Харке - Гробићи PDF

PROOF COVER SHEET
Journal acronym: CMRT

Author(s): Heinrich Härke
Article title: Grave goods in early medieval burials: messages and meanings
Article no: 870544
Enclosures: 1) Query sheet
2) Article proofs
Dear Author,
1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the corresponding
author to check these and approve or amend them. A second proof is not normally
provided. Taylor & Francis cannot be held responsible for uncorrected errors, even if
introduced during the production process. Once your corrections have been added to
the article, it will be considered ready for publication.
Please limit changes at this stage to the correction of errors. You should not make
insignificant changes, improve prose style, add new material, or delete existing material
at this stage. Making a large number of small, non-essential corrections can lead to
errors being introduced. We therefore reserve the right not to make such corrections.
For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please see

http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp
2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and
last names are structured correctly and that the authors are listed in the
correct order of contribution. This check is to ensure that your name will appear
correctly online and when the article is indexed.
Sequence Prefix Given name(s) Surname Suffix

1 HEINRICH HÄRKE
Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs.
AUTHOR QUERIES
General query: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary written permis-
sion from the appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text, illustration,
or other material in your article. (Please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/prepara-
tion/permission.asp.) Please check that any required acknowledgements have been
included to reflect this.
AQ1 Please provide the missing department for Author Name’s affiliation ‘a’ and
‘b’ and also check the city of affiliation ‘a’ and ‘b’.
AQ2 Please check whether this shortened title is correct.
AQ3 The term
AQ4 Please check the insertion of comma in the sentence “Gordon...by such
means” and correct if necessary.
AQ5 The reference ‘Härke (1992)’ is cited in the text but is not listed in the refer-
ences list. Please either delete in-text citation or provide full reference details
following journal style [http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/style/refer-
ence/tf_APA.pdf].
AQ6 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Böhme,
1974”, as per journal style.
AQ7 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Haffner,
AQ8 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Härke,
1992a”, as per journal style.
AQ11 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Härke &
Belinsky, 2000”, as per journal style.
AQ12 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Hesberg,
AQ13 Houlbrooke 1996, the article title has been replaced using data from Cross-
Ref. Please check that this has been done correctly.
AQ14 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Hübener,
AQ15 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Jankuhn,
AQ16 Please provide missing city of publisher for the “Jefferson-Jones, 2000” refer-
ences list entry.
AQ17 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Koch,
AQ18 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Kossinna,
AQ19 Please provide missing city of publisher for the “Longuet Layton, 2001” ref-
erences list entry.
AQ20 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Müller,
AQ21 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Müller-
Wille, 1977”, as per journal style.
AQ22 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Müller-
Wille, 1983”, as per journal style.
AQ23 Musty 1969, the journal title has been replaced using data from CrossRef.
Please check that this has been done correctly.
AQ24 Parker Pearson 1982, has been changed to match CrossRef. Please check
that this has been done correctly.
AQ25 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Reinecke,
AQ26 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Schön-
burg-Waldenburg, 1929”, as per journal style.
AQ27 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Segschne-
ider, 1976”, as per journal style.
AQ28 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Steuer,
AQ29 Ucko 1969, the article title has been replaced using data from CrossRef.
AQ30 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Veeck,
AQ31 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Vries,
AQ32 Whitley 2002, the article title has been replaced using data from CrossRef.
AQ33 Please provide missing volume number for the “Williams, 2001a” references
list entry.
AQ34 Please provide missing name of publication for the “Williams, 2001b” refer-
ences list entry.
AQ35 Williams 2005, the article title has been replaced using data from CrossRef.
AQ36 Please provide an English translation of the title in the reference “Zender,
CMRT 870544 CE: VA QA: CL
7 December 2013 Initial Coll: QC:
Mortality, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2013.870544
Grave goods in early medieval burials: messages and

meanings
HEINRICH HÄRKE
5AQ1 University of Reading, Reading, UK; Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
AQ2 ABSTRACT Objects in graves have been a traditional focus of burial archaeology. Conventional
interpretations of their meanings revolved around religion (equipment for the hereafter, Charon’s
Penny), legal concepts (inalienable possessions) and social structure (status display, ostentatious
destruction of wealth). An interdisciplinary perspective drawing on archaeological literature,
10 anthropological evidence and sociological theory widens the range of possible interpretations. Textual
sources of the Roman and early medieval periods highlight the importance of gift-giving to the
deceased, but also to deities. Anthropology shows the importance of the disposal of polluted items in
the grave, and of protecting the living. Ethnographic cases also underpin theoretical considerations
concerning the role of biographical representations (metaphors) during the funeral, as well as
15 emphasising the desire and the need to forget the dead. Textual and archaeological evidence from
the Early Middle Ages suggest that these motives were not sharply separated, but that many of them
played a role during any one funeral. In addition, motives changed over time, and the associations
of particular grave goods (such as coins or weapons) varied across time and geographical regions.
Above all, multiplicity of messages and variability of meanings characterised the deposition of objects
20AQ3 in early medieval graves.
KEYWORDS: mortuary archaeology; burial rite; grave goods; continuing bonds; attachment
theory; reminder theory
Grave goods were deposited with the dead in many periods of the human past,
25 from the late Palaeolithic to the Middle Ages and the more recent past. Indeed,
we appear to be seeing a revival of this custom at the present time, with items
of sentimental value increasingly deposited particularly with children, possibly
reflecting post-modern sensibilities (see Harper, 2012). The term ‘grave goods’,
as used by archaeologists, simply denotes anything found in a grave in addition
30 to human remains and encompasses a variety of items, from the remains of
dress to deliberate depositions of objects in graves, as well as sacrificial
offerings.
Such depositions have always been central to the pursuit of burial
archaeology. To European antiquarians of the eighteenth and nineteenth
35 century, the search for prehistoric cremation urns and the excavation of Bronze
Correspondence: E-mail:h.g.h.harke@reading.ac.uk
© 2013 Taylor & Francis

2 H. Härke
and Iron Age barrows was primarily a treasure hunt. With the growth of
archaeology into a scholarly discipline in the later nineteenth century, grave
goods provided one of the most important means for constructing chronologies,
giving a temporal framework to a past of hitherto unknown depth (Gräslund,
1987; Klindt-Jensen, 1975). From the end of the nineteenth and the early 5
twentieth century, grave goods were increasingly used for ethnic and social
inferences: regionally different styles of artefacts were used to identify ‘tribes’
and ‘peoples’ in an attempt to write national prehistories (Childe, 1929;
Kossinna, 1911); and differential wealth in graves within the same cemeteries
or regions led to suggestions of social hierarchies (Reinecke, 1925; Veeck, 10
1926). While ethnic inferences have more recently become controversial, social
inferences have become part of the methodological canon of archaeology
(Härke, 2000a). Above all, grave goods have always suggested a religious
dimension, their very presence apparently implying a ‘pagan’ concept of an
afterlife where material goods were useful and important (Paulsen, 1967; 15
Reinecke, 1925).
Since the 1980s, there has been a shift, mainly in Anglophone burial archae-
ology, from the reconstruction of life in the past, to the inference of attitudes
and behaviour in the encounter with death (Härke, 2002; Parker Pearson,
1999). This has led to an archaeological concern with anthropological 20
perspectives (see overview in Parker Pearson, 1999, pp. 21–44), emotion
(Tarlow, 1999, 2000), memory (Williams, 2001a, 2001b, 2003, 2004, 2006)
and the construction of post-mortem identities (Ekengren, 2004). This, in turn,
is beginning to make burial archaeology – and grave goods – more interesting
for historians and sociologists of death, and a recent attempt at a grand 25
narrative of the history of death (Kellehear, 2007) puts much emphasis on
inferences from grave goods. Other sociologists have begun to explore the role
of material culture in relation to death and memory (Hallam & Hockey, 2001).
This may, therefore, be an opportune moment to provide an overview of the
possible meanings of grave goods from an archaeological perspective, and 30
discuss why they might have been deposited in the grave. This is approached
by an anthropological and sociological consideration of archaeological interpre-
tations of grave goods, and by an application of the resulting classification to
early medieval burials. In that sense, the present paper is an attempt at bridging
old and new perspectives. The emphasis here is on the Early Middle Ages 35
(broadly speaking, fifth–tenth centuries AD) because of the rich and varied
grave-goods custom practised in Europe at this time (but discontinued later),
and because the existence of (albeit sparse) written sources in this period
provides additional information which is lacking for prehistoric periods.
The early medieval grave-goods custom 40

