Birds and burials at Ajvide (Gotland, Sweden) and Zvejnieki (Latvia) about 8000–3900 BP

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2008.01.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Animal bones in human burials may reveal aspects of the relationship between animals and humans. This article describes the roles of birds in mortuary practices and in the ideology of Stone Age northern Europe. Bird bones from two large burial sites, Middle Neolithic Ajvide (Gotland, Sweden) and Mesolithic and Neolithic Zvejnieki (Latvia) are investigated with osteological methods. Beads and pendants were fashioned from the wing bones of waterbirds, and used in the decoration of the body or the burial dress. The jay was found in three Neolithic burials at Zvejnieki, and it may have been a totem animal for the Middle Neolithic people at Zvejnieki, and its wings or feathers were presumably attached to dresses and costumes for the dead. Bird remains in burials at Ajvide, Zvejnieki and some other Stone Age cemeteries may indicate similar features in the way of perceiving birds, especially the possible symbolic roles of waterbirds and wings. The findings are discussed from the perspective of the cosmology of historical hunter–gatherer (and herding) groups in modern Russia.

Introduction

Animals have played important roles in the ideology of prehistoric hunter–gatherer, herding and farming societies (e.g., Anderson and Boyle, 1996, Lindqvist, 1997, Jones, 1998, Jennbert, 2003a, Ray and Thomas, 2003, Eriksson, 2004, Jones O’Day et al., 2004, Morris, 2005). The relationship between wild/domestic animals and humans can be studied through detailed investigations of mortuary data. Burials often contain unmodified partial or complete animal bodies as well as ornaments, tools or other artifacts made of bone. Burial practices may implicitly reflect the special treatment and the symbolic roles of animals. Every grave good, ornament, or features such as body position or body treatment in graves have the potential to be active representations of burial rites and could be examined as “messages” about the ideology of the dead individual and/or those who buried him/her. The presence of unmodified animal remains in burials has been frequently interpreted as remains of meals intended for the dead or for spirits (Larsson, 1989, Larsson, 1990, Burenhult, 1997a). Perforated mammal tooth pendants are the most common type of animal remains in the Mesolithic and Neolithic burials of northern Europe (Gurina, 1956, Jaanits, 1957, Janzon, 1974, Albrethsen and Brinch Petersen, 1976, O’Shea and Zvelebil, 1984, Larsson, 1989, Larsson, 2006, Kannegaard Nielsen and Brinch Petersen, 1993, Zagorska and Lõugas, 2000, Burenhult, 2002, Zagorskis, 2004, Papmehl-Dufay, 2006). It has been suggested that tooth pendants might have been used in necklaces and as decorations on clothes and garments like headgear, belts and pouches. They may also have carried symbolic significance as part of an animal cult (e.g., as hunting trophies) or some kind of special protective items (Jaanits, 1957, Larsson, 1988, Larsson, 2006, Zagorska and Lõugas, 2000).

Fish and bird bones have also been found in human graves in addition to mammal bones (Janzon, 1974, Jonsson, 1986, Larsson, 1988, Zagorskis, 2004). Bird bones have been found in a number of Mesolithic and Neolithic burials in northern Europe, but they have not been studied in a wider perspective (Gurina, 1956, Jaanits, 1957, Gumiński, 2005, Mannermaa, 2006). One exception is the study by Janzon (1974, pp. 67–74), where tubular bird bone artifacts are studied in the Middle Neolithic burials on Gotland. Tubular bird bone artifacts from Ire, Visby and Hemmor derive from the ulnae and radii (wing bones) of ducks and waders (identified by J. Lepiksaar). Janzon (1974) interprets these as beads from necklaces and breast and ankle decorations and from belts and skirts. In some graves, beads were probably attached to the hide in which the corpse was wrapped (Janzon, 1974, p. 74).

