Uniting SEA

8/7/2019 Uniting SEA

1/30

-~ -

UNITING SEAEditors:Christoffer Samuelsson

Niklas Ytterberg


2/30

lAgeatlyrdofasesta

ries

Chris to ffer S am uels son and N ik la s Y tte rb ergRuined but rescuedThe Middle Neolithic PittedWare site atHemmor on Gotland

AbstractThe Stone Age settlement at Hemmor, situated on southeastern Gotland, is relativelyweIl-known in the swedish archaeological record. The find material is typical for thePitted Ware Culture and the Middle Neolithic (3300-2300 BC). Thick cultural layersand a diversity of weil preserved artefacts, features and human remains at the site,together with the island's location in the centre of the Baltic Sea, makes it an interest-ing ohject for the discussion of identity, ethnicity, contacts and exchange.Unfortunately, widespread destruction occurred in the middle of the 1990's, when theformer pastureIand was converted into arable land, though it can be argued that thisevent has led to an increased understanding of the site, Datings, surveys, excavationsand chemical analyses during the last dec ad e have made new interpretations possible,especiaIly concerning the settlement organisation and occupation. Not only differentactivity areas can be identified within the site, such as places for burial, slaughter andtool making, but also chronological strata which indicate that the site has changed froma traditional settlement into a central place for ritual activities during the course of theMiddle Neolithic.Keywords: Hemmor, Gotland, Pitted Ware Culture, Middle Neolithic, settlement, graves,Baltic Sea, rituality, preservation, phosphate analysis.Chris/offer Samuelsson, National Heritage Board, Regis/er of Ancien/ Monuments,Box 5405, SE-JJ4 81 Stockholm, Sweden, chris/offet:[email protected] Ytterberg. National Heritage Board, Archaeological Excavations DepartmentUV GAL, Kungsgatan 62, SE-753 18 Uppsala, Swiden, [email protected]

IntroductionThe site an d th e contextThe Stone Age settlement at Hemmor is situated in Nr parish, in thesoutheast of the island of Gotland (Fig. l). The settlement was discovered Xin 1902 as one of the firstPitted Ware sites in Sweden. The Pitted WareCulture (pWC) is principally associated with the Middle Neolithic period(3300-2300 BC), and was widespread along the coasts of western andeastern Sweden, and on the islands ofJand, Gotland and land. TheHemmor settlement beJonged to the eastern PWC complex which is gen-erally characterized by the great quantity of pottery at the sites. Various

225


3/30

Christoffer Samuelss on and Niklas Y tte rb erg

N

+

Figure I. The Baltic Sea with the Hemmor site on Gotland marked.

226

foBeasCoofitheec oIS oog )H < ! j19shonmonseaomria llo dexpwe:-we:ers,trarevehasmeiSantranto t lqueneaYttllay egr aGotrule


4/30

.

Ruined but rescuedforms of contact were certainly established with the agricultural FunnelBeaker Culture and the Battle Axe Culture of south Scandinavia, as well , J Jas with the hunting-based Slate Culture in northem Sweden and the ~Combed Ware Culture complex in the eastem Baltic region. A wide rangeof interpretations is at hand conceming the" origin" and" development" ofthe Pitted Ware culture and to what extent different concepts - such aseconomy - should serve as a base for a definition of the culture. Today itis common to explain material differences in terms of ethnicity and ideol-ogy rather than economy and actions connected to functional thinking (e.g.Hallgren 1996; Edenmo et. al 1997; Carlsson 1998; Johnsen &Welinder1998).The settlement was during the Neolithic situated right by the formershoreline of a shallow cove, 9 metres above the present sea level, on thenorthem side of a spit reaching out into the Littorina Sea. South and eastof the spit, which today is represented by a sharp, flat ridge, was the opensea and som e smaller islands. The nearby abundant habitats, with decidu-ous forests, marshlands and brackish water, are reflected in the find mate-rial and waste products, as well as among the macro fossils. The northemlocation ofthe site differs from most other sites on Gotland, and might beexplained in terms of geographical conditions, where a shelter against thewestern winds - earlier as well as today frequent in this part of the Baltic- was offered and preferred. The exposed position of many sites on thewestern coast is evident in distinct shorelines and great transgression lay-ers, e.g. on Ajvide in Eksta parish (sterholm 1989, pp. 10ft). Thesetransgression layers are also found in the eastem parts of Gotland, how-evernot thatobvious in the geological record (Ibid. 1989, p. 93f, 144), andhas recently been observed at Hemmor. This layer, which is found 11metres above the present sea level (Hedemark et al. 2000b, p. 14;Samuelsson &Ytterberg 2002, p. 18), is most likely identical with the L3transgression dated by shore displacement to the transition from the Earlyto the Middle Neolithic, approximately 3300 Be. It gives a terminus antequem of the settlement use, since no culturallayer has been traced be-neath it (ej sterholm 1989, p. 10; kerlund et al. 1995; Samuelsson &Ytterberg 2002, p. 9). Graves have been found dug through the culturallayer and into the underlying transgression deposits of polished stones andgravel (Wennersten 1907).Preservation of archaeological material is usually extremely good on r4Gotland, owing to the calcareous soil, and Hemmor is no exception to thatrule. Like other contemporary sites on the island, the site covers a consid-

227


5/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas Ytterbergerable area, and presents a great quantity offinds, like pottery sherdsl (approximately 280 kg), animal bones (at least 150 kg) and chipped stonesI (more than 6 kg). In addition, there are about 650 objects or artefacts andaround 100 human bones, graves exc1uded. This should be put into relationto a total excavated area of about 124 square metres, and surveyed areasof up to 11 200 square metres at repeated occasions. The numbers are amass total of all investigations from 1903 to 2002.Evid en ce s of su bsistenee an d seasonat variabili ryWhile some Stone Age settlements seems to have been occupied onlyduring specific seasons, the Remmor site is interpreted as an all-the-year-round settlement, which can be observed principally in the osteologicalmaterial. In addition, macrofossils from edible plants represent another* evidence for seasonable subsistence, of which only shells from hazel-nuts- collected in the summer and autumn - are preserved today.The only thorough osteological analysis on the Remmor material weredone already eighty years ago, based on the 11 642 animal bone frag-ments from the excavation in 1903 (Redell191 O ). The analysis has beencomplemented by recent studies to differing extent, from preliminary analy-ses of70 kg's ofbones from trench 1 (excavated in 1992, 1995 and 1996;Fig. 8), to special analyses of seals (Wallin &Martinsson- Wallin 1996, p.18; Stor 2001, pp. 25ft). The over all picture from Hedells analysis hasbeen verified by the later analyses.Seal hunting seems to have been of major importance in the BalticIduring the Middle Neolithic. At Hemmor, bones from ringed seal yearlingsindicates that harpoon-hunting was performed atbreathing holes in the icein the late winter or early spring. Harp seals were captured during sum-mer and autumn, probably with harpoons or nets. Recent research hasshowed that the harp seal population were under a considerable pressure.Sporadic indications of grey seal hunting are also present at the site. Por-poises were hunted especially during the late summer and autumn migra-tion (HedeU1910; Wallin 1984; Stor 1995; Stor 2001, pp. 25:ff).Fish found both in shallow water (ide, flatfish, turbot, perch, zander,pike, roach and eel) and in deep water (haddock and cod) occur at thesite. Ide, zander and roach are found sporadically at Hemmor, but flatfishand turbot were easily accessible along the coasts of the Baltic. Perchand pike were more common, angled from land or canoes mostly duringthe spring, and eel, which were probably captured in fish traps in the au-tumn. Over 80 percent of the fish bones analyzed osteologically are from228

a1

u

so~VIi


6/30

ttery sherdsipped stonesartefacts andt into relationrveyed areasumbers are a

ccupied onlyall-the-year-osteologicalsent anotherm hazel-nutsterial werel bone frag-ysis has beenminary analy-95 and 1996;lin 1996, p.s analysis has

in the Balticseal yearlingsoles in the iceduring sum-research hasble pressure.t the site. Por-utumn migra-.25ft)., zander,cur at the, but flatfishBaltic. Perchmostly duringraps in the au-y are from

