastern Europe, the north European Neolithic immediately appears empty (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Distribution and quantity of Neolithic/early agrarian figurines related to the main cultural complexes mentioned in the text, c. 6200–3300 bce (cf. Table 1). Pitted Ware figurines not included. (Base map: ESRI 2023, drawn by Rebecca Bristow.)

Table 1. Chronological chart showing the main Neolithic/early agrarian cultural complexes mentioned in the text (c. 6200–3300 bce) with estimated number of figurative representations.

As Figure 1 shows, this decrease is stepwise, with both subtle and distinct drops. A first decline can be identified with the early agricultural western LBK communities, which, on first glance, feature more figurative representations than their eastern predecessor Starčevo. However, the western LBK was spread out over a vastly larger area, indicating that the overall use of figurative representations declined. A more drastic drop shows at the end of the LBK in the post-LBK cultures in the west (Table 1). When farming reached northern Europe, figuration has basically disappeared. Still, some areas, such as that of the southeast/central European Lengyel culture, saw an increased interest in figurines (Reference Becker, Fiutak, Bristow and IversenV. Becker et al. in press), as did the Baden complex of the later fourth millennium bce. This shows that we are not talking about a simple ‘drop-off’ curve, but a much more complex pattern where the lack of figuration cannot be explained away as a function of cultural transmission over time and space. Instead, our point of departure is that there is a correlation between the presence of figurines and settlement/population density. We hypothesize that figurines were ritually embedded, but also that they served a communicative function in the integration of complex and socially ‘tense’ societies occupying densely settled regions and sites, including tells, as has been proposed for Thessaly, Greece, with reference to ethnographic observations (Perlès Reference Perlès2001, 260–64; see also Bailey Reference Bailey2005, 177–8). Hence, we suggest that the figurines themselves and the supposed rituals they were part of gradually lost meaning, finally becoming obsolete, in fact even taboo, as agriculture expanded northwards and Neolithic life became more dispersed. However, the first and fundamental question we will have to address is if the apparent absence of figurative representations is real, or if we are missing something.

The immediate absence of figurines in some areas, such as Neolithic northern and northwestern Europe, has of course been noted previously (Scarre Reference Scarre, Renfrew and Morley2007; Reference Scarre and Insoll2017; J. Thomas Reference Thomas2005). Whereas extensive catalogues of Neolithic figurines have been published from central and southeast Europe (V. Becker Reference Becker2011; S. Hansen Reference Hansen2007; Monah Reference Monah2016), no joint data-based reviews of the north European imagery have been presented and no systematic attempts have hitherto been made to understand this absence in an interregional comparative perspective. The first step in doing so is to establish a firm overview of the north European material and discuss its representativity within the archaeological record. Hence, the aim of this article is to either verify or reject the prevalent notion of the imageless north European Neolithic. We will do this by presenting a comprehensive survey and a critical review of the material and contexts at hand based on a great variety of published sources, and on this basis set out directions for succeeding qualified discussions on the use of figuration among northern Europe's first farmers.

Southern Scandinavia constitutes the core area of our survey, defined here as present-day Denmark and southernmost Sweden. Chronologically, we focus on the Neolithic within this region, c. 4000–1700 bce. However, in order to complement and contextualize the survey, we include finds and sites from a wider north and central European area and a resulting wider chronological range. For comparison, we primarily include references to Neolithic and Beaker groups on the north European plain and the British Isles in addition, but more peripheral, to the Neolithic hunter-gatherer populations living in central eastern Sweden and in the eastern Baltic region.

In this article, we employ a broad approach to figuration as we not only look for clay figurines but for all kinds of figurative representation on various materials. Whereas figurines in general terms can be defined as ‘small, self-contained sculptures with no obvious functional attributes’ (Lesure Reference Lesure2011, 73), we include all recognizable and naturalistic images of objects and features as well as zoomorphic and anthropomorphic representations in the form of plastic objects, sketches, incisions or sculpted attachments on e.g. pottery vessels. We apply this broad-spectrum approach in order to recognize that figuration might have taken other forms in northern Europe than the common use of clay figurines seen in southeastern Europe.

Setting the scene: figurative representations before the Neolithic

The creation of images, sculptures and paintings is rooted in a set of cognitive and motoric abilities generally ascribed among the things that set the human species apart from other animals. The creation of two- and three-dimensional figurative representations refers to abstract thinking and creativity and forms the basic concepts of art. These characteristics were fully unfolded around 40,000–35,000 years ago with the Upper Palaeolithic cave paintings centred in the non-glaciated areas of western and central Europe, in particular southwest France and northwest Spain (Bahn & Vertut Reference Bahn and Vertut1988; Colman Reference Colman2020; Leroi-Gourhan Reference Leroi-Gourhan1968; Lewis-Williams Reference Lewis-Williams2002). From this time onwards, the archaeological record shows a wide range of images and figurative depictions. Compared to the cave paintings, figurines are more widespread, covering a vast area of western, central and eastern Europe and stretching into Siberia. Even though the renowned buxom so-called ‘Venus figurines’ seem to concentrate in the period of the last glacial maximum, c. 25,000–15,000 bp, figurative representations are found in all major stages of the Upper Palaeolithic sequence from c. 40,000–11,500 years ago and come in varying degrees of schematization, including zoomorphic and anthropomorphic depictions in addition to humanoid combinations thereof, made from stone, bone, ivory, antler and even clay (Farbstein Reference Farbstein and Insoll2017; Gamble Reference Gamble1986; Lesure Reference Lesure2011; Pettitt Reference Pettitt and Insoll2017).

At the beginning of the Mesolithic, increasing temperatures and the resulting decreasing ice sheet had started to turn northern Europe into a forested landscape characteristic of the Pre-Boreal, Boreal and Atlantic climatic intervals. In southern Scandinavia, the Mesolithic dates from c. 9000–4000 bce and includes the Maglemose (c. 9000–6400 bce), Kongemose (c. 6400–5400 bce) and Ertebølle (c. 5400–4000 bce) periods (Jensen Reference Jensen2013, 50–126).

The south Scandinavian Mesolithic art is generally characterized by abstract geometric patterns but has also revealed a limited but conspicuous collection of figurative representations including incisions on bone, antler and amber (Fig. 2). Among these is the famous aurochs bone hammer from Ryemarksgård depicting five human beings (Fig. 3A). Two similar geometric-styled human figures are incised on an antler stick from Veksø Mose in northeastern Zealand whereas another antler stick recorded at Åmosen, western Zealand, depicts a deer-like animal and a human being, all dated to the Maglemose period (Jensen Reference Jensen2013, 70–73; Mathiassen Reference Mathiassen1941). Schematic human representations also appear on amber pendants and bone artefacts such as flint-edged spears and bone daggers (Müller Reference Müller1896, 339–41, figs 18–20; Reference Müller1918, 1–11; Toft & Petersen Reference Toft and Petersen2013) (Fig. 3B). Generally, figurative representations become rare in the later part of the south Scandinavian Mesolithic, but incisions depicting deer and humans are known from e.g. a Kongemose-period antler axe from Ystad, southern Sweden, and from Jordløse Mose, western Zealand. On another antler axe found in Bodal mose, western Zealand, we see a stylized ‘dancing’ human figure, whereas an amber pendant from the settlement at Ringkloster, eastern Jutland, shows a schematic anthropomorphic figure, both dating to the Ertebølle period (Jensen Reference Jensen2013, 82–4, 107–12; Liversage Reference Liversage1967).

Figure 2. South Scandinavian Mesolithic and Neolithic sites mentioned in the text. (Base map: ESRI 2023, drawn by Rebecca Bristow.) (1) Albæk I; (2) Åloppe; (3) Alvastra; (4) Åmosen/Bodal Mose; (5) Egemarke; (6) Engesvang Mose; (7) Hopfenbach; (8) Hov; (9) Jordløse Mose; (10) Kainsbakke; (11) Karlsfält; (12) Nymölla III; (13) Resen; (14) Ringkloster; (15) Ryemarksgård; (16) Siretorp; (17) Sørbylille II; (18 Stävie; (19) Stengade; (20) Storegården; (21) Svinø; (22) Vasagård; (23) Veksø Mose; (24) Ystad.

Figure 3. (A) Aurochs bone hammer, Ryemarksgård; (B) Amber animals and pendants. Top left: Ornamented bear figurine, Resen. Top right: Waterfowl figurine, Engesvang Mose. Bottom left: Ornamented elk head, Egemarke. Bottom right: Pendant with stylized human figures, Sindalgård, Åmosen (Maglemose period). (Photographs: Lennart Larsen, National Museum of Denmark (Licens: CC-BY-SA).)

In addition to incisions come a number of naturalistic amber figures in the form of animals such as bear, elk and waterfowl (Fig. 3B). Based on comparative stylistic analyses, they presumably date to the late Palaeolithic Allerød interstadial (c. 11,800–10,600 bce) (Petersen Reference Petersen2013; Płonka Reference Płonka2003, 142–5). A schematic anthropomorphic representation made from a 3.5 m long wooden stick with an indication of a head at one end was recovered from Hopfenbach in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, and dates to the Mesolithic, mid fifth millennium bce (Rust Reference Rust1958, 124–9, 141–5, figs 54–5). Furthermore, a wide range of figurative representations depicting both humans and animals are known from Europe in general, including incisions on various material, figurines and rock art depicting naturalistic big game animals (Clark Reference Clark1936, 162–89; Fuglestvedt Reference Fuglestvedt, Goldhahn, Fuglestvedt and Jones2010; Kozłowski Reference Kozłowski2009, 500–514; Płonka Reference Płonka2003).

