Male symbols or warrior identities? The ‘archery burials’ of the Danish Bell Beaker Culture

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87 www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Male symbols or warrior identities? The ‘archery burials’ of the Danish Bell Beaker Culture Torben Sarauw Department of Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Aarhus, Moesgård, 8270 Højbjerg, Denmark Received 3 February 2006; revision received 24 April 2006 Available online 13 July 2006

Abstract The starting point of this paper is an analysis of 66 Danish burials, which contain Xint daggers and archery equipment. The paper examines whether this tradition should be seen as an indication of the presence of organised warriors in the Danish early Late Neolithic, or if it rather reXects some kind of general warrior status related to maleness. In a Danish perspective the archery burials are closely connected to the Bell Beaker Culture of northern Jutland, and the custom seems to originate in the European Bell Beaker Culture, where ranked societies and warrior institutions have been argued to exist. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Male identity; Bell Beaker; Late Neolithic; Dagger; Warrior; Denmark; Archer; Bow and arrow

Introduction Between 2900 and 2000 BC a very uniform material culture especially with regard to the pottery emerged in smaller and larger regions in Europe and northernmost Africa. In the European chronological sequence this material phenomenon is placed at the end of the Neolithic or in the mature Copper Age, and the name “Bell Beaker” refers to the characteristic Bell-shaped pottery, which is thin-walled, richly decorated drinking cups of high quality. In this period of approximately 900 years, the Bell Beaker phenomenon does not appear as homogeneous, or at exactly the same time, throughout Europe. Rather, it can be followed with small displacements in time in diVerent parts of Europe from

E-mail address: [email protected] 0278-4165/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2006.05.001

Morocco in the south to Denmark and southern Norway in the north, and from Portugal in the west to Poland and northern Hungary in the east (Strahm, 1995). The earliest radiocarbon datings come from the Iberian Peninsula, while the latest dates are found in the northern and western areas (Müller and van Willingen, 2001; Vandkilde, 1996). In central Europe Bell Beakers mostly occur in Xat grave cemeteries, starting around 2500 BC (Czebreszuk, 2003). Here, beakers are typically accompanied by copper daggers and archery equipment consisting of wristguards in polished stone and several pressure-Xaked arrowheads, which are often found in a way that indicates that arrows as well as bow must have been present in the graves. The artefacts of the male graves suggest associations with war and perhaps hunting, and the presence of Beakers suggest that the consumption of alcohol played a role probably in connection with feasting and social

66

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

life (Sherratt, 1987). Anthropologically determined skeletons from burials show that females were usually buried on their right side facing east with their head towards the south and males on the left side in the opposite direction and also facing east (Müller, 2001). From approximately 2350 BC, and lasting 2–400 years, northern Jutland formed an integrated part of the West European Bell Beaker complex (e.g., Liversage, 2003; Vandkilde, 2001). This integration is Wrst and foremost visible in material culture, especially in the pottery found in settlements. Thus, it shows only partly in the graves. In terms of pottery northern Jutland deviates from other parts of Europe, because most of the pottery is found on sites with house remains (e.g. Jensen, 1973; Sarauw, in press; Skov, 1982). The inXuences are also seen in the burial customs, but with a marked local touch. Thus, the pressure-Xaked arrowheads are not accompanied by copper daggers and wristguards, and only rarely by Beaker pottery. Instead, they are accompanied by Xint daggers, which are most likely the local imitation of the copper daggers. This predominance of Xint daggers must seen in connection with the enormous quantities of primary Xint resources in the region around Limfjorden in northern Jutland (Becker, 1993). The production of Xint daggers led to comprehensive connections of trade and exchange with neighbouring people. Daggers were traded to Sweden and Norway as well as to the south in areas where Bell Beaker ideology and items were prevailing (Apel, 2001, pp. 292–304; Becker, 1993). These contacts may have reinforced the desire to adopt Bell Beaker items and traditions and maybe the ideology as well. The custom of burying the deceased along with diVerent kinds of weapons is not a new tradition in Danish or European prehistory. Already in the preceding Single Grave Culture, or Corded Ware Culture, weapons are very common burial equipment in male burials, and they form part of a standardized set of objects comprising battle-axe, beakers, and sometimes Xint axes and amber objects (Glob, 1945). At the beginning of the Late Neolithic the cultural picture changes, and the vast numbers of ordinary Xint daggers of early types characterize what we assume are male burials (Lomborg, 1973). However, a group of graves diVers clearly from the normal graves. Here daggers of extreme size, often the technologically advanced, parallel-Xaked dagger of Lomborgs subtype I C, and sometimes in combination with pressure-Xaked arrowheads, occur (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The grave goods from a small stone cist at Lemmer, Eastern Jutland. The length of the parallel-Xaked dagger is 33.9 cm. The arrowheads are quite typical with regard to the Danish material. Note that on three arrowheads one of the barbs is deliberately made longer than the other one. Photo Photolab, Moesgård.

The appearance as a warrior carrying bow and arrows and daggers of extreme size—probably in combination with special clothes, for instance headwear and the like, and other kinds of body-ornamentation as jewellery, tattoos etc.—was surely demonstrating malehood and personal identity. However, how were these ‘warriors’ organised and does the variability among burials with Xint daggers reXect the emergence of a specialized kind of warriorhood, thus indicating that the social structure of the Danish early Late Neolithic society was more complex than hitherto believed? Accepting the presence of some kind of warriorhood in the Danish early Late Neolithic and in order to delve deeper into these questions, three possible types of warrior organization in relation to the Danish Late Neolithic society and social organisation are discussed at the end of the article. These models, which are rooted and have parallels in social anthropology (cp. Vandkilde, 2006) are: 1. A society where warriorhood comprises all men. 2. A society where warriorhood comprises all men, but some or all are organized in more specialized prestigious war institutions or male clubs. 3. A society where warriorhood only comprises certain men, who were organized in institutions of war. The Danish archery graves At the beginning of the early Late Neolithic, and as aforementioned, a small group of graves diVerentiate themselves from burials with normal equipment, which is typically a Xint dagger, if anything at

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

Fig. 2. The distribution of 66 ‘archery graves’ containing arrowheads and Xint daggers of type I (and II) and settlements and graves containing Bell Beaker pottery.

all. In these particular graves, the lanceolate Xint daggers of type I, typologically the earliest Xint dagger dating from about 2350 BC and 400 years forward (Apel, 2001, p. 273) are sometimes accompanied by several pressure-Xaked arrowheads indicating that the bow had gained a renaissance. These ‘archery graves’, often situated in the central and northern parts of Jutland especially in the areas close to the western parts of Limfjorden, comprise 66 singular burial Wnds, in which daggers of type I or II and arrowheads occur (Fig. 2, Appendix A).1 The custom of using a standardized set of archery equipment together with daggers as grave goods is much more common in the Danish area than indicated by the distribution map. The stone cists of the 1 The nine burial Wnds that contained daggers of type II are included in this paper, because the two types are more or less contemporary, but with diVerent main centres of distribution (Madsen, 1978, 54V), and because the burials seem to be part of the same burial tradition. Besides, in the Late Neolithic, people have not been restricted to certain archaeological types when producing a dagger, so naturally one should expect a small degree of variation with regard to dagger types within the diVerent core areas of production.

67

Single Grave Culture also distributed in the northern parts of Jutland and the megalith tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture were repeatedly used in the Late Neolithic (e.g., Ebbesen, 1985; Fabech, 1988; Vandkilde, 2005). One of several examples is the stone cist from Blære situated in northern Jutland, which besides burial gifts belonging to the Single Grave Culture contained nine pressure-Xaked arrowheads, four daggers of type I, and potsherds from a zone decorated, straight-walled beaker (Fabech, 1988, pp. 59–62). However, in Blære, as in most cases, it was not possible to separate the diVerent burials within the general Late Neolithic burial layer. In many of these repeatedly used passage graves containing large quantities of Late Neolithic artefacts, it is tempting to associate the presence of more pressure-Xaked arrowheads with a single archer burial. It is a matter of fact that archery equipment, even though to a lesser degree, sometimes occur in graves other than the ones shown on Fig. 2, including the eastern parts of Denmark (e.g., Ebbesen, 2004, pp. 93-94; Lomborg, 1973, p. 123). This does not, however, change the fact that the distribution is concentrated in the area around Limfjorden in northern Jutland—the same area which also holds the majority of the Danish Bell Beaker sites (Fig. 2). The Wrst statement is conWrmed by a review of the catalogue in Skaarups “Yngre stenalder på øerne syd for Fyn” [The Neolithic on the islands south of Funen], which includes descriptions of 577 megalithic graves of which 61 contained Late Neolithic artefacts (1985, 387). A total of only seven pressure-Xaked arrowheads and three roughouts were found in merely seven of these graves. This is almost the same number of arrowheads as found in some of the North Jutish archery graves. The graves The single interments selected for this study is a rather heterogeneous group due to the fact that many graves are old investigations. Some were conducted by amateur archaeologists, who were typically focusing on the artefacts rather than on the context, and in many cases this resulted in poor documentation. Furthermore, due to the non-calcareous subsoil, skeletons and other organic material, for instance cloth, wood, or hide etc., are never or very rarely preserved. The majority of the graves, about 88%, was placed, primarily or secondarily, in a burial mound

68

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

(Table 1). The dominating type, some 68 %, was earthen graves placed in a new or existing mound of the Single Grave Culture, which was signiWcantly enlarged at the time of the Late Neolithic burial. This is, however, not surprising since earthen graves in barrows are the most typical burial type in the early Late Neolithic in central and north-western Jutland (Lomborg, 1973, pp. 112–121)—the same area where the archery graves dominate. This indicates that local and already existing burial customs with regard to grave types were often drawn upon when new burials were constructed. Some burial mounds, for example at Tvilum in eastern Jutland, have even functioned as small ‘cemeteries’ during the Single Grave Culture and the early Late Neolithic (Fig. 3). In Tvilum, nine graves dated to the Upper Grave Period of the Single Grave Culture and Wve, two of which were archery graves, probably Table 1 The 66 ‘archery graves’ distributed on grave types Earthen grave in barrow Earthen grave without barrow Stone cist of the Late Neolithic Stone cist (unknown type/Single Grave Culture) Cremation grave

68.2% (45) 7.6% (5) 9.1% (6) 7.6% (5) 7.6% (5)

Total

100% (66)

Actual numbers are shown in brackets. In six earthen graves (Wve in barrows) the type of grave could not be determined for sure.

