Abstract
The reuse of ancient burial grounds in prehistory is a practice that has long been testified through archaeological investigations for several periods in European prehistory. As burial mounds form a distinctive feature in the landscape—to some extent even today—the perception and appropriation of these does not come as a great surprise. Still, this appropriation and reuse for burial or other non-funerary activities offers insights into cultural practices that have only recently been frequently discussed in the field. Normally these reuses are interpreted as ancestor veneration—be it of putative or real ancestors—or the use of these monuments is considered in terms of legitimation of power structures and social distinction by elites. The diversity, frequency, and distribution of such reuses nevertheless indicate that through time older monuments are reused not only by social elites but also by other parts of these societies, and by different forms of communities. This paper will focus on northern Central Europe during the Iron Ages (Pre-Roman Iron Age, Roman Iron Age, Migration Period) and discuss how different societies (‘culture groups’) reused ancient burial places as well as other locations and objects through time and space. These findings show the importance of the long-gone dead in Iron Age Europe and form the basis for a discussion of different possible interpretations of appropriations of the distant past.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
5.1 Introduction
Ancient monuments and artifacts are not only of interest to archaeologists; they also attract the public, be it in the form of burial mounds, ruins or other things from the past. This is not only true for present-day societies but applies to other periods, too (e.g. Driscoll, 1998; García Sanjuán & Díaz-Guardamino, 2015; Newman, 1998 for pre-modern times; Dietler, 1998; Hakelberg & Wiwjorra, 2010 for the early modern period). Multiperiod sites, excavated ever since the beginning of prehistoric archaeology, reveal that prehistoric and early historic communities came into contact with the remnants of the (distant) past and interacted with these. Such deliberate reuse may have taken place because sites were recognizable as a result of their previous use; but conversely, it may have happened coincidentally, too.
This phenomenon has been the topic of a fruitful debate in prehistoric archaeology in the last decades (e.g. Bradley, 1987, 2002; Díaz-Guardamino et al., 2015; Holtorf, 1998, 2005; Williams, 1998). It calls attention to several cultural and societal practices and the archaeology of memory (e.g. Jones, 2007; Veit, 2005), ancestor veneration (Hill & Hagemann, 2016), appropriation and negotiation of the past (Sommer, 2017; Weiss-Krejci, 2015), and other topics related to the awareness of time and tradition (Sommer, 2014). This is based on the mnemonic character of monuments that preserve aspects of the past for later times (Wendling, 2016, pp. 100–102). Monuments such as megaliths or burial mounds were not only of significance for the communities who constructed them, but also for those who succeeded them (Bradley, 1987, pp.14–15). This is reflected in the biography of such monuments as indicated in many excavations and diachronic analyses (Cooney, 2015, p. 57; Holtorf, 1998, 2000–2008). Monuments are therefore not only interesting in terms of their erection and use during pre-/historic times, but also as regards their potential to provoke reactions in later periods (Bradley, 2002, p. 113; Díaz-Guardamino et al., 2015, pp. 6–8; Holtorf, 2008, pp. 413–414). The biographies of monuments thus offer different narratives dependent on the perspective of archaeological investigations. The same multilayered character must also be taken into account for the whole cultural landscape (see e.g. Arnold, 2002) beyond the single monument as well as for artifacts inherited or rediscovered in times after their initial manufacturing and use (Lillios, 2008, pp. 239–241). Therefore, the whole archaeological record may provide insights into how the past was perceived, (re)interpreted, and negotiated in different times and regions.
Whereas theoretical and in-depth analyses on the past in the past were conducted for large parts of Europe (e.g. Bradley, 2002, 2015; Díaz-Guardamino et al., 2015), German-speaking archaeology still mostly focuses on single sites for which this phenomenon is testified (with the exception of e.g. Sopp, 1999 and Wendling, 2016). This situation offers a good point of departure for an integrative analysis of the perception of the past in the Iron Ages of northern Germany (Pre-Roman Iron Age: c. 600–1 BC; Roman Iron Age: c. AD 1–375; Migration Period: c. AD 375–600; mostly associated with Germanic tribes). I will first discuss the tradition of the reuse and appropriation of ancient burial sites for funerary activities and how that connects to notions of the past (see Fig. 5.1 for the location of all mentioned sites). Subsequently I will put this phenomenon into the wider context in which the distant past is perceived and used throughout the Iron Ages, to draw a more complete picture of how Iron Age communities arranged themselves in a landscape partly shaped by older times.
5.2 Burying Alongside the Long-Dead: The Reuse of Ancient Burial Grounds for Burial Activities
The evidence from graves is one of the main sources for the study of the Iron Ages in northern Germany, as burial grounds from these times were investigated ever since the beginning of archaeology. In the Pre-Roman Iron Age, though regional differences exist, the deceased were predominantly cremated and their burnt remains then inserted into urns and deposited in cemeteries of up to several hundred urns (‘urnfields’). The graves partly feature stone constructions and grave goods are generally relatively scarce (Bräunig, 2014). While the overall burial rite does not change from the Pre-Roman Iron Age to the Roman Iron Age the amount and the variety of grave goods increase to a large extent and inhumations become more regular (Derks, 2012, pp. 23–54; Schultze, 1992). The Migration Period is characterized by a continuity in the burial rituals but also by a diversification and regionalization, which makes it hard to draw a concrete overall picture of the burial rituals (Schach-Dörges, 1970; Schultze, 1992).