As is evident from the short review above, figurative representations are present in the Mesolithic. However, the starkest contrast appears when the situation in Neolithic northern Europe is compared with that of southeastern Europe (see Figure 1). In the following section, we will elucidate the extent of this contrast by presenting the evidence from southern Scandinavia.

Figurative representations in the south Scandinavian and wider northwestern European Neolithic

When it comes to Neolithic figurines, these are almost completely absent in southern Scandinavia. However, if we look at incisions and sculpted attachments on pottery vessels, some figurative elements do occur. Such features seem to make a brief appearance towards the end of the Funnel Beaker period, around 3000 bce, but then the phenomenon seemingly dies out. From the succeeding Single Grave culture (c. 2850–2250 bce), no obvious figurative representations have been recorded from graves, settlements, or depositions except for two plastic specimens in the form of squared and poorly fired clay lumps. These are hard to interpret, but suggestions include possible miniature bread and house models (see Seeberg Reference Seeberg1969, 129, figs 14–15; Vellev Reference Vellev1972, 85, fig. 6). A similar lack of figurative representations applies for the succeeding Late Neolithic, c. 2350–1700 bce (Iversen Reference Iversen, Kadrow and Müller2019, 148–53), but see P.V. Glob (Reference Glob1965) for a highly speculative interpretation of the wedge-shaped slate pendants as goddesses. Hence, the review below will focus on the first part of the south Scandinavian Neolithic from around 4000 until the end of the Funnel Beaker period (c. 2800/2600 bce).

The Stengade figurines

The only site that has revealed certain figurines from the Danish Neolithic is Stengade situated on the island of Langeland (Figs 1 and 2) dated to the Early Neolithic (c. 4000–3300 bce). Excavations carried out between 1968 and 1971 revealed two east–west-oriented features referred to as ‘House I’ and ‘House II’, located only 45 m apart on a sandy plateau. The two features measure 36 m and 33 m in length respectively; they were c. 5 m wide and made up of stone pavements situated in dark cultural layers containing pottery, flint and stone tools, flint debris, etc. In addition, ‘House I’ revealed an inhumation burial of a child (Skaarup Reference Skaarup1975). The excavator considered the two features as houses in accordance with the interpretation at that time of two similar features recorded at Barkær on Djursland, eastern Jutland (Glob Reference Glob1949). However, these ‘houses’ must be considered the remains of non-megalithic long barrows constructed on an earlier settlement site, which provided material for the barrows (T. Madsen Reference Madsen1979, 308).

In addition to c. 9000 pottery sherds and c. 1000 flint tools, etc., the culture layer related to ‘House I’ at Stengade contained nine small plastic objects made of burned clay measuring only a few centimetres. Six of these plastic objects can be identified as fragments of small (up to 3 cm) crudely made animal figurines (Fig. 4). ‘House II’ contained a comparable number of artefacts, including 11 plastic objects measuring between 2 and 4.8 cm, all of which are made of burned clay. Six of these can be identified as fragmented figurines: one is a possible horn, four pieces are likely to represent animals (cattle? and a bird?) and one the head of an anthropomorphic figure made of a hollow lump of clay (Fig. 5). The remaining plastic objects from the two features at Stengade are mainly pieces of ‘sausage-shaped’ clay coils or slightly cone-shaped lumps (Skaarup Reference Skaarup1975, 35–7, 89–90, 157).

Figure 4. A selection of animal figurines (2 and 3) including legs or horns (1) from Stengade ‘House I’. (After Skaarup Reference Skaarup1975, fig. 36.)

Figure 5. Four animal figurines (1–4) and an anthropomorphic head (5) from Stengade ‘House II’. (After Skaarup Reference Skaarup1975, fig. 68.)

The simple and stylistic nature of the Stengade figurines gives scope for various interpretations of what these plastic objects actually depict. One could even question if they are animal and human representations at all, given their simple design and the uniqueness of such finds in a south Scandinavian context. However, similar and equally crude figurines are well known from the northeast European Neolithic hunter-gatherers, but parallels can also be found in the contemporary central European Baden culture and the slightly older Lengyel culture (Furholt Reference Furholt2009, 124–7; Nunez Reference Nunez1986; Wyszomirska Reference Wyszomirska1984; Zalai-Gaál Reference Zalai-Gaál1998).

Plastic objects and sculptured attachments

Plastic objects without any immediate recognizable function like those recorded on Stengade are known from a range of Neolithic sites (Andersen Reference Andersen1999, 268–9, figs 5.93:5–6, 5.94; Winther Reference Winther1926, 56, figs 127–9; Reference Winther1928, 28, 31, 47; Reference Winther1938, 12, fig. 16:6). Whereas various lumps and coils of clay probably represent raw material leftovers from pottery production, some fired clay cylinders might have been used for stacking up pots (Madsen & Fiedel Reference Madsen and Fiedel1988, 85–6, fig. 7:J).

The Early Neolithic site Nymölla III in northeastern Scania, southern Sweden, has revealed three cylindrical, pointed and tap-shaped fragments of plastic clay objects less than 3 cm in length, one with line ornaments. As opposed to the above-mentioned plastic objects, the Nymölla pieces have been interpreted as possible parts of figurines. The pieces probably belong to the early Funnel Beaker culture, even though earlier and later phases are present at the site (Wyszomirska Reference Wyszomirska1988, 120, figs 68:d, 69:e–g). A few equivalent pieces of possible zoomorphic figures have been recorded at a Funnel Beaker/Pitted Ware causewayed enclosure at Stävie, Scania (Larsson Reference Larsson1982, 84, fig. 17), and at the Pitted Ware culture site Kainsbakke, east Jutland, a c. 5 cm long ornamented conical clay fragment with slightly flattened sides and punctate decoration was found in a large ritual pit (A47) dated c. 2800 bce (Fig. 6). The piece has been interpreted as the lowermost tapered end of an idol or other plastic object with reference to northeastern European Neolithic hunter-gatherer groups (Wincentz Reference Wincentz and Klassen2020, 85, fig. 45; for comparison see Nunez Reference Nunez1986, 20, fig. 3).

Figure 6. Potential figurine fragment from Kainsbakke, pit A47. (After Wincentz Reference Wincentz and Klassen2020, fig. 45. Drawing: Elsebet Morville.)

The south Swedish Pitted Ware site of Siretorp in Blekinge, Sweden, has revealed several fragments of crude figurative representations not unlike those recovered at Stengade, including an anthropomorphic face, a piece of an animal figurine and a possible arm fragment. In addition, two pieces of clay miniature double-edged battles axes were found at Siretorp (Bagge & Kjellmark Reference Bagge and Kjellmark1939, 97–100, figs 42–43, pl. 28) and at the Funnel Beaker site of Karlsfält in Scania (Larsson Reference Larsson1985, 26, fig. 20:8). A somewhat similar piece is known from the east Swedish Pitted Ware site of Åloppe in Uppland, which also holds animal figurines (Almgren Reference Almgren1906, 111–12, figs 42-43). Furthermore, a miniature double-edged battle axe made of claystone was recovered during excavation of a megalithic tomb on southwest Funen, Denmark, dated to around 3000 bce (Andersen Reference Andersen1997) and amber beads of similar shape are not uncommon in megalithic tombs and hoards (Ebbesen Reference Ebbesen1995; Reference Ebbesen2011, 327–9).

An indisputable figurative representation was recovered from a finds-rich Funnel Beaker culture settlement layer at Albæk I on Djursland, dating between c. 3300 and 3000 bce. The find consists of a small clay spoon with a handle terminating in a presumed cattle (or horse?) head with zigzag lines along the neck (Fig. 7). This distinctive figurative sculptured attachment is unique in a Danish and south Scandinavian context (Boas Reference Boas, Sparrevohn, Kastholm and Nielsen2019, 241, fig. 7) and immediate parallels are hard to find, but a somewhat similar clay spoon with an animal-shaped handle has been recorded at the eponymous Hungarian Lengyel site (Zalai-Gaál Reference Zalai-Gaál1998, 61, fig. 19:2).

Figure 7. Clay spoon with animal head from Albæk I. (After Boas Reference Boas, Sparrevohn, Kastholm and Nielsen2019, fig. 7. Photograph: Museum Østjylland.)

A limited collection of plastic objects has been recorded in the British Isles including some stone phalli (Teather Reference Teather, Larsson and Pearson2007) and a good handful of crude figurines from Orkney dating to the late fourth–early third millennium bce. These include four stone figurines from Links of Noltland, Westray, one of which is known as the ‘Orkney Venus’ or the ‘Westray Wifie’, in addition to a ceramic figurine named ‘the headless husband’ (Jones & Díaz-Guardamino Reference Jones, Díaz-Guardamino, Jones and Díaz-Guardamino2019; Moore & Wilson Reference Moore and Wilson2011; Reference Moore and Wilson2013). Another clay figurine, the ‘Brodgar boy’, comes from the Ness of Brodgar and is made from a clay sausage with a series of pinched grooves and two dotted eye impressions. From Skara Brae comes a whalebone figurine nicknamed the ‘Skara Brae Buddo’ and from Pool a sculptured anthropomorphic stone dated to the mid third millennium bce (Jones & Díaz-Guardamino Reference Jones, Díaz-Guardamino, Jones and Díaz-Guardamino2019; A. Thomas Reference Thomas2016).

