New Perspectives on the Bronze Age Proceedings of the 13Th Nordic Bronze Age Symposium Held in Gothenburg 9Th to 13Th June 2015

Home , Madla (municipality), Nordic Bronze Age

New Perspectives on the Bronze Age Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Bronze Age Symposium held in Gothenburg 9th to 13th June 2015

edited by Access Sophie Bergerbrant and Anna Wessman Open

Archaeopress

Archaeopress Archaeology

ISBN 978 1 78491 598 8 ISBN 978 1 78491 599 5 (e-Pdf)

Open

Archaeopress

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to all who participated in the 13th Nordic Bronze Age symposium. Thank you for attending the conference, for presenting excellent papers and for asking stimulating questions and sharing a wealth of specialist knowledge, all of which led to a successful, and memorable, conference. I am especially grateful to the session organisers for leading interesting sessions with lively discussions. I am also grateful to Johan Ling for organising the excursion to Tanum on the last day, and to Anna Wessman for leading the excursion to the so-called Bronze Age Strait. In addition, heartfelt thanks must also go to GAST, the student society, and to the student helpers who volunteered during the symposium.

A further round of thanks must go to the contributors to this volume, both for taking the time to write and revise the articles, and for having patience with the numerous small questions that always arise in finalising an edited volume. I would also like to thank my co-editor, Anna Wessman, who assisted until the start of her maternity leave in April 2016. Thanks are also due to Kristin Bornholdt Collins for assisting with matters of language and in the task of adopting the style guidelines of the publisher, and to Rich Potter for Accesssetting the volume. I am also grateful to Archaeopress for showing interest when I approached them about publishing the volume.

For generously sponsoring both the conference and this volume, I am profoundly grateful to Lennart J Hägglunds Stiftelse för arkeologisk forskning och utbilding. Open Finally, I wish to thank my colleagues at the Department of Historical Studies at the University of Gothenburg for their support, from conference planning to production of this volume. Particular thanks go to Johan Ling, Peter Skoglund and Kristian Kristiansen for their input along the way. I hope that the authors are pleased with the final result, and that many will find the diverse collection of articles an interesting and inspiring read.

Gothenburg, March 2017

Sophie Bergerbrant Archaeopress

i © Archaeopress and the authors, 2016. Access

Open

Archaeopress

Introduction ��1

New perspectives on Nordic Bronze Age graves ��5 Kristian Kristiansen

Mjeltehaugen: Europe’s northernmost Bell Beaker expression? ��7 Anette Sand-Eriksen

Bronze Age burials in megalithic graves in Falbygden ��19 Malou Blank

Identifying commoners in the Early Bronze Age: burials outside barrows ��37 Sophie Bergerbrant, Kristian Kristiansen, Morten E. Allentoft, Karin M. Frei, T. Douglas Price, Karl-Göran Sjögren and Anna Tornberg

Visible ships were the graves of Bronze Age ritual specialists ��Access 65 Gisela Ängeby

From bird wings to fool’s gold. Organic materials and stone from burials of the Late Bronze Age ��81 Karen Margrethe Hornstrup Open Craft and materials in the Bronze Age ��95 Nils Anfinset

On the behaviour of potters and metalworkers at the Narkūnai hillfort ��97 Vytenis Podėnas and Evaldas Babenskas

Castelluccio painted pottery: shared repertoires and local identity: A case study from Early Bronze Age Sicily ��109 Valentina Copat, Annalisa Costa and Paola Piccione

Bronze Age metal workshops in Denmark between 1500–1300 BC: elite-controlled craft on Zealand ��127 Heide Wrobel Nørgaard Archaeopress Bronze casting specialists during the Late Bronze Age in the Lake Mälaren region of East Middle Sweden ��143 Reidar Magnusson

Crafts and resources — western Norway in the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age ��153 Nils Anfinset

New currents in Scandinavian Bronze Age settlement and landscape archaeology ��169 Mette Løvschal and Kristian Brink

Time warps and long-term structures: images of Early Bronze Age landscape organisation in south-west Denmark ��177 Marianne Rasmussen

Settlements, political economy and social organisation: a study from the Únětice Circumharz Region ��187 Claes Uhnér

iii © Archaeopress and the authors, 2016. Continuity and change in settlement from LN II to EBA II. New results from a southern Jutland inland region ��203 Martin Egelund Poulsen

Tanum 1821 — Examining cooking pits in landscape studies ��219 Stig Swedberg, Annika Östlund and Oscar Jacobsson

Introduction to the rock art session at the 13th Nordic Bronze Age symposium ��233 Johan Ling

‘It’s a man’s world’? Sex and gender in Scandinavian Bronze Age rock art ��237 Christian Horn

Carved ship images from the Bronze Age barrows of north-eastern Zealand: on the trail of Bronze Age farmer- fishers and seafarers ��253 Liv Appel

Materiella bilder: Visuella uttryck bland Mälarvikens hällbilder ��267 Fredrik Fahlander

Re-cut rock art images (with a special emphasis on ship carvings) ��281 Gerhard Milstreu

The Kivik tomb: Bredarör enters into the digital arena — documented with OLS, SfM and RTI ��289 Ulf Bertilsson, Johan Ling, Catarina Bertilsson, Rich Potter and Christian HornAccess

The northern perspective 2000 BC – AD 1 ��307 Marianne Skandfer and Joakim Wehlin

Textiles from the peripheries? Upland evidence from NorwayOpen �� 313 Christopher Prescott and Lene Melheim

Stone Age appearances in the south-eastern Arctic Bronze Age ��327 Jarkko Saipio

Different Bronze Ages — the emergence of diverging cultural traditions in the southern inland, Norway ��343 Hilde Rigmor Amundsen

Nordic-Mediterranean relations in the second millennium BC ��355 Serena Sabatini and Lene Melheim Archaeopress The wheel and the sun: ‘Glocal’ symbologies of wheel-pendants across Europe ��363 Sara De Angelis and Maja Gori¹

Danish beads of Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass in context, and the amber connection ��375 Flemming Kaul and Jeanette Varberg

Mortuary rituals at Mycenaean Dendra: the Baltic connection and the role of amber ��387 Ann-Louise Schallin

The North from the perspective of the Greek mainland in the Late Bronze Age ��395 Helène Whittaker

Identity, individuals and agency in the Bronze Age ��403 Sophie Bergerbrant

iv © Archaeopress and the authors, 2016. Communicating identity through built space — Concise-sous-Colachoz (CH), a case study ��409 Markus Spring

Tracing boundaries of local group identities in the Early Bronze Age — south-west Norway ��421 Knut Ivar Austvoll

Intentionally made: objects as composite indexes of agency and the case of the Late Bronze Age house urns ��435 Serena Sabatini

Authors ��447

Access

Open

Archaeopress

v © Archaeopress and the authors, 2016. Access

Open

Archaeopress

Knut Ivar Austvoll

Abstract

This article explores the construction of boundaries between local group identities through the burial practice of south-west Nor- way in the Early Bronze Age. It is argued that active choices were made in the consolidation of groups that had both direct and indirect effects on choices made by neighbouring groups. By drawing on theoretical tools from poststructuralism and anthropology, boundary maintenance is detected in the archaeological record. This is investigated through the construction of burials, treatment of the deceased and gender categorisation. This is set against a background of a highly dynamic and interconnected region with ties to a broader Nordic Bronze Age world. The patterns found point to a region where choices in burial practice reflect real ongoing developments in the social organisation of local Bronze Age societies.

Key words: Early Bronze Age, group organisation, boundary maintenance, identity construction, burial mounds, sociopolitical organisation, south-west Norway. Access

Introduction with neighbouring groups, the compositional features of theOpen burial mounds can either be used as active tools to The construction of boundaries is a multifaceted express social power, or their value as identity symbols endeavour, based on intrinsic deeply rooted structures as can deflate, and become inclusive. well as more fleeting conjunctures of specific events in time and space (e.g. Barth 1969a; Braudel 1972; Jones Subscribing to a poststructuralist perspective (i.e. 1997). Mapping prehistoric boundaries can therefore Bourdieu 1977), with a dose of more clear-cut seem like an exceedingly difficult task; and, even anthropological theory (i.e. Barth 1969a), the burial more difficult than this is the challenge of identifying mounds of south-west Norway will be examined the reasons behind their construction. In south-west through a handful of elements laden with a perceived Norway these questions have largely gone unexplored, value of what groups considered representative of their argued to be linked to previous research discourses identity. Each element comprises different aspects where the material remainsArchaeopress are nearly always seen in of the burial practice, including the construction of correlation with the rich South Scandinavian material, the burial mound, treatment of the deceased, gender whether to postulate similarities, or differences (e.g. distribution and choices of artefacts. This article aims Shetelig 1925; Brøgger 1925b; Marstrander 1950; to identify how these elements, when diachronically Møllerop 1963b; Nordenborg Myhre 2004). This is and geographically combined, can be utilised to trace not necessarily problematic, however, the creation of boundaries of local group identities, and more implicitly boundaries between local group identities has been to ask why do people and groups, at certain times and underemphasised, and in its place a homogeneous at certain places, feel more in unison and collective, and and misrepresentative picture of Early Bronze Age how does it affect neighbouring groups? societies has emerged. In this article, it is argued that boundaries of constructed group identities were based A dichotomised discourse on both intentional and unintentional choices, linked to the compositional features of the burial mound. While The relevance of the Scandinavian peninsula has often the material remains from the Nordic Bronze Age are been marginalised in comparison to the much richer generally considered homogeneous and standardised Bronze Age found in southern Scandinavia (cf. Melheim (Kristiansen 1998: 68–70), a group’s reflection and 2015: 11–13). To a certain extent this is justified, at justification of the material is argued to be of social least if the amount of bronzes are considered, but it also significance. Though, depending on situational factors leaves regions such as south-west Norway locked in a

421 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2016. Tracing boundaries of local group identities in the Early Bronze Age

Figure 1. Guttormshaugen at Reheia, Karmøy. One of several burial mounds at Karmøy dated to Period III with traditional male equipment. Photo: K. I. Austvoll, 2013.

peripheral perspective where the internal organisation of but simplifies the complex and entangled system that groups becomes recycled through historical conditions we call identity. As argued by Philip L. Kohl (1981: 89), governed by southern impulses (cf. Nordenborg Myhre ‘The term [materiality]Access signifies a philosophical view of 2004). From the beginning of antiquarianism the region reality that accords greater casual weight to a society’s along the south-western coastline has frequently been behavior than to its thoughts, reflections, or justification dismissed as a place with a couple of mounds that of its behavior’. Kohl’s argument is important, as most likely are the result of migration from Jutland it implies that societies’ thoughts and perceptions (e.g. Christie 1842; Worsaae 1881: 72). This idea ofOpen themselves and others are visible in the material has remained tenacious in a Norwegian Bronze Age remains, including constructional features of the burial discourse, and was first coined by Anathon Bjørn mound. In this the burial becomes an important element, (1924: 40, 1927) as a dual culture of specialised farmers where the communal identity of a society is expressed confined only to a few coastal areas, primarily in south- by those left behind. And so, the burial not only defines west Norway, and a continuing hunter-fisher lifestyle the individual, but also the collective identity of the further inland and up the coast (cf. Prescott 1994). The group. debate is commonly traced back to the works of Haakon Shetelig (1922, 1925) and Anton Wilhelm Brøgger Defining identity (1925a, 1925b). On the one hand, Brøgger’s (1925a, 1925b) interpretations emphasised evolutionary, Identifying social processes in which the individual ecological and internal materialArchaeopress developments, which perceives themselves as part of a certain group of stressed the human adaptation to different ecological persons is not without its challenges. The process zones (e.g. Brøgger 1925a; Gjessing, G. 1944), on the is usually combined with the ability to cognitively other, Shetelig (1922, 1925) drew on external dynamic segment and organise the social environment of which influences, emphasising trade and migration that was in the person is a part, giving the person the ability to line with general European developments (e.g. Shetelig categorise themselves as part of a group and exclude 1925; Møllerop 1963b; Bakka 1993). However, both themselves from others (Ashforth and Mael 1989: 21). interpretations derive from a materialistic-oriented This gives the person a sense of belonging and purpose, understanding of the past. This view has governed accompanied by a certain set of know-how abilities and large parts of the research history and is also reflected norms. These norms and abilities are structured through in contemporary studies (e.g. Aakvik 2000; Engedal habitual practices that are historically constituted 2010). The material will always govern archaeological (Bourdieu 1977). It is these historically constituted interpretations of the past, and so it should. Still, the practices that create social and symbolic boundaries, burial mounds in south-west Norway have on the illustrated by Fredrik Barth in the introduction of his whole been interpreted in a fixed social framework book, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (1969b). Barth with southern Scandinavia, based on similarities in argues that ethnic distinctions do not depend on absence the material record (e.g. Shetelig 1925; Petersen 1926; of social interaction and acceptance, but are often the Møllerop 1963b). This view is not necessarily incorrect, reason why social systems are constructed (Barth 1969a:

10). As such, identity becomes a subjective process of beliefs are conformed to prescriptive idealised norms classification, which does not necessarily correlate with of behaviour (e.g. Isaacs 1989; Geertz 1963). That cultural commonalities. Developed from a frustration is, identity does not change but follows succeeding over how anthropology did not critically reflect on generations within the group (e.g. Childe 1958: 8). how groups developed or re-constructed themselves Instrumentalism, on the other hand, argues that the (Jenkins 2004: 95), Barth sought to re-interpret how social identity of a group is created by external and one conceived the social episteme, focusing on social internal relations and categorisation (e.g. Barth 1969a; and categorical boundaries, enabling us to study Cohen 2004[1969]). However, both discourses show the formation and dissolution of groups. The debate limits in the interpretation of identity, as a primodialistic following Barth’s original discussion on ethnicity and interpretation is not concerned with external political or boundaries continues, yet is surprisingly true to Barth’s economic influences, whereas instrumentalism has a original ideas from 1969 (e.g. Eriksen 1993; Malešević tendency to ignore historically internal habitual practice. 2004; Jenkins 2008; Wimmer 2013). Therefore, to borrow a saying from Andreas Wimmer (2013: 4), the two discourses need to be infused with Of course, a person within a specific group need not be a good dose of Bourdieusian sociology (e.g. Bourdieu limited to one identity. Nor do they need to be constrained 1977, 1990; see also Jones 1997). by sharply marked boundaries. As will be demonstrated in this article, the construction of groups in the Early In terms of Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1977), Bronze Age is motivated by an intertwined network which fundamentally seeks to erase the sociological of multifarious elements. Some may be diffuse and dichotomy between a constituted structuralism and an ambiguous, others may be fixed and primordial; still, ontological individualism, the construction of identity it is these relational and comparative categorisations is able to escape this tension and instead evolve through that enable individuals to be part of multiple groups at a dialectic discourse between the taken for granted the same time. As an example, people from the Early (primordialism)Access and the external categorisation of Bronze Age may have identified themselves with a grand others (instrumentalism). This is possible through interregional Nordic Bronze Age culture, as well as a habitus, which seeks to find a way between structure more local, clearly defined identity. This entails that a and action where both can become determining shared material culture does not necessarily hold a shared (Bourdieu 1977:73). Habitus is a factor that strongly identity, allowing interconnectedness between groups in relatesOpen to past social practices as well as current events, the Early Bronze Age. Approaching a theory of groups its application to the construction of group identities is in prehistory and mapping their boundaries requires an therefore considerable, and boils down to three concepts approach that allows one to follow structural processes framed in Bourdieu’s (1977) Outline of a Theory of as well as the particular events that ultimately changes Practice: doxa, heterodoxy and orthodoxy. Doxa is that or reconstructs them. Namely, the ‘[…] internal causes which is taken for granted (Bourdieu 1977: 166). These and hidden impersonal forces which move individuals are elements in everyday-life that are self-evident and and collectivities’ (Durkheim 1964:373). As a discipline go without saying. Created by habitus, doxa becomes to ultimately concerned with long-term developments, and such an extent embedded in the social life of people that it its underlying attention toward ontological questions like becomes the unalloyed truth, and subsequently it cannot ‘who are we’, and ‘where do we come from’, archaeology be questioned (Bourdieu 1977: 164). Doxa is only fully is uniquely placed to addressArchaeopress questions on group dynamics revealed to a society when negatively constituted by the and social developments. However, it also forces us to constitution of a field of opinion, e.g. faced with external move into interdisciplinary discourses with long-standing pressure (Bourdieu 1977: 168–169; see also Barth debates and traditions with completely different outlooks 1969a:10). Doxa is an important argument against critics and aims (Trigger 2006:497). There is always a danger who argue that similarities in identity do not necessarily here, as pointed out by Kristian Kristiansen (2004:115), correlate with a shared habitus (e.g. Yelvington 1991: to end up as a consumer of conflicting theories. Yet, 158). This is because a shared identity is created not working with such a multifaceted concept, ‘redlining’ only through subliminal similarities, but also through a oneself within a specific theory will arguably inhibit, consciousness of difference, i.e. a break with doxa (Jones or at least obscure, a number of the various elements 1997: 94). When doxa becomes questioned, it results in that constitute identity. With regard to this conundrum, the establishment of either orthodoxy or heterodoxy the sociology debate around identity often comes back (Bourdieu 1977: 169). ‘[…] orthodoxy attempting to the two dichotomous approaches: primordialism and to deny the possibility of alternatives at a conscious instrumentalism (e.g. Bentley 1987; Yelvington 1991: level, and heterodoxy acknowledging the existence of 159). a choice between different forms of knowledge and their evaluation through explicit critiques’ (Jones 1997: Primordialism sees identity as something deep, 94–95). Accordingly, heterodox knowledge would be internal and permanent. Here, a group’s behaviour and presumed if a society intentionally constructed ritual

423 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2016. Tracing boundaries of local group identities in the Early Bronze Age placements in graves to form a distinct group identity. uncovering social structures along the coast of south- This will not necessarily be expressed in the material west Norway. itself, but in artefact placement and other constructional aspects. Construction of the burial mound

Orthodoxy can be explained as the imperfect substitute The burial mounds have been analysed both externally of doxa (Bourdieu 1977: 169). The upper strata in society and internally based on information gathered from earlier can use orthodoxy through material and symbolic means publications, excavation reports and the topographical in their attempt to create and uphold a specific social archives (see Austvoll 2014:32). From this information structure. For example, orthodoxy can be used through the exterior can be divided into four categories (see burial mounds, displaying symbolic knowledge in order also Møllerop 1963b; Nordenborg Myhre 2004): naked to maintain political power. Equally, when a chiefdom cairns, earthen barrows with a thick outer layer of earth society’s political power comes under scrutiny by and a small central cairn inside, composite barrows competing groups, their ability to sustain control is where stones, sand, and gravel are mixed together, dependent on their interest in defending the integrity of and those with a large central cairn and only a thin doxa to the lower strata or when this is not possible, outer layer of earth. Still, only a small percentage of establish the imperfect substitute of doxa, orthodoxy. the overall number of earthen barrows contained this This is only possible through a well-organised political information when going through the topographical economy (e.g. Renfrew 1974; Earle 2002; Kristiansen archives, publications and excavation reports, and it 2006). Over time, heterodox and orthodox knowledge has proven to be of little comparable use. As such, the will be reproduced, and consequently it becomes overall landscape along the south-western coastline part of a structured disposition of habitus. Thus, can more generally be construed by the conspicuous identity becomes part of an ongoing process that is earth-constructed barrows along raised beach ridges both objectified knowledge and embodied subjective opposite naked Accesscairns, which occupy a more peripheral knowledge (Jones 1997: 97). Along the coast of south- position closer to the sea and the inland fjord districts west Norway these processes will accumulate through (Nordenborg Myhre 2004: 207). More important for diachronic patterns visible in the material remains of the this article are the internal features of the burial mound, burial mounds. which display clear regional tendencies. Cists can be dividedOpen into two building techniques (see Figure 2): a Contextualising the burial mounds dry stone technique of small, horizontally laid slabs, and cists made of standing stone slabs (cf. Møllerop When identifying processes accountable for the 1963b: 42–43). Three cists in Jæren can be categorised construction of groups and group boundaries, it has as ‘hybrids’ and have walls made of both standing stone been important to include every known burial mound slabs and horizontally laid slabs in a dry stone technique along the coast of south-west Norway, spanning from (Gjessing, H. 1914; Lund 1934; Brøgger 1913). Three Etne in the north to Lista in the south. As argued above, others cists were more scantily built with large boulders identity is a multi-layered concept, and an analysis as walls; still, these had clear compositional similarities working to uncover group identities needs to reflect with cists made of more finely cut standing stone slabs this. Previous research has had a tendency to focus on and have in this study been categorised as such. The single regions (e.g. MyhreArchaeopress 1980; Nordenborg Myhre distribution of the two typological cist constructions 1998), or based their studies on the best-documented has noticeable regional lines of demarcation. Jæren burial mounds (e.g. Lund 1934; Møllerop 1963a). stands out as the region with the majority of cists built This puts us at risk of misinterpreting — or missing in a dry stone technique (see Figure 3). It is also the out altogether — important elements that reflect social region with the largest concentration of burial mounds differentiation. Unfortunately, this leaves us with from Period II (cf. Møllerop 1963b). Karmøy, on the some qualitative challenges as the majority of mound other hand, is represented solely by Period III graves, excavations were carried out in the 19th and early 20th and of particular relevance is the construction of the century (e.g. Neumann 1839; Christie 1842; Bendixen earthen barrows, which is, save one, represented solely 1877; Lorange 1878; Helliesen 1901; Shetelig 1907; with standing stone slabs (Austvoll 2014: 35–41). The Gjessing, H. 1914), which means that the quality of the cists at Karmøy also seem to hold a more local position, collected data used is variable and often with limited where the majority have a North–South alignment contextual information. On the other hand, the limitation parallel with the narrow strait to the east, which would of the collected data also forces the study to narrow its have functioned as a strategic bottleneck for control scope in terms of active elements that can be used to and redistribution of wealth (Kvalø 2007: 65; Prescott trace regional tendencies that reflect group identities. et al. in press). The burials at Karmøy also display a Furthermore, the data allows for standardisation and clear divide between the placements of earthen barrows comparability between regions, which is vital for versus cairns, which are situated in the southern part of

Figure 2. Two distinct cist constructions. On the left side is a cist constructed in a dry stone technique of small horizontally laid slabs; on the right, a cist constructed of standing stone slabs. Photo: H. E. Lund. Reproduced by permission from © Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger.

100 % 90 % Access 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % Open 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0 % Etne Karmøy Jæren Lista Standing stone slabs (period III) 0 9 1 1 Dry stone technique (period III) 0 1 3 0 Standing stone slabs (period ArchaeopressII) 1 0 4 1 Dry stone technique (period II) 0 0 9 0 Figure 3. Percentage of the cist types from earth-constructed barrows, arranged according to location and period. Graves with cist information that can only be tentatively dated to the Early Bronze Age have been excluded (cf. Austvoll, 2014: appendix I).

the island. Lista is more heterogeneous, but the majority Jæren — the majority from Period II — and standing of cists are made of standing stone slabs, with only one stone slabs in Etne, Karmøy, and Lista — the majority portrayal of a burial mound with a cist made in a dry from Period III. stone technique (Austvoll 2014:57). Treatment of the deceased In sum, the construction of the earthen barrows demonstrates clear lines of demarcation and is The majority of Early Bronze Age burials are generally differentiated by a majority of cists constructed in a believed to be inhumation graves, but based on the 85 dry stone technique of small, horizontally laid slabs in registered graves with museum numbers in south-west

Norway, it can be established that only 8.24% had traces of where the identification of a specific gender category unburnt skeletal remains, and 9.41% contained fragments is in danger of being subjectively interpreted by one’s of burnt bone (Austvoll 2014: appendix I). However, it own cultural perceptions (Díaz-Andreu 2005: 14). The is important to note that the majority of the burnt bone categorisation of gender in this article is based on artefact fragments have not been examined osteologically. The assemblages, as skeletal remains in the grave material longer lifetime of burnt bone in contrast to unburnt bone are limited, and with just one exception (Denham could be a partial factor behind why there are more 1999), not osteologically analysed. Gendered artefact burnt bones in the grave material than vice versa (e.g. assemblages have been extracted from several authors Holck 1986). Therefore, a method was established in (Randsborg 1974, 1986; Gibbs 1998; Bergerbrant order to categorise the different burial practices. The cist 2007; Kristiansen 2013). There are arguably some construction can fortunately help to some extent. Burnt pitfalls in using gender categories from a different area; bone is for example never seen in connection with cists however, the find categories and assemblages display made in a dry stone technique — one possible exception clear similarities with south-west Norway. The graves is Svarthaug in Lista (Petersen 1926: 168–169). Similarly, in this article have been categorised as male, female burnt bone is not connected with cists made of standing and indeterminable. Artefacts considered to be those stone slabs that are built to fit the body of an adult. The of a male grave category are weapons such as swords largest cremation graves in south-west Norway are and spears. Daggers are indeterminable in isolation, but Steinhaug in Lista and Garahaugen in Etne, measuring considered part of the male inventory if other weapons 0.80 and 0.75m in length respectively (Lorange 1878; or male artefacts such as tweezers, razors, fire-stroke Myhre and Myhre 1970), which is too small to fit the stones and smaller knives are present. Personal artefacts body of a grown human — alternatively they could such as jewellery, which typically include tutuli, neck- represent very young children’s graves, though this seems collars, belt-plates, arm-rings and in a few instances unlikely as there are few documented cases of children daggers, have been designated as female graves (e.g. being buried in burial mounds in Scandinavia, especially Randsborg 1986:147;Access Gibbs 1998; Bergerbrant 2007: in the Early Bronze Age (Bergerbrant 2007: 108–109), 8). Still, the majority of the find material is sorted as and when uncovered they are commonly placed in burials indeterminable, which also seems to be the case for with adults or in proximity to other children’s graves other regions in Scandinavia (cf. Bergerbrant 2007: (Bergerbrant 2014: 532). There are examples of graves appendix 6–7, 9). containing both inhumations and cremations, for example Open the Egtved burial (Bergerbrant 2007: 108), however, this Jæren displays the highest number of female graves, 18 is not evident in south-west Norway. When sorting the in total (Austvoll 2014: appendix I). No female graves burials according to these general requirements, it has are recorded in Etne and Karmøy (Austvoll 2014: been possible to make some estimates of the treatment appendix I). Lista has one female grave tentatively dated of the deceased. Cremation practice is present throughout to the Early Bronze Age Period II (Johansen 1986:64). every period, but represents a minority compared In Period III, Karmøy is most homogeneous with only to inhumation graves (Austvoll 2014: figure 26). traditional male artefacts from the find material, and no Interestingly, several of the cremation graves could be known female graves. These are intriguing contrasts. As dated to the earliest phase of the Bronze Age. In Jæren, a parallel, the region with the highest number of female one cairn from Stokka was dated to Periods I–II (Løken graves in Denmark has only half as many as male 1978). Also, in Etne a barrowArchaeopress has been radiocarbon dated graves (Randsborg 1974: 39, 54–55). In Jæren, there is to Periods I–II (Myhre 1972), and at Lista, two cremation an almost 50% ratio between male and female graves, graves have been tentatively dated to the Late Neolithic and female graves do actually outnumber male grave in and one to the Early Bronze Age (Lorange 1878; Ballin Period II (Austvoll 2014: appendix I). To the knowledge and Jensen 1995: 238–239). Karmøy is only represented of the author, that is much higher than anywhere else in by one cremation grave, possibly from the Early Bronze Scandinavia. It also seems skewed compared to other Age (Bendixen 1877: 106). regions in Scandinavia that usually see an increase in female burials from Period II to Period III (Randsborg To conclude, inhumation burials are the dominant 1974:54–55; Kristiansen 1984:91). Still, certain areas in burial practice in Periods II and III, although cremation Funen and north-western Zealand also show a decrease burials are visible from an early stage, both in the Late in female graves from Period II to III (Bergerbrant 2007: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Period I, particularly in 87), indicating regional diversity across Scandinavia Etne, Jæren and Lista. in the Early Bronze Age. The distribution of female graves is also interesting, with a clear cluster around Gender categorisation the districts of Klepp and Time. Male graves are more scattered, but Period III graves seem to be clustered The graves have also been categorised in accordance further north, around Sola and Tananger (see Figure 4). with gender identification. This is a complicated topic

Access

Open

Archaeopress

Figure 4. Distribution map of burials with traditional female artefacts versus those with characteristic male artefacts in south-west Norway. © K. I. Austvoll.

