Counterpoint:
Essays in Archaeology and
Heritage Studies in Honour of
Professor Kristian Kristiansen
Edited by
Sophie Bergerbrant
Serena Sabatini
BAR International Series 2508
2013
Published by
Archaeopress
Publishers of Briish Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com
BAR S2508
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Krisian Krisiansen
©
Archaeopress and the individual authors 2013
ISBN 978 1 4073 1126 5
Cover illustraion: Gilded hilt of sword from Hallegård, Bornholm, Denmark. Published with kind permission
from the Naional Museum of Denmark
Printed in England by Informaion Press, Oxford
All BAR itles are available from:
Hadrian Books Ltd
122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk
The current BAR catalogue with details of all itles in print, prices and means of payment is available free
from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
193
a
n
a
rChaeoloGiCal
o
uTline
of
r
iTual
d
ynamiCs
and
s
oCial
s
PaCe
Alexander Gramsch and Thomas Meier
Abstract: This paper outlines an archaeological approach to rituals that separates ritual (praxis) from religion or belief (doxa).
Rather than trying to elucidate what people may have thought, we suggest focusing on ritual as action; these actions have a huge
communicative and transformative potential and thus it is their effect on society that interests us here. This social eficacy can be
scrutinized archaeologically in the longue durée. We apply this understanding to a new approach to the study of hoards and deposits.
These, too, are understood as the results of ritual action, i.e. sequenced and communicative practice that involves handling and
manipulating cultural knowledge, reproducing and maybe altering it, thus affecting social identities and relations. We therefore
suggest focusing on the depositional practice rather than the motivations behind deposition. Moreover we suggest proceeding from the
understanding of depositions as ritual actions to analysing what effect they had on space and how they simultaneously were directed
by culturally perceived spatial structures.
Keywords: Ritual dynamics, landscape, deposition, communication, social eficacy, spatial structure
Introduction
Doing the archaeology of ritual may seem impossible for
prehistoric periods. Images and igurines are rare, and written
sources nonexistent. How are we supposed to assess what a
prehistoric ritual meant – or whether or not the traces we observe
indeed result from a ritual? Isn’t prehistoric archaeology at a
disadvantage compared to the anthropology of ritual? Moreover,
if we want to apply ritual theory to the investigation of hoards or
depositions we are facing a traditional dichotomy that classiies
hoards either as being religiously motivated or driven by economic
interests. This view was challenged by Kristian Kristiansen early
on, emphasizing that the deposition of goods may have been
directed towards supernatural powers while at the same time
affecting ‘political alliances’ (Kristiansen 1976, 1996: 262). As
we will discuss below, analysing depositions as rituals does not
imply limiting them to the religious sphere.
In fact, archaeology is in a position that offers new perspectives
and new approaches to the study of ritual. However, to utilize
these perspectives and approaches fully requires a revision of
some of our assumptions. On the one hand the sources we have
for studying ritual demand us to outline a clear-cut relationship
between material culture and ritual action. On the other hand,
archaeology can contribute to the study of ritual by approaching
ritual through action and body rather than language and mind.
This allows a better understanding for the dynamics of ritual, and
it enables us to assess the long-term effects of rituals on society.
Ritual as action
Traditional archaeology explicitly or implicitly agreed with
Hawkes’ ‘ladder of inference’ that placed religion on the
highest and least accessible ‘rung’ (Hawkes 1954:161f.).
Ritual was understood as the visible expression of religion,
therefore approaches to ritual aimed at unveiling the religious
sphere – the ‘myth behind the rite’ (e.g. Spiro 1973:97; Renfrew
1985). This attitude was not only in line with the dominating
phenomenological paradigm within cultural anthropology (e.g.
Frazer 1890; Otto 1917; Eliade 1959), it was also supposed to
pave the way to ‘prehistoric thought’. Following Durkheim‘s
(1912) deinition a sharp distinction was made between mundane
and religious thought, with ritual being the prime way to express
the latter (Radcliffe-Brown 1952:143; Insoll 2004: ch. 2 on the
history of research).
Moreover, many archaeological approaches to ritual
paradigmatically focused on its supposed conservatism evident
both in its invariable articulation of religion and tradition and in
its sturdiness, its form remaining static.