Face pots and sun-eyes

Some of the most elaborately decorated and aesthetically finest pottery from northern Europe's prehistory dates to the early Middle Neolithic Funnel Beaker period, i.e. the period c. 3300–3000 bce. It is characterized by complex and strictly executed geometric compositions showing great artistic skills, and only in extremely rare cases are recognizable features indicated. Among these are some stylized ‘rayed sun eyes’ accompanied with eyebrows, which appear on a certain group of Middle Neolithic ‘face pots’ (Fig. 8). The Funnel Beaker face pots seem to be a delimited phenomenon as regards chronological range, geographical distribution and archaeological context. Stylistically, they belong to the Bundsø-Lindø pottery style dated to around 3000 bce and are restricted to eastern Denmark (Zealand and adjacent islands) even though there are some finds from Funen and northern Germany, particularly Mecklenburg–West Pomerania, in addition to a couple of very stylized examples from eastern Holstein (cf. Brozio Reference Brozio2016, pls 174–175, 213). In 1979, Klaus Ebbesen counted 110 face pots, which in all cases with available find information derive from megalithic tombs (Ebbesen Reference Ebbesen1979). From the Storegården passage grave in Scania, Sweden, a shouldered cup carries two circular motifs placed on either side of the pot handle resembling a face, but without the characteristic eyebrows (Tilley Reference Tilley1996, 273, fig. 6.27). Pottery with circular motifs (eyes?) with or without sun rays has a wider distribution and is also known from the Swedish megalithic tombs (e.g. Bagge & Kaelas Reference Bagge and Kaelas1950, pls XLV, LXVI; F. Hansen Reference Hansen1918, 85–8; Janzon Reference Janzon2009, 79). Sun motifs also occur on e.g. some late Funnel Beaker, early third-millennium bce clay discs with two closely spaced holes, which in themselves can illustrate suns (sun-eyes?) with rays emanating from them (Kaul et al. Reference Kaul, Nielsen and Nielsen2002, fig. 7b).

Figure 8. Face pot from a passage grave at Svinø, southern Zealand, Denmark. Height c. 11 cm. (After S. Müller Reference Müller1918, no. 164.)

The simple but very visual facial representations that appear on the face pots are far from unique in the European Neolithic (Schwarzberg & Becker Reference Schwarzberg and Becker2017). However, close chronological and geographical parallels are hard to find. The resemblance to the early third-millennium bce occulado vases of the Chalcolithic Los Millares culture, Spain, has been pointed at (Ebbesen Reference Ebbesen1979, 108–9; Recchia-Quiniou Reference Recchia-Quiniou, Schwarzberg and Becker2017, 91). However, no direct connections are conceivable. The same applies for the eye motifs, usually formed as large ‘owl-like’ rayed eyes with radial lines and sometimes eyebrows, seen on the Iberian ‘eyed-idols’ (ídolos oculados) and engraved stone plaques, c. 3500–2000 bce, some of which also show rayed eyes, noses, ‘whiskers’ or tattoos (Hurtado Reference Hurtado, Quesda, Ramos, Martos and Martínez2008; Lillios Reference Lillios2008; Scarre Reference Scarre and Insoll2017).

Stylized eyes and eyebrows (though not ‘sun-eyes’) are also known from Britain appearing on two of three chalk cylinders, known as the ‘Folkton drums’, recovered from a burial mound in Folkton, North Yorkshire (Longworth Reference Longworth, Cleal and MacSween1999; J. Thomas Reference Thomas2005). The Folkton drums date to 3000 bce and are contemporary with the Danish face pots. Even though the similarities are striking, the design is simple and direct connections are hard to demonstrate.

Stick figures and engravings

Simple inscribed stick figures on pottery vessels represent a limited but distinct category of figurative representations within the Pitted Ware culture. From Denmark one example is known from Kainsbakke, pit A47, whereas several similar pieces have been recorded from Pitted Ware sites in southern Sweden (Leffler Reference Leffler2015, 41, fig. 2; Lidén Reference Lidén1940, 174, fig. 66:7–8; Wincentz Reference Wincentz and Klassen2020, 75–6, figs 42–43; Wyszomirska Reference Wyszomirska1975) and the eastern Baltic (Rimantienė Reference Rimantienė1992, 132, fig. 16; Reference Rimantienė2005, 113–14, figs 51, 121; Wyszomirska Reference Wyszomirska1984, 54–5). Stick figures on pottery are also known from e.g. the contemporary late fourth–early third-millennium bce Horgen culture in Switzerland (Vogt Reference Vogt1952, 159, fig. 1:1–2), the late fourth-millennium bce Salzmünde culture in central Germany (Friederich Reference Friederich and Meller2013, fig. 3; Schunke Reference Schunke and Meller2013, 254, fig. 8) and from the earlier central European LBK (V. Becker Reference Becker2011, 139–43, plates 101–106) as well as from the following Stroked Pottery and Hinkelstein cultural phenomena (Spatz Reference Spatz2002) and the Italian Neolithic (V. Becker Reference Becker, Schwarzberg and Becker2017).

Contemporary unique engravings are known from two late Funnel Beaker enclosures on southern Bornholm, Rispebjerg and Vasagård, where recent excavations have revealed several hundred early third-millennium bce small engraved shale plaques referred to as ‘sun-stones’ due to the rayed images characterizing many of them (Fig. 9). However, incisions mainly form geometrical patterns in addition to a limited number of supposed plant/crop signatures indicating that stylistic fields or landscapes are depicted (Kaul et al. Reference Kaul, Andresen and Thorsen2016). Only in one case has a possible highly stylized anthropomorphic figure been identified.

Figure 9. Engraved shale plaque with sun motif from Vasagård, Bornholm, Denmark, c. 3 cm diameter. (Photograph: John Lee, the National Museum of Denmark (License: CC-BY-SA).)

In a few rare cases, figurative engravings have been recorded in northwest European Neolithic flint mines, which date back to the earliest Neolithic c. 4200/4000 bce. Flint mine art or ‘chalk art’ usually consists of abstracts markings on flint mine walls or chalk blocks and can be compared to the widespread abstract scratch marks frequently occurring on stones in Neolithic Orkney (Teather & Sørensen Reference Teather and Sørensen2021, 243; A. Thomas Reference Thomas2016). However, at Cissbury in Sussex, UK, and Hov in northen Jutland, Denmark, figurative engravings have been identified showing deer heads, and at Cissbury also a possible fish. Both sites date to the Early Neolithic as radiocarbon dates cluster between 3800 and 3300 bce. The depictions of deer might be related to the common use of red deer antler picks in the mining process (Teather Reference Teather2011; Teather & Sørensen Reference Teather and Sørensen2021).

Wooden figurines?

When discussing the absence of figurines in the north European Neolithic, you will often face the argument that figurines might have been made of wood and therefore not preserved. The same goes for potential figurines made of unfired clay or idols made of twigs, leaves, feathers, textiles or other organic material or any combination thereof. The potential use of organic figurines in the Neolithic is not immediately possible to qualify, but at present only very few examples are known from northwestern Europe, which makes it less probable that such figurines were widely used; at least not to an extent that could match the large number of clay figurines seen in southeastern Europe. If a rich tradition of wooden figurines existed, we would expect to find representatives of these in the extraordinarily good preservation conditions characterizing e.g. the wooden wells of the Linear Pottery culture and the pile dwellings in the circum-alpine region; however, this does not seem to be the case (but see Pétrequin Reference Pétrequin, Rau, Naumann, Theune-Groβkopf and Röber2016, fig. 137, for a zoomorphic wooden handle). Furthermore, if the northern European Neolithic societies had continued a figurative tradition, replacing clay figurines with organic ones, we claim that the recovered number would have been significantly higher than it is due to extensive investigations of bogs and wetland areas, which mostly have revealed wooden images from the late Bronze Age and Iron Age (Capelle Reference Capelle1995; B. Coles Reference Coles1990).

Only two highly questionable Neolithic wooden figures have been recorded in Denmark. They were found together with an early Neolithic funnel bowl in a bog at Sørbylille II in southwestern Zealand. The two potential ‘idols’ were made from carefully debarked and lopped forked trunks measuring 187 and 182 cm in length, respectively (Fig. 10). Both pieces have slightly pointed ends and one is missing the outermost ends of the branches. The two wooden artefacts were found during peat cutting and were placed obliquely with the fork-ends (‘legs’) upwards. They stood close together pressed down through the peat c. 1 m from the vessel (C.J. Becker Reference Becker1947, 38–9; Koch Reference Koch1998, 378–9; Sanden & Capelle Reference Sanden and Capelle2001, 46). As no specific anthropomorphic modifications have been made such as marking of heads, eyes, etc., the only thing that hints at an interpretation as idols is the presence of similar forked branches from the northwestern European late Bronze Age and Iron Age forming a ‘torso’ and two ‘legs’ with or without details such a heads and genitals (Capelle Reference Capelle1995). Seen in a wider chronological northwestern European context, the Sørbylille bifurcate trunks are potential early representatives of such very basic, almost indistinguishable, human representations.

Figure 10. Forked-branch idols (?) and funnel bowl (height: c. 20 cm) from Sørbylille II. Not to scale. (After C.J. Becker Reference Becker1947, fig. 8 & pl. XX:1.)