Fig. 3. SimpliWed survey plan showing the burial mound at Tvilum, eastern Jutland. The small cemetery showed continuity from the Late Single Grave Culture (dark grey) to the Late Neolithic (bright grey). One of the burials dated to the Upper Grave Period of the Single Grave Culture contained a battle axe. The two LN burials placed centrally in the mound held archery equipment.

dated to the early Late Neolithic. This site is just one of several showing continuity in funerary rituals between the Single Grave Culture and the early Late Neolithic Period. The earthen graves in mounds are usually oriented E–W, even though minor derivations occur. They are typically closed constructions of woodmade plank coYns, or a wooden trunk supported by stones, and they are often covered by a massive layer of stones (Fig. 4). The size of most of the graves, especially the earthen graves, which are normally 2– 3 m £ 0.5–1 m, indicates that the deceased was placed on the back in extended position and often with the head towards the east, even though a few exceptions occur. This is unlike many of the European graves, which are shorter and broader, most likely because the dead person was placed in crouched position here (cf. Turek et al., 2003). The interpretation regarding the Danish material is conWrmed by the few cases where skeletons are preserved, and furthermore by the positioning of the artefacts (Fig. 4). As an example of an earthen grave the burial at Vester Egebjerg situated east of Venø Bay could be mentioned. Here, the early Late Neolithic grave was placed secondarily in the top layer of a burial mound from the Ground Grave period of the Single Grave Culture, and hereafter another mound was constructed on top of the earlier mound (Fig. 5). Traces of the skeletons were not preserved in any of the graves. The Late Neolithic burial appeared as a WNW–ESE-orientated, c. 2.3 m £ 1.6 m large structure (Fig. 6). It was preserved until a depth at c. 27 cm. Within it, the traces of a c. 1.8–2 m £ 1.1 m large wooden coYn occurred as a 1–2 cm wide reddish brown stripe. Traces of both coYn lid and bottom were visible, and under the bottom the coYn was supported by scattered stones. In the middle of the grave towards the southeast a pressure-Xaked Xint dagger of I C subtype occurred with the blade pointing towards the southwest and the hilt towards the northeast (Fig. 6). In the north-western side of the grave, and lying in a small concentration, eight hollow-based pressure-Xaked arrowheads were found; all placed with the point towards the west. Seven of the burials, four of which occur on Mors and in Thy, are stone cists constructed in the Late Neolithic and meant for a single burial. The stone cists are built of large Xat slabs of stone and are normally oriented E–W even though other orientations occur too. The inside of the chambers is typically man-sized or larger, that is c. 2.0–2.5 m £ 0.5–1.5 m.

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

69

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of 26 archery graves illustrating orientation and the position of the artefacts. When nothing else is mentioned, the burials are placed as a secondary or primary grave in a barrow.

All of these are placed as primary or secondary burials in mounds (Fig. 7). Additionally, four other graves can be classiWed as stone cists. One of these, Søndersø Nørremark, on Funen, was placed next to a damaged long dolmen in a complex circular structure containing several Late Neolithic burials (Lambertsen, 1993). The cist was built together with another cist, each measuring about 75 cm £ 30 cm inside. Apart from the

burnt bones, most likely of a human being, the cist included a dagger of Ix type and a pressure-Xaked arrowhead. Cremations occur in four other cases indicating continuity from the Single Grave Culture where cremations also occurred now and again (e.g. AUD, 1991, no. 286). In another Xat grave cremation, Solbakkegård IV situated in western Jutland near Esbjerg, a Xint dagger of the feeding knife type, four conical amber buttons, a strike-

70

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

Fig. 6. The Late Neolithic burial at Vester Egebjerg. Dagger and arrowheads are shown in black, stones in grey.

Fig. 5. SimpliWed survey plan of the burial mound near Vester Egebjerg district. The Late Neolithic grave is shown in grey scale. Surrounding the LN burial traces of a wooden built chamber and the matching circular trench dating from the Single Grave Culture can be observed. The chamber contained two battle axes and 14 amber beads.

a-light, and four pressure-Xaked tanged and barbed arrowheads were found (AUD, 1999, no. 611). In addition, this site included two two-aisled longhouses and two or three more burials. In one of these, a small Xat grave, interpreted by the excavator as a child’s grave, a small decorated beaker was found. This burial site diVers from many of the other archery graves because of the very typical European Bell Beaker equipment. Besides, the burial is situated at the outskirts of the core area of the Danish Bell Beaker Culture only six kilometres from Ho bay (The North Sea). Maybe some of the persons buried here came from abroad? That some people actually moved around at this time is shown by a very rich male burial: ‘The Amesbury Archer’ found in southern England close to Stonehenge, but most likely originating in the Alpin region (Fitzpatrick, 2002)2. Furthermore, anthropological evidence from Little Poland and Silesia actually shows that some of the people buried here presumably came 2

www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer.html.

from the south (Budziszewski et al., 2003; Makarowicz, 2003). In the case of the Danish Bell Beaker phenomenon the importance of the coastlines and inlets as a means of communication and transportation, for example, in connection with exchange or trade towards other parts of north-western Europe, must be stressed.

Fig. 7. Example of a stone cist constructed of Xat slabs of granite from Vestervig in Thy. The cist contained a skeleton lying on the back in extended position with the head towards the east and facing north. At the belt two fragments of a I C type dagger probably broken in prehistoric times, and most likely from the same dagger, were placed. To the north of the right shin seven pressure-Xaked arrowheads including a large fragment were located, all with the points towards the east.

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

Flat graves without traces of a mound occur Wve times. One of the most interesting sites is Allestrup Vest, situated in eastern Denmark on Djursland (Fiedel and Nielsen, 1989; AUD, 1989, no. 310). Here, a small cemetery was found consisting of Wve Late Neolithic burials, and situated on a not very spectacular rise about 300 m from the prehistoric coastline. Two of the graves, both oriented ENE– WSW, were placed exactly on top of each other. In the lower one, which presumably originally held a wooden trunk coYn supported by a frame of stones, eight pressure-Xaked arrowheads occurred. The other burial was found about 45 cm above this level. This was most likely originally a wooden plank coYn supported and covered by stones. In the eastern part of the coYn, maybe on the chest of the deceased, a Xint dagger of I B type was placed. In the western part of the coYn and situated in a small cluster, four pressure-Xaked arrowheads were found, all pointing towards WSW. These special grave types, which are well known from other sites as well, e.g., Karolinelund in eastern Jutland or Kvindvad in western Jutland (Ebbesen, 2004; Lomborg, 1973, p. 114), are known as ‘tiered burials.’ In each of these ‘tiered burials’—distributed across large parts of central and north-western Europe—the deceased persons must have been related in some way. This could be by lineage or perhaps because the deceased in some way shared social identities for example as members of the same group/tribe, brotherhood etc. Cremation in combination with two other burials also occurred in some cases. An analogous triple burial is known from Fjallerslev in Denmark—the Wrst one being a cremation grave (Simonsen, 1978). As indicated by some of the descriptions above, many of the archery burials were placed in small cemeteries in the shape of small Xat grave burial sites, several graves in the same burial mound, groups of burial mounds, and multiple burials or tiered graves. Larger cemeteries similar to the ones found in eastern and central Europe are not present in the west Danish material. This corresponds to the general understanding of the settlement structure of the period where dispersed units seem to dominate (cf. Sarauw, in press). It is not within the frames of this article to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis regarding types of graves within the entire Bell Beaker complex. However, a few general points should be made regarding the burial customs on a European scale.

71

Looking at grave customs in the adjoining areas and areas situated further towards the south and southwest where the Bell Beaker phenomenon prevails, huge diversity occurs. This is shown by the fact that no single type of burial is characteristic within the entire Bell Beaker complex (cf. Czebreszuk, 2003; Strahm, 1995; Vander Linden, 2004). The classical Bell Beaker inhumation burials where the body is placed in crouched position and where strict gender speciWc rules decide the grave gifts and the orientation of the death person prevails in central and eastern Europe (cf. Müller, 2001). The tradition of north-western Europe including the kaleidoscopic picture given by the burials in Jutland stands in stark contrast to this homogeneity. In huge areas of north-western Europe, for instance southern England, the lower Rhine-area, Holland, and north-western Germany, single burials where the body was found in crouched position were often placed primarily or secondarily in barrows (Strahm, 1995; Vander Linden, 2004). The orientation of the dead did not follow rules as strictly as in central Europe (Vander Linden, 2004, p. 41). Furthermore, megalithic tombs were reused, whereas burials in Xat Welds occurred less often. Cremations sporadically occurred throughout Europe, but dominated only in the south-eastern parts as for instance Hungary (Shennan, 1978, Fig. 3). As we shall see in the next part with regard to the grave types and also the grave gifts only certain elements of material culture were adopted and incorporated into the local material culture. Such an adaptation probably meant that the foreign traditions and the items copied were reinterpreted in order to Wt into the local traditions and context. The huge diversity in Jutland concerning grave types shows that many foreign traditions were copied or imitated, but that only a few gained a footing. Even though traditions in burial customs to a certain degree followed traditions established in the Single Grave Culture people were apparently open towards new ideas and customs. Grave gifts, warfare, and some functional aspects of weaponry As indicated above the grave assemblage of the Danish archery burials diVer as compared to the ‘classic’ beaker assemblage of central and western Europe including decorated bell beakers, wristguards, tanged copper daggers and sometimes v-perforated buttons and arrowheads. However, the

72

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

occurrence of all of these items together is rare. More often a bell beaker occurs together with one or two of the above mentioned items. As documented in Table 2, grave goods other than daggers and arrowheads are not very common in the Danish archery burials. Amber beads or buttons occur in seven graves—in fact four v-perforated amber buttons of Bell Beaker type were found in one of them. A strike-a-light and pottery were found in three graves each. One of the graves, Stenildgård, contained two beakers—an undecorated straight-walled and a swayed beaker decorated with rows of horizontal grooves (Lomborg, 1973, Fig. 56). The pottery in the graves are not bell beakers, but of a more local character. Typically, it is small, 8–9 cm of height, undecorated beakers, straight-walled, with curved or S-proWled sides and probably meant for drinking. In the grave from Kjeldsminde, eastern Jutland, a Xint axe and a chisel were found lying together possibly next to where the left shin must have been (Fig. 4). In the grave at Vinding, also eastern Jutland, which also held a curved beaker, a shafthole axe was found. Only the grave at Allestrup Vest contained traces of a copper item (Fiedel and Nielsen, 1989, p. 36). According to Ebbesen (2004, p. 109) a broken bronze ring was also found in the Late Neolithic burial at Trust situated north-east of Silkeborg. However, this bronze ring should most likely be related to a Bronze Age

burial also present in the mound, but situated at a higher level. The presence of quern-stones among the stones used to cover the burial or as part of the stone construction in Wve graves must be seen as accidental. In some cases Xint debris occur in the Wllings of the grave, but deliberately placed Xint Xakes or roughouts as seen in other countries such as Norway and the British Isles (Case, 1977, Fig. 4:6) are not observed in the material presented here. Furthermore, such customs are most likely to be expected in areas where raw Xint is in short supply. Skeletons, especially badly preserved or in the shape of corpse silhouettes, were present in thirteen graves. Large parts of skeletons were only present in two graves, Højsager at Mors and Vestervig (see below). Summing up, the male grave gifts of the Danish archery graves are in accordance with European ‘fashion trends’ in the use of arms and maybe ideology. Even though the combination of a Xint dagger and more arrowheads also but less often occur in other areas, for instance in Norway (Bjerck, 1987), northern Germany (Siemann, 2003, p. 33) and on the British Isles (Case, 2001), the custom of using many arrowheads in combination with Xint daggers of type I as grave gifts is a rather unique Jutish tradition within the area of Bell Beaker distribution. One might say that this is the local representation of

