The Construction of Local Groups in Early Neolithic Scandinavia An Interpretation of Social Boundaries without Local Horizons

This article discusses the systemic construction of the social division of the Early Neolithic l. The division is seen as inaccurate due to a much too simplified classification of the ornamented material, something that is even more obvious when one tries to apply existing constructions on a broader Scandinavian scale. The article also presents a detailed analysis of the Oxie group and its relationship to other Early Neolithic groups; the previous view held by scholars, that this material is concentrated to eastern Denmark and central Scandinavia, is proven wrong in the article.


INTRODUCTION
During the 1980s some changes were made in Carl Johan Becker's Early Neolithic (EN) ceramic division from 1947. It was not really a new chronological division of the ceramic material, but merely a reorganisation of the existing one. Already in 1973 (Skaarup) Becker's division was shown by some "C dates to be inaccurate. Material from Becker's latest C-phase was now radio-carbon dated to the very beginning of the Early Neolithic. The typological sequence had once againas always seems to be the case with typologiesbeen proven to be incorrect. In contrast to the new division of the Early Neolithic, Becker's work had mainly been based on morphological differences among vessels found in Danish bogs. Ornamentation differences were mainly seen as a secondary factor in defining different styles in the later C-phase, as well as a kind of further evidence for a chronological sequence of the three phases (A, B, C), based on the idea that chronological development is always reflected in increasing ornamental complexity.
In the new division only the rim ornamentation techniques of the vessels were analysed. All kinds of pattern formations as well as combinations of different parts of the vessel were disregarded. This, however, resulted in the fact that a lot of material from Becker's Aphase (nowadays the Oxie group) could not be used, since much of that pottery is without ornamentation. Therefore Becker's morphological definitions for the old A-phasei.e. short, slightly outward curved neck, with a soft transition from the body to the neck and with a flat bottomwere still accepted as definitions (e.g. Nielsen 1985).This more or less meant that you were not supposed to find "long neck fragments" in Oxie material. The morphological factors are therefore mostly used when dealing with bog-find material, and not so much when working with the highly fragmented settlement material. The flat bottom is, however, also represented in material previously called C-phase (today the Volling, Svaleklint, Svenstorp, Fuchsberg, Virum and Bellevuegård groups). Therefore Current Swedish Arehaeology, ttot. 6, 1998 the flat bottom cannot define Oxie material alone.
The new pottery groups in the Scandinavian Early Neolithic probably have some chronological significance, but the twofold chronology of the Early Neolithic (EN-I and EN-II) is not a result of the division into these groups.
Instead the chronology rests solely upon radio-carbon dates (as shown in Liversage 1992:102 -105).The different ceramic groups are then connected with one of the two phases or with both, and at the same time they represent a geographical division of the archaeological material into different Scandinavian regions.
This reorganising in the 1980s is now the accepted division of the Early Neolithic Scandinavian TRB, and schematically can be arranged as in fig. 1 (Ebbesen & Mahler 1979;Andersen & Madsen 1977;Madsen & Petersen 1984;Larsson 1984).
What I would like to stress in this article is that the last-mentioned construction of the Early Neolithic includes some misjudgements, doubtful conclusions and incorrect presumptions. The idea is to analyse existing constructions and try to describe what they would look like if they were applied on a broader scale of the TRB extension in Scandinavia, by adding other well-known areas with Early Neolithic TRB material, instead of only discussing the social organisation from a Danish and Scanian point of view. The aim is also to try to deconstruct the existing construction by analysing its own methodology and results. Presenting new empirical analyses is not the aim of this article. I only want to argue for another interpretation of existing The tendency is to construct a more unified and simplified division of the material than necessary, overshadowing a more complex division, which probably would be available in the existing Early Neolithic material.
To work only with a minor part of the ornamentation compositions is also doubtful from the point of view of social-ethnical interpretation, since it ought to be the style of the whole ceramic vessel which had social significance; that is a message which consciously or unconsciously is expressed through the material. But the problem discussed here is; whether the existing division can be regarded as in agreement with the existing archaeological material. If one constructs some differences and similarities in the material based on a minor part of the available research-material, one ends up with a minimum of ideas, conscious or unconscious, which people expressed through style. The interpretation will then be of more simplified social significance to the society than necessary. If you simplify the definitions you will always, at some point, be able to find differences or similarities in any kind of material, no matter how great the differences or similarities are in their original form. Constructed similarities in a material such as this will always give a decreasing value of correctness compared with the social status embedded in the stylistic compositions.