Bird bones are relatively rare in burials compared to mammal remains. A famous and often cited archaeological find is the grave from Late Mesolithic Vedbæk Bøgebakken in Denmark that consisted of a young woman and a newborn baby who was buried on a whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) wing (Albrethsen and Brinch Petersen, 1976). Another impressive example is the use of white-tailed sea eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) in the Neolithic mortuary practices on the island of Orkney in Scotland. At least 14 eagles were placed together with human and animal remains in the tombs. Eagles and other animals were part of the grave goods, and may have served as a means of structuring and framing the landscape (Jones, 1998) (but see also Hedges, 1984). These finds are exceptional but indicate that birds were an important part of life and ideology of the people. Depending on the place and the season, birds could function as an important source of food and raw materials, but birds were present also in places where they were not necessarily actively exploited. A number of species were part of the everyday life although other species may have been only rarely seen or caught. Birds were a natural resource, in both a concrete and a rhetorical way, and they may have had roles in peoples’ beliefs and in how they perceived their environments. The relationship between birds, as well as other animals, and people was either exploitative or neutral. Some animals were left alone and some were utilized. Some species may have been appreciated as persons or members of society, e.g., clan totems (Ingold, 1986, Harvey, 2005). Animals may have been valued and estimated, e.g., for their appearance, voice, social behavior, way of life, living habitats, or relationship with people (Jones, 1998, Ingold, 1986, Ingold, 2000, Jennbert, 2003b, Jordan, 2003, Jones and Richards, 2003, Fowler, 2004).

In this article, I investigate the roles of birds in Stone Age mortuary practices by studying bird remains found in graves. The material from two burial complexes, Middle Neolithic Ajvide on Gotland, Sweden and multi-periodic Zvejnieki in Latvia (from the Middle Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic) are studied and discussed in detail. The focus of this study is on bird remains. For a systematic description of the burials and the entire material, the reader is recommended to see Zagorska and Zagorskis, 1988, Burenhult, 1997a, Burenhult, 2002, Zagorska and Lõugas, 2000, Zagorska, 2001, Zagorskis, 2004, Lõugas, 2006, Larsson, 2006. Taxonomic and anatomical data of unmodified and modified bird bones were collected in order to investigate the following aspects. (1) What kind of symbolic meaning can be indicated by the bird species found in burials? Certain bird species may have been more important in the mortuary rituals than others. (2) How were birds treated in burials? The anatomical distribution of bird remains may contain information about their treatment. (3) Did bird bone artifacts, like pendants and beads, have symbolic meanings? The detailed analysis of beads and pendants may reveal information about burial customs and symbolism connected to the decoration of the body or the clothes of the dead. The extensive objective is to study how ideological attitudes toward birds are reflected in the Stone Age burials, and compare the findings with ethnographic data. Through the ethnographic parallels, I try to find possible interpretations for the roles of birds in graves during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. Ethnographic similarities and analogies are seen as Supplementary information in the interpretation process but not as direct explanations of archaeological phenomena (see Parker Pearson, 1999, pp. 34–35).

There is an exceptionally rich ethnographic data collected mostly from northern Russia during the 19th and early 20th century. Various aspects of modern cultures have traditionally been used in the interpretation of prehistoric cultures. The practice of comparing known modern societies with prehistoric ones has also been much criticized in the archaeological literature (e.g., Binford, 1967, Fahlander, 2004). The debate about the advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of ethnographic analogies has been intensive in archaeology during the last decades (e.g., Wylie, 1985, Hodder, 1982, Insoll, 2004, Kaliff, 2005). A major problem is that, over time and space, people change the ways they act, think, or use things. We cannot assume that just because material remains look alike or an object is used in a certain way in the present by a specific group of people, it means the same thing or was used the same way in the past by a another group of people. To solve the problems of making far-fetched inferences, it has been suggested that some analogies are more valid than others. The three most commonly distinguished analogies in archaeology are direct historical, formal and relational analogies (Hodder, 1982, Zvelebil and Jordan, 1999). Direct historical analogy refers to continuous and unbroken cultural traditions, from prehistory to recent times in certain areas. Formal analogy is an analogy between two objects that share the same properties. According to this reasoning, these objects have had similar function (Hodder, 1982, p. 16). In relational analogy, a cultural and natural connection is seen between different contexts. Despite the problems in using direct analogies between past and modern cultures, many researchers have accepted their cautious use in archaeological interpretation (e.g., Ucko, 1969, Wylie, 1985). Most archaeologists see analogies atleast useful in expanding our horizons and as a platform for interpreting material remains. The use of ethnographic analogies has been seen as an important alternative way of interpreting zooarchaeological material (Zimmermann Holt, 1996, Gifford-Gonzales, 1991). I think that common roots of the symbolism connected to waterbirds or migratory birds in the circumpolar region are possible and easy to understand (see Zvelebil and Jordan, 1999).