Table 2 Number of burial goods, other than daggers and arrowheads, and their combination in archery graves Burial

Amber

Solbakkegård Odby Vridsted Grove Kistrup Damgården IV Østbirk Nøvling Plantage Tåbel Renseanlæg Tvilum, cs Tvilum, ct Stenildgård Marshøj Vinding Kjærgård Ved Rammediget Højsager Fredbjerg Allestrup Vest Kjeldsminde Trust

4 1 1 1 1 1 1

Quern-stone

Pot

Strike-a-light

Copper or bronze

Shafthole axe

Flint axe and chicel

Grinding stone

Other (bone)

1

14 4 2 1

1

2 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1?

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

the ideal warrior. Similar local representations are seen in other marginalised areas for instance in Little Poland where male graves typically included unornamented local pottery and archery gear in the shape of Xint arrowheads (Budziszewski et al., 2003). Arrowheads As indicated from some of the examples above it seems to be the norm that arrowheads, when two or more are deposited in the same burial, cluster together within a small area. This is actually the case in 29 of the archery graves, where information could be obtained. Some of these are shown on Fig. 4. As indicated by Fig. 8, showing the number of arrowheads in 66 graves, about 70 % of the graves contained two or more arrowheads, while the average was 3.55 arrowheads in each grave. For instance such a clustering of arrowheads was seen in the earthen grave from Vester Egebjerg. Similar observations have been made in several other contemporary graves, for example Hald near Skive, where seven arrowheads clustered in the western part of the grave all pointing in the same direction (Noe, 1971, 46 Fig. 4), or at Lemmer, Djursland, where 11 arrowheads were found together (Fig. 1). In one burial, Tåbel in Thy, seven arrowheads were placed close together where the right knee would have been, and all pointing towards the feet (Bjerrekær, 1994). This uniform way of depositing the arrowheads indicates that arrows, and maybe a quiver and a bow, have been present even though no traces of such were found. The quiver would have been placed between the legs of the deceased, or next to his thigh bone, with the point of the arrows at the bottom of the quiver pointing towards the feet— probably the same place the quiver must have been worn.

73

Certainly, one cannot rule out the possibility that the presence of arrowheads in some of the graves, especially those containing only one arrowhead, may also indicate that the dead person underwent a violent death. Due to bad preservation a closer examination of the skeletons is not possible. Furthermore, a closer inspection of the state of the arrowheads—are the tips broken, for example, combined with exact location of the arrowheads in the individual graves—did not answer such questions. Going through the Wnd material, 198 arrowheads were available for examination. Most were hollowbased barbed arrowheads of Kühns type 7b (44 %), type 8 (12.6 %), and type 9 (38 %) (Kühn, 1979) (cf. Fig. 1). Only four of them were of the classical Bell Beaker type (5a), tanged and barbed, especially known from graves in Great Britain. Furthermore, they were all found in the same burial, namely the aforementioned extremely Bell-Beaker-like burial from Solbakkegård IV. Nine of the arrowheads stood out since one of their barbs was deliberately made longer than the other one (Fig. 1). Similar, as well as extremely long, barbs are known in the English and French material (Clarke et al., 1985). This must be seen as the Xint knappers way of showing oV, since this skewness most likely did not have any eVect on the balance of the arrow. The barbed pressure-Xaked arrowheads can be compared to similar ones from several ethno-historical societies, for example the Wintu tribe of northern California. There, they served as highly specialised war tools, because they aVected a maximum damage to the target (Keeley, 1996, p. 52). Thus, the arrows are very diYcult to extract without breaking and leaving something behind, which would cause inXammation. In other ethnographically known societies arrowheads used for hunting were without barbs, so that they could easier be extracted from the game. Such arrowheads are known sporadically in Denmark, but not from the archery graves. One cannot rule out the possibility that other types of arrowheads, for example made of bone, were used for hunting. Only seven arrowheads lacked parts of the point, and many of them were placed in clusters together with other arrowheads. Thirty-four lacked one barb. It is, however, very diYcult to conclude anything from the state of the very easily breakable barbs. Daggers

Fig. 8. Quantitative diVerentiation: Number of arrowheads per grave in 66 graves.

As documented by Fig. 4, most of the daggers were placed where the hips would have been,

74

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

probably in a belt close to the hands. In other cases, the dagger was symbolically placed on the breast or near the (right) hand. In three instances, there were two daggers present in the same grave. Most likely this indicates that more than one person was buried, or alternatively that the deceased was of considerable social importance. Although there was some qualitative variation among the daggers in the graves, the daggers are in general well made with an average length of 25.2 cm. Among those daggers of type I that could be classiWed, the I C subtype dominates and constitutes about 43% of the daggers (Table 3). The corresponding numbers for the I B and Ix subtypes, which also occur quite often, are 24 and 17%, respectively. In general, the parallel-retouched I C subtype, which also occurs in graves without arrowheads, seems connected to the burial sphere, probably due to the fact that it represented the most supreme and time-demanding product a Xint knapper could produce (StaVord, 2003). In comparison, the I C subtype only makes up about 2.5% of the daggers of type I found in hoards (Sarauw, in prep.). Many of these daggers of extreme size were not intended as working-tools to be used for daily purposes, even though modern experiments have shown that Xint daggers are excellent cutting-tools for the butchering of animals (Apel, 2001, p. 311). For daily and practical purposes, other and probably smaller daggers were used. This is illustrated by the size and quality of many daggers found on Danish settlement sites, for example Diverhøj or Øster Nibstrup (Asingh, 1988, Fig. 20; Michaelsen, 1989, Fig. 7), and by the hafted and not very impressive Xint dagger found with the Iceman, who is almost a thousand years older (Egg et al., 1993). On the rather small and “used” dagger blade of his traces of blood and animal Wbres were observed, suggesting that the blade had been used for the butchering of animals Table 3 Distribution of subtypes among the 67 daggers from archery graves, with the actual numbers shown in brackets Dagger types

%

IA IB I A/B IC ID IE Ix Unknown II

6.0 (4) 19.4 (13) 4.5 (3) 34.3 (23) 1.5 (1) 1.5 (1) 13.4 (9) 6.0 (4) 13.4 (9)

(Loy, 1998). A Xint dagger from Wales also showed microwear identiWable as leather polish; however, this polish is thought to have been caused by the contact with a leather sheath (Green et al., 1982, p. 495). The lack of practical function among some daggers is indicated by the high quality and the exaggerated size of the daggers, which could be up-to 44 cm long—the same length as some of the Wrst sword blades made of bronze. The exaggerated size is put into perspective by the fact that the average lengths of the Swedish Xint daggers are only c. 14–15 cm (Apel, 2001, pp. 313-319). Furthermore, that daggers of this type were very valuable is shown by the fact that at least three of the archery graves included highly fragmented, but originally very large daggers of I C subtype. Besides, some of the daggers were almost as good as new when deposited in the graves. That Xint daggers and other Xint tools in some case were made for the burial is shown by microwear analysis of the Xint items in an Early Bronze Age burial in eastern England (Parker Pearson, 2005, p. 70). As already pointed out, daggers of this quality and size were made by some kind of specialists (Olausson, 1997; StaVord, 2003). Moreover, they demanded Xint nodules of correspondingly high standards—nodules that most likely could only be achieved through mining and in extensive distribution networks emanating from the Limfjorden area of northern Jutland where primary Xint resources were present. These kinds of daggers, which must have been worn at special occasions, were not directly intended for war or close combat. This is indicated by the thin blade which must have been hypersensitive to blows and could only have been used for stabbing or maybe cutting if the target was not moving. Rather, they were symbols of warriorhood and high-ranking maleness. An interesting ethnographic analogy concerning the symbolic meaning of certain weapons is given by Hodder in his description of the use of iron spears in the Baringo district in Kenya (1982, pp. 66–68). Here, the spears are hardly used at all, and certainly not for warfare, but a young man is rarely seen without one. “The spear is the most important symbol of a young man’s social position and virility. It is thus directed symbolically towards both women and older men.” Among the Yao people of South-eastern Africa the type and the size of a knife were seen as symbols of prestige, and the chief usually carried the largest one (Mitchell, 1966, p. 78). Among the Danakil in Ethiopia a boy as a part of the ‘rites de passage’ was given

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

a dagger at the beginning of his manhood (Fokkens, 1999 with ref.). These descriptions illustrate very well some of the meanings that may be associated with a Xint dagger. In a European context the special status of the dagger as an emblem of the adult male is further emphasized when looking at the Neolithic rock-engravings and staue-menhirs of France and northern Italy (BarWeld and Chippindale, 1997, p. 120). Another new type of weapon dating to the beginning of the Late Neolithic is the ‘spearhead’ made of Xint, which appears in a few graves: an example is Borbjerg where a stone built grave in a mound contained a ‘spearhead’ and six arrowheads (Becker, 1957; Ebbesen, 1985, pp. 26–27; Lomborg, 1973, p. 23). However, one cannot simply exclude that some of these early spearhead-like pieces, which are often broken or modiWed daggers, still represent daggers hafted in another way than the classical Wnd from Wiepenkathen. Very good illustrations of this are the dagger worn by the Iceman and the shape of some of the Italian spear-like daggers associated with the Remedello Culture (Egg et al., 1993, p. 58; Mottes, 2001). Judging from the rather few well-dated assumed spearheads from the early Late Neolithic in Denmark, this type of weapon was far less common than bronze lances were in the Early Bronze Age. Furthermore, when used for stabbing or as a shock weapon, in the terminology of Otterbein (1970, p. 45), spearheads seem in ethno-historical societies to

75

be designed for use in armed combat by professional warriors. In general, there seems to be a connection between the level of political centralisation and the types of weapons used (Otterbein, 1970, p. 45). Bow and arrows As indicated by the archery burials, the longbow seems to have been the main long-distance weapon of the period. It was suited for war as well as for hunting, even though hunting must have played a minor role in a subsistence economy based on farming. That the bow was actually used for hunting is shown by two Wnds from Langeland (Skaarup, 1985, p. 392). In one of them, the bones from a red deer were found together with a heart-shaped pressureXaked arrowhead in a former lake. Probably the wounded game tried to escape the hunters by running into the lake. The other Wnd, a pike with a pressure-Xaked arrowhead shot into the skull, was also found in a former lake (Skaarup, 1985, p. 392). The importance of the bow as an attack or defence weapon must not be underestimated, especially not when used at the same time by many men in larger bands of warriors. Such battle-scenes are depicted on a rock-painting in the rock-shelter of Las Dogues in eastern Spain. It shows a combat scene between about ten warriors many of whom are using a bow, and seventeen others, some of whom are also using bows (Fig. 9) (Clark, 1963, p. 81 and Fig. 20). A similar way

Fig. 9. Combat scene between two groups of archers. One of the warriors has been enlarged showing the special dress and headdress that some of these warriors wore. Neolithic rock-painting from Las Dogues, east Spain (from Pidal, 1947).

