02 Jones 2005 Lives in Fragments Personhood & European Neolithic

02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:47 am
Page 193
Journal of Social Archaeology
ARTICLE
Copyright 2005 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)

ISSN 1469-6053 Vol 5(2): 193224 DOI: 10.1177/1469605305053367
Lives in fragments?
Personhood and the European Neolithic
ANDY JONES
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK
ABSTRACT
The European Neolithic has often been figured in ideational terms.
The transformations that gave rise to sedentism, agriculture and the
construction of monuments have been explained either in terms of
abstract symbolic schemes or as a change in worldview and cosmology. As an alternative, this article suggests that a greater emphasis
needs to be placed on the constitution of the person during this
period of transformation. Instead of focusing on the playing out of
symbolic structures, it is instead important to consider the role that
materiality plays in forming social relations. By focusing on the treatment of material culture, human remains and the use of architecture,
we begin to understand in concrete terms not only how the European
Neolithic was built, but also how people were transformed through
this process.
KEY WORDS
citation dividual Neolithic
personhood relationality
193
02 053367 (to_d)
194
12/5/05
11:47 am
Page 194
Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)
INTRODUCTION
Recent debates over the character of the European Neolithic have stressed
the ideational nature of the shift from hunting and gathering to farming
(see Cauvin, 2000, for similar arguments for the Near Eastern Neolithic;
Hodder, 1990). This shift in emphasis is important, but accounts such as
Hodders have been criticized for being highly generalized in nature
(Bradley, 1993; Halstead, 1996: 306) and for treating the Neolithic as a
monolithic and essentialized entity (Pluciennik, 1999; Thomas, 1993a). As
an alternative, a number of interpretations have been offered which foreground a close contextual reading of the set of interactions that constitute
the shift from hunter-gatherer to farmer. For instance, Bradley (1993, 1998)
emphasizes the significance of new perspectives on place and time created
by the construction of monuments. Thomas (1988, 1991, 1996) and Whittle
(1996) emphasize the importance of changing sets of social relations in the
creation of new worlds. Here, discussions of agency and the nature of individual experience are paramount; how are social relations transformed and
experienced by individuals?
It is against this background of enquiry that questions of personhood
have been raised. Discussions of personhood seek to problematize the
application of Western notions of the individual to the past (Brck, 2001;
Fowler, 2000, 2004) and to investigate the set of relations out of which
persons are composed. While these aims are admirable, I argue that an over
reliance on specific ethnographic models of personhood may have the
opposite effect of creating a generalized picture of the European Neolithic.
In this article I ask why questions of personhood have become so relevant
to our analysis of the European Neolithic, and suggest that personhood is
not simply an adjunct to our enquiries but is of central importance to our
understanding of the set of transformations occurring during the European
Neolithic.
PERSONHOOD AND THE EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC

Questions of personhood have been addressed in recent analyses of
Neolithic societies from southeastern Europe to northwestern Europe. The
most thorough account of personhood deals with the Neolithic of southeastern Europe (Chapman, 2000). Chapmans innovative study focuses on
the twin practices of fragmentation and accumulation as processes which
link people to objects through production, exchange and consumption. He
adopts an anthropological model of personhood which proposes that
people are made up of the totality of their relationships; they are not so
much individuals as dividuals: who they are and what they do is generated
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:47 am
Page 195
Jones
Lives in fragments?
by their transactions with each other, with material culture and with the
dead. This model of personhood seems to admirably fit the evidence of fragmented objects, hoards and partial deposits of human bone from southeastern Europe.
The mortuary monuments of the British Neolithic are unlike the
mortuary deposits of southeastern Europe. Deposits of human bone were
placed in chambered tombs or earthen long barrows either fully articulated
or disarticulated. As bodies underwent processes of decay they were fragmented, reworked and quite likely circulated amongst the living (Thomas,
2002). Again a similar concept of personhood has been invoked to describe
the mortuary deposits of the British Neolithic (Fowler, 2000, 2001, 2002;
Thomas, 2001, 2002). Dividual notions of personhood here offer a potential framework for understanding how these deposits are generated and
how (living) persons are composed out of these transactions.
In both of these cases, the application of the notion of the dividual has
altered our perception of the character of the person during the Neolithic,
and has transformed our understanding of the nature of deposition
(Chapman, 2000; Fowler, 2003; Pollard, 2005). Yet the model we utilize to
understand personhood remains strikingly similar over a large geographical area. At this juncture I want to critically assess this concept and think
more deeply about its origins in the anthropological literature.
ANTHROPOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND PERSONHOOD

The concept of the fragmented and multi-faceted dividual is derived for
the most part from ethnographic analyses of Melanesian societies. This
enquiry was initiated by the work of Marilyn Strathern (1988) and Roy
Wagner (1991), although the concept of dividuality has seen much debate
and subsequent reworking by others (e.g. Battaglia, 1990; Lambek, 1998;
Mimica, 1988; Strathern and Stewart, 1999; N. Thomas, 1991; A. Weiner,
1992; J.F. Weiner, 1995).
That the European Neolithic has a Melanesian flavour should occasion
little surprise since the literature on Melanesia stands as one of the few
thoroughgoing critiques of the bounded Western individual as the paradigm
of personhood. In a useful explicatory essay on Marilyn Stratherns work,
Gell (1999: 34) points out that Stratherns Melanesia is a fabrication. This
is not to say that the geographical entity known as Melanesia does not exist,
rather it means that Stratherns Melanesia is an interpretative construct. It
is a site for thinking through a particular form of idealist interpretation,
although the semiotic signs of Stratherns Melanesia are closely related to
the referents of ethnographic detail. This point is especially important if we
wish to reconsider the status of the concept of the dividual in our analyses
195
02 053367 (to_d)
196
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 196
of prehistoric society. In her analysis of the exchange relations of Melanesian societies Marilyn Strathern is particularly interested in foregrounding
the difference between Melanesian and Western notions of the self. To do
so she adopts a stance which overturns the realist expectations of the West.
As Gell (1999: 35) notes, her modus operandi is to focus less on persons or
objects as constituents of the world, and more on the relations between
them. Objects and people are therefore indexes of relations they are made
up of, or constituted by, their relations or connections. In a development of
the concept of relationality James Weiner notes that: subject and object are
defined only by the relationship itself; in fact, the object passing between
people is the relationship (1995: xiv, original emphasis). Dividuals are
therefore constructs, artefacts of a way of seeing the world which promotes
an analysis of the connections or systems of relations between people and
things.
The point to emphasize here is that we must be careful not to reify the
dividual; instead it is important to state that at an abstract level what we
are dealing with are forms of relationality, or ways of relating. I believe that
as Stratherns interpretative model focuses on the analysis of systems of
relations and their role in the constitution of both person and culture, it
remains a powerful interpretative tool if we wish to study systems of
relations in prehistory. Nevertheless, these relations will have a quite different set of referents in European prehistory.
We must be careful to totalize neither the dividual or the individual. As
Edward LiPuma (1998) points out, the person is composed dually of
dividual and individual elements. Furthermore, if we consider the concept
of relationality more broadly we can discern a multiplicity of different ways
of relating. For example Nadia Seremetakis (1994) recognizes the significance of relationality in the sharing of names, food and sensory experience
between grandmother and child in traditional Greek society. The child is
therefore composed out of its relations with the previous generation.
Cecilia Busby (1997) compares different ways of relating in south India and
Melanesia. In south India relations between husband and wife are
perceived as balanced and the child is constituted from a balance between
male and female (mother and father). By contrast, in Melanesia persons are
composed out of a web of different relations and these relations differently
gender each part of the body.
Melanesia and India are drawn on as examples of forms of personhood
in the European archaeological literature (Fowler, 2004). Curiously, parallel
discussions of personhood in the ethnohistorical and archaeological literature for the Pre-Colombian Americas have been overlooked in much recent
literature on European prehistory.
A series of authors have discussed the constitution of the Classic Maya
self. The Maya person was made up of blood and bone. These substances
linked people to their relatives since they were transmitted by mother or
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 197
Jones
Lives in fragments?
father (Gillespie, 2001). As Joyce (1998) notes, the embodied person was
conceived as a container for these powerful substances.
According to Houston and Stuart (1998), the identity or essence of the
person was linked to the term Bah, which signified a persons head, a face,
or their representation in mask or sculptured form. Importantly, the representation of the Bah of the person in sculptural form on stealae or standing
stones was perceived to be a literal embodiment of that person. In this sense
the person exceeded the boundaries of the human body. As Houston and
Stuart note (1998: 90), through representation Classic Maya rulers were
able to perform the extraordinary trick of being in two places at once,
thereby transcending space and time.
The extra-bodily dimensions of the person were also represented in the
concept of the way, a kind of spirit-companion or co-essence (Monaghan,
1998: 1414); the way is the dreaming state of the person. Importantly,
way may not be necessarily linked to specific individuals; rather, people
may have multiple connections to multiple spirit-companions (Monaghan,
1998). Names too were aspects of the person that were a component of
personhood but also transmissible. Like images of the face, names were a
device for linking people together, since they recurred over generations
(Gillespie, 2001).
The senses and the bodily substances that issued from the body, such as
breath, scent or speech, were depicted pictorially as scrolls (Houston and
Taube, 2000). The boundaries of the body were therefore treated as permeable. These were literally parts of the body which also acted as a medium
for inter-subjective exchange (Joyce, in Meskell and Joyce, 2003: 26).
The Classic Maya person was therefore composed of material and immaterial components, and this person was produced in a number of ways. Joyce
lists a series of ways in which the Classic Maya person was materialized,
including the shaping of skulls, filing and inlaying of teeth and piercing and
enlargement of earlobes (Joyce, in Meskell and Joyce, 2003: 4851; Joyce,
2000). Further, a series of life-cycle rituals provided the context for the
adoption of names. Importantly, she notes that houses concretized the form
of spatial hierarchy that we also find in Maya art. The architecture of houses
raised on platforms produced a set of asymmetric visual relations. Raised
benches within the already raised houses provided further refinements of
spatial hierarchy. She argues, following Houston and Stuart (1998), that such
spatial and visual asymmetry is a key component of Classic Maya personhood.
Catherine Allen (1998) writes of the beliefs of a contemporary Quechuaspeaking community in southern Peru and relates aspects of their cosmology to the pre-Columbian Andes. She notes that all matter is considered to
be animate, and that all material beings (people, animals, things) share a
substantial matrix (Allen, 1998: 25). In making things people reorder
animate matter in order to serve human purposes. In doing so people are
197
02 053367 (to_d)
198
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 198
not so much acting on the world but interacting with it. The act of production forms a responsibility towards the object made by the person; if they
care for the object the thing will care for them.
All human actions are considered to involve reciprocal rights or responsibilities. This is true of people and interactions between people and things
or animals. Because this is so the person is not unitary but is a duality which
exists in a complex of interactive relationships. People are therefore
connected by their relationships, and they are also connected to the objects
that they have manufactured. This connection continues even if the object
is exchanged.
I find these accounts of the Mesoamerican and Andean person instructive. As in Melanesia, India and Greece, the person is considered relationally. However, in the Mayan and Andean examples there is less emphasis
upon object exchange as a medium for the production of persons. Importantly, both accounts emphasize the way in which people are constituted
through their relationships with things. In the case of the Classic Maya,
persons were manufactured through bodily practices and through their
engagement with others and inhabitation of certain architectural spaces.
Notably, while Melanesian and Indian case studies import a sense of the
egalitarian nature of relationality, in the Classic Maya case relational
notions of personhood were integral to a hierarchical society. In the
Peruvian example, relationality was a component of asymmetric relations.
These accounts draw our attention to the significance of the production
of persons, through bodily practices, through ritual practice and in the
inhabitation of architectural spaces. Most importantly, they also indicate
that particular orders of personhood are the result of a specific cosmological
engagement between the person and their environment. In each case the
person is produced through the totality of their relationships, with people,
with things and with the environment.
Rather than solely focusing on object exchange as a medium for understanding the constitution of persons, we also need to attend to how social
relations are played out architecturally and through other forms of social
practices such as mortuary ritual. While exchange and mortuary ritual have
been the focus of previous analysis (Fowler, 2004), there has been less focus
on architecture in discussion of personhood. If we are to understand how
people are produced, a closer investigation of prehistoric architecture is
also required. Architecture has traditionally been utilized as a means of
understanding the construction and playing out of social relations
(Richards and Parker-Pearson, 1994). Spatial order is seen to have a critical
effect upon the formation of subjects. This perspective was emphasized in
a number of studies of megalithic architecture (Barrett, 1994; Thomas,
1993b). The architectural configuration of spaces will determine spatial
proximity and the formation of identities. Likewise, the sociologist Zygmunt
Bauman (1993) highlights the importance of spatial proximity for the
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 199
Jones
Lives in fragments?
creation and maintenance of social and ethical relations. It is precisely these