Ruined but rescued

Figure 2. Clay figurine depicting a pig,from the Hemmor site, trench l,length 2,5 cm.The pigs at Hemmorwere possibly domesticated, accordingto the flat snout on the figurine, incontrast to the longer boar snouts.Drawing by Christoffer Samuelssonafter a photo by Raimond Hejdstrm,The County museum of Gotland.cod, which presumably were found in large shoals at 150-200 metres deepin the Baltic and spawned sometime during the first half of the year. Moresporadic are the haddocks, which are not found in these parts ofthe Baltictoday. The larger fish-hooks, 4-7 centimetres in length, were probablyused for cod and haddockjig, while smaller, 2-4 centimetres in length, andfishing spers were used for catching smaller fish (Wennersten 1907; Hedell1910; Munthe et al. 1925,p. 76; Wallin & Martinsson-Wallin 1996).Birds do occur, but in small numbers. Among the more common areswan, eider and different species of duck. They seem to fit in the over allcoastal picture, but it is hard to estimate the scale ofbird trapping andhunting. Instead, bones of land mammals are more well-represented,whereof domesticated or semi-domesticated pigs constitute the largest )Onumbers (Fig. 2). Bones from fox and dog are not uncommon, whereasthe hedgehog, hare and mouse only oocur in small numbers. Bones fromdomesticated animals such as cattle, sheep and goats have been noticed (fon Pitted Ware sites from time to time. According to hypotheses regard-ing the patterns ofNeolithic farming in Sweden, the Hemmor site can beconsidered a "swine economy" with ritual features (Ahlfont et al. 1995,pp. 173f; Guinard 1995). Maybe the cattle, sheep and goats are late ele-ments connected with the Battle Axe Culture or Late Neolithic Cul ture -sporadic artefacts like a bone ring and some ceramic sherds might point inthatdirection(Wallin&Martinsson-Wallin 1991,p.12; 1996,p.16).It is worth not ing some regional differences in osteological records onGotland. In the eastern region, Vsterbjers has 11 percent seal and 72 Xpercent pig bones, where as Hemmor has 9 percent seal and as much as86 percent pig (numbers according to total fragments of mammals only).These numbers should be compared to the 86 percent sea l bones at Ire, 95percent at Stora Frvar, 31 percent at Visby and 30 percent at Gullrum, alllying on the west coast. Ajvide in the west is also dominated by seal (Wallin& Martinsson- Wallin 1992; Stor 2001; Malmer 2002, p. 117). It is obvi-

229


7/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas Ytterbergous that a swine economy were predominant on the east coast and thatseal hunting were of greater economic importance in the west.ContactWe will just briefly touch some of the aspects considering the exchange ofgoods and ideas. This is done by showing which imports that are found at

' f l the site. South Scandinavian flint were preferred above the local flint, dueto the better quality ofthe former. Ceramics with "megalithoid" decora-tion were probably locally manufactured, but the prototype were the Fun-O nel Beaker pottery of south Scandinavia. Neither elk, nor beaver haveever lived on Gotland, but are still represented in the osteological record.They are imported from the mainland, but itis uncertain from which direc-tion. Sandstone has certainly been imported from the Slate Cul ture areanorth of the Mlaren region, while amber, although in small numbers, con-stitute a link to both east Baltic and south Scandinavian areas. A fewartefacts and grave rituals associated with the Battle Axe Culture pointsboth to the east and to the west. Furthermore, influences from the greatCombed Ware complex is evident in the ideology of the Pitted Ware Cul-ture, with funerary traditions, figurines and the use of red ochre.

InvestigationsThe first and stilliargest excavation so far of the Hemmor site was ear-ried out in 1903 (Wennersten 1907). During the course of the 20th century,

jhundreds of Pitted Ware sites were discovered in Sweden and on the, western islands of the Baltic. It was not until the end of the century thatHemrnor was in focus of new archaeological fieldwork. Research exca-vations in different scale tookplace in 1983,1991,1992,1995 and 1996(Wallin 1984; 1995; Wallin &Martinsson-Wallin 1991; 1993; 1996;Martinsson- Wallin et al. 1996), all with the purpose of understanding thecomplex contexts at the site and to identify and explain different activityareas. Almost no attention was paid to an understanding of the who le siteand the Baltic context.At the end of the 1990 's, the site still represented a great source ofinformation about the Middle Neolithic on Gotland, mainly due t o the rela-tively thick - up to half a metre - and intact culturallayer which had notyet met the damaging effects of modem agriculture. This was a mainreason to why we selected the site as a starting point for further excava-tions as one of several intended reference sites in studies of the Baltic

230

Neolithibegun,tlthe archpressmgthe protqphenomremainstural tralltive Boachaeolo]Samuelsdegree osize, whlsumup,scientifiSincelayer cothe plou]at the meet al. 20material27 percGfrom thezone mperiod. 'graves areductio2002 stiplough iEspeon the s i ldition. Gdergo atha t alth lpossiblestudies, 1settlembeen theOlsson J


8/30

t coast and thatwest.the exchange ofat are found atlocal flint, dueithoid" decora-e were the Fun-or beaver havelogical record.which direc-te Culture areal numbers, con-n areas. A fewCulture pointsfrom the greattted Ware Cul-ochre.

site was ear-e 20th century,en and on thehe century thatResearch exca-1995 and 1996; 1993; 1996;erstanding theifferent activityfthe whole sitegreat source ofdue to the rela-which had nothis was a mainfurther excava-of the Baltic

Ruined but rescuedNeolithic. During the late summer of 1997, when the research had justbegun, the former pastureland was converted into arab le land, entailingthe archaeological remains partly destroyed. This event put us into a de-pressing state, and strongly emphasized the need for a discussion aboutthe protection ofthe cultural heritage, as the destruction was no isolatedphenomenon. Even on such a small island as Gotland, several ancientremains have been pushed into the background by the process of agricul-tural transformation. With the aid and support of the County Administra-tive Board and the County Museum of Gotland, we made renewed ar-chaeological investigations in 1999 and 200 l (Hedemark et al. 2000a;Samuelsson &Ytterberg 2002). The principal aim was to estimate thedegree of damage and to get a more adequate picture of the settlementsize, which is ofvital importance for the future protection of the site. Tosum up, strict antiquarian approaches were applied, although importantscientific results were achieved.Since the agricultural activities went on, the reduction of the culturallayer continued and new bones and artefacts were brought to surface bythe plough. Before 1997 the plough zone reached a depth of 0,20 metresat the most, now increased with an additionalO, l O-O,16metres (Hedemarket al. 2000a; Samuelsson &Ytterberg 2002). Bones, pottery and stonematerial found in the plough zone during excavations in 1999, represented27 percent of the total amount offinds. The corresponding percentagefrom the excavation in 200 l was 34. The number of artefacts in the ploughzone increased from 45 to 73 percent ofthe total amount during the sameperiod. As'will be evident further on, these objects derive from destroyedgraves and other settlement structures and features. Even if no furtherreduction ofthe culturallayer seems to be at hand, renewed surveys in e J ,2002 still proved a continued transport of archaeological material from the I~plough zon e to the surface (Guinard inpress).Especially the excavation in 200 l showed an increased amount of findson the surface, exposed for wind and rain and consequently in a bad con-dition. Our experience is that find materials like bones and pottery un-dergo a fast destruction when brought to surface. Important is, however,that although the culturallayer have been reduced, it actually seems to bepossible to draw conclusions of the scattered material. Not only our ownstudies, but also similar investigations in southem Scandinavia, shows thatsettlement interpretations are possible although long-term agriculture havebeen the case (e.g. Schoefield 1991; Sjstrm &Pihl 1993; Isendahl &Olsson 1996; Steinberg 1996). A condition to achieve applicable results

231


9/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas Ytterberghas been the way in which we investigated the site, i.e . how we combineddifferent field methods and scientific approaches. Since the site was al-ready disturbed, we were faced with the opportunity to leave traditionalmethods of excavations in favour oftesting and combining different toolsfor investigation and interpretation. This has resulted in new informationabout the age, organisation and occupation of the settlement, based on acombination of chemical analyses of soil samples, field surveys and testpits, i.e. the performance of plough zone archaeology.