Meanwhile, not only has Hawkes’ ladder been challenged
(e.g. Bertemes & Biehl 2001), but a shift can also be observed
concerning the understanding of ritual as static on the one
hand and its anchoring in the religious sphere on the other
hand. For example, Sally Moore and Barbara Myerhoff (1977)
detached ritual from the religious context, employing it also for
non-religious processes. Clifford Geertz (1973) focused on the
signiicance of ritual action for the cultural web of meanings and
for social communication. Attention inally turned to the actions
themselves and how they help social groups to generate and re-
generate and to present and negotiate differences (e.g. Schechner
1977; Tambiah 1979; Bell 1997).
These concepts were also applied to archaeology, turning to the
actual ritual practices (e.g. Meier 2002; Gramsch 2007; Kyriakidis
2007; Marcus 2007; Renfrew 2007). However, these approaches
still often focus on the motives behind the actions rather than on
their social effects. Those who are interested in religion, rather
than in practise and its effects, emphasize that ritual usually forms
an element of religion (Insoll 2004:77). However, the religious or
ideological sphere can also always be understood as part of the
social; Kristiansen, for example, proposes that rituals that were
introduced in Scandinavia by the beginning of the Late Bronze
Age were part of a social and economic consolidation, economy
and ideology thus being uniied in the reproduction of society
(Kristiansen 2010:176, 185).
We want to argue for an approach that centres on the effects
rituals have had rather than on what prehistoric groups may
have thought or how they may have motivated the ritual actions
emically. Not only do explicit motivations – deriving from the
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies
194
religious sphere or not – and actual effects of rituals diverge, we
moreover cannot assume that all actors would follow the same
(religious) explanation for what they are doing and why. Thus, we
separate cult (praxis) from belief (doxa), focusing on the former
(cf. Durkheim 1912:36f.; Rappaport 1999; Bertemes & Biehl
2001:16).
Ritual action as communication
We therefore argue for an archaeology of ritual that is concerned
with the social effects of ritual and the material expressions of
both rather than with prehistoric religion. Rituals act upon social
actors because they are public and highly visible, repetitive and
nevertheless open to individual adoption, because they involve
a number of different social actors and have the potential to
transform social reality (Michaels 2003; Köpping et al. 2006).
Following Geertz we can say that rituals not only are ‘models of’
social identities and social relations, but also ‘models for’ these
(Geertz 1966, 1987:52): they help in creating, negotiating and
maintaining social identities and social relations.
This transformative power derives from the dialectics of ritual
practice. As public and repetitive actions rituals are governed by
existing structures and at the same time they create and change
these structures (Bell 1997:88ff. and passim; cf. Bourdieu 1972;
Giddens 1984). Rituals are part of the cultural web of meanings
– i.e. the historically derived complex of ideas, references,
meanings, practices etc. – not only because they may be able to
express these ideas etc. in a symbolic form, but because the ritual
actions themselves generate culture. Social actors communicate
through, for example, the treatment of the human body (Gramsch
2007, in print; s.a. Kus 1992; Hamilakis, Pluciennik & Tarlow
2002; Nilsson Stutz 2003, 2008; Van Wolputte 2004; Joyce
2005), and they communicate less about their religious beliefs,
but about notions of identity and body, about historical knowledge
and how this may be transformed, about their attitudes towards
their Lebenswelt
, about their social relations. The action itself is
communicative, and this communication enables them to adjust
their knowledge and social structure and thus to maintain both.
Ritual is therefore much more than a mere relection of religious
thought; it is part of the cultural sphere, which is not one ield
among others – economy, social structure etc. – but cross-cuts
all parts of a society and allows communication and agreement
about values, models and aims. The meaning of ritual therefore
does not rest in an (imagined) doxa, but the concrete performance
in a particular context itself creates meaning.
Criteria for ritual action (religious or not)
We have already mentioned a number of criteria that help to deine
actions as rituals. Summarizing and elaborating these criteria –
following Michaels (2003:4f.) – demonstrates that ‘ritual’ in fact
is not necessarily linked to ‘religion’:
Sequenced performance
Rituals are a sequence of intentional actions, requiring actors and
spectators. They thus are performative actions embodied in space
and time. Often the actors (and bodies) involved are modiied,
both to frame the space and time of the ritual (see ‘Framing’) and
to communicate social transformation (see ‘Eficacy’).