The reuse of ancient burial grounds for funerary activities is attested in many burial sites throughout northern Germany and adjacent regions and has been known since the beginning of archaeology as a discipline. Evidence for later burials in earlier barrows were especially useful for creating relative chronologies and as such gained much attention, such as the well-known ‘Three period barrow’ of Melzingen (Lower Saxony) (Jacob-Friesen, 1959, p. 4). With issues of chronology mostly solved, the debate shifted to focus on the types, the meaning, and the frequency of this practice (Hofmann, 2008; Sopp, 1999).
The reuse of long abandoned burial grounds is different from the multiperiod continuous use of a cemetery and it can take different spatial expressions. Matthias Sopp differentiates between burying directly into an ancient burial mound, burying at the mound, and adjacent to an ancient burial mound (Sopp, 1999). Kerstin Hofmann makes a distinction between minimal reuse for the placement of urns and large-scale intrusions and changes, such as the construction of a whole new embankment on the mound (Hofmann, 2008, pp. 279–280).
Even though the phenomenon is mostly discussed in the context of (mainly Bronze Age) burial mounds , other notable features also deserve consideration. Most recognizable of course are the megalithic tombs (Holtorf, 1998, 2000–2008), but much shallower traces of older burial grounds were also reused (Krüger, 1961, p. 15). Natural elevations also attracted funerary activities during the Iron Ages and therefore it is not always clear whether places were chosen because of former human activities or because of their topographic qualities (already indicated by Schwantes, 1911, p. 98). Burial mounds, however, are a very specific landscape feature and the frequency of their reuse (see below) indicates a general interest in that type of construction amongst ancient societies.
In terms of the number of burials installed on older burials grounds, the phenomenon of reuse of such sites can be divided into two different types: On the one hand, we can observe the foundation of entire new burial grounds at the location of ancient cemeteries , such as the Migration Period cemetery of Liebenau (Lower Saxony), which comprised inhumation, cremation, and bustum graves Footnote 1 and was established in the area of a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age cremation cemetery (Hässler, 1999) or the Pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age urnfield of Ehestorf-Vahrendorf (Lower Saxony), which was founded adjacent to an Early Bronze Age burial mound (Wegewitz, 1962). On the other hand, at several older burial sites only a handful of deceased were buried, such as at Twietfort (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) where two urns of the Pre-Roman Iron Age were inserted into a megalithic tomb (Rennebach, 1975), or at Anderlingen (Lower Saxony) and Gustow on the island of Rügen (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) where only very few graves of the Migration Period were dug into older mounds (Blaich, 2006; Schach-Dörges, 1970, p. 188).
As already indicated by the few examples mentioned, the reuse of ancient burial grounds is practiced throughout the Iron Ages (and beyond). Still, vast regional differences can be discerned in terms of distribution and quantity of sites. For example, 60% of all Pre-Roman Iron Age burial sites in the district of Rotenburg were founded in long abandoned burial grounds (Eichfeld, 2005, p. 66) whereas in the area of the rivers Elde and Karthane the numbers are much lower (Keiling, 1969, p. 23). Sopp’s (1999) compilation of reused ancient burial sites in northern Germany provides a useful basis for a diachronic perspective. While the phenomenon is regularly documented in both the Pre-Roman and the Roman Iron Age in northern Germany, with dozens of documented sites (Fig. 5.2 top), only about 20 ancient burial grounds were reused during the Migration Period (Fig. 5.2 bottom), and the practice was almost completely abandoned in northeastern Germany (see also Blaich, 2006 on this phenomenon).Footnote 2 However, a concentration is evident in the area of the lower Elbe. This more regional distribution has been discussed as part of the ethnic identity of the Saxons and as evidence of Anglo-Saxon migrations (Thäte, 1996; but see the critical comment by Härke & Williams, 1997).
Therefore, despite the fact that ancient burial grounds were reused throughout the entire Iron Ages, regional and temporal differences, as well as different combinations, are evident at different sites of the same region and period. As such, we can hardly speak of a uniform phenomenon. Rather, a range of different practices took place following the foundation of a burial ground, involving the decision to bury at a long-abandoned cemetery. The tradition of reusing ancient burial grounds and thus referencing the distant past was important during the Iron Ages, yet it may have been but one element in a more widespread process of interacting with the past, transcending the domain of funerary activity.
5.3 Beyond Burial(s): The Wider Context of the Perception and Appropriation of the Past During the Iron Ages in Northern Central Europe
5.3.1 Reuse of Old Burial Sites for Non-Funerary Activities
During the Iron Age, ancient mounds, burial grounds , and megalithic tombs were also used for non-funerary activities. These appear to have been conducted in a ritual context, for they do not match the necessary features of regular settlement activities. One example is a burial mound of the Bronze Age at Kronsburg-Glinde, Bredenbek (Schleswig-Holstein) where pits with traces of fire from the Pre-Roman and Roman Iron Ages were discovered, thus indicating ritual activities at the burial ground (Kneisel & Rode, 2014). Fire pits were also detected around megalithic tombs, like in Horneburg (Lower Saxony), with a large amount of such pits in the vicinity of the tomb (pers. comm. Daniel Nösler, Agathenburg). As such, ancient mounds and burial grounds were not only reused to bury the dead, but also for non-funerary gatherings and rituals. Thus, Iron Age pottery excavated from several megalithic tombs (Holtorf, 2000–2008) might not always indicate the remnants of cremation urn deposits but also of other events.
Rituals aside, such single finds might also reflect settlement activities directly located at older burial mounds. Sites like Horneburg in Lower Saxony (Fig. 5.3) and Mellenthin or Dishley in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern clearly illustrate settlement activities around the monuments in the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Holtorf, 2000–2008). This location of settlements is also known from the Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period and is testified in other regions as well, like at Calden (Hesse) (Raetzel-Fabian, 2000, pp. 97–99) or at Hedevang, Kobberup (Central Denmark) (Aner et al., 2008, p. 16).