76

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

of Wghting (primitive battle) is well known from anthropology where battles could be arranged and the archers lined up in two rows just within bow range (Keeley, 1996, p. 60). In the Baringo district in Kenya the bow and poisoned arrows were the primary weapons used for war (Hodder, 1982, p. 66). Another example is the Higi, a tribal people living in north-eastern Nigeria (Otterbein, 1994). Here, a young man became a warrior when distinguishing himself through bravery and skill in archery (Otterbein, 1994, p. 87). Longbows and poisoned arrows were carried by all warriors and the bow was also used in hand-to-hand combat. The warrior also carried a double-edged knife and sometimes light axes and throwing spears. The quiver contained 20–30 arrows and sometimes there was a leather bag attached containing medicines to treat wounds. The use of wristguards indicates that the bows used in the Late Neolithic may have been very powerful and technologically advanced (Kern, 2003, p. 252) even though the wristguard is by some scholars seen as an ornament (Van der Beek, 2004, p. 185 with ref.). The bow is not known from the Danish Late Neolithic, but from the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic we know of bows made of slowly growing elm-wood (Troels-Smith, 1960). Also yew-bows found in the British Isles date from the Neolithic, as does the 182 cm long, but unWnished, bow that the Iceman carried together with a quiver containing fourteen arrows (Clark, 1963; Egg et al., 1993, p. 37; Mercer, 1999, p. 145). Several examples prove that the bow was actually used for war-related violence, among them the Iceman who was hit in the back by an arrow. Also the Danish Neolithic yields some very well-known examples, one of which is the 20–30 years old male found in a stone cist at Gjerrild on Djursland (Vandkilde, 2003, plate 1 and 2). He was killed around 2500 BC by a Xint arrowhead shot into the breastbone. Another example dating to the Early Neolithic was found in Porsmose on Zealand (Becker, 1952; Brøndsted, 1957, p. 248). Here, a 35– 40 years old male was killed by two bone arrowheads, and he was later deposited in a bog (Becker, 1952). Judging from the angle of one of the arrowheads the arrow was Wred from above indicating that the man was ambushed. The importance of the bow is further shown by the anthropomorphic stela from Petit-Chasseur, Sion, Switzerland, dating to the Bell Beaker Culture (Gallay and Spindler, 1972). The stela shows a person with a bow slung across the chest and dressed in textiles patterned with triangles and lozenges - pat-

terning that also occurs on the Bell Beaker pottery in Denmark and elsewhere. Other such carvings are known from the Göhlitzsch slab from a long cist in Sachsen-Anhalt in Germany (Probst, 1991, p. 403). Apart from geometric patterns the slab, which probably dates to the Corded Ware Culture, shows a composite bow and a quiver with six arrows. The burnt wooden trace of an almost similar bow, also dating to the Corded Ware Culture, was found in an assumed female grave from the Polish lowlands, Borejewice (Czebreszuk and Szmyt, 1998, p. 186). Judging from the bows known from the Early Neolithic and the Iron Age in Denmark such bows are probably not present in the Danish or north-west European material (cf. Clark, 1963; Nielsen, 1991; Troels-Smith, 1960). Male identities Traditionally, burials and in particular their content are considered a main source when addressing questions concerning the social structure of the past. Extremely rich graves are typically seen as princely or chieXy burials whereas categories of uniform rich or well-equipped graves are usually seen as related to the social identities of society: rank, gender, age, etc. or even as the emergence of a warrior aristocracy (e.g., Kristiansen, 1987 and 1999). Recent mortuary studies have, however, suggested that burials often contain much more complex information with regard to the social dimensions of the burial practice (e.g., Barrett, 1990; Mizoguchi, 1993; Parker Pearson, 1999; Sørensen, 2004; Thomas, 1991). Barrett emphasizes the importance of the burial as a social event displaying the status of the mourners towards a larger audience and imagines that elaborate funeral dramas including feasting, sacriWce and procession may have been performed in connection with the burials in the barrow mounds (1990). In addition he states, “mortuary rituals are amongst the routine, strategic engagements through which people reproduce the conditions of their own lives” (Barrett, 1990, p. 182). According to Mizoguchi, who strongly rejects the traditional way of interpreting mortuary practices, and partly in accordance with Barrett, mortuary practices were conducted for the living and their society rather than for the dead (1993, p. 224). The deceased could be put on the same footing as portable artefacts carrying lots of symbolic meanings, which could be interpreted diVerently depending on the participants’ personal relations with and memories of the deceased

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

(Mizoguchi, 1993, p. 225). Furthermore, at the burial and through the re-examination of their relationship to the dead, relations between individuals were reaYrmed or even challenged (Mizoguchi, 1993, p. 225). A similar model of interpretation concerning the English Beaker burials is put forward by Thomas. He sees the grave goods of the English Beaker burials as having very little or no connection with reality as regards the lived identity of the deceased (1991, p. 35). As an example he mentions a burial at the Borrowstone cist cemetery, where an individual buried with bow and wristguard suVered from pronounced ankylosis of the spine (Thomas, 1991, p. 35). Instead he Wnds that the grave goods are representing constructions of highly formalized and idealized kinds of identity in death. The preburial activities were put together for an audience and the standardized set of objects were chosen in order to make the identity of the dead person familiar and uncomplicated (Thomas, 1991, p. 40). Sørensen combines the social dimension of burial practice with a more material one in her study of the Leubingen grave from the Early Bronze Age. She claims, unlike Thomas, that the identity of the deceased is relevant (2004). Sørensen believes that the graves are often potent semiotic spaces—that is, “that burials can be understood as deliberate and intentional constructions in which objects and space are used together to make important social statements” (Sørensen, 2004, p. 168). Even though models as the ones presented above reveal some interesting aspects of the identity of the dead and the ritual sphere of burial, they cannot be directly applied in general terms in connection with the interpretation of Bell Beaker burials. Despite the fact that some uniformity occurs in the material culture and in the burial customs in parts of Europe in the late 3rd millennium BC, rituals, ceremonies and cult must have been diVerent from one region to another and partly determined by local traditions, myths, religion and perhaps also by the level of social organisation. This diversity is, among other things, shown in the burial customs of the British Isles, Denmark and in the Low Countries where the cosmological settings are not followed as strictly as in central Europe (Vander Linden, 2004, p. 41). The complexity of the burial customs in the Danish early Late Neolithic is indicated by the variety of grave types in northern Jutland. Here certain grave types are preferred in certain areas, probably displaying a mixture of traditions, religion, and social structure within the area (Vandkilde, 1996, Fig. 286). New

77

strange and perhaps exciting traditions such as cremation, tools, and other material items, for instance Bell Beaker pottery, were picked up in connection with trade and exchange, or on journeys, and adapted and incorporated into the local Late Neolithic culture. Regarding the interpretation of the Danish archery graves, and perhaps weapon graves in general, no single or simple interpretation can be put forward. The standardized set of archery equipment and daggers may in some cases be personal belongings of the dead and in other cases, following for instance Thomas, be of a more symbolic character as for instance the mourners’ representation of the dead communicating idealized identities. That symbols were actually used are showed in several graves by the presence of both daggers of extreme sizes, broken daggers once of extreme sizes and by the presence of a single arrowhead probably connecting the dead person to archery. The presence of old sick men and young boys in graves with weaponry have been used to argue that no connection could be made between the dead person’s social identity in life and his grave gifts (e.g., Thomas, 1991, p. 35). However, burials of old males with weaponry may reXect what the dead person was in the prime of his life before age and disease changed that. In such cases, the identity of the deceased may be embellished by the mourners. In the cases of young boys not passed to adulthood, weapons are clearly symbolic and indicate what the boy could have become. A Wne example of this is the cremation grave from Solbakkegård, which contained what were probably the remains of a large male child (juvenile?) approximately 12 years old.3 Was this a male just passed from boyhood or a boy with a warrior’s equipment? Regardless whether the grave goods in the graves described above were personal belongings or a selective category of gifts given by the mourners or the society, the conclusion is the same regarding the early Late Neolithic society: an idealized male identity closely connected to certain weapons symbolising some sort of warriorhood did exist. But we might also ask: what is the diVerence, if any, between males buried with daggers and archers’ equipment and the bulk of males buried with merely one Xint dagger of an ordinary type? In order to answer this question we must return to the models brieXy pre-

3

Information kindly provided by museum keeper Palle Siemen, Esbjerg Museum.

