2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0390.2012.00513.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Introduction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Later subdivisions partitioned the Early NBA into six periods. However, this system has been argued to be difficult to practice (Hornstrup et al 2012;Zimmermann 1988), and hence this paper adopts the original division based on Montelius (1885). Only two of these defined periods consider the tutuli object group: NBA II, where Montelius (1885) place type A, C and D, and NBA III, where he placed type E. However, the reality is seldom clear-cut and hence overlaps are expected.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Later subdivisions partitioned the Early NBA into six periods. However, this system has been argued to be difficult to practice (Hornstrup et al 2012;Zimmermann 1988), and hence this paper adopts the original division based on Montelius (1885). Only two of these defined periods consider the tutuli object group: NBA II, where Montelius (1885) place type A, C and D, and NBA III, where he placed type E. However, the reality is seldom clear-cut and hence overlaps are expected.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the lasting impact of Montelius (1885) on the periodisation of the Bronze Age (Bergerbrant 2007;Gräslund 1987;Hornstrup et al 2012;Kneisel 2013;Kristiansen 2013;Vandkilde 1996;Vandkilde et al 1996), the framework's temporal scope, and the explicit focus on tutuli, this classificatory system is perhaps the best starting point, and most applicable method, for analysing the shape of larger tutulus datasets over multiple regions and periods. While so, the classificatory success is unknown; and it is unknown how idealised shapes account for the nature of variation as witnessed in the archaeological record.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the placement in an urn, this type of cremated burial has a greater similarity to Late Nordic Bronze Age funerary practices than to other contemporary funerary arrangements. Another cremation grave from the same mound at Egshvile (chronologically speaking dated from an only slightly later part of the Early Nordic Bronze Age) also contained a cremation which seems to be that of a female (Egshvile THY 2554, Urn N5) according to the associated grave goods [42]. A radiocarbon date puts this individual very near to the subadults from Urn N6 (AAR 8827, 3049 +/-27 BP at 1-sigma confidence level [42]).…”
Section: Early Nordic Bronze Age Datamentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Another cremation grave from the same mound at Egshvile (chronologically speaking dated from an only slightly later part of the Early Nordic Bronze Age) also contained a cremation which seems to be that of a female (Egshvile THY 2554, Urn N5) according to the associated grave goods [42]. A radiocarbon date puts this individual very near to the subadults from Urn N6 (AAR 8827, 3049 +/-27 BP at 1-sigma confidence level [42]). Unfortunately, no material suitable for Sr analysis was available from Egshvile Urn N5.…”
Section: Early Nordic Bronze Age Datamentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Older dates than Per. IV are also available for awls (see Hornstrup et al 2012), but were not used for this graph. wire-like, bent-forward handle (TYP XIIB, XIA).…”
Section: J Kneiselmentioning
confidence: 99%