Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:51:33.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Catherine J. Frieman
Catherine J. Frieman*
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to clarify the reason for the flourishing of daggers during the first millennia of metal use in Europe. Flint daggers, usually characterized as direct copies of contemporary metal blades, circulated widely from around 4000 cal BC to 1500 cal BC in different parts of Europe. Among the best studied and most well-known flint dagger varieties are the early second millennium cal BC fishtail-handled varieties made in southern Scandinavia which are universally described as skeuomorphs of Central European metal-hilted daggers. In this paper, their putative skeuomorphism is re-evaluated through a close technological and contextual analysis, and a new way of conceiving of the relationship between fishtail flint daggers and metal-hilted daggers is proposed. Like most of the other widely circulating flint dagger types in Neolithic Europe, fishtail and metal-hilted daggers are produced through the application of specialized/standardized production processes and demonstrate a desire to cultivate special and perhaps circumscribed technologies on the part of the people who made and used them. This shared technological background is identified as the root of the ‘dagger idea’ which emerges in Europe at this period. Daggers, in any material, are identified as ‘boundary objects’ – things which bridge social boundaries, allowing people with different backgrounds to recognize similar values and ways of life in each other's cultures and which, consequently, facilitate communication and exchange, in this case of metal and of the technological concepts which were part of its adoption.

Cet article essaie de clarifier les raisons de l'apogée des poignards pendant le premier millénaire de l'utilisation du métal en Europe. Des poignards en silex, habituellement désignés comme copies immédiates de lames en métal contemporaines, étaient largement répandus dans différentes régions européennes autour de 4000 à 1500 cal BC. Parmi les types de poignards en silex les mieux étudiés et réputés figurent les variétés avec poignées à queue de poisson du début du deuxième millénaire BC produites en Scandinavie méridionale, universellement décrites comme skeuomorphes des poignards à poignée massive d'Europe centrale. Cet article réévalue leur présumé skeuomorphisme par une analyse technologique et contextuelle approfondie, et propose une nouvelle façon de concevoir la relation entre les poignards à poignée ‘queue de poisson’ et à poignée massive. Comme la plupart des autres types de poignards en silex largement répandus en Europe néolithique, les poignards à queue de poisson et à poignée massive étaient produits en appliquant des processus de production spécialisés/standardisés et montrent l'intention de développer des technologies spéciales et peut-être limitées aux personnes qui les fabriquaient et utilisaient. Ce contexte technologique commun est identifié comme l'origine du ‘concept du poignard’ qui apparaît en Europe pendant cette période. Les poignards de tout matériel sont reconnus comme ‘objets frontières’ – objets qui compensent les frontières sociales et permettent aux hommes de milieux différents de reconnaître des valeurs et modes de vie similaires dans la culture de chacun et qui, par conséquence, facilitent la communication et l'échange, dans ce cas du métal et des concepts technologiques qui faisaient partie de son assimilation.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel versucht, den Grund für die Blütezeit von Dolchen im ersten Jahrtausend der Metallnutzung in Europa zu klären. Flintdolche, die gewöhnlich als direkte Kopien von zeitgleichen Metallklingen angesehen werden, waren von etwa 4000 bis 1500 v. Chr. in verschiedenen Teilen Europas verbreitet. Unter den am besten untersuchten und bekanntesten Flintdolchvarianten sind die sog. Fischschwanzdolche des frühen 2. Jts. v. Chr., die in Südskandinavien hergestellt wurden und grundsätzlich als typologische Rudimente zentraleuropäischer Vollgriffdolche angesehen werden. In diesem Aufsatz wird dieser mutmaßliche skeumorphe Charakter durch eine genaue technologische und kontextuelle Analyse neu bewertet und ein neuer Weg des Verständnisses der Beziehung von Fischschwanz-Feuersteindolchen und metallenen Vollgriffdolchen vorgeschlagen. Wie die meisten der anderen weitverbreiteten Flintdolchtypen des europäischen Neolithikums, wurden Fischschwanz- und Vollgriffdolche in Anwendung spezialisierter/standardisierter Produktionsprozesse produziert und zeigen die Intention, spezielle und vielleicht auf den Personenkreis, der sie herstellte und nutzte, begrenzte Technologien zu schaffen. Dieser gemeinsame technologische Hintergrund wird als die Wurzel der ‘Dolch-Idee’ identifiziert, die in dieser Zeit in Europa entsteht. Dolche aus jeglichem Material werden als ‘Grenzobjekte’ angesprochen – Gegenstände, die soziale Grenzen überbrücken und Menschen mit verschiedenen Hintergründen erlauben, ähnliche Werte und Wege des Lebens in anderen Kulturen zu erkennen und demzufolge Kommunikation und Austausch – im vorliegenden Fall von Metall und dem technologischen Konzept, das Teil seiner Übernahme in andere Kulturen war – zu erleichtern.