78

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

sented in the introduction regarding warriorhood and the Late Neolithic society. A society where warriorhood comprises all men In the Danish Late Neolithic society male identity was per deWnition ascribed to warriorhood as symbolised by the presence of daggers in many male graves. This statement is supported by the uniformity in the equipment of the dead, which also illustrates the standardized and restricted symbolic equipment connected to warrior- or manhood. Such societies are well-known among many ethno-historical societies such as in Amazonia, on Papua New Guinea etc. Access to warriorhood was usually given by sex and age and warriorhood was not institutionalised but typically characterised by ‘ad hoc’ war parties. The sizes of the graves discussed here and the few cases where skeletons are preserved and anthropologically determined show that most of the graves most likely represent male graves. An example of this is the remains of a 30–40 years old male found in a stone cist in Højsager. This assumption is further supported by an interpretation of some of the Xat grave cemeteries holding anthropologically determined graves from both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Culture in central Europe. Analyses of 499 graves originating from the eastern or BohemianMoravian group of the Bell Beaker Culture of which 74 were anthropologically determined show that copper daggers, wristguards, bow-shaped pendants, boar-tusks and Xint arrowheads are typical male gifts even though a few exceptions do occur (Müller, 2001). Similar patterns are found elsewhere in Europe (e.g., BarWeld, 1986; Vandkilde, 2006). The presence of the archery graves in Denmark might speak against this model because they diVer from the ordinary graves, which suggests that rank might have been present in the Late Neolithic society. Furthermore, the graves only including daggers seem to show some variation. That is, some of the daggers often of Lomborg’s subtype I C diVer markedly by their extreme size and quality. These daggers, which also occur in combination with arrowheads, might be associated with rank. A society where warriorhood comprises all men, but some or all are organized in more specialized prestigious war institutions or male clubs The Late Neolithic burials might be seen in connection with the emergence of a special ‘warrior-

class’ where the bow is the tool of war and the special daggers symbolize rank and malehood within the male clubs. Such a warrior-class is not necessarily associated with an elite indicating a hierarchical and centralized society, but might have been similar to those of eastern Africa. Among the Masai and the Loikop the warriors were divided into diVerent male clubs according to age grading groups, each characterized by special styles in their way of dressing and decorating their spears (Larick, 1986). In other cases access to such clubs or institutions was typically regulated through personal qualities such as bravery in combat. They normally attracted young unmarried males for whom warriorhood was a way of gaining prestige. Such institutions of war are known from both hierarchical societies as for instance the Germanic tribes and from non-hierarchical ones as for instance the Plain Indians of North America (Vandkilde, 2006, pp. 361–362 with ref.). A society where warriorhood only comprises certain men, who are organized in institutions of war In the last model, which assumes that the Late Neolithic society was ranked, only males of the elite gained access to the warrior class. Several parallels are known from ethno-historical societies, for example, the Maori, Grand Chaco etc. On the basis of evidence presented in the graves Vandkilde sees the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker societies of central Europe as having been ranked societies, where warrior institutions existed (Vandkilde, 2006, pp. 375– 379). Similar societies may very well have been present in other places in contemporary Europe. The British Isles may have been such an instance as indicated by some of the extremely rich graves like the Amesbury archer, which contained around 100 objects, among which were three copper knives, sixteen Xint arrowheads, Wve pots, two small gold hair tresses, and two sandstone wristguards (Fitzpatrick, 2002). However, in my opinion the complexity of social organisation in the early Late Neolithic of Denmark is not similar to that of central Europe or the British Isles. Thus, no extremely rich graves indicating concentrations of wealth and power and thereby social inequality have been found in Denmark. This means that we can exclude model number three. In conclusion then, while we have not found as extremely rich graves as for example in central Europe, we should not overlook the presence of

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

daggers of very high quality and extreme size especially in the archers’ graves either. They indicate the presence of a special war-like group of men and reXect a moderately ranked society where some people were able to gain more power or wealth than others. This evidence is more in agreement with model number two according to which all men were part of a warriorhood where some may have belonged to particularly prestigious groupings. Model number one, on the other hand, where warriorhood comprised all young men, is more compatible with societies with a more ‘primitive’ social structure as for instance the one on Papua New Guinea (cf. Brown, 1978, pp.151–155; Rappaport, 1968, pp. 28–31). In the Danish Late Neolithic society one might imagine that warriorhood of some kind was accessed through age or prestige and connected to malehood. It probably only lasted for a limited time of a person’s life as seen in several ethnographic societies. Young warriors might have been grouped according to age grades as in the example from East Africa, or other arrangements might have existed such as in Germania Libera or among the Plain Indians. In my opinion the archers’ graves do not indicate a warrior elite—the fact that pressure-Xaked arrowheads occur on many settlement sites from this speciWc period indicate that bows and arrows surely were not reserved to a limited group of warriors. On the contrary, they were the typical tools of war probably used by all communities of northern and central Jutland. Boys most likely started practicing while playing and as a result they became very skilled archers. As illustrated above, other mechanisms such as traditions within the group/tribe, age, status etc. might have decided the kind of equipment with which the deceased was buried. Sørensen, who studies ornaments and dress Wttings from the Middle Bronze Age in southern Germany, has shown that material culture was actively used in displaying certain kinds of social identities (1997). She stresses the powerfulness of physical appearance as a mediation of social categories and identities and claims that it may be involved in deWning both the identity of social groups and identities within groups (Sørensen, 1997, p. 93). She argues that appearance contains codes that can be investigated and that categorical identities locate people according to a social code of general relevance such as life-style or life-cycle (Sørensen, 1997, p. 95). This is also the case in many ethno-historical societies such as the above-mentioned Loikop in northern Kenya where the warriors

79

used the style of their spears to create and manipulate their own statuses (Larick, 1986, p. 271). Furthermore, the warriors were typically members of special cohorts, which dressed, spoke, and danced in distinctive ways. In the Late Neolithic a warrior carrying a dagger of extreme size, bow and arrows and most likely wearing colourful or special clothes and other kinds of body-ornamentation as jewellery, tattoos etc. was surely demonstrating his malehood and personal identity. The warriors’ appearance is illustrated very well by the Neolithic rock-painting from Spain that shows diVerent battle scenes (cf. Fig. 9). Many of the warriors on these depictions are wearing special clothes and head dresses in the shape of feathers or the like. Other Wgurines are wearing rings around their ankles and body paint or tattoos (Guilaine and Zammit, 2001, p. 103). The Late Neolithic society Ethno-historical sources show that the level of social organisation or political centralisation is closely connected to the structure of the military organisation (Otterbein, 1970). “ƒ[T]he higher the level of the political centralization, the more likely is it that the military organization is composed by professionals” (Otterbein, 1970, p. 48). In “The Evolution of War” Otterbein investigates a number of diVerent aspects connected with war and military organisation in 50 ethno-historical societies situated all over the world and displaying diVerent levels of social organisation (Otterbein, 1970, p. 11). Forty-six societies have military organisations while only four societies, all situated in isolated locations such as on mountain tops or on islands, did not have any kind of military organisation (Otterbein, 1970, p. 19). Among the societies having military organisations about half had an army consisting of non-professionals, while the other half were professionals even though nonprofessionals could also be included in this group. In 11 un-centralised societies (bands and tribes) and 11 centralised societies (chiefdoms and states) professionals existed. In only Wve centralised societies the military organisation consisted of non-professionals, while the similar number in un-centralised societies was 19. These statistics and the fact that there is a connection between the level of military organisation and the level of social complexity in a society is very important knowledge to bear in mind when trying to interpret the material culture of the early Late Neolithic Bell Beaker society of northern Jutland.

80

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

Often the Bronze Age society is seen as having the level of chiefdoms (e.g., Ebbesen, 2004; Kristiansen, 1987 and 1998). This has, though, recently been questioned (Johansen et al., 2003), whereas the Late Neolithic society is somehow placed in a grey zone between Stone and Bronze Age as regards social organisation (see Vandkilde, 1996, p. 259). Regarding the Late Neolithic society two diVerent views of social structure are put forward by Ebbesen and Apel. Ebbesen characterizes the society as a tribal society controlled by old men (gerontocracy) and resulting in an extreme conservatism where very few changes took place within the period (Ebbesen, 2004, pp. 103–104). Apel, on the other hand, presents an alternative view in connection with his investigations of the South Scandinavian Xint dagger material (2001). He interprets the Late Neolithic society as having a social structure at the level of chiefdoms, where the dominant social structures were upheld by male elders and organised as unilineal descent groups (Apel, 2001, p. 340). This perception emanates from the study of Xint daggers. Apel bases his interpretation on investigations of the degree of sharpening and this makes him think that they were distributed by direct exchange and most likely redistributed from centres on the local or regional level—a centralised organisation of trade which characterises chiefdoms. The location of such centres is hinted to have been in Jæren and North Karmøy on the Norwegian west coast, Västergötland and the Möre region in Småland, both situated in Sweden (Apel, 2001, p. 320). Apel further Wnds that the dagger production, which he proposes was organised as a part of an institutionalised heredity, suggests a society at the level of chiefdoms. Other aspects of society may very well have been organised in a similar way. With regard to northern Jutland he considers the area marginalized due to the unfertile soil and the distribution of the Single Grave Culture (Apel, 2001, pp. 331–336). The dagger production is seen as a way of maintaining the former way of life with regard not only to social structure, but also to material traditions. An opposite view of the organisation of production and trade is presented by Shennan dealing with the production of copper in the eastern Alps during the second millennium BC (1998). Shennan shows that the production was neither monopolised nor under centralised control. The strategic location and fortiWcation of the settlements involved in mining point towards hostility between neighbouring

groups and the threat of raiding rather than towards centralisation and emergent political control (Shennan, 1998, p. 199). The mining region is seen as consisting of small autonomous and relatively egalitarian communities that traded the copper and obtained various goods in return. A similar and non-hierarchical way of organising the access to a mining area is known from the tribal societies in the Highlands of New Guinea where materials for stone axes were extracted through mining (Brown, 1978, p. 42; Burton, 1989; Højlund, 1979). Here diVerent clans within the tribe had access to the mining area, or in some cases gained access by giving a certain amount of pigs to those who ‘owned’ the mines. The size and quality of the stone axe, which men always carried with them, showed the status of the carrier. Furthermore, the stone axes had a social function and the owner could indirectly gain control over people through exchange or by using the axes as bride prises (Højlund, 1979). Large axes were among the most valuable items a man could possess—equivalent to full-sized pigs and pearlshells (Burton, 1989, p. 258). The Xint dagger may very well have played similar roles. Furthermore, the production of Xint daggers in northern Jutland led to comprehensive connections and trade with neighbouring people. Daggers were traded to Sweden and Norway, but also towards the south into areas where Bell Beaker ideology and items were prevailing (Apel, 2001, pp. 294–304; Becker, 1993; Varberg, 2005). These contacts may have introduced not only diVerent Bell Beaker items and metallurgy, but also certain aspects of ideology where warriorhood and the archer seem to have played an important role. This contact emanating from the northern parts of Jutland towards the south, for example towards the Veluwe region in the Netherlands, could have been taking place directly, maybe by sea, without any intermediate links. This conclusion is given by the distribution of the Danish Bell Beaker phenomenon, which is in agreement with the distribution of archery graves (Fig. 2). It further indicates that especially the people living in the area around the Limfjorden in northern Jutland were also directly involved in voyages by sea. Returning to the question of social organisation in relation to mining we might look at Skovbakken near Aalborg where c. 15 mines in total have been excavated. They are estimated to have covered an area of approximately 5000 sq. m. (Becker, 1993, p. 112). In the same area six hoards of daggers with a