The presence of some common ideological aspects in the northern European Stone Age has been already presented in earlier publications. Zvelebil (1993) has suggested that, despite the variety and the geographical and chronological distances of some Stone Age burial complexes in northern Europe, these share some similar components. The most interesting common aspects, presented by Zvelebil, 1993, Zvelebil, 1997, O’Shea and Zvelebil, 1984, are the symbolism connected to the bear (Ursus arctos) and elk (Alces alces), and symbolism connected to water. The main features connected to water are the island locations of the cemeteries and the ideas about waterbirds. Similarities in the material culture of mortuary practices have raised the question of similar aspects in the worldview of northern Europe among the Mesolithic societies (Zvelebil, 1993). It has also been suggested that some common aspects may encompass the belief systems of Mesolithic, Neolithic and the modern hunter–forager societies (O’Shea and Zvelebil, 1984; see also Tilley, 1991, Zvelebil, 1997, Zvelebil, 1998; Gimbutiene, 1985 cited in Antanaitis, 1998, Zvelebil and Jordan, 1999, Schmidt, 2000). The basis of this argumentation lies in the interpretations of archaeological materials, e.g., grave goods, and the ethnographic evidence. Schmidt (2000, p. 230) has seen shamans as one aspect of ideological and social continuity for Mesolithic, Neolithic and historical hunter–gatherer societies in certain parts of northern Europe.

Finding similarities in practices and material remains of prehistoric cultures and modern hunter–gatherer groups is not rare. For example, Nilsson Stutz (2006a, pp. 231–232) has recently brought up the similarities in the practice of wrapping the dead in birch bark in Mesolithic and Neolithic graves at Zvejnieki and in historical Saami burials in northern Fennoscandia. She also mentions the possible link between the practice of wrapping bodies in Zvejnieki (and Skateholm in Sweden and Vedbæk in Denmark) and the anthropomorphic figurines from the Middle Neolithic site Jettböle II on Åland (see Nuñez, 1986, Fagerholm-Sjöblom, 2004). Furthermore, Nuñez (1986, p. 25) emphasizes the morphological similarities between these figurines and the images in Fennoscandian and Russian rock art. Another relation may be seen between the decorations involved with funerary garments at Zvejnieki, anthropomorphic clay figurines on Åland and in continental Finland, and the historical Siberian shaman dresses (see Prokofyeva, 1963, Nuñez, 1986). To mention more possible links, the archaeological finds indicate that the practice of fitting the deceased with a clay mask with amber rings in the eyes were followed in the Neolithic burials of Latvia, Finland and Karelia (Russia) (Zagorska, 1997, Edgren, 2006). Zagorska and Lõugas (2000, p. 238) have mentioned the possible resemblance of the headgear in the Mesolithic male burial 170 at Zvejnieki and the Late Mesolithic male burial 115 at Oleniy ostrov on Lake Onega (Yuzhniy Oleniy ostrov). Headgear on the Zalavruga II (White Sea) rock carvings may also show some similarity to those at Mesolithic and Neolithic Zvejnieki, Late Mesolithic Yuzhniy Oleniy ostrov and at Neolithic Tamula in southern Estonia (see Jaanits, 1957, Stolyar, 2000, Zagorska and Lõugas, 2000).