kinds of relations which form the ground for feelings of relatedness that lie
at the heart of notions of personhood.
In short, we need to locate the prehistoric person in the sum of their
relationships, by investigating relations between people and things, between
people and architectural spaces and with their landscape and environment
more generally.
PERSONHOOD, PRACTICE AND MATERIAL CULTURE

It is obviously insufficient to simply read different orders of personhood
from the fragmented remains of human bodies or artefacts. Our focus must
be upon social practice, the way in which persons are produced and
performed. The key point is that relationally persons are created through
networks of relationships and these networks include things as well as
people. Gosden (2004: 358) makes an important distinction between what
he calls things of quality and quantifiable objects. These categories distinguish the kinds of relationships set up between people and things in
societies which emphasize either relational or separable kinds of persons.
Things of quality are embedded in local relations, and act as part of that
relationship and thereby help to produce dividuals. Quantifiable objects
are disembedded from local social relations and may be abstracted to
operate in a wider social universe and help to produce individuals.Although
Gosden could be accused here of perpetuating a distinction between
dividual and individual notions of personhood, the important point is that
it is the quality of things and their treatment in practice which inform us
about how they are used to create differing kinds of persons. While both
things and objects can be exchanged, things of quality are distinguished
by the fact that they are efficacious, and that their value and efficacy is
bound up in their formal qualities and the effect these have on the senses
and how this is understood in its local context.
By contrast, quantifiable objects may be dematerialized or abstracted,
and might exist as tokens or abstracted entities of value. The physical
presence of these objects is not significant to their valuation, not does it
affect how they produce persons.
In order to understand how material culture is linked in social networks
I want to introduce the idea of citation. The concept of citation is adopted
from the work of Derrida (1982) and Butler (1993), and it has been
discussed in detail elsewhere (Boric, 2003; Jones, 2001; Joyce, 2003). Citations in texts perform two functions: they reference other texts and in doing
so reiterate their importance. Butler (1993) uses the concept of citation in
a similar sense as a means of analysing gender; gendered actions reference
199
02 053367 (to_d)
200
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 200
prior gendered performances and reiterate their social significance (Joyce,

1998, 2000). Equally, the social practices related to making, using and
depositing material objects can be thought of as material citations each
material act references and gains its meaning from that which has gone
before. Nor should we view citation as an inherently conservative activity,
as the citation of past events and actions in new social contexts, or in novel
combinations, offers the potential for fresh understanding.
Material objects (as citations) can also be thought of as existing in
networks of referentiality or citational fields (Jones, 2001), just as they do
in texts. I find this concept helpful since it allows us to think about how
material activities are related together. Importantly, citations have both a
temporal and spatial dimension since they reference things that have gone
before, and things that exist in other places. Finally, the notion of citation
is a useful framework for thinking about the relational networks within
which people situate themselves, and allows us to think about how these
relationships are played out over time. I will employ this concept as a means
of understanding both how material practices are used to create the
relationships from which persons are constructed, and how these material
practices are altered and transformed over time.
DYNAMIC NOMINALISM: THE PERSON IN HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVE
We need to be alert then to the multiple ways in which persons were
produced in the past. If we are to understand the way in which people are
produced over the long term it is useful to adopt the perspective termed
dynamic nominalism. Developed from Lockes theory of nominalism, a
dynamic nominalist perspective proposes that categories of people come
into existence at the same time as kinds of people emerge to fill those
categories (Hacking, 1995). People, categories of people, and the social
relations that frame both are therefore coeval with their changing historical conditions. This approach collapses traditional distinctions between
structure and agency by arguing that social and historical change generates
new kinds of people.
In fact the notion of dynamic nominalism with its emphasis upon the
production of persons through changing historical conditions harmonizes
well with Stratherns (1998) point that persons are performed through
social action. Given this perspective we might expect that kinds of persons
change as the set of material and social relations alter with the adoption
and assimilation of Neolithic life-ways from one region of Europe to
another.
This concept is not novel to archaeology, and has previously been
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 201
Jones
Lives in fragments?
discussed by Emma Blake (1999) and John Chapman (2001: 347, 2002).
For example Chapman (2002) discusses the way in which the exchange and
assimilation of coloured artefacts at the Eneolithic cemeteries of Durankulak and Varna, Bulgaria, promoted a greater degree of colour categorization, which allowed variable social identities, or personae, to be expressed.
The point here is that this is not a sequential argument. The adoption of
coloured objects does not give rise to new social identities, nor do burgeoning social identities require coloured objects. Rather the two entities come
into existence simultaneously; they are mutually related.
If we are to deal with the issue of personhood in the European Neolithic
it is critical that we introduce a historical perspective into our analyses. We
need to be asking why issues of personhood are critical to our analyses of
the European Neolithic, what kinds of persons might have emerged over
the course of this period, and how the make-up of persons alters in different cultural, material and environmental settings across Europe. In what
follows I will investigate the media by which persons are produced at three
geographical and temporal junctures over the course of the European
Neolithic.
THE PROBLEM OF THE EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC

The European Neolithic as an historical process has traditionally been
viewed according to a grand narrative approach in which agriculture or
ideas expanded from the Near East into Europe, a process of neolithization which moved from the southeast towards the Atlantic fringes in
Western Europe (Pluciennik, 1999). This narrative follows similar paths
whether we adopt models of migration and population movement
(Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1984; Cavalli-Sforza, 1996), ideational
models (Hodder, 1990) or models of language dispersal (Renfrew, 1987).
As noted in the opening paragraph, there is a tendency to conceive of the
Neolithic as an unchanging and generalized entity (Tringham, 2000: 22),
often defined by a fixed set of traits such as the existence of monuments,
agriculture, pottery or sedentary settlements. As Julian Thomas (1996: 311)
has noted there is an assumption that because the Neolithic was an integrated package, the appearance of any one element was a manifestation of
the presence of the whole. Thomas cogently argues that the series of different elements (domesticated plants, animals, earth or stone monuments)
traditionally thought to be components of a holistic package may well have
proceeded at different rates (Zvelebil and Lillie, 2000). This proposition has
been recently reinforced by the analysis of a suite of radiocarbon determinations across Neolithic Europe (Gkiasta et al., 2003).
Archaeological support for this argument comes from areas such as
201
02 053367 (to_d)
202
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 202
southern Scandinavia and the western Mediterranean where elements of

the Neolithic package such as pottery and stone tools were primary
introductions. Quite reasonably, Thomas proposes that Europe is best
seen as a mosaic of ecological, social and cultural traditions during the
Mesolithic/Neolithic (Gronenborn, 1999; Tringham, 2000: 535).
Nevertheless, the likelihood of a series of complex interactions between
hunter-gatherer and farming groups does not preclude some level of migration. The earliest Neolithic societies in the Balkans were likely to be
composed of populations practising hunting and gathering and farming, and
with a mosaic of differing settlement patterns from the Krs culture in the
Alfld (Hungarian Plain), to the Starcevo, Cris and Iron Gates groups
further south (Tringham, 2000). However, by around 5600/55005000 BC in
a region from the lower Danube and the Alfld, Hungary, to the Low
Countries and northern France, we observe the rapid colonization of a large
area by the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture. The Linearbandkeramik is
remarkable for its uniformity of architecture, pottery style and settlement
location although regional variations do exist (Coudart, 1998; Jeunesse,
1997; Modderman, 1988). A similarly rapid process of colonization is likely
to have occurred in the Mediterranean fringes of Europe with the expansion of Cardial ware settlement and interaction with indigenous huntergatherers (Barnett, 2000).
Perhaps the most striking processes of interaction occur around the
margins of the distribution of the Linearbandkeramik in central and northwestern Europe. A number of authors have argued for interactions between
LBK groups and indigenous hunter-gatherers (Midgley, 1992; Sommer,
2001; Thomas, 1996; Whittle, 1996). It is likely that interaction continued
into the period after around 5000 BC and probably until 4800 BC, when we
observe the formation of regional groups of post-LBK settlement, such as
the Rssen, later Lengyel and Cerny.
There is strong evidence from a variety of regions for the adoption of
elements of the Neolithic package including pottery and domesticates.
The most well known of these are the Erteblle groups of Denmark and
southern Sweden. Not only do we observe indigenous pottery using a technology likely to have been adopted from the LBK (Hulthn, 1977; Midgley,
1992), but in some sites we see the use of Danubian shaft-hole adzes
(Fischer, 1982) and pots containing cereal grain impressions (Nielsen,
1986). All this suggests a complex series of interactions between Erteblle
and LBK groups (Jennbert, 1985). The Erteblle is a very well documented
example of interaction (Price, 2000), but this need not be an isolated case
of interaction and indigenous development. The Swifterbant groups of the
Dutch Polders also made pottery, and exploited both wild and domesticated animals and grew barley (De Roever, 1979; Louwe-Kooijmans, 1987:
237; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy, 1986: 77). We observe a general pattern
of interaction across the boundary of the agricultural frontier represented
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 203
Jones
Lives in fragments?
by the LBK, and this is most clearly observed with the distribution of
bone-tempered La Hougette pottery associated with late Mesolithic lithic
industries. La Hougette pottery is distributed across the middle Rhone
valley, northern France, Switzerland and Germany and appears both in
isolation and in LBK sites (Bogucki and Grygiel, 1993; Gronenborn, 1999;
Lning et al., 1989; Price, 2000: 15; Price et al., 2001). A similar case occurs
at a later stage with the Limburg pottery of the southern Netherlands,
eastern France and Belgium (Bogucki, 2000: 2079; Constantin, 1985;
Gronenborn, 1999).
Thomas (1996) usefully describes this process of interaction between
indigenous hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers as one of cultural
hybridity (Gronenborn, 1999). In sum, the European Neolithic cannot be
seen as a single homogeneous entity, nor can the process of neolithization
be seen as an inexorable process of replacement. While we do observe
migration we also observe cultural interactions and diversity both in southeastern and central and northwestern Europe.The above underlines the fact
that the transition between the Mesolithic and Neolithic across Europe is
a dynamic process that both across and within each region involves interaction and change. The aim now is to examine the changing nature of
personhood in these different regions at different historical junctures.
SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE
I will commence by briefly considering Chapmans account of the early
Neolithic of southeastern Europe from 60005500 BC (Chapman, 2000).
Chapmans discussion focuses mainly on the treatment of artefacts and of
the dead. We will begin with the dead. During the early Neolithic, dead
bodies were either buried intact or as body parts on settlement sites. At
sites like Endrd 119, southeastern Hungary, we find complete burials and
human bone deposits placed in a pit (Chapman, 2000; Makkay, 1992). In the
earliest Starcevo levels at Vinca, Serbia, there was a deposit consisting of
11 skulls in a pit (Chapman, 2000: 134), while at Mala Vrbica-Ajmana,
Serbia, a mixture of complete skeletons and partial skeletal elements were
found (Chapman, 2000: 135). Similarly in the early Neolithic Starcevo levels
at Anza (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) we observe concentrations of human bone in various states of fragmentation and wholeness
(Chapman, 2000: 1324). This pattern contrasts with Kladovo-Velesnica,
Serbia, where a communal grave contained seven contracted inhumations
(Chapman, 2000: 136). Human bodies therefore underwent processes of
accumulation (in communal deposits or hoards of skulls), or fragmentation.
In both cases there seems to be a particular emphasis on removing or
collecting certain skeletal elements such as the skull.
203
02 053367 (to_d)
204
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 204
In tandem with the accumulation and fragmentation of human bodies,

we observe artefacts being treated according to similar principles. A hoard
of 101 knapped lithics were placed in a ceramic container near a hearth at
Endrd 39, southeastern Hungary (Chapman, 2000: 240). An equally spectacular hoard consisting of a mixture of 10,000 shell, stone and bone beads,
a Spondylus shell ring and a polished nephrite ring was placed in a similar
position in a house at Galabnik, western Bulgaria (Chapman, 2000: 240). In
the Starcevo period at Lepenski Vir, Serbia, there were two hoards. A
Spondylus necklace and beads of paligorskite were found deposited in a
vessel and four miniature axes placed in a vessel (Srejovic, 1972), and a
hoard of axes was also found in the settlement of Vrisnik in the former
Yugoslav republic of Macedonia (Chapman, 2000: 241). Other evidence for
the accumulation of artefacts includes the 30,000 sherds representing
300500 vessels from a pit in the Krs period settlement at RszkeLudvar, Hungary (Chapman, 2000; Kosse, 1979), and the accumulation of
human burials and human figurines attested from houses of the same period
in eastern Hungary.
The deliberate fragmentation, distribution and exchange of artefacts are
also evident. We return to Endrd 119 (Makkay, 1992) for an example, this
time of 14 figurines, all but one of which were fragmented. At the same site
we also have evidence for the deliberate breakage of pottery and its deposition in four distinct contexts. As Whittle (forthcoming) indicates, a variety
of lithic materials were brought into the Great Hungarian Plain which
lacks lithic raw materials from external sources: obsidian from Hungarian
and Slovak sources 150160 km to the north-east, limnoquartzite from the
hills edging the Great Hungarian Plain, brown flint from the Banat region
to the south and radiolarite from the Szentgl source north of Lake Balaton.
The source of rock for stone axes came from the eastern end of the Alps
and western Romania.The movement of this material into the region implies
exchange with non-sedentary foragers around the edges of the Krs world.
Indeed some of these exchange networks have a history beginning in the
Palaeolithic. The significance of these connections is underlined by the cache
of Banat flint placed in a pot from Endrod 39 (Kaczanowska et al., 1981).
In the south Balkans too we observe extensive networks of exchange with
the exchange of Melian obsidian as far north as Thessaly (Perls, 2000).
In this region of Europe, settlements consisted of rectangular wattle-anddaub or stone and mud-brick houses (Fig. 1). House sites either shifted,
probably over the course of a generation, or settlements became more established. The character of settlement differs from south to north. Established
long-term settlements at the base of long-lived tell settlements occur more
predominantly in the south. In the north too we observe more established
settlements in Starcevo regions, while far more ephemeral short-term settlements occur for the Krs culture (Gronenborn, 1999: 145; Tringham, 2000:
245). In northern Greece and southern Bulgaria established settlement sites
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 205
Jones
Lives in fragments?
Figure 1 Comparison of house forms and settlement in the North and