For example, if the definition of a car is a transportation means with four wheels, the stylistic and social status embedded in the difference between a Mercedes and a Morris would not be analysed or discovered. This is particularly the case with the modern Early Neolithic division. In many cases the pottery has ornamentation over the whole vessel, and one can often decide to which part of the vessel a very small sherd belongs (rim, neck or body); this makes possible a more detailed analysis. Consequently, regional observations of the stylistic differences in the Early Neolithic material based only on ornamentation constructions in a minority of the available material, severely reduces the possibilities of interpretation in the existing archaeological material. This does not imply that existing constructions should be regarded as completely without relevance to the existing material. But in my opinion, compared with the archaeological possibilities at our disposal, it is an unnecessary simplification of the material. Therefore a much more detai led analysis with greater relevance to the true structure of the archaeological material can be made.
The major problem with the existing Early Neolithic model is the lack of style variables, as all of them are bound to have significance for the structural order of the social consciousness, which the society in one way or another expresses through style (e.g. Shanks & Tilley 1987).This means that the modern construction is a much too simplified regional division of the Early Neolithic, stretching over the whole of southern Scandinavia. This picture would probably be completely different with a more detailed analysis of the material. And one thing is certain: if we want to find detailed and local differences or changes, we also have to work with more detailed and complex analyses of the material.

THE EARLY NEOLITHIC CONSTRUCTION IN THE SOUTH SWEDISH PROVINCE OF SCANIA
The division of the Early Neolithic into different regional groups in south-west Scania was publ ished by Mats Larsson in a doctoral thesis, and in my opinion is defective due to methodological aspects. It is also impossible to analyse the foundations of Larsson' Stjernquist 1965).
The author's separation of this material from the one in south-west Scania, that is the Svenstorp group, is also vague and mostly discerned by the flint material. The ornamentation differences between the two areas are that the Mo.sgby sitewhich defines the Mossb» grottpis completely dominated by cord ornamentation, and does not have as much different stick ornamentation as the Svenstorp group. What goes for the other sites in the Mossby group is, however, uncertain, since no real classification has been presented by the authors (Larsson & Larsson 1986:72-73;Larsson 1984Larsson , 1987aLarsson , 1992.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF EARLY NEOLITHIC SCANDINAVIA
With the broad definitions of today, the archaeological material from EN-I in the south of Sweden can only be divided into three categories, which can be associated with different Danish groups. These are the Svenstorp group from the south-western parts of Scania, comparable to the Danish Svaleklint group, and it is the material from the southern, central and north-western parts of Scania, as well as the material from the Swedish south-eastern province of Blekinge. With the existing classification methods, this material can be associated with the ornamentation style of the Danish Volling group from the western parts of Denmark. The Volling material has at the same time a strong resemblance to the Svaleklint group on the island of Zealand in eastern Denmark. Compared with the Volling material, however, the Svaleklint group has a slightly higher frequency of stick ornamentation on the rim part of the vessels. The third category is the Oxie group, with a completely different tradition of ornamentation. The Oxie group cannot be regarded as a regionally confined group, since the extension of this material covers more or less the whole of Scania and Current Swedish Arehaeolog», Vol. 6, 1998 The Cons(n(c(ion vf Locat Groupsin Earty Neoli(hic Sccaulinavia t57 thereby the areas of the other contemporaneous regional groups (i.e. Volling, Svaleklint, Svenstorp and Mossby).
If we apply the existing classification modeli.e. by only studying the separate ornamentation techniques of the rimto a larger area of Scandinavia including other well-known EN regions such as the western parts of Sweden and the area of east central Sweden, this would result in the identification of three different Scandinavian style structures ( fig. 2). These are the Svaleklint style in the central parts of Scandinavia (i.e. both Zealand's Svaleklint group and the Svenstorp group since the ornamentation techniques are the same) and the Volling and Oxie styles, the latter of which are "over-regional". With todays classification method the Volling style structure is represented in the Volling group located in Jutland in western Denmark, and in the Mossby group in south-central Scania, as well as in the material from the Swedish province of Blekinge, the provinces of Halland and Bohuslän on the Swedish west coast, and in the EN material from the province of Södermanland in east central Sweden (Larsson, M. 1992;Petré & Strömberg 1958;Stjernquist 1965;Westergaard 1995 and unpublished material (Larsson 1984:174;Madsen & Petersen 1984;Nielsen 1985.I will consistently use the term "phase" rather than "culture", since in my opinion the term "culture" is too vague and a much too wide definition, which has been used far too long in the archaeological research. The term "culture" has never been well defined, so almost every scholar has different opinions on what the definition actually implies. Therefore it is not a useful term, despite its hegemony in archaeological research).