The ritual connotation of animals at prehistoric settlement sites has rarely been explained through osteoarchaeological data (but see, e.g., MacDonald, 1995, Muir and Driver, 2004, Jones O’Day et al., 2004). Only a detailed investigation of the contexts of bone materials from archaeological sites can provide an interpretation of the ideological or social roles of animals. For example, social differences and economic specialization are indicated in the taphonomic study of animal bones at the Neolithic lake shore settlement in Switzerland (Marti-Grädel et al., 2004). An intriguing example comes from Turkey (about 5500 cal BC), where ritual food preparation and the manner of consumption have been revealed by studying the taphonomy of animal bones from funeral deposits and settlement contexts (Kansa and Campbell, 2004). The social roles of birds in prehistoric societies have been investigated in a number of recent studies. For example, birds were important in traditional medicine in the pre-Hispanic Mexico (Corona-M., 2005). Common crane (Grus grus) bones found at Neolithic Çatalhöyük have been interpreted as remains of a ritual crane disguise, used by people in ritual dances (Russell and McGowan 2003). Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) and whooping cranes (Grus americana) could be interpreted as agents of high social rank in the burial mounds in the southern United States about 1000 AD (Jackson and Scott, 2003).

It is not always easy to define specific behavior from animal bone materials, and this is the reason why many archaeological animal deposits with obscure contexts have been described as “special animal deposits” (Wilson, 1992, Hill, 1996). The faunal material in settlement sites has been generally interpreted as the remains of animals used as economic resources. However, the straightforward approach to separate economic and ritual uses of animals may be problematic (Ingold, 1986, Zimmermann Holt, 1996, Brück, 1999, Jackson and Scott, 2003, Insoll, 2004, Stallibrass, 2005). We know from archaeological and ethnographic data from around the world that rituals and taboos connected to food and eating have existed and still exist (e.g., Parker Pearson, 2003, Janik, 2003, Jones and Richards, 2003, Insoll, 2004).

Ritual is an incredibly broad concept and it has been much discussed in anthropological (e.g., Bell, 1997, Rappaport, 1999) and archaeological literature (e.g., Barrett, 1991, Wilson, 1996, Brück, 1999, Nilsson Stutz, 2003, Nilsson Stutz, 2006b, Howey and O’Shea, 2006). Some researchers underline the ritual process, a practice, and point out that we can only understand ritual within the context of other social activity (e.g., bodily activities) (Bell, 1997, Nilsson Stutz, 2006b). Van Gennep (citation in Bell, 1997, p. 95) has interpreted all rituals as rites of passage, where the person leaves behind one social group and, passing through a stage of no identity, becomes a member of another group that confers a new identity (e.g., initiation rites, funerary rites). When I use the term “ritual”, I refer to repeated and standardized actions which are done for certain social, ideological or religious purposes (see, e.g., Barrett, 1991, Luff, 1996, Bell, 1997, Bradley, 2005). However, the concept is perceived here as not necessarily confined to religious phenomena, or contrasted to rational or utilitarian modes of behavior. Rituals are often used for strengthening the social structures of the society and behavior which is ritual in character may especially be intensively practiced and experienced at times when the society is somehow threatened and confusion prevails, as in war or at a member’s death (see Hodder, 1982, Aldenfelder, 1993, Luff, 1996, Wilson, 1996, Bradley, 2005). Even though rituals are often viewed as highly formalized, ritual activities are also dynamic and change over time (Aldenfelder, 1993, Howey and O’Shea, 2006). However, they are also timeless in their character and this is why they may survive over a very long period. Rituals can be mundane and domestic life can include special ritual activities, but domestic ritual activities usually differ from funerary activities. Mortuary activities connected to animal remains can be interpreted, for example, as projecting ideological aspects of death or the afterlife (e.g., food for the journey), the passing of the body to another world after death, or creating the identity of place and landscape or reflecting social hierarchy (Jaanits, 1961, Larsson, 1989, Jones, 1998, Fowler, 2004).

Berggren (2006) has emphasized the common problem that the terms “sacrifice” and “offering” are used in too general a manner. Due to this, she prefers the use of alternative terms, a practice also followed here. The general division of sacrifice and offering is, however, adopted here: sacrifice is an act where a living victim (plant or animal) must pass into the religious domain (Bradley, 1990, p. 37). Sacrifice changes the nature of what is being sacrificed. Offerings can be either artifacts or living things but this does not change the nature of being (Berggren 2006).