South Balkans: (a) the settlement at Nea Nikomedeia, Greece; (b) the
settlement at Divostin, Serbia (after Whittle, 1996; Bailey, 2000)
205
02 053367 (to_d)
206
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 206
of rectangular structures with substantial stone-built foundations eventually

gave rise to settlement mounds or tells, a process that over time generated
a tangible reminder of the past (Bailey, 1990; Chapman, 1997). In the north
and west, in Serbia and the eastern Hungarian Plain, buildings were either
rectangular wattle-and-daub structures, or semi-subterranean pit huts.
Overall, there seem to be two modes of settlement habitation and these
differ over time and geography (Fig. 1). In the south of the Balkans from
the middle of the seventh millennium BC and by the mid-fifth millennium
BC in regions to the north such as northern Bulgaria and southern
Romania we observe settlement fusion in which villages are established.
Over time, houses were built over the site of previous settlements and
through this practice began to reference the physical presence of ones
ancestors (Bailey, 1990). In the north from the middle of the seventh millennium to the mid-fifth millennium BC, we observe less settlement agglomeration and settlements appear more dispersed. There are exceptions to this
as the Danube Gorges sites testify.
Interestingly, more or less coeval with these modes of habitation, we
observe differentiation in settlement architecture. A greater degree of
internal division occurs in houses in regions with continuous settlement
practices. In addition these houses often have internal furniture. Indeed
Bailey (2000: 159) notes the significance of internal spatial division as exemplified by the miniature decorated wall divisions from sites such as
Ovcharovo. By contrast, in those areas with more ephemeral habitation
practices houses are internally divided to a lesser extent.
Chapman (2000) suggests that both artefacts and human skeletal
materials were used to enchain social relations. I believe we could develop
this point further by noting that similar processes occur in the establishment and habitation of settlements. The fusion and dispersal of settlement
is related to the density of social networks and the regularity of social interaction. These different modes of habitation are likely to inculcate different
ways of relating and different kinds of persons. In regions to the north and
south exchange between settlements was equally important. As Chapman
(2000) and Bailey (2000: 2845) have noted, settlement fusion is likely to
relate to lineage-based or corporate identity. Here the density of settlement
will tend towards the formation of kin-based group identities. The very
structure and organization of settlement creates a way of relating a togetherness which is likely to promote dense local networks of enchained social
relationships.
In the Krs culture, with a more dispersed settlement system, identities
need be no less kin based; however the regularity of interaction between
settlements will be less. Here we might expect spatially extensive networks
of enchainment. The two modes of settlement offer the potential for two
different kinds of person to be formed. In village (and later tell) based
settlements a person is likely to be characterized by their relationship to
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 207
Jones
Lives in fragments?
Figure 2 Groundplan of a typical Linearbandkeramik longhouse (Elsloo 32,

Netherlands; after Modderman, 1970)
local kin, creating a sense of corporate identity. With a more dispersed
settlement system personhood is likely to be more fluid, and the exchange
of objects will have cemented kin ties as well as creating fresh relationships
with forager groups to the north and east.
CENTRAL EUROPE
By way of contrast, I will now consider the Linear Pottery culture (Linearbandkeramik or LBK) of central and western Europe from around
56005000 BC. Gronenborn (1999: 1469) notes that the earliest LBK
emerges out of the social transformation from the Starcevo-Krs-Cris
complex to early Vinca, a period in which a degree of hybridity occurred as
both the Serbian Vinca culture and the AVK (Alfold Linear Pottery
Culture) of the Great Hungarian plain exhibit elements of LBK culture in
pottery form and decoration, and in a later AVK context longhouse
construction.
The primary phases of the LBK are traditionally seen to constitute a
prime example of colonization or migration, although the rapidity of this
process is debatable. Sites in northern Hungary, the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, eastern and northern Austria and parts of Germany initiate the
primary phase of migration (Gronenborn, 1999).
The architectural form that exemplifies the LBK is the post-built longhouse (Fig. 2). Longhouses are enormous structures of five rows of posts,
with the three internal rows as roof supports and the external posts as wall
supports. Walls were of wattle-and-daub construction. Houses varied in
length from around 10 m up to 30 m. Settlements typically consist of houses
spaced 10 m or more apart, with contemporary houses often oriented in the
207
02 053367 (to_d)
208
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 208
Figure 3 Linear pottery settlements on the Aldenhoven Plateau, Germany.

Note the parallel orientation of longhouses within the region (after Champion
et al., 1984)
same direction (Fig. 3). It has recently been suggested that the uniformity
of house orientation in each settlement references an area of origin that
had been settled in the past (Bradley, 2001, 2002: 1934). If this is true the
very structure of the settlement is a citation of themes of migration and
movement.
The biographies of LBK settlements also reference notions of ancestry
and origin as houses either respect or are rebuilt over previous house structures. The houses of the living and of the ancestors occupy the same settlement and the history of the settlement could be visibly read through its
architecture (Bradley, 1996). Furthermore, towards the west of their distribution LBK houses are constructed in three sections, with the middle
section forming the core. This componential structural form allowed for
flexibility as houses increased in size over time, quite likely in relation to
the exigencies of household relations. The very construction of these Linear
Pottery houses therefore embodied partibility and fragmentation.
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 209
Jones
Lives in fragments?
Late in the sequence of the LBK, a series of settlements are encompassed by ditched enclosures, as at Darion, Belgium (Cahen et al., 1990) or
Menneville, France (Hachem et al., 1998), or enclosures are built in close
proximity to settlements as at Langweiler 8, Germany (Boelicke et al.,
1988). Enclosures need not be contemporary with the life of the settlements,
and at sites like Langweiler 9, the enclosure is constructed after the settlement has gone out of use (Lning and Stehli, 1994). At one level, enclosures
seem to reference the settlement as a cohesive entity, at another they
are commemorating the location of the houses of the ancestors (Bradley,
2002: 334).
Fragmentary remains of the dead are often found on settlement sites, as
at Zauschwitz, Wetteraukrais and Ober-Horgern, Saxony (Veit, 1993;
Whittle, 1996: 167). We also observe intra-mural burials, such as the child
burials in borrow pits at Cuiry-les-Chaudardes, Aisne valley, or Menneville,
France (Coudart, 1998; Hachem et al., 1998), and again at Zuaschwitz a
number of crouched burials were placed in pits, while a child burial was
placed in a pit and covered by the burnt remains of a house. At Vaihingen,
Neckar Valley, Baden-Wrttemberg (Bentley et al., 2003), 130 skeletons
were found in a ditch that encircled the site during its middle and later
phases or in pits and borrow trenches.
Formal, organized cemeteries are a major feature of the middle
(Flomborn) period of the Linearbandkeramik, although due to the paucity
of cemeteries in relation to settlements it seems they may serve as a focal
place for a number of communities. The dead are usually inhumed, and
there are generally equal numbers of men and women. However, due to the
relatively small size of cemeteries it is likely that only some people were
formally buried in this way. Gender and age differences are expressed
through the deposition of differing artefacts, with men often being buried
with adzes and arrowheads, women with pottery. Recent strontium isotope
studies on populations at the early LBK cemeteries Flomborn, Dillingen
and Schwetzingen, southern Germany, indicate that cemeteries are
composed of a mixture of people of differing origins, both locals and nonlocals (Bentley et al., 2002, 2003; Price et al., 2001). Those identified as locals
were buried with a possible orientation towards the nearest adjacent region
of settlement. Price et al. (2001) suggest that those non-local bodies (often
female) buried with a different orientation may have origins in huntergatherer populations. If so, the treatment of the dead is again a citation of
past events and social relations, of themes of movement, origin and memory.
What is the nature of personhood in this region of Europe? We can
certainly observe evidence for extensive networks of exchange, in which
both objects and people circulated. Spondylus shells, whose origins
ultimately lay in the Aegean or Adriatic (Shackleton and Renfrew, 1970),
were exchanged over immense distances and deposited as tokens of these
distant places in LBK grave contexts as far west as Belgium (Mller, 1997;
Willms, 1985). Lithic materials too were exchanged on the western edge of
209
02 053367 (to_d)
210
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 210
the LBK distribution. Maas valley sources both from sources such as
Rijckholt and Vetschau/Lousberg were exploited and exchanged over
considerable distances. Again this was an exchange network whose roots
lay in the Late Palaeolithic, but it was during the earliest LBK that its
exchange was intensified (Gronenborn, 1999: 168). The early phases at
Bruchenbrcken obtained flint from the Maas valley, 200 km to the west
(Gronenborn, 1990). Many of the sites on the Aldenhoven Plateau obtained
flint from the same source, some 30 km distant. Chert from Wittlingen on
the Swabian Alb a source first utilized in the Late Mesolithic was
exchanged into the Upper Neckar and into the Rhine, while on the eastern
edge of the LBK the Szentgl source of radiolarite continued in importance (Gronenborn, 1999: 1689).
The relatively consistent use of amphibolite as a raw material for adzes
is also suggestive of widespread exchange networks (Whittle, 1996: 173). As
noted above, from around 5500 BC exchange is also likely to occur with La
Hoguette populations who had begun to practise horticulture in southwestern Germany and eastern France, and from around 5250 BC later
Limburg populations in Holland, Belgium and France (Gronenborn, 1999;
Price, 2000;Thomas, 1996). Finally, the links between communities are underlined by the relative degree of uniformity of LBK ceramics themselves.
At one level, LBK populations are characterized by their homogeneity,
of artefacts and material culture; a homogeneity in which enchained social
relations would be critical. At another level they are characterized by
heterogeneity, as cemeteries were made up of both established and migrant
members of the community, indigenes and non-indigenes alike. The significance of place and origins was emphasized through uniform material
culture, house architecture and orientation, the burial of the dead in settlements and the construction of enclosures around living and defunct settlements alike. This interest in origins was also cited by the orientation of the
dead in formal cemeteries, as is the deposition of Spondylus shells. Both are
citations of previous places of significance. Simultaneously spatial relations
were in flux as populations migrated. This is emphasized in the fluidity of
settlement structures and by differential mortuary practices for those of
differing age, gender and origin as exemplified by the cemetery at Aiterhofen, Bavaria (Veit, 1993). To an extent, houses embody this tension
between homogeneity and heterogeneity. Compared with house architecture in southeastern Europe, linear pottery houses are immense structures,
presumably meant to house large extended kin groups, promoting a sense
of homogeneous identity. On the other hand, unlike settlements in southeastern Europe, linear pottery houses are not built in absolutely close
physical proximity to each other, promoting a sense of heterogeneous
identity at the settlement level.
We might say that structures of relationality are critical to the person in
the LBK Lebenswelt or lifeworld (Sommer, 2001), since they help to resolve
many of the tensions noted above. Sommer has recently argued that
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 211
Jones
Lives in fragments?
Figure 4 Groundplan of a typical chambered tomb (Pipton, Wales; after