5.3.2 Reuse of Non-Burial Sites
Besides ancient burial grounds, other sites might have been reused as well. The problem is that the evidence for such practices is harder to come by, especially for settlements. Their positioning in the landscape may have been shaped by many additional factors and older settlement remains are hard to recognize on the surface after some decades. Yet other sites might also play a role in this context. For example, the votive deposits in the Thorsberg moor on the peninsula of Anglia (Schleswig-Holstein) yielded pottery from the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Raddatz, 1957, 1970) in addition to the well-known weapon offerings from the Roman Iron Age (Blankenfeldt, 2015; Carnap-Bornheim, 2014; Lau, 2014; Matešić, 2015). There are also some single finds from the Bronze Age, illustrating the use of the bog before the Iron Ages. This might indicate that the bog was well known as a special site for the communities of the Roman Iron Age and therefore the decision to carry out sacrifice in this specific location might have been influenced by the ancient use of this landscape.
Furthermore, several of the sacrificial sites of the Roman Iron Age in southern Scandinavia show different phases of ritual activity with periods in between during which these sites—at least according to our current state of knowledge—were not used. This is thus an example of how such sites were known and reused (see Bemmann & Hahne, 1992, p. 65, fig. 9). Comparable Pre-Roman Iron Age practices with depositions of weapons and boats are known from the Hjortspring bog on the island of Als (Southern Denmark), pre-dating the classic examples from the Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period by some 400 years (Kaul, 2003, p. 175). Hence, the whole phenomenon might be related to ancient ritual practices already conducted generations earlier and rooted in people’s collective memory.
5.3.3 Heirloom Objects
In addition to the reuse of single monuments during the Iron Ages, two other categories of perception and appropriation of the past require attention. First, we need to shed light on how artifacts were reused during these periods. Archaeological finds (‘heirloom objects’) that are older than the structures in which they were found have puzzled archaeologists since the very beginning of typochronological dating and provide an interesting link to the questions discussed in this paper. Heirloom objects have been found at reoccupied sites such as Göhren on the island of Rügen (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) where a settlement of the Pre-Roman Iron Age was built adjacent to a megalithic tomb and where stone axes , supposedly taken from the tomb at some point in the Iron Age, were deposited in a hearth (Hollnagel, 1963). Apart from such cases, heirloom objects have also been encountered at sites that show no former occupation history, which suggests that these objects circulated among Iron Age communities to a certain extent.
One striking example derives from Borstel (Lower Saxony) where a Pre-Roman Iron Age urn with cremated remains was found (Gutmann, 1954). The urn which was covered by a reversed cup held a bronze axe, dating around Period II/III of the Bronze Age (second half of the second millennium BC) (Fig. 5.4). That means that the axe was already several hundred years old before it was finally deposited in the urn. Therefore, even though further information remains scarce, the bronze axe can be seen as an heirloom that was deposited in the course of the burial ritual. Additionally, the deposit had been inserted into an ancient burial mound and hence conforms to the already outlined reuse of ancient monuments. Sadly, the precise date of the mound is not known as it was not excavated further.
Another interesting case of an heirloom object comes from a Roman Iron Age cremation grave at Grethem (Lower Saxony). Amongst the burnt remains of an adult woman and several other grave goods, a Roman comb fragment made from ivory (Fig. 5.5) was found. The comb was originally manufactured during the times of Emperor Augustus and hence already an antiquity when deposited in the grave (Ludowici & Meyer, 2008).
Another example, this time from a non-funerary context, has been reported from the Roman Iron Age settlement of Lemke (Lower Saxony) where a posthole associated with an Iron Age building revealed a grinding stone, a piece of flint, and a pot dating from the late Neolithic Single Grave Culture (Scholz, 2015). Thus, these Neolithic finds might represent a ritual deposition in the course of the construction of the building, a phenomenon that is well known from the Roman Iron Age (see Beilke-Voigt, 2007 for an overview). As such, the example is not particularly unusual, but the artifacts clearly stand out, for, upon their deposition, they were already several thousand years old.
Sadly, it remains entirely unclear at the moment how these artifacts were obtained by Iron Age societies (see some possible explanations debated by Mehling, 1998 for the Early Middle Ages in southern Germany). Several possibilities present themselves. Thus, the Bronze Age axe was probably retrieved during activities on Bronze Age burial grounds, the Roman comb may have been an heirloom, and the Neolithic pot may have been accidentally recovered during settlement works.Footnote 3 Yet all these interpretations cannot be verified in the archaeological record and based on the current state of research we do not know a sufficient number of such cases to see patterns in the material. As such, these artifacts complement the reuse of monuments, but rarely offer possibilities for a far-reaching interpretation. In fact, it is worth considering whether they were perceived as antiquities at all. While a bronze axe in the Iron Age was most likely perceived as some old tool, the Roman comb is a less clear example. Roman luxury goods of this kind were of great demand in the Iron Ages, even as antiquities (Ludowici, 2019, pp. 68–69). However, we need to keep in mind that we do not know when the comb found its way into northern Germany. It was surely perceived as exotic and probably of Roman origin, but we can only speculate whether or not the Iron Age community was aware of its antiquity. Nevertheless, the examples given here indicate that antiquities were known in the Iron Ages of northern Central Europe and, as such, add another perspective to the perception of the past in these periods.
5.3.4 Field Systems and Monuments
With the focus on single sites and finds, and in contrast to other archaeological traditions, German archaeology has often neglected the rural landscape of Iron Age societies as regards traces of previous periods. However, single sites and settlements are embedded in a wider settlement system and therefore the role of ancient features between individual sites should be investigated, too. One such type of feature are field systems surrounding the settlements, so called ‘Celtic fields’.Footnote 4 Celtic fields are prehistoric farmlands divided into square plots by means of wide and shallow ramparts. They played a major role in Iron Age farming. LiDAR technology has revealed several Celtic fields in northern Germany and adjacent regions (Arnold, 2011, 2012). Even though long recognized (see several examples in Müller-Wille, 1965), examinations of LiDAR scans brought to light a link between Iron Age field systems and older barrows. These barrows had been incorporated into the agricultural fields; in some cases they marked edges and borders (Fig. 5.6; e.g. Nösler, 2018).
Yet, it also seems fruitful to go even further beyond the sites and pursue a landscape approach that specifically looks at the whole cultural landscape and integrates the Iron Age sites into the wider context (see e.g. Ballmer, 2018 for aspects of mounds and landscape relations). For even though some older monuments might seem distant from later sites, that does not mean that they were not incorporated into pathways and known and perceived in everyday life during the Iron Ages. GIS analyses form a good basis to apply landscape archaeology diachronically to that specific issue, whilst providing an opportunity to utilize big data from heritage organizations (Fig. 5.7).
To sum up, despite the problem of traceability and the circumstance that we lack the most prominent aspect of this phenomenon, i.e. the oral histories connected to ancient monuments, the different archaeological examples clearly illustrate the significance of the distant past for Iron Age communities in northern Germany. Thereby it becomes evident that ancient monuments and finds were dealt with in various ways, however they seem to have played an important role in these Iron Age societies.
5.4 Possibilities of Interpretation: Between Ancestor Veneration, Identity, and Distinction
So far, the focus of this chapter has been on how Iron Age communities perceived the distant past and how they interacted with the remnants of earlier periods. It is evident that the remains of the past were regularly recognized and dealt with throughout the Iron Age, implying their important role during that period. The questions of why that may have happened and how to interpret such activities have not been addressed so far, but they are of course one of the most intriguing parts of work on this phenomenon. Richard Bradley pointed out that the reuse of ancient monuments was linked to either interpretation, confrontation or legitimation (Bradley, 2002, pp. 122–124). Furthermore, ancestor veneration (Hill & Hageman, 2016), invention of traditions, and appropriations of monuments and the past (Weiss-Krejci, 2015) are aspects that need to be considered in this context, though all these issues naturally overlap to some degree. Some major aspects of the debate will be pointed out, which touch on the subject of cultural memory.
Most evidence presented in this chapter deals with burial sites, including both funerary and non-funerary activities that took place there. This does not come as a big surprise as funerary monuments—be it megaliths or burial mounds—comprise the majority of visible older monuments in northern Germany. Still, the appropriation of things from the distant past goes beyond the dead and the different aspects sketched out above indicate a much broader process of recognition and appropriation.
One interpretation that is mostly connected to the reuse of burial grounds and possible heirlooms is that the past is used as a part of social distinction (Bradley, 2002, pp. 119–122). In that sense the reuse of ancient monuments intends to legitimate power through forging links to a distant past (Cooney, 2015, p. 70), which is especially evident in societies where social status is inherited. This aspect features heavily in discussions about Iron Age groups in the more southern regions of Central Europe, focusing on elaborate systems of social and political organization in conjunction with the appropriation of the past (e.g. Fernández-Götz, 2014a; Müller, 2016). For northern Germany, this aspect is rarely considered because societal reconstructions indicate more egalitarian structures, e.g. for the Pre-Roman Iron Age (see Brandt, 2009). Nor is it reflected at the level of the sites, as burials at ancient mounds do not stand out from other contemporaneous burials and the frequency of the phenomenon indicates a much broader reuse of such places. Furthermore, besides single graves or small burial communities, whole burials were erected adjacent to ancient sites, and this too reflects a broader societal phenomenon. Here material culture seemingly is not representative of classic heirlooms and objects of genealogical meaning (see Lillios, 1999, pp. 251–252 on the archaeological identification of heirlooms) as indicated for other regions in the Iron Ages of Central Europe (e.g. Tomedi, 1996; Wendling, 2016, p. 104). These objects rather seem to be occasional finds, and, as such, they do not seem to reflect a direct social distinction connected to a remembered remote past. Nevertheless, they seem to be curated artifacts with a mnemonic character (Lillios, 2008, 239). Therefore, the use of the distant past does not seem to have been directly associated with societal distinction in the Iron Ages. Still, occasional practices related to and performed at ancient sites might have been part of a process of social distinction and therefore this topic cannot be completely ruled out for the Iron Ages in northern Germany.