Keywords

flint daggersVollgriffdolche (metal-hilted daggers)Late Neolithic Scandinaviainnovationboundary objectspoignards en silexpoignards à poignée massiveScandinavie au Néolithique récentinnovationobjets frontièreFlintdolcheVollgriffdolcheSpätneolithikum SkandinaviensinnovationGrenzobjekte
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , 2012 , pp. 440 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfaro, D. 2009. How to Use a Chef's Knife. [online] [accessed 1 June 2009]. Available at: <http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/knifeskills/ss/knifegrips.htm>..' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alfaro,+D.+2009.+How+to+Use+a+Chef's+Knife.+[online]+[accessed+1+June+2009].+Available+at:+.>Google Scholar
Apel, J. 2000. Flint daggers and Technological Knowledge: Production and Consumption During LN1. In: Olausson, D.S., Vandkilde, H., eds. Form, Function and Context: Material Culture Studies in Scandinavian Archaeology. Stockholm: Altqvist and Wiksell International, pp. 135–5.Google Scholar
Apel, J. 2001. Daggers, Knowledge and Power. Uppsala: Coast to Coast.Google Scholar
Apel, J. 2004. From Marginalisation to Specialisation: Scandinavian Flint-Dagger Production During the Second Wave of Neolithisation. In: Knutsson, H., ed. Coast to Coast – Arrival. Results and Reflections. Proceedings of the Final Coast to Coast Conference, 1–5 October in Falköping, Sweden. Uppsala: Coast to Coast, pp. 295–308.Google Scholar
Apel, J. 2008. Knowledge, Know-How and Raw Material: the Production of Late Neolithic Flint Daggers in Scandinavia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15 (1): 91–111.Google Scholar
Arnold, V. 1990. Refitting of Waste Material from Dagger Production of Site Tegelbarg (Quern-Neukirchen, Schleswig-Holstein). In: Cziesla, E., Eickhoff, S., Arts, N., Winter, D., eds. The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts. Bonn: Holos, pp. 211–16.Google Scholar
Barfield, L. 1995. Ponte di Veja (or Veia), Monte Lessini, Verona Province. Archaeologia Polona, 33: 437–43.Google Scholar
Barfield, L. 2001. Beaker Lithics in Northern Italy. In: Nicolis, F., ed. Bell Beakers Today: Pottery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998. Trento: Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servizio Beni Culturali, Ufficio Beni Archeologici, pp. 507–18.Google Scholar
Barnett, H.G. 1953. Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Boas, N.A. 1991. Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Settlements at Hemmed Church and Hemmed Plantation, East Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 10: 119–35.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., Edmonds, M.R. 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade: Production and Exchange in Neolithic Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Callahan, E. 2006. Neolithic Danish Daggers: An Experimental Peek. In: Apel, J., Knutsson, K., eds. Skilled Production and Social Reproduction. Aspects of Traditional Stone-Tool Technologies. Proceedings of a Symposium in Uppsala, August 20–24, 2003. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis and Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, pp. 115–29.Google Scholar
Clark, J.D.G. 1932. Note on Some Flint Daggers of Scandinavian Type from the British Isles. Man, 32: 186–90.Google Scholar
Delcourt-Vlaeminck, M. 2004. Les exportations du silex du Grand-Pressigny et du matériau tertiaire dans le nord-ouest de l'Europe au Néolithique final/Chalcolithique. In: Vander Linden, M., Salanova, L., eds. Le Troisième Millénaire dans le Nord de la France et en Belgique. Actes de la Journée d'Études SRBAP-SPF, 8 Mars 2003, Lille. Paris: Société Préhistorique Française, pp. 139–54.Google Scholar
