Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T03:59:07.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Come and Give my Child Wit’. Animal Remains, Artefacts, and Humans in Mesolithic and Neolithic Hunter-gatherer Graves of Northern Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2023

MAJA PASARIĆ
MAJA PASARIĆ*
Affiliation:
Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Šubićeva 42, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. Email: maja@ief.hr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unmodified and modified animal remains and animal representations significantly contribute to the content of Mesolithic and, in some cases, Early Neolithic hunter-gatherer burial assemblages in Northern Europe. Though these finds have received noteworthy attention, predominant archaeological narratives focus on their economic, aesthetic, or symbolic values in relation to humans. This contribution explores ways of looking at these assemblages beyond seeing them primarily as signifiers of human identities and human symbolic and/or economic choices. Drawing on insights from Russian ethnographic literature about near-recent East Siberian hunting and gathering communities, this paper explores paths for understanding unmodified and modified animal remains and animal representations from Mesolithic and Neolithic hunter-gatherer graves as animate objects and investigates ways of recognising their personhood. The paper outlines what could be considered as the material consequences of communicative actions and performative acts in relation to artefacts and animal remains that might have been perceived as having the qualities of a person, such as their placement and arrangement within the burial and treatment prior to deposition.

Résumé

RÉSUMÉ

‘Venez donner une âme/ un esprit à mon enfant’. Restes d’origine humaine et animale, et objets provenant de tombes de chasseurs-cueilleurs au Mésolithique et Néolithique en Europe du nord, de Maja Pasarić

Les restes d’animaux modifiés ou non modifiés et les représentations d’animaux contribuent de manière significative au contenu des assemblages funéraires de chasseurs-cueilleurs du Mésolithique et, dans certains cas, du début du Néolithique en Europe du Nord. Bien que ces découvertes aient reçu une forte attention, les récits archéologiques prédominants se concentrent sur leurs valeurs économiques, esthétiques ou symboliques relatives aux humains. Cette contribution explore les manières de regarder ces assemblages et les considère au-delà de leur signification relative à une identité humaine ou un choix symbolique et/ou économique humain. S’appuyant sur des informations relativement récentes tirées de la littérature ethnographique russe sur les communautés de chasseurs-cueilleurs de Sibérie orientale, cet article explore les voies permettant de comprendre les restes d’animaux non modifiés et modifiés et les représentations d’animaux dans les tombes de chasseurs-cueilleurs du Mésolithique et du Néolithique en tant qu’objets animés et étudie les moyens de reconnaître leur identité individuelle. L’article décrit ce qui pourrait être considéré comme les conséquences matérielles d’actions communicatives et d’actes performatifs en relation avec des artefacts et des restes d’animaux qui auraient pu être perçus comme ayant les qualités d’une personne, tels que leur placement et leur disposition dans la sépulture et leur traitement avant la déposition.

Zussamenfassung

ZUSSAMENFASSUNG

‘Komm und gib meinem Kind Verstand‘. Tierische Überreste, Artefakte und Menschen in mesolithischen und neolithischen Gräbern von Jäger-Sammlerinnen in Nordeuropa, von Maja Pasarić

Unbearbeitete und bearbeitete Tierreste und Tierdarstellungen sind wesentlicher Bestandteil mesolithischer und, in einigen Fällen, frühneolithischer Jäger- und Sammlergräber in Nordeuropa. Zwar wurde diesen Funden große Aufmerksamkeit zuteil, doch konzentrieren sich die vorherrschenden archäologischen Narrative auf ihren wirtschaftlichen, ästhetischen oder symbolischen Wert in Bezug auf den Menschen. Dieser Beitrag untersucht Möglichkeiten, diese Funde nicht nur als Sichtbarmachung menschlicher Identitäten und Zeichen symbolischer und/oder wirtschaftlicher Entscheidungen zu betrachten. Auf der Grundlage von Erkenntnissen aus der russischen ethnographischen Literatur über ostsibirische Jäger- und Sammlergemeinschaften der jüngeren Vergangenheit werden Wege aufgezeigt, wie unbearbeitete und bearbeitete Überreste und Darstellungen von Tieren aus mesolithischen und neolithischen Jäger- und Sammlergräbern als belebte Objekte verstanden werden können, und es wird untersucht, wie ihre Persönlichkeit erfasst werden kann. Der Beitrag umreißt das, was wir als die materiellen Folgen kommunikativer Handlungen und performativer Akte in Bezug auf Artefakte und tierische Überreste, die möglicherweise als Objekte mit den Eigenschaften einer Person wahrgenommen wurden, verstehen können, wie z.B. ihre Platzierung und Anordnung innerhalb des Grabes und den Umgang mit ihnen vor der Deponierung.