MATERIAL GROUP
When it comes to the interpretation of the Oxie material as a phenomenon concentrated to the central part of Scandinavia, that is the Danish island of Zealand and western Scania, I would like to characterise this as a misj udgement. The presumed geographical extension is a conclusion based on an overall view of the material in the Oxie group, that is both the settlement and the bog finds.
The bog finds are a result of the fact that almost all the Danish bogs, which are more or less spread over the whole of Denmark, have partly been exploited for peat; the finds are very well preserved and well excavated, and were, mainly recovered during the period 1940 -1960.As a result of the higheconomical compensation the bog-peat workers received when discovering archaeological remains, they were careful when finding archaeological items (Koch 1990,and personal notes from her Ph. D. lecture).
Consequently the archaeological bog-find material at our disposal is likely to be representative of the material which was once deposited, and it therefore represents an accurate picture of where and when the people put ceramic vessels into the Danish bogs.
But when dealing with the settlement sites we still have the classic representation problems, such as differences in the preservation conditions and land exploitation factors. These factors more or less completely determine how the distribution map of settlement sites looks. A closer look at the excavation activities in Denmark also shows a concentration of 8.5 excavations per square kilometre on the island of Zealand in eastern Denmark (for the islands of Zealand, Lolland-Falster and Mpn together it is 7.4 per km'-), while the same value for Jutland is 4.8 per square kilometre.
This means that the excavation frequency on Zealand is 43% higher per square kilometre than in Jutland. This can logically be explained by the fact that population frequencies per square kilometre are considerably higher on the island of Zealand, which also results in a higher degree of urban areas and therefore a higher degree of excavations per square kilometre compared with other parts of Denmark.
The statistics also show a clear increase in land exploitation frequency from 1965 to 1982 per 1000 hectares, whereas "traffic aerial use outside cities" has risen by 18%, "cities with more than 200 inhabitants" by 49%, and "housings outside cities" by approximately 40%. Meanwhile agricultural activities, fruitplantations and the like, have declined. And there is no logical reason to doubt that this development continues (Danmarks statistik 1995(Danmarks statistik :17, 22, 1994(Danmarks statistik :14, 1989(Danmarks statistik :21, 1980(Danmarks statistik :1, 1970. Duri ng the period 1990to 199459% of the Danish archaeological excavations were the result of typical urban exploitation factors, such as gas pipe construction, roadwork, construction-building enterprises, and natural resource exploitation, mainly the extraction of gravel-pits. Agriculture, forestry, and other reasons make up 33%, and finally, 8% of the excavations are self-chosen research projects (AUD 1984(AUD , 1986(AUD , 1990(AUD -1994 5).
An xz-test resulted in the representation of bog vessels between east and west Denmark being significant (the H, had to be accepted). The frequency factors should also be taken into consideration. We are talking about a total of 63 finds from the whole of Denmark, Sweden and northern Germany, and only 18 sites are bog finds. That is quite a low number of sites, huta have gone through all the relevant publications I could find, as well as the annual archaeological excavation report series A UD, and Arkeologi i Sverige. The problem, however, is that many reports are hazy in dating the finds, despite the fact that a more precise date is possible, but the conclusion is that the settlement sites (33 sites area. In addition we find the point-butted flint axes, which are regarded as a kind of defining artefact for the Oxie material group, scattered over the whole of Scania though with a higher frequency in south-west Scania. But as mentioned earlier western Scania is always dominant in the Neolithic material distribution due to excavation activities. This is also apparent when comparing the distribution of pointbutted flint axes today, with Otto Rydbeck's old distribution map from 1928. It shows an equal distribution of axes between the eastern and western parts of Scania. Above all, we now also seem to have Oxie settlement material represented further north in east central Sweden. This is not so strange, as the same area around the lakes of Mälaren and Hjälmaren has a high frequency of Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker material quite similar to the Danish Volling style (Eriksson el al. 1994;Jennbert 1984:109,fig. 69;Karsten 1994:50-55;Florin 1958;Rydbeck 1928:86).