In the fifth to seventh/eighth centuries AD, grave goods were deposited in
graves across Europe, from England to the Caucasus (Fehring, 1991; Halsall,
1995; Lucy, 2000; Steuer, 1982). There were regional exceptions from this
Grave goods in early medieval burials 3
rule, primarily the Celtic-speaking areas of the British Isles and the
5 Mediterranean where only some immigrant groups of mainly Germanic stock
practised this custom. After the eighth century, grave goods are only found on
the northern and eastern fringes of Christian Europe, in Scandinavia, among
the Balts, and among the nomad societies from Hungary to the North Pontic
and Caucasian steppes; in these regions, the custom disappeared at various
10 times in the early second millennium AD, usually with the advance of
Christianity. However, the grave-goods custom was hardly ever uniform, and
even where grave goods were not the norm, some burials were singled out for
depositions. For example, croziers and pectoral crosses have been found in
some clerics’ graves in contexts where ordinary Christians were buried in
15 nothing more than a shroud.
Objects found in early medieval graves include a wide variety of artefacts, but
these occur in regionally distinct, gender-differentiated kits. Dress items and
jewellery are typical items in adult female burials, and much rarer in male adult
and children’s graves. Their appearance in graves is the direct consequence of
20 the custom of dressed burial in this period. Keys and knives were usually worn
on the body and may be considered part of the dress. Separately deposited
items, such as weapons, tools and drinking vessels, dominated in male burials.
Other separate depositions included cooking vessels, household items, boxes,
musical instruments, games and horse harness. By contrast, boats, wagons,
25 beds, other wooden furniture and textile coverings of walls and floors were rare,
and limited to burial chambers of the social elite.
Miniature copies of artefacts occur, for example, in Anglo-Saxon graves; made
specifically to accompany the dead, they were probably a pars pro toto. The
deliberate destruction of artefacts before their deposition was rare in this period,
30 and mostly limited to Scandinavia. Animal and human sacrifices are a distinct
category of ‘grave goods’. Horses and dogs are found in, or next to, conspicu-
ously rich graves of northern Europe. Human sacrifice is documented for the
Viking period (nineth/tenth centuries AD), both in written sources (Ibn Fadh-
lan; Jones, 1984, pp. 425–430) and in archaeology (Bersu & Wilson, 1966).
35 Grave goods are found not just in inhumations, but also in cremations
wherever this rite was practised in the Early Middle Ages (Scandinavia, parts of
England and much of Eastern Europe). In this case, grave goods could be
‘primary’ (i.e. put on the pyre together with the body) or ‘secondary’
(deposited complete with the cremated remains in the urn or grave pit).
40 Numbers and wealth of grave goods in any one grave varied markedly
although the picture of differential wealth is likely to have been affected by the
decay of organic materials (see below). There are also varying proportions of
graves without any archaeologically recoverable artefacts or other depositions.
Thus, in early Anglo-Saxon England where artefacts are found in virtually all
45 cemeteries of the fifth to seventh centuries, about 50% of male graves and 70%
of females contained the standard ‘kit’ (weapons and dress ornaments,
respectively; Härke, 2011, p. 101; Stoodley, 1999), but even those without this
kit would often have a knife or a belt buckle.
4 H. Härke
The custom of depositing grave goods disappeared from the various regions
of Europe at different times and for different reasons. While this disappearance 5
often coincided with the spread of Christianity, it is by no means certain that
Christianity was actually the cause of its disappearance in every single case
(Schülke, 1999). Such a causal connection is widely assumed in the case in
Anglo-Saxon England where the spread of Christianity during the seventh
century coincided with a gradual decline in the provision of grave goods which 10
were finally phased out early in the eighth century (see discussion in
Boddington, 1990; Geake, 1992, 1997; Williams, 2010b). On the other hand,
grave goods continued among the Franks and in Greater Moravia for up to two
centuries after Christianisation (Gimbutas, 1971, p. 142, pl. 44; Koch, 1996).
Where grave goods were discontinued, they did not normally disappear 15
suddenly, but gradually and with social differences. For example, during the
decline of the grave-goods custom in Anglo-Saxon England, weapons
disappeared first from children’s burials in the early seventh century, from
adolescents’ burials in the mid-seventh century, and finally from adult male
burials at the beginning of the eighth century (Härke, 1992b). 20
The meanings of grave goods

The following is an attempt to present and discuss all possible meanings of
grave goods. The discussion starts with the oldest attempts to give meaning to
archaeological grave finds, and finishes with anthropologically derived possibili-
ties for which archaeological evidence is difficult to adduce. Wherever possible, 25
ethnographic or historical evidence is used to illustrate the various meanings.
It needs to be borne in mind throughout that the interpretation of artefacts
found in prehistoric and early historical grave contexts is anything but straight-
forward, and beset with problems which are mentioned below where necessary.
In addition, it needs to be stressed at the outset that archaeologists’ inferences 30
and reconstructions are based almost entirely on items made of durable
materials which have survived the centuries-long process of decay in the soil.
Grave goods made of perishable materials (wood, textiles, etc.) are only
preserved in rare cases, such as in the tombs under Cologne Cathedral where
the decorated wooden furniture supported the interpretation in terms of ‘royal’ 35
burials (Werner, 1964). Even elaborately decorated wooden coffins can only be
found in exceptional circumstances (such as waterlogged conditions), the
carved log coffins of the Alamannic cemetery of Holzgerlingen being a case in
point (Veeck, 1926). Soil stains found in sandy soils sometimes suggest the
presence of coffins, chambers, biers or beams (see e.g. Scull, 2009), but rarely 40
allow a detailed reconstruction. Another problem is the occasional presence of
accidental inclusions in graves, such as pottery shards or animal bones from the
refuse of a nearby settlement, because they may be confused with deliberate
depositions of broken objects or, in the case of bones, with remains of food
offerings. 45
Equipment for the hereafter