The second issue that is regularly discussed in this context is ancestor veneration that is especially reflected in burials. Here it needs to be pointed out that in German-speaking archaeology the term ‘ancestor worship’ is often used as a shorthand to describe potential (re)uses of the past, without being further investigated (see Müller, 2016, p. vi). Naturally, ancestor veneration is a very plausible interpretation for some of the phenomena discussed here; still a more nuanced approach is desirable (Hill & Hageman, 2016; Whitley, 2002). First, it needs to be investigated whether real ancestors could be addressed with the practices performed. This seems plausible for sites with a continuous use or only short gaps in the sequence, the Iron Age of southern Central Europe being a prime example. Here communities of the Late Iron Age (La Tène Period, c. 450–1 BC) regularly interacted with mortuary monuments of the Early Iron Age (Hallstatt C and D, c. 800–450 BC) by constructing their landscapes with reference to these earlier burial places (Arnold, 2002) and reusing them for funerary as well as non-funerary activities (e.g. Wendling, 2016; Müller-Scheeßel, 2013, p. 80). Ancestor veneration is also a plausible interpretation for Iron Age activities in northern Germany, for example in burial grounds that were continuously used from the Bronze Age, as shown in the examples above. Sites abandoned for many centuries or millennia could have also served to promote the veneration of mythical ancestors, though it needs to be critically discussed whether such a finding is compatible with a veneration of real ancestors , often (partly) defined as being related in a genealogical way to the venerating communities (Hageman & Hill, 2016, pp. 5–8). Therefore, this sort of reuse might serve for the appropriation of land and/or history and legitimation of power (Bradley, 2002, pp. 119–122; Weiss-Krejci, 2015, pp. 307–309). The tombs and mortuary landscape represent a form of ‘ancestor time’ in which landscape and people become fused (Murray, 2016, p. 149). This heavily touches on the topics of memory in archaeology, a well-debated field in the last decades (e.g. Jones, 2007), as well as time awareness and perception (Sommer, 2014; Weiss-Krejci, 2015, p. 308). Thus, we may cite memory and remembrance of the distant past as decisive factors in bringing about the examples discussed here; or we may ascribe particular importance to the rediscovery and reinterpretation of forgotten places during the Iron Ages. That, in turn, may lead us to inquire into the cultural invention of tradition, lineage, and memory. Here Neolithic sites that were reused only in the Iron Ages in northern Germany are particularly noteworthy, for they give us more insights into how the past was negotiated and appropriated based on a process of rediscovery and reinterpretation rather than active remembrance (Díaz-Guardamino et al., 2015, pp. 10–11). Such sites therefore tell us more about the present than about the past in the Iron Ages (Holtorf, 2008, pp. 412–414). All these possibilities are significant in our identification of ancestor veneration in the Iron Ages and, more generally, furnish our understanding of how the past was renegotiated during that period. Therefore, this needs to be investigated for single monuments, single phenomena, and entire landscapes. In any case, the use of the past calls for an intensive discussion.
Such considerations challenge superficial interpretations and call for an in-depth analysis of the agency of the (long) dead, the perception of ancient sites and monuments, the preservation and construction of memory and time, and many other aspects connected to the past in the past. Yet, though outside the scope of this chapter, detailed analyses of the phenomena mentioned here can surely reveal more insights into these practices and open up possibilities for less broad-sweeping and more fine-grained interpretations. Nevertheless, the spectrum of perceptions and appropriations of the remains of the past in the Iron Ages of northern Germany already indicates that the past and the long gone played an important role in the lives of Iron Age communities and certainly were key to forging collective (e.g. Fernández-Götz, 2014b) and individual identities. Therefore, the past in the past remains a vibrant research topic for prehistoric archaeology to explore.
Notes
- 1.
In a ‘bustum grave ’ the pyre is built directly over the grave whereas in a ‘cremation grave’ burnt human bones and pyre debris are recovered from a pyre site and placed in an urn or scattered in the grave.
- 2.
I have reinvestigated the reuse of ancient burial sites in the Iron Ages of northern Germany, thereby updating the results of Sopp (1999). In the course of this work, a reevaluation of the sites selected by Sopp showed that many do not deserve the designation ‘reused’. This is especially true for the Migration Period where only half of the sites are confirmed by the renewed investigation.
- 3.
The latest excavations in Lemke have led to the discovery of a Neolithic house and additional Neolithic artifacts (pers. comm. Tobias Scholz).
- 4.
‘Celtic fields’ is a somewhat unfortunate name for prehistoric field systems that were first discovered in England by plane and—erroneously—assigned to Celtic times. Today it is known that they date from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Roman Imperial Period and existed throughout the heathlands of Northern Europe (Arnold, 2011, p. 439).
References
Aner, E., Kersten, K., & Willroth, K.-H. (2008). Viborg Amt: Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit des nordischen Kreises in Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachsen (Vol. 12). Wachholtz.
Arnold, B. (2002). A landscape of ancestors: The space and place of death in Iron Age West-Central Europe. In H. Silverman & D. Small (Eds.), The space and place of death (pp. 129–143). American Anthropological Association. https://doi.org/10.1525/ap3a.2002.11.1.129
Arnold, V. (2011). Celtic Fields und andere urgeschichtliche Ackersysteme in historisch alten Waldstandorten Schleswig-Holsteins aus Laserscandaten. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 41(3), 439–455.
Arnold, V. (2012). Laserscandaten als Prospektionshilfe zur punktuellen Untersuchung von urgeschichtlichen Ackersystemen insbesondere des Jungmoränengebietes in Schleswig-Holstein. In A. Stobbe & U. Tegtmeier (Eds.), Verzweigungen: Eine Würdigung für A. J. Kalis und J. Meurers-Balke (pp. 33–47). Rudolf Habelt.
Ballmer, A. (2018). Burial mound/landscape-relations: Approaches put forward by European prehistoric archaeology. In T. Knopf, W. Steinhaus, & S. Fukunaga (Eds.), Burial mounds in Europe and Japan: Comparative and contextual perspectives (pp. 100–109). Archaeopress.
Beilke-Voigt, I. (2007). Das “Opfer”im archäologischen Befund: Studien zu den sogenannten Bauopfern, kultischen Niederlegungen und Bestattungen in ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Siedlungen Norddeutschlands und Dänemarks. VML.
Bemmann, J., & Hahne, G. (1992). Ältereisenzeitliche Heiligtümer im nördlichen Europa nach den archäologischen Quellen. In H. Beck, D. Ellmers, & K. Schier (Eds.), Germanische Religionsgeschichte: Quellen und Quellenprobleme (pp. 29–69) (Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde Vol. 5). Walter de Gruyter.
Blaich, M. (2006). Anderlingen – zu einem gemischt belegten Friedhof des 4. / 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. In S. Hesse (Ed.), Archäologie im Herzen des Elbe-Weser-Dreiecks (pp. 51–74) (Archäologische Berichte des Landkreises Rotenburg [Wümme] Vol. 13). Isensee.
Blankenfeldt, R. (2015). Die persönlichen Ausrüstungen: Das Thorsberger Moor (Vol. 2). Verein zur Förderung des Archäologischen Landesmuseums, Schloss Gottorf.
Bradley, R. (1987). Time regained: The creation of continuity. Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 140(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1179/jba.1987.140.1.1
Bradley, R. (2002). The past in prehistoric societies. Routledge.
Bradley, R. (2015). Piecing together a past. In M. Díaz-Guardamino, L. García Sanjuán, & D. Wheatley (Eds.), The lives of prehistoric monuments in Iron Age, Roman, and medieval Europe (pp. 325–342). Oxford University Press.
Brandt, J. (2009). Gesellschaftsstrukturen in der Jastorfkultur. In W. Budesheim & H. Keiling (Eds.), Die Jastorf-Kultur: Forschungsstand und kulturhistorische Probleme der vorrömischen Eisenzeit (pp. 179–192). Freie Lauenburgische Akademie für Wissenschaft und Kultur.
Bräunig, R. (2014). Die Bestattungssitten der Jastorfkultur. In J. Brandt & B. Rauchfuß (Eds.), Das Jastorf-Konzept und die vorrömische Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa: Beiträge der internationalen Tagung zum einhundertjährigen Jubiläum der Veröffentlichung “Die ältesten Urnenfriedhöfe bei Uelzen und Lüneburg”durch Gustav Schwantes 18.–22.05.2011 in Bad Bevesen (pp. 81–90) (Veröffentlichung des Helms-Museum Vol. 105). Archäologisches Museum Hamburg.
Carnap-Bornheim, C. von (Ed.). (2014). Fund- und Forschungsgeschichte, naturwissenschaftliche und materialkundliche Untersuchungen: Das Thorsberger Moor (Vol. 4). Verein zur Förderung des Archäologischen Landesmuseums, Schloss Gottorf.
Cooney, G. (2015). Icons of antiquity: Remaking megalithic monuments in Ireland. In M. Díaz-Guardamino, L. García Sanjuán, & D. Wheatley (Eds.), The lives of prehistoric monuments in Iron Age, Roman, and medieval Europe (pp. 55–76). Oxford University Press.
Derks, H. (2012). Gräber und ‚Geschlechterfragen‘: Studie zu den Bestattungssitten der älteren Römischen Kaiserzeit. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte & Rudolf Habelt.
Díaz-Guardamino, M. G., Sanjuán, L., & Wheatley, D. (2015). The lives of prehistoric monuments in Iron Age, Roman, and medieval Europe: An introduction. In M. Díaz-Guardamino, L. García Sanjuán, & D. Wheatley (Eds.), The lives of prehistoric monuments in Iron Age, Roman, and medieval Europe (pp. 3–17). Oxford University Press.
Dietler, M. (1998). A tale of three sites: The monumentalization of Celtic oppida and the politics of collective memory and identity. World Archaeology, 30(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1998.9980398
Driscoll, S. T. (1998). Picts and prehistory: Cultural resource management in early medieval Scotland. World Archaeology, 30(1), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1998.9980402
Eichfeld, I. (2005). Die vorrömische Eisenzeit im Landkreis Rotenburg (Wümme): Eine landschaftsarchäologische Untersuchung mit Hilfe von GIS (Archäologische Berichte des Landkreises Rotenburg [Wümme] Vol. 12). Isensee.
Fernández-Götz, M. (2014a). Identity and power: The transformation of Iron Age societies in Northeast Gaul. Amsterdam University Press.
Fernández-Götz, M. (2014b). Sanctuaries and ancestor worship at the origin of the oppida. In V. Sirbu & S. Matei (Eds.), Residential centres (dava, emporium, oppidum, hilfort, polis) and cult places in the second Iron Age of Europe (pp. 111–132). Muzeul Judetean Buzău.
García Sanjuán, L., & Díaz-Guardamino, M. (2015). The outstanding biographies of prehistoric monuments in Iron Age, Roman, and medieval Spain. In M. Díaz-Guardamino, L. García Sanjuán, & D. Wheatley (Eds.), The lives of prehistoric monuments in Iron Age, Roman, and medieval Europe (pp. 183–204). Oxford University Press.
Gutmann, J. (1954). Ein atypischer Grabfund von Borstel, Kr. Nienburg/Weser. Die Kunde (Neue Folge), 5, 30–33.
Hageman, J. B., & Hill, E. (2016). Leveraging the dead: The ethnography of ancestors. In E. Hill & J. B. Hageman (Eds.), The archaeology of ancestors: Death, memory, and veneration (pp. 3–41). University Press of Florida.
Hakelberg, D., & Wiwjorra, I. (2010). Vorwelten, Vorzeiten und die ‚Archäologie‘in der Frühen Neuzeit. In D. Hakelberg & I Wiwjorra (Eds.), Vorwelten und Vorzeiten: Archäologie als Spiegel historischen Bewußtseins in der Frühen Neuzeit (pp. 15–40) (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen Vol. 124). Harrassowitz.
Härke, H., & Williams, H. (1997). Angelsächsische Bestattungsplätze und ältere Denkmäler: Bemerkungen zur zeitlichen Entwicklung und Deutung des Phänomens. Archäologische Informationen, 20(1), 25–27.
Hässler, H.-J. (1999). Ein Gräberfeld erzählt Geschichte: Archäologen zu Besuch bei den Altsachsen auf dem Heidberg bei Liebenau, Ldkr. Nienburg (Weser), Niedersachsen (Studien zur Sachsenforschung Vol. 5.5). Isensee.