I therefore would argue that the Oxie group has its extension in different parts of Scania, on the islands of Bornholm and Zealand, as well as in the Danish mainland of Jutland, that is, over the whole southern area of the Scandinavian Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker phase. In Jutland the Oxie material is mainly found in the Limfjord area and the east coast. Finally, we also find Oxie settlement sites in Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany, though with some reservation regarding the two sites of Siggeneben-Sud and Rosenhof. The publications of Siggeneben Slid show ceramics with long neck fragments, which are not supposed to be part of Oxie material. But on the other hand in a detailed work dealing with the A-(Oxie) group, Poul Otto Nielsen has classified the site as an Oxie site. This is also the reason why it is represented in fig. 6ab. It is also doubtful whether one can really classify the German site of Rosenhof as an Oxie find, at least judging from the publications of the site; yet once again Nielsen (1985) has done that, and since I do not know whether he has more detailed information on the site I have accepted his classification.
So for now I would say that it is impossible to consider the Oxie material as geographically concentrated to eastern Denmark, or to central Scandinavia. Instead it has a more or less equal distribution over the whole of southern Scandinavia.

DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS OF THE EARLY NEOLITHIC-I MATERIAL GROUPS
So far it seems as if the EN-I pottery has a homogeneous ornamentation with three different and, from a Scandinavian point of view, global social-style structures: Volling, Svaleklint and Oxie. These have also been defined as three local groups, even though they are made up of clusters of sites spread out over large areas of south and central Scandinavia.
However, beyond the Oxie group there are also some questions concerning the extension of the two Danish style-structures of Svaleklint and Volling. When studying the matrixes and the plotting of the correspondence analysis of the EN-I group division, it is clear that the Volling and Svaleklint materials are quite similar to each other (Madsen & Petersen 1984). The Svaleklint sites of Slotsbjergby and Lindebjerg II (nos. 10 and 7 in the correspondence analysis) can be considered on the basis of the rim-ornamentation composition to be of Volling style. But seen from a geographical point of view, both belong to the Svaleklint group as a result of their location on the island of Zealand. This means that two out of five sites from the Svaleklint group in the analysis actually have material defined as Volling style (A problem Madsen & Petersen also is aware of, but at the same time does not seem to draw any consequences from, 1984: 99).
So when two out of five sites in one material group have a closer resemblance to another group it must imply that either this "other" group (here, Volling) is also located on Zealand, or that the method used to discern the data in the analysis is defective. However, that Cttrrent Suuetiisit Areitaeologi', Vok 6, l998 there are considerable differences in ornamentation structures from different Scandinavian areas, is indicated by comparing the whole ornamented material (Le. ornamentation from all parts of the vessels and combinations of different techniques) from different Scandinavian areas (cf. e.g. Bagge & Kjellmark 1939;Florin 1958;Becker I 947).
The problem with the local horizons is also seen in the later phase of the Early Neolithic (EN-II), where the so-called EN-II Virum style, which constitutes the local Virum group on the island of Zealand, isalso present in the southern part of Jutland and in the region of Schleswig-Holstein, northern Germany. Therefore there is actually not much localness left in the EN "local group" construction at all.
A more accurate picture would require a more comprehensive approach to the ornamented material, which I believe can be obtained. The actual problem of reduction will, however, always, tum up to some extent when working with archaeological material, but with the existing method the differences that obviously exist and which can only be recognised by looking at the complete material from different regions, will never be discerned. The relevance of the exi sting model in relation to the TRB Early Neolithic archaeological material at our disposal, is therefore questionable. There is also a closer overlapping of territories among the Ertebzzzlle and the Oxie material, and the two can often be found in mutual,  Holstein, Germany (1985:115)as sure proof of cohesion between the two material compositions. The same is proclaimed for the site of kv. Nore in Scania, Sweden (Salomonsson 1971).However, it is not certain whether one can assign the material of this site to any of the two material categories, as the material from kv. Nore also contains fragments of thin-butted flint axes.
In the flint material of south-west Scania there is also a closer resemblance between the Oxie and the Erteb1ålle phase, than between the Erteb1ålle and the cord-dominated material, that is the Svenstorp group. The general opinion is that Erteb~lle artefacts are mainly made of flakes, which is very common to Oxie finds as well, and the same types of burins made of a core or a flake are known in both Erteb1ålle and Oxie finds. Another major difference between the Oxie and the other EN-I material groups is the frequent finds of point-butted flint axes in Oxie contexts, but a total lack of thin-butted axes, and vice-versa in the artefact material of the cord-dominating EN-I material (Larsson 1984:161 -164;Nielsen 1985Nielsen , 1987Salomonsson 1971).