Even though a variety of wooden constructions dating to the Neolithic have been recorded in bogs and wetland areas from Scandinavia (C.J. Becker Reference Becker1947, 53–8; Browall Reference Browall2011, 377–80; Sørensen Reference Sørensen1998) only one additional find has been interpreted as a figurative representation. It comes from the Alvastra pile dwelling (c. 3350–2750 bce) located in a mire in Östergötland, just east of Lake Vättern, in central southern Sweden. The wooden item in question is made from a 37 cm long wedge-shaped piece of oak with a branch. In one end is a transverse recess, while the other end terminates in a knob. The wooden piece was found wedged into a long log. Even though the wooden piece to some extent resembles an anthropomorphic figure (Janzon Reference Janzon2009, 92–3; Oldeberg Reference Oldeberg1957, 247–8) it seems more likely, however, that we are dealing with a wedge with a ‘steering’ handle formed by the branch. Maybe the recess was supposed to hold a chisel/axe head while one would hit the knob-end with a wooden club to split wooden logs, as originally suggested by the excavator (Browall Reference Browall2011, 353–6). Positive wooden anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures have been recorded further to the east where they are related to various Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures in e.g. Finland and the eastern Baltic (Chairkina Reference Chairkina2014; Rimantienė Reference Rimantienė1992, 111–14, figs 8, 10; Reference Rimantienė2005, 102–5, 328, 354, figs 46, 202, 347).

Anthropomorphic wooden figurines are also known from the British Isles; however, only two date to the Neolithic/Beaker period. One of these is the so-called ‘God dolly’, a 16 cm tall ash-wood figurine displaying both male and female features, which was recovered between two stratigraphically related trackways (Bell A and B) at Somerset Levels in southwest Britain. The figurine is indirectly dated by association with the Bell A track to the period c. 3350–2300 cal. bce. The other wooden figure is also from southern Britain and is known as ‘the Dagenham figurine’. It is made of pine-wood and dates to the Beaker period, c. 2450–2050 cal. bce (Bond Reference Bond, Gheorghiu and Cyphers2010; B. Coles Reference Coles1990; J. Coles Reference Coles1968).

As appears from the review above, there are in fact very few figurative representations within the southern Scandinavian and northwestern European Neolithic. A distinctive, but chronologically and geographically very limited, exception is the face pots occurring around 3000 bce. When figurines and figurative incisions on pottery do occur, they are most often related to the Pitted Ware culture and what we here refer to as the ‘eastern Baltic hunter-gatherer tradition’. Hence, in order to put the lack of figurines in southern Scandinavia into perspective, it is worthwhile to contextualize briefly the Pitted Ware culture and its use of figurines.

Some notes on the Pitted Ware culture and the ‘eastern Baltic hunter-gatherer tradition’

In northeastern Europe, we see a rich figurative tradition not related to the emergence of agricultural communities but expressed in Neolithic hunter, fisher and gatherer groups who made pottery and used polished stone tools but did not rely on farming or husbandry, even though domesticates are known, especially from the Corded Ware period (Pääkkönen et al. Reference Pääkkönen, Holmqvist, Bläuer, Evershed and Asplund2020; Piličiauskas et al. Reference Piličiauskas, Jankauskas, Piličiauskienė, Craig, Charlton and Dupras2017; Rimantienė Reference Rimantienė1992; Vanhanen et al. Reference Vanhanen, Gustafsson, Ranheden, Björck, Kemell and Heyd2019). It is in this context that we should see the emergence of the Scandinavian Pitted Ware culture.

The Neolithic expansion reached large parts of northwestern Europe around 4000 bce, including northernmost Germany, Scandinavia and the British Isles. However, in Scandinavia the expansion of agriculture and Neolithic life only included around a third of the Scandinavian peninsula, roughly extending to the 60th parallel north and with varying impact in the different regions (Cummings et al. Reference Cummings, Hofmann, Bjørnevad-Ahlqvist and Iversen2022; Reference Iversen, Solheim, Hedeager, Kristiansen and PrescottIversen & Solheim in press; Nyland et al. Reference Nyland, Hofmann and Iversen2023). While Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker communities impacted parts of the Scandinavian peninsula including southern Norway, western and eastern Sweden, the Middle Neolithic (from c. 3300 bce) was characterized by an economic ‘de-Neolithization’ process materialized in the Pitted Ware culture (Iversen Reference Iversen, Larsson and Debert2013).

The Pitted Ware culture is a widespread and rather heterogeneous phenomenon occupying the later Scandinavian Neolithic, c. 3400-2200 bce. It is distributed from the Åland Islands to the northeast and extends westwards to southwestern Norway. To the south, Pitted Ware sites are found in northeastern Denmark and in Scania. Large sites with good preservation, including inhumation burials, are primarily known from eastern central Sweden and the Baltic Sea islands Gotland and Öland. Isotopic data from graves show that people buried in Pitted Ware contexts had a distinct diet based on seal and other marine protein sources (Eriksson Reference Eriksson2004; Eriksson et al. Reference Eriksson, Linderholm, Fornander, Kanstrup, Schoultz, Olofsson and Lidén2008; Fornander et al. Reference Fornander, Eriksson and Lidén2008). In southern Scandinavia we face a rather different, culturally blurred and mixed subsistence economic situation. In Denmark, larger settlements with traces of all-year occupation are almost exclusively found in eastern Jutland, including Kainsbakke, Kirial Bro and Ginnerup, which have revealed preserved flora and fauna remains showing a broad-spectrum economy consisting of agriculture, husbandry, hunting, fishing and gathering with a certain importance attached to marine resources (including seal, fish and shellfish). From radiocarbon-dated sites and a limited number of contact finds relating the Pitted Ware culture to other cultural groups, the Pitted Ware horizon in southern Scandinavia extends from c. 3100 to 2700/(2450) bce (Andreasen Reference Andreasen and Klassen2020; Iversen Reference Iversen2010; Iversen et al. Reference Iversen, Philippsen and Persson2021; Klassen et al. Reference Klassen, Rasmussen and Kveiborg2023; Makarewicz & Pleuger Reference Makarewicz, Pleuger and Klassen2020; Philippsen et al. Reference Philippsen, Iversen, Klassen and Klassen2020; Pleuger & Makarewicz Reference Pleuger, Makarewicz and Klassen2020; Price et al. Reference Price, Klassen and Sjögren2021).

Culturally and genetically, the eastern Swedish Pitted Ware individuals differ from preceding and contemporary Funnel Beaker populations. Whereas the people buried in Pitted Ware graves on Gotland and Öland were genetically related to Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Scandinavia, Funnel Beaker individuals descend from contemporaneous central European Middle Neolithic farmers (Allentoft et al. Reference Allentoft, Sikora and Fischer2024a,Reference Allentoft, Sikora and Refoyo-Martínezb; Fraser et al. Reference Fraser, Sanchez-Quinto and Evans2018; Malmström et al. Reference Malmström, Gilbert and Thomas2009; Reference Malmström, Linderholm and Skoglund2015; Mittnik et al. Reference Mittnik, Wang and Pfrengle2018; Skoglund et al. Reference Skoglund, Malmstrom and Raghavan2012; Reference Skoglund, Malmstrom and Omrak2014). The cultural relationship between the Scandinavian Pitted Ware culture and the eastern Baltic, including the Comb Ware tradition in Fennoscandia, is visible in the pottery (e.g. Hallgren Reference Hallgren, Bratt and Grönwall2011; Skandfer Reference Skandfer, Hartz, Lüth and Terberger2011) and the subsistence economic focus as well as in presumed applied animistic concepts (Artursson et al. Reference Artursson, Björck and Lindberg2023, 138–41 with references; Klassen et al. Reference Klassen, Iversen, Johannsen, Rasmussen, Poulsen and Klassen2020, 455–64). Hence, the use of figurines within the Pitted Ware culture must be seen as part of a wider eastern Baltic hunter-gatherer tradition that includes figurative representations such as zoomorphic and anthropomorphic clay and antler figurines, elk-head staffs, animal-head battle axes and rock-art depictions of big game animals (Antanaitis Reference Antanaitis1998; Artursson et al. Reference Artursson, Björck and Lindberg2023, 129–33; Götherström et al. Reference Götherström, Stenbäck and Storå2002; Iršėnas Reference Iršėnas, Larsson and Zagorska2006; Kashina Reference Kashina, Jordan and Zvelebil2009; Loze Reference Loze, Gheorghiu and Cyphers2010; Nunez Reference Nunez1986; Rimantienė Reference Rimantienė1992; Reference Rimantienė2005; Wyszomirska Reference Wyszomirska1984).

Discussion and wider perspectives—the abandonment of figuration

Overall, we are facing two chronologically overlapping but very different, independent and geographically distinct figurative traditions within Neolithic Europe: the ‘southeastern agricultural tradition’ and ‘the eastern Baltic hunter-gatherer tradition’. From the present study, we are now able to confirm that neither of these general traditions impacted the material and visual repertoire of the northern and northwestern European Neolithic to any larger extent and that the apparent absence of figurative representations within the south Scandinavian Neolithic is real. The southeastern agricultural tradition did impact the LBK, but turned out to be much stronger in the east than in the west (V. Becker Reference Becker2011), which becomes evident after LBK's demise. Very few figurines are known from the centuries following the LBK in central Europe (including the Rössen, Stroked Pottery and Michelsberg cultures, c. 4900–3400 bce) (V. Becker Reference Becker2011, 285–92; S. Hansen Reference Hansen2007, 303–13; Pyzel Reference Pyzel, Schwarzberg and Becker2017) whereas the central and southeastern European Lengyel (c. 4800–4100 bce) and Baden (3600–2700 bce) cultures in addition to the Cucuteni-Trypillia complex found in Ukraine, Moldavia and Romania (c. 4800–2950 bce) display a large number of figurative representations (cf. Table 1) (Bánffy Reference Bánffy and Insoll2017; V. Becker Reference Becker2011, 293–8; Furholt Reference Furholt2009, 124–8 with references; Monah Reference Monah2016).

