Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:49:08.658Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dating the Neolithic: Methodological Premises and Absolute Chronology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Johannes Müller
Johannes Müller*
Affiliation:
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, University of Kiel, Germany. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Ideas of Neolithic societies and of the identities of Neolithic individuals changed rapidly during the last decade. The archaeological concept of “culture” implies sequential changes of material culture in spatial and temporal “slices.” The term “society” describes human behavior within social identities, which could produce huge differences in material culture. Ideas of Neolithic “cultures” are no longer valid, as absolute chronological evidence points to overlapping phenomena of material culture and social developments. A combined use of correspondence analysis (to detect similarities and differences in material culture) and radiocarbon data (to identify the chronological character of material culture) exemplifies such an approach in the deconstruction and reconstruction of Neolithic central Germany.

Type
Radiocarbon Chronologies of the Neolithic and Metal Ages
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , 2009 , pp. 721 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Bayliss, A, Bronk Ramsey, C, van der Plicht, J, Whittle, A. 2007. Bradshaws and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(Supplement S1):1–28.Google Scholar
Beran, J. 2000a. Der mitteldeutsche Raum als Grenzland vorgeschichtlicher Kulturkreise im Jung- und Endneolithikum. In: Beier, H-J, Einicke, R, editors. Varia Neolithica I. Langenweissbach: Beier und Beran. p 131–2.Google Scholar
Beran, J. 2000b. Zitate und Thesen zum archäologischen Nachweis von Stammesgebieten. In: Beier, H-J, Einicke, R, editors. Varia Neolithica I. Langenweissbach: Beier und Beran. p 25–31.Google Scholar
Czebreszuk, J, Müller, J, editors. 2001. Die absolute Chronologie in Mitteleuropa 3000–2000 v. Chr. Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 1. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.Google Scholar
Furholt, M. 2003. Die absolutchronologische Datierung der Schnurkeramik in Mitteleuropa und Südskandinavien. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 101. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.Google Scholar
Greenacre, MJ. 2007. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. 2nd edition. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Chapman & Hall/CRC. 280 p.Google Scholar
Hafner, A, Suter, PJ. 1997. Entwurf eines neuen Chronologie- Schemas zum Neolithikum des schweizerischen Mittellandes. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 27:549–65.Google Scholar
Lichardus, J. 1976. Rössen-Gatersleben-Baalberge. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde. Bonn: Habelt. 320 p.Google Scholar
Müller, J. 1996. The use of correspondence analysis for different kinds of data categories: domestic and ritual Globular Amphorae sites in Central Germany. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 28:217–22.Google Scholar
Müller, J. 2000. Radiokarbonchronologie—Keramik-technologie-Osteologie-Anthropologie-Raumanalysen. Beiträge zum Neolithikum und zur Frühbronzezeit im Mittel-Elbe- Saale-Gebiet. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 80. p 25–211.Google Scholar
Müller, J. 2001. Soziochronologische Studien zum Jung-Spätneolithikum im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100–2700 v. Chr.). Eine sozialhistorische Interpretation prähistorischer Quellen. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 21. Rahden: Westfalen.Google Scholar
Müller, J, van Willigen, J. 2001. New radiocarbon evidence for European Bell Beakers and the consequences for the diffusion of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. In: Nicolis, F, editor. Bell Beakers Today. Trento. p 59–80.Google Scholar
Müller-Scheessel, N, Burmeister, S. 2006. Einführung: Die Identifizierung sozialer Gruppen. Die Erkenntnismöglichkeiten der Prähistorischen Archäologie auf dem Prüfstand. In: Burmeister, S, Müller-Scheessel, N, editors. Soziale Gruppen—kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Grenzen in der Prähistorischen Archäologie. p 9–38.Google Scholar
Raetzel-Fabian, D, Furholt, M. 2006. Frühbadener Elemente im Neolithikum Mitteldeutschlands: “Die Schöninger Gruppe.” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36:347–58.Google Scholar
Tilley, CY, editor. 1990. Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneutics, and Post-Structuralism. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 372 p.Google Scholar
Tilley, CY. 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic: Early Prehistoric Societies in Southern Scandinavia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wotzka, H-P. 2000. “Kultur” in der deutschsprachigen Urgeschichtsforschung. In: Fröhlich, S, editor. Kolloquium zum Kulturbegriff Halle. Saale. p 55–80.Google Scholar