This is probably the oldest interpretation of the grave-goods custom: items
were deposited in the grave to be available to the dead in the hereafter, and on
the journey there (Paulsen, 1967). Kellehear (2007) recently re-affirmed that
5 the manifest function of grave goods is to assist the dead on their journey. This
is, indeed, the purpose of grave goods and their symbolic representations in
China up to the present day (Habenstein & Lamers, 1963, p. 18). While some
actual objects valued by the deceased are put into the coffin, paper ingots of
gold and silver appearance as well as mock banknotes are burnt prior to and
10 during the funeral (in cremation rite); other paper models (watches, pens,
spectacles, finger rings, golf clubs, cars and even aeroplanes) are taken to an
open space and burned so that the spirit would have them in the afterlife
(Longuet Layton, 2001, pp. 46–48; for the context, see Watson & Rawski,
1988). This custom seems to have a long history in China: Marco Polo
15 reported that paper money was burnt at Chinese funerals in the late thirteenth
century (exhibition ‘Marco Polo: Von Venedig nach China’, Niedersächsisches
Landesmuseum Hannover, 23 September 2011 – 26 February 2012).
Support for this interpretation of grave goods can be found in written sources
of the Early Middle Ages. The epic poem Beowulf (lines 40–42; Swanton,
20 1978) refers to equipment for the hereafter in the context of a funeral and the
Egil’s Saga (Ellis, 1943) mentions the possibility of providing in advance for
your own hereafter by burying the required equipment. Such a concept implies
a religious meaning of the grave-goods custom because it requires a specific,
‘pagan’ view of the afterlife. It would also explain why grave goods disappeared
25 in many (though not all) cases of Christianisation in the Early Middle Ages. A
problem for archaeologists is that even where objects are thought to be required
in the hereafter, they would not always be deposited in the grave. For example,
the Lober of Ghana do not bury the weapons of the dead with their former
owners; they only display them during the funeral, assuming that this makes
30 them available in the hereafter (Ucko, 1969, p. 266).
Inalienable property
In the 1920s, the German archaeologist Reinecke suggested that the deposition
of objects in early medieval graves was the consequence of property rights:
these objects were the inalienable part of the deceased’s property, hergewaete in
35 the case of men (weapons and war gear) and gerade in the case of women
(jewellery and household implements). Reinecke (1925) borrowed the idea
from historians of early Germanic law who had noted that the tenth century
code Sachsenspiegel divided personal property into alienable and inalienable
parts, and Reinecke suggested that deposition in graves was the only means of
40 disposal of inalienable property which could not be inherited, sold off or given
away. Later, inalienable property was given to the Church when the owner
died.
6 H. Härke
The idea has been widely picked up in West European medieval studies,
particularly by German archaeologists who have seen it as a logical and
coherent explanation of the wealth and gender patterns of early medieval grave 5
goods (see Fehring, 1991; Härke, 2000a). A late echo of the concept of
inalienable property may be found in late medieval England where occasionally
personal items (such as seals) were destroyed after the death of the owner
(Daniell, 1997, pp. 150–151). More recently, though, Kars has argued that the
assumption of inalienable personal property may be inappropriate for the Early 10
Middle Ages; some objects may have been passed down the generations before
a situation arose in which they were deposited in the grave of the last owner,
forcing us to consider the possibility of inalienable collective possessions (Kars,
2011). Textual sources and artefactual evidence certainly demonstrate that in
early Anglo-Saxon England, some high-status weapons had circulated and been 15
owned by two or more individuals before accompanying the burial of the last
owner (Härke, 2000b), but it is difficult to say if the background was property
concepts or other ideas (see below).
Potlatch
The potlatch (or potlach) phenomenon was first described in a study of the 20
Kwakiutl of British Columbia (Boas, 1897) where the ostentatious destruction
AQ4 of accumulated wealth confers prestige and influence in their society. Gordon
Childe, although he never used the term, used the same concept when he
suggested that the grave-goods custom is a form of social competition typical of
unstable societies where status positions may be achieved and maintained by 25
such means (Childe, 1945). This concept is also implied in the perspective of
the more recent ‘post-processualist’ (post-modern) archaeology which holds
that burial ritual and grave goods are not just passive reflections of social
structures, they are, or display, active claims to rank, status and identity (Parker
Pearson, 1982; Samson, 1987). A potlatch interpretation of grave goods would 30
also make sense in a wider context: in European prehistory, phases of
grave-goods deposition alternated with phases of hoard deposition, and the
latter phenomenon was most likely a form of ritual destruction of wealth
(Bradley, 1982).
The distribution of the deceased’s property to the mourners and its con- 35
sumption during the funeral, both well documented in ethnographic literature
(Ucko, 1969, p. 266), may well be part of the same phenomenon. It was
noted by the tenth century Arab writer Ibn Fadhlan in his description of a
Viking funeral on the Volga: the property of the deceased was divided in
three parts – one for the heirs, one for the clothes in the grave and one for 40
making intoxicating beverages for the funeral (Jones, 1984, pp. 425–426).
There may be psychological as well as social reasons for this custom. The
religious scientist Jon Davies has suggested that the distribution, burning or
burying of the deceased’s property may be a symbolic ‘dismembering of the
5 dead person whose death has so terrified and therefore angered us’ (Davies,
1994, p. 30).
Indicators of rank, status and identity

It has long been thought by archaeologists that the quality and numbers of grave
goods reflect the social status of the deceased. In addition, specific indicators of
10 rank and identity may figure in the funerary proceedings and may, in some
cases, be deposited in graves. A modern example is provided by the military
custom to include in the funeral procession of cavalry officers a horse carrying
reversed boots in the stirrups; this was done during Churchill’s televised funeral,
and more recently during that of King Hussein of Jordan (see photograph in
15 Daily Telegraph, 9 February 1999). The so-called ‘heraldic funerals’ of the Late
Middle Ages and the Early Modern period in England provide an historical
example, with closely prescribed details covering number and status of
mourners, signs of rank and status to be displayed, and so on, depending on the
exact aristocratic rank of the deceased; some of the rank and status indicators,
20 including weapons, were hung in the church after the funeral (Gittings, 1984,
pp. 166–187; Houlbrooke, 1996; Wagner, 1967; Woodward, 1997).
A specific social and marital status was indicated by the funerary crowns
which were placed on the coffins of unmarried adults in many German-speak-
ing areas from the High Middle Ages to the modern period (Segschneider,
25 1976); in some cases, such crowns were buried with the deceased (see e.g.
Härke, 1981). Early medieval cases of rank indicators may be the signet rings
in Frankish royal graves (e.g. in the grave of King Childeric, d. AD 481;
Werner, 1964), and the ‘standard’ and ‘sceptre’ found in the, probably royal,
burial at Sutton Hoo (early seventh century; Bruce-Mitford, 1975–1983, vol. 2,
30 pp. 311–431). During the same period, burial with weapons seems to have
been an indicator of ethnic and social identity of Germanic groups who had
recently settled in formerly Roman territories, such as the Franks in the Rhine-
land, Belgium and northern France (Böhme, 1974) and the Anglo-Saxons in
England (Härke, 1990, 1992a). A particular socio-economic identity may have
35 been expressed by the inclusion of tools, often entire tool chests, in the numer-
ous ‘smiths’ graves’ of the Early Middle Ages, most of them from Scandinavia
(Müller-Wille, 1977, 1983).
A peculiar expression of religious identity is found in European Jewish
funerals up to the present day: a handful of earth from the Land of the Fathers.
40 First, a cloth bag is filled with soil from the grave and put as a pillow under the
head of the corpse; the pillow is then sprinkled with the earth from Israel (De
Vries, 1986, pp. 273–274). This case is also a perfect illustration of the kinds
of depositions and inclusions in the grave that archaeologists are virtually
unable to find or identify. More tangible expressions of religious identity seem
45 to be the seventh-century sheet gold crosses (Goldblattkreuze) found in
Lombard burials in northern Italy, and less frequently in Alamannic burials of
south-west Germany (Hübener, 1975).
8 H. Härke
Metaphor
The Norwegian archaeologist Solberg has suggested that grave goods may be
metaphors for the life, or specific events in the life, of the deceased (Solberg, 5
2004). Anthropologists and sociologists have known for some time that funerals
in some societies may be, or include, a representation of the deceased’s
biography. In a sense, this includes the biographical comments in Christian
funeral services, and even more so the increasingly popular remembrance
services and meetings where stories of the deceased’s life are told and swapped 10
(Walter, 1996). This biographical element may take on a material form: a
Second World War flying ace, Terry Prendergast from Dorset, was recently
buried in a cardboard casket in the shape of his beloved Hawker Hurricane
fighter plane painted in camouflage colours and carrying on the side the
number of the plane he flew in the war (Daily Telegraph, 11 May 2007). 15
Some grave goods are, thus, likely have served as material reminders of events
in the life of the deceased. Roman funeral processions included representations
and objects which gave an account of the deceased’s life and achievements (von
Hesberg, 1998, p. 23). Grave goods may also be metaphors of the origins of peo-
ple; this would explain the early medieval phenomenon of ‘burials out of place’: 20
individuals buried with items which belong to different regions or countries.
Examples are the ‘Lombard princess’ buried in Cologne cathedral (Werner,
1964), and the markedly Scandinavian character of the Sutton Hoo ship burial
in eastern England (Bruce-Mitford, 1975–1983). Thus, ‘foreign’ objects and
burial rites may be meant to express a distant origin, real or imagined. 25
A possible context for this biographical concern during the funeral may be
found in Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969; Sharer & Tancredy, 2001). This
holds that the death of an individual creates in the minds of the mourners a dis-
crepancy between their internal model of the world which incorporates the
deceased, and the real world in which the deceased is no longer present. The fun- 30
eral is therefore more than just a ritual way of coping with death: it is also a rec-
onciliation of the internal model with the real world. Grave goods (which do not
figure in Attachment Theory) may be a direct, material way of including aspects
of the deceased in the experience of the mourners, thus helping the process of
reconciliation between model and reality. Another explanation of the biographi- 35
cal role of grave goods may be provided by the ethnographic observation that
some societies locate memory not in the mind, but in objects, believing that the
mnemonic properties of objects are activated by their display (Battaglia, 1992).
The metaphor idea can be linked to the anthropological concept of artefact
biographies. Artefacts, in particular valuable objects, acquire their own 40
biographies by association with people and events of the past, and by the stories
told about them (Gosden & Marshall, 1999; Hoskins, 1998; Kopytoff, 1986).
This, however, is difficult to demonstrate with archaeological evidence alone;
usually, this will require textual evidence. Thus, the heroic poem Ilias suggests
that some craters (large bronze vessels) could achieve particular importance 45
because of their biographies (Whitley, 2002). For the Early Middle Ages, the
Beowulf poem demonstrates that swords and chain-mail corselets were in

circulation over several generations and that their previous owners, and the
manner of their mostly heroic deaths, were remembered throughout that time
5 (Härke, 2000b). The deposition of such items in a grave would link two
biographies, the object’s and the deceased’s, and give the latter additional
status. There are, indeed, observations of old and repaired objects in rich, even
royal burials of the Early Middle Ages, which may best be explained in terms
of circulating prestige objects. A case in point is the bronze cauldrons and the
10 boat in mound 1 at Sutton Hoo, but even less exalted burials of the early
Anglo-Saxon period may contain swords which clearly had been in circulation
for some time (Härke 1992a, p. 88 footnote 106, 2000b, p. 392).
Gifts to the deceased

This category of grave goods is well known from descriptions of Roman funer-
15 als where gifts from the mourners were carried in the funeral procession, with
some of them being deposited on the pyre or in the grave (von Hesberg, 1998,
pp. 22–24). Similar gifts have been documented in ethnography, although
reports show that the display of gifts to, and property of, the deceased is often
more important than their deposition in the grave (Battaglia, 1992). The
20 status-enhancing function of depositing such gifts in the grave would not seem
to be any different from that of potlatch depositions (see above), but in contrast
to the latter which tend to relate to the status of the surviving family, gifts
would be more directly linked to the status of the deceased (and to that of the
givers, of course). King (2004) has observed that the numbers of grave goods
25 in early Anglo-Saxon graves are correlated with the sizes of the respective
cemeteries, and therefore the size of the potential audience at a funeral in the
respective community. He has suggested that this correlation is best explained
in terms of gifts being brought by the mourners and deposited in the
graves – an interesting argument although it cannot be reconciled with patterns
30 in all Anglo-Saxon cemeteries.
An historical example of a gift to the deceased is found in the account of the
funeral of a young German officer on the Western Front in the First World War.
‘The regiment’s commanding officer put his own Iron Cross on the coffin, stat-
ing by this symbolic act how much the young hero himself would have deserved
35 it’ (von Schönburg-Waldenburg, 1929, p. 238). At the same time, this story is a
warning against ‘straighforward’ interpretations of objects found in graves. Japan
provides a modern example of funerary presents: it is customary for attending
mourners to give money as a present to the family of the deceased; this will later
be returned in the form of a present of equivalent value (Hendry, 1995, p. 144).
40 Gifts to a deity
The best example of this category of depositions is the obulus intended for the
ferryman across the river Styx, Charon, who in Roman mythology provided
10 H. Härke
passage for the souls of the dead. It was placed in many Roman graves in the
mouths of the deceased, or in the case of cremations, in or next to the urn
(Toynbee, 1971, pp. 44, 49, 119). Coins are also found in some graves of the 5
Early Middle Ages, but not in the mouths of the dead; it is therefore uncertain
if they were intended as payment during the journey, although this may well
have been the intention of coins placed in a hand of the corpse. Thus, three
coins were found in the hand of a skeleton in the Alamannic cemetery of
Grimmelshofen-Stühlingen (Southwest Germany); the grave dates to the 10
transition period from paganism to Christianity.1
Only some objects can ever have been meant as an obulus, and they should
be identifiable by their standard deposition or uniform distribution. At the same
time, the case of Charon’s Penny highlights that there may have been, in the
concepts of some societies, a distinction between goods specifically for the 15
journey and goods meant for use in the afterlife.
Remains of the funeral feast