Settlement size and general organisationIn the attempts to understand the settlement organisation, chemical stud-ies of soil samples have been an important part in the process of archaeo-logical interpretation. Especially the phosphate analyses have been vital,but measurements of organic soil contents and pH values have also beenmade. It has been known since the 1930's that chemical substances areconcentrated in the ground during human activities. Of special interest forarchaeology are the organic phosphates, which due to slow geochemicaltransformations: C ej Bohn et al. 1985) can be measured even today. Wehave applied two basic methods of phosphate analysis: the spot test methodand the citric acid method.Primary excavations in 1903 estimated the settlement to cover an areaof about 10,000 square metres, while soil sample analyses carried out in1983, indicated a total size of almost 70,000 square metres, with high phos-phate contents on the spot test scale in both central and peripheral areas(Fig. 3). This picture is much similar to that of other Middle NeolithicPWC sites on Gotland, but differs from what we experienced by alterna-tive field methods during the three last investigations. Surveys and severaltest pits show ed that neither find material nor culturallayer existed insome peripheral areas, although high amounts of phosphates. It shouldhowever not be ignored that find material actually did exist in some unitsexcavated in remote areas, but in a too limited extent to have an influenceon the interpretation of the phosphate mapping. Our own spot test sam-

pling in 200 l, performed as IOsamples arranged in positions 30-160 me-ters from each other and distributed in the shape of four erossing linesover the site, basically confirmed the sampling result from 1983, althougha critical perspective on the results is requested. Cultivation, manuring andanimal breeding rnight influence the phosphate content and contaminationis possible through the flow of groundwater (eJ Andersson 1992, p. 10l).232

o

F .al(ItIen1tIi

]2


10/30

de was al-lent toolsonsed on aand test

l stud-archaeo-een vital,ls o beennces areterest forhemicalay. Wemethodan area

ed out ingh phos-l areasolithicalterna-severalxisted inIt shoulde unitsnfluencetest sam-160 me-g linesalthoughring andnation,p.101).

Ruined but rescuedN+

50

Figure 3. Maximum extent of the settlement:area, based on phosphate mapping in 1983(phosphate content 4 and 5 according tothe spot test scale).Trenches and squaresexcavated in 1903, 1983, 1991-200 Imarked as circles. Grid: surveyed area1999-2002, covering the northern part ofthe central settlement area (also showed inFigs.4, 5, 6 and 7). Map by Niklas Ytterberg.

Key to the signsN Propert y boun dar yN Roa dD Pon dD Area w;l o h igher pbosphate contentD Surface fiods unit (100 square metres)Finds/excavaled uniUsquare melre (gram)o O

149 50499 5002999 30009999 1 0017999 1800020275It is also known that phosphates can be leached in sandy and other perme-able soils (Hyenstrand 1996, p. 29). This is thought to be a possible expla-nation to the fact that high contents of phosphates were measured in somefringe areas of the site, where only low amounts have been indicatedearlier. Another discrepancy is that the samples analyzed in 200 l, col-lected in series derived from two different layers, show no differences inthe amounts of phosphates, although high er amounts have earlier beenmeasured doser to the surface than beneath (trench l) (Wallin &Martinsson-Wallin 1996,p.15).

233


11/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas YtterbergThe eitrie acidmethod, performed on the same samples as discussedabove, resulted generally in low amounts of phosphates and elucidates thescarcity of archaeological remains. However, the amounts were some-what higher in the upper part ofthe stratigraphy, ej the same result withthe spot test method in trench 1.Two samples from the southem part ofthe central area contained, not surprisingly, very high amounts. This canbe correlated to the measurements of organie eontents in the samples,where high amounts of organic residuals in relation to the total dry weightindicates the presence ofthick culturallayers and long-term habitation.In the most central part of the settlement, where the culturallayerhave its maximum extent, 81 soil samples were collected in a square grid,covering an area of 1600 square metres. In this area, the spot test analy-ses still reached the top of the phosphate scale, while the citric acid methodpresented a mosaic ofboth low and high values. The somewhat limitedarea from which soil samples were collected, is here supposed to be rep-resentative for the whole central settlement area. Measurements of pH

values in 20 of the soil samples have yielded no results usable for inter-pretation, since all samples touched a too short interval (pH 8,2-8,4). Thesoil is however slightly basic, due to the limestone which characterize theisland 's bedrock. The acidity of the ground has an important influence onhow, and in what extent, phosphates fix to mineral granules and othermolecules.The different pictures achieved by the two methods - observed atother settlements as well (Nunez &Winberg 1990; Hedman 1992, pp. 16-21; Hyenstrand 1996) - should be viewed against the fact that the differ-ent acids used by the two methods precipitate different kinds of phos-phates. While the spot test method reacts on both organic and inorganicphosphates, the citric acid method result in an extraction of only inorganic.By subtracting the fraction of inorganic phosphates from the total amount,the organic portion alone ispresented (Bock 1979; Stevenson 1986; Berthell&Mate 1989). Organic phosphates is the most interesting for the inter-pretation of prehistorie contexts, since inorganic (minerogene ) phosphatescan be combined in the soil for natural reasons. A conclusion is herebythat the spot test method is too general for more detailed interpretations,but seems to be applicable in defrning the maximum extent of a settlementof this kind. On the other hand, the mosaic picture achieved by the eitrieaeid method, shows that the central part ofthe settlement might be di-vided into different activity areas. This circumstance is als o indicated bythe extensive area surveyed in 1999,2001 and 2002 (up to 11,200 square234

metJ31tofitura:on tlthe lfOf!mignotArr}

1pen]metiwhirateactislaulargeastloctionthe!plaGthema~toqua]Thi!catephoare lstonsomAcAniarte


12/30

as discussedlucidates thewere some-e result withthem part of. This canthe samples,al dry weighthabitation.ulturallayera square grid,ot test analy-acid methodhat limiteded to be rep-of pHble for inter-8,2-8,4). Thecterize theinfluence ones and otherobserved at1992, pp. 16-at the differ-nds of phos-d inorganicnly inorganic.total amount,1986; Berthellfor the inter-e)phosphatesion is herebyerpretations,f a settlementby the citricmight be di-indicated by11,200 square

