by Chris Fowler
•The Siggeneben Süd/Stengade II group (northern Germany and Danish Isles, c. 3800–3600 BC) consists mostly of undecorated pots: funnel beakers with clearly distinguishable imported four-lugged amphorae from southern areas, and collared flasks. The slightly later Satrup group of northern Germany consists mainly of beakers and lugged beakers with vertical stripes on the belly.
The symbolic implications of a shift from highly decorated early Neolithic Ia pottery to mostly undecorated early Neolithic Ib pots has yet to be considered. The early Neolithic II pottery (c. 3500–3300 BC), associated not only with domestic structures or non-earthen long barrows, but also with causewayed enclosures and the first megaliths, began a new intensity of decoration which continued into the middle Neolithic (Fig. 30.3).
•Fuchsberg pottery in (northern Germany, most parts of Jutland, and the western Danish Isles) is characterized by flasks with elongated necks, funnel beakers with cylindrical to conical rims, and bowls which are in many cases completely ornamented with geometrical patterns (bands of chevrons, ladder-like vertical patterns, vertical stripes and plastic mouldings). Collared flasks are now highly elaborated and clay plates also decorated. Wolkenwehe 1 is a southern subgroup of Fuchsberg.
•The Virum group (Scania and Zealand, c. 3600–3400 BC) is characterized by funnel beakers with vertical stripes on the shoulder, lugged beakers, and lugged collared beakers (Ösenkranzflaschen).
FIG. 30.3. Early Neolithic pottery. The differences between EN Ia, Ib, and EN II phases and different style groups are indicated (after Grohmann 2010; Schwabedissen 1979; Midgley 1992. Drawn by Ines Reese).
Middle Neolithic (MN; 3300–2800 BC)
Middle Neolithic pottery (Fig. 30.4) coincides with the erection of megaliths (until c. 3100 BC) with its later forms giving way to early Corded Ware design.
•The MN Ia (c. 3300–3200 BC) is represented by Troldebjerg and Wolkenwehe 2 styles (domestic sites in Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein). Like Fuchsberg pots, they are often completely ornamented with ladders and bands of chevrons. Funnel Beakers possess a pronounced conical rim, and drums are known for the first time.
•MN Ib (c. 3200–3100 BC), named after the domestic sites of Klintebakke and Wolkenwehe 2, display similar shapes, but with more elaborate ornamentation with complex arrangements of bands, lines, and metopic patterns. Furthermore, the first three-limbed pots appear.
• MN II (c. 3100–3000 BC), named after the domestic sites of Blandebjerg and Oldenburg, is represented by three-limbed cups and jars, pedestalled bowls, and decorated clay discs. Ornamentation is fine, but not as dense as with MN I.
•These tendencies continue in MN III and MN IV (Bundsö and Lindo in southern Scandinavia and Bostholm in northern Germany, c. 3000–2900 BC). Decoration is simpler, mainly consisting of triangles or simple chevron stitches. Some pots are two-limbed rather than three-limbed.
•The MN V (Store Valby, c. 2900–2800 BC) is more or less equally distributed across the whole area. The ceramics are undecorated thick-walled barrel-like pots with only a few plastic applications, and simple conical beakers.
Whilst early Neolithic pottery indicates the regionalization of ceramic traditions over many centuries, middle Neolithic pottery reflects an intensification in ornamentation and thus a will to representation. The need to create new and more decorative signs on pots (and probably also on other parts of material culture) arguably indicates the growing importance of local and regional identities, and social differences within the communities. The range of fine ornamentation and vessel shapes comes to a peak around 3100 BC when megalith construction ends (Klatt 2009). Afterwards ceramic styles diversify but with a reduction in design variability, ending in a period of coarse and ‘ugly’ ceramics.
FIG. 30.4. Middle Neolithic pottery (after Schwabedissen 1979; Midgley 1992; Ebbesen 1975 and 1978; Madsen 1998. Drawn by Ines Reese).
Younger Neolithic (YN; 2800–2200 BC)
With the appearance of Single Grave culture (SGC) in southern Scandinavia and northern central Europe marked changes in pottery design are visible (Hübner 2005). After the twenty-ninth century BC the characteristic elements of material culture are flat-bottomed beakers with corded decoration, a significant new type without any typological link to late Funnel Beaker pots. Ceramics express a new social order despite the probability that the shift in material culture and burial rites is a result of autonomous changes, which used foreign innovations as a part of new designs. However, over the next six centuries further changes are detectable (Fig. 30.5).
