No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A response to Stilborg's plea for regional analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
Extract
Stilborg's comment on my 1997 article singles out two related subjects. The first is of a methodological nature. He states that a comparison of two ‘objects’ requires a third ‘object’ as a point of reference. In the case of my comparison of the Swifterbant and Ertebølle cultures, this point of reference is provided by the neolithic cultures to the South. His second argument is that the Ertebølle culture is not an homogenous entity, but rather comprises a series of regional groups with distinct aspects, especially in material culture. In the following response, I will discuss these two subjects.
- Type
- Discussion
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 1999
References
Andersen, S.H., 1975: Ringkloster, en jysk indlandsboplads med Erteböllekultur, Kuml 1973–1974, 11–108 (with English summary).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S.H., 1998: Ringkloster. Ertebølle trappers and wild boar hunters in eastern Jutland. A survey, Journal of Danish archaeology 12 (1994–1995), 13–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergenstråhle, I. 1999: Skateholm, A late mesolithic settlement in southern Scania, in a regional perspective, in Thévenin, A. and Bintz, P. (eds), L'Europe des derniers chasseurs, 5e colloque international UISPP 1995, Paris, 335–340.Google Scholar
Bergenstråhle, I. and Stilborg, O., forthcoming: Traditions in transition. Lund archaeological review.Google Scholar
Hulthén, B., 1977: On ceramic technology during the Scandinavian Neolithic and Bronze Age, Stockholm (Theses and papers in North-European archaeology 6).Google Scholar
Jennbert, K., 1984: Den produktiva gåvan. Tradition och innovation i Sydskandinavien for omkring 5300 år sedan, Lund (Acta archaeologica lundensia ser. in 4° 16) (with English summary).Google Scholar
Koch Nielsen, E., 1987: Ertebølle and Funnel Beaker pots as tools. On traces of production techniques and use, Acta archaeologica 57 (1986), 107–120.Google Scholar
Larsson, L., 1988: The Skateholm project I. Late mesolithic settlement at a south Swedish lagoon, in Larsson, L. (ed.), Man and environment, Lund (Acta regiae societatis humaniorum litterarum lundensis 79), 9–19.Google Scholar
Louwe Kooijmans, L., 1998: Between Geleen and Banpo. The agricultural transformation of prehistoric society, 9000-4000 BC, Amsterdam (Twintigste Kroon-voordracht).Google Scholar
Raemaekers, D., 1997: The history of the Ertebølle parallel in Dutch neolithic studies and the spell of the point-based pottery, Archaeological dialogues 4, 220–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raemaekers, D., 1999: The articulation of a ‘new Neolithic’. The meaning of the Swifterbant culture for the process of neolithisation in the western part of the North European plain, Leiden (Archaeological series Leiden university 3).Google Scholar
Roever, J.P. de 1979: The pottery from Swifterbant – Dutch Ertebølle (Swifterbant contribution 11), Helinium 19, 13–36.Google Scholar
Stilborg, O., 1994: Perception, forskelle og kategorier, in Goldhahn, J. (ed.), Teori ach praktik, Göteborg (Nordisk kontaktstencil 37 (1993)), 59–66.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 1996: The cultural context of the first use of domesticates in continental central and northwest Europe, in Harris, D.R. (ed.), The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia, London, 310–322.Google Scholar
Vang Petersen, P., 1984: Chronological and regional variation in the late Mesolithic of eastern Denmark, Journal of Danish archaeology 3, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar