DEATH AND CONTINUITY

Alexander Gramsch

Who the living would explain

He must enter death's domain.
- Christian Morgenstern

IN T R O D U C T IO N

In an attempt to give meaning to features linked to the earthen long barrows of the
northern and eastern groups of the Funnel-necked-Beaker (Trichterbecher) culture and
to comprehend the mortuary rituals surrounding their erection, I was attracted by
the evidence for layers of 'cultural material' or 'middens' under the barrows.
A closer examination of the published material from Denmark, Kujawia in Poland,
and northern Germany showed that I was apparently dealing with (stratigraphically)
older layers, deriving, perhaps, from abandoned settlements, to which the monu-
ments seemingly referred. It became clear that these layers could be perceived as a
material sign, leading to the investigation of the mortuary rituals involved and the
meaning of the link between death, monuments, and these 'middens' or cultural
materials. The assemblages usually consist of layers of humic earth, charcoal, ash,
sherds of pottery, flint and bone tools, and waste, animal bones, etc., covering or in-
corporating pits filled with the same material, post-holes, ditches, hearths; they are
interpreted as being symbolically constituted in the burial process on grounds of the
recurring patterns they form and the connotative meanings they gain through their
actual use.
Thus, the hypothesis pursued is that the material signs bear a significance for the
constitution and development of the social units responsible for their construction.
The main focus in this study will be on social questions, matters of emergence, and
continuity of groups, and of change through time, as perceived in the ritual com-
munication of the small-scale societies of the early Neolithic.
The classification of the various actions surrounding and leading to the erection of
the barrows as 'mortuary ritual' is a translation of a complex of alien actions into a
familiar concept with apparently comprehensible content (cf. Lewis 1980:216).Being
aware of the limits of this classification I will try to approach 'ritual behaviour' in a

Alexander Gramsch, Schonhauser Allee 143, 10435 - Berlin, Germany

Journal of European Archaeology (1995) 3.1 :71-90.
72 G RAM SCH

rather broad sense, regarding it, following La Fontaine (1972: xvii), as expressing
cultural and social values. Mortuary ritual is regarded here not only as the burial it-
self, but as a process lasting over a longer period of time from the very first decision
to build a barrow to its very last use. Again, since 'many social actions do not fall
simply and clearly into only one field or type of activity: the actors motives and
purposes may be multiple' (Lewis 1980:219),a separation of social or economic and
ritual behaviour is not helpful for the present questions. Ritual behaviour is also
social behaviour.

D E A T H A N D C O N T IN U IT Y

One of the concepts in my approach to an understanding of Trichterbecher mortuary

ritual will be that of rites de passage as defined by van Gennep (1960), seen as a tri-
partite structure common to all rituals involving a passage from one state to another.
The three stages that lead a group or individual to a new state are: 1) the stage of
separation, containing 'symbolic behaviour signifying the detachment of the in-
dividual or group from an earlier fixed point in the social structure or a set of
cultural conditions' (Turner 1967:94);2) the liminal stage, which can be so important
and elaborate that it may gain a degree of autonomy (cf. Huntington and Metcalf
1979), emphasising the otherness of the ritual subject from the previous as well as
from the coming state in a way that gives the ritual subject an ambiguous state; and
3) the stage of re-incorporation, bringing the ritual subject into a stable state once
more. During liminality the ritual subject will become structurally 'invisible' because
it is neither belonging to the old nor to the new state and has thus a liminal persona,
standing outside the regular structure of society (Turner 1967:95-6). The symbols
representing the liminal persona as no longer classified and in a state of disorder
'are, in many societies, drawn from the biology of death, decomposition, catabolism,
and other physical processes that have a negative tinge.'
The relevance of this model lies in the possibility of relating it to the particular
social and cultural values as expressed in ritual behaviour (Huntington and Metcalf
1979:98), in our case through the barrow builders of the early Neolithic. I have
hypothesised that the material signs incorporated in the barrows, especially the
'middens', bear a significance for the development of social units. Now I can elabor-
ate on this: the cultural and social values of these units are connected to the creation
and maintenance of group unity and continuity, especially in the face of death. Thus
I will use the concept of rites of passage with reference to the group rather than to in-
dividuals as the ritual subject of the mortuary rituals.1 Group continuity is re-
established through the deliberate connection of the ritual subject during liminality
to the world of the past in the erection of the barrow.
Although one might not agree with Turner's generalisation that all physical pro-
cesses of death and decomposition have a negative aspect, still this class of symbols
can be seen in the mortuary rituals of the barrows in their link to materials which
were mixed up, disintegrated, and dissolved during liminality. To term these as-
semblages of pottery, ash organic material, and so forth as 'rubbish' or 'midden' is to
DEATH AND CONTINUITY 73

classify in terms of our own culture. This runs the danger of imposing our own con-
cepts and values on past material signs and actions. Rather than perceiving 'rubbish'
or the cultural layers around the graves as something with an inherently negative
meaning, useless, worthless, dirty, it can be regarded as a necessary part of the
mortuary ritual, a material sign expressing precisely those cultural values of group
unity and continuity. Through the incorporation of the material sign of the past, be it
from pre-existing settlements or brought to the burial place deliberately, into a
monument of the present, linking corpses to 'waste material', the value of continuity
is expressed and continuity itself is recreated. The connotative meanings abstracted
in this sign or metaphor are not arbitrary but derive from the actual use of the objects
and from tradition (Hodder 1989). The broken up cultural or settlement material
may thus signify the dissolution of time and the individual during the stage of
liminality and can be regarded as referring to the world of the living, to the past
society, which is linked to the present in the ritual communication of the society
(Bloch 1977).2 According to Bloch (1982:218),death provides the opportunity to re-
create the social order: 'order is created by the ritual and it is created very largely
through dramatic antithetical negative symbolism'; the symbolic construction of the
positive - continuity - requires an antithesis - discontinuity - symbolised in decay,
pollution, destruction. Continuity is created through apparent discontinuity: death.
Not only is an attempt made, through the incorporation of the past in the present,
to recreate continuity, but emphasis is also placed on antiquity to give authority to
the ritual, since 'the force of ritual comes partly from its antiquity, real or supposed'
(Wilson 1972:188).To maintain the relevance of ritual while adjusting it to changing
(social) circumstances without losing credibility or the ability to express and con-
tinue the dominant ideology is a problem which may be visible in the development
of the TRB in the shift to the middle Neolithic, the period of megaliths, causewayed
camps, and larger settlements. How a changing ideology is reflected in changing
ritual processes will be remarked on later.
The barrow as a monument itself places an emphasis on continuity and durability.
Through their monumentality they structure the landscape, altering it by establish-
ing a point of reference (Thomas 1991), being the monumental product of a ritual
process involving units of people, thereby bearing the potential for exclusion and an
outside/inside dichotomy. 'The tomb itself creates the potential for the idea of a
descent group linked to a common ancestor', the potential for the formation of line-
ages (Hodder 1988:72).That they thereby emphasise the ideology of unity and con-
tinuity even more becomes clear when we consider that the settlement structure in
the early Neolithic shows rather small, short-lived hamlets (Madsen 1982), giving an
impression of impermanence and variability, to which the barrows stand in clear
contrast.
The emergence of barrows and megaliths has been interpreted as being associated
with an increase in territoriality linked to the adoption of agriculture and the way
that descent groups used them to claim rights over land and resources with ancestral
legitimisation (for Denmark cf. Chapman 1981; Skaarup 1982). This may indeed be
one of the aspects of the presence of barrows in the landscape but not the only one,
74 GRAMSCH

since it would not require this elaborate mortuary ritual involving the construction
of facades and timber buildings and the location upon layers of cultural material.
Additionally, the frequent evidence for segmentation within the barrows (e.g.
Barkcer: Glob 1949; 1975) may indicate that negotiation of group competition was
carried out within the barrow, not between barrows. This hints at the formation of
larger social units, lineages perhaps, through the competing descent groups being
linked to the common ancestor, an idea which I will pursue below. Also it is not the
individuality of the deceased that is expressed in the burials under the barrows. This
is apparent from the general paucity of grave goods, indicating no attempt to mark
off the individual social persona, and from placing several corpses together side by
side. This ideology of 'anti-individualism' encountered in the lack of ornamentation
or personal decoration promotes the ideology of an 'ideal society', at the same time
creating the potential for and masking competition within groups.

R IT E S D E P A S S A G E A N D T H E C R E A T IO N O F C O N T IN U IT Y

I want to discuss now the evidence for a threefold structure, corresponding to the
structure of the rites de passage of the (highly variable) mortuary ritual in the
Trichterbecher culture surrounding the construction of earthen long barrows. Part of
this ritual is the inclusion of layers of cultural material or 'middens', which presum-
ably had a part in one of the three stages of the rite of passage. The first question to
be answered is whether these layers can be seen as remains of older settlements, or
whether they represent intentional dumping of cultural materials, partly connected
with activities resulting in pits, post-holes, and so on.
A closer look at the sites with cultural layers (Gramsch 1993) demonstrates that
these layers in the majority of cases indeed derive from abandoned settlements, for
several reasons. First, the physical extent of some of them is much larger than what
would be expected from funeral feasts alone. For example at Lindebjerg, Denmark, a
disturbed barrow covered a settlement, which 'could be inferred from the scatter of
flints, potsherds, and small lumps of burnt clay present in all layers' and extended
far beyond the barrow (Liversage 1980:92). A considerable number of post and stake
holes belonged to the settlement layer, indicating 'that some kind of house or
dwelling structure stood in this area and had burned down' (p. 116). The grave of
Rims0 in Djursland, Denmark, with its tent-like structure was placed in an early
Neolithic settlement with pits, post-holes, and fireplaces (Madsen and Nielsen 1977).
Other examples are Wollschow in Mecklenburg (Nilius 1971:105) and Wartin, west-
ern Pommerania (Eggers 1969), both with barrows placed over older, larger settle-
ments. At the cemetery at Sarnowo, Kujawia, a settlement site (A1) (Wiklak 1983)
was revealed as well as contemporary settlement layers underneath and outside
barrows 4, 8, and 9 (Wiklak 1980; 1986; Chmielewski 1952), including pits, and activ-
ity areas deriving from flint knapping (Niesiolowska-Sreniowska 1980).
Second, the composition of the material in these cultural layers is very similar to
that from actual settlements unassociated with barrows (Table 1). For example at
Bj0rnsholm, northern Jutland, a cultural layer of c. 5-10 cm thickness cut by a grave
DEATH AND CONTINUITY 75

Table 1. Comparison of cultural material under barrows and pottery from early-Neolithu settlements

Cultural material under barrows Material from settlements 3

site cultural material pottery site pottery

lindebjerg flint, daub, TRB, clay discs, S01ager TRB, lugged

querns lugged + storage vessels, clay discs
jars
Rustrup flint, charcoal small + large Koustrup TRB, lugged jars
TRB, clay discs
Stengade I flint, daub, open bowls, Muldbjerg flat-based and
bones, charcoal large lugged jars lugged beakers
and jars
Stengade II flint, whet TRB, clay discs, Siretop TRB, lugged jars and
stones, cereals lugged beakers, beakers, clay discs,
collared flasks collared flasks
Lesniczowka I flint, bones TRB, amphorae Herret Skov TRB, lugg. beakers
Lesniczowka II flint, bones, TRB, amphorae, Svaleklint TRB, lugged jars and
daub lugged + storage beakers, collared
vessels flasks
Lesniczowka III charcoal, bones TRB, amphorae Rustrup II beakers, clay discs
Wietrzychowice flint, animal sherds Mosegarden TRB, lugg. beakers
III bones, charcoal and jars, clay discs
Sarnowo 8 charcoal, daub, TRB Store Val by TRB, clay discs
flint
Sarnowo 9 charcoal, flint beakers, Virum TRB, lugged
collared flasks beakers, clay discs

under a barrow was very similar in composition to the early-Neolithic settlement

layer preserved in the Ertebelle shell midden nearby (Andersen and Johansen 1990).
The former layer covered a U-shaped ditch, probably the remains of a hut, filled with
the same material, Le. sherds and flint of the early Volling group. A comparison of
the pottery from the layer sealed by the Lindebjerg barrow and the one outside it
showed no considerable difference (Livers age 1980:128-9). At Tolstrup the cultural
layer is considered domestic because of the types of pottery and the high numbers of
flint it contained (Madsen 1973-74). The barrow at Tosterglope, Liineburg district,
was placed in what has been interpreted as a settlement layer (Dehnke 1940), the
pottery of which was so similar to the sherds from the grave that once both were
mixed in the museum they could no longer be separated. These cultural layers under
most of the barrows contained material never associated with 'purely' ritual features,
e.g. facades, such as wall daub, clay discs, and open bowls (Table 1). Comparing the
decoration it is also evident that beakers at facades or in presumed graves are
decorated more elaborately than sherds from both settlements and cultural layers
beneath barrows, which are decorated mainly at the rim: the decoration on the
pottery from the settlement layers at MosegArden (Madsen and Petersen 82-83:
113) and Lindebjerg was generally without decoration; from the settlem t sherd at
Stengade I only 6.7% were decorated (Skaarup 1975:71); at Stengade II y 2 , (of
those c. 2/3 were rim sherds) (Skaarup 1975:141); in the early-Neolithic ayer of the
settlement Selager 7% of all sherds were decorated (Skaarup 1973).
76 GRAMSCH

Third, in several cases we have remains of structures which indicate an occupation

of the site rather than short-lived ritual activities. Examples include the probable hut
at Bj0msholrn, or the site at Mosegarden (Madsen and Juel Jensen 1982) where an
early-Neolithic settlement with two or three huts, a fireplace, an activity area, and a
dump area with primary refuse were covered by a barrow which was enclosed by a
palisade in a ditch of at least 102 metres length.
To strengthen my interpretation for a deliberate inclusion of these materials I can
refer to the barrows I - III at Lesniczowka, Kujawia Oazdzewski 1936; Midgley 1985).
In all three barrows, a 'rubbish heap' or layer with charcoal, sherds, and flint debris
were uncovered over the graves, and sherds of the Pikutkowo phase were also found
in the mounds (Midgley 1985; Chmielewski 1952). The dating of the graves is un-
certain due to a lack of grave goods (except for a flint blade in grave 2, barrow II!),
but it is clear that the cultural material was deliberately dumped over the graves, in-
dicating. the intentional reference to the metaphor for the past as well as for decay
and pollution. Similar evidence comes from Rogalki, where a layer of grey soil above
the graves in the middle of the barrow contained charcoal and shells (Midgley 1985:
233).
Other examples come from two barrows at 0stergard, where the graves cut a
cultural layer (Madsen 1971; 1979a); Konens H0j, where material from an extensive
settlement is found in connection with piles of stones at the gables of the tent-like
structure and in post-holes (Srurup 1965); barrow 3 (913) in the cemetery Alter Hau
at Sachenwald, northern Germany, which covered a layer with pottery sherds, flint
tools, charcoal, etc. present at the old land surface (Sprockhoff 1954); and barrow 298
in the same cemetery, covering sherds and other debris (Sprockhoff 1952); and many
more examples (see Gramsch 1993).
Of course it could be, and has been, argued that the reason for the location of
barrows on abandoned settlement sites is economical, i.e. time- and labour-saving.
This indeed may be one of the considerations for the choice of these locations. How-
ever, since most of these settlements have been abandoned only a short time before
the barrow was erected, the remains of the group living here thus still being visible,
it is likely that this choice was also made for its deliberate reference to the settlement
as a symbol for the past living society: the barrow could easily have been built else-
where.

S E P A R A T IO N -L iM I N A L I T Y -R E I N C O R P O R A T I O N

Looking at evidence for the presence of the three stages of rites of passage in the
material signs constituted by the different features making up the monuments, a
sequence of events can be seen. Only a few examples relating the different parts of
the barrows to the different steps of the funerary rite can be presented here, starting
with the stage of separation.
An almost universal phenomenon of the barrows is the provision of an enclosure,
usually either by a palisade or a stone-kerb in a trench, in a few cases apparently by a
trench only. A detailed discussion of these features is given by Midgley (1985:85-
DEATH AND CONTINUITY 77

113), so I will confine myself to those aspects relating to the stage of separation. That
the enclosure is more than a purely architectural device, a 'container' for the mound,
is clear. It separates off what is to become an area for ritual activities from the
'profane' or 'wild' area surrounding it, creating through its existence a structural
opposition between the 'profane' outside and the 'sacred' inside, 'demarcating a
reserved mortuary precinct in monumental fashion' (Kinnes 1992:89). It has
frequently been argued that these enclosures, especially those made of timber,
resemble and conceptually represent long-houses, especially in areas with dispersed
settlement (e.g. Hodder 1990). That the enclosure was still visible after the monu-
ment had been sealed with a mound (Midgley 1985:88-9) indicates the importance of
its visibility for' screening off' the inside.
At Mosegarden in eastern Jutland, there is a barrow between two trenches lying
over an older settlement. Because the sherds and traces of dwellings inside the
trench boundaries are better preserved than those outside, it is assumed that 'the
overlying barrow seems to have been constructed immediately after the settlement
went out of use' (Madsen and Juel Jensen 1982:70).1his is the explanation offered for
the better state of preservation.
At Toftum, Denmark (Madsen 1979a), a palisade bedding trench delineated the
barrow, inside of which a cultural layer containing a hearth with sherds concentrated
around it was uncovered. It is suggested that the material outside the palisade trench
is missing because it was incorporated into the now disturbed mound. However, it is
also possible that the cultural material was brought here after the trench was dug
and before the mound was heaped up, and the hearth is linked to rituals inside the
barrow.
The best-known cases are the trapezoidal or rectangular stone kerbs surrounding
the mounds in Kujawia and northern Germany.
Related to the enclosure is the construction of a facade at the broader end of the
barrow, discovered in several cases in Denmark during the last decades. These
facades were larger and more elaborate constructions with posts in deep foundation
pits and supported by stone packing, and were probably foci for ritual activities as is
evidenced by the regular display of pottery. In cases where we have detailed de-
scriptions of the facades and associated finds, there is a clear pattern of pottery types
being confined to Funnel-necked and Lugged Beakers of the Volling group. There is
a stunning regularity in the types and numbers of pots discovered: in four cases
there were either three Beakers or two Beakers and one Lugged Beaker (Rustrup
(Fischer 1974; 1975); Rude (Madsen 1979b); Bj"rnsholm and 5torgard (Kristensen
1989);and at Lindebjerg three of the five Beakers were found grouped together. Thus
it seems that in the Volling group the erection of facades and the rituals enacted at
them followed clear rules.
The former facade at Bj"rnsholm was detected archaeologically from the remains
of posts supported by wedge stones, which were placed in two pits, and a ditch
between them. In Kujawia, Poland, no evidence of facades is recorded, but the
timber structures found at the broader eastern end of the barrows at Gaj, Obalki, and
Zberzyn may have been constructed for similar reasons. A gap in the kerb at the
78 GRAMSCH

eastern end leading to these buildings (Midgley 1985:149) indicates that they marked
the transition from the exterior to the interior, whenever the enclosure had to be
entered. There is no clear pattern of pottery display as in Jutland but charcoal, daub,
and pottery have been found at Gaj and charred animal bones at Zberzyn. A link
between Kujawia and Jutland (conceptually rather than direct physical parallels)
may be seen in the facade of Bygholm, N0rremark, which was surrounded by widely
spaced post-holes that represent an open structure similar to the Kujawian struc-
tures, rather than a real (domestic) building as interpreted by the excavator (lWnne
1979).
In most of the cases analysed (only a few are presented here), these features to-
gether incorporate an abandoned settlement site, which can be perceived as a
metaphor for the past living society. For example, the structure at Bjemsholm con-
sisted of a stone-lined grave with wooden coffin, cutting one cultural layer, and a
facade eight metres east of where it ended. An additional cu1turallayer was found
north of.the grave, partly covered by sterile yellow sand, which is interpreted by the
excavators as the fill of the grave (Andersen and Johansen 1990:43), so that, including
the early Volling layer in the shell midden, we have three contemporary short-lived
occupation areas slightly pre-dating the grave. The excavators themselves (p. 54)
consider that 'the reason for burying the deceased on the site must reflect a wish to
legitimise the site location and the surrounding exploited territory.' As is also in-
dicated by the dating of pottery of other buried settlements these places were
occupied usually only a short period before the barrow was built. In most of the
cases the cultural layers are definitely stratigraphically older than the structures of
the barrow, being cut by the grave(s). Even where it may be possible to establish that
they and the connected features derive from ritual activities related to the burial, not
from settlements, their presence and close resemblance to actual settlement layers
shows that they bear the same ritual significance and express the same set of con-
cepts. For example, the presence of broken flint and bone tools, quems and whet-
stones (Table 1), and hearths refer to the activities of the past society of the living,
and to the place where these activities had been carried out. These materials thus
constitute a metaphor for the past living society and link it to the present society.
Thus, by establishing a difference between the secluded cultural material inside the
enclosure and the unstructured outside by erecting a palisade and facade, a structure
is created, a material symbol for the past is constituted which is now (in the ritual
communication) secluded from the present society facing disruption by the death of
one or several of its members (cf. Bloch 1977). Through this disconnection a possibil-
ity for the second stage, the transitional period is set up.

The liminal stage is the phase of transition, of ambiguity and inversion. Once the past
has been separated from the present and both have been disconnected, the stage of
liminality involves the enacting of discontinuity and destruction in order to lead
society through an unclassified, structurally 'invisible', ambiguous state into a new
state of continuity, a new order.
What concerns us here is not the transition of the dead or dying individual, but of
DEATH AND CONTINUITY 79

the other social actors. Death of one of its members affects the entire social group,
especially in small-scale societies (Damm 1991:43):'death instigates the reorganiza-
tion of all social actors and their relationships.' I want to focus in the following on
the way the ritual tries to re-establish the social structure and the social relationships.
One way in which discontinuity is expressed is with the use of fire. Fire may at the
same time be a means of destruction and disruption as well as purification. In Den-
mark in several cases wooden structures which had been constructed inside the en-
closure have been burnt down before the mound was erected. For example at
Skibslwj and Sj0rup the barrow contained one and three burnt chambers, respect-
ively, built of stone and wood, the former containing five individuals, the bones of
which were affected by the fire G0rgensen 1977). At Tolstrup a layer of brown soil,
10-15cm thick, containing some flint and much pottery enclosed two layers of burnt
clay! and two stone layers, containing 'amalgamated' early-Neolithic C and early-
Neolithic B pottery (Madsen 1973-74). The second clay layer is interpreted as a burnt
wooden construction (p. 152).5 The barrow is again heavily disturbed. Other
examples are Konens Hej with a burnt down tent-like timber structure over the
grave (Stiirup 1965), Rustrup with a layer of sand and charcoal covering an area with
stake and post-holes (Madsen 1979a:305), Gaj and Zberzyn in Kuja,via with a clay
floor with post-holes at each comer and in the middle of walls, which were made of
wooden planks and destroyed by fire (Midgley 1985;Jazdzewski 1973).
Another complex of activities which is related to the destruction of features in the
liminal stage is the dismantling of facades. In Denmark, three facades seem to have
been removed: at Lindebjerg, feature C in the eastern part of the barrow consisted of
a stone-packed pit in which had stood two posts which seem to have been cut down
(Liversage 1980:98); the four facade posts in deep stone-packed holes at 0nsved
Mark (Kaul 1987) were pulled out; and at Rude (Madsen 1979b:88) the facade of the
first phase decayed or was removed before the facade of the second phase was built,
consisting of seven split trunks in a stone-packing which were then burnt down, as
evidenced by strips of charcoal. Also at Rustrup a ditch about five metres long with
evidence of heavy posts indicated by charcoal pieces may be the remains of a facade.
A further set of actions which exercises the symbolism of destruction and prepara-
tion for the new is recorded in the evidence of ard marks. The question of the inter-
pretation of ard or plough marks preserved under burial mounds has been discussed
frequently in the last few years (e.g. Rowley-Conwy 1987; Kristiansen 1990; Tarlow
1990; 1995). Here I will confine myself to a brief discussion of the connection of ard
marks to the process of staging liminality. From the few cases where ard marks
under barrows of the Trichterbecher culture are recorded (Sarnowo 8; Lundelwj and
Himmelev, both dating to the middle Neolithic; Torslev; maybe also Lupawa; and
barrow 298 at Sachsenwald) it can be detected that they cut through a layer consist-
ing of cultural material (or, in the case of Lundelwj, a clay floor). I like to see the
location of burial mounds over ploughed land, especially settlement layers, as ritu-
ally significant, as intentional acts, because they also could have been erected else-
where and the marks cannot be detected outside the area covered by the mound. For
example for Torslev, Johansen (1985:117) states that 'the construction of the mound
80 GRAMSCH

apparently occurred very soon after the accumulation of the culture layer', which is
cut by the ard marks. The ploughing was carried out only once and only in the area
covered by the mound, curving at its outer limits. These ard marks are interpreted as
referring to the concept of lagriculture', constituting a metaphor for it (farlow 1990;
1995), and connecting it to the metaphor of the lliving past' expressed in the settle-
ment layers in the ritual process. Since this is acted out during the liminal stage, the
'natural' order is interrupted and inverted. It is necessary to eliminate or neutralise
the existing order and to create discontinuity in order to re-establish continuity again
in the last stage of the ritual. This disruption is encountered in the ploughing up of
the settlement site, spreading the cultural material in the enclosure, as it was en-
countered similarly in the destruction of buildings and corpses in the lliminal' area
of the enclosure. The significance of these acts lies in destroying the place of refer-
ence to the past in the liminal phase, and thus opening up the possibility for a re-
enacting and thus re-creating of continuity in the stage of reincorporation through
the construction of something new out of the old: the mound as a mark of the social
or productive unit. Thus, the agricultural metaphor is completed by the use of this
prepared place by burying something with fertilising powers in it and covering it
with earth. But it is extended to a metaphor of refertilising and reconstituting society
by the reincorporation of the past. An analogy may be drawn with Blochls discussion
of the notion that the dead of the Merina on Madagascar have at the same time
fertilising as well as polluting powers (Bloch 1982), a power to reproduce the com-
munity in its symbolic form. The ploughing of settlements thus seems to represent
re-cultivation for the symbolical fertilising' of soil and society, rather than for actual
I

agricultural use.

It was already been indicated how the reintegration of the past with the present dur-
ing the last stage of the mortuary ritual was symbolised through the agricultural
metaphor, which is also a live-giving metaphor: the recultivated site is covered with
earth (in fact, a huge amount of earth) after the fertilising powers of the dead have
been Iplanted'. This ensures the continuity of the group, but also enables the creation
of larger social units through the incorporation of new groups that have become
Iaffiliated' through the rituals performed in the liminal stage and are now confirmed
in their new status. In many cases the mound itself incorporated older cultural
material from settlement layers, which may have been regarded as reinforcing the
link of the past with the present. It is from this that the significance of the monument
in the landscape is derived, structuring the social as well as the physical environ-
ment. In some cases, the order is recreated by ending the liminal stage through a
Iblocking' by a smaller mound sealing the broader eastern end of the enclosure only
(Sarnowo 8 and Mosegarden) or by a partial erection of the barrow between rows of
stakes (Bygholm N0rremark). This opened up the possibility that the tripartite rites
of passage could have been performed at the same monument again. With the seal-
ing of the monument an 'eternal' link between past and present was established and
maintained and continuity was recreated; a historical monument was now integrated
into a new spatiat topographical order or structure.
DEATH AND CONTINUITY 81

D E A T H A N D P O L L U T IO N

I have already touched several times upon the symbolism of decay and pollution in-
volved in the rituals surrounding death and burial which could be detected,
especially in those cases where the body was linked to cultural material inside the
enclosure.
It must again be said that it is assumed that these materials had a similar signi-
ficance or connotative meaning as the corpse, because they were at a certain stage in
their use-cycle disintegrated and dissolved. A similar link between the breaking of
pottery and the disarticulation of bones was made by Tilley (1984:137) for the
Trichterbecher culture of the middle Neolithic in southern Scania. That the process of
dissolution may have been related to notions of impurity and pollution is indicated
in the frequent use of fire, sometimes also affecting the bones. Fire may at the same
time clean and purify, and destroy, thus intensifying the process of destruction and
dissolution of time and the individual. The presence of human bones in the layer of
cultural material at Wietrzychowice III is points at funeral practices prior to the final
burial in the barrow enclosure, rather than at cannibalism Gadczykowa 1971), and
again links the remains of the body with refuse material. Similarly, the bones of five
to nine individuals were found mixed up in a pit between the barrows at Sarnowo,
split and charred through fire Gazdzewski 1973).
But pollution is certainly not the only meaning inherent in the sign of rotting
material. It is also a symbol of death. Following van Gennep, rites which involve a
rebirth into a new status, new condition, require death in the former. This is true for
any ritual subject, individual or society. Here, the symbol of the decaying body
provides the metaphor for the social transition, which is enhanced through the
connection with the decomposition of the 'cultural material', constituting the symbol
for the society of the past. What becomes detectable here is the equation proposed by
Douglas (1966) between uncleanness and disorder. Disorder, expressed in or formed
by uncleanness, is both destructive of existing patterns and provides the potential for
new patterning. 'Ritual recognises the potency of disorder', observes Douglas (p. 94).
In the liminal stage, the ritual subject is unclassified, outside the order. 'The whole
repertoire of ideas concerning pollution and purification are used to mark the
gravity of the event and the power of ritual to remake a man' (p. 96) or, in our case, a
society.
This set of symbols of decomposing bodies and societies is linked to bodily
symbolism. The human body carries wide possibilities for symbolic expression,
especially that related to society. According to Bloch (1982:224), the negation of in-
dividuality and death in mortuary rituals 'seems, in nearly all cases, to be acted out
by linking it closely with the horror of the pollution of decomposition of the body.'
The victory over death through the ideological creation of continuity and through
the dissolution of the individual is also both the victory over the biological nature of
humans and the victory over the unstable nature of mobile small-scale societies,
giving them apparent eternity.
82 GRAMSCH

IN D IV ID U A U , L IN E A G E S , S O C IE T Y

There is no clear evidence for an emphasis on individualism in the mortuary rituals.

Generally, due to soil conditions, bones are hardly preserved. Grave goods associ-
ated with the observed single or multiple burials are scarce, often no goods were
found at all. In Kujawia, grave goods are usually restricted to a few flint tools, while
in Denmark a regularly occurring but not very frequent assemblage consists of the
combination of amber beads or other ornaments with axes, flint items, especially
transverse arrowheads, and sometimes a few Beakers or lugged vessels. These
assemblages of grave goods are no richer or more numerous than those in the earth
graves of this period. Even the regularity in the nature and composition of grave
goods, striking especially when compared to the high degree of variability manifest
in other aspects of the mortuary ritual, makes clear that it is not the individual social
persona of the deceased which is emphasised.
Two grave pits with multiple burials are Bygholm and Sj0rup, the former contain-
ing four adults buried simultaneously (R0nne 1979), the latter enclosing one adult
and four children side by side G0rgensen 1977). I fully agree with Madsen (1991:493)
who can 'see no reason why they should have had any chiefly status at all.' Rather,
the cause for the elaborate burial lay with having to face severe disruption of the
social unit. Madsen goes on to suggest' that we are dealing with a segmented popu-
lation with some sort of lineal descent' for which 'it was important to display group
solidarity and unity.' This suggestions requires consideration of further evidence.
A closer look at the placement of the graves in relation to different segments
within the barrows and to the layers of cultural material reveals no pattern that
might indicate group competition through the placement of individual members of
the group. Again a rule is followed that the first segment to the west of the facade is
kept free, maybe for ritual activities, the first or only grave(s) being placed in the
second segment (e.g. Barkcer 1 and 2; Karsko in western Pommerania; Perdohl
(Nilius 1971); probably Poglitz (Sprockhoff 1967:76-7)).
In cases where below one barrow several graves were found which may have been
constructed successively, there is no evidence for one central grave to which the
others refer and which may be distinguished by construction and grave goods.
Again, the small and short-lived villages, or rather hamlets of two to three huts, in
which these people formerly lived, make an interpretation of these monuments as
markers of powerful individual village or clan chiefs unlikely. Following Madsen
(1982), there is no evidence for lineages in the early Neolithic in Denmark but rather
a pattern of small social entities (Madsen assumes extended families) as basic units of
production with extensive land use based upon animal husbandry, gathering, hunt-
ing, and agriculture on small clearances that were shifted each year or every few
years. Thus it rather seems that the construction of earthen long barrows opened up
the possibility for the integration of smaller groups into a larger social unit, re-form-
ing and strengthening social ties through the common labour at the monument (even
if the 'separateness' is maintained in the beginning through the segmentation), and
through the addition of secondary graves.
DEATH AND CONTINUITY 83

There is also evidence that some burials are secondary in the sense that the body
was first buried or otherwise excarnated elsewhere: disordered bones at Rude
(Madsen 1979 b); marks of splitting and apertures at Sarnowo 8 (Kapica 1971);
scattered bones at Wietrzychowice. This disordering of bones can be perceived as
aiming at the constitution of a generalised category of unnamed ancestors.
In cases where we might cautiously assume that grave structures without traces of
a body indeed never contained one, it seems that the act of constructing these' ceno-
taphs' is more important than a burial, because the performance of this task itself
was a necessity. 'The very practice of its construction involved the creation of social
ties and dependencies' (Hodder 1990, 188). The use of the structures before, during,
and after their sealing with a mound created social entities, but also relations of
dominance through the differential access as is evidenced in enclosure and facade,
enabling the control of ritual knowledge. Possession of and control over knowledge
confers power which can be used to negotiate individual or group positions. The en-
closure thus at the same time enabled social asymmetry and exercised unity and
homogeneity through the reference to the world of the living (through the concept of
the house) and the representation of the entity it created. This was enhanced through
the entity of non-individual ancestors, to which the group(s) referred.
The generation of larger social entities through the action of erecting the monu-
ment and through its existence as a point of reference eventually lead to the estab-
lishment of lineages. A lineage claims descent from a common ancestor, which again
is closely connected to a particular place. It is a group with weak inner hierarchisa-
tion and strong boundaries to the outside (Tilley 1984). According to Thomas (1987:
418), the maintenance of the relationship between people and land is an instrument
of labour (his 'lineage mode of production'), but in addition the relations of
dominance within society, 'was achieved by the substitution of a "house of the
ancestors" for the houses of the living', i.e. the mortuary monument. This house of
the ancestor(s) with its anti-individual ideology lead eventually to the collective
burials in the megaliths of the middle Neolithic, symbolising 'the presentation of
society as homogeneous and undifferentiated: always the ideology of the lineage' (p.
419).
With the shift from the early to the middle Neolithic in Denmark a continuity of
the features and the rituals linked to them can be detected. Certainly, the megaliths
of the middle Neolithic continued the idea of monumentality in connection to
historic structures. However, the concept of re-incorporating the past in a monument
which constituted a focal point of reference for a social entity was not simply con-
tinued, but elaborated. The ideology of anti-individualism was further developed
and enhanced through the rite of collective burial, the disarticulation and disorder-
ing of the remains of the ancestors. Secondary burials after the excarnation of the
bodies elsewhere (maybe primary burials) speak for an elaboration of body treat-
ment (cf. Midgley 1992:444-5). The possibility of entering the monument several
times facilitated the inclusion of smaller social units into a larger whole. It also en-
abled the exercise of power through differential rules of access and exclusion.
That group competition for access to or position within the lineage had increased
84 GRAMSCH

with the development of the middle Neolithic is indicated in the so-called cult or
mortuary houses connected to the megaliths and containing highly decorated
pottery, displayed in several distinct groups, such as Ferslev, Tustrup, and Herrup
(Marseen 1960; Kjcerum 1967; Becker 1973). They extended a set of ideas developed
in the early Neolithic, linked to the timber buildings inside the barrow enclosure.
This connection becomes visible, for instance, in the stone-packings linked to cult
houses at Tustrup and Ferslev, which are interpreted as grave structures (Kjcerum
1967:194). In Herrup and Engedal (Faber 1977) the cult houses were burnt down after
use.
The mortuary houses present a movement of the ritual structure from the interior
(the barrow enclosure) to the exterior (the place between megaliths), which may be
related to the deposition of pots in front of the passage grave rather than at the
facade inside the monument. The negotiation of positions through differences in
access and exclusion from various parts of the monument and of the mortuary ritual
becomes obvious here. Midgley (1992) assumes an opposite movement from the
exterior, Le. probable rituals at the outside of the barrows, to the interior, i.e. rituals
carried out inside the passage grave, but there is no evidence for the former. Rather,
what I have outlined above seems to demonstrate that in the early Neolithic the
various rituals performed during the rites of passage took place inside the'sacred'
enclosure of the monument.
Another indication of continuity of ideas is the placement of dolmens and passage
graves in older barrows, sometimes incorporating the rebuilding and extension of
the mound, pointing to a continuity in the deliberate reference to and incorporation
of the past. Examples are Bygholm N0rremark, Storgard, and Mosegarden. Other
megaliths were placed directly upon older settlements, continuing the spatial aspects
of the early-Neolithic mortuary ritual, though not necessarily with the same con-
notative meanings. The construction of monuments of stone, very often open for
access, surely meant something different (cf. Chapman 1981). At H",rret Skov I and
Hinunelev, for example, middle-Neolithic Ib passage graves were erected over
cultural layers.
However, with the shift to the middle Neolithic there emerged considerable new
ways of expressing ritual significance. While the early Neolithic was characterised by
a diversity of regional pottery styles and variability in mortuary rituals, uniform ele-
ments of style spread with the development of Fuchsberg and Virum (Madsen 1988).
There seems to have been stricter rules, while at the same time the production of
pottery accelerated as can be observed in the deposits in causewayed camps, tombs,
and settlements. There was also an 'explosion' in the construction of funerary monu-
ments. But settlements also became more substantial in middle Neolithic I, and, from
middle Neolithic III onward, much larger and more stable (Madsen 1982:207).
Nevertheless both periods are clearly related conceptually. Through the mortuary
rituals a connection between the dead, the society of the living, and the past was
realised. This enabled the creation of asymmetries, in-groups and out-groups,
drawing together smaller social units to form a larger entity, and finally led to the
generation of lineages with internal group competition which was masked by an
DEATH AND CONTINUITY 85

ideology of anti-individualism and homogeneity. As Damm (1991, 45) states, the

passage graves' symbolized the magnificence of larger groups or lineages', and thus
became the places of ancestors symbolising the lineage. Competition was not for
land, triggered off by population pressure. Competition was for access to the
developing larger social unit during the early Neolithic, and for the position within
this unit during the middle Neolithic, and only from there also for the key factors
social reproduction, economic production, labour, and land (Gramsch 1993).

C o N C L U S IO N

If some of the concepts and ideas presented here and argued to have been expressed
in the material of the Trichterbecher culture seem rather vague, this may be due to
the character of the symbols used in the mortuary rituals. They are in general often
vague and indeterminate (Huntington and Metcalf 1979:50).We are dealing not with
a single set of clear-cut meanings, but with a whole web of metaphors, aspects of
which are emphasised differently at different times. Turner (1967:99)has called it the
economy of symbolic reference: 'huts can be at once tombs and wombs.'
Following the models of Turner and van Gennep it proved possible to describe the
mortuary rituals surrounding the TRB long barrows with the concept of rites de
passage. The stage of separation could be observed in the erection of palisades, kerbs,
and facades, creating an inside/ outside dichotomy, preparing the stage for the per-
formance of rituals which lead the ritual subject through the state of liminality. These
rituals executed the drama of the inversion of group identity and continuity: the
past, the society of the living of the past, symbolised in the abandoned settlement,
was separated from the present and acts of destruction (e.g. burning down build-
ings) were staged. Links were established between death, decomposition, and dis-
continuity. Lastly the ritual subject, the group or society, was brought back into a
new state, past and present were connected again, the house for the ancestor(s) was
rebuilt, now symbolising the society of the dead, and continuity was recreated
through a highly visible and apparently eternal monument. The past was sealed in
the present through the mound. The values of group unity and continuity have been
emphasised through its antithesis, the demonstration of discontinuity, the discon-
nection of the past from the present. Additionally, this made it possible to draw
together small groups to create a larger social unity, the positions in which were
negotiated through access to (ritual) knowledge and to the common ancestor. This
eventually lead to the elaborate mortuary rituals surrounding the erection of mega-
liths during the middle Neolithic as houses of the dead of the lineage.
The link with the past, necessary for the rebirth of both society and ancestor, was
established through the reference to a signifier of the past society, an abandoned
settlement. This was the appropriate place for the dead body to be buried. Through
setting up the dichotomy between pollution and purity an attempt was made 'to
overcome the individuality of a particular corpse and in particular its individual
death' (Bloch 1982:223-4).The danger of pollution, disorder, and discontinuity was
dramatically visualised and overcome through the collective acts of the group, re-in-
86 GRAMSCH

corporating the past in the present. The image of eternal continuity of the group
unity was created and the traditional authority (in the Weberian sense) thus legit-
imated, the social order maintained and extended to larger units, allowing the
emergence of lineages, and assymetries were justified. To bury the old meant to give
birth to the new.

NOTES

1. 'For groups, as well as for individuals, life itself means to separate and to be reunited, to
change form and condition, to die and to be reborn' (van Gennep 1960:189).Who exactly belongs to
this group performing the rituals cannot be specified here.
2. Bloch (1977) has distinguished everyday communication and ritual communication in a
society, each with a different concept of time which will co-exist. In ritual communication the society
may live in a timeless present which is fused with the past, or it may incorporate the past in the
present only to a limited degree.
3. After Becker 1954; Ebbesen and Mahler 1979; Fischer 1975; Madsen 1976; Madsen and Juel
Jensen 1982;and Skaarup 1973.
4. One of the clay layers, containing early-Neolithic A pottery, an axe, a transverse arrowhead,
and a few amber artefacts, may be interpreted as a grave.
5. Following the redefinition of pottery styles by Madsen (1986 and 1988) into local groups
(Oxie,Volling, Zealandic Svaleklint), being to a great extent contemporary, the structures at Tolstrup
containing pottery of different styles may indeed be contemporary.