For the overall Funnel Beaker complex (c. 4100–2800/2600 bce), figurative representations are few but include some depictions of wheeled vehicles, harnessed animals and zoomorphic and anthropomorphic decorations on vessels. However, these representations appear more frequent within the southeastern/eastern groups and the associated Salzmünde culture (c. 3400–3100 bce) (Bagniewski Reference Bagniewski1970, 63–6; Midgley Reference Midgley1992, 74–6, 378–80; Piggott Reference Piggott1983, 39–44; Skaarup Reference Skaarup1975, 183, n. 136; Szmyt Reference Szmyt, Meller and Friederich2017, 438). In comparison, the western Funnel Beaker group (for a few exceptions, see Bakker Reference Bakker1979, 60; Menne Reference Menne2018, 310, pls 4:9, 44:8) and the northern group (cf. above) almost completely lack figurines and other kinds of figurative representations. Even when they do occur, they are schematic and subtle, almost hidden, and their appearance is ambiguous (cf. J. Thomas Reference Thomas2005, for the British material). This is clearly illustrated by the face pots, which are created with a minimum of detail to only just hint at a facial representation—are they meant to represent faces at all? This ambiguity must be a deliberate choice made by the potters, probably governed by underlying socio-ritual conventions. Seen in a wider perspective, the significant absence of figurative representation within the north Funnel Beaker group is hard to explain as just simple indifference towards figurines whose original social communicative and integrating functions had become obsolete as settlements became more dispersed. This, we think, is part of the explanation for the lack of figurines in northern Europe. But there seems to be more at stake, as the avoidance of unambiguous figuration is so pronounced that it appears as if it was a deliberate choice, which hints at a widespread ritually and socially embedded tabooed approach towards figurative imagery. Even though the face pots most probably are facial representations, their chronological and geographical limited distribution and the fact that they are closely connected with highly ritualized burial rites within passage tombs supports the interpretation that figuration was a tabooed, dangerous and prohibited phenomenon, as these tombs are characterized by restricted accessibility and associated with ritual knowledge facilitating social control (cf. J. Thomas Reference Thomas1999, 48–51; Tilley Reference Tilley1996, 216–21, 333–5).

We suggest that the absence of figuration within the northwestern European Neolithic can best be described and understood within the context of aniconism. Aniconism is a well-known concept within the broader field of religious studies, but was originally introduced by the German classical archaeologist Johannes Adolph Overbeck (Reference Overbeck1864) when describing the earliest history of Greek art. The concept is traditionally used to address the absence of depictions of divine beings, especially in humanized forms (Gladigow Reference Gladigow, Kehrer and Kippenberg1988; Mettinger Reference Mettinger1995, 19). However, Milette Gaifman (Reference Gaifman2017) suggests that aniconism is applied more broadly to describe non-figural or abstract art. Thereby it is not only useful within the context of a religious/cult practice, but also in the general description of visual imagery. Mikael Aktor (Reference Aktor2017) stresses the great variation and degree of aniconicity within different traditions and argues that the phenomenon can best be described within a floating spectrum ranging from pure aniconic (no recognizable forms) over iconic/pictorial to representations of animal and human-like beings—the so-called aniconism–iconism–anthropomorphism spectrum. The situation observed within the northern Funnel Beaker culture, where we only sporadically see the contours of nearly unrecognizable schematized anthropomorphic forms, fits the first part of this spectrum, whereas the situation changes towards the iconic/pictorial and anthropomorphic end of the spectrum the further southeast and northeast you go.

With Gaifman's and Aktor's developed definitions of aniconism, we are able to apply the concept to a broader field of prehistory and to describe situations in which figurative representations are lacking, whether the reason is strictly religious (images of the deity/deities are prohibited) or the absence has wider socio-cultural/ideological causes. In the case of the absence of figurines in northwestern Europe, we find it difficult immediately to explain this phenomenon solely in terms of religious beliefs, as we have very limited knowledge of what such beliefs were. Consequently, wider socio-cultural factors must be considered. If the abandonment of figuration can be seen as a ‘proxy’ for socio-religious transformations, we must expect severe social and religious changes to have taken place as agriculture spread from southeastern Europe via central Europe to northern and western Europe (cf. Bánffy Reference Bánffy2019). A full justification of the sketched approach to the absence of figuration and the suggested correlation between abandonment of figuration and wider socio-religious changes, including becoming taboo, will require thorough studies of other and coinciding features that can be related to such changes in areas where the abandonment of figurative representation took place. Here we have only just begun to approach these investigations and paved the way for future enquiries.

Acknowledgement

This work is part of the research project ‘A World without Images: uncovering the absence of figurative representations in Early Neolithic Northern Europe’, financed by the Carlsberg Foundation.