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

total of 86 daggers of type I occur within a radius of c. 1.3 km, emphasising the importance of the area and of the dagger production (Sarauw, in prep.). The mining region must have been situated within diVerent territories controlled by diVerent communities or maybe shared by communities or family groups within the area. We do not know of any fortiWed settlements or fortiWcation of the mining areas at Skovbakken. Furthermore, because of the abundance of Xint in this part of Denmark, it is not very likely that the extraction was monopolised and under centralized control. But much hard labour was invested in establishing the shafts of the mines, and it is not likely that someone from outside the group could avoid getting into conXict with the owners if he entered a mine with the purpose of obtaining high quality Xint without permission. According to Helbling, wars in tribal ethno-historical societies can be explained by two structural conditions: 1. The anarchic structure of the political system consisting of politically autonomous groups, and 2. The dependence on locally concentrated resources due to the immobility of local groups (Helbling, 2006). These factors caused a warlike type of strategic interaction between local groups. In the Late Neolithic society wars might have been fought for similar reasons. A well known tradition among tribal societies is cattle raiding typically conducted by young warriors who want to show their bravery and gain prestige. In the Late Neolithic societies where cattle and other animal husbandry played a central role in the subsistence economy, similar raids could have taken place (cf. Fokkens, 1999; Kristiansen, 1998). Furthermore, ethno-historical investigations conducted in several diVerent places in the world show that warfare happened many times in each generation regardless whether the societies were tribal societies or states (Keeley, 1996, p. 32). Due to the bad preservation of skeletons such evaluations cannot, however, be stated with any certainty as regards the Late Neolithic. Nevertheless, looking at the adjoining periods, several examples of violence are present. One example of this is Pia Bennikes investigations of 257 Neolithic crania, thirteen of which show signs of trepanation primarily on the left side of the skull (Bennike, 1985a,b, p. 481 and 82). Most of those where the sex could be determined were males. This indicates that the person at some point either was attacked or involved in faceto-face combat with a right-handed person and in some cases survived the injuries. Another example is the multiple burial from Nord-Trøndelag, Norway,

81

dated to the Early Bronze Age. It contained between 20 and 30 individuals, many of whom showed traces of having suVered a violent death (Fyllingen, 2003). Old and healed injuries on some of the skeletons indicated that violence was an integrated part of life. The presence of many diVerent types of burials (Vandkilde, 1996, p. 278, Fig. 286) and the very clear borders between the diVerent types of burials within the Bell Beaker area in northern Jutland indicate that the Bell Beaker phenomenon cannot be interpreted as reXecting one group of people led by a superior chief. Rather, the area consisted of a number of territory-based smaller groups or clans organised according to descent and probably led by chiefs, headmen or whatever we choose to call them. In my opinion the term chiefdom as described by Service is not compatible with the Late Neolithic society of northern Jutland (Service, 1971[1962]). Here my position is partly in opposition to Apel’s ideas. However, certain elements characterising chiefdoms, such as direct exchange and maybe craft specialization, were most likely present. Nevertheless, when seen from a regional perspective direct exchange of Xint daggers towards Norway and Sweden was the only and most natural way of trading because of the ocean and because of the great geographical distances. The diVerent groups were probably loosely joined by a superior Bell Beaker concept as reXected in the general distribution of the Bell Beaker pottery. These groups were capable of organising expeditions of trade towards the north and south, and alliances may have developed over large distances. In the same way the diVerent groups or communities of northern and central Jutland may have been part of a complicated network of internal alliances, which could have meant that they had to support each other with warriors in times of conXict. As I have already pointed out, my point of view is that the society was moderately ranked as illustrated in the diVerent qualities of the daggers—a social structure where persons able to establish a personal network of alliances, maybe through gift-giving and trade, must have enjoyed a favourable position. The wealth of the area was in certain areas—probably reXecting territories of certain lineages - transformed into monumental grave buildings in the shape of burial mounds or stone cists. As suggested by Vandkilde, the social group may have been the real owner of wealth since metal objects were mostly ritually deposited. Besides, it seems likely that the collective side of social organisation was dominant (Vandkilde, 1996, pp. 281–283).

82

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

When comparing the scenario of the archery graves with our knowledge of settlements and houses, unanimity emerges. People were probably organised into small territorial groups, often living in sunken Xoor huts in small dispersed units, reXecting an economic background where farming must have played a major role for most people. An example of such a settlement that comprised 23 early Late Neolithic houses primarily with sunken Xoors has been found at Bejsebakken close to Ålborg in northern Jutland. Many of the houses hold Bell Beaker pottery and fragments of daggers and other refuse (Sarauw, in press). Among the longhouses the sizes vary from 70–110 sq. m, which is quite a typical size with regard to the area and period in question (Fig. 10). The size and internal organization of houses are important sources to knowledge about social organisation. Are, for instance, the sunken Xoor huts habitation areas for nuclear families as seen from a rather modern or historical point of view or were such small houses actually occupied by extended family groups? Ethnographic evidence shows that quite a few people can live together on a rather limited space (cf. Lerche, 1970; Steensberg, 1980). The uniformity of these

house types within a rather large area does not indicate any marked diVerentiation in social structure—on the contrary. Furthermore, no settlement hierarchy or central places have been found. It is only from the middle or late Late Neolithic, c. 2100–2000 BC onwards, that we Wnd extraordinarily large longhouses (cf. Artursson, 2005, p. 27; Boas, 1993; Nielsen and Nielsen, 1985) that might indicate a certain rank of the resident. This furthermore indicates that general changes with regard to social structure had taken place. In conclusion the presence of 66 graves with a very standardized set of weaponry comprising daggers of high quality and extreme size, pressure-Xaked arrowheads indicating the presence of bow and arrows cannot be seen as a coincidence. On the contrary, along with the distribution of Bell Beaker pottery these graves are in accordance with trends in Europe. Hence, they emphasize the close connections that existed between diVerent parts of Europe within the distribution of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Moreover, the graves, whether or not the burial gifts should be seen as personal belongings or as the mourners’ representation of the dead, indicate that some kind of idealized male identity was present in large parts of Europe (cf. Treherne, 1995). In this idealized identity weapons and the appearance as a warrior played a central role. The male war-like identity, which in Denmark should be seen as a tradition rooted in the Single Grave Culture, was most likely connected to age and gender, whereas in some European regions other factors such as status and rank seem to have played a larger role. Acknowledgments This article is part of a PhD. dissertation in progress at Department of Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Aarhus. The dissertation concerns the Danish Bell Beaker phenomenon. The author is indebted to the staV at a number of Jutish museums and the National Museum for providing assistance when looking through the material. Furthermore, I thank Mads K. Holst, Helle Juel Jensen, Helle Vandkilde, and Lone Sarauw for useful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Appendix A

Fig. 10. Example of typical two-aisled longhouse and sunken Xoor hut from the early Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site, Bejsebakken, situated near Limfjorden in northern Jutland. Possible storage pits are shown in light grey, Wreplaces in dark grey.

The number in brackets refers to the Danish national registry of relics of the past (sb. no. D sognebeskrivelsen, www.dkconline.dk) or the

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

number in a local museum (e.g. SMS D Skive and FHM D Forhistorisk Museum Moesgård) or The National Museum (NM A/NM B). AUD is an abbreviation for the annual publication “Arkæologiske udgravninger i Danmark” (Rigsantikvarens Arkæologiske Sekretariat (1984–2001)), which describes new excavations in Denmark. 1. Søndersø Nørremark, Søndersø Parish (sb. no. 18). Lambertsen, 1993. 2. Melbjerg høje, Stubdrup, Ø. Brønderslev Parish (sb. no. 17). 3. Lem, Hellevad Parish (sb. no. 104). Ebbesen, 2004. 4. Højsager, Bjergby, Bjergby Parish (sb. no. 61). Nørgaard, 1967; Ebbesen, 2004, 2005. 5. “Trinddøjs”, Lødderup, Lødderup Parish (NM A 31.166-69). Ebbesen, 2004. 6. Odby grave A, Odby Parish, (sb. no. 13). Ebbesen, 1995, 2004, p. 258. 7. Tåbel Renseanlæg, Vestervig Parish (sb. no. 417). AUD, 1994, no. 306. Bjerrekær, 1994. 8. Rakkeby Hede, Rakkeby Parish (sb. no. 2). AUD, 1998, no. 271. 9. Visby, Visby Parish (sb. no. 40). AUD, 1999, no. 297. 10. Vestervig grave C, Vestervig Parish (sb. no. 56). Ebbesen, 2005. 11. Fandrup, Farsø Parish (sb. no. 29). Ebbesen, 2004. 12. Fredbjerg, Farsø Parish (sb. no. 150). 13. Foulum, Foulum Parish (sb. no. 5). Ebbesen, 2004. 14. Brorstrup, Brorstrup Parish (NM B 1359-60). Ebbesen, 2004. 15. Stenildgård, Års, Års Parish (sb. no. 173). Ebbesen, 2004; Kunwald, 1954, p. 86; Lomborg, 1973, p. 84. 16. Halsmandbro II, Ejdrup Parish (sb. no. 65). AUD, 1996 no. 244. 17. Åle, Ranum Parish (sb. no. 66–68). AUD, 1997 no. 262. 18. Daugbjerg, Daubjerg Parish (sb. no. 5). Ebbesen, 2004. 19. “Kjærgård”, Fly Parish (sb. no. 12). Ebbesen, 2004. 20. Kobberup, Kobberup Parish (sb. no. 44). Ebbesen, 2004. 21. Tastum, Kobberup Parish (sb. no. 65). Ebbesen, 2004. 22. Vridsted, Vridsted Parish (SMS 439-45). Ebbesen, 2004.