Whittle and Wysocki, 2000)
architecture, ceramics and to some extent lithics are tightly controlled
elements of the LBK, contributing to a strictly circumscribed notion of
Lebenswelt, the elements of which began to break down as the initial early
expansion of the LBK lost momentum (Sommer, 2001: 260). Such an
account is critical as it introduces agency into our discussions of the LBK,
rather than treating it as a homogenized unity. However, further to this I
believe a consideration of social networks enables us to consider the structure of social relations into which each LBK community was situated. Social
relations are enchained, but not in the same way as in southeastern Europe.
Relations of enchainment simultaneously enable a person to reference
distant and extensive spatial relations, while promoting a cohesiveness to
communities forging new relations with novel environs and peoples both
within and beyond the settlement. The social relations of the LBK lifeworld
promoted both change and persistence (Sommer, 2001). I would argue that
personhood in the LBK was grounded in distant and mythical places of
origin, while the person was also situated in fluid networks of alliance which
focused them towards present and future exchange partners.
NORTHWESTERN EUROPE
I will now briefly examine the character of personhood on the northwestern fringes of Europe, from around 50003500 BC. Settlement here is far
more fugitive. However, in a distribution from southern Scandinavia to
Iberia we see the emergence of earthen and stone constructions built to
house the remains of the dead (Fig. 4). A broad sequence occurs
which commences with one or more burials beneath an extensive earthen
211
02 053367 (to_d)
212
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 212
longmound. In some cases as in Brittany, France and Alentejo, Portugal

these burials may be commemorated by the erection of a large decorated
stele or menhir (Calado, 2002). These monuments overlap chronologically
with another form of structure the passage grave. Unlike longmounds,
passage graves contain accumulations of human skeletal remains, which
appear to have undergone fragmentation and reordering, often to create
composite persons, at a later stage in the mortuary process.
Enclosures are also constructed but their use and significance is varied.
Circuits may be ditched, banked or palisaded. In some regions, such as
Denmark, enclosures such as Sarup, Fyn (Andersen, 1988) see interrupted
phases of causewayed ditches and palisades or fences. Enclosures of a
similar form are found in Britain. Enclosures may be segmented, or
palisaded like sections of Hambledon Hill, Dorset, or more unusually have
stone banking like the later phase of Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire (Dixon,
1988; Whittle, 1996: 2689). Unlike the earliest Linearbandkeramik enclosures, these do not reference settlements, and this is partly reflected by
their change in form with a greater emphasis upon interrupted ditches
(Bradley, 2002). Rather, like the sites of Etton and Windmill Hill, in
southern England they seem to serve as focal points for the circulation, fragmentation and deposition of human bodies and artefacts (Fowler, 2003;
Pryor et al., 1985; Whittle et al., 1999).
Although the monuments of Atlantic Europe are diverse, there are a
number of themes worth drawing out. In the relative absence of settlements,
monuments provide a focus for communities, and it is likely that earth and
stone mounds were perceived as houses of the dead, quite possibly as the
conceptual transformation of post-LBK settlements translated into stone
and earth (Hodder, 1984). The construction of monuments may involve the
physical incorporation of fragments of earlier structures (Fig. 5). This is an
important feature of passage grave construction in Brittany at sites such as
Man Rutual, Man-er-Hrok, Man Lud and Le Petit Mont. This is seen
in its most spectacular form with sites like La Table des Marchands, Er Grah
and Gavrinis located some 34 km apart incorporating parts of the same
decorated menhir (Le Roux, 1984; Whittle, 2000). Other examples of incorporation come from sites such as Vale de Rodrigo, Alentejo, Portugal
(Bueno Ramirez and de Balbn Behrmann, 2000; Calado, 2002) and from
passage graves such as Knowth, Boyne Valley, Ireland (Eogan, 1986, 1997).
In many cases monuments were constructed over places that held significance for earlier hunter-gatherer populations. In some areas such as the
cave burials of the Meuse valley, Belgium (Cauwe, 2000) on the very edge
of the LBK distribution the principles of fragmentation appear to have
an antiquity dating back to the early Mesolithic.
The construction of monuments, both through the incorporation of fragments of earlier monuments and the use of raw materials from significant
places both local and distant establishes relations between monuments
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 213
Jones
Lives in fragments?
Figure 5 The re-use of menhirs in the passage grave of Le Petit Mont,

Morbihan, France (after Scarre, 2002)
and places (Bradley, 2000; Cooney, 2000; Jones, 1999). It may be a mistake
to see these monuments as repositories for the dead, rather they are foci
for transformation in which human bone is employed as a resource to establish relations between members of the living and between the living and the
dead. Artefacts play this role too; this is especially obvious at enclosures
where fragments of artefacts are brought into relation with the bones of the
dead (Fowler, 2003; Pollard, 2005). Equally in many regions, such as
southern Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Britain, artefacts are deliberately fragmented in mortuary contexts and incorporated with the bones of
the dead (Bakker, 1992; Hulthn, 1977; Midgley, 1992; Tilley, 1996). Given
this, artefacts such as stone axes might have been considered as equivalents of the bones of the dead (Larsson, 2000; Thomas, 2002).
In this region of Europe persons are likely to be constructed from
213
02 053367 (to_d)
214
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 214
enchained social relations. The bones of the dead, and fragments of

artefacts, are circulated and brought into relation at enclosures and
mortuary monuments. Bodies are not only fragmented, but these fragments
are simultaneously accumulated in these deposits. Not only are people and
artefacts circulated, but places too, as fragments of significant places are
incorporated into monuments. The very construction of monuments both
enclosures and mortuary monuments are citations of earlier constructions,
associated with ancestral populations. Similarly, the fragmentation of the
dead may in some regions, such as Belgium, cite earlier Mesolithic practices. As such, monuments and the practices that occur within them are
novel or hybrid inventions based upon the citation of a set of previous practices and events.
PERSONHOOD IN THE EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC

This study has operated at the macroscale level of analysis and has identified broad patterns in different regions and periods of the European
Neolithic. This macroscale analysis has drawn out different ways of relating,
and we should expect that at finer scales of analysis in each region there
will be multiple ways of becoming a person. In each instance I have argued
that a case can be made for relational notions of personhood. However, this
belies the complex differences in the archaeology we observe in each
region. If these differences are to be drawn out a comparative perspective
is required (Meskell and Joyce, 2003; Strathern, 1988).
For southeastern Europe from 60005500 BC relations are established
through repetitive habitation over the houses of the dead. In some regions
this leads to the creation of village settlements (and after this period to the
generation of immense settlement mounds that themselves serve as visible
reminders of the past and the ancestors). Human remains and artefacts are
deposited at house sites to provide a continuing relationship between the
lifing and the dead, and to create and maintain the significance of place.
Relations are established between the living through the circulation of artefacts and human remains, but critically their depositional locale suggests
that settlements are significant foci. Settlements therefore provide the
primary focus for the construction of personhood. The person is fabricated
through their close relation to those who dwelt on the settlement previously, and by the close proximity of the living community they presently
dwell amongst. Things circulate to reiterate these connections.
In regions to the north, like Serbia and Hungary, settlement took on a
different character and there was more emphasis on the exchange and
circulation of objects between settlements to cement social ties. Burials
also occur in settlements and artefacts are fragmented and deposited on
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 215
Jones
Lives in fragments?
settlement sites. Here the dead and artefacts serve a different role, as
tangible links to, or reminders of, past places occupied and of distant kin
or exchange partners.
In many ways this way of relating has similarities with those in central
Europe from 5600/55005000 BC. Here settlements and cemeteries simultaneously objectify the principle of accumulation and fragmentation. They
consist of groups of houses or graves, yet the houses are constructed in a
componential fashion and are inhabited by migrants, indigenes and those
who have been in place for a generation. In a similar way, cemeteries are
accumulations. However their composition is fragmentary, as they are
composed of a mixture of people, and given their sparse density are likely
to serve multiple settlements.
While settlements provide a reference point for the construction of
personhood, the living community is less closely proximal than settlements
in the south of the Balkans. Instead personhood is grounded in the
community of the present and in relations between communities, both agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers. Relations between the living and the
ancestors are critical, but differ greatly to those of southeastern Europe.
The ancestors are immediately presenced in the community in the form of
decayed house plots and enclosures, but more distant ancestors are also
cited in the orientation of houses and the dead in cemeteries. The circulation of Spondylus shells and amphibolite adzes reiterates the connections
between communities of the living and between the living and those ancestors distanced in time and place. Personhood during this period is grounded
less in place than in communities composed of a set of relations, both real
between members of the living community with differing origins, and ideal
between the living and their ancestors distanced in time and place. This
sense of community is particularly effective where communities are highly
dispersed in a relatively dense wooded environment.
In northwestern Europe from 50003500 BC persons are constructed
differently again. A series of relations with other times and places are
referenced by the construction of earth and stone monuments and circular
enclosures and the practices of fragmentation that occur within them.
Unlike in other parts of Europe, settlements are not so much the focus for
grounding personhood, but personhood is articulated by an attachment to
a different sort of place, the burial monument home of the ancestors. Similarly attachment is made to certain features in the landscape: hills, mountains, rivers and the like (Bradley, 2000; Tilley, 1994). In Edmonds (1999)
elegant phrase these are ancestral geographies. Places are a mobile
medium for expressing personhood since places, in the form of raw
materials as artefacts such as stone axes (Cooney, 1998, 2002) and the
materials from which monuments are constructed (Bradley, 2000; Jones,
1999), are both circulated. Relatedness is therefore constructed from the
networks established between people, place and the dead (Thomas, 1999).
215
02 053367 (to_d)
216
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 216
CONCLUSION LIVES IN FRAGMENTS?

In conclusion, I want to re-emphasize the importance of considering the
European Neolithic as an historical process. I have argued above that this
process is interconnected through complex practices of citation and reiteration. It is precisely because of the emergent nature of these practices that
we are able to compose narratives for the European Neolithic or, at a
greater scale of abstraction, treat the period as a form of text. These modes
of analysis are seductive, but it is important to recall that these interconnections are made through the repetition of earlier practices and the
creation of novel practices as people encountered new people through
migration and created new worlds for themselves in the process.
As argued above, persons are in a constant state of becoming; as historical conditions change different kinds of person will emerge. Given the
large-scale change in the temporal and spatial conditions of life that emerge
with the adoption of agriculture, sedentism and the construction of monuments, I argue that a consideration of the changing constitution of persons
is not a peripheral concern. Instead, considerations of personhood are
central to the way in which life during the Neolithic was constructed and
experienced (see Whittle, 2003, for an extended argument on this theme).
As I have stressed, while notions of personhood derived from the anthropological literature are useful for unsettling Western assumptions about the
person, we need to be careful about figuring all non-Western persons
according to a unitary anthropological model. Rather, I have argued that
relationality is important, but we need to examine different ways of relating
in different historical contexts. Across Neolithic Europe persons are constituted relationally, although the connections between people, place and
things are composed in quite different ways. Nevertheless there are
commonalities. If we treat the Neolithic as a process, each new way of
relating cites what has gone before (since it is grounded upon what has gone
before), but it also creates afresh new ways of relating. What are the
commonalities, the tools out of which people continued to create relationships during the Neolithic? We have already seen that the house and the
settlement (Hodder, 1990, 1998), and the relationship with the past and the
ancestors, are critical to each region. However, as we have seen, we need to
consider in more depth the composition of the household. Hodder tends to
view the house as a distinct and bounded entity. If we pay more consideration to personhood and social relations more generally, we need to see
households and settlements as relational entities linked through complex
networks of contact and exchange.
To conclude, we need not seek to define the Neolithic in terms of abstract
ideational concepts, but by considering different ways of relating we begin
to see how, through practice, new connections are continually established
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 217
Jones
Lives in fragments?
between people and people and their environment. It is by analysing

these connections that we begin to understand how novel relations
between people, place and settlements are articulated in the emergence of
the Neolithic. Given this historical perspective we begin to realize that the
Neolithic relates not so much to the creation of new worlds, but to the
creation of new kinds of people to live in those worlds.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Richard Bradley, Clive Gamble and Alasdair Whittle, each of whom
commented upon an earlier version of this article and helped to hammer it into its
present shape. I would like to especially thank Alasdair for the use of unpublished
material. I am also grateful to Dusan Boric, whose many chats on the topic of time
and memory and the European Neolithic over the last few years have benefited me
enormously.
References
Allen, C.J. (1998) When Utensils Revolt: Mind, Matter, and Modes of Being in the
Pre-Colombian Andes, RES 33: 1827.
Ammerman, A.J. and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza (1984) The Neolithic Transition and the
Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Andersen, N.H. (1988) Sarup: Two Neolithic Enclosures in South-west Funen,
Journal of Danish Archaeology 7: 93114.
Bailey, D. (1990) The Living House: Signifying Continuity, in R. Samson (ed.) The
Social Archaeology of Houses, pp. 1948. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bailey, D. (2000) Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity. London:
Routledge.
Bakker, J.A. (1992) The Dutch Hunebedden: Megalithic Tombs of the Funnel
Beaker Culture, International Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Barnett, W.K. (2000) Cardial Pottery and the Agricultural Transition in Mediterranean Europe, in D. Price (ed.) Europes First Farmers, pp. 93116. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Barrett, J.C. (1994) Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life
29001200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.
Battaglia, D. (1990) On the Bones of the Serpent: Person, Memory and Mortality in
Sabarl Island. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Baumann, Z. (1993) A Life in Fragments. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bentley, R.A., R. Krause, T.D. Price and B. Kaufmann (2003) Human Mobility at
the Early Neolithic Settlement of Vaihingen, Germany: Evidence from Strontium
Isotope Analysis, Archaeometry 45(3): 47186.
Bentley, R.A., T.D. Price, J. Lning, D. Gronenborn, J. Wahl and P.D. Fullagar (2002)
Human Migration in Early Neolithic Europe, Current Anthropology 43:
799804.
Blake, E. (1999) Identity Mapping in the Sardinian Bronze Age, European Journal
of Archaeology 2(1): 3555.
217
02 053367 (to_d)
218
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 218

Boelicke, U., D. von Brandt, J. Lning, P. Stehli and A. Zimmerman (1988) Der Bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 8, Gemeinde Aldenhoven, Kreis Dren.
Kln: Rheinland-Verlag.
Bogucki, P. (2000) How Agriculture came to North-central Europe, in D. Price (ed.)
Europes First Farmers, pp. 197218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bogucki, P. and P. Grygiel (1993) The First Farmers of Central Europe: A Survey
Article, Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 399426.
Boric, D. (2003) Deep Time Metaphor: Mnemonic and Apotropaic Practices at
Lepenski Vir, Journal of Social Archaeology 3(1): 4674.
Bradley, R. (1993) Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and
Continental Europe (Monograph series No. 8). Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland.
Bradley, R. (1996) Long Houses, Long Mounds and Neolithic Enclosures, Journal
of Material Culture 1: 23956.
Bradley, R. (1998) The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human
Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. (2000) An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. (2001) Orientations and Origins: A Symbolic Dimension to the Long
House in Neolithic Europe, Antiquity 75: 506.
Bradley, R. (2002) The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge.
Brck, J. (2001) Monuments, Power and Personhood in the British Neolithic,
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7: 64967.
Bueno Ramirez, P. and R. de Balbn Behrmann (2000) Art Mgalithique et art en
plein air. Approches de la dfinition du territoire pour les producteurs de la
pninsule ibrique, L Anthropologie 104: 42758.
Busby, C. (1997) Permeable and Partible Persons: A Comparative Analysis of
Gender and the Body in South India and Melanesia, Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 3: 26178.
Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. London: Routledge.
Cahen, D., L.H. Keeley, I. Jadin and P-L. van Berg (1990) Trois Villages Fortifis du
Ruban Rcent en Hesbaye Ligoise, in D. Cahen and M. Otte (eds) Ruban et
Cardial, vol. 39, pp. 12546. Liege: E.R.A.U.L.
Calado, M. (2002) Standing Stones and Natural Outcrops: The Role of Ritual
Monuments in the Neolithic Transition of the Central Alentjo, in C. Scarre (ed.)
Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: Perception and Society during the
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, pp. 1735. London: Routledge.
Cauvin, J. (2000) The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge:
Cauwe, N. (2000) Skeletons in Motion, Ancestors in Action: Early Mesolithic
Collective Tombs in Southern Belgium, Cambridge Archaeological Journal
11(2): 14763.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1996) The Spread of Agriculture and Nomadic Pastoralism:
Insights from Genetics, Linguistics and Archaeology, in D.R. Harris (ed.) The
Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, pp. 5169. London:
UCL Press.
Champion, T., C. Gamble, S. Shennan and A. Whittle (1984) Prehistoric Europe.
Leiden: Leiden University Press.
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 219
Jones
Lives in fragments?
Chapman, J. (1997) The Origins of Tells in Eastern Hungary, in P. Topping (ed.)

Neolithic Landscapes, pp. 13964. Oxford: Oxbow.
Chapman, J. (2000) Fragmentation in Archaeology. London: Routledge.
Chapman, J. (2001) Tension at Funerals: Micro-tradition Analysis in Later Hungarian Prehistory. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
Chapman, J. (2002) Colourful Prehistories: The Problem with the Berlin and Kay
Paradigm, in A. Jones and G. MacGregor (eds) Colouring the Past: the Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research, pp. 4572. Oxford: Berg.
Constantin, C. (1985) Fin du Ruban: cramique du Limbourg et postRuban.
Oxford: BAR International Series 273.
Cooney, G. (1998) Breaking Stones, Making Places: The Social Landscapes of Axe
Production Sites, in A. Gibson and D.D.A. Simpson (eds) Prehistoric Ritual and
Religion, pp. 10819. Stroud: Sutton.
Cooney, G. (2000) Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London: Routledge.
Cooney, G. (2002) So Many Shades of Rock: Colour Symbolism and Irish Stone
Axeheads, in A. Jones and G. MacGregor (eds) Colouring the Past: The Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research, pp. 93108. Oxford: Berg.
Coudart, A. (1998) Architecture et Socit Nolithique: Lunit et la Variance de la
Maison Danubienne. Paris: ditions de la Maison des Sciences de LHomme.
De Roever, J.P. (1979) The Pottery from Swifterbant Dutch Erteblle?, Helinium
19: 1336.
Derrida, J. (1982) Signature, Event, Context, in J. Derrida (ed.) The Margins of
Philosophy, pp. 30730. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Dixon, P. (1988) The Neolithic Settlements on Crickley Hill, in C. Burgess, P.
Topping, C. Mordant and M. Maddison (eds) Enclosures and Defences in the
Neolithic of Western Europe, pp. 7587. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 403i.
Edmonds, M. (1999) Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. London: Routledge.
Eogan, G. (1986) Knowth and the Passage-tombs of Ireland. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Eogan, G. (1997) Overlays and Underlays: Aspects of Megalithic Art Succession at
Brugh Na Boinne, Ireland, Brigantium 10: 21734.
Fischer, A. (1982) Trade in Danubian Shaft-hole Axes and Introduction of Neolithic
Economy in Denmark, Journal of Danish Archaeology 1: 712.
Fowler, C. (2000) The Individual, the Subject and Archaeological Interpretation:
Reading Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler, in C. Holtorf and H. Karlsson (eds)
Philosophy and Archaeological Practice, pp. 10733. Goteborg: Bricoleur
Press.
Fowler, C. (2001) Personhood and Social Relations in the British Neolithic with a
Case Study from the Isle of Man, Journal of Material Culture 6: 13763.
Fowler, C. (2002) Body Parts: Personhood and Materiality in the Earlier Manx
Neolithic, in Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik and S. Tarlow (eds) Thinking through
the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality, pp. 4770. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Press.
Fowler, C. (2003) Rates of (Ex)change: Decay and Growth, Memory and the Transformation of the Dead in Early Neolithic Southern Britain, in H. Williams (ed.)
Archaeologies of Remembrance: Death and Memory in Past Societies, pp. 4563.
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
219
02 053367 (to_d)
220
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 220

Fowler, C. (2004) The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach.
London: Routledge.
Gell, A. (1999) Strathernograms, or the Semiotics of Mixed Metaphors, in E. Hirsch
(ed.) The Art of Anthropology: Essays and Diagrams, pp. 2975. London: Athlone.
Gillespie, S.D. (2001) Personhood, Agency and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study from
the Ancient Maya, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 73112.
Gkiasta, M., T. Russell, S. Shennan and J. Steele (2003) Neolithic Transition in
Europe: The Radiocarbon Record Revisited, Antiquity 77: 4562.
Gosden, C. (2004) Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to
the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gronenborn, D. (1990) Mesolithic-Neolithic Interactions: The Lithic Industries of
the Earliest Bandkeramik Culture Site at Freidberg-Bruchenbrcken, Wetteraukreis (West Germany), in P. Vermeersch and P. van Peer (eds) Contributions
to the Mesolithic in Europe, pp. 17382. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Gronenborn, D. (1999) Variations on a Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in
Southern Central Europe, Journal of World Prehistory 13: 123210.
Hachem, L., Y. Guichard, J-P. Farrugia, J. Dubouloz and M. Illett (1998) Enclosure
and Burial in the Earliest Neolithic of the Aisne Valley, in M. Edmonds and C.
Richards (eds) Understanding the Neolithic of North-western Europe, pp. 12740.
Glasgow: Cruithne Press.
Hacking, I. (1995) Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of
Memory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Halstead, P. (1996) The Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece:
When, How, Who and What?, in D.R. Harris (ed.) The Origins and Spread of
Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, pp. 296309. London: UCL Press.
Hodder, I. (1984) Burials, Houses, Women and Men in the European Neolithic, in
D. Miller and C. Tilley (eds) Ideology, Power and Prehistory, pp. 5168.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. (1990) The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hodder, I. (1998) The Domus: Some Problems Reconsidered, in M. Edmonds and
C. Richards (eds) Understanding the Neolithic of North-western Europe,
pp. 84101. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.
Houston, S.D. and D. Stuart (1998) The Ancient Maya Self: Personhood and Portraiture in the Classic period, RES 33: 73101.
Houston, S.D. and K.A. Taube (2000) An Archaeology of the Senses: Perceptual
Psychology in Classic Maya Art, Writing and Architecture, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(2): 26194.
Hulthn, B. (1977) On Ceramic Technology during the Scanian Neolithic and Bronze
Age. Stockholm: Institute of Archaeology.
Jennbert, K. (1985) Neolithisation a Scanian perspective, Journal of Danish
Archaeology 4: 1967.
Jeunesse, C. (1997) Pratiques Funraires au Nolithique Ancien: Spultures et
Ncropoles des Socits Daubiennes (55004900 av. J-C.) Paris: ditions Errance.
Jones, A. (1999) Local Colour: Megalithic Architecture and Colour Symbolism in
Neolithic Arran, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(4): 33950.
Jones, A. (2001) Drawn from Memory: The Archaeology of Aesthetics and the
Aesthetics of Archaeology in Earlier Bronze Age Britain and the Present, World
Archaeology 33(2): 33557.
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 221
Jones
Lives in fragments?
Joyce, R. (1998) Performing the Body in Prehispanic Central America, RES:

Anthropology and Aesthetics 33: 14765.
Joyce, R. (2000) Girling the Girl and Boying the Boy: The Production of Adulthood
in Ancient Mesoamerica, World Archaeology 31: 47383.
Joyce, R. (2003) Concrete Memories: Fragments of the Past in the Classic Maya
Present (5001000AD), in R.M. van Dyke and S.E. Alcock (eds) Archaeologies
of Memory, pp. 10425. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaczanowska, M., J.K. Kozlowski and J. Makkay (1981) Flint Hoard from Endrod,
Site 39, Hungary (Krs Culture), Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 21: 10517.
Kosse, K. (1979) Settlement Ecology of the Early and Middle Neolithic Krs and
Linear Pottery Cultures in Hungary. Oxford: BAR.
Lambek, M. (1998) Body and Mind in Mind, Body and Mind in Body: Some Anthropological Interventions in a Long Conversation, in M. Lambek and A. Strathern (eds) Bodies and Persons: Comparative Perspectives from Africa and
Melanesia, pp. 10327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larsson, L. (2000) The Passage of Axes: Fire Transformation of Flint Objects in the
Neolithic of Southern Sweden, Antiquity 74: 60210.
Le Roux, C-T. (1984) A Propos des Fouilles de Gavrinis (Morbihan): Nouvelles
Donnes sur Lart Mgalithique Armoricain, Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique
Franaise 81: 2405.
LiPuma, E. (1998) Modernity and Forms of Personhood in Melanesia, in M.
Lambek and A. Strathern (eds) Bodies and Persons: Comparative Perspectives
from Africa and Melanesia, pp. 5380. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Louwe-Kooijmans, L.P. (1987) Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the
Wetlands of the Rhine/Meuse Delta of the Netherlands, in J. Coles and A.
Lawson (eds) European Wetlands in Prehistory, pp. 22751. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lning, J. and P. Stehli (1994) Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Bonn: Habelt.
Lning, J., V. Kloos and S. Albert (1989) Westliche Nachbarn der Bandkeramischen
Kultur: La Hoguette und Limburg, Germania 67: 355420.
Makkay, J. (1992) Excavations at the Krs Culture Settlement of Endrdregszolok 119 in 19861989, in S. Bknyi (ed.) Landscape and Cultural
Changes in South-east Hungary, I: Reports on the Gyomaendrod Project, pp.
12193. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Meskell, L.M. and R.A. Joyce (2003) Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya and
Egyptian Experience. London: Routledge.
Midgley, M. (1992) TRB Culture: The First Farmers of the North European Plain.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Mimica, J. (1988) Intimations of Infinity: The Cultural Meaning of the Iqwaye
Counting System and Number. Oxford: Berg.
Modderman, P. (1970) Linearbankeramik aus Eisloo und Stein. Leiden: Leiden
University Press.
Modderman, P. (1988) The Linear Pottery Culture: Diversity in Uniformity,
Berichten Van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodermonderzoek 38:
63139.
Monaghan, J. (1998) The Person, Destiny and the Construction of Difference in
Mesoamerica, RES 33: 13746.
221
02 053367 (to_d)
222
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 222

Mller, J. (1997) Neolithische und chalkolithische Spondylus-Artefakte:
Ammerkunden zu Verbreitung, Tauschgebiet und sozialer Funktion, in C.
Becker (ed.) Beitrage zur prhistorichen archologie zwisches Nord und Sudeuropa, pp. 91106. Espelkamp: Marie Leidorf.
Nielsen, P.O. (1986) The Beginning of the Neolithic Assimilation or Complex
Change?, Journal of Danish Archaeology 5: 2403.
Perls, C. (2000) The Early Neolithic of Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pluciennik, M. (1999) Archaeological Narratives and Other Ways of Telling,
Current Anthropology 40(5): 65378.
Pollard, J. (2005) The Art of Decay and the Transformation of Substance, in C.
Gosden, E. DeMarrais and C. Renfrew (eds) Art as Archaeology and Archaeology as Art, pp. 1725. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
Price, T.D. (2000) Europes First Farmers: An Introduction, in D. Price (ed.)
Europes First Farmers, pp. 118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Price, T.D., R.A. Bentley, J. Lning, D. Gronenborn and J. Wahl (2001) Prehistoric
Human Migration in the Linearbandkeramik of Central Europe, Antiquity 75:
593603.
Pryor, F., C. French and M. Taylor (1985) An Interim Report on the Excavations at
Etton, Maxey, Cambridgeshire 198284, Antiquaries Journal 65: 275311.
Renfrew, C. (1987) The Archaeology of Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European
Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.
Richards, C. and M. Parker-Pearson (1994) Architecture and Spatial Order. London:
Routledge.
Scarre, C., ed. (2002) Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: Perception and
Society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. London: Routledge.
Seremetakis, N. (1994) The Senses Still. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Shackleton, N. and C. Renfrew (1970) Neolithic Trade Routes Re-aligned by
Oxygen Isotope Analysis, Nature 228: 10624.
Sommer, U. (2001) Hear the Instructions of Thy Father, and Forsake Not the Law
of Thy Mother: Change and Persistence in the European Neolithic, Journal of
Social Archaeology 1(2): 24470.
Srejovic, D. (1972) Europes First Monumental Sculpture: New Discoveries at
Lepenski Vir. London: Thames and Hudson.
Strathern, A. and P. Stewart (1999) Dangerous Woods and Perilous Pearl Shells:
The Fabricated Politics of a Longhouse in Pangia, Papua New Guinea, Journal
of Material Culture 5: 6989.
Strathern, M. (1988) The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Strathern, M. (1998) Social Relations and the Idea of Externality, in C. Renfrew
and C. Scarre (eds) Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic
Storage, pp. 13547. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.
Thomas, J. (1988) Neolithic Explanations Revisited: the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Britain and South Scandinavia, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
54: 5966.
Thomas, J. (1991) Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
02 053367 (to_d)
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 223
Jones
Lives in fragments?
Thomas, J. (1993a) Discourse, Totalization and the Neolithic, in C. Tilley (ed.)

Interpretative Archaeology, pp. 35794. Oxford: Berg.
Thomas, J. (1993b) The Hermeneutics of Megalithic Space, in C. Tilley (ed.) Interpretative Archaeology, pp. 7397. Oxford: Berg.
Thomas, J. (1996) The Cultural Context of the First Domesticates in Continental
Central and Northwest Europe, in D.R. Harris (ed.) The Origins and Spread of
Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, pp. 31022. London: UCL Press.
Thomas, J. (1999) Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge.
Thomas, J. (2001) Death, Identity and the Body in Neolithic Britain, Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 6: 65368.
Thomas, J. (2002) Archaeologys Humanism and the Materiality of the Body, in Y.
Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik and S. Tarlow (eds) Thinking through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality, pp. 2946. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
Thomas, N. (1991) Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture and Colonialism
in the Pacific. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tilley, C. (1994) A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments.
Oxford: Berg.
Tilley, C. (1996) An Ethnography of the Neolithic: Early Prehistoric Societies in
Southern Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tringham, R. (2000) Southeastern Europe in the Transition to Agriculture in
Europe: Bridge, Buffer or Mosaic, in D. Price (ed.) Europes First Farmers,
pp. 1956. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Veit, U. (1993) Burials within settlements of the Linienbandkeramik and Stichbandkeramik Cultures of Central Europe. On the Social Construction of Death
in Early-Neolithic Society, Journal of European Archaeology 1: 10740.
Wagner, R. (1991) The Fractal Person, in M. Godelier (ed.) Big Men and Great
Men, pp. 15973. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weiner, A. (1992) Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping while Giving.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Weiner, J.F. (1995) The Lost Drum: The Myth of Sexuality in Papua New Guinea and
Beyond. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Whittle, A. (1996) Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge:
Whittle, A. (2000) Very Like a Whale: Menhirs, Motifs and Myths in the
Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition of North-west Europe, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10: 24359.
Whittle, A. (2003) The Archaeology of People: Dimensions of Neolithic Life.
London: Routledge.
Whittle, A. (forthcoming) Connections in the Krs Culture World: Exchange as an
Organising Principle, unpublished manuscript.
Whittle, A. and M. Wysocki (2000) Parc le Breos Cwm Transepted Long Cairn,
Gower, West Glamorgan: Date, Context and Contents, Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 64: 13982.
Whittle, A., J. Pollard and C. Grigson (1999) The Harmony of Symbols: The Windmill
Hill Causewayed Enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow.
Willms, C. (1985) Neolithischer Spondylusschmuck. Hundert Jahre Forschung,
Germania 63: 33143.
223
02 053367 (to_d)
224
12/5/05
11:48 am
Page 224

Zvelebil, M. and M. Lillie (2000) Transition to Agriculture in Eastern Europe, in
T.D. Price (ed.) Europes First Farmers, pp. 5792. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zvelebil, M. and P. Rowley-Conwy (1986) Foragers and Farmers in Atlantic
Europe, in M. Zvelebil (ed.) Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of
Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming, pp. 6793. Cambridge:
ANDY JONES is a Lecturer in the Department of Archaeology,

University of Southampton (UK), where he teaches European prehistory
and the British Neolithic and co-ordinates the MA in the Archaeology of
Art and Representation. He has previously held a fellowship at the
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge (UK) and a
lectureship at University College Dublin (Ireland). He has published
Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice (CUP, 2002) and edited (with
G. Macgregor) Colouring the Past (Berg, 2002). He is currently working on
a book for Cambridge University Press entitled Memory and Material
Culture: An Archaeology of Tradition and Transformation and is editing the
volume on European Prehistory for the Blackwell Global Archaeologies
Series. He is presently undertaking a field project in Scotland investigating the relationship between prehistoric rock art, memory and
landscape.
[email: amj@soton.ac.uk]

02 Jones 2005 Lives in Fragments Personhood &amp; European Neolithic

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

02 Jones 2005 Lives in Fragments Personhood &amp; European Neolithic

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

02 053367 (to_d)

Journal of Social Archaeology

Copyright 2005 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

PERSONHOOD AND THE EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC

ANTHROPOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND PERSONHOOD

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

creation and maintenance of social and ethical relations. It is precisely these

PERSONHOOD, PRACTICE AND MATERIAL CULTURE

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

prior gendered performances and reiterate their social significance (Joyce,

DYNAMIC NOMINALISM: THE PERSON IN HISTORICAL

THE PROBLEM OF THE EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

southern Scandinavia and the western Mediterranean where elements of

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

In tandem with the accumulation and fragmentation of human bodies,

Figure 1 Comparison of house forms and settlement in the North and

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

of rectangular structures with substantial stone-built foundations eventually

Figure 2 Groundplan of a typical Linearbandkeramik longhouse (Elsloo 32,

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

Figure 3 Linear pottery settlements on the Aldenhoven Plateau, Germany.

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

Figure 4 Groundplan of a typical chambered tomb (Pipton, Wales; after

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

longmound. In some cases as in Brittany, France and Alentejo, Portugal

Figure 5 The re-use of menhirs in the passage grave of Le Petit Mont,

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

enchained social relations. The bones of the dead, and fragments of

PERSONHOOD IN THE EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

CONCLUSION LIVES IN FRAGMENTS?

between people and people and their environment. It is by analysing

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

Chapman, J. (1997) The Origins of Tells in Eastern Hungary, in P. Topping (ed.)

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

Joyce, R. (1998) Performing the Body in Prehispanic Central America, RES:

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

Thomas, J. (1993a) Discourse, Totalization and the Neolithic, in C. Tilley (ed.)

Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2)

ANDY JONES is a Lecturer in the Department of Archaeology,

Anda mungkin juga menyukai

02 Jones 2005 Lives in Fragments Personhood & European Neolithic

02 Jones 2005 Lives in Fragments Personhood & European Neolithic