References

Aktor, M., 2017. The Hindu pañcāyatanapūjā in the aniconism spectrum. Religion 47(3), 503–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allentoft, M.E., Sikora, M., Fischer, A., et al., 2024a. 100 ancient genomes show repeated population turnovers in Neolithic Denmark. Nature 625, 329–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allentoft, M.E., Sikora, M., Refoyo-Martínez, A., et al., 2024b. Population genomics of post-glacial western Eurasia. Nature 625, 301–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almgren, O., 1906. Uppländska stenåldersboplatser [Stone Age settlements in Uppland]. Fornvännen 1, 1–19, 101–18.Google Scholar
Andersen, N.H., 1997. The Sarup Enclosures. The Funnel Beaker Culture of the Sarup site including two causewayed camps compared to the contemporary settlements in the area and other European enclosures. (Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 33:1). Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
Andersen, N.H., 1999. Saruppladsen [The Sarup site]. (Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter 33:2). Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M.H., 2020. Agriculture during the Pitted Ware culture in the Kattegat region?, in The Pitted Ware Culture on Djursland. Supra-regional significance and contacts in the Middle Neolithic of southern Scandinavia, ed. Klassen, L.. (East Jutland Museum Publications 5.) Aarhus: Aarhus University Press/East Jutland Museum, 371–84.Google Scholar
Antanaitis, I.R., 1998. Interpreting the meaning of east Baltic Neolithic symbols. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8(1), 5568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artursson, M., Björck, N. & Lindberg, K.-F., 2023. Seal hunters, fishermen and sea-voyagers: Late Middle Neolithic (2600–2400 cal BC) maritime hunter-gatherers in the Baltic Sea archipelago at Tråsättra, Sweden. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 25, 89147.Google Scholar
Bagge, A. & Kaelas, L., 1950. Die Funde aus Dolmen und Ganggräbern in Schonen, Schweden [The finds from dolmens and passage graves in Scania, Sweden]. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.Google Scholar
Bagge, A. & Kjellmark, K., 1939. Stenåldersboplatserna vid Siretorp i Blekinge [The Stone Age settlements at Siretorp in Blekinge]. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.Google Scholar
Bagniewski, Z., 1970. Dzieje ziemi wydarte. Szkice z pradziejów Śląska [Uncovering history under the soil. Sketches from the prehistory of Silesia]. (Wiedza o Ziemi Naszej 18.) Wrocław/Warsaw/Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Wydawnictwo.Google Scholar
Bahn, P.G. & Vertut, J., 1988. Images of the Ice Age. Leicester: Windward.Google Scholar
Bailey, D.W., 2005. Prehistoric Figurines. Representation and corporeality in the Neolithic, London/New York (NY): Routledge.Google Scholar
Bakker, J.A., 1979. The TRB West Group. Studies in the chronology and geography of the makers of Hunebeds and Tiefstich pottery. (Gingvla V.) Amsterdam: De Bussy Ellerman Harms.Google Scholar
Bánffy, E., 2017. Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe, in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. Insoll, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 705–28.Google Scholar
Bánffy, E., 2019. First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin: Changing patterns in subsistence, ritual and monumental figurines. (Prehistoric Society Research Papers 8.) Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Becker, C.J., 1947. Mosefundne Lerkar fra yngre Stenalder. Studier over Tragtbægerkulturen i Danmark [Neolithic pottery in Danish bogs. A study of the Funnel-Beaker Culture in Denmark]. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1947, 1318.Google Scholar
Becker, V., 2011. Anthropomorphe Plastik der westlichen Linearbandkeramik [Anthropomorphic figurines of the Western Linear Pottery Culture]. (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 83.) Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.Google Scholar
Becker, V., 2017. Face vessels and anthropomorphic representations on vessels from Neolithic Italy, in Bodies of Clay. Prehistoric humanised pottery, eds Schwarzberg, H. & Becker, V.. Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow, 6382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, V., Fiutak, C., Bristow, R. & Iversen, R., in press. Everything was better in the good old days. On the end of the LBK and the emergence of Lengyel culture figurines. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology.Google Scholar
Bilgi, Ö., 2014. Anthropomorphic Representation in Anatolia: Before the classical age. Istanbul: Aygaz Yayinlari.Google Scholar
Boas, N.A., 2019. The house in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Djursland, East Jutland, in Houses for the Living. Two-aisled houses from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Denmark, eds Sparrevohn, L.R., Kastholm, O.T. & Nielsen, P.O.. (Nordiske Fortidsminder 31:1.) Copenhagen: The Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries, 237–61.Google Scholar
Bond, C.J., 2010. The ‘God-dolly’ wooden figurine from the Somerset Levels, Britain: the context, the place and its meaning, in Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Miniature Figures in Eurasia, Africa and Meso-America. Morphology, materiality, technology, function and context, eds Gheorghiu, D. & Cyphers, A.. (BAR International series S2138). Oxford: Archaeopress, 4354.Google Scholar
Browall, H., 2011. Alvastra pålbyggnad. 1909–1930 års utgrävningar [Alvastra pile dwelling. The 1909–1930 excavations]. (Handlingar, Antikvariska serien 48). Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.Google Scholar
Brozio, J.P., 2016. Megalitanlagen und Siedlungsmuster im trichterbecherzeitlichen Ostholstein [Megalithic monuments and settlement patterns in East Holstein during the Funnel Beaker period]. (Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 9.) Bonn: Dr Rudolf Habelt GmbH.Google Scholar
Capelle, T., 1995. Anthropomorphe Holzidole in Mittel- und Nordeuropa [Anthropomorphic wooden idols in Central and Northern Europe]. (Scripta Minora 1995–1996 1). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Chairkina, N.M., 2014. Anthropomorphic wooden figures from the Trans-urals. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 42(1), 81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.G.D., 1936. The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe: A study of the food-gathering people of northern Europe during the Early Post-Glacial period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coles, B., 1990. Anthropomorphic wooden figures from Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 315–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, J., 1968. A Neolithic God-dolly from Somerset, England. Antiquity 42, 275–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colman, W., 2020. Act and Image. The emergence of symbolic imagination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cummings, V., Hofmann, D., Bjørnevad-Ahlqvist, M. & Iversen, R., 2022. Muddying the waters: reconsidering migration in the Neolithic of Britain, Ireland and Denmark. Danish Journal of Archaeology 11, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbesen, K., 1979. Stenalderlerkar med ansigt [Stone Age face-pots]. Kuml 1978, 99115.Google Scholar
Ebbesen, K., 1995. Die nordischen Bernsteinhorte der Trichterbecherkultur [The Nordic amber hoards of the Funnel Beaker culture]. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 70(1995:1), 3289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbesen, K., 2011. Danmarks megalitgrave [Denmark's megalithic tombs]. Copenhagen: Attika.Google Scholar
Eriksson, G., 2004. Part-time farmers or hard-core sealers? Västerbjers studied by means of stable isotope analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23(2), 135–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, G., Linderholm, A., Fornander, E., Kanstrup, M., Schoultz, P., Olofsson, H. & Lidén, K., 2008. Same island, different diet: cultural evolution of food practice on Öland, Sweden, from the Mesolithic to the Roman period. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27(4), 520–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farbstein, R., 2017. Palaeolithic Central and Eastern Europe, in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. Insoll, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 681703.Google Scholar
Fornander, E., Eriksson, G. & Lidén, K., 2008. Wild at heart: approaching Pitted Ware identity, economy and cosmology through stable isotopes in skeletal material from the Neolithic site Korsnäs in Eastern Central Sweden. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27(3), 281–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, M., Sanchez-Quinto, F., Evans, J., et al., 2018. New insights on cultural dualism and population structure in the Middle Neolithic Funnel Beaker culture on the island of Gotland. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17, 325–34.Google Scholar
Friederich, S., 2013. Besiedlungsgeschichte des Fundortes Salzmünde [Settlement history of the Salzmünde site], in 3300 BC. Mysteriöse Steinzeittote und Ihre Welt [3300 BC. Mysterious deceased of the Stone Age and their world], ed. Meller, H.. Mainz am Rhein: Nünnerich-Asmus Verlag & Media, 276–81.Google Scholar
Fuglestvedt, I., 2010. Animals, churingas and rock art in Late Mesolithic northern Scandinavia, in Changing Pictures. Rock art traditions and visions in northern Europe, eds Goldhahn, J., Fuglestvedt, I. & Jones, A.. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2334.Google Scholar
Furholt, M., 2009. Die nördlichen Badener Keramikstile im Kontext des mitteleuropäischen Spätneolithikums (3650–2900 v. Chr.) [The northern Baden pottery styles in the context of the Central European Late Neolithic (3650–2900 BC)]. (Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 3.) Bonn: Dr Rudolf Habelt GmbH.Google Scholar
Gaifman, M., 2017. Aniconism: definitions, examples and comparative perspectives. Religion 47(3), 335–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, C., 1986. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gladigow, B., 1988. Anikonische Kulte [Aniconic cult], in Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe [Handbook of basic concepts in religious studies] 1, eds Kehrer, G. & Kippenberg, H.G.. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 472–3.Google Scholar
Glob, P.V., 1949. Barkær. Danmarks ældste landsby [Barkær. Denmark's oldest village]. Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1949, 5-16.Google Scholar
Glob, P.V., 1965. Den store gudinde [The great Goddess]. Skalk 1965(2), 1827.Google Scholar
Götherström, A., Stenbäck, N. & Storå, J., 2002. The Jettböle middle Neolithic site on the Åland Islands – human remains, ancient DNA and pottery. European Journal of Archaeology 5(1), 4269.Google Scholar
Hallgren, F., 2011. Om gropkeramik och dess relation till äldre keramikhantverkstraditioner kring Östersjön [On pitted ware and its relation to earlier pottery craft traditions around the Baltic Sea], in Gropkeramikerna [The Pitted Ware people], eds Bratt, P. & Grönwall, R.. (Arkeologi i Stockholms län 6.) Stockholm: Stockholms läns museum, 3143.Google Scholar
Hansen, F., 1918. En offerplats från stenålderen [A sacrificial site from the Stone Age]. Från Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum 15(1), 6788.Google Scholar
Hansen, S., 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa [Images of Stone Age humans. Studies on anthropomorphic figurines of the Neolithic and Copper Age in southeastern Europe]. (Archäologie in Eurasien 20.) Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Google Scholar
Hurtado, V.P., 2008. Ídolos, estilos y territorios de los primerous campesinos en el sur peninsular [Idols, styles, and territories of the first farmers on the southern peninsula], in Acercándonos al pasado: prehistoria en 4 actos [Approaching the past: Prehistory in 4 acts], eds Quesda, C.C., Ramos, M.M., Martos, J.A. & Martínez, M.I.. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, 111.Google Scholar
Iršėnas, M., 2006. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines from the Zvejnieki burial ground in the context of the Baltic area. Statistical regularities or exceptional cases?, in Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment, northern Latvia, eds Larsson, L. & Zagorska, I.. (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia series in 8° 52.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 301–8.Google Scholar
Iversen, R., 2010. In a world of worlds. The Pitted Ware complex in a large scale perspective. Acta Archaeologica 81, 543.Google Scholar
Iversen, R., 2013. Beyond the Neolithic transition – the ‘de-Neolithisation’ of south Scandinavia, in NW Europe in Transition. The Early Neolithic in Britain and South Sweden, eds Larsson, M. & Debert, J.. (BAR International series S2475). Oxford: Archaeopress, 21–7.Google Scholar
Iversen, R., 2019. The appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of non-figurative rock art during the southern Scandinavian Neolithic and Bronze Age, in Habitus? The social dimension of technology and transformation, eds Kadrow, S. & Müller, J.. (Scales of Transformation in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies 3.) Leiden: Sidestone Press Academic, 141–59.Google Scholar
Iversen, R., Philippsen, B. & Persson, P., 2021. Reconsidering the Pitted Ware chronology. A temporal fixation of the Scandinavian Neolithic hunters, fishers and gatherers. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 96(1), 4488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, R. & Solheim, S., in press. The European perspective: Scandinavia in Neolithic Europe, in Oxford Handbook of Scandinavian Archaeology, eds Hedeager, L., Kristiansen, K. & Prescott, C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janzon, G.O., 2009. The Dolmen in Alvastra. (Handlingar, Antikvariska serien 47.) Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.Google Scholar
Jensen, J., 2013. The Prehistory of Denmark. From the Stone Age to the Vikings. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Jones, A.M. & Díaz-Guardamino, M., 2019. Orkney: figurines and sculptured stones, in Making a Mark. Image and process in Neolithic Britain and Ireland, eds Jones, A.M. & Díaz-Guardamino, M.. Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow books, 132–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashina, E., 2009. Ceramic anthropomorphic sculptures of the east European forest zone, in Ceramics Before Farming: The dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers, eds Jordan, P. & Zvelebil, M.. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press, 281–97.Google Scholar
Kaul, F., Andresen, J. & Thorsen, M.S., 2016. Recent finds of Neolithic miniature rock art on the island of Bornholm – including topographic motifs. Adoranten 2016, 536.Google Scholar
Kaul, F., Nielsen, F.O. & Nielsen, P.O., 2002. Vasagård og Rispebjerg. To indhegnede bopladser fra yngre stenalder på Bornholm [Vasagård and Rispebjerg. Two settlements with enclosures from the Neolithic on Bornholm]. Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 2002, 119–38.Google Scholar
Klassen, L., Iversen, R., Johannsen, N.N., Rasmussen, U.L. & Poulsen, O., 2020. The Pitted Ware culture on Djursland in the Neolithic world, in The Pitted Ware Culture on Djursland. Supra-regional significance and contacts in the Middle Neolithic of southern Scandinavia, ed. Klassen, L.. (East Jutland Museum Publications 5.) Aarhus: Aarhus University Press/East Jutland Museum, 451–89.Google Scholar
Klassen, L., Rasmussen, U., Kveiborg, J., et al., 2023. Ginnerup revisited. New excavations at a key Neolithic site on Djursland, Denmark. Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 25, 3565.Google Scholar
Koch, E., 1998. Neolithic Bog Pots from Zealand, Møn, Lolland and Falster. (Nordiske Fortidsminder, Serie B, 16.) Copenhagen: Det Kgl. Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.Google Scholar
Kozłowski, S.K., 2009. Thinking Mesolithic, Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Larsson, L., 1982. A causewayed enclosure and a site with Valby pottery at Stävie, western Scania. Meddelanden från Lunds universitets historiska museum 1981–82, 65107.Google Scholar
Larsson, L., 1985. Karlsfält. A settlement from the Early and Late Funnel Beaker culture in southern Scania, Sweden. Acta Archaeologica 54, 344.Google Scholar
