Arrowheads As Indicators of Interpersonal Violence and Group Identity Among the Neolithic Pitted Ware Hunters of Southwestern Scandinavia

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Arrowheads as indicators of interpersonal violence and group identity among the Neolithic Pitted Ware hunters of southwestern Scandinavia

Rune Iversen

Saxo Institute, Dept. of Archaeology, University of Copenhagen, Karen Blixens Vej 4, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark article info abstract

Article history: The three main types of tanged ﬂint arrowheads (A, B, and C) characteristic of the Neolithic Pitted Ware Received 20 January 2016 hunter, ﬁsher and gatherers of southwestern Scandinavia are traditionally viewed as chronological con- Revision received 16 September 2016 ditioned. However, recent studies have shown their simultaneity during the early 3rd millennium BC. Based on a study of more than 1500 arrowheads from Denmark and western Sweden, this paper explains the stylistic variation of the Pitted Ware arrowheads as functional determined representing two main cat- Keywords: egories: relatively short and wide hunting arrowheads (type A) and long and slender war arrowheads Middle Neolithic (type C). Type B represents a multifunctional group of arrowheads that mixes features from type A Pitted Ware culture and C. Furthermore, diverging production schemes (schema opératoire) used for the shaping of hunting Arrowheads Stylistic variation arrowheads has helped to identify social groupings within the larger southwestern Scandinavian Pitted Lithic technology Ware complex and contact across the Kattegat during the Middle Neolithic. Schema opératoire Ó 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Southwestern Scandinavia Cultural contacts Group identity Neolithic warfare

1. Introduction 2. The Pitted Ware culture – Neolithic hunters, fishers, and gatherers Tanged flint arrowheads stand as the most widespread and ico- nic features of the Neolithic Pitted Ware complex in southwestern The Pitted Ware culture is a widespread and rather heteroge- Scandinavia. In spite of that, the social and stylistic functions of neous cultural phenomenon occupying the later Scandinavian Neo- these arrowheads have never been dealt with as the stylistic vari- lithic. It was distributed from the Åland Islands and eastern ation among the Pitted Ware arrowheads has been seen as chrono- Sweden to the north and east and to southwestern Norway to logically rather than socially determined (Becker, 1951, 1955, the west. To the south, Pitted Ware sites are found in northeastern 1982). However, new recordings and evidence from a series of Denmark and in Scania, southern Sweden (Fig. 1). In central and radiocarbon dated settlement layers and sealed grave finds have southern Scandinavia, the Neolithic started around 4000 BCE by shown that the different arrowhead types were used simultane- the occurrence of the first agricultural societies, the Funnel Beaker ously within the Pitted Ware area (Iversen, 2010). This has left us culture, with its northern limits reaching central Sweden and with the very important and not previously posed question on southern Norway. how to understand the stylistic variation of these significant The Pitted Ware culture in eastern central Sweden must be arrowheads from a functional and social perspective. dated to the period c. 3400–2400 BCE, corresponding to the final Based on analyses of the flint arrowhead inventory of the south- Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic in southern Scandinavia west Scandinavian Pitted Ware complex, this paper addresses the (Hallgren, 2011; Segerberg, 1999: 127–129, fig. 89). Whereas, more question of stylistic variation by considering the different arrow- than 200 Pitted Ware settlement sites have been recorded in east- head types as the outcome of task specialisation, such as hunting ern central Sweden of which some has displayed extensive culture and warfare, and production processes in which different group layers and hut structures, relatively few Pitted Ware burials are identities were integrated components. known except from the east Swedish islands of Gotland and Öland. Isotopic data from eastern central Sweden, Gotland, Öland and the Åland Islands show that people buried in Pitted Ware contexts had a distinct diet based on seals and other marine protein sources E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.09.004 0278-4165/Ó 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 70 R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86

Fig. 1. Map showing Pitted Ware sites. Dots indicate sites analysed in this paper, squares indicate other important Pitted Ware sites mentioned in the text. 1 Hesselø, 2 Læsø, 3 Smedegaarde, 4 Livø, 5 Anholt, 6 Kirial Bro, 7 Kainsbakke, 8 Musefælden, 9 Aagaard I, 10 Højvang 1, 11 Jonstorp sites H, M, M2-3, 12 Jonstorp RÄ, 13 Fiskevik, 14 Rörvik, 15 Dafter, 16 Ånneröd, 17 Auve, 18 Selbjerg, 19 Olas, 20 Sandhem, 21 Köpingsvik, 22 Ajvide, 23 Fridtorp, 24 Visby, 25 Ire, 26 Västerbjers, 27 Alvastra, 28 Fagervik, 29 Säter, 30 Åloppe.

(Eriksson, 2004; Fornander et al., 2008; Lidén and Eriksson, 2007). on the other hand found in large numbers in megalithic tombs This marked predominance of seals in the diet has even given the indicating a preferred reuse practice of these graves, in particular Pitted Ware people of Gotland the nickname ‘Inuit of the Baltic’ in eastern Denmark. From radiocarbon dated sites and a limited (Eriksson, 2004: 154). number of contact finds relating the Pitted Ware culture to other In southern Scandinavia we face a rather different situation. cultural groups, the Pitted Ware horizon in southern Scandinavia Except from some larger settlements located in northeastern Jut- has been dated to c. 3000–2450 BCE (Iversen, 2010, 2013). land, sites are mostly recognised by collections of cylindrical blade Only a few sites such as Kainsbakke and Kirial Bro on Djursland, cores and tanged flint arrowheads and reflect a mobile lifestyle eastern Jutland, have revealed preserved fauna remains showing a with seasonal or short-lived camps closely related to the coastal broad-spectrum economy consisting of husbandry, hunting, fish- zones, fjords, and watercourses. Sites are almost exclusively dis- ing, and gathering with a certain importance attached to marine tributed in the northern and northeastern parts of Denmark and resources (including seal, fish, and shellfish), which have been only in eastern Jutland have larger sites been recorded with traces extensively exploited. In all, wild species constitute a larger quan- of all-year occupation including culture layers. Pottery is mainly tum than the domesticated among which cattle dominate. How- related to such occupation layers and pits on larger settlements. ever, dog, pig, and sheep are also present. The wild species No clearly distinguishable or unambiguous Pitted Ware house include a range of aquatic birds, otter, beaver, fox, roe deer, red structures are known as are any proper graves. Arrowheads are deer, wild boar, horse, aurochs, and the youngest specimens of R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86 71 elk and brown bear found in Denmark (Rasmussen, 1991, 2000; blades struck from bipolar cylindrical cores. The significant cylin- Richter, 1991). drical shape of these cores with a platform in each end is a conse- Cereal grains have been found at Kainsbakke and farming is fur- quence of the flint knapping technique, by which the core is thermore indicated by the existence of quern-stones (Rasmussen, regularly turned 180° in order to produce long, slender, and 1991). Indications of agriculture have also been recorded from straight blades for the production of tanged arrowheads (Becker, the southwest Swedish Pitted Ware sites at Jonstorp in the form 1951; Thorsberg, 2007). of quern-stones and pottery with impressions of wheat and emmer The Pitted Ware tanged arrowheads were succeeded by techni- cereal grains (Jennbert, 2014, 2015; Lidén, 1940: 89–93). Because cally poorer and generally shorter tanged but completely chipped of striking similarities in pottery forms and ornamentation, schol- arrowheads known from the late Single Grave (Corded Ware) ars have reasonably referred to the east Jutland and southwest culture c. 2500 BCE. From this time onwards we also see lancet- Swedish sites as the Kainsbakke/Jonstorp group (Edenmo et al., shaped bifacial pressure-flaked arrowheads and from the late 1997: 141–144, Fig. 5:3). Neolithic (c. 2350 BCE) classical barbed and tanged Bell Beaker In addition, the small island of Hesselø in the Kattegat Sea has type arrowheads occur. Various barbed arrowheads, including revealed seasonal hunting sites specialised on seal resembling those with concave bases, are found in Late Neolithic and Bronze the situation in eastern central Sweden, the Åland Islands, Gotland, Age contexts (Apel, 2012; Kühn, 1979: 67–72; Nicolas, 2016). and Öland. Hesselø shows occupations of both Funnel Beaker and The Neolithic tanged arrowheads are divided into four main Pitted Ware groups and have provided a large number of tanged types (A–D) originally considered a typo-chronological sequence flint arrowheads of which the majority unfortunately are lost (cf. with type A as the oldest and type D as the youngest (Fig. 2). Becker, 1951; Nielsen, 1979). Whereas type A–C are defined as markers of the Pitted Ware cul- In western Sweden, Pitted Ware sites are mainly found along ture in southern Scandinavia and western Sweden, type D is affili- the cost, but sites have also been recorded further inland. Only a ated with the late Single Grave and Battle Axe cultures of Denmark few sites such as Ånneröd, Dafter, Sandhem, and Rörvik contain and Sweden respectively (Becker, 1951; Lidén, 1940: 81–95). preserved organic material and mollusc shells that can tell us Type A-arrowheads are plain points with a chipped tang (prox- something about the subsistence economy. Sites are mainly imal end) and slightly retouched point (distal end). Carl Johan located via the existence of tanged flint arrowheads and cylindrical Becker has defined three subtypes on the basis of the chipping of blade cores but also slate arrowheads are known as is Pitted Ware the tang (Becker, 1951). Type A1 is chipped from the backside of pottery. In general, Pitted Ware is sparse but it has been recorded the blade, A2 from both sides and A3 from the front (Fig. 3). Another in larger quantities at some sites (Edenmo et al., 1997; Hernek, type, A0, lacks the tang (cf. Fig. 2). Type B has been separated in two 2007). subtypes: B1 are chipped at the tang and at the point-end from Tanged blade arrowheads and cylindrical blade cores were three sides (edges and backside) while B2 in addition has been probably introduced into western Sweden as early as the Early formed with coarsely toothed edges. Type C is made up of carefully Neolithic (c. 4000–3300 BCE) under influence from southern Nor- made three-sided arrowheads almost totally chipped from all sides; way. The early occurrence of this, otherwise typical Pitted Ware these can reach lengths up to 18 cm. Type D is technically poorer assemblage, is apparently confirmed by a few radiocarbon dates than type C with which they share great similarities. These are short made on food-crust on Pitted Ware vessels. However, these dates (often 5–7 cm) three-sided completely chipped arrowheads. Three derive from one site (Olas in Halland). If we consider the accumu- subtypes have been defined (1–3) but as these are not related to lation of dates made on food crusts and bones from western Swe- the Pitted Ware culture I will not discuss them further. den in general, these all group within the Middle Neolithic, ranging The natural deduction that simple arrowheads were succeeded between c. 3300 and 2500 BCE, which must be representative for by more elaborate types was already outlined by Müller in the late the Pitted Ware horizon in the region (Edenmo et al., 1997; 19th century (1888: nos. 174–176) and has provided the basis for Strinnholm, 2001: 105–112, Figs. 49 and 50). Becker’s typology and derived division of the Pitted Ware horizon Even though the available number of sites with preserved fauna into three phases roughly mirroring the three main arrowhead material is limited, the west Swedish subsistence economy was types (Becker, 1955: Fig. 36). However, recent studies of the Danish certainly predominated by marine resources including seal, fish, material have proved that this chronology is no longer valid and shellfish, dolphin, and other whale species together with aquatic that the A-, B-, and C-arrowheads must be considered largely con- birds. However, analyses of the 13C-values of food crust on Pitted temporary (Iversen, 2010, 2015: 42–44). Similar conclusions have Ware sherds show preparation of terrestrial animals or plants been drawn on the basis of the west Swedish arrowheads but type and a range of terrestrial animals are also present at the sites A is generally considered to be the earliest to occur starting around including red deer, roe deer, elk, marten, beaver, squirrel, and 3000 BCE (Edenmo et al., 1997; Hernek, 1995; Munkenberg, 2007; pig/wild boar. Domesticated animals are few and include sheep, Persson, 1998; Toreld, 2003). Also in southern Norway the tanged cattle, and dog. The scare representation of these animals indicates arrowheads seem to have been used contemporarily as shown by that livestock did not play a significant role in the subsistence the investigations of the rich Auve site located in the archipelago economy. Furthermore, agriculture seems to have been practised on the western side of the outer Oslo Fjord. However, type A occurs during the Early Neolithic but most probably abandoned during more frequently in the earlier phases whereas type B and C became the Middle Neolithic (Edenmo et al., 1997; Jonsson, 2007; Kaelas, more common in the later phases on the site. Radiocarbon dates 1973; Munkenberg, 2007; Persson, 1998). show that Pitted Ware pottery was in use from c. 2900 to 2500 BCE (Østmo, 2008: 83, 156–158, Fig. 73; 2010). In southern Scandinavia radiocarbon dates from settlement lay- 3. Neolithic arrowheads ers with type A- and/or B-arrowheads range from c. 2900 to 2500 BCE. Correspondingly, type C arrowheads occur in a restricted The Early Neolithic arrowheads of southern Scandinavia basi- number of Single Grave culture interments, covering the entire cally continued the late Mesolithic tradition composed of trans- period c. 2850–2600. Besides, C-arrowheads have been found in verse arrowheads, which pursued throughout the Funnel Beaker two late Funnel Beaker stone-packing graves dated to the early period. First with the occurrence of the Pitted Ware culture in 3rd millennium BC. Thus, it is reasonable to consider a syn- the early 3rd millennium BC were tanged blade arrowheads intro- chronous use of types A-, B-, and C-arrowheads between c. duced into Neolithic contexts. These are made from long slender 2900–2500 BCE when the derived D-type occurs. However, a few 72 R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86