Formalization
Ritual actions are usually repetitive and, due to their public
character, imitable. Mimesis, i.e. their ability to be imitated, is an
important characteristic. Still, precisely because they have a certain
accepted and reproducible form, this form can be challenged and
changed. Not only the change, but also the maintenance of form,
requires the agent’s constant input.
Framing
Using certain objects and/or spaces and/or bodily markers, the
agents frame the ritual. They thus demarcate both beginning and
end as well as ritual and non-ritual action and space, for example
changing clothes, ringing a bell etc. The agents thus stipulate that
this is a ritual.
Eficacy
Rituals are effective because they effect the transformation of
e.g. social identity: from child to grown-up, from student to
academic, from worker to football fan etc. They may also effect
the transformation of space into a place (see below). These effects
may be non-permanent or require recurring renewal.
Web of meaning
Rituals involve cultural markers – objects, gestures, places,
words etc. – that refer to existing and generally accepted cultural
knowledge – values, ideas, norms. These markers sublimate the
actions, frame them and enable the communication through and
about them. They enable rituals to be both models of and models
for social relations and social identities, giving the actions the
potential to be socially committing.
This is in line with Turner’s deinition of ritual as ‘prescribed
formal behaviour for occasions not given over to technological
routine’, without necessarily following his addition: ‘having
references to beliefs in mystical beings or powers’ (Turner
1967:19).
The dynamics of ritual
Rituals, as has been said above, are repetitive public actions.
As such they not only reproduce practice and structure, their
actual performance through social actors eventually leads
to structural changes. Ritual itself is not conservative, it is
constantly reinterpreted, renegotiated and transformed (Rappaport
1999). Again, it is usually neither feasible nor is it necessary to
reconstruct what the actors thought about why they may have
changed a ritual or not. What matters is the eficacy: if these
changes came into effect and were accepted socially, we have
to ask why they were successful and what they resulted in. The
social agents always have to decide – and sometimes they do so
implicitly – whether or not they want to maintain the form or
reform it, adapt it to a changing social structure or to external
inluences, or to give it up altogether.
Prehistoric archaeology has the potential not only to grasp the
performative character of ritual practice, but also its dynamics
and its long-term eficacy. For example, repetitive actions such as
depositions may result in turning space into place (cf. Gramsch
1996) by giving it cultural meaning; the actors themselves may
be unaware of this ‘depth effect’ (Wulf 2005) of ritual action, but
its eficacy and dynamics are perceivable by archaeology. This
approach to ritual actions enables archaeology to tackle questions
concerning the role of objects, bodies, but also spaces in cultural
Alexander Gramsch and Thomas Meier: An Archaeological Outline of Ritual Dynamics
195
and social change without being bonded in a hopeless quest for
(imagined) belief.
Depositions as ritual actions
Recent years witnessed a renaissance in the concern with rituals
in prehistory and history. Archaeology usually focuses on burials
and sanctuaries, and has begun to shift its attention from a formal
analysis of objects to a contextual analysis of actions (e.g. Andrén
2002; Gramsch 1995, 2007; Kyriakidis 2005; Meier 2002).
Following a ‘performative turn’, architecture and grave goods
now are understood as remnants of performative actions that
have the potential to present and maintain or change both social
relations and social identities. A neglected archaeological category
in this respect is deposits (but see Hansen in this volume, and
Kristiansen 2007, 2010 for a social and economic interpretation
of depositional practices as conspicuous consumption).
Unlike burials and buildings, deposits irst and foremost are
deined negatively: they are neither the relics of graves nor of
settlements (cf. von Brunn 1968; Hansen in this volume with
further references). They are the result of acts that we summarize
as depositions, but which may be very dissimilarly motivated.
Nevertheless, deposits are usually interpreted either religiously
– as gift to the gods (Hänsel 1997) – or economically – as hidden
treasures (Künzl 1993 and Fischer 1999 for the Roman period;
critically: Rieckhoff 1998 and Hobbs 2006). Sacral reasons for
depositing goods are sought for where we are observing a high
number of depositional acts without detecting evidence for crises
or riots. Since profane motivations thus seemingly have to be ruled
out, the deposition of ‘riches’ must follow irrational and, therefore,
religious thought.
1
Kristian Kristiansen, on the other hand,
considers the deposition of metal in Late Bronze Age Scandinavia
as ritualized because it can be understood as structured action,
corresponding to the settlement structure (Kristiansen 2010:185f.).
Moreover, where the goods were deposited in a manner that
looks irretrievable to us (but see Geißlinger 2004; Becker 2008)
– in bogs, rivers, lakes etc. – again the actions were perceived
as religiously motivated, as sacriice to numinous powers (e.g.
Bradley 1998). Hansen (in this volume) criticizes that this view
does not encompass the various social dimensions of the practice
itself.
In contrast to this attitude, hoards deposited in warlike periods are
constantly interpreted as the results of safekeeping, even where
the character of the deposit matches that of ‘sacred offerings’ in
wet environments (cf. Hobbs 2006). Finally, certain characteristics
of the material of the deposited objects, such as the sources of
the metals, the kinds of alloys, the types of objects, and the
character of the assemblage, are understood as demonstrating the
depositions of craftsmen or merchants who temporarily buried
their goods without being able to retrieve them (cf. Huth 2008).
All these interpretations have in common that they try to
explain the thinking of the actors rather than their actions and
the subsequent effects. They all follow our own logic, based on
the economically-driven functionality of Western thought (Brück
1999), rather than asking for the historical contingency of the
actions and their outcome.
We suggest understanding depositions as ritual actions: they, too,
are repetitive, following a certain sequence or form (cf. Marcus
2007:45f.). They are mimetic, handling and manipulating a
1
For a critique of the underlying premises see Brück (1999).
certain cultural knowledge, reproducing and maybe altering it.
Analysing the characteristics of hoards or deposits of a particular
period allows inferring the rules that structured the depositing
actions. Criteria that signal the ritual character of deposits can be
the milieu in which objects were deposited, the previous treatment
of the objects (e.g. burnt, bent, broken or undamaged), their
provenance, or the composition of assemblages, i.e. which objects
were selected or excluded. The recurring form of these ritual
actions as well as their alterations can be interpreted concerning
their eficacy, without attempting to reconstruct the thinking of the
actors, be it primarily religious or economic or other.
2
The spatial eficacy and framing of ritual action
Space and landscape are more than the physical background for
human action, they are socially and culturally constructed and
act back into society and culture (Gramsch 1996). Depositions
as ritual actions had an effect on space and simultaneously were
directed by culturally perceived spatial structures (Fontijn 2002;
Ballmer 2010). Depositing single or groups of objects turned
space into place, giving it a certain meaning, a sense of place. The
deposition thus was a transformative act with spatial eficacy. The
deposits acted as markers for the social actor(s) that created them.
Unlike monuments that may have been reused and reinterpreted
by later groups (Bradley 2002; Tore Artelius, this volume), we
may assume that deposits were a part of the cultural knowledge
only of their contemporary society. Thus they potentially mirror
how space and place and spatial structure were understood, (re)
created and changed. However, it is not only the actions resulting
in deposits, but also the landscape features where these actions
were performed that have to be considered. The transformative
acts may have been linked to distinguished natural or previously
culturally deined places such as a pass or a passage, and also
to sites, which are totally meaningless or unspectacular to our
(romanticized) perception of the landscape.
Such an analysis of deposits as ritual actions that are re-structuring
culturalized space asks about the temporal and spatial contexts
in which we can detect manipulations and transformations of
the form of the ritual and their relation to topographical features
(Ballmer 2010:124). Can we reconstruct some sort of ideal form,
i.e. is there an ideal ‘script’? Can we observe a divergence between
that ‘script’ and the actual performance, in accordance with certain
social-spatial or topographical features? To answer these questions
analysis would require a comparison of stringency or tolerance or
deviance of these spatially-framed rituals in particular regions over
a longer period, investigating the conditions in which strictness or
deviancy were possible. Analysis would require scrutinizing these
factors in relation to topographical features to be able to infer how
spatial structures may have been reinterpreted over time. Can we
observe particular places that had to be marked through ritual
action to allow a society to constitute or transform space? Do
some places permit more strictness or more deviancy over others?
Depositions as ‘script’ and
praxis
We advocate an approach to the analysis of deposits that focuses
less on the result – the deposit or hoard – and rather on the
act – the deposition. Depositions can be understood as ritual
actions – repetitive, formalized, following a ‘script’, perhaps
public, involving bodies and objects, framing time and space,
transformative and transformable, and thus socially, but also
2
Not only is economic functionality a characteristic of Western thought, but the
dichotomy between religious and mundane thinking or action also cannot be assumed
for all societies in all periods.
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies
196
spatially effective. Such an approach scrutinizes the relationship
between ‘script’, praxis, objects and landscape. Comparing
a large number of depositions can enable us to reconstruct the
‘script’. The depositions that are compared must be temporally and
spatially connected and part of the same cultural web of meanings.
The ‘script’ may be reconstructed analysing components such
as milieu (wet, dry), treatment and position of objects, their
previous life histories, their provenances and the composition
of the assemblage. This should enable us to develop criteria for
recognizing the ‘script’ and its modiications, its dynamics. Where
no ‘script’ is discernible, we may assume that the deposit is not
the result of a ritualized deposition.
A next step should relate the depositional praxis to topography (cf.
Ballmer 2010:125f.). This not only includes physical landscape
features, but also their relation to each other and to the wider
landscape. How are deposits dispersed in the landscape? Is space
unfurled to different degrees through these depositions? Can
we connect the dynamics, i.e. the modiications of the ‘script’
with certain landscape features, either topographical or related
to the existing cultural landscape? For example, we may detect
a rather ‘orthodox’ core area and an increase in the dynamics
when moving to the periphery, or ‘unorthodox’ depositions may be
correlated to certain topographical features possibly interpreted as
liminal. Boundaries in space may be special foci for negotiations
over ‘scripts’ or other parts of the web of meaning. Social
communities constitute themselves in particular at boundaries,
where they have to establish the border between self and other
through performative action; thus boundaries directly contribute
to the constitution of collective identities (cf. Donnan & Wilson
1994). Performative actions at boundaries not only present and
transform knowledge about identities, they may also be related
to the crossing of boundaries. Crossing boundaries challenges
one’s self-perception and self-assuredness and may require that
the crossing is manipulated ritually in a rite of passage to counter
the liminality of both space and social actor; this may include
motives of inversion in the script of the ritual (cf. van Gennep
1909, ch. 2; Turner 1969).
In fact, depositions in various prehistoric settings were
performed at landscape components such as deeply cut valleys
or topographical features like rock faces. Bradley (1998:178ff.),
for example, demonstrates that social groups in the Iron Age in
Britain, which can be deined on the basis of the distribution
of coins, deposited goods in large numbers in wet milieux at
borders between two such groups. Fontijn (2002:271) notices that
depositions in Dutch regions were performed offside of intensely
used settlement and agriculture zones, i.e. in peripheries deined
through historically differing types of use. Ballmer (2010:126f.)
shows similar distributional patterns by transforming the
ethnographical example of the Khanty of western Siberia into a
hypothetical archaeological record.
A further step should relate the depositional praxis to time. In the
longue durée
we can try to detect how depositions were adapted
to changing social and cultural contexts and were enabling or
furthering these changes. These adaptions or modiications refer
to the components of the ritual practice speciied above, but also to
the degree of freedom for manipulating the ‘script’ or not: phases
with a strict obedience to the ‘script’ may give way to phases of
greater variation and vice versa.
However, we have to keep in mind that the spatial context also
contributes to the potential variation. Boundaries or passages
may require greater lexibility, core areas may be under stricter
surveillance. The liminality of the passage may have caused
greater dynamics and/or ritual inversion over time in the
depositional practice. An example is ‘foreign’ objects deposited
at topographical passages, such as bronze objects from various
regions and different periods deposited where the river Inn leaves
the Alps (e.g. Meier & Wild 2003). At Ría de Huelva a huge
number of ‘strange’ objects, deposited in a locally unusual (wet,
broken) manner are interpreted as an inverse pattern due to the
liminal position of the place between sea and land (Ruiz-Gálvez
Priego 1995).
In place of a conclusion
With this paper we are very happy to contribute to a collection
of articles honouring our highly esteemed colleague, Kristian
Kristiansen, and we hope that he enjoys our approach – despite the
fact that it may be contrary to some aspects of his own multifaceted
and comprehensive work. Kristian is always highly interested in
prehistoric religion and cosmology and their intersections with
society and economy (e.g. Kristiansen 1984, 2006). He also
contributed substantially to the study of the life history of people
and things and of rituals (e.g. Kristiansen 1999, 2008). In his
PhD thesis he investigated the chronology and social and religious
history of hoards in Bronze Age Denmark (Kristiansen 1976), and
subsequently he pointed to the unrecognized information potential
in the metalwork of Bronze Age hoards (Kristiansen 1996, 1999).
And let’s not neglect his constant critical participation in debates
concerning the history, epistemology, theory and practice of our
discipline (e.g. Kristiansen 1981, 2001, 2004). Without these
debates we wouldn’t have had the terminology, concepts and
critical awareness to develop our approach. His work thus not only
enables but stipulates a critical, self-relexive and theoretically
based approach to depositions as ritual actions with social
signiicance as it is pursued here. Therefore we are in no doubt
that he appreciates our efforts to provide a clear-cut theoretical
basis for the study of rituals and their social and spatial eficacy
– even more so since this approach can indeed contribute to a
wider understanding of Bronze Age ritual practices and social
changes in particular.
Alexander Gramsch: gramsch.alexander@yahoo.de
Thomas Meier: thomas.meier@zaw.uni-heidelberg.de
References
ANDRÉN, A., 2002. Platsens betydelse. Norrön ritual och
kultplatskontinuitet. In K. Jennbert, A. Andrén and C. Raudvere (eds.),
Plats och praxis. Studier av nordisk förkristen ritual:
299-342. Lund:
Nordic Academic Press (Väger till Midgård 2).
BALLMER, A., 2010. Zur Topologie des bronzezeitlichen Deponierens.
Von der Handlungstheorie zur Raumanalyse. Prähistorische Zeitschrift
85:120-131.
BECKER, K., 2008. Left but not lost. Archaeology Ireland 22(1):12-15.
BELL, C., 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and dimensions. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
BERTEMES, F., and P. BIEHL, 2001. The archaeology of cult and religion:
an introduction. In P.F. Biehl, F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds.), The
archaeology of cult and religion
: 11-24. Budapest: Archaeolinga.
BOURDIEU, P., 1972. Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précédé de
trois études d’ethnologie kabyle.
Geneva: Droz.
BRADLEY, R., 1998. The passage of arms: An archaeological analysis of
prehistoric hoard and votive deposits.
Oxford/Oakville: Oxbow Books.
BRADLEY, R., 2002. The past in prehistoric societies. London and New
York: Routledge.
BRÜCK, J., 1999. Ritual and rationality. Some problems of interpretation
in European archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2:313-344.
Alexander Gramsch and Thomas Meier: An Archaeological Outline of Ritual Dynamics
197
von BRUNN, W.A., 1968. Mitteldeutsche Hortfunde der jüngeren
Bronzezeit
. Berlin: De Geryter.
DONNAN, H. and T.M. WILSON (eds.), 1994. Border approaches.
Anthropological perspectives on frontiers
. Lanham: University Press
of America.
DURKHEIM, É., 1912. Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. La
système totémique en Australie
. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
ELIADE, M., 1956. The sacred and the profane: the natur of Religion.
London: Brace.
FISCHER, T., 1999. Materialhorte des 3. Jahrhunderts in den römischen
Grenzprovinzen zwischen Niedergermanien und Noricum. In J. Tejral
(ed.), Das mitteleuropäische Barbaricum und die Krise des römischen
Weltreichs im 3. Jahrhundert: Materialen des IX. Internationalen
Symposiums „Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen Entwicklung
im nördlichen Mitteldonaugebiet“ Kravsko 3.-4. December 1996. 12:
21-50. Brno: Spisy Archeologického Ústavu AV ČR Brno.
FONTIJN, D.R., 2002. Sacriicial landscapes. Cultural biographies of
persons, objects and “natural” places in the Bronze age of the southern
Netherlands, c. 2300-600 B.C. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 33/34.
FRAZER, J.G., 1890. The golden bough: A study in magic and religion.
London: Macmillan.
GEERTZ, C., 1966. Religion as a cultural system. In M. Banton (ed.),
Anthropological approaches to the study of religion
: 1-46. London:
Tavistock Publications.
GEERTZ, C., 1973. The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books.
GEERTZ, C., 1985. Dichte Beschreibung: Beiträge zum Verstehen
kultureller Systeme
. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.
GEIßLINGER, H., 2004. Nichtsakrale Moordepots – dänische Beispiele
aus der frühen Neuzeit. Germania 82: 459-489.
van GENNEP, A., 1909. Les rites de passage. Paris: É Nourry.
GIDDENS, A., 1984. The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of
structuration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GRAMSCH, A., 1995. Death and Continuity. Journal of European
Archaeology
3: 71-90.
GRAMSCH, A., 1996. Landscape Archaeology: of making and seeing.
Journal of European Archaeology
4:19-38.
GRAMSCH, A., 2007. A microarchaeological approach to the social
signiicance of Late Bronze Age burial practices. In P. Cornell and
F. Fahlander (eds.), Encounters – Materialities – Confrontations:
Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction
: 83-99. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Press.
GRAMSCH, A., in print: Treating bodies. Transformative and
communicative practices. In: S. Tarlow and L. Nilsson Stutz (eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial
: 459-
474. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HäNSEL, B., 1997: Gaben an die Götter – Schätze der Bronzezeit
Europas. Eine Einführung. In A. Hänsel and B. Hänsel (eds.), Gaben
an die Götter: Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas
: 11-22. Berlin: Museum
für Vor- Und Frühgeschicte.
HAMILAKIS, Y., M. PLUCIENNIK and S. TARLOW, 2002. Introduction.
Thinking through the body. In Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik and
S. Tarlow (eds.), Thinking Through the Body. Archaeologies of
Corporeality
: 1-21. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
HAWKES, C., 1954. Archaeological theory and method: Some suggestions
from the old world. American Anthropologist 56:155-168.
HOBBS, R., 2006. Late Roman Precious Metal Deposits c. AD 200 –
700. Changes Over Time and Space. Oxford: Archaeopress (British
Archaeological Reports International Series 1504).
HUTH, C., 2008. Horte als Geschichtsquelle. In K. Schmotz and K.
Schmtz (eds.), Vorträge des 26. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages:
131-162. Liedrof: Buch am Erlbach.
INSOLL, T., 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London and New York:
Routledge.
JOYCE, R.A., 2005. Archaeology of the body. Annual Review of
Anthropology
34:139-158.
KÖPPING, K.-P., B. LEISTLE and M RUDOLPH (eds.), 2006. Ritual
and Identity. Performative Practices as Effective Transformations of
Social Reality?
Münster: Lit Verlag.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 1976. En kildekritisk analyse af depotfund fra
Danmarks yngre bronzealder (periode IV-V). Aarbøger for nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie
1974:119-160.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 1981. A social history of Danish archaeology (1805-
1975). In G. Daniel (ed.), Towards a history of archaeology: 20-39.
London: Thames and Hudson.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 1984. Krieger und Häuptlinge in der Bronzezeit
Dänemarks. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des bronzezeitlichen
Schwertes. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums
Mainz
31:187-208.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 1996. Die Hortfunde der jüngeren Bronzezeit
Dänemarks. Fundumstände, Funktion und historische Entwicklung.
In P. Schauer (ed.), Archäologische Forschungen zum Kultgeschehen
in der jüngeren Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzeit Alteuropas
: 255-270.
Bonn: Habelt (Regensburger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie
2).
KRISTIANSEN, K., 1999. Understanding Bronze Age weapon hoards.
Observations from the Zalkod and Vaja hoards, Northeastern Hungary.
Jósa András Múzeum
Évkönyve XLI: 101-107.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 2001. Borders of ignorance. Research communities
and language. In Z. Kobylinski (ed.), Quo vadis archaeologia? Whither
European Archaeology in the 21
st
century
: 38-44. Warszawa, Institute
of Archeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 2004. Genes versus agents. A discussion of the
widening theoretical gap in archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues
11:77-99.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 2006. Cosmology, economy and long-term change
in the Bronze Age of Northern Europe. In K.-G. Sjögren (ed.),
Ecology and Economy in Stone Age and Bronze Age Scania
: 171-218.
Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 2007. The rules of the game. Decentralised
complexity and power structures. In S. Kohring and S. Wynne-Jones
(eds.), Socialising Complexity. Structure, Interaction and Power in
Archaeological Discourse
: 60-75. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 2008. From memory to monument: the construction
of time in the Bronze Age. In A. Lehoërff (ed.), Construire le temps.
Histoire et méthodes des chronologies et calendriers des derniers
millénaires avant notre ère en Europe occidentale. Actes du XXX
e
colloque international de Halma-Ipel, UMR 8162 (CNRS, Lille 3,
MCC), 7-9 décembre 2006, Lille: 41-50. Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte,
Centre archéologique européen.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 2010. Decentralized complexity: The case of
Bronze Age Northern Europe. In G.M. Feinman and T.D. Price (eds.),
Pathways to Power. New Perspectives on the Emergence of Social
Inequality
: 169-192. New York: Springer.
KÜNZL, E., 1993. Die Alamannenbeute aus dem Rhein bei Neupotz.
Plünderungsgut aus dem römischen Gallien
. Mainz: RGZM
(Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz
34).
KUS, S., 1992. Toward an archaeology of body and soul. In J.C. Gardin
and Chr. Peebles (eds.), Representations in Archaeology: 168-177.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
KYRIAKIDIS, E., 2005. Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean: The Minoan
peak sanctuaries
. London: Duckworth.
KYRIAKIDIS, E., 2007. Finding ritual: Calibrating the evidence. In
E. Kyriakidis (ed.), The archaeology of ritual: 9-22. Los Angeles:
University of California (Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3).
MARCUS, J., 2007. Rethinking ritual. In E. Kyriakidis (ed.), The
archaeology of ritual
: 43-76. Los Angeles: University of California
(Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3).
MEIER, T., 2002. Die Archäologie des mittelalterlichen Königsgrabs im
christlichen Europa
. Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecker Verlag (Mittelalter-
Forschungen 8).
MEIER, T. and M. WILD, 2003. Bronze- und eisenzeitliche Funde vom
Petersberg. Das archäologische Jahr in Bayern: 38-41.
MICHAELS, A., 2003. Zur Dynamik von Ritualkomplexen. (Forum
Ritualdynamik vol. 3). http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/savifadok/
volltexte/2006/28/ [15.06.2011]
MOORE, S. F. and B. G. MYERHOFF (eds.), 1977. Secular ritual. Assen/
Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
NILSSON STUTZ, L., 2003. Embodied Rituals and Ritualized Bodies.
Tracing Ritual Practices in Late Mesolithic Burials
. Lund: Lund
University (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia No 46).
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies
198
NILSSON STUTZ, L., 2008. More than metaphor. Approaching the human
cadaver in archaeology. In F. Fahlander and T. Oestigaard (eds.),
The Materiality of Death: Bodies, Burials, Beliefs
: 19-28. Oxford:
Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports International Series
1768).
OTTO, R., 1917. Das Heilige: Über das Irrationale in der Idee des
Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen
. Breslau: Trewendt
und Granier.
RAPPAPORT, R.A., 1999. Ritual and religion in the making of humanity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A.R., 1952. Structure and function in primitive
society: Essays and addresses
. London: The Free Press.
RENFREW, C., 1985. The archaeology of cult: The sanctuary at
Phylakopi.
London: Thomsen and Hudsen (The British School of
Archaeology at Athens Supplementary Volume 18).
RENFREW, C., 2007. The archaeology of ritual, of cult, and of religion. In
E. Kyriakidis (ed.), The archaeology of ritual: 109-122. Los Angeles:
University of California (Cotsen Advanced Seminars 3).
RIECKHOFF, S., 1998. „Römische Schatzfunde“ – ein historisches
Phänomen aus prähistorischer Sicht. In B. Fritsch, M. Maute, I.
Matuschik, J. Müller and C. Wolf (eds), Tradition und Innovation.
Prähistorische Archäologie als historische Wissenschaft. Festschrift
für Christian Strahm. Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria
3:
479-542. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO, M., 1995. Ritos de paso y puntos de paso.
La Ría de Huelva en el mundo del Bronce inal Europeo. Madrid:
Universidad Complutense.
SCHECHNER, R. 1977. Essays on performance theory 1970-1976. New
York: Drama Book Specialists.
SPIRO, M.E., 1973. Religion: Problems of deinition and explanation. In:
M. Banton (ed.), Anthropological approaches to the study of religion:
85-126. London: Tavistock.
TAMBIAH, S., 1979. A performative approach to ritual. Proceedings of
the British Academy
65: 113-163.
TURNER, V., 1967. Forest of symbols: Aspects of Nbdembu rituals. Ithaca/
London: Cornell University.
TURNER, V., 1969. The ritual process. Structure and anti-structure.
London: Aldine Pub. Co.
Van WOLPUTTE, S., 2004: Hang on to your self: Of bodies, embodiment,
and selves. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 251-269.
WULF, C., 2005. Zur Genese des Sozialen: Mimesis, Performativität,
Ritual
. Bielefeld: Transcript.