83

23. Roslev, Roslev Parish (SMS, ReV. I, 694-6). Ebbesen, 2004. 24. Nissum, Åsted Parish (SMS, ReV. I, 575-5d). Ebbesen, 2004. 25. Grove, Brøndum Parish (sb. no. 16). Ebbesen, 1995, 2004, p. 84. 26. Tolstrup, Dølby Parish (sb. no. 3). Ebbesen, 2004. 27. Savstrupgård, Oddense Parish (sb. no. 13). Ebbesen, 2004. 28. Bøgeskov, grave G, Gullev Parish (sb. no. 39). Ebbesen, 2004. 29. Kistrup, Løvel Parish (sb. no. 21). Ebbesen, 2004. 30. Sdr. Andrup, Ramsing Parish (sb. no. 8). Ebbesen, 2004. 31. Rærup, Grinderslev Parish (sb. no. 23). Ebbesen, 2004. 32. Thise, Thise Parish (sb. no. 11). Ebbesen, 2004. 33. Fjallerslev, grave A, Ovtrup (sb. no. 31). Simonsen, 1978. 34. Hald, Ørslevkloster Parish (sb. no. 45). Noe, 1971. 35. Thorsø Hede, Voldby Parish (NM A 12.07374). Ebbesen, 2004. 36. Lemmer, Lime Parish (FHM 5118). Ebbesen, 2004. 37. Allestrup Vest, grave Eh, Vejlby Parish, (sb. no. 13). Fiedel and Nielsen, 1989, p. 36. 38. Allestrup Vest, grave Bz, Vejlby Parish (sb. no. 13). 39. Kjeldsminde, Nørre Årslev Parish (sb. no. 19). 40. Marshøj, Gjerrild Parish (sb. no. 56). 41. Damgården IV, Søften Parish (sb. no. 9). AUD, 1991 no. 293. 42. Tvilum, grave CS, Tvilum Parish (sb. no. 74). 43. Tvilum, grave CT, Tvilum Parish (sb. no. 74). 44. Vinding grave O, Vinding Parish (sb. no. 42). 45. Trust, mound 12, Tvilum Parish (NM A 12.494-97 and B 6022). Ebbesen, 2004. 46. Østbirk, Østbirk Parish, grave 4 (sb. no. 140). Ebbesen, 2004. 47. Plovstrup, Tørring Parish (sb. no. 41). Ebbesen, 2004. 48. Karolinelund, grave F, Voel Parish (sb. no. 136). AUD, 1999, no. 456. 49. Karolinelund, grave A, Voel Parish. AUD, 1999, nr. 456. 50. Løsning, Løsning Parish (sb. no. 17). Ethelberg, 1982. 51. Kirkegårde, Assing Parish (NM A 17.317-26). Ebbesen, 2004.

84

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

52. Kvindvad, mound 1, grave A, Sinding Parish (sb. no. 73). Ebbesen, 2004; Lomborg, 1973, p. 115. 53. Kvindvad, mound 3, Sinding Parish (sb. no. 75). Ebbesen, 2004. 54. Borbjerg, mound 7, Borbjerg Parish (sb. no. 33). Ebbesen, 2004; Lomborg, 1973, Fig. 4. 55. Råbjerg Hede, mound 1, grave C, Fovsing Parish (sb. no. 15). Ebbesen, 2004; Lomborg, 1973, pp. 116–118. 56. Gudum Parish (sb. no. 307). Ebbesen, 2004. 57. Roesgård, Rom Parish (sb. no. 8). Ebbesen, 2004. 58. Ø. Herupgård, Dybe Parish (sb. no. 32). Ebbesen, 2004. 59. Rammedige, Ramme Parish (sb. no. 26). Ebbesen, 2004; Kunwald, 1954, p. 72. 60. Vester Egebjerg, Ejsing Parish (sb. no. 13). AUD, 1998, no. 486. 61. Nøvling Plantage, Vildbjerg Parish (sb. no. 51). AUD, 2000, no. 632. 62. Vittrup, mound 3, grave A, Lindknud Parish (sb. no. 186). Ebbesen, 2004. 63. Solbakkegård IV, Brøndum Parish (sb. no. 337). AUD, 1999, no. 611. 64. Nustrup, Nustrup Parish (sb. no. 210). Ebbesen, 2004. 65. Vorbasse, Vorbasse Parish (sb. no. 39). AUD, 1987, no. 421; Siemen, 1992. 66. Vorbasse, Vorbasse Parish (sb. no. 21). References Apel, J., 2001. Daggers, Knowledge and Power. The Social Aspects of Flint-Dagger Technology in Scandinavia 2350– 1500 cal BC. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Uppsala. Artursson, M., 2005. Byggnadstradition. In: Lagerås, P., Strömberg, B. (Eds.), Bronsåldersbygd 2300–500 f.Kr. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Lund, pp. 20–83. Asingh, P., 1988. Diverhøj—a complex burial mound and a Neolithic settlement. J. Dan. Archaeol. 6, 130–154. BarWeld, L., 1986. Chalcolithic burial in northern Italy—problems of social interpretation. Dialoghi di Archeologia 2, 241–248. BarWeld, L., Chippindale, C., 1997. Meaning in the later prehistoric rock-engravings of Mont Bégo, Alpes-Maritimes, France. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 63, 103–128. Barrett, J.C., 1990. The monumentality of death: the character of Early Bronze Age mortuary mounds in southern Britain. World Archaeol. 22 (2), 179–189. Becker, C.J., 1952. Skeletfundet fra Porsmose ved Næstved. Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark, 25–30. Becker, C.J., 1957. De stortandede Xint-spyd og deres alder. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1956, 205–220. Becker, C.J., 1993. Flintminer og Xintdistribution ved Limfjorden. In: Lund, J., Ringtved, J. (Eds.), Kort- og rå-stofstudier omk-

ring Limfjorden. Rapport fra seminarer afholdt 7.-8. November 1991 i Bovbjerg samt 23–24. April 1992 i Aalborg. Limfjordsprojektet, rapport 6. Aarhus, pp. 111–134. Bennike, P., 1985a. Stenalderbefolkningen på øerne syd for Fyn. En antropologisk redegørelse. In: Skaarup, J., Yngre stenalder på øerne syd for Fyn. Meddelelser fra Langelands Museum, Rudkøbing, pp. 467–491. Bennike, P., 1985b. Palaeopathology of Danish Skeletons. A Comparative Study of Demography, Disease and Injury. Akademisk Forlag, København. Bjerck, H.B., 1987. Steinsmedene. Spor, Nr. 1, årgang 2. Trondheim, 43–45. Bjerrekær, A., 1994. En bueskytte fra stenalderen. Sydthy Årbog, 6–8. Boas, N.A., 1993. Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Settlements at Hemmed Church and Hemmed Plantation. J. Dan. Archaeol. 10, 119–135. Brown, P., 1978. Highland peoples of New Guinea. Cambridge University Press, London, New York and Melbourne. Brøndsted, J., 1957. Danmarks Oldtid. Første bind. Stenalderen. Gyldendal, København. Budziszewski, J., Haduch, E., Wiodarczak, P., 2003. Bell Beaker Culture in South-eastern Poland. In: Czebreszuk, J., Szmyt, M. (Eds.), The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the symposium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznaj (Poland), May 26–29 2002. BAR International Series 1155, Oxford, pp. 155–181. Burton, J., 1989. Repeng and the salt-makers: ‘ecological trade’ and stone axe production in the Papua New Guinea Highlands. Man 24, 255–272. Case, H., 1977. The Beaker Culture in Britain and Ireland. In: Mercer, R. (Ed.), Beakers in Britain and Europe: Four Studies. BAR Supplementary Series 26, Oxford, pp. 71–101. Case, H., 2001. The Beaker Culture in Britain and Ireland: Groups, European Contacts and Chronology. In: Nicolis, F. (Ed.), Bell Beakers Today. Pottery, People, Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Riva del Gardo (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, vol. 1. Trento, pp. 361–377. Clark, J.G.D., 1963. Neolithic bows from somerset, England, and the prehistory of archery in north-western Europe. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 29, 50–98. Clarke, D.V., Cowie, T.G., Foxon, A., 1985. Symbols of power at the time of Stonehenge. Edinburgh. Czebreszuk, J., 2003. Bell Beakers from West to East. In: Bogucki, P., Crabtree, P.J. (Eds.), Ancient Europe. 8000 B.C.–A.D. 1000. Volume I. The Mesolithic to Copper Age. Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World. Thomson and Gale, pp. 476–485. Czebreszuk, J., Szmyt, M., 1998. Der Epochenumbruch vom Neolithikum zur Bronzezeit im Polnischen TieXand am Beispiel Kujawiens. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 73 (2), 167–233. Ebbesen, K., 1985. Nordjyske gravkister med indgang. Bøstrup-kisterne. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1983, 5–65. Ebbesen, K., 1995. Spätneolithische Schmuckmode. Acta Archaeol. 66, 219–279. Ebbesen, K., 2004. En højgruppe ved Kvindvad, Vestjylland. Studier over senneolitisk tid. Kuml, 79–127. Ebbesen, K., 2005. En senneolitisk stenkiste i Bjergby på Mors. Kuml, 61–73. Egg, M., Goedecker-Ciolek, R., Groenman-van Waateringe, W., Spindler, K., 1993. Die Gletschermumie vom Ende der Steinzeit aus den Ötztaler Alpen. Sonderdruck aus Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 39, 1992.

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87 Ethelberg, P., 1982. Gravens traditioner. Skalk 1982 (6), 10–14. Fabech, C., 1988. Stenkisten fra Blære. Kuml 1986, 45–75. Fiedel, R., Nielsen, A.B. (Eds.), 1989. Allestrup, gravplads, yngre stenalder. Arkæologiske fund 1987-88. Kulturhistorisk Museum, Randers, pp. 36–37. Fitzpatrick, A.P., 2002. ‘The Amesbury Archer’: a well-furnished Early Bronze Age burial in southern England. Antiquity 76, 629–630. Fokkens, H., 1999. Cattle and martiality: changing relations between man and landscape in the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age. In: Fabech, C., Ringtved, J. (Eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Aarhus, Denmark, May 4–7 1998. Jutland Archaeological Society, Aarhus, pp. 35–43. Fyllingen, H., 2003. Society and violence in the Early Bronze Age: an analysis of human skeletons from Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. Norwegian Archaeol. Rev. 36 (1), 27–43. Gallay, G., Spindler, K., 1972. Le Petit-Chasseur—chronologische und kulturelle Probleme. Helvetia Archaeologica(10/11), 62–89. Glob, P.V., 1945. Studier over den jyske Enkeltgravskultur. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1944, 1–283. Green, S., Houlder, C.H., Keeley, L.H., 1982. A Flint Dagger from Ffair Rhos, Ceredigion, Dyfed, Wales. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 48, 492–501. Guilaine, J., Zammit, J., 2001. The Origins of War. Violence in Prehistory. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. Hodder, I., 1982. Symbols in Action. Ethno-Archaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Helbling, J., 2006. War and peace in societies without central power: theories and perspectivies. In: Otto, T., Thrane, H., Vandkilde, H. (Eds.), Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, pp. 113–140. Højlund, F., 1979. Stenøkser i Ny Guineas Højland. Hikuin 5, 31–48. Jensen, J.Aa., 1973. Myrhøj, 3 hustomter med klokkebægerkeramik. Kuml 1972, 61–122. Johansen, K.L., Laursen, S.T., Holst, M.K., 2003. Spatial patterns of social organization in the Early Bronze Age of South Scandinavia. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 23, 33–55. Keeley, L.H., 1996. War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press, New York. Kern, D., 2003. Glockenbecher in Ostösterreich – andere Fragen andere Antworden? In: Czebreszuk, J., Szmyt, M. (Eds.), The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the symposium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznaj (Poland), May 26–29 2002. BAR International Series 1155, Oxford, pp. 249–254. Kristiansen, K., 1987. From stone to bronze—the evolution of social complexity in Northern Europe, 2300–1200 BC. In: BrumWel, E.M., Earle, T. (Eds.), Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 30–51. Kristiansen, K., 1998. Europe Before History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kristiansen, K., 1999. The emergence of warrior aristocracies in later European prehistory and their long-term history. In: Carman, J., Harding, A. (Eds.), Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives Sutton Publishing, Stroud, pp. 175–189. Kühn, H.J., 1979. Das Spätneolithikum in Schleswig-Holstein. Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumünster.