Delcourt-Vlaeminck, M., Simon, C., Vlaeminck, J. 1991. Le silex du Grand-Pressigny sur le complexe SOM/Chalcolithique de Brunehaut (Tourain- Belgique). In: Despriée, J., Verjux, C., Piédoue, J., Richard, G., Albert, R., Pilareck, P., Tudal, L., Varache, F., Manchet, A., eds. La Région Centre, Carrefour d'Influences? Actes du 14e Colloque Interrégional sur le Néolithique, Blois, 16–18 Octobre 1987. Argenton-sur-Creuse: Société Archéologique, Scientifique et Littéraire du Vendômois, pp. 201–5.Google Scholar
Earle, T. 2004. Culture Matters in the Neolithic Transition and Emergence of Hierarchy in Thy, Denmark: Distinguished Lecture. American Anthropology, 106: 111–25.Google Scholar
Ebbesen, K. 1992. Tragtbaegerkulturens Dolkstave = The Halberds of the Funnel Beaker Culture. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkynighed og Historie, 1992: 103–36.Google Scholar
Ebbesen, K. 2007. Danske hellekister fra stenalderen = Danish Stone Cists from the Stone Age. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkynighed og Historie, 2004: 7–62.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. 1982. Trade in Danubian Shaft-Hole Axes and the Introduction of a Neolithic Economy in Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 1: 7–12.Google Scholar
Forssander, J.E. 1936. Der ostskandinavische Norden während der ältesten Metallzeit Europas. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Frieman, C.J. 2012. Innovation and Imitation: Stone Skeuomorphs of Metal from 4th–2nd Millennia BC Northwest Europe. Oxford: Archaeopress. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillis, C., Olausson, D.S., Vandkilde, H. 2004. Dawn of Europe. Lund: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Grimes, W.F. 1932. The early Bronze Age Flint Dagger in England and Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 6 (4): 340–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, P.V., Madsen, B. 1983. Axe Manufacture in the Neolithic: An Experimental Investigation of a Flint Axe Manufacture Site at Hastrup Vaenget East Zealand. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 2: 43–59.Google Scholar
Heyd, V. 2007. Families, Prestige Goods, Warriors and Complex Societies: Beaker Groups in the 3rd Millennium Cal BC. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 73: 327–80.Google Scholar
Högberg, A., Olausson, D. 2007. Scandinavian Flint: An Archaeological Perspective. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Högberg, A., Apel, J., Knutsson, K., Olausson, D.S., Rudebeck, E. 2001. The Spread of Flint Axes and Daggers in Neolithic Scandinavia. Památky Archeologické, 92 (2): 193–221.Google Scholar
Honegger, M. 2002. Les influences méridionales dans les industries lithiques du Néolithique Suisse. In: Bailly, M., Furestier, R., Perrin, T., eds. Les Industries Lithiques Taillées Holocènes du Bassin Rhodanien: Problèmes et Actualités. Actes de la Table Ronde Tenue à Lyon les 8 et 9 Décembre 2000. Montagnac: Mergoil, pp. 135–47.Google Scholar
Honegger, M., de Montmollin, P. 2010. Flint Daggers of the Late Neolithic in the Northern Alpine Area. In: Eriksen, B.V., ed. Lithic Technology in Metal Using Societies. Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society, pp. 129–42.Google Scholar
Ihuel, E. 2004. La Diffusion du Silex du Grand-Pressigny dans le Massif Armoricain au Néolithique. Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L. 2008. Tradition and Innovation in Copper Age Metallurgy: Results of a Metallographic Examination of Flat Axes from Eastern Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 74: 79–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klassen, L. 2000. Frühes Kupfer im Norden: Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Kupferfunde der Nordgruppe der Trichterbecherkultur. Højbjerg, Århus: Moesgård Museum and Jutland Archaeological Society & Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Klassen, L. 2004. Jade und Kupfer: Untersuchungen zum Neolithisierungsprozess im westlichen Ostseeraum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Kulturentwicklung Europas 5500–3500 BC. Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society & Moesgaard Museum.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 1987. From Stone to Bronze: The Evolution of Social Complexity in Northern Europe, 2300–1200 BC. In: Brumfiel, E.M., Earle, T.K., eds. Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 30–51.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., Larsson, T.B. 2005. The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kühn, H.J. 1979. Das Spätneolithikum in Schleswig-Holstein. Neumünster: K. Wachholtz.Google Scholar