At the bottom of the so-called Neolithic layer of the Bjprnsholm midden, a vessel was found which shows the typological relations to both the Funnel Beaker and the Erteb@lle phase in Scandinavia (Andersen 1993:87 There is also considerably greater cohesion between Ertebglle and Oxie burial practice than between the Oxie group and the other EN-I material groups, as in the latter the burial practice is characterised by the use of earthen Long Barrows with all the ritual activities they seem to involve. From the Oxie group there is only one sure grave, which also is placed beside a Mesolithic grave (Brinch Petersen 1974).
To sum up this discussion, it should be mentioned that a greater change seems to occur in the Erteb1ålle phase as the ceramic material becomes an all essential part of the archaeological context of that phase, than between the late Ertebplle phase and the Oxie part of the Early Neolithic phase. Thus if discontinuity or a fundamental change in the material culture represents a marked change in social identification (a fundamental preconception which can always be discussed), then the Ertebglle integration of ceramics in the material composition should be regarded as a more fundamental change than the differences that can be seen between the Erteb1ålle and the Oxie flint artefacts and ceramic stylestructures as well as in the settlement and burial contexts. However, the Erteb1ålle and Early Neolithic groups, as social constructions, may purely be the result of our need to transform systemic organisations of visual material differences into completely self-constructed systems, which are without any relevance at all to prehistoric times.

CONCLUSIONS
(i) The Early Neolithic construction of today results from a much too simplified classification of the ceramics, with a widely defined chronology, established with the help of~4 C dates. Thus the picture would probably be Carrera S«:edish Archaeologs, Vok 6, 1998 different if we began to include all parts of the vessels in our analysis.
(ii) I believe we should stop seeing the Oxie group as a kind of eastern phenomenon in Denmark, or aphenomenon concentrated to the central parts of southern Scandinavia. The group of archaeological material named Oxie exists more or less homogeneously over the whole of southern Scandinavia and most likely in the TRB area of east central Sweden as well.
There is also a closer resemblance in the flint material and the composition of ornamentation between the ErtebfJlle and the Oxie phase, than between the ErtebltJlle phase and the other EN-I ceramic groups.
(iii) Based on the premise of style as something socially significant, we can conclude that there must be some differences between the cord-dominated material and the better defined Oxie material group. But I would also maintain that the separation ofthe archaeological material into the Svaleklint and Volling groups at this stage is questionable. The differences between the two groups are too small, especially when taking the whole of Scandinavia into consideration as well as the uncertainty in the classification of the material in the correspondence analysis that constructs the Early Neolithic.
(iv) By rejecting the processual systemic stiffness in the construction of archaeological material phases, and by accepting a cultural dualism during the transition to the Early Neolithic where the different EN style structures should be seen as time-dependent material changes of the ErtebltJlle phase, the Oxie group can be considered as the result of a development, different from that of the other Early Neolithic style structures. Due to a closer material relationship with the ErtebltJlle phase, it is also possible that the Oxie material represents different groups of people from different parts of Scandinavia, all with closer historical "social bonds" to the life-style of the old Mesolithic Erteblillle phase, than to the other material groups of the Early Neolithic. And this is why the Oxie and the cord-dominating ceramic material appear so different. POSTSCRIPT After this article was concluded, Mats Larsson in a new article expressed some viewpoints that I need to comment on. Larsson argues, on the basis of radio-carbon dates, that the old A, B, C typology is accurate. This is without success, however, since no new dates strengthen the argumentation. Radio-carbon dates from the old C-group (e.g. Mossby) are still earlier than any known Oxie-date (the old A-group). Larsson's as well as Becker's (1947Becker's ( , 1990 construction is rather based upon classic typological faith without any regard for existing radio-carbon dates. Larsson has also constructed a new local group, the Slottsmöllan group from Halland on the Swedish west coast. The material and the name are from Westergaard's article (1995), but Larsson disregards the argumentation, which is that the Slottsmöllan material shows the need for a larger, west Swedish regional group including both the Slottsmöllan and Larsson's Svenstorp group from south-west Scania. Larsson's definition is therefore an isolation of the material from the Slottsmöllan site, so the division is once again a question of geographical distance, without any stylistic differences being accounted for (Larsson in Kihlstedt et aL 1997:90,94 -97).
English revised by Laura Wratzg.