by Chris Fowler
But what made beads such a suitable medium for exchange? Due to their visibility and their ability to communicate and display, beads in general are one of the most common items in exchange systems. Moreover, they are durable, small, and therefore easily transportable (Graeber 1996, 4–5). As part of composite objects (such as necklaces and display clothes), beads have the added advantage of being divisible into smaller exchangeable units. Whilst it is difficult to estimate the size and number of beads which may have formed a composite object during production or composition, burials in south Scandinavia, the Baltic region, and north-west Russia contain necklaces and clothes with everything from a few to several hundred beads (Larsson 2001; Zagorska 2001; Zimina 2001, 2003). Thus, if the beads were circulating as composite objects, some of these may have been of considerable size.
The possibility of disentanglement from an original composite object enhances a bead’s mobility and distributional radius, which partly explains the wide distribution of amber beads during the transition to the fourth millennium BC, specifically northwards from the natural deposits (e.g. Ramstad 2006; see also Woodward 2002). As the beads went through sequences of exchanges, one can imagine not only the fragmentation of composite objects, but also the rearrangement and reunions with other beads making up mixed narratives and new hybridizing networks (Fowler 2004). The single bead was thus layered with the symbolic values from different necklaces, as well as its own accumulating narratives. Through fragmentation, amber beads could also have extended uses and biographies as heirlooms, allowing single beads to circulate through many generations and over long distances (e.g. Woodward 2002, 1040; Ramstad 2006, 143). In the following, we discuss selected case studies to illustrate the changing ways in which amber was bound up in wider social relations.
NEOLITHIC AMBER IN SOUTHERN SCANDINAVIA—AN OVERVIEW
During a first, early Neolithic phase, amber ornamentation is complex, with large numbers of beads forming elaborate necklaces, often with several parallel rows. The beads themselves are of relatively simple geometric shapes separated by flat pieces (plates) acting as spacers (Becker 1953; Ebbesen 1995). One interpretation is that beads were accumulated and then used as votive deposits, their number rather than their specific shapes being the principal criterion. Whether this was a joint project or in the hands of a few people in a central position is unknown. However, regardless of how the work was organized, the handling and votive offering of amber were likely surrounded by rules calling for a remarkable collective effort. Amber was part of the same types of acts as other objects—votive offerings could for instance also involve flint axes and sometimes ceramics (Becker 1948; Karsten 1994). These offerings are mainly known from Denmark and are rare in Sweden.
A second Neolithic phase in the late early and middle Neolithic sees the use of amber with burials in megalithic graves. Bead shapes are now very varied, even if some dominate the repertoire. Principally, the shapes may be interpreted as miniature representations of clubs and double-edged battle axes. However, there are also shapes for which we have no comparisons. Beads are now individual objects associated with individuals, as they are found singly next to buried bodies (Sjögren 2008). In addition, the votive offering of amber in wetlands continued, but smaller offerings of individual beads or small collections replace the earlier large quantities and composite objects (Cederschiöld 1953; Axelsson and Strinnholm 1999).
This second phase could be described as one of ‘common forms of individualized use’. Shapes are more varied than before, but the amber occurs as individual objects with their own history. Nevertheless, it is significant that the beads mainly occur as personal objects in a burial context, both in the megaliths and the flat (earth) graves of the period (Runcis 2002).
In the third phase, the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age, the quantity of amber declines sharply and the complexity of forms simplifies. Miniatures disappear almost completely and amber is shaped into simple clothing accessories such as buttons or ornamentation. Miniatures still occur in cists, but their frequency is considerably lower. With the increasingly widespread use of bronze over the following centuries, the use of amber for ornamentation seems to entirely cease. Amber is no longer a personal or a common object with a symbolic meaning. Finds from this period in Scandinavia are mainly in the form of unworked nodules, probably collected for exchanges with contacts outside the region.