Artefacts found within the grave seen with grand earthen burial mounds, metal and other chiefly objects like gold and amber (cf. Kristiansen Artefacts are always interwoven in knowledge, social 1998; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005), other aspects did strategy and practice (Vandkilde 2008: 146). Artefacts in most likely derive from local traditions like the cairns the Bronze Age are often highly standardised; however, and rock art (Nordenborg Myhre 2004; Skoglund 2005). choice of artefact type could be linked to periods, region This article’s intention is not to argue for a supreme and ideology. They can also underline social variations grand-narrative, or to differentiate south-west Norway and active choices in order to express a certain type of as a separate group altogether. Rather, it is an attempt identity. Still, the distribution of wealth is difficult to to demonstrate just how entangled and complex the record, and many lighter and thinner artefacts are often construction of collective identities really is. The south- more exposed to chemical changes and deterioration than western coast yields a homogeneous material, but also heavier objects like swords and axes (Randsborg 1974). distinction and clear lines of demarcation. Yet, how This could result in a misrepresentation of the overall should these structures be interpreted? number of bronzes; nevertheless, objects of bronze discovered in burial mounds, independent of type, Richard Jenkins (2000:7) argues that two independent must be considered an exclusive material for the upper processes are necessary for the classification and strata of society, and allow us to differentiate regional identification of the social episteme: the specification social structures (e.g. Earle 2002). Graves recorded with of similarities and of differences. If we apply this gold should be seen as a signal of considerable wealth, to a group, we can say that collective identification however, these are few and not sufficient to constitute is structured by two socially constituted categories: a representative distribution of the precious metal. the internal, taken-for-granted doxa and the external It is worth mentioning, though, that they are evenly categorisation of others, structured either through distributed between Karmøy and Jæren, none earlier heterodoxy or orthodoxy. In order for a social group than Period III (Austvoll 2014: 73–74). The sudden rise to categorise itselfAccess as ‘us’, it needs an external contrast in burial mounds at Karmøy in Period III occurs at a that can be defined as ‘them’ (Barth 1969a). Material time when there is a dramatic decline in burial mounds manifestations will therefore accumulate through ‘our’ in Jæren — and subsequently metal (see Figure 3). Such need for social differentiation. But from whom did they observations could indicate a change in power structure need to differentiate? or a conflict between two competing regions. There Open could also be a connection between the uniform male Based on the archaeological material we know that there expression found in Period III graves in Karmøy and are significant signs showing early trade with southern the sudden decline in bronzes in Jæren; if we include a Scandinavia from the Late Neolithic and onward (Apel lost sword from Guttormshaugen and a single find from 2001). Most notable perhaps is the extensive spread of Haugesund, over 50% of the burials at Karmøy contained type-I daggers all along the western coastline, with a weapons of some sort (Austvoll 2014: appendix I). This hot-spot around Jæren. Other finds, such as evidence corresponds well with the general picture of Karmøy as of early metallurgy, two-aisled longhouses, and a rapid an escalating power throughout this period. change towards an agro-pastoral based economy, are all indicative of a new ideology that was introduced around To sum up, there are clear regional patterns in south- 2350 BCE (Prescott and Walderhaug 1995; Prescott west Norway based on the Archaeopressdistribution of artefacts. The 1996), associated with the Bell Beaker Phenomenon overall number of metal finds in Period II is concentrated (e.g. Holberg 2000; Prescott 2012; Prescott and Glørstad in Jæren. This changes quite dramatically at the onset 2015; Melheim 2015). Jæren is particularly well of Period III, when Karmøy becomes more dominant, represented with Bell Beaker finds, including barbed- reflected in both bronzes and gold in the grave material. and-tanged arrowheads and the single bell beaker found in Norway (Skjølsvold 1977). Identifying groups and boundaries Period II can be understood as a culmination of this long- The burial mound as a source of material to understand term process, particularly in Jæren, where it is manifested the social lives of prehistoric people is not new in in the construction of grand earthen barrows. However, archaeology, and one could easily argue that a large the symbolic power expressed in the material remains in portion of our understanding of prehistory is a result Jæren would not have gone unnoticed by other groups. As of a disproportionate emphasis on the burial mounds Barth (1969a:15–16) points out, external categorisation as source material. Still, this focus has also resulted in is necessarily significant in the processes of internal generalisations that arguably have neglected regional identification, and vice versa. A collective group exists differentiations. Many aspects of the burial tradition in through its own subjective recognition of itself, but just south-west Norway can be connected to a larger Nordic as important is how others recognise the group, resulting or even European Bronze Age tradition, specifically in an internal–external dialectic that will produce

Access

Open

Figure 5. Interaction model between external and internal influences and how they have been adopted internally in south-west Norway comparing the four regions Etne, Karmøy, Jæren and Lista. The small vertical arrows demonstrate how local groups have been influenced by and through processes of categorisation and interaction with other groups. © K. I. Austvoll. boundaries of identificationArchaeopress (Barth 1969a; Jenkins not only demonstrates a highly collective act, but an 2004:117). This categorisation by ‘others’ is, according intentional position of the cist, which reflects a strong to Barth (1969a:38), immanent, and part of the reality of local awareness. There are also no known female graves any group. It is reasonable to believe that the material at Karmøy, and the choice of artefacts is typically and social power exerted by groups in Jæren throughout represented with weapons and male toiletries such as Period II would have been recognised and categorised by razors and tweezers, representative of a male warrior the peripheries. The fact that there are no known barrows ethos. in Karmøy during Period II makes it, in all likelihood, an external objectified categoriser of groups in Jæren, Reading identity through the material is not without its which would effectively constitute itself as the ‘other’ weaknesses though, and as pointed out by Jones (1997: group, and acknowledge the existence of choice through 135): ‘[…] the actual role of particular types of material explicit critique in the form of heterodoxy or orthodoxy. culture in terms of identity cannot be subordinated to Thus, Karmøy’s categorisation of groups in Jæren would universal laws’. It is therefore necessary to establish a inadvertently result in their own identity construction, relationship between the material remains and processes and explains why there is such a strong homogeneity in of identification in concrete contexts. This is exemplified the material remains at Karmøy in Period III. Perhaps here through the dialectic relationship between groups in most visible are the cists, constructed of standing stone Jæren and Karmøy, yet other external factors could have slabs in a N-S alignment parallel with the strait. This played an active role in the process of categorisation

429 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2016. Tracing boundaries of local group identities in the Early Bronze Age that eventually resulted in the heterodox or orthodox seen between Jæren and Karmøy. Jæren’s centralised construction of groups in Karmøy at the beginning of position in Period II, characterised by predominantly Period III. Of particular relevance are groups in Etne by female graves, is intriguing and certainly raises and the surrounding inland fjord districts. In addition to the possibility of exogamy as a possible scenario. burial mounds that can be dated to Periods I – II, there are Historically speaking most traditional societies several single-context finds that support a strong inland perceived marriage as a relationship between groups, region prior to Period III (Nordenborg Myhre 1998: 125– not between individuals (Eriksen 2010: 117), and one of 127; Indrelid 1991). In Skeie, in Vindafjord, a bronze the more common institutions in traditional societies is sword from Period II was recovered from a barrow in bridewealth, where the groom’s kin must give resources a cist built in dry stone technique of small horizontally to the bride’s kin. This type of payment creates a moral laid slabs (Engedal 2010:65), and in Ølen several single bond between two groups and effectively creates trading context finds from the Late Neolithic and Period II have partners between lineages. The idea that women married been discovered, including the famous deposit at Lunde, out to maintain power has been discussed on numerous where three magnificent shaft-hole axes in bronze were occasions and documented throughout history, often recovered in 1950, all dated to Period II (Indrelid 1991: regarded as the supreme gift (Mauss 1954; Lévi-Strauss 56). Furthermore, at Bømlo, an island north of Karmøy, 1969: 65). Bergerbrant (2007: 119–124) discusses this stone quarries have been established from the Stone scenario from an Early Bronze Age perspective, where Age and onwards, and a bronze sword dated to Period women from the Lüneburg culture of northern Germany II has also been recovered from a bog in the same area are identified in southern Scandinavian burial contexts. (Melheim 2009:29). All of the above examples could Yet, no evidence shows southern Scandinavian women have functioned as external factors that were categorised moving the other way, though evidence from a cairn and identified by people in Karmøy that ultimately in Offerlund, Sweden is put forth as an indicator of resulted in their social differentiation and construction South Scandinavian women travelling further north of a group identity. (Bergerbrant 2007:121).Access Considering the extensive representation of female burials in Jæren, the region is It is important to acknowledge that the construction seen as indicative of exogamy and trade with southern of identity in each region is essential. No group Scandinavia, developed through a highly specialised can exist entirely unaffected by the other, and it is maritime inter-chief alliance network. Recently, the therefore not surprising to see groups in Jæren change ideaOpen of the female traveller has gained support from the some of their structures as a result of the strong group natural sciences. Through a multidisciplinary study of mentality in Karmøy in Period III. In Period II, Jæren the Egtved girl, based on biomolecular, biochemical had a strong assembly of graves with jewellery. This and geochemical analyses, it has been possible to trace changed dramatically in Period III when, in addition to her movement through the last months of her life. The graves becoming larger, graves with weapons become results show high mobility, with the likely provenance dominant and there is a marked difference in barrow of origin hundreds of kilometres away from her final placement (see Figure 4). Whereas Period II graves with resting place (Frei et al. 2015), adding to the idea of a jewellery were concentrated in southern Sola, Klepp Bronze Age with a highly advanced interaction network and Time, they now shift further north to Tananger and consisting of both trade and gift exchange. the Hafrsfjord inlet, dominated by weapon graves. Cist construction also becomesArchaeopress more heterogeneous, and Conversely, the male traveller can be seen within cists constructed in a dry stone technique become fewer an ideology that is commonly expressed in Bronze in Period III (see Figure 3). In addition to these changes, Age research (e.g. Kristiansen and Larsson 2005; there is an emergence of gold in graves during Period Kristiansen 2011; Earle et al. 2015). At Karmøy, with III, both in Jæren and Karmøy. The visible changes in the rise of an exceedingly homogeneous burial practice, Jæren at the transition to Period III are therefore seen together with a material that connotes warrior identity, as effects brought on by the emergence of power in a new political economy emerges. By capitalising on Karmøy, which by then had already been affected by the narrow strait, which would have functioned as a Jæren in Period II. Both regions are therefore part of an bottleneck for redistribution of wealth, chieftains were ongoing process of objectified knowledge and habitual able to integrate a political economy that was reliant on subjective knowledge that transpires over a length of maritime knowledge, trade and travel (e.g. Earle 2002; time. To illustrate these complicated processes a model Kristiansen 2007; Ling 2008; Earle et al. 2015; Prescott has been created, appearing in Figure 5. et al. in press). In addition, the flange-hilted sword, argued to be symbolic of a travelling warrior or chief The female and male traveller (Kristiansen 2010), appears in this region in Period III; one was discovered in a lake in Jæren, another in burial Certain connotations spring to mind when faced with mound in Karmøy (Engedal 2010: 64). Another sign of clear boundaries of demarcation, specifically those a developing power in Period III is the increasing size

430 © Archaeopress and the authors, 2016. Knut Ivar Austvoll of burial mounds, where three of the four largest burial difference in cist construction between regions is seen mounds in the region are situated within a short distance as expressive of a ‘cycling’ political landscape with of each other at Reheia in Karmøy (Nordenborg Myhre shifting power, alliances and networks. 1998:132–133). The rapid accumulation of power would have involved ‘[…] an ability to maneuver a group to Other avenues that have only been touched upon here act together in the leader’s interest’ (Earle and Spriggs are how these boundaries of constructed group identities 2015: 516). This is not an easy task, however, and the were managed. Was it heterodox choices constructed material and symbolic reference to an interregional through cooperative communities, or was it orthodox Nordic Bronze Age culture is a cunning way for a leader choices arranged by more complex hierarchal organised to uphold power and shares parallels to Sahlin’s concept societies? A dynamic combination of the two is likely, of a ‘Stranger King’, often depicted as a traveling but this needs to be explored further through more foreign entity (see Sahlins 1981; Ling and Rowlands extensive archaeological data sets, and the appropriate 2015; Prescott et al. in press). The concept is based theoretical framework(s). on the fact that nearly all societies have a tendency to project power as something that originates from the Acknowledgements outside (e.g. Leach 1954), and can be connected to a sociological need or dependence on external sources This article, based on the results from my master’s thesis, of existence, for instance affinal relationships (Sahlins and some preliminary ideas from my doctoral work is 2008). possible through the many invaluable comments from my supervisor Christopher Prescott. I have also benefitted Interestingly, the strong presence of affinal relationships, greatly from the many helpful suggestions on earlier i.e. exogamy, between Jæren and South Scandinavia drafts from my colleagues at the local research seminars comes to a drastic end at the beginning of Period III, with at the Department of Archaeology, Conservation and a decrease from twelve to two female burials (Austvoll History at the UniversityAccess of Oslo. 2014: appendix I). This is not unsurprising as a system built on bride wealth is also seen as highly unstable. References Common causes for feuds are often related to payment, or lack thereof (Eriksen 2010: 117, 22; Flannery and Aakvik, J. 2000. Med blikket vendt mot sør!: et Marcus 2012: 200), resulting in the creation of new Openmaterialstudie av eldre bronsealder på Vestlandet. alliances. A change like this can be interpreted in south- Unpublished M.Phil thesis, University of Bergen. west Norway at the onset of Period III, where Karmøy Apel, J. 2001. Daggers, Knowledge and Power. The emerges with a strong male warrior ethos. Social Aspects of Flint-Dagger Technology in Scandinavia, 2350-1500 cal BC. Unpublished Concluding remarks Master’s thesis. Coast to Coast Books 3. Uppsala, Uppsala University. The construction of boundaries in prehistory is shown Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. 1989. Social Identity Theory in this article to have played an important part in the and the Organization. The Academy of Management social life of its inhabitants. The values placed on Review 14(1): 20–39. the material remains are varied, based on situational Austvoll, K. I. 2014. Constructing Identities. Structure and diachronic relations Archaeopressthat are enmeshed through and Practice in the Early Bronze Age – Southwest processes of categorisation. Tracing these processes Norway. Unpublished Master’s thesis , University of has seemingly been rendered through wide-ranging Oslo. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-45553. supraregional perspectives that are unable to grasp Bakka, E. 1993. Kulturtilhøve og regionale skilnader the more subtle processes at work in the construction i vestnorsk bronsealder. In S. Bergljot (ed.), of local group identities. Boundaries in prehistory are Minneskrift til Egil Bakka: 90–117. Arkeologiske commonly seen as instrumental reactions to competition Skrifter Historisk Museum. Bergen, University of over resources, however, boundaries are here extended Bergen. to include historical and temporary processes of identity Ballin, T. B. and Jensen, O. L. 1995. Farsundprosjektet. construction. In mapping prehistoric boundaries one Steinalderbopladser på Lista. Varia 29. Oslo, must therefore not only consider the observation of Universitetets Oldsaksamling. contemporary material remains, but also deep-rooted Barth, F. 1969a. Introduction. In F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic structures of the longue durée. Thus, the construction Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of of clear-cut boundaries, seen for example between Culture Difference: 9–38. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget. Jæren and Karmøy, becomes conceptualised through Barth, F. 1969b. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The what a group perceives as symbolically valuable. The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Oslo, presence of female burials in Period II, the strong male Universitetsforlaget. warrior ethos present in Period III and the pronounced Bendixen, B. E. R. 1877. Indberetning om arkæologiske

