A sense of place at a fen (original) (raw)
This paper will focus on a sense of place in prehistory. The chapter argues for the importance of the sensuous experiences of places, and in this case natural places, in the creation of memory and shared conceptions of place and landscape. Natural places played important roles in the process of creating the societal order in prehistory and in this respect can be considered similar to monuments in defining a sense of place. Here a fen in Malmö in Sweden is discussed, where artefacts were deposited during a period that includes most of the Neolithic period. The topography, the varying vegetation, the water table, as well as the deposited artefacts, created spatial structures that were experienced through the senses by those who moved around this place and performed the acts of deposition. These experiences resulted in a differentiation of this place from the surroundings, which in many cases acted as a ritualization strategy for the acts that took place there. This gave the place a special significance in the landscape. The fact that this was a recurring practice at the fen, also underlines the historic significance of the place. The sensuous experiences of the acts, the place and the objects also created relations between people, and as such, a social organization. Variations in the social identities that were created at the fen during the course of the Neolithic are discussed in connection to the surrounding society. It seems the fen was mainly used by those that were not a part of the competition for the highest status in society, i.e. the elite, but rather a social stratum of society less likely to have, and dispose of, prestige objects. This part of society did not consist of a grey mass of people but rather a complex web of social relations.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
"Landscape, Histories and Societies in the Northern European Neolithic" presents papers from two sessions of the conference of the European Association of Archaeologists held in 2011 in Olso. The papers of this volume describe new research on the relationships between landscape, history and society in the northern European Neolithic. They focus on the Funnel Beaker complex and related Neolithic contexts, with case studies extending from Poland and the Czech Republic to Norway and Scotland. Several case studies examine the significance of enclosures – from early causewayed enclosures in the north associated with the very beginnings of the Neolithic to the significance of palisade enclosures constructed towards the end of the Neolithic in Scotland and Sweden. The volume also includes new studies on the origin, significance and interpretation of Neolithic burial and megalithic architecture found in a range of landscapes across northern Europe. Importantly, the volume also outlines the significance of other kinds of places that were not monumentalised in the same way, such as fens, the seashore and the wider environment, in the construction of Neolithic worldview. Finally, it concludes with a series of articles that consider the significance of particular forms of material culture – axes, grinding stones, pottery and food – in social reproduction in the Neolithic of northern Europe. Overall, the volume presents an important body of new data and international perspectives concerning Neolithic societies, histories and landscapes in northern Europe.
Past Landscapes: The Dynamics of Interaction between Society, Landscape, and Culture, 2018
In accordance with current perceptions, the Neolithic landscape of Southern Scandinavia appears to be dominated by two innovations that are connected to the transition to the Neolithic in this region: agriculture and monuments such as megalithic tombs or Single Grave burial mounds. So it seems natural to assume that these aspects also dominated the contemporaneous perception and the organisation of space. Most prominently, the monuments have a very important role in the landscape archaeology of the Funnel Beaker period particularly because they form a landscape of monuments. But from a pragmatic perspective, it is more likely for the perception of the landscape as a taskscape (sensu Ingold 1993) that the everyday practises and routines of the inhabitants as well as the movements that evoke such practises were much more salient than the monuments. Given the agricultural nature of the economy, it would be consequent to assume that the most important constraints on spatial planning and settlement locations would arise from this economy, resulting in an agrarian landscape. On the basis of a case study from the region of Stormarn-Lauenburg and the evidence of the number of identified specimens (NISP) of animals from a range of Funnel Beaker sites, this paper intends to demonstrate that it might not have been the monuments nor the agrarian subsistence economy but rather practises founded in the Mesolithic tradition that dominated the settlement system of Funnel Beaker societies. As an alternative, a scenario should be presented in which the access to larger animals, hunted or domesticated, as a currency in a social exchange, had a more significant influence on the choice of the settlement site than the purely economic optimisation of agricultural production processes.