85

Kunwald, G., 1954. De ældste Vidnesbyrd om Ligbrænding I Danmarks Oldtid. Dansk Ligbrændingsforenings Beretning. København. Lambertsen, K., 1993. Dolktids cirkelgrav. Skalk 1993 (3), 10–13. Larick, R., 1986. Age grading and ethnicity in the style of Loikop (Samburu) spears. World Archaeol. 18 (2), 269–283. Lerche, G., 1970. Kogegruber i New Guineas højland. Kuml 1969, 195–209. Liversage, D., 2003. Bell Beaker Pottery in Denmark—its Typology and Internal Chronology. In: Czebreszuk, J., Szmyt, M. (Eds.), The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the symposium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznaj (Poland), May 26–29 2002. BAR International Series 1155, Oxford, pp. 39–49. Lomborg, E., 1973. Die Flintdolche Dänemarks. Studien über Chronologie und Kulturbeziehungen des südskandinavischen Spätneolitikums. Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie B, bind 1. Det kongelige nordiske Oldskriftselskab, København. Loy, T., 1998. Blood on the axe. What’s the Iceman’s tools tell us. New Sci. 2151 (12), 40–43. Madsen, T., 1978. Perioder og periodeovergange i neolitikum. Om forskellige fundtypers egnethed til kronologiske opdelinger. Hikuin 4, 51–60. Makarowicz, P., 2003. Northern and Southern Bell Beakers in Poland. In: Czebreszuk, J., Szmyt, M. (Eds.), The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the symposium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznaj (Poland), May 26–29 2002. BAR International Series 1155, Oxford 2003, pp. 137–154. Mercer, R.J., 1999. The origins of warfare in the British Isles. In: Carman, J., Harding, A. (Eds.), Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives Sutton Publishing, Stroud, pp. 143–156. Michaelsen, K.K., 1989. En senneolitisk hustomt fra Vendsyssel. Kuml 1987, 77–86. Mitchell, J.C., 1966. The Yao Village. A Study in the Social Structure of a Nyasaland Tribe. Manchester University press, Manchester. Mizoguchi, K., 1993. Time in the reproduction of mortuary practices. World Archaeol. 25 (2), 223–235. Mottes, E., 2001. Bell Beakers and beyond: Xint daggers of northern Italy between technology and typology. In: Nicolis, F. (Ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Riva del Gardo (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, vol. 2. Trento, pp. 519–545. Müller, A., 2001. Gender DiVerentiation in burial rites and grave-goods in the Eastern or Bohemian-Moravian Group of the Bell Beaker Culture. In: Nicolis, F. (Ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Riva del Gardo (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, vol. 2. Trento, pp. 589–599. Müller, J., van Willigen, S., 2001. New radiocarbon ecidence for European Bell Beakers and the consequences for the diVusion of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. In: Nicolis F. (Ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Riva del Gardo (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, vol. 1. Trento, pp. 59–80. Nielsen, F.O., Nielsen, P.O., 1985. Middle and Late Neolithic Houses at Limensgård, Bornholm. J. Dan. Archaeol. 4, 101–114.

86

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87

Nielsen, O., 1991. Undersøgelsen af danske jernalderbuer og— pile. LAG 2, 36–89. Noe, P., 1971. Frigivet. En enkeltgravhøjs storhed og fald. MIV 1, 44–47. Nørgaard, P.C.O., 1967. Stenkistegrav. Skalk 1967 (6), 28–29. Olausson, D., 1997. Craft specialization as an agent of social power in the South Scandinavian Neolithic. In: Schild, R., Sulgostowska, Z. (Eds.), Man and Flint. Proceedings of the VIIth International Flint Symposium Warszawa—Ostrowiec Jwidtokrzyski. September 1995. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa, pp. 269–277. Otterbein, K.F., 1970. The Evolution of War. A Cross-Cultural Study. HRAF press, New Haven. Otterbein, K.F., 1994. Higi Armed Combat. In: Otterbein, K.F. (Ed.), Feuding and Warfare. Selected Works of Keith F. Otterbein Gordon and Breach, Philadelphia, pp. 75–96. Parker Pearson, M., 2005 [1993]. Bronze Age Britain. Batsford/ English Heritage, London. Parker Pearson, M., 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Sutton Publishing. Pidal, R.M., 1947. Historia de España. Tomo I. España Prehistórica, vol. I. Madrid. Probst, E., 1991. Deutschland in der Steinzeit. Jäger, Fischer und Bauern zwischen Nordseeküste und Alpenraum. Bertelsmann, München. Rappaport, R.A., 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors. Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Rigsantikvarens Arkæologiske Sekretariat (Eds.), 1984–2001. Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark (AUD) 1984–2001. Det Arkæologiske Nævn, København. Sarauw, T., in press. Late Neolithic Houses at Bejsebakken, Northern Jutland. Settlement structure and Late Neolithic houses. Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie C. København. Sarauw, T., in prep. Dagger production in the Early Late Neolithic of northern Jutland—marginalised production or the source of wealth?. Service, E.R., 1971[1962]. Primitive Social Organization. An Evolutionary Perspective. Random House, New York. Shennan, S., 1978. Archaeological ‘cultures’: an empirical investigation. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), The Spatial Organisation of Culture. Duckworth, London, pp. 113–139. Shennan, S., 1998. Producing copper in the eastern Alps during the second millennium BC. In: Knapp, A.B., Pigott, V.C., Herbert, E.W. (Eds.), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Mining. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 191–204. Sherratt, A., 1987. Cups that Cheered: The Introduction of Alcohol to Prehistoric Europe. In: Waldren, W.H., Kennard, R.C. (Eds.), Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean. DeWnition, Interpretation, Theory, and New Site Data. The Oxford International Conference 1986. BAR international series 331 (i), Oxford, pp. 81–106. Siemann, C., 2003. Flintdolche Norddeutschlands in ihrem grabrituellen Umfeld. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Band 97. Aus dem Seminar für Ur und Frühgeschichte der Universität Münster. Bonn. Siemen, P., 1992. En høj i Vorbasse og lidt om høje i almindelighed. Mark og Montre, 13–18. Simonsen, J., 1978. Dolktidsgrave fra Vejby og Fjallerslev. MIV 8, 32–35.

Skaarup, J., 1985. Yngre stenalder på øerne syd for Fyn. Meddelelser fra Langelands Museum. Rudkøbing. Skov, T., 1982. A Late Neolithic House Site with Bell Beaker Pottery at Stendis, Northwestern Jutland. J. Dan. Archaeol. 2, 39–44. StaVord, M., 2003. The parallel-Xaked Xint daggers of late Neolithic Denmark: an experimental perspective. J. Archaeol. Sci. 30, 1537–1550. Steensberg, A., 1980. New Guinea Gardens. A Study of Husbandry with Parallels in Prehistoric Europe. Academic Press, London and New York. Strahm, C. (Ed.), 1995. Das Glockenbecher-Phänomen. Ein Seminar. Freiburger Archäologische Studien 2, Freiburg. Sørensen, M.L.S., 1997. Reading dress: the construction of social categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe. J. Eur. Archaeol. 5 (1), 93–114. Sørensen, M.L.S., 2004. Stating identities: the use of objects in rich Bronze Age Graves. In: Cherry, J., Scarre, C., Shennan, S. (Eds.), Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 167–176. Thomas, J., 1991. Reading the body: Beaker funerary practice in Britain. In: Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., Toms, J. (Eds.), Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion Oxford 1989 Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford, pp. 33–42. Treherne, P., 1995. The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze-Age Europe. J. Eur. Archaeol. 3.1, 105–144. Troels-Smith, J., 1960. En Elmetræs-bue fra Aamosen og andre Træsager fra tidlig-neolitisk Tid. En foreløbig Meddelelse. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1959, 91–145. Turek, J., Dvorák, P., Peska, J., 2003. Archaeology of Beaker settlements in Bohemia and Moravia. An Outline of the Current State of Knowledge. In: Czebreszuk, J., Szmyt, M. (Eds.), The Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the symposium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznaj (Poland), May 26–29 2002. BAR International Series 1155, Oxford, pp. 183–208. Van der Beek, Z., 2004. An ancestral way of burial. Late Neolithic graves in southern Netherlands. In: Besse, M., Desideri, J. (Eds.), Graves and Funerary Rituals during the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age in Europe (2700-2000 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Cantonal Archaeological Museum, Sion (Switzerland) October 4th–7th 2001. BAR International Series 1284, Oxford, pp. 157–194. Vander Linden, M., 2004. Polythetic networks, coherent people: a new historical hypothesis for the Bell Beaker phenomenon. In: Similar but DiVerent. Bell Beakers in Europe. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznaj, pp. 35–62. Vandkilde, H., 1996. From Stone to Bronze. The Metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXXII. Jutland Archaeological Society, Aarhus. Vandkilde, H., 2001. Beaker Representation in the Danish Late Neolithic. In: Nicolis F. (Ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Riva del Gardo (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, vol. I. Trento, pp. 333–360.

T. Sarauw / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 65–87 Vandkilde, H., 2003. Commemorative tales: archaeological responses to modern myth, politics, and war. The Social Commemoration of Warfare, World Archaeology 35 (1), 126–144. Vandkilde, H., 2005. A Review of the Early Late Neolithic Period in Denmark: Practice, Identity and Connectivity. www.jungsteinSITE.de, 1–51.

87

Vandkilde, H., 2006. Warriors and Warrior Institutions in Copper Age Europe. In: Otto, T., Thrane, H., Vandkilde, H. (Eds.), Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, pp. 355–384. Varberg, J., 2005. Oprindelsen til en ny tidsalder. Mellem stenalder og bronzealder i Sydskandinavien 2350-1700 BC. Fornvännen 100, 81–93.