MEGALITHIC AMBER IN SWEDEN
Amber beads are among the most frequent finds from megalithic burials in Scandinavia. However, research traditionally focused on the pottery found outside the entrances of passage graves, to the detriment of other find categories. There are a few studies on Danish votive offerings (Becker 1948; Rech 1979; Ebbesen 1995) and on the Swedish material from megaliths and hoards (Taffinder 1999, 2001; Anderbjörk 1932; Cederschiöld 1953; Ebbesen 2002; Axelsson and Strinnholm 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005).
In Sweden, passage graves occur in the regions of Skåne, Halland, Bohuslän, and Västergötland. Of the c. 400 known passage graves, around 260 are in central Västergötland. Quantitatively, middle Neolithic amber is dominated by the finds made in passage graves. This is probably due to the archaeological methods employed and the good preservation conditions in the chambers of passage graves. However, the material varies in composition, scope, and degree of preservation, mostly due to the circumstances of excavation. Most passage graves in, for example, Västergötland were investigated in the nineteenth century. The focus then was on skeletal material rather than amber and other finds. This, and the choice of excavation methods, means that the material’s representativeness can be questioned.
Axelsson and Strinnholm (2003, 2005) catalogued all the amber from Swedish megalithic graves and constructed a classification system dividing the amber beads into ten groups (with subgroups) based on their shape. An overview is provided in Table 34.1 and Figure 34.1. Using this system as an analytical tool, differences can be noted at both regional and local levels (Axelsson and Strinnholm 2003). Regionally, the incidence of beads in the shape of double-edged battle axes and clubs varies. Together, these two categories represent about half the total material in Sweden. In the Skåne megaliths, 11% of the beads are shaped as double-edged battle axes and 42% as clubs. The figures for Västergötland are 29% and 21% respectively. Otherwise, the bead percentages are broadly similar in both areas (Fig. 34.2).
FIG. 34.1. Examples of the different bead types. Numbers refer to the groups in the classification system—(1) double-edged axes (2) clubs (3) flint axes (4) bobbins (5) rounded beads (6) other geometric shapes (7) pendants (8) plates (9) other shapes.
(Drawings by Andreas Åhman).
FIG. 34.2. The frequency of different types of beads from megaliths in Skåne and Västergötland. (1) double-edged axes (2) clubs (3) flint axes (4) bobbins (5) rounded beads (6) other geometric shapes (7) pendants (8) plates (9) other shapes.
Table 34.1 The ten different groups of amber beads
1. a–d Beads shaped like double-edged axes
2. a–d Beads shaped like clubs
3. a–c Beads shaped like flint axes
4. a–b Beads shaped like bobbins
5. a–c Rounded beads
6. a–d Other geometric shapes
7. a–f Pendants
8. a–d Plates
9. a–k Other shapes
10. Fragmented, impossible to classify
Local differences are also observable between passage graves. As the number of burials varies, it is not surprising that there are differences in the numbers of amber objects. However, as knowledge of the burials is often poor, the differences in the number of various bead types cannot be discussed in detail. Broadly speaking, it can be stated that there is variation. However, differences are evident for some of the larger assemblages. Skåne’s two largest amber finds come from the passage graves of Kvistofta 12 (322 beads) and Barsebäck 3 (353 beads). An exceptionally high proportion (65%) of the Kvistofta finds were club-shaped beads. The proportion of beads shaped
like double-edged battle axes (18%) and like flint axes (2%) was also above the average for Skåne. The Barsebäck assemblage broadly corresponds to the average in Skåne—double-edged battle axes 10% and clubs 37%. However, at 10%, the Barsebäck grave shows more than the average proportion of beads shaped like flint axes. In Västergötland, two of the largest finds come from the passage graves Hjelmars Rör 3 (113 beads) and Karleby 59 (117 beads), even though excavation at Karleby 59 is still ongoing. With only 9% battle axe-shaped beads, the assemblage at Hjelmars Rör differs from that of other passage graves in Västergötland. In contrast, for Karleby 59, the proportion of beads shaped as double-edged battle axes (32%) is much higher than for other passage graves. Conversely, the proportion (10%) of club-shaped beads is well below average.