Feasts have been an essential part of funerals in many societies. It is, therefore,
conceivable that some of the items found in graves, such as cooking pots, food
offerings and animal bones, were part of a funeral feast, their deposition 20
symbolising the inclusion of the deceased in the feast. Food offerings are partic-
ularly frequent in Roman graves, both cremations and inhumations (Härke,
1980), but they are also known from early medieval graves (Lee, 2007;
Pluskowksi, 2010). Usually these survive as animal bones, but other foodstuffs
such as wild apples (Musty, 1969) and a chicken egg (Jankuhn, 1969) have also 25
been found in sixth-/seventh century-graves. The feast is an important occasion
for expressing social status and social relations, and symbols of the feast (drink-
ing horns, ‘buckets’, cauldrons, etc.) are therefore found in many rich graves of
early medieval Europe (e.g. at Sutton Hoo; Bruce-Mitford, 1975–1983).
The funeral feast specifically serves to reaffirm and re-establish social 30
relations disrupted by the death of a member of that society, and it continues
as such in a muted form (funeral reception, funeral dinner, etc.) in modern
industrialised societies, although it may turn quite raucous in some countries
(rural Ireland being one of them). The deposition of food offerings in the grave
may, thus, be a way to include the deceased in this social process which in 35
some cases continues beyond the funeral. In Russia, for example, a Sunday
picnic at the family grave is a frequent sight, and many grave plots in Russian
orthodox cemeteries feature a small table and bench for this purpose.
Disposal of polluted items

The idea that contact with a dead body pollutes people and objects is widely 40
documented in anthropology (Douglas, 1988). Polluted items can be prevented
from doing damage by depositing them in the grave; this is particularly impor-
tant if they had been used for witchcraft (Ucko, 1969, p. 267). The Akikuyu of
East Africa avoided contact with the property of the deceased, and both,
5 property and other objects polluted by contact with property were deposited in
the grave of the respective deceased (Routledge & Routledge, 1910, pp.
168–170). The Bantu of South Africa held very strong views on pollution, and
personal property which was too big for deposition in the grave was destroyed,
such as the hut of the deceased (Schapera & Eiselen, 1937, p. 248).
10 Similar ideas about the dangers of pollution by the dead or their property are
known from European and Jewish ethnography. English Gipsies used to include
the favourite possessions of the deceased inside the coffin, and destroyed all
personal effects and the home (i.e. waggon or trailer) of the deceased because
‘the death of a Gypsy is a polluting event’ (Okely, 1979, p. 87). In some parts
15 of Germany, up to the nineteenth century, the personal toilet items of the
deceased and the washing utensils used for cleaning the dead body were put
into the grave (Müller, 1970, p. 170; Zender, 1959, p. 41). And in some
present-day Jewish communities, the earthenware bowl used for the ritual
washing of the corpse (Tahara) is smashed and the sherds put into the grave;
20 however, a metal bowl used for this purpose is neither destroyed nor put into
the grave (De Vries, 1986, p. 275). It has been suggested that toilet implements
were included in Anglo-Saxon cremation vessels to prevent sorcery against the
dead (Lethbridge, 1951; see Richards, 1987), but the motive may well have
been fear of pollution from items of personal hygiene of the deceased.
25 Protection of the living (and the dead?)

Fear of polluted objects has its counterpart in the widespread fear of revenants
and vampires, of dead returning from the grave, and such fear has often led to
countermeasures to prevent their return, including the deposition of certain
objects in the grave. In early modern Pomerania, such feared dead would have
30 been accompanied into their grave by a fishing net, a piece of paper with an
incomplete song, prayer or quotation from the Bible, or similar means of
keeping the dead body in its grave (Zender, 1959, p. 39). A variation of this
superstition is found among the Nankanse of Ghana who believe that the soul
of a living person may, during a funeral, be caught in the grave; if this is sus-
35 pected, the countermeasure is to put some favourite things of that living person
into the grave because that person cannot die as long as the objects remain
there (Ucko, 1969, p. 265).
Identifying such apotropaic grave goods may be difficult, but they may
include incomplete or broken objects, or objects which look out of place in the
40 context of a particular grave. An example may be the occasional occurrence of
a broken mirror in Alanic graves of the early medieval North Caucasus (e.g.
Härke & Belinsky, 2000). And while it has been suggested that amulets in
Anglo-Saxon graves had been deposited for the protection of the dead
(Meaney, 1981), they could also have been meant for the protection of the
45 living from the dead (Zeiten, 1997).
12 H. Härke
Forgetting
Finally, objects may be buried precisely because they would be reminders of the
deceased. Such objects could be their personal property, but also other objects
associated with the deceased in some way. Some North American Indian tribes
used to destroy the house and the property of the deceased (Walter, 1999, 5
pp. 26–28). The motive of forgetting (rather than fear of pollution) is high-
lighted by the ban on mentioning the names of the dead among the Apache,
Navajo and Jivaro (Taylor, 1993).2 Archaeologically, this motive may be difficult
to prove, but Williams has pointed out that many of the grave goods found in
Bronze Age barrows had been laid out in such a way that they would not have 10
been visible to the mourners, with the exception of the large pottery beaker usu-
ally included in graves of this period. He has suggested that this may have been
an attempt to start the process of forgetting with the funeral (Williams, 2001a).
In early medieval graves, this argument might apply to highly personal items
which are unlikely to be status indicators. In the Anglo-Saxon cemetery of Stret- 15
ton-on-Fosse II, a shield with an idiosyncratic shield boss had been buried in
the grave of a male adult whose corpse had been subjected to post-mortem
AQ5 decapitation (Ford, 2002; Härke, 1992c, p. 62) – itself an act of final insult or
an attempt to ward off evil (Harman, Molleson, & Price, 1981), so very likely
from a dead whom the community wanted to forget rather than to remember. 20
In less dramatic cases, the attempt at forgetting may be explained with the
Reminder Theory according to which the process of mourning is made more
difficult by the presence of too many reminders of the deceased (Walter, 1999,
27, 65, with further references). The burial of such reminders may therefore be
a means of severing the ties in order to get on with life. Exactly this motive has 25
been reported for the users of a pet cemetery in England who frequently
disposed of such reminders by putting them into the graves of their pets (Ucko,
1969, p. 265). But again, this cannot be a general explanation of grave goods
because not all non-western societies tie memories to material objects or
monuments (Forty & Küchler, 1999, pp. 4–5). 30
Mixed messages and shifting meanings

The distinctions made above have been made for analytical purposes, but it
should not be assumed that the meanings of grave goods are strictly separate
categories. Descriptions of Roman funerals make it clear that different objects
were displayed and/or deposited in the grave for different reasons (von 35
Hesberg, 1998, pp. 23–28). For the Early Middle Ages, this is highlighted in
the descriptions of funerals in the epic poem Beowulf (lines 26–52, 1107–1124,
3137–3182; Swanton, 1978; see Owen-Crocker, 2000). In other words, any set
of grave goods is likely to be based on a composite of motives. It is worth
noting that in modern Catholic funerals, too, symbols have to relate to three 40
different spheres in order to be effective: the world of the deceased, the world
of religious inheritance and the world of the mourners (Quartier, 2009).
An archaeological illustration of these ‘mixed messages’ is provided by the

probably royal grave of Sutton Hoo mound 1 (Bruce-Mitford, 1975–1983;
5 Carver, 2005). The coins in the grave are a collection from various Frankish
mints, likely to have been either tribute or some other gift to the deceased. The
weapons in the grave may be seen as hergewaete, the ‘sceptre’ and ‘standard’ as
indicators of rank. The boat in which all the grave goods had been arranged
under a barrow was probably equipment for the afterlife, as well as a religious
10 symbol of the journey to the hereafter.
Accepting the composite nature of grave goods, and the ritual context in
which they were deposited (Härke, 1997), only leads to further questions. What
was the difference between objects burnt on the pyre and undamaged objects
buried with the cremated remains? Williams (2010a, pp. 7–75) has suggested
15 that careful distinctions were made between these two categories in the
Anglo-Saxon cremation ritual. Was there a difference between objects displayed
merely during the funeral, and those eventually deposited in the grave? If the
meaning was the same, that message would be accessible to archaeologists only
where the objects had been buried with the deceased. Was the representation
20 of objects on Roman and late medieval tombs the same as depositing them in
graves? And did it make a difference where exactly grave goods and sacrifices
were deposited, inside or next to the coffin or grave? In the cemetery of
Klin-Yar (fourth–seventh centuries AD, North Caucasus, Russia), horses and
‘heads-and-hooves’ (horse skins with skulls and long bones) had been deposited
25 in and on top of access corridors of underground burial chambers, in separate
horse burials, and on the surface between the graves (Härke & Belinsky, 2000).
Which of these horses were personal property, equipment for the hereafter, gift
to a deity or remains of a funeral feast? Sacrifices well after the funeral, be they
animal sacrifices, food offerings outside the grave or (as in Roman cemeteries)
30 libations poured into the grave (Walker, 1985, pp. 10–11), may be explained as
a ‘top-up’ of the equipment for the afterlife, or manifestations of continuing
bonds (Klass, 1999; Klass, Silverman, & Nickman, 1996 for an archaeological
application, see Jefferson-Jones, 2000). Again, archaeologists may approach
such questions by detailed analyses, but more often than not, uncertainties will
35 persist.
Historical and geographical context is another issue since the same practice
can mean different things in different periods and places. Coins were deposited
in graves in Classical antiquity, in early medieval Europe and early modern
Germany. But while this had religious motives in Classical times, it was meant
40 as payment for the deceased’s property in early modern Germany (Zender,
1959, pp. 44–45); the early medieval motive is uncertain because of the lack
of textual references. Weapons are found in Anglo-Saxon graves of the
fifth–seventh centuries (Härke, 1990, 1992a); they are shown on crosses of
the Viking period in England (Bailey, 1980); they are represented on high and
45 late medieval effigies and grave brasses in English churches (Kemp, 1980;
Norris, 1988; Tummers, 1980); and during the ‘heraldic funerals’ in the Late
Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, weapons were carried in the
14 H. Härke
procession and hung in the church afterwards (see above). It is quite conceiv-
able, and even likely, that the symbolic meanings of the grave goods or their
representations changed over time. 5
Last not least there is the question of who actually selected the objects for
deposition. Gender is an example of the uncertainties this issue can introduce
for archaeologists trying to make inferences from grave goods about the dead
themselves. An anthropological survey has shown that women tend to express
emotions of grief and mourning in more pronounced and explicit ways than 10
men in most societies, and vice versa in none (Rosenblatt, Walsh, & Jackson,
1976). This might impact on the choice of grave goods where women are
involved in their selection. Cannon (2005) has argued that in nineteenth-century
USA, the surviving partner chose the gravestone; thus, ‘typically male’ grave-
stones would have been chosen by women, and vice versa. This may well be an 15
explanation of some of the rare cases of cross-gender grave goods in early medie-
val burials where biological sexing and gendered grave goods appear to be at
odds (Härke, 2011; Lucy, 1997; Stoodley, 1999; see also Williams, 2005).
Conclusions
Reasons for the deposition of grave goods comprise a wide range of possible 20
motives, with marked regional differences and with considerable changes over
time. While not all of these motives can be identified in the evidence of early
medieval burials, the composite character of the grave goods sets found in graves
appears clear enough. Even particular items (e.g. a coin) may be included for
more than one reason, and these reasons may change over centuries or decades. 25
But it should be borne in mind that such inferences are difficult to make from
the archaeological evidence, and archaeologists are better at inferring broad pat-
terns than identifying individual motives. The surest means of identifying
motives for the deposition of grave goods are textual sources from the respective
period. Where these are lacking (as they are for most of human prehistory, and 30
for much of the Early Middle Ages), the best approach is a careful contextual
analysis of all correlations: what was deposited, when, where, with what, with
whom and how does it vary across geographical regions and chronological peri-
ods? The emerging patterns may then be used to suggest interpretations of grave
goods, but such inferences are only ever likely to apply to a particular society, or 35
even community, at a particular point in time. Whatever their background in
specific cases, grave goods were not simply intended to help the dead on their
journey to the hereafter and in their afterlife ( pace Kellehear, 2007), nor are they
mirrors of life in the past ( pace Haffner, 1989).
Acknowledgements 40
The ideas set out in this paper were developed in a seminar paper given in 2007
at the Centre for Death and Society, University of Bath. One of the key
inspirations for the approach adopted here was classes of the Interdisciplinary