Animal totemism and animalism are significant features in many contemporary and—presumably also—in prehistoric hunter–gatherer societies. As Ingold (2000, p. 112) underlines, totemism is not any explicit system to which people relate, but rather an orientation that is deeply embedded in everyday practice. The totem animal is one that has been recognized as a person and a member of a group or clan, and it can also be the spiritual forefather of the clan (see Anisimov, 1963, Ingold, 1986, Fowler, 2004, Harvey, 2005). A specific unity exists between humans and their totem animals (Ingold, 2000, p. 115). For example, the shaman in a totemic society does not have to leave his/her body to take on that of his/her totem because they share the unity in consubstantiality (Ingold, 2000, p. 115). According to Ingold (2000, p. 113), in totemic ideology, there are connections with places and land, which are enduring forms of the presence of the ancestors. From ethnographic data, we know that parts of the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), a totem animal and a spirit helper, were depicted in shamanic dress among some Siberian tribes (Lönnquist, 1986, Siikala, 2002). Few potential indications of birds as totems exist from prehistoric contexts. Whooper swan may have been a totem animal for the Neolithic tribes in Lake Onega region as it is so commonly found in rock art (Ernits, 1992, Poikalainen, 1999, but see an alternative interpretation in Lahelma, 2008). The white-tailed sea eagle may have been a totem animal in Neolithic Orkney because complete carcasses of this species were placed in tombs (Hedges, 1984, but see also Jones, 1998). Animistic ideology perceives animals and plants as living persons, and this, as well as totemic ideology, was most likely part of the cosmology of many prehistoric societies (see, e.g., Harvey, 2005). In an animistic society, animals, plants and natural objects like stones or features of the landscape have souls and represent living things (e.g., Karsten, 1955, Ingold, 1986, Ingold, 2000). In animistic ideologies, humans are in the world with other kinds of beings and aim at understanding life from the perspective of these other entities (Ingold, 2000). Unlike any shaman having a totemic perspective, a shaman having an animistic perspective has to go beyond his/her body in order to cross to the animal domain (Ingold, 2000, p. 15). In both totemic and animistic societies, birds, like other animals, may have been emblematic of social relations among people (Ingold, 1986, Tilley, 1991, Jones and Richards, 2003, Fowler, 2004).

Section snippets

Study sites and chronology

While in central and southern Europe the definition of the Neolithic is mainly based on the gradual change to agriculture as the main form of subsistence, this period in northern Fennoscandia and the Baltic countries is dominated by non-agricultural groups (Loze, 1993, Burenhult, 1999, Kriiska, 2001). Here, the term “Neolithic” designates groups who produce ceramics but not necessarily an economy based on animal husbandry and agriculture.

About 4500–3500 BP (or 3300 cal BC), a complex of

Osteological material and its analysis

Although Ajvide and Zvejnieki represent different cultural and chronological phases, I feel that they are representative for this study, which examines bird-related features in Stone Age ideology. At least two circumstances make materials in Ajvide and Zvejnieki useful for an osteological study. First, the bone materials are well preserved, and second, the materials are well documented and published.

I analyzed bird bones from Ajvide at the laboratory of Gotland University in Visby, Gotland, in

Bird remains in the Ajvide and Zvejnieki burials

In this article, I describe only the main results of the osteological analyses (see also Mannermaa, 2006 and Mannermaa et al., 2007). Bird remains, either as bone artifacts or unmodified bones are present in 17 burials (27%) at Ajvide and in 16 burials (5%) at Zvejnieki. Bird bones are present in female, male and child burials at Ajvide and Zvejnieki. It was not possible to determine the sex in three burials at Ajvide and grave 21 lacked a human skeleton (possible cenotaph). There were

Birds of significance in burials and settlements at Ajvide and Zvejnieki

Archaeological data indicate that common bird species were part of mortuary practices at Ajvide and Zvejnieki. All bird species present in burials could have been caught nearby and they seem to be typical of the local environments. The jay had some special place in Middle Neolithic Zvejnieki, but the species has not been found in graves from other periods in Zvejnieki or other northern European sites. The jay is not present in settlement materials from Zvejnieki or Ajvide. With the exception of