Fig. 2. Neolithic tanged arrowheads. Types A, B, and C (Pitted Ware culture), type D (Single Grave culture type). Drawn by Søren Timm Christensen.

somewhat disputable finds from Denmark such as Rispebjerg and In Norway the situation is somewhat different. Here, tanged Lilleborg on Bornholm, Sølager and Kornerup on Zealand and Selb- arrowheads are known from the Early Mesolithic and again from jerg in northern Jutland indicate that A-arrowheads might have Late Mesolithic sites in the south Norwegian highlands. However, been the earliest type to appear around 3000 BCE (Iversen, 2010 these seem to be made on flakes rather than blades. The cylindrical with references). core technique appears as early as 4000 BCE together with tanged In Denmark, the use of tanged flint arrowheads is not exclu- blade arrowheads. Both tanged blade and flake arrowheads seem sively bound to the Pitted Ware culture as it is also known from to have been used throughout the Neolithic, at least in some parts the late Paleolithic. In particular, the slight variants of the Bromme of southern Norway (Bergsvik, 2006: 41; Indrelid, 1994: 187–188). culture arrowheads bear resemblance to the Pitted Ware A-types. In western Sweden atypical cylindrical blade cores have been Tanged arrowheads were not part of the Mesolithic projectile point found in Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic contexts as have a repertoire in southern Scandinavia, which was focused on micro- few pieces from southern Sweden and Denmark. Varieties or liths, rhombic, and transverse arrowheads (cf. Madsen, 1983; ‘sub-cylindrical cores’ even occur sporadically before that time, Mathiassen, 1946; Petersen, 1993: 76–78, 82–90). e.g. in Late Paleolithic Bromme contexts (Andersen, 1975; R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86 73

Fig. 3. Type A arrowheads divided into sub-types 1, 2, and 3. To the right: schematic illustration of the chipping of the tang. Drawn by B. Brorson Christensen (Becker, 1951: Fig. 8).

Larsson, 1985: 30; Madsen, 1983: Fig. 11:B; Skaarup, 1975: 66, 4. Arrowheads for hunting and war – the distribution and Fig. 25:3; Thorsberg, 2007). function of Pitted Ware arrowheads Additional to the flint arrowheads tanged slate arrowheads are known from Pitted Ware contexts in Norway, Bohuslän in western As the tanged arrowhead typology no longer can be considered Sweden, and from eastern Sweden including the island of Gotland chronologically conditioned we must consider alternative explana- where slate arrowheads have been found in graves. In general, the tions for the typological variation of these arrowheads. One proxi- use of slate objects is characteristic for the hunter-gatherers of mate explanation could be that the different main types (A, B, and northern Scandinavia and slate arrowheads are generally rare in C) mirror different Pitted Ware groups who used the arrowhead western Sweden. However, tanged slate arrowheads occur on the shapes as ‘ethnic’ signifiers. A logical consequence of this scenario larger shell midden sites such as Sandhem, Ånneröd, Rörvik, and would be that the different arrowhead types follow tribal bound- Dafter, where they make up to 50% of the arrowheads (Bergsvik, aries as it is known from ethno-archaeological studies (González- 2006: 42–43; Callanan, 2013; Hernek, 2007; Nielsen, 1979; Ruibal et al., 2011; Lemonnier, 1986; Levi, 1998; Wiessner, 1983). Taffinder, 1998: 103–111, 144, Fig. 4:1). However, one quick look at the distribution of the different Various kinds of tanged bone arrowheads were also used types of arrowheads in Denmark shows a rather muddled picture throughout the Neolithic. The most spectacular find was made in with all three arrowhead types occurring within the same areas 1946 in a bog at Porsmose, south Zealand, Denmark (Fig. 4), see (Figs. 5–7). A partly overlapping picture could be explained away further below. Tanged bone arrowheads are also known from Pit- by the inclusion of arrows in exchange networks and by wounded ted Ware graves and settlements on the east Swedish islands of game transporting arrowheads across tribal boundaries but such Gotland and Öland, the Alvastra pile dwelling in Östergötland, scenarios would not result in the distribution shown in Figs. 5–7. and from the Middle Neolithic Battle Axe culture in southern Swe- Furthermore, if we consider sites with more arrowheads (five or den (Becker, 1952; Browall, 2011: 303–304 with references; more), these are not restricted to certain geographical areas either. Larsson et al., 2014: 94; Malmer, 2002: 161, Fig. 85). Thus, the different main Pitted Ware arrowhead types (A, B, and C) 74 R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86

Another obvious possibility is that the different arrowhead types are functional determined mirroring different aspects of Pit- ted Ware life. Task specialisations are usually expressed in the shape of the arrowhead and this might explain the morphological differences of type A-, B-, and C-arrowheads. Looking at the arrowheads in functional terms the long and straight type C with a triangular cross section resembles later prehistoric and historic arrowhead types specialised for combat. A similar interpretation might suit subtype B2 with its serrated edges, whereas the simpler and flat type A could have served as hunting arrowheads alongside with the transverse arrowheads. Such an overall dichotomy between war and hunting arrows is also well known from several ethno-archaeological and archaeological studies and does also apply to other objects than arrowheads. Moreover, war arrowheads tend to be more complex than hunting arrows due to the enhanced significance of killing a human being compared to an animal (Bosc-Zanardo et al., 2008; Chapman, 1999; Guilaine and Zammit, 2005: 172; Keeley, 1996: 54; Mercer, 1999; Nicolas, 2016; Orme, 1981: 209; Pétrequin and Pétrequin, 1990, 2006; Rosner, 1967; Weule, 1899: 52–53). On the basis of a small group of very long and nicely worked type C arrowheads, ranging from 14 cm up to c. 18 cm, it has been suggested that some of these were in fact Fig. 4. Cranium from Porsmose, southern Zealand, Denmark, with the bone spearheads. However, the long and delicate nature of these Ó arrowhead still in place, c. 3630–3375 cal. BC. Photo Lennart Larsen, The National points would likely make them break before penetrating if not Museum of Denmark. fired with great power. This would indicate that we are dealing cannot be taken as reflections of group-based or tribal borders with arrowheads rather than spearheads. Furthermore, bone even though some sites are almost totally dominated by one type. arrowheads of similar length and shape have been recorded in As regards the subdivision of the A-arrowheads, which are carried the Danish Roman Iron Age war-booty sacrifices. The distribu- out on basis of the shape of the tang, I will return to this variability tion of very long type C arrowheads are centred in areas hold- in manufacturing practice below. ing natural deposits of good Senonian flint, which made

Fig. 5. Distribution of type A arrowheads in Denmark. Own registrations supplemented with data from Becker (1982: Fig. 2). R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86 75

