Technology, mythology and the travels of the agricultural package in Europe

Knutsson, Helena

doi:10.4312/dp.28.8

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The significance of these artefacts appears to have changed in the Neolithic, when blades came to represent the "most important tasks" or those (no less respected) relating to "tasks brought by the ancestors", namely agricultural activities. Now, if they are not found in graves, they are deposited in the ground in a special manner ensuring that the end product tends to become separated from production traces (Knutsson 2003). In fact, these tendencies are apparent in deposits dating from that period.…”

Section: The Metaphor Of the Bladementioning

confidence: 99%

Mr. Blademan. Macrolithic technology – Eneolithic vocabulary and metaphors

Dzbyński¹

2011

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Eneolithic period witnessed a technological breakthrough of a significance comparable to that of the technological revolution in historical times, accompanied by a matching revolution in social and economic relationships. This transition no doubt led also to the creation of new and momentous metaphors, which in their turn triggered new senses and planes of communication. It goes without saying that the Eneolithic technology that had the greatest potential for metaphors promoting new ways of looking at the world was metallurgy. Nevertheless, before Eneolithic communities came to fully appreciate the properties of metal, many of their number resorted to an idiosyncratic flint technology to produce macrolithic implements. It seems that the production and exchange of macrolithic artefacts led to the development of a new vocabulary and grammar that served, among other things, to describe the social inequalities discernible in Eneolithic communities.

show abstract

Section: The Metaphor Of the Bladementioning

confidence: 99%

Mr. Blademan. Macrolithic technology – Eneolithic vocabulary and metaphors

Dzbyński¹

2011

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Systematic blade production at late Lower Paleolithic (400–200 kyr) Qesem Cave, Israel

Shimelmitz

Barkai

Gopher

2011

Journal of Human Evolution

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long blades and Phantom Cores: A Case of Long-Distance Stone Tool Refitting (Southern Norway)

Nielsen

2017

Lithic Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The following paper will pose a number of questions concerning the usefulness and potential of lithics in palaeodemographic research. Lithic material is the most common find among Stone Age sites in Central and Northern Europe. Osteological material is extremely rare and can therefore not form the basis for demographic analysis. However, previous studies have shown that in some cases a detailed analysis of lithics can provide information concerning group size and structure, as well as territory size and mobility in prehistory. We will use case studies from Central and Northern Europe from the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods to describe this issue.

show abstract

Technology, mythology and the travels of the agricultural package in Europe

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Mr. Blademan. Macrolithic technology – Eneolithic vocabulary and metaphors

Mr. Blademan. Macrolithic technology – Eneolithic vocabulary and metaphors

Systematic blade production at late Lower Paleolithic (400–200 kyr) Qesem Cave, Israel

Long blades and Phantom Cores: A Case of Long-Distance Stone Tool Refitting (Southern Norway)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About