Resumen

RESUMEN

“Ven y dale sentido a mi hijo”. Restos animales, artefactuales y humanos en las tumbas de cazadores recolectores mesolíticos y neolíticos del norte de Europa, por Maja Pasarić

Los restos animales modificados y sin modificar y las representaciones animales contribuyen significativamente al contenido de los conjuntos funerarios mesolíticos y, en algunos casos, del Neolítico inicial en el norte de Europa. A pesar de que estos elementos han recibido considerable atención, las narrativas arqueológicas se centran predominantemente en su valor económico, estético o simbólico en relación con los humanos. Esta contribución explora las distintas posibilidades de explorar conjuntos más allá de considerarlos principalmente como significantes de identidades humanas y elecciones simbólicas y/o económicas. Basándonos en los conocimientos de la literatura etnográfica rusa de las comunidades de cazadores-recolectores en el Este de Siberia, este artículo explora los distintos caminos para la comprensión de los restos animales modificados y sin modificar que se documentan en las tumbas de cazadores-recolectores desde el Mesolítico al Neolítico como objetos animados e investiga las distintas formas de reconocer su personalidad. Este artículo señala lo que podría ser considerado como consecuencias materiales de las acciones comunicativas y actos transformadores en relación con los artefactos y los restos animales que podrían estar siendo percibidos como cualidades de una persona, como puede ser su localización y disposición dentro de las tumbas y el tratamiento previo a su depósito.

Keywords

MesolithicNeolithicEast Siberian ethnographyhunter-gatherersanimal remainsanimal artefactsanimal representationsnon-human personhoodagencycommunicative acts
Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 89 , December 2023 , pp. 207 - 224
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Prehistoric Society

Access options

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

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, D. 2017. Humans and animals in northern Regions. Annual Review of Anthropology 46, 133–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, M., Karsten, P., Knarrström, B. & Svensson, M. 2004. Stone Age Scania: significant places dug and read by contract archaeology. Malmo: National Heritage Board Google Scholar
Argent, G. 2016. Killing (constructed) horses – interspecies elders, empathy and emotion, and the Pazyryk horse sacrifices. In Broderick, L.G. (ed.), People with Animals: perspectives and studies in ethnozooarchaeology, 19–32. Oxford: Oxbow Books CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avrorin, V.A. & Koz’minskiy, I.I. 1949. Predstavleniya orochey o vselennoj, o pereselenii dush i puteshestviah shamanov izobrazhennye na ‘karte’. Sbornik Muzeya antropologii i etnografii 11, 323–34Google Scholar
Boyd, B. 2017. Archaeology and human-animal relations: thinking through anthropocentrism. Annual Review of Anthropology 46, 299–316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereznitskii, S.V., Gaer, E.A., Karabanova, S.F., Kile, N.B., Kocheshkov, V.V., Podmaskin, Prokopenko, V.I., Sem, YU. A., Sem, T.A., Starcev, A.F., Turajev, V.A., Fetisova, L.E., Fadeeva, E.V. & Shanshina, E.V. 2003. Istoriya i kul’tura Nanaitsev: istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki. St Petersburg: Nauka Google Scholar
Brinch Petersen, E. 1979. Kvindernes smykker. Søllerødbogen 1979, 39–56Google Scholar
Brinch Petersen, E., Jønsson, J.H., Jeul, C. & Kjær, A.. 2015. Diversity of Mesolithic Vedbæk. Copenhagen: Acta Archaeologica 86(1)/Acta Archaeologica Supplementa XVI/Centre of World Archaeology Publication 12Google Scholar
Brück, J. 2001. Monuments, power and personhood in the British Neolithic. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7, 649–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burenhult, G. (ed.). 1999. Arkeologi i Norden 1. Stockholm: Natur och kulturGoogle Scholar
Conneller, C. 2004. Becoming deer. Corporal transformations at Star Carr. Archaeological Dialogues 11, 37–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conneller, C. 2011. An Archaeology of Materials: substantial transformations in early prehistoric Europe. Abingdon: Routledge Google Scholar
Descola, P. 2013. Beyond Nature and Culture. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, G., Lõugas, L. & Zagorska, I. 2003. Stone Age hunter-fisher-gatherers at Zvejnieki, Northern Latvia: radiocarbon, stable isotope and archaeozoological data. Before Farming 1, 1–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahlander, F. 2003. The Materiality of Serial Practice: a microarchaeology of burial. Gothenburg: Gotarc Series B23Google Scholar
Fausto, C. 2007. Feasting on people: eating animals and humans in Amazonia. Current Anthropology 48(2), 497–530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: an anthropological approach. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünberg, J.M. 2013. Animals in Mesolithic burials in Europe. Anthropozoologica 48(2), 231–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünberg, J.M. 2016. Mesolithic burials – rites, symbols and social organisation of early postglacial communities. In Grünberg et al. (eds) 2016b, 13–24Google Scholar
Grünberg, J.M., Graetsch, H.A., Heußner, K.-U. & Schneider, K. 2016a. Analyses of Mesolithic grave goods from upright seated individuals in Central Germany. In Grünberg et al. (eds) 2016b, 291–328Google Scholar
Grünberg, J.M., Gramsch, B., Larsson, L., Orschiedt, J. & Meller, H. (eds). 2016b. Mesolithic Burials – Rites, Symbols and Social Organisation of Early Postglacial Communities. Halle: Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 13(I)Google Scholar
Gurina, N. 1956. Oleneostrovskiy mogilnik. Moscow: Materialy i issledovaniya po arheologii SSSR 47Google Scholar
Hallowell, A.I. 1960. Ojibwa ontology, behavior, and the world view. In Diamond, S. (ed.), Culture in History: essays in honour of Paul Radin, 17–49. New York: Columbia University Press Google Scholar
Hasanova, M.M. 2007. Put dushi v ‘mir mertvih’ po predstavleniyam narodov Amura. Moscow: Mifologiya smerti. Struktura, funktsiya i semantika pogrebal’nogo obryada narodov Sibiri: etnograficheskie ocherki, 134–54Google Scholar
Hill, E. 2013. Archaeology and animal persons: toward a prehistory of human-animal relations. Environment and Society: advances in research 4, 117–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. 2000. A circumpolar night’s dream. In T. Ingold, The Perception of the Environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, 89–110. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Iršėnas, M. 2000. Elk figurines in the Stone Age art of the Baltic Area. Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 20, 93–105 Google Scholar
Iršėnas, M. 2006. Antropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines from the Zvejnieki burial ground in the context of the Baltic area. Statistical regularities or exceptional cases?’ In Larsson & Zagorska (eds) 2006, 301–8Google Scholar
Iršėnas, M. 2007. Stone Age figurines from Baltic region: toys or sacred objects. Acta Historiae atrium Balticae 2, 7–17 Google Scholar
Iršėnas, M. 2010. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic Stone Age art in Lithuania, and its archaeological cultural context. Archaeologia Baltica 13, 175–90Google Scholar
Ivanov, S.V. 1977. O detskih ‘amuletah’ Nanaitsev. Pamyatniki kul’tury narodov Sibiri i Severa (vtoraya polovina XIX – nachalo XX v.). Sbornik Muzeja antropologii i etnografii 33, 80–9Google Scholar
Ivashenko, L. YA., Kile, N.B. & Smolyak, A.F. 1994. Istorya i kul’tura Ul’cheii v XVII–XX vv: istoriko etnograficheskie ocherki. St Petersburg: Nauka Google Scholar