Fig. 6. Distribution of type B arrowheads in Denmark. Own registrations supplemented with data from Becker (1951: Fig. 25). possible the execution of such pieces (for further discussion and promoted a high frequency of violence and even cannibalism as references see Becker, 1957). has been argued for at Herxheim, southwestern Germany (Bickle In comparison, experimental research and wear analysis carried and Whittle, 2013: 399; Boulestin et al., 2009). out on A-arrowheads show that these were suitable for hunting During the Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age we see an and that they were hafted and probably used solely as arrowheads increase in the production of weapons including daggers, axes, hal- (Bye-Jensen, 2011). berds, and swords. Furthermore, indications of larger conflicts Before, I go deeper into the empirical evidence I will first briefly resulting in regular warfare and a battle field counting more than comment on war as a phenomenon in the Neolithic and then pur- 100 casualties bearing traces of both face-to-face fighting and long sue the analogy to the later prehistoric and historic war arrow- distance attacks has been recorded at Tollense, northeastern Ger- heads a bit further. many. The site dates to the 13th century BC corresponding to the The use of the term ‘war’ to describe violent encounters in the Nordic Bronze Age Period III (Jantzen et al., 2011). Due to a non- Neolithic might seem a bit excessive as war is usually defined as institutionalised and supposed limited geographical and lethal organised and armed contests between political units (see (?) scale, I will refer to Neolithic interpersonal violence as ‘low- Ferguson, 1984: 3–5 with references). Nonetheless, interpersonal intensive warfare’ (e.g. Ahlström and Molnar, 2012). violence surely occurs within small-scale societies (Fry, 2013; When discussing the use of hunting versus war arrowheads it Keeley, 1996; Orme, 1981: 194–209; Otto et al., 2006) but it most should, first of all, be noted that arrowheads designed to kill mam- likely took the shape of raids or set up, formal, ritualised, and even mals of course also will be effective against human beings and for non-lethal combats as indicated by the high number of healed cra- this reason any distinction between the two must be somewhat nial injuries known from the European Neolithic (Schulting and diffuse. This is in particular the case in a period such as the Neo- Fibiger, 2012; Varberg, 2014: 40–64). lithic, which has not provided any traces of armour or shields However, evidence of intentional killing is certainly also present acquiring specialised arrowheads with high penetration power. in the archaeological record from Neolithic Europe as shown by However, such weapons of defence could easily have existed in arrowheads embedded in human bones, skulls with multiple trau- the form of thick clothing and light wooden shields or animal skin mas, and traces of regular massacres such as the spectacular mass shields. Anyhow, one might still request different functionalities graves at Talheim in southwestern Germany, Schöneck-Kilianstäd and seek different outcomes whether one engage in low- ten in central Germany, and Asparn/Schletz in Lower Austria intensive warfare and interpersonal violence or in hunting and kill- (Beyneix, 2012; Christensen, 2004; Meyer et al., 2015; Teschler- ing wild animals. Nicola, 2012; Wahl and Trautmann, 2012). However, the named Based on the study of late Iron Age and Viking Age arrowheads, examples given above all belong to the Linear Pottery culture two technologically distinct main groups can de identified: cutting and it might be that we face a certain, socially unstable, situation and penetrating points. The cutting points are arrowheads made in some regions within the late Linear Pottery culture that for hunting and are formed with broad edges designed to cause a 76 R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86

Fig. 7. Distribution of type C arrowheads in Denmark. Own registrations supplemented with data from Becker (1982: Fig. 3). large wound and following heavy blood loss that will kill the ani- 237 B-arrowheads and 144 C-arrowheads. Of these, 531 arrowheads mal quickly or at least prevent it from running far. War arrowheads are intact and could therefore be measured according to both length are penetrating points, which are designed to have a long shooting and width. On the remaining 1036 arrowheads only the maximum range and good fly and penetration properties. These properties are width could be measured due to various fragmentations, mostly obtained through a long, thin and narrow design as the air resis- broken off tips. tance is reduced during flight as is the friction during impact. Based Table 1 shows lengths and widths of the intact arrowheads on analyses of arrowheads from the Danish war booty sacrifices whereas Table 2 shows widths of all arrowheads recorded within and central Swedish boat-burials, the division between slim war this study. In particular type A arrowheads display a great variation arrowheads and broad hunting arrowheads is placed at a width in length and width covering miniature pieces measuring no more around 14–15 mm. From the latter study, an additional group of than 21 Â 7 mm up to large pieces of 75 Â 25 mm and multipurpose arrowheads has been defined having a width 93 Â 19 mm. Whereas all three types show great variations in between 14 and 18 mm. Shooting experiments have shown their length it is evident, in particular when consulting Table 2, that type suitability as both war and hunting arrowheads (Jensen, 2007, A stands out according to variations in width ranging over 20 mm. 2009: 126–127; Lindbom, 1995). In addition, categories of multi- In comparison, the width of type B arrowheads varies within purpose arrowheads have been defined among medieval English 15 mm and type C arrowheads only within 10 mm. archery equipment (Jessop, 1996; Wadge, 2012: 189–90, 195). In general, type C is the longest and narrowest of the three types Now, how do these morphological characteristics match the displaying a median width of 12 mm, type A is the shortest and different Pitted Ware arrowheads? In this study I have analysed broadest with a median width of 14 mm (Table 2). Type B falls 1567 tanged arrowheads from 14 Danish and west Swedish Pitted in-between type A and C regarding both length and width. How- Ware settlement sites1 resulting in altogether 1186 A-arrowheads, ever, in Table 1 both type A and B show equal median widths. The smaller width of type A arrowheads in Table 1 compared with Table 2 is caused by the presence of a relatively high share of smal- 1 The available arrowheads from the following sites have been studied: Hesselø, ler and miniature pieces within the group of intact arrowheads more sites (Rørvig parish): 41 type A, 4 type B, 1 type C; Læsø, Vr. Højsandshoved compared with the entire group of arrowheads. (Vesterø parish): 4 type A, 2 type B, 3 type C; Smedegaarde (Nørre-Tranders parish): 151 type A, 1 type B, 1 type C; Livø (Ranum parish): 10 type B, 15 type C; Anholt, more To allow for the possibility that miniature pieces distort the sites (Anholt parish): 22 type A, 33 type B, 31 type C; Kirial Bro (Enslev parish): 90 general picture of width distributions, and in order to make type A; Kainsbakke (Ginnerup parish): 74 type A, 2 type B, 1 type C; Musefælden the three arrowhead types readily compatible, I have calculated (Veggerslev parish): 21 type A; Aargaard I (Øster Tørslev): 18 type A, 1 type C; the ratio of width to length in per cent for each type. This clearly Højvang 1 (Øster Tørslev): 286 type A, 4 type B, 1 type C; Fiskevik (Skredsvik parish): confirms the overall picture of type C arrowheads being long and 291 type A, 115 type B, 45 type C; Rörvik (Kville parish): 173 type A, 51 type B, 37 type C; Dafter (Skee parish): 6 type A, 3 type B, 2 type C; Ånneröd (Skee parish): 9 slender (the width only makes 19% of the length) whereas type A type A, 12 type B, 6 type C. constitutes relative short and broad arrowheads (the width makes R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86 77

Table 1 Length and width distributions of intact Pitted Ware tanged ﬂint arrowheads recorded from Denmark and western Sweden.

Minimum length in Maximum length in Median length in Minimum width in Maximum width in Median width in Width/length ratio in mm mm mm mm mm mm percent Type A 21 93 49 7 25 13 26.5 Type B 28 82 53 7 18 13 24.5 Type C 37 107 63 10 18 12 19

Total number: 531.

Table 2 Width distributions of all the Pitted Ware tanged ﬂint arrowheads recorded within this study from Denmark and western Sweden.

Minimum width in mm Maximum width in mm Median width in mm Width/length ratio in percent (all pieces/intact pieces) Type A 5 25 14 28.6 Type B 7 22 13 24.5 Type C 8 18 12 19

Total number: 1567.

26.5% of the length). Type B falls in-between type A and C (Table 1). In the light of these observations, it seems reasonable for Pitted In Table 2, I have calculated the width to length ratio on the basis Ware hunters to produce multifunctional arrowheads if they trav- of the length of the intact pieces and the width of all pieces; the elled longer distances. That this was the case is indicated below by result further accentuates the figures presented above. Thus, the the existence of contacts across the Kattegat. In addition, long trav- three arrowhead types clearly represent three groups in regards els have also been proven in earlier studies of Pitted Ware flint to width and length proportions. exchange taking place between southern Scandinavia and eastern The Pitted Ware arrowhead proportions seem to fit the same Sweden (see Becker, 1953; Iversen, 2010; Olausson et al., 2012). categories as the specialised arrowheads of the Iron Age with slim The production of multifunctional hybrid arrowheads mixing fea- war arrowheads (type C) as opposed to broad hunting arrowheads tures of hunting and war arrowheads would in particular be rele- (type A). The great diversity found within the A type probably vant if one could expect to meet hostile groups on e.g. hunting reflects the existence of specialised arrowheads for hunting birds trips and exchange journeys (see further below). and smaller furred animals such as squirrel, marten, and fox on the one hand and large game including bear, elk, aurochs, and red deer on the other as evident from the diversified fauna remains 5. Distribution of Pitted Ware arrowheads recorded on the Pitted Ware sites. The in-between, or hybrid, type B arrowheads might constitute One thing of course is the arrowhead’s morphology and their a multipurpose type of arrowhead, which combines features from functional usability, another thing is the archaeological evidence both type A and C. As mentioned above, multipurpose arrowhead for task specialisations. In this connection it is evident to consider types are also known from the Iron Age and Medieval archery the distribution of the various arrowhead types and their associa- material as well as from ethnographic studies (e.g. the Inuit, see tion with different archaeological contexts. In this part of the anal- Luik, 2006 with references). From these analogies it is obvious that ysis I focus on Denmark, as this is the only part of southwestern multipurpose arrowhead types are to be expected within sophisti- Scandinavia where arrowheads are found both at settlements cated archer’s arrowhead repertoire. Thereby, the Pitted Ware and in graves (megalithic tombs). arrowheads can be grouped according to John Chapman’s classifi- In order to go a bit further than the overall geographical distri- cation of artefacts following the categories: tools (type A), tool- bution of the different arrowhead types, I have focused my analy- weapons (type B), weapon-tools (type B2, with serrated edges) ses on sites with five or more finds (marked by diamonds in and weapons (type C). Tool-Weapons constitute a specific class of Figs. 5–7). As it appears, the number of sites holding more than five objects that cannot be classified solely as tools, which lack poten- arrowheads is not equally frequent on the three maps. A total of 24 tial for warfare, nor as weapons, which do not have any common or sites contain five or more A-arrowheads whereas the correspond- ‘civil’ functions. Weapon-Tools, on the other hand, are objects with ing numbers of sites with B- and C-arrowheads are 13 and 7 a primary martial function but which also have a secondary ordi- respectively. nary or peaceful function (Chapman, 1999). If we then consider the distribution of sites with five or more Still, how should we perceive the use of multipurpose arrow- arrowheads from different contexts we see that settlements dom- heads in a Pitted Ware context? A clarification of this issue can inate among sites with A-arrowheads (Fig. 8). Type A is also found be sought in ethnographic studies of the relationship between on sites with fewer arrowheads, it occurs among the single finds, resource acquisition strategy, mobility, and technology among pre- and it is present in megalithic tombs, however, only in restricted sent hunter-gatherers. A good example is the Pumé Hunters of numbers within each tomb (compare Fig. 5). Sites holding more Venezuela. Analyses of Pumé hunting demonstrates that the func- B-arrowheads are, on the other hand, dominated by megalithic tions of Pumé bows and arrows are situational flexible and multi- tombs and not very many settlement sites are rich in B- functional. Multifunctionality seems to increase with the mobility arrowheads (Fig. 9). Type B occurs widely on sites with fewer range and is a response to the resulting increased variety in arrowheads and as single finds (compare Fig. 6). The very restricted resources that should be encountered. In other words, the multi- group of sites containing five or more C-arrowheads are dominated functionality of the archery equipment mirrors the need for vari- by settlements (Fig. 10). However, type C is also frequent in mega- ous technical properties on the one hand and the restriction on lithic tombs but only in restricted numbers within each tomb, it number of items that is possible to carry on the other hand. Thus, occurs among the single finds, and on sites with few arrowheads the number of functions related to arrows correlates with travel (compare Fig. 7). Only B- and C-arrowheads have been deposited distance among the Pumé (Greaves, 1997). in hoards. 78 R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86

Selement Megalithic tomb Hoard Undeﬁned 8

4% 4 Type A 29% 2 Type B

Number of sites 0 Type C 5-15 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 >75 67% Number of arrowheads

Fig. 11. Numeral distribution of Pitted Ware arrowheads (types A, B, and C) on settlements. Registration presented in groups of 10 arrowheads. Only sites with ﬁve or more arrowheads are included. Danish sites only. Number of sites: 25.

Fig. 8. Distribution of sites with five or more type A arrowheads on different 200 pieces (for enumeration see Iversen, 2010). No sites have even archaeological contexts. Danish sites only. Number of sites: 24. close to that many B- or C-arrowheads indicating that real differences in the use of A-arrowheads and B/C-arrowheads existed. This picture corresponds with the assumption that hunting implements Selement Megalithic tomb Hoard Undefined were generally accessible, or at least far more accessible than weapons of war, including ceremonial weapons (cf. Lindman, 1985: 68). Fig. 12 presents the distribution of arrowheads in megalithic 8% tombs holding five or more specimens. The maximum number of 38% A-arrowheads recorded within a single tomb is 10 and the corresponding number of C-arrowheads is 12. B-arrowheads, on the other hand, occur in more tombs and in somewhat larger numbers reaching 36 arrowheads in a single grave (for enumeration see Iversen, 2010). The predominance of B-arrowheads in megalithic 54% tombs is hard to explain immediately. One might expect a high percentage of ‘war arrowheads’ (i.e. type C) in the megalithic tombs as direct results of violent encounters. However, the remains from these tombs are not easy to interpret as human remains and grave goods are mixed up due to reorganisation of burials and human bones and clearings in succeeding periods. Fig. 9. Distribution of sites with five or more type B arrowheads on different Thus, it is not to say whether the arrowheads found within these archaeological contexts. Danish sites only. Number of sites: 13. tombs represent arrows logged into the deceased, grave-goods or, most likely, combinations of the two. Moreover, the disparate preservation, excavation, and registration of many of these tombs Selement Megalithic tomb Hoard Undefined complicate these matters further. The above presented analyses of the distribution and frequency of tanged arrowheads on settlements and in megalithic tombs sup- ports the assumption that A-arrowheads were made and used for 14% hunting. As opposed to the A-arrowheads, C-arrowheads occur mainly in low numbers on each site and they are generally not as numerous as the A-arrowheads. A relatively wide geographical distribution and few specimens on settlement sites are to be expected if the C-arrowheads were in fact weapons. A somewhat 29% 57% comparable picture is seen in the distribution of another type of

7 6 5 Fig. 10. Distribution of sites with ﬁve or more type C arrowheads on different 4 archaeological contexts. Danish sites only. Number of sites: 7. 3 Type A 2 Type B 1

Number of sites Type C Now, if we take a closer look at the settlement category (Fig. 11) 0 5-15 15-25 we see that the number of sites holding more than five A- 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 arrowheads is considerable higher than the corresponding number 65-75 >75 Number of arrowheads of sites holding B- and C-arrowheads. Furthermore, the actual number of A-arrowheads found on settlements is also substantially Fig. 12. Numeral distribution of Pitted Ware arrowheads (types A, B, and C) in higher than the number of B- and C-arrowheads. Five sites contain megalithic tombs. Registration presented in groups of 10 arrowheads. Only sites more than 75 A-arrowheads of which a couple holds more than with five or more arrowheads are included. Danish sites only. Number of sites: 16. R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86 79 contemporary weaponry; the double-edged stone battle axes of and a stone pavement covers the whole feature. Unfortunately, no the northern Funnel Beaker culture (cf. Ebbesen, 1975: Figs. 142 direct traces of human bones have ever been discovered but pot- and 161). The relative scarcity of B-arrowheads on settlements tery and often well-made thick-butted flint axes, point-butted (however, still more numerous than the C-arrowheads), their affil- adzes, and stone battle axes occur in the mortuary houses. Besides, iation with megalithic tombs and their ‘hybrid form’ mixing type A ox teeth have been recovered from more of the graves. Hence, the and C features indicate that these had a multipurpose usage as also stone-packing graves likely represent the remains of wagon burials indicated by their morphology. (the ‘mortuary house’) with teams of oxen buried in the pits From these more general analyses of the Danish tanged arrow- (Johannsen and Laursen, 2010). heads I will look more closely at specific finds that connect tanged Type C arrowheads have been found in two stone-packing arrowheads with violent encounter in the Middle Neolithic. graves. However, in one of these the C-arrowhead was not recovered from a sealed context but does by all accounts come from a disturbed ‘mortuary house’ in which we would expect the 6. Arrowheads and indications of violent encounters in the deceased to be placed (Jørgensen, 1977: 61–63, 184, 207–208). In Middle Neolithic the other case a C-arrowhead was recovered from one of the ‘graves’ (Damm, 1989), which according to the interpretation of Direct traces of interpersonal violence within the Pitted Ware these features would have contained an ox. Of course nothing con- culture are generally rare but the many burials known from Got- clusive about the function of the two C-arrowheads can be said land have provided some basic information. Analyses of skulls from from the two stone-packing graves but their singly presence within 109 individuals have shown that 11% bear evidence of traumatic these presumed burials are best explained in the context of violent lesions; the majority being male. The head traumas generally show encounters. healing and only in one case was the trauma lethal (Ahlström and A direct proof of interpersonal violence comprising a tanged Molnar, 2012). However, none of these injuries were caused by flint arrowhead has been provided by a find from Gjerrild on Djurs- projectile points even though slate, bone, and tanged flint arrow- land, eastern Jutland. Here, a stone-slab cist contained successive heads are present in the Pitted Ware cemeteries on the island. Type burials of at least 10 individuals, six adults, one youth and three B and C flint arrowheads have been found in graves from Västerb- children, related to the late Single Grave culture, c. 2500–2250 jers and Visby. Whereas the location of arrowheads within the BCE. A 40–50-year-old male bear witness of a healed trepanation graves from Västerbjers favour an interpretation as grave-goods, and another individual, a 20–30-year-old male, had a type D- a tanged flint arrowhead (type C) and a bone arrowhead were arrowhead logged into his breastbone (Fig. 14). The bone shows found in the chest region of an individual buried at the Visby ceme- no signs of healing and the shot is likely to have been lethal. tery (Janzon, 1974: 295, plate 24; Stenberger, 1943; Wennersten, Another D-arrowheads was found next to the trepanised male’s 1909). The evidence from Visby strongly suggests that we are deal- right hip and was probably sitting in the soft parts at the time of ing with vestiges of a violent encounter in which a type C arrow- burial (Vebæk, 1957). The evidence from Gjerrild clearly illustrates head was used. the effectiveness and penetration power of such three-sided flint As Pitted Ware graves are rare outside of Gotland we are usually arrowheads. left with indirect proofs of the possible war-related function of the It is noteworthy that it is only the three-sided arrowheads (type Pitted Ware arrowheads. As briefly mentioned above, type C C and D) that have been found in graves under circumstances indi- arrowheads have been located in four Single Grave culture burials cating that violent encounters had taken place. Furthermore, it is and in two late Funnel Beaker stone-packing graves. Unfortunately, only type C that reaches extreme lengths (up to c. 18 cm) and never none of these interments contained preserved human bones, which type A and B. This indicates that this particular arrowhead type of course makes it hard to prove that these arrowheads were the was associated with a certain function that made it meaningful result of interpersonal violence. However, the location of the to create well-made and prestigious specimens or ‘show-pieces’. arrowheads in the single graves, and in two cases also their trans- Such a function could very well be warfare in which the display verse orientation compared to the longitudinal direction of the and use of certain elaborate and over-sized, but not necessarily grave, render possible that they were in fact logged in the body very usable, versions of the ordinary weaponry could be part of at the time when the burial took place (for further details see the competition between groups (Lindman, 1985: 66–69, 89–90; Becker, 1951: Fig. 20; Davidsen, 1978: Fig. 81; Ebbesen, 1975: Orme, 1981: 215–217). Fig. 181). Based on the presented analyses and comparison with evidence The fact that only single arrowheads were found indicates that from later period’s specialised arrowheads I find it reasonable to we are dealing with the results of violent encounters. More arrow- consider the Pitted Ware arrowhead types (A, B, and C) functional heads found within a limited space must instead represent rem- conditioned. Type A must be considered as hunting arrowheads nants of archery equipment (probably originally including bow due their relative large width, compared with the length, their and quiver) as might have been the case with the above referred clear association with settlements and their numerous presence burials from Västerbjers. At both Västerbjers and Visby bundles on these sites as opposed to type B and C. In contrast, type C most of bone and slate arrowheads have been recorded in graves indicat- likely comprises specialised war arrowheads designed to have high ing the presence of arrows among the grave-goods. Additionally, in penetration power. In every case when arrowheads have been a richly furnished Pitted Ware grave from Köpingsvik on Öland found in graves under circumstances that indicate a violent containing three individuals, two adults and a child, a bundle of encounter the arrowhead has a triangular cross-section (type C bone arrowheads was placed next to one of the adult’s shin-bone or D). The Pitted Ware type (C) is furthermore well made, slender (Schulze, 1978; Stenberger, 1939: 73, 88–90, Figs. 9, 21–22). and can reach oversized lengths. Such arrowhead shapes are The evidence from the stone-packing graves is not as straight- known from other archaeological contexts to be war arrowheads. forward as that from the Gotland graves or the Single Grave inhu- This does not mean that C-arrowheads could not have been mations due to the somewhat uncertain nature of these features. used for hunting and A-arrowheads not for warfare but generally Stone-packing graves are found in northwestern Jutland and are we must expect them to represent two distinct types designed made up of one or more pairs of oval pits (‘graves’) in extension for different tasks. Type B most likely represents a multipurposed of a roughly rectangular pit termed the ‘mortuary house’ type of arrowhead as it mixes properties from both type A- and (Fig. 13). The graves and the mortuary house are filled with stones C-arrowheads. The predominance of type B in the megalithic 80 R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86

Fig. 13. Stone-packing grave consisting of a ‘mortuary house’ (C) and a pair of graves (A and B). Vroue Hede I, feature XI, northwestern Jutland (Jørgensen, 1977: Fig. 70).