B IB L IO G R A P H Y

ANDERSEN,S0REN H. and ERIKJOHANSEN,1990. An early Neolithic grave at Bjemsholm.

Journal of Danish Archaeology 9:38-58.
BECKER,C . J., 1954. Stenalderbebyggelsen ved Store Valby i Vestsjrelland. Arboger 1954:
127-197.
BECKER,C . J., 1973. Problems of the megalithic 'mortuary houses' in Denmark. In Glyn
Daniel and P. Kj~nun (eds), Megalithic Graves and Ritual. Papers presented at the III
Atlantic Colloquium Moesgard 1969: 75-79. Copenhagen: Jutland Archaeological
Society.
BLOCH,M AURICE,1977. The past and the present in the present. Man 12:278-292.
BLOCH,MAURICE,1982. Death, women, and power. In Maurice Bloch and J. Parry (eds),
Death and the Regeneration of Life: 211-230. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
CHAPMAN,ROBERT,1981. The emergence of formal disposal areas and the 'problem' of
megalithic tombs in prehistoric Europe. In Robert Chapman, Ian Kinnes, and
Klavs Randsborg (eds), The Archaeology of Death: 71-81. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
CHMIELEWSKI, WALDEMAR,1952. Zagadnienie grobowcow Kujawskich w swietle ostatnich
badan. Lodz: Biblioteka Muzeum Archeologicznego w Lodzi.
DAMM, CHARLOlTEBRYSTING,1991. Burying the past: an example of social transform-
ation in the Danish Neolithic. In Paul Garwood, David Jennings, Robin Skeates,
and Judith Toms (eds), Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a conference on archaeology,
ritual and religion. Oxford 1989: 43-49. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology (Monograph 32).
DEHNKE,RUDOLF,1940. Die Tiefstichtonware der Jungsteinzeit in Osthannover. Hildesheim:
DEATH AND CONTINUITY 87

A. Lax Verlagsbuchhandlung.
DOUGLAS,MARy, 1966. Purity and Danger. An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo.
London: Routledge.
KLAus, 1975. Die jiingere Trichterbecherkultur auf den diinischen [nseln. Copen-
EBBE'SEN,
hagen: Akademisk ForIag.
EBBESEN,KLAUSand DmEV MAHLER, 1979. Virum - Et tidlig neolitisk bopladsfund.
Arboger 1979:11-61.
EGGERS,HANs JORGEN,1969. Pommersche Funde und Ausgrabungen aus den 30er und 40er
Jahren. Hamburg: Hamburgisches Museum fUr Volkerkunde und Vorgeschichte
(11. Beiheft zum Atlas der Urgeschichte).
FABER,O LE, 1977. Endnu et kulthus - et stenaldertempel ved Engedal i Midljylland. In
Fortidsmindevonvaltningen, Antikvariske Studier tilegnet K. Thorvildsen: 35-46.
Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet.
FISCHER,CHRIsnAN, 1974. Simpel Jordgrav. Skalk 1974(1):11-15.
FISCHER,CHRISTIAN, 1975. Tidllk-neolitiske anlreg ved Rustrup. KumI1975:29-72.
GLOB,P. V., 1949. BarlGEr, Danmarks reldste landsby. Nationalmuseets Arbeidsmark 1949:
1-12.
GLOB,P. V., 1975. De d"des lange huse. Skalk 1975(6):10-14.
GRAMSCH,ALEXANDER, 1993. Death and Continuity. The mortumy ritual of the earthen
long barrows of the TRB. Unpubl. M.Phil.-thesis University of Cambridge.
HODDER,IAN, 1988. Material culture texts and social change: a theoretical discussion
and some archaeological examples. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54:67-75.
HODDER,IAN, 1989. This is not an article about material culture as text. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 8:250-269.
HODDER,IAN, 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
HUNTINGTON,RIa-IARDand PETERMETCALF,1979. Celebrations of Death. The anthropology
of mortuary ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
JADCZYKOWA, IRENA,1971. Sprawodzanie z koncowego etapu prac badawczych na Nee-
litycznym crnentarzysku grobowcow Kujawskich w Wietrzychowicach, pow.
Kolo. Prace i Materialy Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograjicznego w Lodzi 18:93-
103.
JAZDZEWSI<I,KONRAD,1936. Kultura pucharow lejkowatych w Polsce zachodniej i srodkowej.
Poznan: Poznan University.
JAZDZEWSKI, KONRAD,1973. The relations between Kujawian barrows in Poland and
megalithic tombs in northern Germany, Denmark, and western European
countries. In Glyn Daniel and P. Kjrerum (eds), Megalithic Graves and Ritual.
Papers presented at the III Atlantic Colloquium, Moesgard 1969: 63-74. Copenhagen:
Jutland Archaeological Society.
JOHANSEN,ERIK,1985. A burial mound with culture layers from the Early Bronze Age
near Torslev, Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 4:115-120.
J0RGENSEN, ERIK,1977. Brrendende langdysser. Skalk 1977/5:7-13.
I<APICA,ZDZISLAW,1971. Analiza antropologiczna materialow kostnych z cemen-
tarzyska kultury pucharow lejkowatych na stanowisk 1 w Samowie, pow. Wloc-
lawek-z grobowca 8. Prace i Materialy Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograjicznego w
Lodzi 18:121-123.
KAUL, FLEMMING,1987. Neolitiske gravanlreg pa Onsved Mark, Horns Herred,
Sj~lland. Arboger 187:27-83.
I<INNES,IAN, 1992. Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic.
London: British Museum (British Museum Occasional Paper 52).
KJlERUM,POUL,1967. Mortuary houses and funeral rites in Denmark. Antiquity 41:190-
196.
88 GRAMSCH

I<RIsTENSEN, lNGEKJ)ER,1989. Storgard IV - an early Neolithic long barrow near Fjelse,

North Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 8:72-87.
I<RIsnANsEN,1<RIsnAN,1990. Ard marks under barrows: a response to Peter Rowley-
Conwy. Antiquity 64:322-327.
LA FONfAINE,JEAN5., 1972. Introduction. In J. s. La Fontaine (ed.), The Interpretation of
Ritual. Essays in Honour of A. J. Richards: ix-xviii. London: Tavistock Publications.
LEWIS,G ., 1980. Days of Shining Red. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LIVERSAGE, DAVID,1980. Neolithic monuments at Lindebjerg, northwest Zealand. Acta
Archaeologia 51:85-152.
MADSEN, Bo and POUl OITo NIELSEN, 1977. To tidlig-neolitiske jordgrave. In Antik-
variske Studier tilgenet K. Thorvildsen: 27-34. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet ForIag.
MADSEN,T ORSTEN,1971. Grave med telteformet overbygning. KumI1971:127-149.
MADSEN,TORSTEN,1973-74. Tidlig neolitiske anlceg ved Tolstrup. Kuml 1973-74:121-
154.
MADSEN,TORSTEN,1979a. Earthen long barrows and timber structures: aspects of the
early Neolithic mortuary practice in Denmark. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
45:301-320.
MADSEN,T ORSTEN,1979b. En tidligneolitisk langhej i 0stjylland. KumI1979:79-108.
MADSEN,TORSTEN,1982. Settlement systems of early agricultural societies in east Jut-
land: a regional study of change. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:197-236.
MADSEN,TORSTEN,1986. Where did all the hunters go? Journal of Danish Archaeology 5:
229-239.
MADSEN,TORSTEN,1988. Causewayed enclosures in south Scandinavia. In C. Burgess et
al. (eds), Enclosures and Defenses in the Neolithic of Western Europe: 301-336. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports (International Series 403).
MADSEN,TORSTEN,1991. The social structure of early Neolithic society in south Scandi-
navia. In J. Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche: 489-496. Bonn:
Rudolf Habelt.
MADSEN,TORSTENand H. JUEl JENSEN,1982. Settlement and land use in early Neolithic
Denmark. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 15:63-86.
MADSEN,TORSTENand JENSERIKPETERsEN,1982-83. Tidligneolitiske anlceg ved Mose-
garden. KumI1982-83, 61-120.
MARSEEN,O scAR, 1960. Ferslev-huset, en kultbygning ira jcettestuetid. Kum11960, 36-
55.
MnX;LEY,MAGDALENA5., 1985. The Origin and Function of the Earthen Long Barrows of
Northern Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series 259).
MIDGLEY,MAGDALENA5., 1992. TRB Culture - The first farmers of the North European
Plain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
NIFSIOLOWSKA-SRENIOWSKA, EWA, 1980. Materialy krzemienne z fazy AB kultury
pucharow lejkowatych z grobowa 8 w Samowie, woj. WlocIawek. Prace i
Materialy Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograjicznego w Lodzi 27:85-155.
NIUUS, INGE, 1971. Das Neolithikum in Mecklenburg zur Zeit und unter besonderer Beriick-
sichtigung der Trichterbecherkultur. Schwerin: Museum fUr Ur- und Friih-
geschichte.
R0NNE, PREBEN,1979. H0j over hej. Skalk 1979 (5):3-8.
RoWLEY-CoNWY,PETER,1987. The interpretation of ard-marks. Antiquity 61:263-266.
SKAARUP,J0RGEN, 1972. Hessel" - Selager. Jagdstationen der Siidskandinavischen Trichter-
becherkultur. Copenhagen: Akademisk ForIag.
SKAARUP,J0RGEN, 1975. Stengade - Ein langeliindischer Wohnplatz mit Hausresten aus der
jriihneolitischen Zeit. Rudk0bing: Langelands Museum.
DEATH AND CONTINUITY 89

SKAARUP,J0RGEN, 1982. Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsstrukturen in der Trichterbecher-

kultur in Danemark. Offa 39:39-52.
SPROCI<HOFF,ERN5I',1952. Zwei Megalithgraber aus Schleswig und Holstein. Offa 10:15-
28.
SPROCKHOFF, ERN5I',1954. I<am.merlose Hiinenbetten im Sachsenwald. Offa 13:1-16.
SPROCKHOFF, ERN5I', 1967. Atlas der Megalithgriiber Deutschlands, vol. 2. Bonn: Rudolf
Habelt.
STORup,BJ0RN,1965. En ny jordgrav fra tidlilg-neolitisk tid. KumI1965:13-22.
TARLOW,SARAHA ., 1990. Metaphors and Neolithic-Bronze Age Burial Mounds. Un-
published M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.
TARLOW,SARAHA., 1995. Scraping the bottom of the barrow: an agricultural metaphor
in Neolithic/Bronze-Age European burial practice: Journal 0/ Theoretical Archae-
ology 3/4:119-140.
THOMAS,JULIAN,1987. Relations of production and social change in the Neolithic of
north-west Europe. Man 22:405-430.
THOMAS,JULIAN,1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TILLEY,CHRISTOPHER, 1984. Ideology and the legitimisation of power in the middle Neo-
lithic of southern Sweden. In Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley (eds), Ideology,
Power and Prehistory: 111-146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TuRNER, VICTOR,1 967. The Forest o/Symbols. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
VANGENNEP,ARNOLD,1960. The Rites 0/ Passage. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
(first published 1909).
WIKLAK,HENRYK,1980. Wyniki badan wykopaliskowych w obrebie grobowca 8 w
Samowie w woj. Wloclawskim. Prace i Materialy Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etno-
grajicznego w Lodzi 27:33-83.
WIKLAK,HENRYK,1983. Wyniki badan wykopaliskowych w osadziei na unetarcysku
kultury pucharaw leikowatych na stanowisku 1A w Samowie, woj. Wloclawskie.
Prace i Materialy Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograjicznego w Lodzi 30:167-200.
WIKLAK,I-lENRVK,1986. Podsumowanie wynikow bad an wykopaliskowych w obrebie
grobowca 9 w Samowie, woj. Wloclawskie. Prace i Materialy Muzeum Archeologicz-
nego i Etnograjicznego w Lodzi 33:5-21.
WIlSON, M., 1972. The wedding cakes: a study of ritual change. In: J. S. La Fontaine
(ed.), The Interpretation o/Ritual: 187-201. London: Tavistock.

ABSTRACTS

Death and continuity

1bis article suggests that the common appearance of cultural ('midden') material under barrows of
the Trichterbecher culture is interpreted as the purposeful metaphor of continuity of the small-scale
society that has just suffered the loss of one or more of its actors. The three stages of rites de passage as
outlined by van Gennep are used to explain the mortuary rituals further. Separation was signified
by the enclosure (ditch or palisade) around the future barrow site and a 'facade'. The liminal stage
may be marked archaeologically by the 'cleansing' of fire or dismantling of facades at the barrow
entrance, and sometimes by ploughing, which destroyed the cultural material on the site. Reintegra-
tion was the 'planting' of the deceased under soil and the erection of the barrow. The paper con-
cludes with implications for the growth of a lineage organisation of society.
90 GRAMSCH

Tod und Kontinuitit

Dieser Aufsatz argumentiert, daB das gewohnliche Auftreten von kulturellem ' Abfall' unter Gralr
hiigeln der Trichterbecherkultur als bezweckte Metaphor fUr Kontinuitiit einer kleinen Gesellschaft
diente, die gerade den Verlust von einem, einer oder mehreren ihrer Mitglieder(innen) erlitten hat.
Die drei Stufen der 'rites de passage' (Obergangsriten, nach van Gennep) werden zur weiteren
ErkHirung des Begrabnisrituals herangezogen. Trennung wurde angezeigt durch die Einfassung
(Graben oder Palisade) des spateren Grabhiigels und die Fassaden. Die Ubergangsstufe mag sich
archaologisch durch das '5aubem' des Feuers oder das Abbrechen der Fassaden am Eingang der
Grabhiigels andeuten, und manchmal durch Bepfliigen,wodurch alles kulturelle Material an dieser
Stelle zerstort wurde. Die Wiedereingliederung war das 'Unter-die-Erde-bringen' des oder der Ver-
storbenen und die Aufschiittung des Grabhiigels. Der Beitrag schlieBt ab mit Implikationen fUr eine
Zunahme von Gesellschaften,die nach 'lineages' organisiert sind.