Lindman, G. 1988. Power and Influence in the Late Stone Age: A Discussion of the Interpretation of the Flint Dagger Material. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 7 (2): 1221–138.Google Scholar
Lomborg, E. 1969. Frühbronzezeit trianguläre Metalldolche in Dänemark. Acta Archaeologica, 39: 219–34.Google Scholar
Lomborg, E. 1973. Die Flintdolche Dänemarks: Studien über Chronologie und Kulturbeziehungen des südskandinavischen Spätneolithikums. København: Universitetsforlaget I Kommission hos H. H. J. Lynge.Google Scholar
Mallet, N. 1992. Le Grand-Pressigny: Ses Relations avec la Civilisation Saône-Rhône. Le Grand-Pressigny: Société des Amis du Musée du Grand-Pressigny.Google Scholar
Mallet, N., Ramseyer, D. 1991. Un exemple d'importations de silex du Grand-Pressigny dans un village de la civilisation Saône-Rhône: Portalban (Canton de Fribourg, Suisse). In: Despriée, J., Verjux, C., Piédoue, J., Richard, G., Albert, R., Pilareck, P., Tudal, L., Varache, F., Manchet, A., eds. La Région Centre, Carrefour d'Influences? Actes du 14e Colloque Interrégional sur le Néolithique, Blois, 16–18 Octobre 1987. Argenton-sur-Creuse: Société Archéologique, Scientifique et Littéraire du Vendômois, pp. 167–92.Google Scholar
Mallet, N., Richard, G., Genty, P., Verjux, C. 2004. La diffusion des silex du Grand-Pressigny dans le Basin parisien. In: Vander Linden, M., Salanova, L., eds. Le Troisième Millénaire dans le Nord de la France et en Belgique. Actes de la Journée d'Études SRBAP-SPF, 8 Mars 2003, Lille. Paris: Société Préhistorique Française, pp. 123–38.Google Scholar
Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. 1946. Esquema Palentológico de la Península Hispanica, 2nd ed. Madrid: Publicaciones del Seminario de Historia Primitiva del Hombre.Google Scholar
Millet-Richard, L.-A. 1994. Technologie lithique au Néolithique final dans la région du Grand-Pressigny: comparaisons entre habitats et ateliers. In: Gutherz, X., Joussaume, R., eds. Le Néolithique du Centre-Ouest de la France. Actes du XXIe Colloque Inter-Régional sur le Néolithique, Poitiers, 14, 15 et 16 octobre 1994. Poitiers: Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication & l'Association des Archéologies de Poitou-Charentes, pp. 279–96.Google Scholar
Millet-Richard, L.-A. 2006. Settlements and Flint Workshops in the Grand-Pressigny Region: Hypotheses About the Knappers of Livres de beurre. In: Körlin, G., Weisgerber, G., eds. Stone Age – Mining Age. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, pp. 423–32.Google Scholar
Montelius, O. 1917. Minnen från vår forntid. 1. Stenåldern och Bronsåldern. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar
Mottes, E. 2001. Bell Beakers and Beyond: Flint Daggers of Northern Italy Between Technology and Typology. In: Nicolis, F., ed. Bell Beakers Today: Pottery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998. Trento: Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servizio Beni Culturali, Ufficio Beni Archeologici, pp. 519–45.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 1902. Flintdolkene i den nordiske Stenalder. Copenhagen: Nordiske Fortidsminder I.Google Scholar
Olausson, D.S. 2000. Talking Axes, Social Daggers. In: Olausson, D.S., Vandkilde, H., eds. Form, Function & Context: Material Culture studies in Scandinavian Archaeology. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, pp. 121–33.Google Scholar