Fig. 14. Human breastbone with tanged ﬂint arrowhead (type D) embedded. From a late Single Grave (Corded Ware) stone cist at Gjerrild, Djursland, eastern Jutland (Vebæk, 1957: Fig. 3).

tombs as well as its concurrent substantial presence on a few set- questions we have to ask ourselves is if we actually face an tlements underlines this assumption. However, subtype B2 might increase in weaponry with the occurrence of Pitted Ware type C be affiliated with the group of war arrowheads (or Weapon-Tools arrowheads compared to previous periods? If this were actually following Chapman’s terminology) due to its often coarsely- the case, the second question would be – what may have caused toothed edges, which gives them a ferocious appearance. the need for such an ‘armament’? In order to address these questions, we will first have to consider the heterogeneous cultural milieu of the early third millennium BC. 7. Socio-cultural implications of Pitted Ware warfare In southwestern Scandinavia the first half of the 3rd millennium BC was characterised by four archaeologically-defined culture With the definition of Pitted Ware war arrowheads, it seems groups: The late Funnel Beaker culture, the Pitted Ware culture, obvious to consider the wider socio-cultural implication of this the Jutland Single Grave culture and the Swedish-Norwegian Battle new discovered warring element of the Neolithic. One of the first Axe culture. The two last mentioned belong to the larger group of R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86 81

Corded Ware societies that spread rapidly across most parts of northern, eastern and central Europe during the early 3rd millennium BC. The Funnel Beaker period is usually believed to have come to an end around 2800 BCE, when Single Grave communities introduced individual interments in small burial mounds, cord-decorated bea- kers and new types of stone battle-axes to the Jutland Peninsula. However, radiocarbon dates show that the late Funnel Beaker phase continued for another c. 200 years (until 2600 BCE) in eastern Jutland and on the Danish Islands. As mentioned earlier, substantial Pitted Ware sites have hitherto only been recorded in northern and northeastern Jutland (Iversen, 2010, 2015). Consider- ing the cultural situation, there are obvious potentials for a tense socio-cultural situation with three different groups occupying a restricted geographical area simultaneously. This is most clearly seen on the Jutland Peninsula. Even though the subsistence economic basis differed between the three cultural groups we must Fig. 15. The 15 cm long Early Neolithic bone arrowhead found at Salpetermosen, expect conflict to be a potential consequence of this heterogeneous northeastern Zealand. Photo Ó Museum Nordsjælland. cultural patchwork. The question is if the occurrence of type C arrowheads repre- techniques illustrated by the bipolar cylindrical cores. Still, we sents an increase in weaponry compared to the previous Funnel might see an increase of weaponry at the transition to the 3rd Beaker period? Additionally, how warring was the 4th millennium millennium BC as illustrated by another significant type of artifact BC compared to the early 3rd millennium BC? And did the type C – the stone battle-axe. arrowheads represent a new type of arrowhead at all? There can Calculations of the number of battle-axes related to the Funnel be no doubt that the elongated and straight form was new in flint Beaker culture in Denmark show a rather limited use of these arte- but it clearly resembles long and slender tanged bone arrowheads facts. Just below 500 Middle Neolithic Funnel Beaker battle-axes of the 4th millennium BC. Thus, it might be that the Pitted Ware C- have been recorded from a period of 5–700 years (Ebbesen, arrowheads were more or less just a flint version of an already pre- 1975: 174). However, these numbers change significantly with sent arrowhead type known from the Funnel Beaker culture. Given the occurrence of the Single Grave culture introducing new Corded the perishableness nature of bone we do not have many bone Ware battle-axe types known in thousands (in his 1940s study, arrowheads from southern and western Scandinavia. However, a Peter Vilhelm Glob located c. 2400 Danish Single Grave type few significant finds indicate that such bone arrowheads were in battle-axes (Glob, 1945: 15)) from a period of roughly the same fact specialised war arrowheads existing concurrently with the duration. Thus, a drastic increase in the number of battle-axes of transverse flint arrowheads, the only recognised type of flint several hundred per cent can be recognised from the Funnel Beaker arrowhead of the Funnel Beaker culture. That bone projectile to the Single Grave period (Iversen, 2015: 89–90, Fig. 4.43). points were used in violent encounters is also known from the Bal- With the emergence of Corded Ware societies, we see the occur- kan Late Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Copper Age (Chapman, 1999) rence of a new social system in which the battle-axe constituted and from the abovementioned grave find from Visby holding a type the dominant status object related to a specific warrior ideal. The C flint arrowhead and a bone arrowhead. clear gender differentiation seen in graves, high frequency of male The most prominent find of bone arrowheads from the Scandi- graves, and emphasis on battle-axes indicate the existence of a navian Neolithic is that of the Porsmose bog in southern Zealand. social system within the European Corded Ware societies, whereby Here, one arrowhead has penetrated the nose section of a man men were associated with a certain warrior ideal and formed part whereas another has gone through his breastbone (cf. Fig. 4). The of warriorhoods (Vandkilde, 2006, 2007: 82–7). This social system skeleton has been radiocarbon dated to the mid-fourth millennium would probably have included war-bands of landless and unmar- BC via the skeleton (Becker, 1952; Bennike and Ebbesen, 1987: ried young males who lived of raiding before entering the tribe 101). A similar type of arrowhead was just recently recovered dur- prober when reaching adulthood. Such groups of young males ing excavation in the Salpetermosen bog in northern Zealand. In were highly mobile and willing to take risks by undertaking this case a 15 cm long arrowhead (Fig. 15) was found together with pioneering migrations. Such a scenario could explain the rapid human remains of a 25–30 years old male dating to c. 3600–3500 spread of Corded Ware societies in the early 3rd millennium BC BCE who had suffered an unhealed blow to the head. The arrow- (Kristiansen et al., Forthcoming). The role of males as warriors is head was not logged into any of the bones but the find context further supported by a higher frequency of presumed combat make probably that the man was hit by the arrowhead as no other injuries on Corded Ware male skulls, compared to their female artefacts were found in relation to the deceased (Jørgensen and counterparts and there appears to be a relationship between Hagedorn, 2015). A fragment of another tanged arrowhead of bone battle-axes and skull traumas in central German Corded Ware was found in a dolmen at Stasevang, also northern Zealand, burials (Lidke, 2012; Wicke et al., 2012). together with three skeletons. Similar arrowheads have been If Corded Ware communities were in fact warlike by nature, as recorded from other parts of eastern Denmark, though all stray indicated by the predominance of battle-axes in their graves (and finds (Becker, 1952). associated combat injuries), and furthermore included youth Taking the supposed heavily underrepresentation of bone warrior bands roaming around in order to make themselves a arrowheads into account, the occurrence of type C flint arrowheads living and to earn social status within their tribes there was might not represent an increased focus on weaponry but perhaps obviously a very good reason for Pitted Ware populations to rather a transfer of the war arrowhead form to another raw mate- include specialised war arrowheads in their archery repertoire. rial; flint. This transfer became possible as the Pitted Ware culture This need was of course most explicitly expressed in areas where introduced tanged arrowheads into the Neolithic flint inventory the two groups lived closest together as was the case on the Jutland together with the required technological skills and flint knapping Peninsula, in comparison to e.g. the Swedish west coast. That 82 R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86 violence occurred between Pitted Ware and Single Grave groups is The vast majority of the Pitted Ware archery equipment has not indicated by the aforementioned Single Grave culture interments survived until today. Bows, bowstrings, arrowshafts, feathers, etc. containing single Pitted Ware type C arrowheads. are all elements that could have contributed considerably to The question is how serious these violent encounters actually uncover the social meanings of arrows and bows within the Pitted were, are we talking about actual warfare or rather transient raids Ware societies had they been preserved and uncovered. The only and periods of warmongering. No evidence has hitherto been pre- things left of the presumable rich and significant Pitted Ware sented indicating that substantial warfare took place resulting in archery equipment are the arrowheads. However, even insignifi- battlefields, mass graves or the like (cf. discussion on Neolithic cant differences in the production technique of the A- warfare above). Thus, from the archaeological record at hand, we arrowheads, such as diverging chipping of the tang, can hint at must expect violent encounters to have taken place in the form the existence of different social groupings among the producers of raids or short-lived feuds between different Single Grave and of the tanged arrowheads. Other studies have shown that it is often Pitted Ware groups, presumably in areas of mutual interests. In the proximal end of lithic arrowheads that contains the highest this context, it is worth noticing that the four single graves con- degree of variability and is therefore suitable for studying cultural taining type C-arrowheads all are located in the border zone and technological variations (Edinborough et al., 2015 with refer- between Single Grave and Pitted Ware areas in northern and ences; Saintot, 1998). northwestern Jutland just south of the Limfjord. In fact, three of It is the assumption of this paper that the A-arrowhead sub- the graves are among the most northerly recorded single graves types reflect different, and probably unconscious, ways of produc- intruding into what must be considered Pitted Ware ‘heartland’. ing arrowheads instead of having a functional explanation. Following this line of thought certain ways of doing things, or rather certain practices or ‘craft traditions’, can, even though differ- 8. Production techniques, contacts, and group identity among ences are unintended, reflect different communities of practice the Pitted Ware people of northeastern Denmark and western (Lave and Wenger, 2003: 97–100). In this way, the typological sub- Sweden division of the A-arrowheads can help us to define different craft traditions characteristic of different social groupings within the Above I have argued for a functional and task specific explana- southwest Scandinavian Pitted Ware complex. tion for the three typological distinct main Pitted Ware arrowhead Fig. 16 shows the distribution of A1, A2, and A3 arrowheads on types. However, a significant feature of the A-arrowheads is the larger Pitted Ware sites in northeastern Denmark and western diverging chipping of the tang that has resulted in a typological Sweden. As it appears, the west Swedish sites are dominated by division into subtypes A1-3 (cf. Fig. 3). As already pointed out, such subtypes A1 and A2 whereas type A3 makes less than 20% of the differences in production techniques could be assumed to have A-arrowheads. The same pattern can be seen on the small island been carried out randomly as neither functional nor emblematic of Hesselø in the Kattegat where type A1 predominate and A3 hold reasons are obvious (but see Malmer, 1969 for discussion of the a share of only 10%. In comparison, the situation is rather different arrowheads from the Jonstorp sites). However, the distribution of on another Kattegat island, Anholt, and on the rich east Jutland the various sub-types is far from random as different sites are pre- sites of Kainsbakke and Højvang 1 where subtype A3 makes more dominated by certain sub-types. How should we then explain the than half (up to 66%) of the recorded A-arrowheads. In addition, different production techniques visible among the A-arrowheads? the A3-arrowhead is the dominant subtype on the Smedegaarde Just such aspects as production and technique constitute essen- site. However, the small Musefælden site resembles the picture tial links between practice and material culture. Material styles, or known from some western Swedish sites rich in A1-arrowheads. what can basically be described as ‘types’, are in fact the objectifi- Thus, the A-arrowhead subtypes are very unevenly distributed cation of techniques and production – the result of ‘ways of doing with subtype A3 dominating eastern Jutland and subtypes A1 things’. Hence, material style is the outcome of a production pro- and A2 predominating the western Swedish sites. This regional dis- cess (chaîne opératoire) and the producer’s ideas about the final tribution indicates that certain production schemes were preferred product (schema opératoire)(Pelegrin, 1990). As techniques, like when producing tanged A-arrowheads in western Sweden and other social activities, create and are created by the habitus of their eastern Jutland respectively and that we face two different ways executer(s), the material style that comes out of the production of producing tanged arrowheads roughly divided by the Kattegat. process must include group identity as an active component – In this context the south Norwegian Auve site stands out with a but not necessarily a direct intentional display of such an identity. distribution resembling that seen on the large eastern Jutland sites. In this context habitus should be conceived as the commonly When considering such regional differences, we also need to shared dispositions and perceptions of the world shared by a group look more into the arrowhead material and not only the distribu- of people that result in congruent behavioral patterns (Dietler and tion of types. In Table 3, I have listed the median length and width Herbich, 1998; Iversen, 2015: 141–142 with references; of all type A-arrowheads and of each of the arrowhead subtypes Lemonnier, 1993; Lucy, 2005). from each site. If we take a look at the A-arrowheads in general, That cultural and identity-shaping aspects can be connected to we see clear regional differences partly corresponding to those archery equipment is evident from more ethno-archaeological seen in the distribution of subtypes. All south Scandinavian sites studies. Observations among modern hunter-gatherers show how have median lengths of around 50 mm or more and widths of the making and using of arrows can take up ontological dimensions 14 mm or more whereas the west Swedish sites and the Auve site to those who engage in these activities. Thus, the making and using have median lengths of maximum 45 mm and median widths of of bows and arrows can be inseparable from the self-concept of tri- maximum 13 mm. Data from undeterminable A-arrowheads and bal members and individual identity can be displayed through the A0-arrowheads lacks from the Jonstorp sites but judged from the arrows and the associated production process – even though dimensions of the A1, A2, and A3 subtypes, the Jonstorp material arrows immediately look the same to outsiders. Furthermore, cul- likely corresponds to that of the Danish sites. turally inflected meanings of arrows and bows can be reflected in These regional differences no doubt reflect the two different rituals and world views and find expression in what we can landscapes. Whereas southern Scandinavia is rich in good quality broadly refer to as ‘hunting magic’ (González-Ruibal et al., 2011; flint, western Sweden and southern Norway generally lack natural Levi, 1998). flint resources just like eastern Sweden that saw import of south R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86 83