Hill, E., & Hageman, J. B. (2016). The archaeology of ancestors. In E. Hill & J. B. Hageman (Eds.), The archaeology of ancestors: Death, memory, and veneration (pp. 42–80). University Press of Florida.
Hofmann, K. P. (2008). Der rituelle Umgang mit dem Tod: Untersuchungen zu bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Brandbestattungen im Elbe-Weser-Dreieck (Archäologische Berichte des Landkreises Rotenburg [Wümme] Vol. 14, Schriftenreihe des Landschaftsverbandes der ehemaligen Herzogtümer Bremen und Verden Vol. 32). Isensee.
Hollnagel, A. (1963). Gestörte jungsteinzeitliche Gräber und Siedlungsreste der älteren Eisenzeit auf dem “Langen Feld” bei Göhren, Kreis Rügen. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg, Jahrbuch, 1963, 7–30.
Holtorf, C. (1998). The life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). World Archaeology, 30(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1998.9980395
Holtorf, C. (2000–2008). Monumental past: The life-histories of megalithic monuments in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). Electronic monograph, University of Toronto, Centre for Instructional Technology Development. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/245. Accessed 13 Mar 2018.
Holtorf, C. (2005). Geschichtskultur in ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Kulturen Europas. In J. Assmann & K. Müller (Eds.), Der Ursprung der Geschichte: Archaische Kulturen, das Alte Ägypten und das frühe Griechenland (pp. 87–111). Klett-Cotta.
Holtorf, C. (2008). The life-history approach to monuments: An obituary? In J. Goldhahn (Ed.), Gropar & Monument: En vänbok till dag Widholm (pp. 411–427). Linnaeus University, Kalmar.
Jacob-Friesen, K. H. (1959). Einführung in Niedersachsens Urgeschichte I (Veröffentlichungen der urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums Hannover Vol. 15). August Lax.
Jones, A. (2007). Memory and material culture. Cambridge University Press.
Kaul, F. (2003). The Hjortspring find. In O. Crumlin-Pedersen & A. Trakadas (Eds.), Hjortspring: A pre-Roman Iron-Age warship in context (pp. 141–186). Roskilde Viking Ship Museum.
Keiling, H. (1969). Die vorrömische Eisenzeit im Elde-Karthane-Gebiet (Kreis Perleberg und Kreis Ludwigslust) (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Bezirke Rostock, Schwerin und Neubrandenburg Vol. 3). Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Schwerin.
Kneisel, J., & Rode, S. (2014). Ein bronzezeitlicher Grabhügel in Kronsburg-Glinde, Bredenbek LA 29, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde. Offa, 2010–2011(67–68), 129–184.
Krüger, H. (1961). Die Jastorfkultur in den Kreisen Lüchow-Dannenberg, Lüneburg, Uelzen und Soltau. Wachholtz.
Lau, N. (2014). Die Pferdegeschirre: Germanische Zaumzeuge und Sattelgeschirre als Zeugnisse kriegerischer Reiterei im mittel- und nordeuropäischen Barbaricum: Das Thorsberger Moor (Vol. 1). Verein zur Förderung des Archäologischen Landesmuseums, Schloss Gottorf.
Lillios, K. (1999). Objects of memory: The ethnography and archaeology of heirlooms. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 6(3), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021999319447
Lillios, K. (2008). Engaging memories of European prehistory. In A. Jones (Ed.), Prehistoric Europe: Theory and practice (pp. 228–254). Wiley-Blackwell.
Ludowici, B. (2019). Das vergessene Jahrhundert: Was geschah in Niedersachsen zwischen 200 und 300 n. Chr.? In B. Ludowici (Ed.), Saxones (pp. 66–75). wgb Theiss.
Ludowici, B., & Meyer, W. (2008). Sensation aus dem Eimer: Ein Kamm aus Italien im Leichenbrand. Archäologie in Niedersachsen, 11, 133–135.
Matešić, S. (2015). Die militärischen Ausrüstungen aus dem Thorsberger Moor: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur römischen und germanischen Bewaffnung während der jüngeren Römischen Kaiserzeit: Das Thorsberger Moor (Vol. 3). Verein zur Förderung des Archäologischen Landesmuseums, Schloss Gottorf.
Mehling, A. (1998). Archaika als Grabbeigaben: Studien an merowingerzeitlichen Gräberfeldern. VML.
Müller, F. (2016). Menschen und Heroen: Ahnenkult in der Frühgeschichte Europas. Walter de Gruyter.
Müller-Scheeßel, N. (2013). Untersuchungen zum Wandel hallstattzeitlicher Bestattungssitten in Süd- und Südwestdeutschland (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie Vol. 245). Rudolf Habelt.
Müller-Wille, M. (1965). Eisenzeitliche Fluren in den festländischen Nordseegebieten (Siedlung und Landschaft in Westfalen Vol. 5). Geographische Kommission für Westfalen.
Murray, M. L. (2016). Landscapes of ancestors: The structuring of space around Iron Age funerary monuments in Central Europe. In E. Hill & J. B. Hageman (Eds.), The archaeology of ancestors: Death, memory, and veneration (pp. 147–165). University Press of Florida.
Newman, C. (1998). Reflections on the making of a 'royal site' in early Ireland. World Archaeology, 30(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1998.9980401
Nösler, D. (2018). Mit dem Laser in die Vergangenheit: Neu entdeckte Celtic Fields im Landkreis Stade. Archäologie in Niedersachsen, 21, 143–147.