Olausson, D.S. 2008. Does Practice Make Perfect? Craft Expertise as a Factor in Aggrandizer Strategies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15 (1): 28–50.Google Scholar
Peiler, F. 1999. Ein nordischer Flintdolch aus Falkenstein in Niederösterreich. Archäologie Österreichs, 10 (2): 45–48.Google Scholar
Pelegrin, J. 2002. La production des grandes lames de silex du Grand-Pressigny. In: Guilaine, J., ed. Matériaux, Productions, Circulations, du Néolithique à l'Áge du Bronze. Paris: Errance, pp. 125–41.Google Scholar
Ram, S. 1985. A model of Innovation Resistance. In: Wallendorf, M., Anderson, P., eds. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 14. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 208–12.Google Scholar
Rassmann, K. 1993. Spätneolithikum und frühe Bronzezeit im Flachland zwischen Elbe und Oder. Lübstorf: Archäoloigisches Landesmuseum Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.Google Scholar
Rogers, E.M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Rudebeck, E. 1998. Flint Extraction, Axe Offering, and the Value of Cortex. In: Edmonds, M.R., Richards, C., eds. Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Glasgow: Cruithne Press, pp. 312–27.Google Scholar
Sarauw, T. 2006a. Early Late Neolithic Dagger Production in Northern Jutland: Marginalised Production or Source of Wealth? Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, 87: 213–7.Google Scholar
Sarauw, T. 2006b. Bejsebakken. Late Neolithic Houses and Settlement Structure. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.Google Scholar
Sarauw, T. 2007. Male Symbols or Warrior Identities? The ‘Archery Burials’ of the Danish Bell Beaker Culture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 26: 65–87.Google Scholar
Sarauw, T. 2008. Danish Bell Beaker Pottery and Flint Daggers: The Display of Social Identities. European Journal of Archaeology, 11 (1): 23–47.Google Scholar
Schwenzer, S. 2004. Frühbronzezeitliche Vollgriffdolche: typologische, chronologische und technische Studien auf der Grundlage einer Materialaufnahme von Hans-Jürgen Hundt. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums; In Kommission bei Habelt. Sherratt, A. 1997 [1976]. Resources, technology and trade: an essay on early European metallurgy. In: Sherratt, A., ed. Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 102–33.Google Scholar
Sherratt, A. 1997. Resources, Technology and Trade: An Essay on Early European Metallurgy. In: Sherratt, A., ed. Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 102–33.Google Scholar
Siemann, C. 2003. Flintdolche Norddeutschlands in ihrem grabrituellen Umfeld. Bonn: Habelt.Google Scholar
Skak-Nielsen, N.V. 2009. Flint and Metal Daggers in Scandinavia and Other Parts of Europe: A Re-Interpretation of their Function in the Late Neolithic and Early Copper and Bronze Age. Antiquity, 83: 349–58.Google Scholar
Star, S.L. 1989. The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving. In: Gasser, L., Huhns, M.N., eds. Distributed Artificial Intelligence. London: Pitman, pp. 37–54.Google Scholar
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19 (3): 387–420.Google Scholar
Steiniger, D. 2010. The Relation Between Copper and Flint Daggers in Chalcolithic Italy. In: Anreiter, P., Goldenberg, G., Hanke, K., Krause, R., Leitner, W., Mathis, F., Nicolussi, K., Oeggl, K., Pernicka, E., Prast, M., Schibler, J., Schneider, I., Stadler, H., Stöllner, T., Tomedi, G., Tropper, P., eds. Mining in European History and its Impact on Environment and Human Societies. Proceedings for the 1st Mining in European History Conference of the SFB-HIMAT, 12–15 November 2009, Innsbruck. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, pp. 151–56.Google Scholar