undersøgelser i 1876. Kristiania, Foreningen til of Political Economies. Boulder, Colorado, norske fortidsminnesmærkers bevaring. Westview Press. Bentley, G. C. 1987. Ethnicity and Practice. Comparative Earle, T., Ling, J., Uhnér, C., Stos-Gale Z. and Melheim, Studies in Society and History 29(1): 24–55. L. 2015. The Political Economy and Metal Trade Bergerbrant, S. 2007. Bronze Age Identities: Costume, in Bronze Age Europe: Understanding Regional Conflict and Contact in Northern Europe 1600– Variability in Terms of Comparative Advantages 1300 BC. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology no. 43. and Articulations. European Journal of Archaeology Lindome, Bricoleur Press. 18(4): 633–657. Bergerbrant, S. 2014. Children in the Bronze Age: Three Earle, T. and Spriggs, M. 2015. Political Economy case studies. In H. Alexandersson, A. Andreeff and in Prehistory: A Marxist Approach to Pacific A. Bünz (eds.), Med hjärta och hjärna: En vänbok Sequences. Current Anthropology 56(4): 515–544. till professor Elisabeth Arwill–Nordbladh: 523-536. Engedal, Ø. 2010. The Bronze Age of Northwestern GOTARC Series A, Gothenburg Archaeological Scandinavia. Bergen, University of Bergen. Studies 5. Gothenburg, University of Gotheburg. Eriksen, T. H. 1993. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Bjørn, A. 1924. Stenalderstudier. Skrifter. Anthropological Perspectives, Anthropology, Videnskabsselskapet i Kristiania 5. Kristiania, I Culture and Society. London: Pluto Press. kommission hos Dybwad. Eriksen, T. H. 2010. Small Places, Large Issues. An Bjørn, A. 1927. Til bronsealdersproblemet i Norge. Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. Tromsø museums årshefte 48. Tromsø, Tromsø 3rd ed. London, Pluto Press. museum. Flannery, K. V. and Marcus, J. 2012. The Creation of Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Inequality. How Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge, Cambridge Stage for Monarchy, Slavery and Empire. Cambridge University Press. Massachusetts, Havard University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Frei, K. M., Mannering,Access U., Kristiansen, K., Allentoft, R. Nice. Oxford, Polity Press. M. E., Wilson, A. S., Skals, I., Tridico, S., Nosch, Braudel, F. 1972. The Mediterranean and the M. L., Willerslev, E.. Clarke L. and Frei, R. 2015. Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II: 1. Tracing the dynamic life story of a Bronze Age London, Collins. Female. Scientific Reports 5:10431. Brøgger, A. W. 1913. Nogen armringer fra ældre Geertz,Open C. 1963. The Integrative Revolution: Primordial bronsealder fra Jæderen, Norge. In Opscula Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New State. In archæologica Oscari Montelio dicata: 97–104. C. Geertz (ed.), Old Societies and New States: 105– Stockholm, KVAA. 157. New York, Free Press. Brøgger, A. W. 1925a. Det norske folk i oldtiden. Oslo, Gibbs, L. 1998. Identifying Gender Representation in Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning. the Archaeological Record: A Contextual Study. Brøgger, A. W. 1925b. Vår bondekulturs oprinnelse. In K. A. Hays-Gilpin, D. S. Whitley and L. H. Oslo, Videnskaps-akademiet. Dommasnes (eds.), Reader in Gender Archaeology: Childe, V. G. 1958. The Prehistory of European Society. 231–254. London, Routledge. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Gjessing, G. 1944. Steinalder – Bronsealder – Stein- Christie, J. K. 1842. Antikvarisk-historisk Skitse bronsealder? Viking VIII: 15–27. af Augvaldsnæs. Urda,Archaeopress et antiqvarisk-historisk Gjessing, H. 1914. Fortegnelse over de til Stavanger Tidsskrift 2: 322–347. Museum i 1914 indkomne saker ældre end Cohen, A. 2004[1969]. Custom and Politics in Urban reformationen. In Stavanger Museum Aarshefte Africa. A Study of Hausa Migrants in Yoruba Towns. 1914: 1–37. London, Routeledge. Helliesen, T. 1901. Oldtidslevninger i Stavanger amt. Denham, S. 1999. S.3412a – Analyse av bein. Stavanger Museums Aarshefte 1901: 56–57. Topographical archive, Museum of Archaeology, Holberg, E. 2000. Klokkebegerkulturens symboler: University of Stavanger. Senneolitikum i Rogaland og Nordland sør Díaz-Andreu, M. 2005. Gender Identity. In M. Díaz- for polarsirkelen. Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, Andreu, S. Lucy, S. Babić and D. N. Edwards (eds.), University of Bergen. The Archaeology of Identity. Approaches to Gender, Holck, P. 1986. Cremated bones: a medical- Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion: 13–42. London, anthropological study of an archaeological material Routledge. on cremation burials. Oslo, Department of Anatomy, Durkheim, É. 1964. ‘Sociology’. In K. H. Wolff, P. Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Bohannan and É. Durkheim (eds.), Essays on Oslo. Sociology and Philosophy: 376–385. New York, Indrelid, S. 1991. Fornminne og fornminnevern i Ølen Harper & Row. kommune. Bergen, University Museum of Bergen. Earle, T. 2002. Bronze Age Economics. The Beginnings Isaacs, H. R. 1989. Idols of the Tribe. Group Identity