MA. in Death and Society at the University at Reading (now taught at Bath),
5 and I am indebted to my colleagues Tony Walter, Clare Gittings, Ralph
Houlbrooke and Bob Chapman for helping to make this the most stimulating
course I have ever contributed to. Further inspirations were provided by a num-
ber of conference sessions at the Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference,
Oxford 2000, and the Society of American Archaeology Conference, New
10 Orleans 2001. I am grateful to the British Academy and the University of Read-
ing for travel grants to attend the latter conference. Tony Walter, Eva Thäte,
Duncan Sayer and Howard Williams took the time to read, and comment on,
various drafts of this paper. Tony Walter kindly suggested it for publication in
Mortality; I am very grateful to him for his persistence and encouragement.
15 Notes
[1] A. Bräuning, Forschungen zum alamannischen Gräberfeld Stühlingen, public lecture 26
January 2012, Universität Tübingen.
[2] My attention was drawn to this by a Death & Society seminar paper given by C. M. Parkes
at the University of Reading in 2001.
20 Biographical Notes
Heinrich Härke studied at the universities of Göttingen, Edinburgh and
Oxford. He held lectureships in archaeology at Queen’s University Belfast from
1984 to 1989, and at the University of Reading from 1989 to 2007, with his
research focusing on the Early Middle Ages and burial archaeology. He now
25 does archaeological fieldwork and research in Russia and Kazakhstan, and
contributes to teaching at Tübingen University (Germany).
REFERENCES
BAILEY, R. N. (1980). Viking age sculpture in northern England. London: Collins.
BATTAGLIA, D. (1992). The body in the gift: Memory and forgetting in Sabarl mortuary
30 exchange. American Ethnologist, 19, 3–18.
BERSU, G., & WILSON, D. M. (1966). Three viking graves in the isle of man (Society for Medieval
Archaeology Monograph 1). London: Society for Medieval Archaeology.
BOAS, F. (1897). The social organization and the secret societies of the Kwakiutl Indians. (Report of
the U.S. National Museum, 1894–95). 311–738.
35 BODDINGTON, A. (1990). Models of burial, settlement and worship: The final phase reviewed. In
E. SOUTHWORTH (Ed.), Anglo-Saxon cemeteries: A reappraisal (pp. 177–199). Stroud: Alan
Sutton.
BÖHME, H. W. (1974). Germanische Grabfunde des 4–5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer Elbe und
AQ6 Loire (Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte: 19). Munich: Beck.
40 BOWLBY J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol: 1 Attachment. London: Hogarth.
BRADLEY, R. (1982). The destruction of wealth in later prehistory. Man, 17, 108–122.
BRUCE-MITFORD R. L. S. (1975–1983). The Sutton Hoo ship burial. 3 vols. London: British
Museum Publications.
CANNON, A. (2005). Gender, agency, and mortuary fashion. In G. F. M. RAKITA, J. E. BUIKSTRA,
45 L. A. BECK, & S. R. WILLIAMS (Eds.), Interacting with the dead: Perspectives on mortuary
archaeology for the new millennium (pp. 41–65). Gainesville, GA: University Press of Florida.
16 H. Härke
CARVER, M. (2005). Sutton Hoo: A seventh-century princely burial ground and its context. London:
British Museum Press.
CHILDE, V. G. (1929). The Danube in prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon.
CHILDE, V. G. (1945). Directional changes in funerary practices during 50,000 Years. Man, 45, 5
13–19.
DANIELL, C. (1997). Death and burial in medieval England 1066–1550. London: Routledge.
DAVIES, J. (1994). One hundred billion dead: A general theology of death. In J. DAVIES (Ed.), Rit-
ual and remembrance: Responses to death in human societies (pp. 24–39). Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press. 10
DOUGLAS, M. (1988). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. (Report).
London: Routledge.
EKENGREN, F. (2004). Drinking and the creation of death. Lund Archaeological Review, 10, 45–61.
ELLIS, H. R. (1943). The road to Hel: A study of the conception of the dead in old norse literature.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 15
FEHRING, G. P. (1991). The archaeology of medieval Germany: An introduction. New York, NY:
Routledge.
FORD, W. J. (2002). The Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemeteries at
Stretton-on-Fosse, Warwickshire. Transactions of the Birmingham and Warwickshire
Archaeological Society, 106, 1–115. 20
FORTY, A., & KÜCHLER, S. (Eds.). (1999). The art of forgetting. Oxford: Berg.
GEAKE, H. (1992). Burial practice in seventh- and eighth-century England. In M. O. H. CARVER
(Ed.), The age of Sutton Hoo (pp. 83–94). Woodbridge: Boydell.
GEAKE, H. (1997). The use of grave-goods in conversion-period England c. 600–850 (British
archaeological reports 261). Oxford: Archaeopress. 25
GIMBUTAS, M. (1971). The slavs (Ancient peoples and places 74). London: Thames & Hudson.
GITTINGS, C. (1984). Death, burial and the individual in early modern England. London: Croom
Helm.
GOSDEN, C., & MARSHALL, Y. (1999). The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology, 31,
169–178. 30
GRÄSLUND, B. (1987). The birth of prehistoric chronology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HABENSTEIN, P. W., & LAMERS, W. M. (1963). Funeral customs the world over. Milwaukee, WI:
Bulfin.
HAFFNER, A. (Ed.). (1989). Gräber – Spiegel des Lebens. Totenbrauch der Kelten und Ro¨mer am
AQ7 Beispiel des Treverer-Gräberfeldes Wederath-Belginum. Mainz: Zabern. 35
HALLAM, E., & HOCKEY, J. (2001). Death, memory and material culture. Oxford: Berg.
HALSALL, G. (1995). Early medieval cemeteries (New light on the dark ages 1). Glasgow: Cruithne.
HÄRKE, H. (1980). Die Grabung des Jahres 1976 auf dem Münsterplatz in Neuss. Bonner
AQ8 Jahrbücher, 180, 493–571.
HÄRKE, H. (1981). Eine vergoldete Totenkrone vom Neusser Freithof. Neusser Jahrbuch, 1981, 40
AQ9 22–27.
HÄRKE, H. (1990). ‘Warrior graves’? The background of the Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite.
Past & Present, 126, 22–43.
HÄRKE, H. (1992a). Angelsächsische Waffengräber des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts (Zeitschrift für
AQ10 Archäologie des Mittelalters Beiheft 6). Cologne & Bonn: Rheinland-Verlag & Habelt. 45
HÄRKE, H. (1992b). Changing symbols in a changing society: The Anglo-Saxon weapon burial
rite in the seventh century. In M. CARVER (Ed.), The age of Sutton Hoo (pp. 149–165).
Woodbridge: Boydell Press.
HÄRKE, H. (1997). The nature of burial data. In C. K. JENSEN, & K. H. NIELSEN (Eds.), Burial
and society: The chronological and social analysis of archaeological burial data (pp. 19–27). 50
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
HÄRKE, H. (2000a). Social analysis of mortuary evidence in German protohistoric archaeology.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 19, 369–384.
HÄRKE, H. (2000b). The circulation of weapons in Anglo-Saxon society. In F. THEUWS &
J. L. NELSON (Eds.), Rituals of power from late antiquity to the early middle ages (The 55
transformation of the roman world 8) (pp. 377–399). Leiden: Brill.
HÄRKE, H. (2002). Interdisciplinarity and the archaeological study of death. Mortality, 7,
340–341.
HÄRKE, H. (2011). Gender representation in early medieval burials: Ritual re-affirmation of a