Leffler, J., 2015. Jonstorp M2/M3 and Lake Ringsjön Na. Different assemblages of archeological material and perceptions of the Pitted Ware culture in Scania, southern Sweden. Lund Archaeological Review 21, 3947.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1968. The Art of Prehistoric Man in Western Europe. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Lesure, R.G., 2011. Interpreting Ancient Figurines. Context, comparison, and prehistoric art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Williams, D., 2002. The Mind in the Cave. Consciousness and the origins of art. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Lidén, O., 1940. Sydsvensk Stenålder II. Strandboplatserna i Jonstorp [South Swedish Stone Age II. The seashore settlements at Jonstorp]. Lund: Carl Bloms Boktryckeri.Google Scholar
Lillios, K.T., 2008. Heraldry for the Dead. Memory, identity, and the engraved stone plaques of Neolithic Iberia. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Liversage, D., 1967. Ornamented Mesolithic artefacts from Denmark. Some new finds. Acta Archaeologica 1966, 221–37.Google Scholar
Longworth, I., 1999. The Folkton Drums unpicked, in Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland, eds Cleal, R. & MacSween, A.. Oxford/Oakville: Oxbow, 83–8.Google Scholar
Loze, I.B., 2010. Anthropomorphic antler sculptures in Abora Neolithic settlement (Lake Lubāns wetland, Latvia), in Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Miniature Figures in Eurasia, Africa and Meso-America. Morphology, materiality, technology, function and context, eds Gheorghiu, D. & Cyphers, A.. (BAR International series S2138.) Oxford: Archaeopress, 5560.Google Scholar
Madsen, B. & Fiedel, R., 1988. Pottery manufacture at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure near Hevringholm, East Jutland. Danish Journal of Archaeology 6 (1987), 7886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, T., 1979. Earthen long barrows and timber structures: aspects of the Early Neolithic mortuary practice in Denmark. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 301–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makarewicz, C.A. & Pleuger, S., 2020. Herder-hunter-fishers and agricultural contacts. Zooarchaeological perspectives on Pitted Ware animal exploitation strategies from Djursland, in The Pitted Ware Culture on Djursland. Supra-regional significance and contacts in the Middle Neolithic of southern Scandinavia, ed. Klassen, L.. (East Jutland Museum Publications 5.) Aarhus: Aarhus University Press/East Jutland Museum, 279339.Google Scholar
Malmström, H., Gilbert, M.T.P., Thomas, M.G., et al., 2009. Ancient DNA reveals lack of continuity between Neolithic hunter-gatherers and contemporary Scandinavians. Current Biology 19(20), 1758–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malmström, H., Linderholm, A., Skoglund, P., et al., 2015. Ancient mitochondrial DNA from the northern fringe of the Neolithic farming expansion in Europe sheds light on the dispersion process. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 370(1660), 110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathiassen, T., 1941. Vore ældste Menneskefremstillinger [Our oldest human representations]. Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1941, 2532.Google Scholar
Menne, J., 2018. Keramik aus Megalithgräbern in Nordwestdeutschland. Interaktionen und Netzwerke der Trichterbecherwestgruppe [Pottery from megalithic tombs in northwestern Germany. Interactions and networks of the western Funnel Beaker group]. (Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 16.) Bonn: Dr Rudolf Habelt GmbH.Google Scholar
Mettinger, T.N.D., 1995. No Graven Image? Israelite aniconism in its ancient Near Eastern context. (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 42.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Midgley, M.S., 1992. TRB Culture. The first farmers of the north European plain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mittnik, A., Wang, C.-C., Pfrengle, S., et al., 2018. The genetic prehistory of the Baltic Sea region. Nature Communications 9(442), 111.Google ScholarPubMed
Monah, D., 2016. Anthropomorphic Representations in the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture. Oxford: Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, H. & Wilson, G., 2011. Shifting sands. Links of Notland, Westray: Interim Report on Neolithic and Bronze Age Excavations, 2007–09. (Archaeology Report 4.) Edinburgh: Historic Scotland.Google Scholar
Moore, H. & Wilson, G., 2013. Sands of time: domestic rituals at the Links of Noltland. Current Archaeology 275 (February), 1219.Google Scholar
Müller, S., 1896. Nye Stenalders Former [Forms of the New Stone Age]. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1896, 303419.Google Scholar
Müller, S., 1918. Stenalderens Kunst i Danmark [Stone Age art in Denmark]. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel.Google Scholar
Nunez, M.G., 1986. Clay figurines from the Åland Islands and mainland Finland. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 3, 1734.Google Scholar
Nyland, A.J., Hofmann, D. & Iversen, R., 2023. The blurry third millennium. ‘Neolithisation’ in a Norwegian context. Open Archaeology 9(1), 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldeberg, A., 1957. Några träidoler från förhistorisk och senare tid [Some wooden idols from prehistoric and later times]. Fornvännen 52, 247–58.Google Scholar
Overbeck, J.A., 1864. Über das Cultusobject bei den Griechen in seinen ältesten Gestaltung [On the cult object among the Greeks in its oldest form]. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Classe 16, 121–72.Google Scholar
Pääkkönen, M., Holmqvist, E., Bläuer, A., Evershed, R.P. & Asplund, H., 2020. Diverse economic patterns in the north Baltic Sea region in the Late Neolithic and Early Metal periods. European Journal of Archaeology 23(1), 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlès, C., 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece : The first farming communities in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, P.V., 2013. Amber pendants, bears and elks. Die Kunde: Zeitschrift für niedersächsische Archäologie 64, 219–37.Google Scholar
Pétrequin, P., 2016. Kontaktzone. Ufersiedlungen im Jura und den französischen Alpen [Contact zone. Lakeshore settlements in the Jura and the French Alps], in 4.000 Jahre Pfahlbauten [4,000 years of pile-dwellings], eds Rau, S., Naumann, D., Theune-Groβkopf, B. & Röber, R.. Baden-Wüttemberg: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 110–12.Google Scholar
Pettitt, P., 2017. Palaeolithic Western and North Central Europe, in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. Insoll, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 851–76.Google Scholar
Philippsen, B., Iversen, R. & Klassen, L., 2020. The Pitted Ware culture chronology on Djursland: new evidence from Kainsbakke and other sites, in The Pitted Ware Culture on Djursland. Supra-regional significance and contacts in the Middle Neolithic of southern Scandinavia, ed. Klassen, L.. (East Jutland Museum Publications 5.) Aarhus: Aarhus University Press/East Jutland Museum, 257–77.Google Scholar
Piggott, S., 1983. The Earliest Wheeled Transport. From the Atlantic coast to the Caspian Sea. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Piličiauskas, G., Jankauskas, R., Piličiauskienė, G., Craig, O.E., Charlton, S. & Dupras, T., 2017. The transition from foraging to farming (7000–500calBC) in the SE Baltic: a re-evaluation of chronological and palaeodietary evidence from human remains. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14, 530–42.Google Scholar
Pleuger, S. & Makarewicz, C.A., 2020. Exploitation of marine fish by Pitted Ware groups at Kainsbakke and Kirial Bro, in The Pitted Ware Culture on Djursland. Supra-regional significance and contacts in the Middle Neolithic of southern Scandinavia, ed. Klassen, L.. (East Jutland Museum Publications 5.) Aarhus: Aarhus University Press/East Jutland Museum, 341–70.Google Scholar
Płonka, T., 2003. The Portable Art of Mesolithic Europe. (Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 2527.) Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
Price, T.D., Klassen, L. & Sjögren, K.-G., 2021. Pitted ware culture: isotopic evidence for contact between Sweden and Denmark across the Kattegat in the Middle Neolithic, ca. 3000 BC. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 61, 101254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyzel, J., 2017. Post-LBK anthropomorphic vessels from Poland, in Bodies of Clay. Prehistoric humanised pottery, eds Schwarzberg, H. & Becker, V.. Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow, 140–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recchia-Quiniou, J., 2017. The vase, the body: between filial relationship and original complex, in Bodies of Clay. Prehistoric humanised pottery, eds Schwarzberg, H. & Becker, V.. Oxford: Oxbow, 83109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimantienė, R., 1992. The Neolithic of the eastern Baltic. Journal of World Prehistory 6(1), 97143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimantienė, R., 2005. Die Steinzeitfischer an der Ostseelagune in Litauen [The Stone Age fishers at the Baltic Sea Lagoon in Lithuania]. Vilnius: Litauisches Nationalmuseum.Google Scholar
Rust, A., 1958. Die jungpaläolithischen Zeltanlagen von Ahrensburg [The Upper Palaeolithic tent features from Ahrensburg]. (Offa-Bücher 15.) Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag.Google Scholar
Sanden, W. van der & Capelle, T., 2001. Immortal Images. Ancient anthropomorphic wood carvings from northern and northwest Europe. Silkeborg: Silkeborg Museum.Google Scholar
Scarre, C., 2007. Monuments and miniatures: representing humans in Neolithic Europe 5000–2000 BC, in Image and Imagination – A global prehistory of figurative representations, eds Renfrew, C. & Morley, I.. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 1729.Google Scholar
Scarre, C., 2017. Neolithic figurines of Western Europe, in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. Insoll, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 877–99.Google Scholar
Schunke, T., 2013. Die Salzmünder Kultur – eine außergewöhnliche Steinzeitkultur in Mitteleuropa [The Salzmünde Culture – an exceptional Stone Age culture in Central Europe], in 3300 BC. Mysteriöse Steinzeittote und Ihre Welt [3300 BC. Mysterious deceased of the Stone Age and their world], ed. Meller, H.. Mainz am Rhein: Nünnerich-Asmus Verlag & Media, 246–56.Google Scholar
Schwarzberg, H. & Becker, V. (eds), 2017. Bodies of Clay. Prehistoric humanised pottery. Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Seeberg, P., 1969. Hvolris. Et neolitisk kompleks [Hvolris. A Neolithic complex]. Kuml 1968, 111–36.Google Scholar
Skaarup, J., 1975. Stengade. Ein langeländischer Wohnplatz mit Hausresten aus der frühneolithischen Zeit [Stengade. A settlement with house remains from the Early Neolithic period on Langeland]. Rudkøbing: Langelands Museum.Google Scholar
Skandfer, M., 2011. Early pottery in northern Fennoscandia, in Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, origin and social context, eds Hartz, S., Lüth, F. & Terberger, T.. (Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 89.) Frankfurt: Philipp von Zabern, 165–80.Google Scholar
Skoglund, P., Malmstrom, H., Omrak, A., et al., 2014. Genomic diversity and admixture differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian foragers and farmers. Science 344(6185), 747–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skoglund, P., Malmstrom, H., Raghavan, M., et al., 2012. Origins and genetic legacy of Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers in Europe. Science 336(6080), 466–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spatz, H., 2002. Bäumchen und Sichel: Aspekte und Überlegungen zum Übergang vom frühen zum mittleren Neolithikum in Zentraleuropa [Little tree and sickle: Aspects and considerations regarding the transition from the Early to the Middle Neolithic in Central Europe]. Archeologické rozhledy 54, 279300.Google Scholar
Szmyt, M., 2017. East–west connections on the Central European Plain: between the Elbe and Vistula 3300–2700 BC, in Salzmünde – Rule or exception?, eds Meller, H. & Friederich, S.. (Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 16.) Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt/Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, 433–51.Google Scholar
Sørensen, H.H. (ed.), 1998. Spodsbjerg – en yngre stenalders boplads på Langeland [Spodsbjerg. A younger Stone Age settlement on Langeland]. Rudkøbing: Langelands Museum.Google Scholar
Teather, A., 2007. Neolithic phallacies: a discussion of some southern British artefacts, in From Stonehenge to the Baltic: Living with cultural diversity in the third millennium BC, eds Larsson, M. & Pearson, M.P.. (BAR International Series S1692). Oxford: Archaeopress, 205–11.Google Scholar
Teather, A., 2011. Interpreting hidden chalk art in southern British Neolithic flint mines. World Archaeology 43(2), 230–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teather, A. & Sørensen, L., 2021. Neolithic art at European flint extraction sites. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 40(3), 232–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, A., 2016. Art and Architecture in Neolithic Orkney. Process, temporality and context. (University of the Highlands and Islands Archaeology Institute Research Series 1.) Oxford: Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J., 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. A revised second edition of ‘Rethinking the Neolithic’. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 2005. Ambiguous symbols: why there were no figurines in Neolithic Britain. Documenta Praehistorica 32, 167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C., 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic. Early prehistoric societies in southern Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toft, P.A. & Petersen, E.B., 2013. Five thousand years of decorated amber pendants from the Danish Mesolithic. Die Kunde: Zeitschrift für niedersächsische Archäologie 64, 197217.Google Scholar
Vanhanen, S., Gustafsson, S., Ranheden, H., Björck, N., Kemell, M. & Heyd, V., 2019. Maritime hunter-gatherers adopt cultivation at the farming extreme of northern Europe 5000 years ago. Scientific Reports 9(1), 111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vellev, J., 1972. Nye udgravninger på ’oderkiste’-gravpladsen i Skringstrup [New excavations at the ’Oder cist’ burial site in Skringstrup]. MIV: Museerne i Viborg amt, 2, 82–5.Google Scholar
Vogt, E., 1952. Neues zur Horgener Kultur [New insights into the Horgen Culture]. Germania 30, 158–64.Google Scholar
Wincentz, L., 2020. Kainsbakke and Kirial Bro. The two main sites of the Pitted Ware culture on Djursland, in The Pitted Ware Culture on Djursland. Supra-regional significance and contacts in the Middle Neolithic of southern Scandinavia, ed. Klassen, L.. (East Jutland Museum Publications 5.) Aarhus: Aarhus University Press/East Jutland Museum, 35140.Google Scholar
Winther, J., 1926. Lindø. En Boplads fra Danmarks Yngre Stenalder 1 [Lindø. A settlement from the younger Stone Age in Denmark 1]. Rudkøbing: J. Winther.Google Scholar
Winther, J., 1928. Lindø. En Boplads fra Danmarks Yngre Stenalder 2 [Lindø. A settlement from the younger Stone Age in Denmark 2] Rudkøbing: J. Winther.Google Scholar
Winther, J., 1938. Troldebjerg. En bymæssig Bebyggelse fra Danmarks Yngre Stenalder [Troldebjerg. An urban settlment from the younger Stone Age in Denmark]. Rudkøbing: J. Winther.Google Scholar
Wyszomirska, B., 1975. Människofigurer på den skånska gropkeramiken [Human figures on the Scanian pitted ware]. Fornvännen 70, 129–37.Google Scholar
Wyszomirska, B., 1984. Figurplastik och gravskick hos Nord- och Nordösteuropas neolitiska fångstkulturer [Figurative sculptures and burial customs among the Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures of Northern and Northeastern Europe]. (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia series in 4° 18.) Lund: Institue of Archaeology and the Historical Museum.Google Scholar
Wyszomirska, B., 1988. Ekonomisk stabilitet vid kusten. Nymölla III. En tidligneolitisk bosätning med fångstekonomi i nordöstra Skåne [Economical stability by the coast. Nymölla III. An Early Neolithic site with hunting economy]. (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia series in 8° 17.) Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Zalai-Gaál, I., 1998. Die applizierte Tierplastik der Lengyel-Kultur [Animal applications in the Lengyel Culture]. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 50, 4390.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Distribution and quantity of Neolithic/early agrarian figurines related to the main cultural complexes mentioned in the text, c. 6200–3300 bce (cf. Table 1). Pitted Ware figurines not included. (Base map: ESRI 2023, drawn by Rebecca Bristow.)