Archaeological & Historical Studies in Centrality, vol. 2, 2018
Abstracts, slides, discussions and summaries from a international seminar held i Odense, granted by the Velux-Foundation. Introduction Mads Runge and Jesper Hansen................................................................................................... 8 Part 1: Landscape reconstruction, Methods, perspectives and challenges Reconstructing the Iron Age landscape: Possibilities and limitations in new scientific methods Søren Munch Kristiansen and Thomas Ljungberg (GeoScience, Aarhus University, Denmark)...................................................................................................... 11 Abstract........................................................................................................ 12 Presentation................................................................................................. 13 Summary...................................................................................................... 27 Aerial photographs, airborne remote sensing and landscape understanding Lukas Banaszek & Dave Cowley (Historic Environment Scotland)........................................... 29 Abstract........................................................................................................ 30 Presentation................................................................................................. 30 Summary...................................................................................................... 49 Reconstructing Iron Age infrastructure using historical and topographical sources Per Grau Møller (University of Southern Denmark).................................................................. 51 Abstract........................................................................................................ 52 Presentation................................................................................................. 52 Summary...................................................................................................... 60 Place names as a source for the Iron Age organisation of land Sofie Laurine Albris (The National Museum of Denmark)......................................................... 62 Abstract........................................................................................................ 63 Presentation................................................................................................. 63 Summary...................................................................................................... 75 Portable antiquities as a source relative to the organisation of an Iron Age landscape: Limitations and possibilities. Spatial and functional organisation and dynamics Mogens Bo Henriksen (Odense City Museums, Denmark)......................................................... 77 Abstract........................................................................................................ 78 Presentation................................................................................................. 79 Summary...................................................................................................... 91 The dialogue between research and communication of large-scale Iron Age cultural landscapes Lene Feveile (Museum of Eastern Funen, Denmark)................................................................. 93 Abstract........................................................................................................ 94 Presentation................................................................................................. 95 Summary.................................................................................................... 103 Part 2: Social organization and manipulation of landscapes in the period Late Iron Age to Early Middle Age. Background, methods, results and unused potentials in large projects of landscape archaeology The Gamla Uppsala project: Reflections on landscape transformations John Ljungkvist (University of Uppsala, Sweden).................................................................... 106 Abstract...................................................................................................... 107 Presentation............................................................................................... 108 Summary.................................................................................................... 117 Assemblies and kings – the inauguration sites of Norway: The case of Øyrathing Frode Iversen (Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, Norway)............................. 120 Abstract.......................................................................................................120 Presentation............................................................................................... 121 Summary.................................................................................................... 140 Non-urban vs urban. Social complexity in Anglo-Saxon England Andrew Reynolds (Institute of Archaeology, University College London, England)................ 142 Abstract...................................................................................................... 143 Presentation............................................................................................... 143 Summary.................................................................................................... 146 Uppåkra, Lund and the landscape Mats Anglert (Archaeology in Lund and Scania, Sweden)....................................................... 148 Abstract...................................................................................................... 149 Presentation............................................................................................... 149 Summary.................................................................................................... 154 The Truso project: From local landing place to Viking Age emporium Mateusz Bogucki (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)........................................... 156 Abstract...................................................................................................... 157 Presentation............................................................................................... 158 Summary.................................................................................................... 174 Summary of the day Mads D. Jessen (National Museum)......................................................................................... 176 Presentation............................................................................................... 176 Summary.................................................................................................... 177
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2022
Studies related to prehistoric, Circum-Alpine lakeside settlements have for the last decade or so begun to focus increasingly on the reconstruction of its inhabitant's social dimensions of life. More traditional models attempting to explain the often-fleeting settlement patterns set in a tightly managed cultural landscape focusing on climate and economic factors alone have proven insufficient and opened up to more nuanced and multi-scalar approaches. Especially built structures, due to their exceptional preservation, constitute a popular jumping-off point for a number of theories and interpretations but recent work has also moved beyond the confines of the settlement to include the wider cultural landscape as crucial in understanding the lakeside phenomenon. This article re-evaluates one of the more popular architecture-based models, namely the non-correspondence model, and subsequently suggests an alternative, more integrative approach based on Amos Rapoport's understanding of space. The aim is to create a more flexible approach to questions of space, time and meaning that does not stop at the built environment. Input from both the natural and the social sciences is combined in an attempt to sketch out an approximation of life on the lakeshores more than 5000 years ago.
The article presents new evidence from two recent, rescue excavations of Early Neolithic gathering and burial sites at Almhov and Döserygg in Scania, southern Sweden. Along with previous excavations of the Danish enclosures at Sarup, these central sites provide a sequence witnessing substantial development of monumental landscapes during a period of relatively low population density in Southern Scandinavia. An explanation for this rather surprising development is placed within a political economy approach: In situations of low-density populations, resource circumscription is thought to be ineffective as a means of political control. Rather, ceremonial monuments were built to create a strong and permanent allure of ritual spaces and ceremonies associated with mortuary practice, inheritance rights, and emergent leaders. Although inherently unstable, positive feedback apparently existed between the collection of food for feasts, labor to build ritual landscapes, and some central power based on authority. The construction of permanent monumental places helped create, we argue, overarching ownership rights represented in the engineered landscape. To demonstrate the generality of these hypothetical relations, the Southern Scandinavian sequence is compared to similar patterns of monumental construction associated with low-density populations during the prehistory of eastern North America.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Related papers
Th e proper way of dwelling at the Early Neolithic gathering site of Almhov in Scania, Sweden
Neolithic diversities (eds: Brink, K., Hydén, S., Jennbert, K., Larsson, L. & Olausson, D.), 2015