AMBER—SOCIAL PRACTICE AND THE FUNNEL BEAKER CULTURE
The amber in passage graves raises issues as to the role of such graves in Neolithic society. It also once again sets the spotlight on concepts such as culture and Funnel Beaker culture. The material from the passage graves shows that there are similarities and differences at both the regional and local levels. It is probably not the case that local groups had access to different trade/barter networks with contacts in amber-producing regions. Rather, differences probably result from small variations in traditions (perhaps connected to identity and/or lineage groups) regarding the social use of symbols. It is interesting to bear in mind that the amber and flint used in Västergötland most likely originated in Skåne or Denmark. Whilst both products probably circulated in the same social and economic networks, some shapes or symbols may have been in greater demand or were not allowed to circulate in the same quantities as others (Axelsson and Strinnholm 2003).
An interesting connection exists between amber and early copper working. Beads shaped like miniature copper axes are found throughout southern Scandinavia in the early Neolithic phase. These were originally interpreted as thin-butted flint axes (Ebbesen 1995, 40), but it has since been argued that they actually represent early copper axes (Taffinder 2001, 104). Copper axes are well documented in the early Neolithic (Klassen 2000; Magnusson Staaf 1996). Even as miniatures, their form is easily recognizable. A further possible connection between Neolithic amber and early copper working are the club-shaped beads, which are amongst the most common types in megaliths. Their closest equivalents are the ‘stone tools with shafting grooves’ (‘Steingeräte mit Rille’) found throughout southern Scandinavia and connected with early metalworking (Indreko 1956; Janzon 1984). A similar relationship (clubs, bead miniatures, and megaliths) exists in Ireland, where the connection with early metalworking is certain (Herity 1974). It is particularly interesting to note the regional differences between Skåne and Västergötland, with clubs considerably more common in the Skåne megaliths. Neolithic copper finds are almost non-existent in Västergötland.
The changes relating to amber also reflect a number of other transitions. Amber initially served as a social collective resource handled via centralized structures and combined into large, complex ornaments. These can be assumed to ‘represent’ a large group of people who jointly contributed to ornament creation, either inspired by a central organizing force or, perhaps less plausibly, by spontaneous joint commitments. To a certain extent, this follows the pattern that Per Karsten (1994) noted for votive offerings during the first part of the early Neolithic, i.e. that offerings were mostly not ‘accumulated and collective’, but individual items deposited by individuals. The collective element here is not in the offering, but at an earlier stage, in the handling of the amber.
The role of amber changes in the second Neolithic phase. Here, amber is principally found in connection with megalithic burials, as individual personal items following their carriers into the grave or given to them at burial. There is also now a clear increase in the variety of forms, although bead miniatures dominate. We can also imagine that beads, their sharing and combination, related to personal biographies.
In the amber from passage graves (and a few votive deposits), many beads show secondary holes, traditionally interpreted as attempts to mend broken pieces (cf. Cederschiöld 1953). From the Falbygden area, there are two known finds of votive deposits, originally interpreted as one hoard with a partly misattributed location (Cederschiöld 1953). The reason for this interpretation was that one amber bead was found in two halves, one in each deposit. However, this is not the sole possible interpretation. Amber beads may have been deliberately split into two. This is supported by the fact that holes do not occur equally frequently on all easily broken bead shapes (i.e. types 1, 3, and 6), as would be expected if holes were attempts to mend broken objects. If, on the other hand, amber beads were deliberately broken and perhaps shared between individuals or groups, other interpretations are possible. Drilled holes could then have been used to hang ‘broken’ beads or to attempt temporary ‘reunions’ (Axelsson and Strinnholm 1999). These beads could have functioned as symbols of relations and belonging, whilst the meaning associated with some shapes made it ‘impossible’ to split them in half. If symbolic value and use were more important than durability, it is not surprising that the frequency of drilled holes differs between different bead types.