Janik, L. 2019. Why does difference matter? The creation of personhood and the categorisation of food among prehistoric fisher-gatherer-hunters of Northern Europe. In Cannon, A. (ed.), Structured World: the archaeology of hunter-gatherer thought and action, 128–40. London/New York: Routledge Google Scholar
Jankauskas, R. & Palubeckaitė, Ž. 2006. Paleopathological review of Zvejnieki sample. Analysis of cases and considerations about subsistence. In Larsson & Zagorska (eds) 2006, 149–63Google Scholar
Jordan, P. 2006. Analogy. In Conneller, C. & Warren, G. (eds), Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: new approaches, 83–100. Stroud: Tempus Google Scholar
Jordan, P. 2011. Landscape and culture in northern Eurasia: an introduction. In Jordan, P. (ed.), Landscape and Culture in Northern Eurasia, 17–45. Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press Google Scholar
Kannegaard Nielsen, E. & Brinch Petersen, E. 1993. Burials, people and dogs. In Hvass, S. & Storgaard, B. (eds), Digging into the Past: 25 years of archaeology in Denmark, 76–81. Aarhus: Aarhus University Google Scholar
Karsten, P. & Knarrström, B. 2003. The Tågerup excavations. Trelleborg: National Heritage Board.Google Scholar
Kriiska, A.L., Lõugas, L., Lõhmus, M., Mannermaa, K. & Johanson, K. 2007. New AMS dates from Estonian Stone Age burial sites. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 11(2), 83–121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambek, M. 2013. The value of (performative) acts. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3(2), 141–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, P.J. 2014. Hunter-gatherer-fishers, ethnoarcheology, and analogical reasoning. In Cummings, V., Jordan, P. & Zvelebil, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-gatherers, 104–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsson, L. 1989. Big dog and poor man: mortuary practices in Mesolithic societies in southern Sweden. In Larsson, T.B. & Lundmark, H. (eds), Approaches to Swedish Prehistory: a spectrum of problems and perspectives in contemporary research, 211–23. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, L. 1990. Dogs in fraction – symbols in action. In Vermeersch, P. & Van Peer, P. (eds), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe, 153–60. Leuven: Leuven University Press Google Scholar
Larsson, L. 2006. Tooth for a tooth for a grave. Tooth ornaments from the graves at the cemetery of Zvejnieki. In Larsson & Zagorska (eds) 2006, 253–87Google Scholar
Larsson, L. & Zagorska, I. (eds). 2006. Back to the Origin: new research in the Mesolithic–Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment, northern Latvia. Lund: Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8° 52Google Scholar
Losey, R.J., Bazaliiskii, V.I., Garvie-Lok, S., Germonpré, M., Leonard, J.A., Andrew, L.A., Katzenberg, M.A. & Sablin, M.V. 2011. Canids as persons: Early Neolithic dog and wolf burials, Cis-Baikal, Siberia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30(2), 174–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lõugas, L. 2006. Animals as subsistence and bones as raw material for settlers of Prehistoric Zvjeniki. In Larsson & Zagorska (eds) 2006, 75–89Google Scholar
Loze, I., 1993. The Early Neolithic in Latvia: the Narva Culture. Acta Archaeologica 63, 119–40Google Scholar
Luik, H. 2013. Seals, seal hunting and worked seal bones in Estonian coastal region in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. In Choyke, A. & O’Connor, S. (eds), From these Bare Bones: raw materials and the study of worked osseous objects, 73−87. Oxford: Oxbow Books CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macāne, A. 2021. Mesolithic companions. The significance of animal remains within Mesolithic burials in Zvjenieki and Skateholm. In Borić, D., Antonović, D. & Mihajlović, B. (eds), Foraging Assemblages, Vol. 2, 655–59. Belgrade/New York: Serbian Archaeological Society/The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America, Columbia University Google Scholar
Mannermaa, K. 2006. Bird remains in the human burials at Zvejnieki, Latvia. Introduction to bird finds and a proposal for interpretation. In Larsson & Zagorska (eds) 2006, 289–99Google Scholar
Mannermaa, K. 2008. Birds and burials at Ajvide (Gotland, Sweden) and Zvejnieki (Latvia) about 8000–3900 bp . Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27, 201–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannermaa, K. 2013. Powerful birds. The Eurasian jay (Garrulus glandarius) and the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) in hunter-gatherer burials at Zvejnieki, northern Latvia and Yuzhniy Oleniy Ostrov, northwestern Russia. Anthropozoologica 48(2), 189–205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannermaa, K. 2016. Good to eat and good to think? Evidence of the consumption of osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and white-tailed eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) in the Late Mesolithic at Yuzhniy Oleniy Ostrov, NW Russia. In Grünberg et al. (eds) 2016b, 781–92Google Scholar
Mannermaa, K., Rainio, R., Girya, Y.E. & Gerasimov, V.D. 2021. Let’s groove: attachment techniques of Eurasian elk (Alces alces) tooth pendants at the Late Mesolithic cemetery Yuzhniy Oleniy Ostrov (Lake Onega, Russia). Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 13(1), 2–22 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansrud, A. 2017. Untangling social, ritual and cosmological aspects of fishhook manufacture in the Middle Mesolithic coastal communities of NE Skagerrak. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 46(1), 31–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantere, V.N. & Kashina, E.A. 2020. Elk-head staffs in prehistoric north-eastern Europe and north-western Russia – signs of power and prestige? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 39(1), 2–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNiven, I.J. 2010. Navigating the human-animal divide: marine mammal hunters and rituals of sensory allurement. World Archaeology 42(2), 215–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. From the Standpoint of Social Behaviorist. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Oshibkina, V.S. 2016. Funeral rituals of the population of the Eastern Lake Onega region (based on materials from Popovo and Peschanitsa cemeteries). In Grünberg et al. (eds) 2016b, 793–808Google Scholar