Figure 1

Table 1. Chronological chart showing the main Neolithic/early agrarian cultural complexes mentioned in the text (c. 6200–3300 bce) with estimated number of figurative representations.

Figure 2

Figure 2. South Scandinavian Mesolithic and Neolithic sites mentioned in the text. (Base map: ESRI 2023, drawn by Rebecca Bristow.) (1) Albæk I; (2) Åloppe; (3) Alvastra; (4) Åmosen/Bodal Mose; (5) Egemarke; (6) Engesvang Mose; (7) Hopfenbach; (8) Hov; (9) Jordløse Mose; (10) Kainsbakke; (11) Karlsfält; (12) Nymölla III; (13) Resen; (14) Ringkloster; (15) Ryemarksgård; (16) Siretorp; (17) Sørbylille II; (18 Stävie; (19) Stengade; (20) Storegården; (21) Svinø; (22) Vasagård; (23) Veksø Mose; (24) Ystad.

Figure 3

Figure 3. (A) Aurochs bone hammer, Ryemarksgård; (B) Amber animals and pendants. Top left: Ornamented bear figurine, Resen. Top right: Waterfowl figurine, Engesvang Mose. Bottom left: Ornamented elk head, Egemarke. Bottom right: Pendant with stylized human figures, Sindalgård, Åmosen (Maglemose period). (Photographs: Lennart Larsen, National Museum of Denmark (Licens: CC-BY-SA).)

Figure 4

Figure 4. A selection of animal figurines (2 and 3) including legs or horns (1) from Stengade ‘House I’. (After Skaarup 1975, fig. 36.)

Figure 5

Figure 5. Four animal figurines (1–4) and an anthropomorphic head (5) from Stengade ‘House II’. (After Skaarup 1975, fig. 68.)

Figure 6

Figure 6. Potential figurine fragment from Kainsbakke, pit A47. (After Wincentz 2020, fig. 45. Drawing: Elsebet Morville.)

Figure 7

Figure 7. Clay spoon with animal head from Albæk I. (After Boas 2019, fig. 7. Photograph: Museum Østjylland.)

Figure 8

Figure 8. Face pot from a passage grave at Svinø, southern Zealand, Denmark. Height c. 11 cm. (After S. Müller 1918, no. 164.)

Figure 9

Figure 9. Engraved shale plaque with sun motif from Vasagård, Bornholm, Denmark, c. 3 cm diameter. (Photograph: John Lee, the National Museum of Denmark (License: CC-BY-SA).)

Figure 10

Figure 10. Forked-branch idols (?) and funnel bowl (height: c. 20 cm) from Sørbylille II. Not to scale. (After C.J. Becker 1947, fig. 8 & pl. XX:1.)