These differences and treatments indicate a complex use of amber in the Neolithic. Beads may have been symbols and tokens of relations even where raw material was not naturally available and its origin possibly unknown. Interestingly, beads in the shape of double-edged battle axes also occur in the context traditionally classed as Pitted Ware culture (Burenhult 1997; Janzon 1974; Malmer 2002), once again showing that the traditionally defined Neolithic cultures are not homogeneous, but have fluid and diffuse interfaces. For instance, miniature amber double-edged battle axes occur in both Funnel Beaker and Pitted Ware contexts, although the Pitted Ware culture is not traditionally associated with megaliths (cf. Strinnholm 2001, 92–94).
AMBER, MATERIALITY, AND THE EVOLUTION OF NEW SOCIAL CONFIGURATIONS
Adornments constitute a powerful marker of social identity and can serve to define differences between people and for individual expression. Both were important in a situation where tradition and cultural values in indigenous societies over larger parts of northern Europe were exposed to varying degrees of internal tension and stress. As Wright and Garrard (2003, 277) emphasize, the combinations and rearrangements of individual beads enable the definition of non-verbal messages conveying an individual’s position within a social environment. This potential is increased by the beads’ varying ‘prestigious genealogies’ and hence their differing degrees of symbolic density (cf. Weiner 1994).
However, by solely focusing on amber as a reflection of changed social and economic relations, or on important cultural transitions such as the introduction of farming, one overlooks the material transformations amber undergoes, and thus its own importance in moulding these processes (cf. Olsen 2003, 90). Returning to Larsson’s statements about Mesolithic amber, he notes a common underlying practice in amber processed after 4000 BC, whereby there is a rapid change from utilizing only the natural surfaces of amber to stylistically shaping it to the point that it no longer portrays nature, but contrasts with it. These standardized forms are an indication that Neolithic amber refers to radically different sets of identities than during the Mesolithic (Larsson 2001, 69).
Amber was not the only material undergoing these kinds of transformation. Affiliated conceptions were expressed in several other objects during the same phase. In exchange systems, a variety of other polished, ‘artificial’ objects moved in different directions, such as polished rectangular flint axes (from southern Scandinavia and northwards) and basaltic adzes and axes (from central parts of Scandinavia), alongside slate daggers, knives, and spearheads (northern Scandinavia and southwards) (Taffinder 1998; Bergsvik 2006; Ramstad 2006; Zvelebil 2006; Hallgren 2008). These changes in material culture around the transition to the fourth millennium are not simple chronological stages, but embody a new material rationality and logic, implicated in t
he carving out of new social configurations.
However, amber had a distributional radius and involved quantities that no other material could match. Being rather malleable, amber could be polished into an infinite number of abstract forms. Furthermore, the lack of reference to the natural world made it possible to establish a new grammar related to social identities, objects, and materiality.
The changing role of amber during the Neolithic and early Bronze Age is not only attributable to a change in aesthetics or fashion. The transition from votive deposits in wetlands and megaliths to a commodity shows a changed view of amber’s importance. It is tempting to interpret this as a process in which amber changed from an inalienable object, a symbol and token of relations, to a commodity that could be circulated and exchanged throughout wide areas (for general concepts, see Bloch 1989; Godelier 1999; Weiner 1992). The barter of amber beads had become possible, as the beads’ symbolism had lessened and personal connections to the objects were reduced.
Amber is present in vastly different cultural contexts, from the hunting and fishing communities of Arctic Norway to the early farming communities of south Scandinavia, and across a vast area. Transformations in the use of amber and related materials are thus more than a reconstruction of older symbolic and ritual systems as a result of the Neolithic ‘Zeitgeist’ (e.g. Hodder 1990; Bradley 1997). Amber was one means of embodying a whole new practical logic. Beads could be fragmented, rearranged, taken out of circulation in burials or hoards, or distributed hundreds of kilometres beyond their places of origin. As part of exchange systems, even a single bead had the potential (through its form and biography) to affect older traditions. As such, the distribution of amber beads represents more than just the flow of symbols of excellence, a new form of adornment, or a response to altered social conditions, but rather expresses a different form of material logic with long-lasting effects in the Neolithic of northern Europe.