Conclusions and final remarks

In this article, I have studied the roles of birds in Stone Age mortuary practices. The approach consisted of gathering information from two burial sites and interpreting the data from a broad perspective, alongside other archaeological burial material in northern Europe. These data were compared to ethnographic data. The detailed osteological analysis of the bird remains from Ajvide and Zvejnieki burials revealed interesting information about the mortuary practices and the material culture in

Acknowledgments

I thank Ilga Zagorska (Academy of Sciences, Historical Institute in Riga) and Johan Norderäng (University of Gotland) for help in practical matters and the opportunity to work with the burial material from Zvejnieki and Ajvide. I am grateful to Malin Lindquist for her help at the Historical museum in Gotland (Fornsalen). Göran Burenhult and Ilga Zagorska kindly permitted me to use photos and drawings of burials in Ajvide and Zvejnieki. Yrjänä Ermala and Markku Ikäheimo provided valuable

References (176)

  • G. Eriksson

    Part-time farmers of hard-core sealers? Västerbjers studied by means of stable isotope analysis

    Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

    (2004)
  • S.E. Albrethsen et al.

    Excavation of a Mesolithic cemetery at Vedbæk, Denmark

    Acta archaeologica

    (1976)
  • M. Aldenfelder

    Ritual, hierarchy, and change in foraging societies

    Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

    (1993)
  • Anderson, S., Boyle, K., 1996. Ritual treatment of human and animal remains. In: Proceedings of the First Meeting of...
  • Anisimov, A.F., 1963. Cosmological concepts of the peoples of the North. In: Michael, H.N. (Ed.), Studies in Siberian...
  • I.R. Antanaitis

    Interpreting the East Baltic Neolithic symbols

    Cambridge Archaeological Journal

    (1998)
  • Barrett, J., 1991. Towards the archaeology of ritual. In: Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., Toms, J. (Eds.),...
  • Beck, C.W., Loze, I.B., Todd, J.M. (Eds.), 2003. Amber in archaeology. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International...
  • C. Bell

    Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions

    (1997)
  • Berggren, Å., 2006. Archaeology of sacrifice. A discussion and interpretation. In: Andren, A., Jennbert, K., Raudvere,...
  • L. Binford

    Smudge pits and hide smoking: the use of analogy in archaeological reasoning

    American Antiquity

    (1967)
  • B. Boyd

    Ways of eating/ways of being in the later epipalaeolithic (Natufian) Levant

  • R. Bradley

    The passage of arms

    (1990)
  • R. Bradley

    Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe

    (2005)
  • M. Braithwaite

    Decoration as ritual symbol: a theoretical proposal and an ethnographic study in southern Sudan

  • J. Brück

    Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology

    European Journal of Archaeology

    (1999)
  • Burenhult, G., 1997a. Gravarnas vittnesbörd. In: Burenhult, G. (Ed.), Ajvide och den moderna arkeologin. Natur och...
  • Burenhult, G., 1997b. Introduction. In: Burenhult, G. (Ed.), Remote sensing, vol. I. Applied Techniques for the Study...
  • Burenhult, G., 1999. (Ed.) Arkeologi i Norden I. Natur och kultur,...
  • Burenhult, G., 2002. The grave-field at Ajvide. In: Burenhult, G. (Ed.), Remote Sensing, vol. II. Applied Techniques...
  • C. Carpelan

    Älg-och björnhuvudföremål från Europas nordliga delar

    Finskt Museum

    (1975)
  • Crabtree, P.J., 1995. The symbolic role of animals in Anglo-Saxon England: evidence from burials and cremations. In:...
  • Chernetsov, V.N., 1963. Concepts of the soul among the Ob Ugrians. In: Michael, H.N. (Ed.), Studies in Siberian...
  • Corona, M.E., 2005. Archaeozoology and the role of birds in the traditional medicine of pre-Hispanic Mexico. In: Grupe,...
  • E.G. Devlet et al.