and Political Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Transformations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Harvard University Press. Press. Jenkins, R. 2000. Categorization: Identity, Social Kvalø, F. 2007. Oversjøiske reiser fra Sørvest-Norge til Process and Epistemology. Current Sociology 48(3): Nordvest-Jylland i eldre bronsealder – en drøfting 7–25. av maritim realisering og rituell mobilisering. In L. Jenkins, R. 2004. Social Identity. 2nd ed. London, Hedeager (ed.), Sjøreiser og stedsidentitet. Jæren/ Routledge. Lista i bronsealder og eldre jernalder: 15–134. vol. Jenkins, R. 2008. Rethinking Ethnicity. 2nd ed. nr. 8. Oslo, Unipub. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications. Leach, E. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma. Johansen, Ø. K. 1986. Tidlig metallkultur i Agder. A Study of Kachin Social Structure. London, Bell. Universitetets oldsaksamlings skrifter. Ny rekke 8. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Oslo, Oldsaksamlingen. Kinship. Translated by R. Needham. Boston, Beacon Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Press. Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Ling, J. 2008. Elevated Rock Art. Towards a Maritime London, Routledge. Understanding of Bronze Age Rock Art in Northern Kohl, P. L. 1981. Materialist Approaches in Prehistory. Bohuslän, Sweden. Gotarc Series B 49. Gothenburg, Annual Review of Anthropology 10: 89–118. University of Gothenburg. Kristiansen, K. 1984. Ideology and material culture: Ling, J. and M. Rowlands 2015. The ‘Stranger King’ an archaeological perspective. In M. Spriggs (ed.) (bull) and rock art. In J. Ling, P. Skoglund and U. Marxist perspectives in archaeology: 72–100. New Bertilsson (eds.), Picturing the Bronze Age: 89–104. directions in archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge Swedish rock art series. vol. 3. Oxford, Oxbow University Press. books. Kristiansen, K. 1998. Europe before history. Cambridge, Løken, T. 1978. Glimt fra den arkeologiske feltsesongen Cambridge University Press. 1978. Frá haugAccess ok heidni (3): 75–78. Kristiansen, K. 2004. Genes versus agents. A discussion Lorange, A. 1878. Indberetning om en Reise paa Lister of the widening theoretical gap in archaeology. 1877. In Foreningen til norske Fortidsmindesmerkers Archaeological Dialogues 11(2): 77–99. bevaring. Aarsberetning for 1877: 317–336. Kristiansen, K. 2006. Cosmology, economy and long- Lund, H. E. 1934. Graver og gravskikk i en bronsealders term change in the Bronze Age of Northern Europe. Openhaug på Jæren. Stavanger Museums Årshefte 43 In K. G. Sjögren (ed.), Ecology and Economy 1932-33: 57–69. in Stone Age and Bronze Age Scania. Skånska Malešević, S. 2004. The Sociology of Ethnicity. London, spor – arkeologi längs Västkustnanan: 171–218. SAGE Publications. Stockholm, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Marstrander, S. 1950. Jylland – Lista. Viking XIV: 63– Kristiansen, K. 2007. The Rules of the Game. 85. Decentralised Complexity and Power Structures. Mauss, M. 1954. The Gift. Forms and Functions of In S. Kohring and S. Wynne-Jones (ed.), Social Exchange in Archaic Societies. London, Cohen & Complexity. Structure Interaction and Power in West. Archaeological Discourse: 60–75. Oxford, Oxbow Melheim, A. L. 2009. Kobberimport eller Books. kobberproduksjon? In G. Grønnesby and Kristiansen, K. 2010. DecentralizedArchaeopress Complexity: The M. M. Henriksen (eds.), Det 10. nordiske Case of Bronze Age Northern Europe. In T. D. Price bronsealdersymposium: Trondheim 5.-8. okt. 2006: and G. M. Feinman (eds.), Pathways to power: new 20–35. Vitark 6. Acta Archaeologica Nidrosiensia. perspectives on the emergence of social inequality: Trondheim, Tapir Akademisk Forlag. 169–192. New York, NY, Springer. Melheim, A. L. 2015. Recycling Ideas: Bronze Age Metal Kristiansen, K. 2011. Constructing Social and Cultural Production in Southern Norway. BAR International Identities in the Bronze Age. In B. W. Roberts and M. Series 2715. Oxford, Archaeopress. Vander Linden (eds.), Investigating Archaeological Møllerop, O. 1963a. Bronsealdersrøysen på Ringen, Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Avaldsnes. Frá haug ok heidni (3): 239–242. Transmission: 201–210. New York, NY, Springer. Møllerop, O. 1963b. Fra Rogalands eldre bronsealder. Kristiansen, K. 2013. Female Clothing and Jewellery In Stavanger museums årbok: 5–58. vol. 1962. in the Nordic Bronze Age. In S. Bergerbrant and S. Stavanger, Stavanger Museum. Sabatini (eds.), Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology Myhre, B. 1972. Bronsealderens jordhauger i Etne i and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Sunnhordland. In ARKEO 1972(1): 12–17. Kristian Kristiansen: 755–769. BAR International Myhre, B. 1980. Sola og Madla i førhistorisk tid. AmS- Series 2508. Oxford. Archaeopress. Småtrykk 10. Stavanger, Museum of Archaeology. Kristiansen, K. and T. B. Larsson 2005. The Rise of Myhre, B. and Myhre, B. 1970. Excavation Report, Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Garahaugen. Topographical archive, University

Museum of Bergen. Shetelig, H. 1907. Excavation report, Knaughaug. Neumann, J. 1839. Oldtidsminder paa Karmøen. Urda, Topographical archive, University Museum of et antiqvarisk-historisk Tidsskrift 1839: 213–240. Bergen. Nordenborg Myhre, L. 1998. Historier fra en annen Shetelig, H. 1922. Primitive tider i Norge: en oversigt virkelighet. Fortellinger om bronsealderen ved over stenalderen. Bergen, John Griegs Forlag. Karmsundet. AmS-Småtrykk 46. Stavanger, Shetelig, H. 1925. Norges Forhistorie. Problemer og Museum of Archaeology. Resultater i Norsk Arkæologi. Serie A: Forelesninger Nordenborg Myhre, L. 2004. Trialectic archaeology. 5a. Oslo, H. Aschehoug & Co. (W. Nygaard). Monuments and space in Southwest Norway 1700- Skjølsvold, A. 1977. Slettabøboplassen: et bidrag 500 BC. AmS-Skrifter 18. Stavanger, Museum of til diskusjonen om forholdet mellom fangst- og Archaeology. bondesamfunnet i yngre steinalder og bronsealder Petersen, J. 1926. Lista i forhistorisk tid. Universitetets 2. Stavanger, Museum of Archaeology. Oldsaksamling, Oslo. Skoglund, P. 2005. Vardagens landskap: lokala Prescott, C. 1994. Paradigm gained – paradigm lost? perspektiv på bronsålderns materiella kultur no. 49. 150 years of Norwegian Bronze Age research. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt. Norwegian Archaeological Review 27(2): 87–109. Trigger, B. G. 2006. A history of archaeological thought. Prescott, C. 1996. Was there really a Neolithic in Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Norway? Antiquity 70(267): 77–87. Vandkilde, H. 2008. Leoni’s House. Materialising Prescott, C. 2012. Third millennium transformations Identity and Change in Contemporary Papua New in Norway: modeling an interpretative platform. Guinea. In K. Chilidis, J. Lund and C. Prescott In C. Prescott and H. Glørstad (eds.), Becoming (eds.), Facets of Archeology. Essays in Honour of European. The transformation of third millennium Lotte Hedeager on her 60th Birthday: 145–154. Oslo Northern and Western Europe: 115–127. Oxford, Arkeologiske Serie. vol. 10. Oslo, Oslo University. Oxbow books. Wimmer, A. 2013.Access Ethnic boundary making: institutions, Prescott, C. and Glørstad, H. 2015. Expanding 3rd power, networks. New York, Oxford University millennium transformations: Norway. In M. P. Press. Prieto-Martínez and L. Salanova (eds.), The Bell Worsaae, J. J. A. 1881. Nordens Forhistorie: efter Beaker Transition in Europe. Mobility and Local samtidige Mindesmærker. Copenhagen, Gyldendal Evolution During the 3rd Millenium BC: 77–87. OpenBoghandels Forlag. Oxford, Oxbow books. Yelvington, K. A. 1991. Ethnicity as Practice? A Prescott, C., Sand-Eriksen, A. and Austvoll, K. I. in Comment on Bentley. Comparative Studies in press. The Sea and Bronze Age Transformations. Society and History 33(1): 158–168. In E. Holt (ed.), Water and Power in Past Societies. New York, SUNY Press. Prescott, C. and Walderhaug, E. 1995. The last frontier? Processes of Indo Europeanization in Northern Europe. The Norwegian Case. Journal of Indo- European studies 23: 257–280. Randsborg, K. 1974. Social Stratification in Early Bronze Age Denmark: Archaeopressa Study in the Regulation of Cultural Systems. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 49(1): 38–61. Randsborg, K. 1986. Women in Prehistory: The Danish Example. Acta Archaeologica 55: 143–154. Renfrew, C. 1974. Beyond a Subsistence Economy: The Evolution of Social Organisation in Prehistoric Europe. In C. B. Moore (ed.), Reconstructing complex societies. An archaeological colloquium: 69–95. Baltimore, MD, American Schools of Oriental Research. Sahlins, M. 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities. Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. ASAO Special publications 1. Ann Arbor, Michigan, ASAO. Sahlins, M. 2008. The Stranger King, or the elementary forms of political life. Indonesia and the Malay World 36(105): 177–199.