Stensköld, E. 2004. Att berätta en senneolitisk historia. Sten och metall i södra Sverige 2350–1700 f. Kr. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Strahm, C. 1961-2. Geschäftete Dolchklingen des Spätneolithikums. Jahrbuch des Bernischen Historischen Museums in Bern, 41/42: 447–78.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. 2004. Partial Connections. Updated ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Struve, K.W. 1955. Die Einzelgrabkultur in Schleswig-Holstein. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag.Google Scholar
Suárez Otero, J. 1998. El puñal de sílex nórdico de Cela: una revisión. Gallaecia, 17: 137–50.Google Scholar
Uenze, O. 1938. Die frühbronzezeitlichen triangulären Vollgriffdolche. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van der Leeuw, S.E. 1989. Risk, Perception, Innovation. In: van der Leeuw, S.E., Torrence, R., eds. What's New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation. London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 300–29.Google Scholar
Van Gijn, A. 2010a. Flint in Focus: Lithic Biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden: Sidestone.Google Scholar
Van Gijn, A. 2010b. Not at all Obsolete! The Use of Flint in the Bronze Age Netherlands. In: Eriksen, B.V., ed. Lithic Technology in Metal Using Societies. Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society, pp. 45–60.Google Scholar
Vander Linden, M. 2007. For Equalities are Plural: Reassessing the Social in Europe During the Third Millennium Cal BC. World Archaeology, 39 (2): 177–93.Google Scholar
Vandkilde, H. 1989. Von der Steinzeit bis der Bronzezeit in Dänemark. Zeitschrift für Archäologie, 23 (2): 175–200.Google Scholar
Vandkilde, H. 1990. A Late Neolithic hoard from Vigerslev, North Sealand: An Archaeological and Metal Analytical Classification. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 9: 103–13.Google Scholar
Vandkilde, H. 1996. From Stone to Bronze: The Metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Vandkilde, H. 1998. Metalwork, Depositional Structure and Social Practice in the Danish Late Neolithic. In: Mordant, C., Pernot, M., Rychner, V., eds. L'Atélier du Bronzier en Europe du XXe au VIIIe Siècle Avant Notre Ère. Actes du Colloque International ‘Bronze '96’, Neuchâtel et Dijon, 1996. Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, pp. 243–58.Google Scholar
Vandkilde, H. 2000. Material Culture and Scandinavian Archaeology: A Review of the Concepts of form, Function and Context. In: Olausson, D.S., Vandkilde, H., eds. Form, Function and Context: Material Culture Studies in Scandinavian Archaeology. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, pp. 3–50.Google Scholar
Vandkilde, H. 2001. Beaker representation in the Danish Late Neolithic. In: Nicolis, F., ed. Bell Beakers Today: Pottery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998. Trento, Italy: Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servizio Beni Culturali, Ufficio Beni Archeologici, pp. 333–60.Google Scholar
Vandkilde, H. 2005. A review of the Early Late Neolithic period in Denmark: practice, identity and connectivity [online]. JungsteinSITE. Available at: <http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2005_vandkilde_high.pdf>.Google Scholar
Vandkilde, H. 2007. Culture and Change in Central European Prehistory: 6th to 1st Millennium BC. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Wentink, K. 2006. Ceci n'est pas une Hache: Neolithic Depositions in the Northern Netherlands. Leiden: Sidestone Press.Google Scholar
Wüstemann, H. 1990. Zur Funktion Bronzezeitlicher Dolche. In: Chropovský, B., Herrmann, J., eds. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kultur der Mitteleuropäischen Bronzezeit. Berlin: Nitra, pp. 557–66.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, T. 2007. Die ältesten kupferzeitlichen Bestattungen mit Dolchbeigabe: archäologische Untersuchungen in ausgewählten Modellregionen Alteuropas. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.Google Scholar