Fig. 16. Distribution of tanged arrowhead subtypes A1-3 on larger Pitted Ware sites in Denmark, western Sweden and southern Norway. Numbers refer to Fig. 1. As not all of the excavated material from each site was readable accessible for study, information on the number of subtypes has been supplemented/speciﬁed from other recordings. The following ﬁgures indicate the number of determinable type A arrowheads (subtypes A1, A2, A3) on each site: Hesselø (73, data from Iversen, 2010: 36, no. 17), Smedegaarde (121), Anholt (31 data from Iversen, 2010: 36, no. 3), Kirial Bro (76), Kainsbakke (70), Musefælden (15), Aagaard I (48, data from Iversen, 2010: 36, no. 7), Højvang 1 (250), Jonstorp sites H, M, M2-3 (356, Malmer, 1969: Table 10), Jonstorp RÄ (177, Malmer 1969: Table 10), Fiskevik (264), Rörvik (154), Dafter (6), Ånneröd (13), Auve (62, Østmo, 2008: 82). Two sites (Læsø and Livø) held too few A-arrowheads to be included in the analysis.

Scandinavian flint during the Middle Neolithic mainly in the form indicate the existence of exchanged production schemes across of numerous flint axe rough-outs (e.g. Olausson et al., 2012). the Kattegat. In this context it is significant that the enhanced Returning to Table 3 and the length and width distributions of length of subtype A3 compared to subtype A1 and A2 generally fol- subtypes A1-3, it appears that in all cases, except for Kainsbakke lows the type. At e.g. the rich sites of Fiskevik and Jonstorp in west- and Auve, the A3-arrowheads are the longest and often also the ern Sweden the median length of subtype A3 is considerable bigger widest of the three subtypes. On Kainsbakke subtype A2 is the than the lengths of subtypes A1 and A2 (see Table 3). Thus, when longest, however, only two such pieces have been recorded, which making A3-arrowheads in western Sweden the flint knappers makes the result statistically uncertain. applied a greater size compared to the, for these areas, ordinary In overall terms, the A3 subtype, that dominates the eastern Jut- arrowheads (subtypes A1 and A2). land sites, is the longest and generally also the widest among the This exchange of production schemes worked both ways, the A-arrowheads. If we assume that the A3 subtype represented an application of subtype A3 in western Sweden and A1 and A2 in eastern Jutish production scheme (schema opératoire) – a certain eastern Jutland, and was probably the result of regular group con- locally favoured way of producing tanged hunting arrowheads, tacts between Pitted Ware hunters across the Kattegat as also indi- then the presence of subtype A3 on the west Swedish sites might cated by similarities in the pottery. 84 R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86

Table 3 Median length and width of tanged arrowheads subtypes A1-3.

Median length in mm (intact pieces) Median width in mm (all pieces) Total number A1 A2 A3 A A1 A2 A3 A Hesselø 52 48.5 55 52 15 13 16 15 41 Smedegaarde 54 56.5 59.5 58 15 14 15 15 151 Anholt 48 49c 56 57 14 10c 14 15 22 Kirial Bro 48 60 76.5 60 15 16 16 16 90 Kainsbakke 50 67.5d 52 53 14 14 14 14 74 Musefælden 51 45.5d 57c 50.5 15 14d 15.5 15 21 Aagaard I 37c – – 61 15 16 13 14.5 18 Højvang 1 47 43.5 50.5 49 14 14 15 15 286 Jonstorp sitesa 50 50 55 No data 13 13 15 No data 533 Fiskevik 46 42.5 57 45 13 12 15 13 291 Rörvik 39 41 42 42 11 11 11 11 173 Dafter 36d ––36d 9.5 9.5d – 9.5 6 Ånneröd 36c ––36c 13––139 Auveb 32 33.5 32 31.5 No data No data No data No data 18

‘A’ indicate all measured type A arrowheads from each site including subtypes A0, A1, A2, A3, and unclassiﬁed type A pieces. Total number of arrowheads: 1733. a Data from Malmer, 1969: Tables 10–11. b Data from Østmo, 2008: 82, Appendix Tables 16–20. c Only one piece. d Only two pieces.

