Talk:Scandinavian prehistory

message: This stuff about flint economy, which was edited out with the new (and no doubt better and more detailed) account of the Stone Age needs to be fitted in again somewhere:
:During the Stone Age, Sweden was very sparsely inhabited by hunter-gatherers except for the southernmost parts, where a large population was established, probably much due to the abundance of flint stone. Öresund, Great Belt, Little Belt and Kattegatt are the only places in the nordic countries with large amounts of flint suited for tools and weapons. For this reason that region is believed to have been the economic and political center of the first Stone Age cultures in Sweden and Denmark: good finds of flint embedded in limestone was mined in rectangular shafts of 1/2 - 3 meters depth (which have been found for example east of Malmö), processed into tools and weapons, and exported.
:The dominance of this flint-based culture does not end until large amounts of metal is imported, and stone tools are used even during the Nordic Bronze Age, the use of flint as a raw material does not end until locally mined iron can be used with the advent of the Pre-Roman Iron Age.
This part is older (not written by me) but should be incorporated into some Stone Age religion section, possibly at the main article on the Nordic Stone Age rather than here:
:Sweden, as well as the adjacent country Norway, has a high concentration of petroglyphs (ristningar or hällristningar in Swedish) throughout the country, with the highest concentration in the province of Bohuslän. The earliest images can however be found in the northern province of Jämtland, dated from 9000 BC they depict wild animals such as moose, reindeer, bears and seals. The most common interpretation is that these early petroglyphs depict religious elements of a hunter-gatherer culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixdorf (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stone Age stuff

message: Is calling the Battle Axe "macho" really good writing... is it not more of a status symbol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixdorf (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle Axe a macho symbol?

message: That´s silly - it just about legendary figures of the Old Norse literature and nothing about archaeology.--84.251.16.234 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iron Age stuff

message: I came here wondering how the Sami people play into all this, but don't see a single explicit mention of the people in this article, although they are cursorily mentioned in a section of Sweden that links to this with Template:main.  Would someone in the know please introduce mention of the Sami here? MrZaiustalk 23:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the articles completely ignore Sami, although Sweden has offically recognised them as indigenious peoples per UN recommendation. --Pudeo⺮ 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sami - Requested info

message: This comment was moved from the above archived discussion. Labongo (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *As a non-expert reader it would be nice to have regional articles that summarize the prehistory of for example Scandinavia. It seems to me, still not an expert, that using country borders to organize these early cultures is not the best way to do it. Were there not many cultures that were distributed among for example Norway and Sweden? However, it would be nice to have an expert improving this article, and I don't think anyone can oppose if you want to create a detailed article about Sweden. But I hope you can also write a few words about the pre-history of the other Scandinavian countries. Labongo (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am also unsure, as Labongo. What fror example about Skåne, Halland and Blekinge? It was in those days more naturally linked to Denmark than to Sweden. Should it be described in an article about early Swedish history or in an article about Danish history? And the same issue probably arrises for Norrland, Gotland and Jämtland. / Fred-J 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current borders of the Scandy countries are not expected to change anytime soon, and when discussing the Neolithic, neither today's borders nor the Medieval ones are particularly relevant. Anyway, I could do Sweden and Denmark to a decent standard, but not Norway or Finland. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Nordic Prehistory - part 2

message: I hope more information on the whole of Scandinavia will be put up in the future. as it is now there is only information about Sweden. I can see that there has been a solid discussion about a potential merging above, but however this turns out, we need info covering the areas of Denmark and Norway as well. And remember: the nations of Denmark, Sweden and Norway first came into existence at the end of the Viking Age, much later than pre-history. When these names are used, it is only to describe geographical locations.
RhinoMind (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A skewed picture