•In the YN 1 (c. 2850–2600 BC) short decorated corded beakers with neck ornamentation and beakers with fishbone-like decoration are part of single grave furniture. Amphorae with vertically stripped bellies (Strichbündelamphoren) and wavy-moulded ceramics (Wellenleistenkeramik), as well as finger dotted pots, are typical at domestic sites.
•In the YN 2 (c. 2600–2450 BC) S-profiled beakers with stroke ornaments and zone decoration are known beside footed basins and tulip-like pots.
•YN 3 (2450–2250 BC) burial ceramics consist of straight-walled or slightly inwardly curved beakers. Beakers with zone or ‘total’ (over-all) decoration are an addition to earliest Bell Beakers and footed basins. On domestic sites a shift from applied waved moulding to straight moulding is visible.
FIG. 30.5. Younger and late Neolithic pottery (after Hübner 2005; Kühn 1979; Sarauw 2008. Drawn by Ines Reese).
Late Neolithic (LN; c. 2200–1700 BC)
The LN represents a continuation of Single Grave societies (Vandkilde 1996; Apel 2001): beside the dagger replacing the axe in some male graves reflecting a general supra-regional pattern of change, all other changes in material culture could be explained as based on the younger Neolithic. In the late Neolithic 1 (2200–2000 BC), however, Bell Beakers play an important role in both domestic and burial sites of Denmark and northern Germany (Sarauw 2008). All-Over-Ornamented Beakers, Grooved Beakers, and developed Bell Beakers are found beside undecorated beakers and bowls. In LN 2 (2000–1700 BC) the number of Bell Beakers decrease, along with the role of ceramics in burial contexts. Undecorated beakers and bowls now prevail (Fig. 30.5).
Complexity and diversity
Beside TRB pottery in south-eastern, middle, and northern Sweden, Pitted Ware pottery is of significant importance (GRK—Swedish Gropkeramisk Kultur). Pitted Ware is associated with sedentary foragers with farming influences, dating from 3500–2200 BC (Larsson 2009; Larrson 2006). The pottery types are distinct from TRB or SGC, belonging to a different world of burials, deposition places, and domestic sites.
Summary
More than 2,000 years of Neolithic pottery in southern Scandinavia and northern central Europe saw many changes in the function and use of pots with clear differences between the early Neolithic I (4100–3500 BC), early Neolithic II (3500–3300 BC), middle Neolithic (3300–2800 BC), younger Neolithic (2800–2200 BC), and late Neolithic (2200–1700 BC). Differences between contexts clearly demonstrates the functional and semiotic use of pots as a means of communication. The creative, but also normative, sign system on pots express the local and regional identities both on utilitarian as well as non-utilitarian objects. That such patterns can be seen so clearly indicates the interconnectedness of economy and ideology in the production and consumption of pottery in these Neolithic societies (Müller 2010, 2011b).
THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF CONTINENTAL NORTHERN EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC POTTERY
Production
Although the technology of production has been extensively studied (e.g. Hulthen 1977; Koch 1998), no sites of production and firing have yet been discovered. It is assumed that southern Scandinavian pottery was produced as a local, home-made ceramic. There are no visible regional patterns in the technologies used in producing ceramics (e.g. the use of temper, the temperature of firing, and the work on ceramic surfaces). In consequence, differences or similarities in ceramic design may indicate the relational habitus shared by or distinguishing social units as households or smal
l groups producing pottery.
Distribution
Neolithic ceramics were produced locally; regional and supra-regional exchange has never been proven. In consequence, similarities in shape and ornamentation result from functional similarities and shared culturally defined sign systems. Thus, distribution patterns indicate the strength of communication between people rather than the exchange of ceramics as commodities. In this respect Neolithic ceramics in the Northern European Plain and southern Scandinavia are a useful proxy for identifying spatial communication patterns and places of dense cultural interaction (Fig. 30.6).
FIG. 30.6. Spatial communication patterns indicated by ceramic design. The results of a network analysis of different TRB regions indicates similarities and distances between these groups (after Furholt 2012).
Consumption
The reconstruction of consumption patterns is based not only on the reconstruction of ceramic design but also on depositional processes, which are associated with different categories of archaeological sites at different times. Whilst evidence from the late Neolithic is too scarce to come up with conclusions about consumption practices, much more can be said about the TRB and SGC periods.
During the TRB it is possible to reconstruct patterns of household and burial deposition which suggest ceramic types were often specially selected for specific purposes in certain quantities. More or less all known ceramic shapes and ornaments occur at houses or small hamlets: coarse ware was used for cooking and storing, whilst middle fine and fine ceramics were used decoratively for communication during eating. During the early Neolithic Ia there was no clear differentiation in the use of decorative patterns or pot shapes between graves and domestic sites. The same is true for the early Neolithic II, where domestic sites, causewayed enclosures, and burials again have similar decoration and pottery shapes within their assemblages. In contrast, during the middle Neolithic both domestic sites and re-used causewayed enclosures produce similar ceramic types, but single burials yield mostly undecorated pottery, whilst deposits and offerings in front of megaliths are carried out with highly decorated pots. Decorative differences probably reflect different spheres of activity, partly also displayed in the coarse/fine ware contrast.
Alongside differences in the composition of ceramic assemblages, different depositional processes are also evident during the TRB. Whilst on domestic sites habitation debris usually includes most parts of the broken pots, the deposition of pots at both burials and causewayed enclosures often follows a pattern of deliberate destruction. A funnel beaker was broken in the gateway of an enclosure at Albersdorf-Diesknöll and the sherds then deposited in both ditch terminals (Müller 2011b). In front of many Scandinavian passage graves large numbers of pots were broken and deposited over many generations (Fig. 30.7; Tilley 1996). At causewayed enclosures often only one quarter of each original pot was deposited (what happened to the remainder?), leaving a relatively low density of ceramics compared to domestic sites. The acts of consumption which took place here were periodic and limited to cooperative feasting activities. Causewayed enclosures are the only archaeological remains which indicate communal interaction among those living in scattered hamlets and perhaps depending on endogamic co-operation.
FIG. 30.7. Ceramic deposition in front of a megalith. The ‘Trollasten’ dolmen in Scania near Ystad. The circles indicate the number of sherds within each square meter (after Strömberg 1968, fig. 85).
Increased mobility characterizes the shift from the TRB to the SGC. Clear differences are visible between SGC burial and domestic sites: wavy-moulded ceramics or later straight-moulded ceramics with straight pots are restricted to settlements only (Müller et al. 2009). Clearly this kind of ornamentation was excluded from burial sites, perhaps as a result of different consumption practices in the funerary sphere compared to daily life.
POTTERY AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Changes in pottery design can be linked to ongoing processes by which identities were distinguished at local and regional levels among continental northern European Neolithic societies. The construction and use of ceramics was a key feature of the habitus of people from different groups. Thus, around 4100 BC TRB pottery design reflects the new shared ideology of the small farming communities, whilst during the erection of the first monuments the patterns in pottery suggest new local and regional identities (Müller 2011b). The intensification of ceramic production and the increasing variation in ceramic ornamentation (starting with the first construction of megaliths and enclosures) at this time marks a new dynamic lasting for about 300 years: a dynamic in which special pots played an active role in communication between individuals and groups in both profane and ritual situations. Later, as these ceramic designs became more localized, monument construction ceased. During this period, when there was also decreased ceramic production and a move away from decoration, a new style of pottery, the corded beaker, accompanied further ideological change. For the first time the intensification of ceramic ornamentation goes hand in hand with increasing regionalization, resulting in diverse late Single Grave culture groups. This period is again followed by a time in which not much effort was put into ceramics so that it probably did not play an important role in the link between material culture and social groups. Variations in decoration and shape therefore seem to go hand in hand with social developments as seen through other media.
Great Britain and Ireland
RICK PETERSON
THE ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND
Pottery in Ireland and Britain is a late phenomenon by continental European standards. In common with other cultural traits associated with the Neolithic period there is no convincing evidence for pottery production and use before around 4000 BC. This is not the place to consider the mechanisms by which Neolithic practices reached the islands, there being a lively and ongoing debate on the subject (Thomas 1988; Armit and Findlayson 1992; Thomas 1999; Thomas 2003; Sheridan 2003; Sheridan 2004). In the specific case of Neolithic ceramics, a degree of contact with pottery using communities elsewhere must be assumed; however, unambiguous and well-dated precursors for British and Irish material have been difficult to trace (Cleal 2004, 183; Louwe-Kooijmans 2005). A fruitful focus of debate has been how the knowledge of pottery making and use can be transmitted. Cleal (2004, 185) suggested that individual mentoring and tuition was the most plausible mechanism for transmitting craft knowledge in small-scale societies. The question of what individual traditions and practices made up the work of the Neolithic potter will form the core of this contribution.
FIG. 30.8. Find spots for pottery assemblages discussed in this section.
REGIONAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS
Since Ian Kinnes’ (1988) work on the beginning of the Neolithic and Herne’s (1988) work on the reliability of dates associated with the first Neolithic pottery it is now clear that none of the material from Britain or Ireland should be dated before c. 4000 BC. Similar studies over the last 20 years have helped refine and focus the chronology of pottery manufacture and use throughout the Neolithic (Gibson and Kinnes 1997; Cleal and MacSween 1999; Cowie 1993; Sheridan 1995; Sheridan 1997; Peterson 2003; Cleal 2004). Obviously these chronologies are regionally specific but broader trends and changes can be identified. In particular, Cleal (2004, 180–181) has set out the aim of developing a ‘ceramic-friendly’ chronology for the Neolithic. In this section a synthesis of recent work on these chronologies has been attempted to create a fourfold chronology for Ireland and Britain as a whole.
First Neolithic
In his highly influential 1988 paper Andrew Herne refined Smith’s (1974) Grimston/Lyles Hill series to define the open carinated bowl as a unitary style of pottery belonging right at the beginning of the Neolithic. Although pottery of this style clearly is early at many sites, Cleal (2004) has questioned whether it is quite as unitary a phenomenon as Herne suggests. She identifies securely dated early assemblages which include a wider range of forms (Cleal 2004, 178–80). Similarly, although Sheridan (199
5, 1997) has identified a clear horizon of open carinated bowls as the first Neolithic pottery in both Ireland and western Scotland, she also points to examples of a more varied repertoire of shapes from sites with early dates (Sheridan 1995, 17; 1997, 218–9). The debate is largely concerned with how much variation to allow within the overall category of the open-profiled carinated bowl. Despite these reservations, the broader idea that early pottery in Ireland and Britain tends to be in one of a small range of restricted forms still seems to be useful. Dates for this first part of the Neolithic have been variously suggested as 3950–3800 BC for Irish pottery (Sheridan 1995, 17), 4000–3800 cal. BC for Wales (Peterson 2003, 133), and 4100–3850 cal. BC for southern and western England (Cleal 2004, 181); more generally this material belongs to the two centuries after 4000 BC (e.g. Sheridan 1997, 219; Cowie 1993, 19).
Early Neolithic
All these studies also identify material from the early Neolithic which falls outside the very earliest phases and which can be variously considered as ‘modified’ or ‘developed’ variants of the bowl tradition. Herne (1988, 15) distinguished the less open carinated forms with more complex rims from sites such as Broome Heath as ‘shouldered bowls’ forming a distinct and slightly later tradition to his open carinated bowl pottery. The strict chronological distinction at all sites has been rightly scrutinized by Cleal (2004) but all of the studies already cited include an element of a wider range of vessel forms and, in some regional cases, decoration dating to the later part of the early Neolithic. A consensus is emerging that the chronological division between a first and early Neolithic is valid, at least for pottery. Cleal (2004, 181–2) further sub-divides the period in southern England into two phases—‘Early or Developing Neolithic’, c. 3850–3650 BC, and ‘High or Developed Neolithic’, c. 3650–3350 BC. In eastern and central Scotland, Cowie (1993, 19) points to the development of his class of ‘heavy bowls’ alongside early decorated pottery in the mid to late fourth millennium BC. Further west, recent studies by Sheridan (2000, 2003) include a series of early Neolithic developments in both Ireland and western Scotland dating between 3750 and 3500 BC. A similar early Neolithic phase, c. 3800 to 3400 BC, has been suggested for Welsh pottery (Peterson 2003, 133).