Ruined but rescuedmetres each time) in the central part of the settlement (Fig. 3), and by the31 test pits excavated in 1999 and 2001 in the same area. A crucial pointof interpretation is how the finds and artefacts are distributed in the cul-turallayer, in the plough zone and, as will be discussed in the next chapter,on the surface.It has to be commented that the method for collection and analysis ofthe phosphate samples is of great importance, together with the methodsfor interpretation of the results obtained. The process of interpretationmight in fact be the most important step in phosphate analyses, and havenot yet been fully noticed (cJ sterholm &sterholm 1983; Blidmo 1984;Arrhenius 1990; Kyhlberg 1993a; 1993b; Hyenstrand 1996).The Hemmor site can in this manner be described as comprising largeperipheral areas surrounding a central zone of a size of almost 7,000 squaremetres, which can be divided into smaller activity areas. Such areas - ofwhich some belong to the same period and other must be understood sepa-rate d in time - were likely present in peripheral areas as weIl, but reflectactivities that have left little or no traces in the archaeological record, e.g.slaughter and breeding of domesticated or semi-domesticated pigs. Thelarge peripheral areas of the site are mainly found in the west and in theeast, which is a response to the immediate closeness to the sea and thelocation on the spit. It can also be mentioned here, that a certain correc-tion have been made concerning the location ofthe former shoreline, wherethe settlement reached its natural border. The phosphate analysis of 1983placed this northem border along a west-east line where a distinct drop atthe spot test scale in a south-north direction was observed. Citric acidmapping indicates that this border can be moved at least 15-20 metrestowards north, also evident in sporadic finds of pottery, bones, flint andquartz from surveys and test pits in the most northerly area (e.g. Fig. 5).This area was with reference to the spot test mapping interpreted as 10-cated outside the settlement area. Outside the area containing the high estphosphate values, according to both the spot test and the citric acid scale,are no human bones and almost no intact artefacts found. The amount ofstone material is very scarce, while the amounts ofbones and pottery aresomewhat higher.

Activity areasAn important prerequisite of the investigations at the site, is that finds andartefacts in the plough zone does not move more than a few metres during235


13/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas Ytterbergploughing. Our experience is that what is found as stray finds on the sur-face, actually reflects the distribution offinds in the culturallayer. Ac-cording to this, the field survey is a usable instrument for understandingdisturbed site structures, especially at such a rich site like Hemmor. Nomethod is however good enough to exclude other forms of investigations.To reach the most realistic picture of a site, complementary methods mustalso be used. It should be pointed out thus, that all finds on the surface andin the plough zone, generally belong to a younger phase of settlement,since older and lower layers have not been destroyed by agricultural ac-tivity.

Only activity areas strongly evident in the archaeological record areconsidered below, all ofthem located to the northem-central area. Refer-ences beloware made to the survey grid, consisting of square units of1Ox10metres, covering a total area of 11,200 square metres or 112 units.Area s fo r stone too! pr od uctionFlakes and debitage of flint and quarts have been found in almost 30 per-cent of the excavated units and 60 percent of the surveyed area (Fig. 4).Of this reason, no.area for tool production can be clearly identified fromthe distribution of such materials alone. However at least two concentra-tions with increased amounts are observed. One of the se is located to thecentre ofthe grid from which soil samples were analyzed in 200 l. Aninteresting observation is that this area contain some ofthe highest phos-phates values according to the citric acid scale (spot test method haveyielded highest values all over the southern part of the surface survey grid,or over 65 percent of the area).A look on flint and quarts cores gives a somewhat different picture,where 48 percent, or 14 of29 pieces, have been found in a well definedarea of 6 surveyed units in the southwest. If the distribution is enoughrepresentative for the defrnition of a t ool production area is left open, butlikely possible. It has to be emphasized that almost no debris have beenregistered during surveys and excavations in the area.Stronger evidences of tool production are on the other hand present inflakes of green stone and semi-manufactured green stone axes. Thesematerials are concentrated to the western part ofthe grid, overlapping thearea with flint and quartz cores, even if no absolute interpretation is possi-ble only from the surface distribution. But together with the distribution ofwhetstones, an area for green stone axe production is at least evident inthe west-central part of the present area, as illustrated in Fig. 4. As much236

Fals '


14/30

the sur-r. Ac-standingor. N otigations .ods mustrface andttlement,ural ac-ord area. Refer-e units of112 units.

st 30 per-(Fig. 4).fied fromoncentra-ed to the2001. Anest phos-od havervey grid,t picture,ll definedughopen, buthave beenpresent ines. Thesepping then is possi-ution ofevident in. As much

Ruined but rescued

N+

oo 10 20 metersI""'i~ __ '"

n n n n n

Key to the signs

Flakes & debilage: Hinl & quartzlsurface unil/l00 sq.m (gram)D oDD 1139 "99 100-233

Rakes & debitage: f int, quartz. stooelexcav. unitJsq.m. (gram)D O

wbetstooe~ Cora(finIOfquartz)E Hammcrs!(Jnoo Xeblank

Rakes & debitage: stone/surface unit/l00 sq.m. (gram)D oD '-19o 20-49E 2 I so-sO J 100-134

Figure 4. Central part of the site, showingamounts of chipped stones, cores, hammerstones, whet stones and axe blanks. Grid:surveyed area (1999-2002). Squares:excavated units (1983, 1991-200 I).Map by Niklas Ytterberg. Trench no.l: flint, quartz & s lonefsq.m. (gram) '"237


15/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas Ytterbergas 22 of a total of26 fragments and parts of whetstones, or 85 percent,are found in an area of 10 survey units. On the basis of the surface scat-ters, one south-western flint/quartz core area and one south-central whet-stone area have been able do discern.The distribution ofwhole and fragmentary axes and adzes shows adifferent picture, with fmds almost all over the central part of the grid. Theexplanation for this is that most axes and adzes are not intact and there-fore is thought to be waste deriving from the culturallayer and not fromgraves. This interpretation is supposed to be valid for most broken or frag-mentary artefacts found in the plough zone.Waste ar eas and clean area sWaste areas are indicated by great quantities of finds such as pottery,animal bones and fragmented artefacts. The maps showing the find distri-butions (ceramics, animal bones and artefacts) in the central part of thegrid are at a first look quite different (Fig. 5 & 6), but at a closer lookreveals that the highest amounts are more or less concentrated to an areawhich correspond to the "maximum extent of the burial ground" (see be-low). A total of 26 surveyed units contain over 1 kg of finds, and thepicture is also reflected in the excavated squares (Fig. 5). A total of 12survey units contain 5 or more artefacts, and the interpretation is similar tothe distribution offinds (Fig. 6). These distributions showamarked con-centration to the north-eastern part or the outskirts ofthe burial ground,and can be interpreted as a ritual area around one or more hearth(-s) asdiscovered in trench 1.An important result of the surveys and excavations is that the findmaterial seem to cluster, with intervening areas with less or no material.This was evident already in 1903, when Wennersten compared the exca-vated trenches, and areas within them (Wennersten 1907).RutsHousing at Middle Neolithic sites have been noticed on several sites (e.g.Heimer 1994; Biwall et al. 1997; Bjrck 1998). At Hemmor, occasionalclay daub bits occur in a total of 7 survey units and a few excavatedsquares and trenches. Five ofthose surveyed units lay clustered in thevicinity of trench 1, and could possibly be interpretedas the areaofone ormore hut( -s) (Fig. 5). A stone row and a couple of post holes were discov-ered in trench l, but no sure traces of a hut structure were present (Fig. 8;Hedemark et al. 2000b, p. 21t). In one of the trenches excavated in 1903,

238


16/30

r 85 percent,surface scat-entral whet-zes shows athe grid. Thect and there-and not fromoken or frag-

h as pottery,e find distri -l part of thea closer looked to an area" (see be-nds, and theA total of 12is similar tomarked con-rial ground,hearth( -s) asthat the findno material.ed the exca-

ral sites (e.g., occasionalexcavatedtered in therea of one orwere discov-sent (Fig. 8;ted in 1903,

N+Ruined but rescued

o 10 20 metersi !o ,---a-- "'"

Figure S. Central part of the site, showingamounts of ceramics and animal banes, heredesignated as "finds". Grid: surveyed area(1999-2002). Squares: excavated units(1903, 1983, 1991-200 I). The finds arerelated to the maximum extent of the burialground, the occurrence of day daub and apossible hut structure. Map by NiklasYtterberg.