    Myths in stone

    (2005)
  • Eberhards, G., 2006. Geology and development of the palaeolake Burtnieks during the Late Glacial and Holocene. In:...
  • Edenmo, R., Larsson, M., Nordqvist, B., Olsson, E., 1997. Gropkeramikerna—fanns De? In: Larsson, M., Olsson E. (Eds.),...
  • Edgren, T., 2006. Kolmhaara reconsidered. Some new observations concerning the Neolithic burial practice in Finland....
  • P.G.E. Ericson

    Faunahistoriskt intressanta stenåldersfynd från Stora Karlsö

    Fauna och flora

    (1989)
  • Eriksson, G., 2006. Stable isotope analysis of human and faunal remains from Zvejnieki. In: Larsson, L., Zagorska I....
  • G. Eriksson

    Immigrant, returnee or commuter?

  • Eriksson, G., Zagorska. I., 2003. Do dogs eat like humans? Marine stable isotope signals from dog teeth from inland...
  • G. Eriksson et al.

    Stone Age hunter–fisher–gatherers at Zvejnieki, northern Latvia: stable isotope and archaeozoological data

    Before Farming

    (2003)
  • E. Ernits

    The purpose and content of the petroglyfs in the Onega region

  • Fagerholm-Sjöblom, S., 2004. Lerfigurerna vid Jettböle. In: Stenbäck, N. (Ed.), Från strand till strand. Besök i...
  • Fahlander, F., 2003. The Materiality of Serial Practice. A Microarchaeology of Burial. Gotarc Series B, vol. 23....
  • Fahlander, F., 2004. Archaeology and anthropology—brothers in arms. On analogies in 21st-century archaeology. In:...
  • C. Fowler

    The Archaeology of Personhood

    (2004)
  • Garwood, P., 1991. Ritual tradition and the reconstitution of society. In: Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R.,...
  • D. Gifford-Gonzales

    Bones are not enough: analogies, knowledge, and interpretive strategies in zooarchaeology

    Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

    (1991)
  • W. Gumiński

    Bird for dinner: Stone Age hunters of Dudka and Szczepanki, Masurian Lakeland, NE-Poland

    Acta Archaeologica

    (2005)
  • Gurina, N., 1956. Oleneostrovskij mogilnik. Materialy i issledovanija po archeologiji SSSR, vol....
  • Haartman, L. von, Hilden, O., Linkola, P., Suomalainen, P., Tenovuo, R., 1963–1972. Pohjolan linnut värikuvin....
  • Y. Hamilakis

    The past as oral history. Towards the archaeology of the senses

  • L.I. Hansen et al.
    (2004)
  • G. Harvey
    (2005)
  • J. Hedges

    The Tomb of Eagles

    (1984)
  • Hill, J.D., 1996. The identification of ritual deposits of animals. A general perspective from a specific study of...
  • I. Hodder

    The present past

    (1982)
  • M.C.L. Howey et al.

    Bear’s journey and the study of ritual in archaeology

    American Antiquity

    (2006)
  • Cited by (36)

    • Microscopic identification of feathers from 7th century boat burials at Valsgärde in Central Sweden: Specialized long-distance feather trade or local bird use?

      2021, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      Feathers have been used by man as far back as we know to e.g. make clothing and pillows, to help arrows fly, and in decorations. Neanderthals have been found to intentionally harvest feathers (Peresani et al., 2011; Finlayson et al., 2012), and bird wings have been found in several Stone Age graves (Albrethsen and Brinch Petersen, 1976; Mannermaa, 2008; Grünberg, 2013). Alpine ice patches have revealed over 5000 years old feather fletchings (Dove et al., 2005) and goose down pillows are known from at least Roman times (Albarella, 2005).

    • Stone-age subsistence strategies at Lake Burtnieks, Latvia

      2018, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
    • Dietary freshwater reservoir effects and the radiocarbon ages of prehistoric human bones from Zvejnieki, Latvia

      2016, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      Inhumation burials of more than 300 individuals, spanning c.7000–1000 cal BC, have been excavated to date. The absolute chronology of Zvejnieki is based primarily on 14C dating of 56 burials (Zagorska, 2006; Mannermaa, 2008; Larsson, 2010; this paper), easily the largest corpus of 14C dates from a prehistoric site in the east Baltic. With most samples consisting of human bones, however, the dates of individual burials and those of transitions in material culture or cultural practices could be misleadingly old, as bones may be subject to dietary reservoir effects, if fish and other aquatic species were consumed frequently.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text