Ots, M. 2010. Loomakujukesed Valma Keskneoliitilises kaksikmatuses. In Tamla, Ü. (ed.), Ilusad Asjad: tähelepanuväärseid leide Eesti arheoloogiakogudest, 11–22. Tallinn: Muinasaja teadus 21.Google Scholar
Overton, N.J. 2016. More than skin deep: reconsidering isolated remains of ‘fur-bearing species’ in the British and European Mesolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26(4), 561–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, N.J. & Hamilakis, Y. 2013. A manifesto for a social zooarchaeology: swans and other beings in the Mesolithic. Archaeological Dialogues 20(2), 111–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasarić, M. & Warren, G. 2019. Interactions of care and control: human–animal relationships in hunter-gatherer communities in near-contemporary Eastern Siberia and the Mesolithic of Northwest Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29(3), 465–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popova, T. 2001. New discoveries on the sculptures of Oleni Island. Folklore 18/19, 127–36. [https://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol18/oleni_is.pdf]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainio, R. & Tamboer, A. 2018. Animal teeth in a Late Mesolithic woman’s grave, reconstructed as a rattling ornament on a baby pouch. Exarc Journal 1. [https://exarc.net/issue-2018-1/at/animal-teeth-late-mesolithic-womans-grave-reconstructed-rattling-ornamentbaby-pouch]Google Scholar
Rainio, R., Gerasimov, V.D., Girya, Y.E. & Mannermaa, K. 2021. Prehistoric pendants as instigators of sound and body movements: a traceological case study from Northeast Europe, c. 8200 cal. bp. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31(4), 639–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rival, L. 2014. Animism and the meaning of life: reflections from Amazonia. In Brightman, M., Grotti, V.E. & Ulturgasheva, O. (eds), Animism in Rainforest and Tundra: personhood, animals, plants and things in contemporary Amazonia and Siberia, 69–81. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Google Scholar
Serjeantson, D. 2009. Birds. Cambridge: Cambridge Manuals in ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Sillar, B. 2009. The social agency of things? Animism and materiality in the Andes. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(3), 367–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Startsev, A.F. 2005. Kul’tura i byt Udegeitsev (vtoraya polovina XIX–XX v.). Vladivostok: Dal’nauka.Google Scholar
Taksami, C.M. 2007. Predstavleniya Nivhov o vselennoy i mire mertv’ih, Mifologiya smerti. Struktura, funktsiya i semantika pogrebal’nogo obryada narodov Sibiri: etnograficheskie ocherki, 154–81Google Scholar
Vang Petersen, P. 2016. Papooses in the Mesolithic? A reinterpretation of tooth and snail shell ornaments found in grave 8 at Bøgebakken and other Mesolithic burials. In Grünberg et al. (eds) 2016b, 109–24Google Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, E. 1998. Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4, 469–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, E. 2004. Exchanging perspectives: the transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian ontologies. Common Knowledge 10(3), 463–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, G. 2018. From moments to histories: a social archaeology of the Mesolithic? Journal of World Prehistory 31(3), 421–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, G. 2021. Is there such a thing as hunter-gatherer archaeology? Heritage 4, 794–810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widlok, T. 2020 Hunting and gathering. In Stein, F., Lazar, S., Candea, M., Diemberger, H., Robbins, J., Sanchez, A. & Stasch, R. (eds), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology, Cambridge: University of Cambridge. [https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/hunting-and-gathering]Google Scholar
Zagorska, I. 2000. The art from Zvejnieki burial ground, Latvia. In A. Butrimas (ed.), Prehistoric Art in the Baltic Region, 79–92. Vilnius: Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 20Google Scholar
Zagorska, I. 2006. Radiocarbon chronology of the Zvejnieki burials. In Larsson & Zagorska (eds) 2006, 91–113Google Scholar
Zagorska, I. & Lõugas, L. 2000. The tooth pendant head-dresses of Zvejnieki Cemetery. In Lang, V. & Kriiska, A. (eds), De temporibus antiquissimis ad honorem Lembit Jaanits, 223–44. Tallin: Muinasaja Teadus 8Google Scholar
Zagorskis, F. 2004. Zvejnieki (Northern Latvia). Stone Age Cemetery. Oxford; British Archaeological Report S1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhulnikov, A.M. & Kashina, E.A. 2010. ‘Staffs with elk heads’ in the culture of the ancient population of the eastern Urals, Northern and Eastern Europe. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38(2), 71–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zvelebil, M. 2008. Innovating hunter-gatherers: The Mesolithic in the Baltic. In Bailey, G. & Spikins, P. (eds), Mesolithic Europe, 18–59. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Zvelebil, M. & Jordan, P. 1999. Hunter fisher gatherer ritual landscapes – question of time, space and representation. In Goldhahn, J. (ed.), Rock Art as Social Representation, 101–26. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S794Google Scholar
Živaljević, I. 2015. Concepts of the body and personhood in the Mesolithic–Neolithic Danube Gorges: interpreting animal remains from human burials. Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology 10(3), 675–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar