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