Key to the signs@ Hutstructura$ Claydaub,OCC\J rreoce\,' Maximum axianioi bura l gr ound

Finds/surface uniU1QOsquare metras (gram)D OD 1-49E m l 50-249III 250-999 1000-2999 3000-5471Finds/excavated unitlsquare metre (gram)DD 1-49O 50499f'.iiI 500-2999II 30009999 1 00 -17981

Findsltrench no.1/square metre (gram) 20423

a stone circle or pavement of2,5 times 2 metres size were uncovered. Ithas been interpreted as a hut site, and in a large surrounding zone, asheshas been found both in 1903 and later (Wennersten 1907; Hedemark et al.2000b, pp. 22ft). It is possible that the hut or a group ofhuts have bumtdown.

239


17/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas YtterbergN+

I~

~

o 10 20 metersl!: il

o o o

o

Key to the signs

o

,4, ' Maximum axtent o f buri al groundNo. of artifacls/surface uniU100 sq.m.OOkl 24III S, 12 18

Figure 6. Number of artefacts or objects inthe central part of the site, as opposed to thecommon find material consisting of ceramics,bones and chipped stones. Grid: surveyedarea (1999-2002). Squares: excavated units(1903, 1983, 1991-200 I). The artefacts arerelated to the maximum extent of the burialground. Map by Niklas Ytterberg.

D

No. of artifacts/excavated unitlsq.m.D

ID 7.8 1216 18-20

No. of artifacts: trench no.1/sq.m. 29

An unknown buricdgroundMany of the Neolithic sites investigated on Gotland have revealed more orless extensive burial grounds, a fact owing to the generally good condi-tions for the preservation ofbones. It is probable that tbese burial grounds,which on Gotland can consist ofup to 70 or more individuals (personalcommunication Johan Norderng), actually were common on many of2 40

the1001largZv~oveburi(Zajthe Jof h !doa

CHenbonthe1attb!Jamhav/surtrefeistrikwithlikerangoverburitwithv e Y Imos!to danal:frorrmeaiAeterituralthenewsite


18/30

D

D

Key to the s igns

D

Maximum extent o f b ur al grouodrtifacts/surface uniV100 sq.m.

O12-'5-'1218rtifactsJexcavated unitlsq.m.O

tifacts: trench no.t/sq.m.29

7-812-1618-20

evealed more ory good condi-burial grounds,duals (personalon on many of

Ruined but rescued

the large settlements all over the vast Pitted Ware Cul t ure area. If welook at the east Baltic countries, even larger burial grounds occur. Thelargest and best known are the almost entirely excavated burial ground at ~Zvejnieki in Latvia, with 315 graves from late Mesolithic to late Neolithicover an area of about 4,000 square metres. It has been estimated that theburial ground originally might have comprised as much as 400 graves(Zagorskis 1987). A common feature at the east Baltic burial grounds arethe frequent use of ochre and figurines in the graves and the occurrence ~ofhearths (Wyszomirska 1984; Girininkas 1994, p. 265f). These featuresdo occur at the Remmor site as weIl.Only three graves were documented during the first excavation atRemmor in 1903, but several more were indicated by stray fmds ofhumanbones, disturbed by recent ploughing. The investigator Wennersten never-theless meant, that a large but unknown burial ground stilllay unexploredat the site, waiting for archaeologists to discover (Wennersten 1907; 1931;Janzon 1974). In the end, Wennersten were right, but he could hardly everhave guessed in what away it finally were to be uncovered.The area where human banes occur frequently as stray finds on thesurface, can be interpreted as graves damaged by the plough. This area isreferred to as the maximum extent of the Hemmor burial ground. It isstriking that the maximum extent ofthe burial ground is fully comparablewith other Pitted Ware cemeteries that are entirely or partly investigated,like Ajvide, Vsterbjers and Visby on Gotland. The listed burial grounds Y lrange from about 2,000 to approximately 5,000 square metres, consisting ofover thirty graves up to a good seventy (Malmer 2002, pp. 91ft). The Remmorburial ground stretches over an area almost 3,000 square metres in size, butwith only three certain and a handful of possible graves. During both sur-veying and excavation, almost 100 human bones has been discovered, andmost of them, except the bones found in trench 1, could easily be ascribedto damaged graves (Fig. 7). Worth noting is that no thorough osteologicalanalysis has yet been done on the majority of the material, i.e. the bonesfrom all of the surveyed area and most of the excavated squares. Thismeans that the hundred bones could sum up to a multiple result.A common feature is that graves occur in clusters, and that the cem-eteries always are located in an elevated terrain, often dug into older cul-turallayers. This is also confirmed on Remmor by the results from boththe early excavation in 1903 (Wennersten 1907; Janzon 1974) and thenew investigations with surface surveys and test pits. Human bones at thesite seem to occur in clusters, with empty intervening areas.

241


19/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas YtterbergN+

- - ,[ - ~'" o-, o \,I oI II I- " ~o . o. I o~ . ,. fl.. .. . .. . . . . . . . . ~ U 0 l l ' '1!,!J- . - - - - ,10 20 metersj - = : ? ---cJoo ..- I

Key to the signs, '#. M.nimumext&nlolt...rialgroundNo. o f huma n bo nes /su rface uniV10 0 SQ.m.

o OO tID 2 3"o . o f h uman tooe sz ex cev e teo uniUs q.m.oD 1-2 3-4 5-8Figure 7. Number of human bones andexcavated graves in the central part of thesite, with an interpretation of the maximumextent of the buriaIground. Grid: surveyedarea (1999-2002). Squares: excavated units(1903,1991-2001). Dots: stray finds (1903and 1999-2002). Map by Niklas Ytterberg.

No. o f human banes: slray flods

Graves no . (Janzo n 1974)

o Trenehes8lCcavaladinl903When comparing the areas where human bones and artefacts occuras surface finds, it seems obvious that they coincide to a large extent (Fig.6&7). Within the limits of the maximum extent of the burial ground, more

in ta ct a rte/aels - such as axes, adzes, knives, points, harpoons, fish-hooksand pearls - occur than outside. This could be interpreted as scatteredgrave goods, since these objects hardly ever occur in regular settlementcontexts (Samuelsson &Ytterberg 2002).242

I

tvvtnt~


20/30

o

o ito the signsoeslsurface uniV100sq.m.

Iexcavaled uniUsq.m.

es: stray finds

1974)

Bxcavaledin1903

facts occurextent (Fig.ound, morefish-hooksas scatteredsettlement

Ruined but rescued

o os 1m ~L . . _~="'-===-" \

Figure 8.Trench I,excavated in 1992,1995 and 1996. Key: I.Hearth. 2 &3. Possiblepostholes. 4. Anvil. 5.Row of stones.Drawing by ChristofferSamuelsson.sA ritual area with offerings

Ritual activities are present in all human societies. Both pure votive sites,like the Alvastra pile dwelling (Malmer 2002, p. 103), and mixed sites withregular settlements, as well as ritual activities, do occur. Many sites onGotland seem to belong to the latter, mixed category, although some sitescould be interpreted as votive sites, like Vsterbjers on the east coast ofGotland (Malmer2002,p. 9lf).A little more than thirty human bones were found scattered in the cul-turallayer around a hearth in trench 1. These should not be interpreted asrernnants of damaged graves, as the trench were excavated before thewidespread destruction in 1997. In other words, we have asealed contextwith human bones and no indications of graves. Among the bones areteeth, scull bones, bones from the hand and long bones. The minimumnumber of individuals has not yet been estimated, but by ocular examina-tion in the field, it is clear that the bones represent several individuals ofdiffering age. It is hence obvious that this place has clear ritual overtones.Merely the quantity offinds is overwhelming: in a trench of just over 10

243


21/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas Ytterberg

Figure 9. Human bones with traces of special treatment from the Hemmor site,trench I. Note the hit mark for bone splintering. Signsof sacrifice or evencannibalism? Photo by Raimond Hejdstrm. With permission from TheCounty museum of Gotland.

square metres, with slightly less than half a metre of culturallayer, therewere almost 130 kg's of ceramics, some 80 kg's of animal bones, one anda halfkg of chipped stones, mostly flint, and about 300 artefacts - almosthalf of all artefacts found so far at the whole site! The above mentionedhearth measured 2 times 1metre and were lined with small stones. Twopossible post holes, an anvil and a row of stones completes the picture(Fig. 8). A closer look at some of the scattered human bones in the trenchreveals interesting information. Characteristic breakage pattems occur onsome tibia and femur, that is hard to explain but as intentional breaking(Fig. 9). Some bones were also burned, but not inhigh temperatures or fora long time (Wallin 1995; Martinsson- Wallin et al. 1996; Hedemark et al2000b,pp.21ff).This phenomenon has been discovered at other Neolithic sites in theBaltic area, arnong which the Jettble site on the islands of land is one ofthe best known. At that site, human bones from a number of individualswere found scattered in the culturallayer, some with cut marks and somewith the same breakage pattems as on Remmor (Gtherstrm et al. 2001).The picture is however not unique, since human bones actually do occur inculturallayers and in ritual contexts besides graves on many Neolithicsites in Sweden and Denmark (eJ Knutsson 1995, p. 186; Olsson et al.1994; Apel et al. 1995,pp.79-87; Wyszomirska 1988,p.143;KauI1992).

244

~t< l

1 I


22/30

emmor site,r evenThe

ayer, therees, one and- almostmentionednes. Twothe picturen the trenchs occur onal breakingtures or foremark et alsites in thend is one ofindividualss and somel. 2001).do occur inNeolithicsson et al.uI1992).

Ruined but rescued

Figure IO.Aselection at Pitted Ware ceramic sherds from the Hemmor site,trench I. Note the megalithoid "hanging triangles" decoration on the sherd tothe bottom right. Photo by Raimond Hejdstrm. With permission from TheCounty museum of Gotland.In some ways, the Remmor ritual area correspond to the ritual offer-ings at passage graves in south Scandinavia. Around the hearth there

245


23/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas YtterbergAtmosphcric data fTomSruiver el a l (1998)" O ;to:Cal '0'3S Bronk Ramsey (2 000 )" cub r"4 sd-12 prob usp[chron)St-9246 990165BPUa-1130 383095BP ~ -Ua-4475 388070BP - Ua-4476 401580BP ~ _! -Beta-135 46 4730lIOBP mcUa-1746 453570BP M.

5000CaIBC 4000CaIBC 3000CaIBCCalibrated date

2000CalBC IOOOCalBC

Figure I I. Presentation of all 14C-datings from the Hemmor site. Calibrated byOxCal 3.5 (Bronk Ramsey 19 94; Stuiver et a l. 1998).have been found sacrificed bones, burned and unbumed flint (some thatare from polished axes), high amounts of pottery - among which a fewsherds of"megalithoid" omamentation are present (Fig. 10) - and a lot ofpig bones, especially large jaws. Also, red ochre has been found in theculturallayer in connection with the hearth in trench 1.A short note on the similarities between the gotlandie sites ofHemmorand Vsterbjers ishere in place. Both sites are osteologically clearly domi-nated by pig (86 and 72 percent respectively), both have extensive burialgrounds, hearths interpreted as belonging toritual areas and a large numberof intact artefacts in the culturallayer - presumably offerings. Malmereven compares Vsterbjers with the Alvastra pile dweIling, with its ritualovertones (Stenberger et al. 1943; Malmer 2002, pp. 115f).

Datin gDifferent strata in the culturallayer have been identified, not only by ex-cavations, but also by chemical analyses. Phosphates at the citric acidscale, as well as the amount of organic material in the soil, have yieldedhigher values in the upper region of the stratigraphy. As mentioned earlier,a critical perspective on the possible flow of phosphates between layersmust be stressed. However the strata can be confirmed by the archaeo-logical material, as well as 14C-datings. In trench 1, two 14C-datings ofhazel-nut sheIls have been made, giving a result of c. 2900-2250 BC in thelower stratum, and c. 2500-2190 BC in the upper stratum (2 sigma, Ua-4475, Ua-4476; Fig. 11).In the same trench, a sherd displaying"fish bone"-decoration (Hedemark et al. 2000b, p. 13), with a carbonised food crust,was dated to 2600-1950 BC (2 sigma, Ua-11302; Fig. 11) (Samuelsson &246

1(

GII


24/30

IO O O Ca lBC

Calibrated byt (some thatwhich a few- and a lot offound in theofHemmorlearly domi-nsive burialarge numbers. Malmerth its ritual

only by ex-citric acidave yielded.ed earlier,layerse archaeo--datings of0 BC inthesigma, Ua-fish bone" -food crust,elsson &

Ruined but rescued

Ytterberg 2002, p. 30). The sherd was found at a stratigraphicallocationbetween the two dated hazel-nut shells, and could therefore be older thanthe youngest, which seems not to be the case. Research has show ed thatthe dated SOL- fractions on carbonised food crusts can give date s that are300-500 years too young (persson 1999, pp. 35f), and with a correction ofc. 300 years, a better correspondence to the oldest dated sample in trench1is achieved. Activities performed in trench 1seem to cover the later partofMNA (c. 3300-2800 BC), the whole ofMNB (2800-2300 BC), andpossibly a part of the LN (2300-1700 BC) as well. This is also proven bythe predominating Fagervik III-ceramics, and some sherds assigned to theBattle Axe Culture or the Late Neolithic Culture (cJ Fig. 10).Two unspecified charcoal samples from in test pits in the central partofthe site (Fig. 11), have yielded divergent 14C-datings. One ofthem cov-ers all datings from trench 1, c. 2950-2000 BC (2 sigma, St-9246), whilethe other was considerably older, c. 3800-3300 BC (2 sigma, Beta-135646)(Samuelsson &Ytterberg 2002, p. 30). This dating iswell within the ENIIand a bit odd - although found at a higher level than the former sample-considering the other datings and the fmd material in general. It is possiblethat the charcoal derive from a tree that had a considerable age when cutdown, and hence could move the age a few hundred years forward intime. 1fthat would be the case, the sample could overlap the others.The last 14C-sample come s from a human thigh bone (humerus) ingrave 1, excavated in 1903 (Wennersten 1907; lanzon 1974, p. 258). Thedating interval has been set to c. 3550-2900 BC, i.e. the end ofTNII orfirst half ofMNA (2 sigma, Ua-17465; Fig. 11), which like the uncertaincharcoal sample above, makes it a bit older. Assuming that there shouldbe a correction for the reservoir effect (cJ Persson 1999, p . 30f), theinterval could be moved forward maybe 150-400 years, ending weil inMNA. The grave goods can unfortunately not be used for more precisetypological dating. The dated bone had a 13C-amount of -14,8%0, indicat-ing that the individual had a predominantly marine intake (Samuelsson &Ytterberg 2002, p. 30).Other points of reference for datings are a number of round buttedaxes (late Mesolithic or Neolithic), some microliths (probably Mesolithicor early Neolithic), pottery (almost exclusively Fagervik III, inc1uding afew "megalithoid" sherds, corresponding to MNA-MNB, and in someextent, LN), an amber bead in the shape of a single-edged axe (MNA)and a bone ring (Battle Axe Cul ture; MNB).There are indications that can be interpreted as a shift from a trad i-

247


25/30

Ch ri sto ffe r S amuels so n a nd N ik la s Y tte rb er gti on al s et tlem ent to a m ore ritual site, m aybe a grea t p la ce o f a ssemb ly ?T he o ld est d ate d a rtefac ts a nd stru ctu re s d o n ot in dic ate any spec if ic r it ua lactivities, exc ep t fo r b uria l. B y the M NB , th e ritu al a re a in th e n orth emp art o f th e b urial g ro un d, c om prisin g th e ex tension of trench 1 , gives usreason to believe th at the c ha ra cte r o f th e s ite h ad shifted. The reas on forth is sh ift h as n ot y et been th oro ug hly in ve stig ated, but opens areas fo rcontinued res earch.ReferencesAhlfont, K ., Guinard , M ., Gustafsson , E . , O l s so n, C . &Welinder, S .1995. Pattems o fN eo lith icF arm in g in S weden. Tor 27, pp. 1 33-184.kerlund , A ., Risberg, l, Miller, U . &Gustafsson , P. 1 995. O n theApplicability o f th e 14C Me th od to In te rd isc ip lin ary S tu dies o n S ho reD is pl ac ement a nd S et tl em ent Lo ca ti on . PACT 49:4 , pp . 53-84.Andersson, T . 1 992 . Fosf at ana ly s . De ss anvndn ingsmjligheter inomarkeologin . In : Hall, B . &And ers so n, S . ( Ed s. ) Tvrvetenskapliga

studier kring grden Bjrsjs. S tu die r i n ord isk a rk eo lo gi, nr 1 7.Gteborg .Apel , J-E ., Bckstrm , Y ., H a ll gre n, F. ,Knuts son, K ., Lekberg , P .,Olsson , E ., Steineke, M . &Sundstrm , L . 1 99 5. F g elb ac ke n o chtrattbgarsamhllet. S amh ll so rgani sa ti on och r it uel la samlingsp lat serv id ver gn gen till en b ofa st t ill va ro i st ra Me ll ansv erige. TorVol.27 :11995 ,pp.47 -132 .A rrhenius, B . 1990 . Fosfa t o ch sp rmn esa na ly se r som h j lpmedel vidbebyggelseanalyse r. Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift, nr 1 9.B erth ell, P .H . &Mat e, L 1 989. T he use o f so il p ho sp hate analy si s inarchaeolo gy : A c ri ti que. In: H enderson, l (Ed.) . Scientific Analysisin Archaeology. O xford U nive rs ity Comm it te e, M onographn o. 1 9.B iwal l, A ., Hemek , R ., Kihlstedt, B ., Lar sso n, M . &TorstensdotterAhlin, L 1 99 7. S tenldern s h yddor och h us i Syd- och Mellansverige.In : Lar sso n, M . &Olsson , E . (Eds . ) Regionalt och interregionalt.Stenldersunderskningar i Syd- och Mellansverige.Riksantikvariembetet, Ark eo lo gi sk a und erskningar, Skrifter nr 2 3.Stockholm , p p. 2 65-300 .B j rck , N . 1 998. Frkenrnningen - En "by" fr 5000 r sedan.En gropkeramisk boplats, W399, Va/bo socken, Gstrikland.Rappor t-Lnsmuse et Gvleborg 1998:1 4. Gvle .

248

Blid]n

uruGiriniMGGuinainArQ

- In]pa qGthe)Ne lan dAgIOolo ~HallgrGStemu

Hedell ,O stsStOG


26/30

embly?ific ritualnorthem, gives useason forareas for

r, S.-184.the

i nom, nr 17.P. ,

rVol.del vidsis inA nalys is

r nr 23 .edan.rikland.

Ruined but rescuedBlidmo, R. 1984. Provunderskning av stenldersboplatser och

ngra tolkningsproblem. Arkeologiska rapporter och meddelandenfrn Institutionen fr arkeologi vid Stockholms universitet, nr 15.Stockholm.Bock, R. 1979. A handbook of decomposition methods in analyticalchemistry. Glasgow.Bohn, H., McNeal, B. &O'Connor, G. 1985. Soil Chemistry. NewYork.Bronk Ramsey C. 1994. Analysis ofChronological Information andRadioearbon Calibration. The Program OxCal. ArchaeologicalComputing Newsletter 41, pp.II-16.

Carlsson, A. 1998. Tolkande arkeologi och svensk forntidshistoria.Stenldern. Studies in Archaeology 17. Stockholm.Edenmo, R., Larsson, M., Nordquist, B. &Olsson, E. 1997.Gropkeramikema - fanns de? Materiell kultur och ideologiskfrndring. In: Larsson, M. &Olsson, E. (Eds.) Regionalt ochinterregionalt. Stenldersundersokningar i Syd- ochMellansverige. Riksantikvariembetet, Arkeologiskaunderskningar, Skrifter nr 23. Stockholm, pp. 135-213.Girininkas, A. 1994. Baltu kultiiros istakos. Lietuvos Kultres PaveldoMokslinis Centras. Savastis, Vilnius.Guinard, M. 1995. Jordbrukandejgare? Jordbruksindikationerinom den gropkeramiska kulturen. Seminar paper. Department ofArchaeology, Uppsala University. Uppsala.

- In press. Archaeological field survey at the Hemmor site, Nrpari sh. Report, Gotland, Lnsmuseet p Gotland. Visby.Gtherstrm, A., Stenbck, N. &Stor, J. 2001. The Jettble MiddleNeolithic site of the land islands - Human remains, ancient DNAand pottery. (Paper IV.) In: Stor, J. 2001. Reading bones. StoneAge Hunters and Seals in the Baltic. Stockholm Studies in Archae-ology 21, Stockholm University. Stockholm (Dissertation).Hallgren, F. 1996. Etnisk dualism under mellanneolitikum. In: Bratt, P.Stenlder i Stockholms ln. Tv seminarier vid Stockholms lnsmuseum. Stockholm,pp. 87-100.

HedelI, L. 1910. Osteologisk analys frn Hemmor, Nr sn, Gotland.Osteological report, The Antiquarian- Topographical Archives (ATA),Stockholm.

249


27/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas YtterbergHedemark, A. , Samuelsson, C. &Ytterberg, N. 2000a. Arkeologisk

underskning, Hemmorboplatsen, Dalbo 1:45, Nr sn, Gotland.Report, Lnsmuseet p Gotland. Visby.- 2000b. Stenldersboplatsen vid Hemmor i ny belysning. GotlndsktArkiv 2000, pp. 7-28.Hedman, A. 1992. Fosfatkartering som arkeologisk metod. Enintroduktion. Riksantikvariembetet och Statens historiska museer.Rapport 1992:3. Stockholm.Heimer, O. 1994. Hus och hydda. En sammanstllning av hus- ochhyddlmningar frn mellanneolitkum. Seminar paper, Departmentof archaeology, Uppsala University. Uppsala.Hyenstrand, E. 1996. Diskussion kring redovisning av fosfatanalys.Exemplet Hrad. In: Ranheden, H., Hyenstrand, E., Jakobsson, M.,Rnnby, 1. &Nilsson, A. Metodstudier och tolkningsmjligheter.Riksantikvariembetet, Arkeologiska underskningar, Skrifter nr 20.Stockholm,pp.29-51.Isendahl, C. &Olsson, M. 1996. Matjordsarkeologi.Riksantikvariembetet, UV Syd. Lund (Duplicate).Janzon, G. 0.1974. Gotlands mellanneolitiskagravar. Studies inNorth-European Archaeology 6. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.Stockholm (Dissertation).Johnsen, B. &Welinder, S. 1998. Etnicitet eller kultur. Mitthgskolan.Studentlitteratur, Lund.Kaul, F. 1992. Ritualer med menneskeknogler i yngre stenalder, KUML1991-92.Knutsson, H. 1995. Slutvandrat? Aspekter p vergngen/rnrrlig till bofast tillvaro. Aun 20, Societas ArchaeologicaUpsaliensis, Uppsala University. Uppsala (Dissertation).Kyhlberg, o . 1993a. Kvantitativ analys av fosfatdata. Arkeologi iSverige. Ny fljd 2. Riksantikvariembetet, Stockholm, pp. 77-98.- 1993b. Explicatory Aspects ofPhosphate Spatial Distributions. In:Arwidsson, G. (Ed.) Sources and Resources. Studies in Honourof Birgit Arrhenius. PACT 38,1993. Rixensart, pp. 247-265.Malmer, M. P. 2002. The Neolithic of South Sweden. TRE, GRK andSTR. The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters History and Antiqui-ties. Almqvist &Wiksell International. Stockholm.

250

Mml J1 :(l

MUli

NunP .

Olssgl~steElP .ste]/0s k ]Persjo1.

SamuruBoLL r uSchoetio iSjstrprqSteinbin te70,StenbeVsAk.


28/30

eologiskn, Gotland.Gotlndskt. Enka museer.hus- ochDepartment

.son, M.,gheter.rifter nr 20.

udies incnsis.

. KUMLnfrn

eologii. In:

inHonour-265., GRKandd Antiqui-

Ruined but rescuedMartinsson-Wallin, H., Ytterberg, N., Samuelsson, C.,Vogel, P.,Kjellberg, A., Hedemark, . &Eriksson, L. 1996.Lokalkorologiska studier eller mnster med mening. Del r v .Provunderskning av den gropkeramiska boplatsen "Hemmor"iNr sn, Gotland.juni 1996. Report, Lnsstyrelsen, Gotlands ln(Dupli cate).Munthe, H., Hede, J. E. &von Post, L. 1925. Beskrivning tillkartbladet Ronehamn. SGU Ser. Aa, N:o 156, Stockholm.Nunez, M. &Winberg, A. 1990. Determinations of Anthropic SoilPhosphate on land. Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 23.Olsson, E., Granath Zillen, G. &Mohr, A. 1994. Korsns. Engropkeramisk grav- och boplats p Sdertrn.Riksantikvariembetet, UV Stockholm, rapport 1994:63. Stockholm.sterholm, r. 1989. Bosttningsmnstret p Gotland under stenldern.En analys av fysiskt milj, ekonorni och social struktur. Theses andPapers in Archaeology, New series 3. Stockholm (Dissertation).sterholm, r.&sterholm, S. 1983. Spot test som metodfrfosfatanalys iflt. Praktiska erfarenheter. RAGU, arkeologiskaskrifter 1982:6. Visby/Alva.Persson, P. 1999. Neolitikums brjan. Underskningar kringjordbrukets introduktion i Nordeuropa. Kust till kust-bcker - nr1. GteborgIUppsala. (Dissertation).

Samuelsson, C. &Ytterberg, N. 2002. Arkeologisk underskning,Hemmorboplatsen. Dalbo 1:4Y, 1:442, Hemmor 1:42, 1:19,Bomunds i Burgen 1:163, Nr sn, Gotland. Report no. 2,Landskap i Landskap - stenlderslmningar i o dlingsmark (Land-scapes in Landscapes - Stone Age sites in arable land). Report,Lnsmuseet p Gotland, Visby.Schoefield, A. 1. (Ed.) 1991.1nterpreting artefact scatters. Contribu-tions toploughzone archaeology. Oxbow, Oxford.Sjstrm, A. &Pihl, H. 1993. Arkeologi frn ytan. Delrapport inomprojektet "Det dolda kulturlandskapet". Lund.Steinberg,1. M. 1996. Ploughzone sampling in Denmark. Isolating andinterpreting site signatures from disturbed contexts. Antiquity. vol.70, nr. 268.Stenberger, M., Dahr, E. &Munthe, H. 1943. Das GrabfeldvonVsterbjers aufGotland. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och AntikvitetsAkademien, Monografier 30. Stockholm.

251


29/30

Christoffer Samuelsson and Niklas YtterbergStevenson, F. J. 1986. Cycles of soil. C, N, P and Micronutrients.London.Stuiver, M., Reimer, PJ., Bard, E., Beck, 1.W., Burr, G.S., Hughen,K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., v. d. Plicht, 1.&Spurk, M.,1998. INTCAL98 Radioearbon age calibration 24,000 - O cal BP.

Radioearbon 40, pp. 1041-1083.Stor, 1. 1995. Osteologisk genomgng av benmaterial frn boplatsenHemmor, Gotland. Unpublished osteological report.2001. Reading bones. Stone Age Hunters and Seals in the Baltic.Stockholm Studies inArchaeology 21, Stockholm University. Stock-holm (Dissertation).Wallin, P. 1984. Den gropkeramiska boplatsen Hemmor i Nr sockenp Gotland. En studie av topografi, resursomrde ochfyndmaterial. Seminar paper. Department of Archaeology, Stock-holm University. (Duplicate).1995. Lokalkorologiska studier eller mnster med mening.Rapport ver underskningar av den gropkeramiska boplatsen"Hemmor " i Nr sn p Gotland. Seminar excavation spring term1995. Uppsala universitet, Uppsala (Duplicate).Wallin, P.&Martinsson- Wallin, H. 1991. Lokalkorologiska studiereller mnster med mening. Provunderskning av dengropkeramiska boplatsen i Hemmor, Nr sn p Gotland. Report,Lnsstyrelsen, Gotlands ln (Duplicate).1992. Studier kring gropkerarnisk identitet p Gotland. GotlndsktArkiv 1992, pp. 7-26.1993. Lokalkorologiska studier eller mnster med mening.Provunderskningar av den gropkeramiska boplatsen iHemmor, Nr sn p Gotland. Del 2. Report, Lnsstyrelsen,Gotlands ln. (Duplicate).- 1996. Ater till Hemmorboplatsen - utgrvningar, analyser ochreflexioner. Gotlndskt Arkiv 1996, pp. 7-28.Wennersten, O.v. 1907. Handwritten report about the excavation at theRemmor site in 1903. The Antiquarian- Topographical Archives(ATA), Stockholm.1931. Remmor och "astuars". Ett outforskat stenldersgravflt.Gotlands Allehanda, no. 50, 1931.

252

PersJohanVi.


30/30

., .tsenBaltic.Stock-

atsenermereport,dskt

at the

lt.

Ruined but rescuedWyszomirska, B. 1984. Figurplastik och gravskick hos Nord- och

Nordsteuropas neolitiska jngskulturer. Acta ArchaeologicaLundensia 18. Lund (Dissertation).- 1988. Ekonomisk stabilitet vid kusten. Nymlla III. Entidigneolitisk bosttning med fngstekonomi i nordstra Skne.Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 80No 17. Lund.Zagorskis, F. 1987. Zvejnieku akmens laikmeta kapulauks. LatvijasPSR Zintnu Akademija Vestures Institts. Zintne. Riga.

Personal communicationJohan Norderng, Educational assistant, University College of Gotland,Visby, Sweden.

253

Uniting SEA

Documents

Transcript of Uniting SEA