9. Conclusion References

After the refutation of a chronological explanation of the Pitted Ahlström, T., Molnar, P., 2012. The placement of the feathers: violence among sub- boreal foragers from Gotland, central Baltic Sea. In: Schulting, R., Fibiger, L. Ware arrowhead types (A, B, and C) functional and social perspec- (Eds.), Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones: Neolithic Violence in a European tives are proposed. The study of c. 1500 tanged arrowheads from Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 17–33. Denmark and western Sweden have revealed that real differences Andersen, S.H., 1975. Ringkloster. En jysk indlandsboplads med Ertebøllekultur. Kuml 1973-74, 11–108. exited in the length and width proportion of the different types Apel, J., 2012. Tracing pressure-flaked arrowheads in Europe. In: Prescott, C., of tanged arrowheads. Type A is relatively short and wide whereas Glørstad, H. (Eds.), Becoming European. The Transformation of Third type C is long and slender. Type B forms a hybrid of the two. This Millennium Northern and Western Europe. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 156–164. division fits defined categories of hunting, war, and multifunc- Becker, C.J., 1951. Den grubekeramiske kultur i Danmark. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1950, 153–274. tional arrowhead types known from later prehistoric periods. Cou- Becker, C.J., 1952. Skeletfundet fra Porsmose ved Næstved. Fra Nationalmuseets pled with the archaeological evidence of task specialisation as seen Arbejdsmark 1952, 25–30. from the distribution on settlements and arrowheads found in Becker, C.J., 1953. Die Nordschwedischen Flintdepots. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Neolithischen Fernhandels in Skandinavien. Acta Archaeologica XXIII 1952, graves it seems obvious that the Pitted Ware arrowhead types 31–79. are functional conditioned representing two main categories: Becker, C.J., 1955. Die Mittelneolithischen Kulturen in Südskandinavien. Acta hunting arrowheads (type A) and war arrowheads (type C). Archaeologica XXV 1954, 49–150. Becker, C.J., 1957. Arrow or spear heads? Observations on some tanged flint points Differences in the production techniques subdividing type A belonging to the Pitted-Ware Culture in Scandinavia. Acta Archaeologica XXVII into A1, A2, and A3 arrowheads cannot be explained as random, 1956, 137–148. functional, or emblematic. Instead the subdivision of type A- Becker, C.J., 1982. Om grubekeramisk kultur i Danmark. Korte bidrag til en lang diskussion (1950–1980). Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1980. arrowheads represent different production schemes (schema Bennike, P., Ebbesen, K., 1987. The Bog Find from Sigersdal. Human Sacrifice in the opératoire) among Pitted Ware social groups in northeastern Den- early Neolithic. J. Dan. Archaeol. 5 (1986), 85–115. mark and western Sweden respectively causing slight and at first Bergsvik, K.A., 2006. Ethnic Boundaries in Neolithic Norway. Archaeopress, Oxford. Beyneix, A., 2012. Neolithic violence in France: an overview. In: Schulting, R., sight insignificant differences in the production of hunting arrow- Fibiger, L. (Eds.), Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones: Neolithic Violence in a heads. However, the exchange of production schemes across the European Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 207–222. Kattegat indicates regularly contacts between the Pitted Ware Bickle, P., Whittle, A., 2013. The First Farmers of Central Europe: Diversity in LBK groups of southwestern Scandinavia. Lifeways. Oxbow Books, Oxford, Oakville. Bosc-Zanardo, B., Bon, F., Fauvelle-Aymar, F.-X., 2008. Bushmen arrows and their recent history. Crossed outlooks of historical, ethnological and archaeological sources. In: Pétillon, J.-M., Dias-Meirinho, M.-H., Cattelain, P., Honegger, M., Normand, C., Valdeyron, N. (Eds.), Projectile Weapon Elements from the Upper Acknowledgements Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, pp. 341–360. Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M., Denaire, A., 2009. Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, This paper presents the results of my postdoctoral research car- Germany). Antiquity 83, 968–982. ried out at the University of Copenhagen as a part of the interna- Browall, H., 2011. Alvastra Pålbyggnad. 1909–1930 Års Uygrävningar. Kungl. tional and interdisciplinary research project CONTACT. The Pitted Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Stockholm. Ware Phenomenon in Djursland and Maritime Relations Across the Bye-Jensen, P., 2011. Eksperimenter med flækkepilespidser. Studier af pilespidser fra grubekeramisk kultur. Kuml, 63–82. 2011. Kattegat in the Middle Neolithic. The research project is initiated Callanan, M., 2013. Melting snow patches reveal Neolithic archery. Antiquity 87, by Museum Østjylland and is funded by the Velux Foundation. 728–745. I wish to thank all the kind people who have helped me during Chapman, J., 1999. The origins of warfare in the prehistory of Central and Eastern Europe. In: Carman, J., Harding, A. (Eds.), Ancient Warfare. Archaeological the data collecting process by giving me access to the collections at Perspectives. Sutton Publishing, Stroud, pp. 101–142. The Swedish History Museum, The Museum of Gothenburg, The Christensen, J., 2004. Warfare in the European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica 75 (2), National Museum of Denmark, Moesgaard Museum, Nordjyllands 129–156. 2004. Damm, C.B., 1989. Stendyngegrave i enkeltgravstid. In: Larsson, L. (Ed.), Historiske Museum, Museum Østjylland, and Museum Stridsyxekultur i Sydskandinavien. University of Lund, Institute of Nordsjælland. Archaeology, Lund, pp. 89–101. R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86 85

Davidsen, K., 1978. Final TRB Culture in Denmark. A Settlement Study. Institute of Jørgensen, E., 1977. Hagebrogård – Vroue – Koldkur. Neolithische Gräberfelder aus Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Copenhagen, København. Nordwest-Jutland. Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Dietler, M., Herbich, I., 1998. Habitus, techniques, style: an integrated approach to Copenhagen, København. the social understanding of material culture and boundaries. In: Stark, M.T. Jørgensen, T., Hagedorn, L., 2015. Salpetermoseliget. Alle tiders Nordsjælland 2015, (Ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press, 118–122. Washington, London, pp. 232–263. Kaelas, L., 1973. Den gropkeramiska kulturen vid den svenska västkusten – bofast Ebbesen, K., 1975. Die Jüngere Trichterbecherkultur Auf Den Dänischen Inseln. eller ej. In: Simonsen, P., Munch, G.S. (Eds.), Bonde – Veidemann. Bofast – ikke Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Copenhagen, København. bofast i nordisk forhistorie. Universitetsforlaget, Tromsø, pp. 62–74. Edenmo, R., Larsson, M., Nordqvist, B., Olsson, E., 1997. Gropkeramikerna – fanns Keeley, L.H., 1996. War before Civilization. The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Oxford de? Materiell kultur och ideologisk förändring. In: Larsson, M., Olsson, E. (Eds.), University Press, Oxford, New York. Regionalt och interregionalt. Stenåldersundersökningar i Syd- och Kristiansen, K., Allentoft, M.E., Iversen, R., Johannsen, N., Kroonen, G., Pospieszny, L., Mellansverige. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm, pp. 135–213. Price, T.D., Sjogren, K.-G., Sikora, M., Willerslev, E., Forthcoming. Re-theorizing Edinborough, E., Crema, E.R., Kerig, T., Shennan, S., 2015. An ABC of lithic mobility and the formation of culture and language among the Corded Ware arrowheads. A case study from southeastern France. In: Brink, K., Hydén, S., Cultures in Europe. Antiquity. Jennbert, K., Larsson, L., Olausson, D. (Eds.), Neolithic Diversities. Perspectives Kühn, H.J., 1979. Das Spätneolithikum in Schleswig-Holstein. Wachholtz Verlag, from a Conference in Lund, Sweden. Lund University, Lund, pp. 213–223. Neumünster. Eriksson, G., 2004. Part-time farmers or hard-core sealers? Västerbjers studied by Larsson, M., 1985. The Early Neolithic Funnel-Beaker Culture in South-west Scania, means of stable isotope analysis. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 23, 135–162. Sweden: Social and Economic Change 3000–2500 B.C. British Archaeological Ferguson, R.B., 1984. Introduction: studying war. In: Ferguson, R.B. (Ed.), Warfare, Reports 264, Oxford. Culture, and Environment. Academic Press Inc, Orlando, pp. 1–81. Larsson, M., Lemdahl, G., Lidén, K., 2014. Paths Towards a New World. Oxbow Books, Fornander, E., Eriksson, G., Lidén, K., 2008. Wild at heart: Approaching Pitted Ware Oxford, Neolithic Sweden. identity, economy and cosmology through stable isotopes in skeletal material Lave, J., Wenger, E., 2003. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. from the Neolithic site Korsnäs in Eastern Central Sweden. J. Anthropol. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Archaeol. 27, 281–297. Lemonnier, P., 1986. The study of material culture today: towards an anthropology Fry, D.P., 2013. War, peace, and human nature. The convergence of evolutionary and of technical systems. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 5, 147–186. cultural views. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. Lemonnier, P., 1993. Introduction. In: Lemonnier, P. (Ed.), Technological Choices. Glob, P.V., 1945. Studier over den jyske enkeltgravskultur. Aarbøger for nordisk Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. Routledge, London, Oldkyndighed og Historie 1944, 1–283. New York, pp. 1–35. González-Ruibal, A., Hernando, A., Politis, G., 2011. Ontology of the self and material Levi, J.M., 1998. The bow and the blanket: religion, identity and resistance in culture: arrow-making among the Awá hunter-gatherers (Brazil). J. Anthropol. Rarámuri material culture. J. Anthropol. Res. 54, 299–324. Archaeol. 30, 1–16. Lidén, K., Eriksson, G., 2007. Walking on the wild side: on cultural diversity and the Greaves, R.D., 1997. Hunting and multifunctional use of bows and arrows. Pitted Ware Culture along the Swedish east coast during the Middle Neolithic. Ethnoarchaeology of Technological Organization among Pumé Hunters of In: Larsson, M., Pearson, M.P. (Eds.), From Stonehenge to the Baltic: Living With Venezuela. In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New Cultural Diversity in the Third Millennium BC. British Archaeological Reports York, pp. 287–320. 1692. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 1–9. Guilaine, J., Zammit, J., 2005. Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory. Blackwell Lidén, O., 1940. Sydsvensk Stenålder II. Strandboplatserna i Jonstorp, Lund. Publishing, Oxford. Lidke, G., 2012. Violence in the Single Grave Culture of northern Germany. In: Hallgren, F., 2011. Om gropkeramik och dess relation till äldre Schulting, R., Fibiger, L. (Eds.), Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones: Neolithic keramikhantverkstraditioner kring Östersjön. In: Bratt, P., Grönwall, R. (Eds.), Violence in a European Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Gropkeramikerna. Stockholms läns museum, Stockholm, pp. 31–43. pp. 139–150. Hernek, R., 1995. Två Neolitiska Fångstboplatser Vid Viskafjordens Mynning, Lindbom, P., 1995. Pilspetsarna från Valsgärde 13. TOR 27, 431–448. Arkeologiska Resultat, UV Väst Rapport. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Kungsbacka. Lindman, G., 1985. Förhistoriska aggressionsstrukturer i det västsvenska Hernek, R., 2007. Sandhem. Presentation och tankar kring en nyfunnen landskapet. Göteborgs Universitet, Göteborg. kökkenmödding. In: Lönn, M., Claesson, P. (Eds.), Vistelser vid vatten. Lucy, S., 2005. Ethnic and cultural identities. In: Díaz-Andreu, M., Lucy, S., Babic´, S., Gropkeramiska platser och kokgropar från bronsålder och järnålder. Edwards, D.N. (Eds.), The archaeology of identity, Approaches to Gender, Age, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Bohusläns Museum, Uddevalla, pp. 179–230. Status, Ethnicity and Religion. Routledge, London, New York, pp. 86–109. Indrelid, S., 1994. Fangstfolk og bønder i fjellet. Bidrag til Hardangerviddas Luik, H., 2006. For hunting or for warfare? Bone arrowheads from the Late Bronze førhistorie 8500-2500 år før nåtid. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Oslo. Age fortified settlements in Eastern Baltic. Estonian J. Archaeol. 10, 132–149. Iversen, R., 2010. In a world of worlds. The pitted ware complex in a large scale Madsen, B., 1983. New evidence of late Palaeolithic settlement in east Jutland. J. perspective. Acta Archaeologica 81, 5–43. Dan. Archaeol. 2 (1983), 12–31. Iversen, R., 2013. Beyond the Neolithic transition – the ‘de-Neolithisation’ of South Malmer, M.P., 1969. Gropkeramiksboplatsen Jonstorp RÄ, Stockholm. Scandinavia. In: Larsson, M., Debert, J. (Eds.), NW Europe in Transition. The Early Malmer, M.P., 2002. The Neolithic of South Sweden. TRB, GRK, and STR, Stockholm. Neolithic in Britain and South Sweden. British Archaeological Reports 2475. Mathiassen, T., 1946. En senglacial Boplads ved Bromme. Aarbøger for nordisk Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 21–27. Oldkyndighed og Historie 1946, 121–197. Iversen, R., 2015. The transformation of neolithic societies. An Eastern Danish Mercer, R.J., 1999. The origins of warfare in the British Isles. In: Carman, J., Harding, Perspective on the 3rd Millennium BC. Jutland Archaeological Society, Aarhus A. (Eds.), Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives. Sutton Publishing, University Press, Højbjerg. Stroud, pp. 143–156. Jantzen, D., Brinker, U., Orschiedt, J., Heinemeier, J., Piek, J., Hauenstein, K., Krüger, J., Meyer, C., Lohr, C., Gronenborn, D., Alt, K.W., 2015. The massacre mass grave of Lidke, G., Lübke, H., Lampe, R., Lorenz, S., Schult, M., Terberger, T., 2011. A Schöneck-Kilianstädten reveals new insights into collective violence in Early Bronze Age battlefield? Weapons and trauma in the Tollense Valley, north- Neolithic Central Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 11217–11222. eastern Germany. Antiquity 85, 417–433. Munkenberg, B.-A., 2007. De gropkeramiska boplatsernas miljö. In: Lönn, M., Janzon, G.O., 1974. Gotlands Mellanneolitiska Gravar, Stockholm. Claesson, P. (Eds.), Vistelser vid vatten. Gropkeramiska platser och kokgropar Jennbert, K., 2014. The seashore – beyond monumentality. The case of Pitted Ware från bronsålder och järnålder. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Bohusläns Museum, coastal sites in southern Sweden. In: Furholt, M., Hinz, M., Mischka, D., Noble, Uddevalla, pp. 105–147. G., Olausson, D. (Eds.), Landscapes, Histories and Societies in the Northern Müller, S., 1888. Stenalderen. Thieles Bogtrykkeri, Paris, Kjøbenhavn, London, European Neolithic. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, pp. 235–243. Leipzig. Jennbert, K., 2015. Cultural identity? The Middle Neolithic Pitted Ware complex in Nicolas, C., 2016. Flèches de pouvoir à l’aube de la métallurgie de la Bretagne au southern Scandinavia. In: Brink, K., Hydén, S., Jennbert, K., Larsson, L., Olausson, Danemark (2500-1700 av. n. è.). Sidestone Press, Leiden. D. (Eds.), Neolithic Diversities. Perspectives from a Conference in Lund, Sweden. Nielsen, S., 1979. Den grubekeramiske kultur i Norden samt nogle bemærkninger Lund University, Lund, pp. 66–74. om flækkepilespidserne fra Hesselø. Antikvariske studier 3, 23–48. Jensen, X.P., 2007. The use of archers in the Northern Germanic Armies. Evidence Olausson, D., Hughes, R.E., Högberg, A., 2012. A New Look at Bjurselet. The Neolithic from the Danish war booty sacrifices. In: Grane, T. (Ed.), Beyond the Roman flint axe caches from Västerbotten, Sweden: using non-destructive energy Frontier. Roman Influences on the Northern Barbaricum. Edizioni Quasar di dispersive X-ray fluorescence analysis for provenance determination. Acta Severino Tognon srl, Rome, pp. 143–151. Archaeologica 83, 83–103. Jensen, X.P., 2009. Die Bögen und Pfeile, Illerup Ådal. Die Bögen, Pfeile und Orme, B., 1981. Anthropology for Archaeologists: An Introduction. Duckworth, Äxte. Jutland Archaeological Society, Aarhus University Press, Højbjerg, London. pp. 11–258. Otto, T., Thrane, H., Vandkilde, H., 2006. Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Jessop, O., 1996. A new artefact typology for the study of medieval arrowheads. Social Anthropological Perspectives. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus. Mediev. Archaeol. 40, 192–205. Pelegrin, J., 1990. Prehistoric lithic technology: some aspects of research. Archaeol. Johannsen, N.N., Laursen, S., 2010. Routes and wheeled transport in late 4th-early Rev. Camb. 9, 116–125. 3rd millennium funerary customs of the Jutland peninsula: regional evidence Persson, P., 1998. Gropkeramikfenomenet på den svenska västkusten. In Situ and European context. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 85, 15–58. Västsvensk Arkeologisk Tidskrift 1998, 63–84. Jonsson, L., 2007. Djurbenen från Sandhem. Tidigare undersökningar av djurben Petersen, P.V., 1993. Flint fra Danmarks oldtid. Høst & Søn, København. från kökkenmöddingar i Västsverige. In: Lönn, M., Claesson, P. (Eds.), Vistelser Pétrequin, A.-M., Pétrequin, P., 1990. Flèches de chasse, flèches de guerre. Le cas des vid vatten. Gropkeramiska platser och kokgropar från bronsålder och järnålder. Danis d’Irian Jaya (Indonésie). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 87, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Bohusläns Museum, Uddevalla, pp. 231–251. 484–511. 86 R. Iversen / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44 (2016) 69–86

Pétrequin, A.-M., Pétrequin, P., 2006. Objects de pouvoir en Nouvelle-Guinée. kokgropar från bronsålder och järnålder. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Bohusläns Approche ethnoarchéologique d’un système de signes sociaux. Musée Museum, Uddevalla, pp. 149–178. d’Archéologie nationale de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Paris. Toreld, A., 2003. ..och vad säger flintan? – fyndanalys över en gropkeramisk Rasmussen, L.W., 1991. Kainsbakke. En kystboplads fra yngre stenalder, Kainsbakke. lägerplats. In: Nordell, L., Swedberg, S. (Eds.), Vid Starekilens stränder. Djurslands Museum, Dansk Fiskerimuseum, Grenaa, pp. 9–69. Arkeologiska undersökningar av boplatserna Skee 53 och 54. Bohusläns Rasmussen, L.W., 2000. Kirial Bro – mellem fangere og bønder. In: Hvass, S. (Ed.), museum, Rio Kulturkooperativ, Uddevalla, pp. 29–46. Vor skjulte kulturarv. Arkæologien under jordoverfladen. Til Hendes Majestæt Vandkilde, H., 2006. Warriors and warrior institutions in Copper Age Europe. In: Dronning Margrethe II. 16. April 2000, Esbjerg, pp. 52–53. Otto, T., Thrane, H., Vandkilde, H. (Eds.), Warfare and Society. Archaeological Richter, J., 1991. Kainsbakke. Aspects of the palaeoecology of Neolithic man, and Social Anthropological Perspectives. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, pp. Kainsbakke, Grenaa, pp. 71–127. 393–422. Rosner, V., 1967. Archery in Bhutan. Anthropos 62, 419–432. Vandkilde, H., 2007. Culture and Change in Central European Prehistory. 6th to 1st Saintot, S., 1998. Les armatures de flèches en silex de Chalain et de Clairvaux. Gallia millennium BC. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus. Préhistoire 40, 204–241. Varberg, J., 2014. Fortidens slagmarker. Krig og konflikt fra stenalder til vikingetid. Schulting, R., Fibiger, L., 2012. Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones: Neolithic Violence Gyldendal, København. in a European Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. Vebæk, C.L., 1957. Et usædvanligt stenalders gravfund paa Djursland. Fra Schulze, H., 1978. Stenåldersboplatsen i Köpingsvik. Kalmar län. Årsbok för Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1957, 75–82. kulturhistoria och hembygdsvård 63, 38–41. Wadge, R., 2012. Archery in Medieval England. Who Were the Bowmen of Crecy? Segerberg, A., 1999. Bälinge Mossar. Kustbor i Uppland under yngre stenåldern. Spellmount, Stroud. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Uppsala. Wahl, J., Trautmann, I., 2012. The Neolithic massacre at Talheim: a pivotal find in Skaarup, J., 1975. Stengade. Ein langeländischer Wohnplatz mit Hausresten aus der conflict archaeology. In: Schulting, R., Fibiger, L. (Eds.), Sticks, Stones, and frühneolithischen Zeit. Langelands Museum, Rudkøbing. Broken Bones: Neolithic Violence in a European Perspective. Oxford University Stenberger, M., 1939. Das Västerbjersfeld. Ein Grabfeld der Ganggräberzeit auf Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 77–100. Gotland. Acta Archaeologica X 1939, 60–105. Wennersten, O.V., 1909. Boplats från stenåldern i Visby. Fornvännen 4, 198–212. Stenberger, M., 1943. Das Grabfeld von Västerbjers auf Gotland. Kungl. Vitterhets Weule, K., 1899. Der afrikanische Pfeil. Eine anthropogeographische Studie. Oswald Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Lund. Schmidt, Leipzig. Strinnholm, A., 2001. Bland säljägare och fårfarmare. Struktur och förändring i Wicke, J., Neubert, A., Bindl, R., Bruchhaus, H., 2012. Injured – but special? On Västsveriges mellanneolitikum. Coast to Coast Project, Uppsala. associations between skull defects and burial treatment in the Corded Ware Taffinder, J., 1998. The allure of the exotic. The Social Use of Non-local Raw Culture of central Germany. In: Schulting, R., Fibiger, L. (Eds.), Sticks, Stones, and Materials During the Stone Age in Sweden. Department of Archaeology and Broken Bones: Neolithic Violence in a European Perspective. Oxford University Ancient History, Uppsala University, Uppsala. Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 151–174. Teschler-Nicola, M., 2012. The Early Neolithic site Asparn/Schletz (Lower Austria). Wiessner, P., 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. Anthropological evidence of interpersonal violence. In: Schulting, R., Fibiger, L. Am. Antiq. 48, 253–276. (Eds.), Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones: Neolithic Violence in a European Østmo, E., 2008. Auve. En fangstboplass fra yngre steinalder på Vesterøya i Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 101–220. Sandefjord. Kulturhistorisk museum, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo. Thorsberg, K., 2007. Något om spån, cylindriska kärnor och mellanneolitikum. In: Østmo, E., 2010. The cord stamp in Neolithic Scandinavia. Acta Archaeologica 81 Lönn, M., Claesson, P. (Eds.), Vistelser vid vatten. Gropkeramiska platser och (2010), 44–71.