Raddatz, K. (1957). Der Thorsberger Moorfund: Gürtelteile und Körperschmuck (Offa-Bücher, Neue Folge Vol. 13). Wachholtz.
Raddatz, K. (1970). Religionsgeschichtliche Probleme des Thorsberger Moorfundes. In H. Jankuhn (Ed.), Vorgeschichtliche Heiligtümer und Opferplätze in Mittel- und Nordeuropa: Bericht über ein Symposium in Reinhausen bei Göttingen in der Zeit vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 1968 (pp. 188–197). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Raetzel-Fabian, D. (2000). Calden: Erdwerk und Bestattungsplätze des Jungneolithikums: Architektur – Ritual – Chronologie (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie Vol. 70). Rudolf Habelt.
Rennebach, G. (1975). Eine Nachbestattung der vorrömischen Eisenzeit an einem Megalithgrab im Ganzliner Holz bei Twietfort, Kreis Lübz. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg: Jahrbuch, 1974, 173–192.
Schach-Dörges, H. (1970). Die Bodenfunde des 3. bis 6. Jahrhunderts nach Chr. zwischen unterer Elbe und Oder (Offa Bücher, Neue Folge, Vol. 23). Wachholtz.
Scholz, T. (2015). Bauopfer, Grabbeigabe oder beides? Ein Trinkgefäß aus Lemke erscheint zu alt für seinen Fundort. Archäologie in Niedersachsen, 18, 113–116.
Schultze, E. (1992). Zu den Grab- und Bestattungssitten in Mitteleuropa während der ersten Jahrhunderte n. Chr. Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 67(1), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1515/pz-1992-0124
Schwantes, G. (1911). Die ältesten Urnenfriedhöfe bei Uelzen und Lüneburg (Die Urnenfriedhöfe in Niedersachen Vol. 1.1–2). Geibel.
Sommer, U. (2014). Zeit, Erinnerung und Geschichte. Forum Kritische Archäologie, 3, 25–59. https://doi.org/10.6105/journal.fka.2014.3.6
Sommer, U. (2017). The appropriation or the destruction of memory? Bell beaker ‘re-use’ of older sites. In K. Hofmann, R. Bernbeck, & U. Sommer (Eds.), Between memory sites and memory networks: New archaeological and historical perspectives (pp. 33–70). Edition Topoi.
Sopp, M. (1999). Die Wiederaufnahme älterer Bestattungsplätze in den nachfolgenden vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Perioden in Norddeutschland (Antiquitas Folge 3, Abhandlungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial-römischen Archäologie und zur Geschichte des Altertums Vol. 39). Rudolf Habelt.
Thäte, E. (1996). Alte Denkmäler und frühgeschichtliche Bestattungen: Ein sächsisch-angelsächsischer Totenbrauch und seine Kontinuität. Archäologische Informationen, 19, 105–116.
Tomedi, G. (1996). Nochmals zur “Fabel von den Traditionsschwertern”: Weitere Randbemerkungen zu den Schwertgräbern des Südostalpenraumes und zur Schwertgrabchronologie. In T. Stöllner (Ed.), Europa celtica: Untersuchungen zur Hallstatt- und Latènekultur: Festschrift Wolfgang Dehn zum Geburtstag (pp. 167–188) (Veröffentlichungen des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars Marburg, Sonderband Vol. 10). VML.
Veit, U. (2005). Kulturelles Gedächtnis und materielle Kultur in schriftlosen Gesellschaften: Anthropologische Grundlagen und Perspektiven für die Urgeschichtsforschung. In T. L. Kienlin (Ed.), Die Dinge als Zeichen: Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur: Internationale Fachtagung an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main 3.–5. April 2003 (pp. 2–40) (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie Vol. 127). Rudolf Habelt.
Wegewitz, W. (1962). Der Urnenfriedhof von Ehestorf-Vahrendorf im Kreise Harburg aus der vorrömischen Eisen- und der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit (Die Urnenfriedhöfe in Niedersachsen Vol. 6). August Lax.
Weiss-Krejci, E. (2015). The plot against the past: Reuse and modification of ancient mortuary monuments as persuasive efforts of appropriation. In M. Díaz-Guardamino, L. García Sanjuán, & D. Wheatley (Eds.), The lives of prehistoric monuments in Iron Age, Roman, and medieval Europe (pp. 307–324). Oxford University Press.
Wendling, H. (2016). Fingierte Tradition und kulturelles Gedächtnis–Die Aneignung der Vergangenheit im Siedlungswesen der mitteleuropäischen Latènezeit. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift (2014), 55(1–2), 91–118.
Whitley, J. (2002). Too many ancestors. Antiquity, 76(291), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00089870
Williams, H. (1998). Monuments and the past in early Anglo-Saxon England. World Archaeology, 30(1), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1998.9980399
Acknowledgments
This paper is part of a larger post-doc project at Hamburg University, Germany, and outcome of research conducted in the course of an ongoing postdoctoral thesis (“Habilitation”), submitted in 2021, which analyzes the perception and appropriation of the past from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Middle Ages both in southern and northern Central Europe. I would like to thank the editors for the invitation to the Beyond Death conference in Vienna and to contribute to this volume. For assistance with the figures and the creation of the maps, I thank Lukas Eckert (Hamburg).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schumann, R. (2022). The Distant Past of a Distant Past …: Perception and Appropriation of Deep History During the Iron Ages in Northern Germany (Pre-Roman Iron Age, Roman Iron Age, and Migration Period). In: Weiss-Krejci, E., Becker, S., Schwyzer, P. (eds) Interdisciplinary Explorations of Postmortem Interaction. Bioarchaeology and Social Theory. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03956-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03956-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-03955-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-03956-0
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)