5 blurred boundary? In S. BROOKES, S. HARRINGTON, & A. REYNOLDS (Eds.), Studies in early
Anglo-Saxon art and archaeology: Papers in honour of Martin G. Welch (British archaeological
reports) (pp. 98–105). Oxford: Archaeopress.
HÄRKE, H., & BELINSKY, A. (2000). Nouvelles fouilles de 1994–1996 dans la nécropole de
Klin-Yar. In M. KAZANSKI & V. SOUPAULT (Eds.), Les sites arche´ologiques en Crime´e et au
10 Caucase durant l’Antiquite´ tardive et le haut Moyen Age (Colloquia Pontica 5) (pp. 193–210).
AQ11 Leiden: Brill.
HARMAN, M., MOLLESON, T.J., & PRICE, J.L. (1981). Burials, bodies and beheadings in
Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. Bulletin of the British Museum, Natural History
(Geology), 35, 145–188.
15 HARPER, S. (2012). ‘I’m glad she got her glasses on. That really makes the difference’. Grave
goods in English and American death rituals. Journal of Material Culture, 17, 2–21.
HENDRY, J. (1995). Understanding Japanese society (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
HESBERG, H. Von (1998). Beigaben in Gräbern Roms. In P. FASOLD, T. FISCHER, H. Von HES-
BERG, & M. WITTEYER (Eds.), Bestattungssitte und kulturelle Identität: Grabanlagen und Grabbei-
20 gaben in der frühen ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit in Italien und den Nordwest-Provinzen (pp. 13–28).
AQ12 Cologne: Rheinland & Habelt.
HOSKINS, J. (1998). Biographical objects: How things tell the story of people’s lives. London:
Routledge.
HOULBROOKE, R. (1996). ‘Public’ and ‘private’ in the funerals of the later Stuart gentry: Some
25AQ13 Somerset examples. Mortality, 1, 163–176.
HÜBENER, W. (Ed.) (1975). Die Goldblattkreuze des frühen Mittelalters (Veröffentlichungen des
AQ14 Alemannischen Instituts Freiburg 37). Bühl: Konkordia.
JANKUHN, H. (1969). Vor- und Frühgeschichte vom Neolithikum bis zur Vo¨lkerwanderungszeit
AQ15 (Deutsche Agrargeschichte 1). Stuttgart: Ulmer.
30 JEFFERSON-JONES, J. (2000). Continuing bonds: Assessing the Roman evidence (Unpublished MA
AQ16 thesis). University of Reading.
JONES, G. (1984). A history of the Vikings. Repr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KARS, M. (2011). A cultural perspective on Merovingian burial chronology and the grave goods from
the Vrijthof and Pandhof cemeteries in Maastricht (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of
35 Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/record/391471
KELLEHEAR, A. (2007). A social history of dying. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KEMP, B. (1980). English church monuments. London: Batsford.
KING, J. M. (2004). Grave-goods as gifts in Early Saxon burials (ca. AD 450–600). Journal of
Social Archaeology, 4, 214–238.
40 KLASS, D. (1999). Developing a cross-cultural model of grief: The state of the field. Omega, 39,
153–178.
KLASS, D., SILVERMAN, P.R., & NICKMAN, S.L. (1996). Continuing bonds: New understandings of
grief. London: Taylor & Francis.
KLINDT-JENSEN, O. (1975). A history of Scandinavian archaeology. London: Thames & Hudson.
45 KOCH, U. (1996). Stätten der Ruhe – Grabformen und Bestattungssitten der Franken. Die
AQ17 Franken: Wegbereiter Europas (pp. 723–737). Zabern: Mainz.
KOPYTOFF, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In A. APPAD-
URAI (Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 64–91). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
50 KOSSINNA, G. (1911). Die Herkunft der Germanen. Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie
AQ18 (Mannus-Bibliothek 6). Würzburg: Kabitzsch.
LEE, C. (2007). Feasting the dead: Food and drink in Anglo-Saxon rituals. Woodbridge: Boydell.
LETHBRIDGE, T. C. (1951). A cemetery at Lackford, Suffolk (Cambridge Antiquarian Society
Quarto Publications New Series 6). Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes.
55 LONGUET LAYTON A. M. (2001). The shaping of bereavement in Hong Kong. (Unpublished MA
AQ19 thesis). University of Reading.
LUCY, S. (1997). Housewives, warriors and slaves? Sex and gender in Anglo-Saxon burials. In
J. MOORE & E. SCOTT (Eds.), Invisible people and processes (pp. 150–168). London: Leicester
University Press.
60 LUCY, S. (2000). The Anglo-Saxon way of death: Burial rites in early England. Stroud: Sutton.
18 H. Härke
MEANEY, A. L. (1981). Anglo-Saxon amulets and curing stones (British Archaeological Reports 96).
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
MÜLLER, D. W. (1970). Gefäßbeigaben in neuzeitlichen Gräbern des Gothaer Landes: Ein
AQ20 Beitrag zur archäologischen Volkskunde. Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, 66, 166–172.
MÜLLER-WILLE, M. (1977). Der frühmittelalterliche Schmied im Spiegel skandinavischer 5
AQ21 Grabfunde. Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 11, 127–201.
MÜLLER-WILLE, M. (1983). Der Schmied im Spiegel archäologischer Quellen. Zur Aussage von
Schmiedegräbern der Wikingerzeit. In H. JANKUHN, W. JANSSEN, R. SCHMIDT-WIEGAND, &
H. TIEFENBACH (Eds.), Das Handwerk in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit, II (pp. 216–260).
AQ22 Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. 10
MUSTY, J. (1969). The excavation of two barrows, one of Saxon date, at Ford, Laverstock, near
AQ23 Salisbury, Wiltshire. The Antiquaries Journal, 49, 98–117.
NORRIS, M. W. (Ed.). (1988). Monumental brasses: The portfolio plates of the Monumental brass
society 1894–1984. Woodbridge: Boydell.
OKELY, J. (1979). An anthropological contribution to the history and archaeology of an ethnic 15
group. In B. C. BURNHAM & J. KINGSBURY (Eds.), Space, hierarchy and society: Interdisciplinary
studies in social area analysis (British Archaeological Reports Int. Ser. 59) (pp. 81–92).
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
OWEN-CROCKER, G. R. (2000). The four funerals in Beowulf. Manchester: Manchester University
Press. 20
PARKER PEARSON, M. (1999). The archaeology of death and burial. Stroud: Sutton.
PAULSEN, P. (1967). Alamannische Adelsgräber von Niederstotzingen (Veröffentlichungen des
Staatlichen Amts für Denkmalpflege Stuttgart A 12). Stuttgart: Müller & Gräff.
PEARSON, M. (1982). Mortuary practices, society and ideology: An ethnoarchaeological study. In
I. HODDER (Ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology (pp. 99–114). Cambridge: Cambridge 25
AQ24 University Press.
PLUSKOWSKI, A. (2010). Animal magic. In M. CARVER, A. SANMARK, & S. SEMPLE (Eds.), Signals
of belief in early England: Anglo-Saxon paganism revisited (pp. 103–127). Oxford: Oxbow.
QUARTIER, T. (2009). Personal symbols in Roman Catholic funerals in the Netherlands.
Mortality, 14, 133–146. 30
AQ25 REINECKE, P. (1925). Reihengräber und Friedhöfe der Kirchen. Germania, 9, 103–107.
RICHARDS, J. D. (1987). The significance of form and decoration of Anglo-Saxon cremation urns
(British Archaeological Reports 166). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
ROSENBLATT, P. C., WALSH, R. P., & JACKSON, D. A. (1976). Grief and mourning in cross-cultural
perspective. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press. 35
ROUTLEDGE, W. S., & ROUTLEDGE, K. (1910). With a prehistoric people: The Akikúyu of British East
Africa. London: Edward Arnold.
SAMSON, R. (1987). Social structures from Reihengräber: Mirror or mirage? Scottish Archaeological
Review, 4, 116–126.
SCHAPERA, I., & EISELEN, W. M. (1937). Religious beliefs and practices. In I. SCHAPERA (Ed.), 40
The Bantu-speaking tribes of South Africa: An ethnographic survey (pp. 247–270). London:
Routledge.
Von SCHÖNBURG-WALDENBURG, H. Prinz (1929). Erinnerungen aus kaiserlicher Zeit. Leipzig:
AQ26 Koehler.
SCHÜLKE, A. (1999). On Christianization and grave-finds. European Journal of Archaeology, 2, 45
77–106.
SCULL, C. (2009). Early medieval (late 5th – early 8th centuries AD) cemeteries at Boss Hall and
Buttermarket, Ipswich, Suffolk (Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 27). London:
Society for Medieval Archaeology.
SEGSCHNEIDER, E. H. (1976). Totenkranz und Totenkrone im Ledigenbegräbnis Nach einer Dokumen- 50
AQ27 tation des Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde. Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag & Habelt.
SHARER, P. R., & TANCREDY, C. M. (2001). Emotion, attachment and bereavement: A conceptual
commentary. In M. S. STROEBE, R. O. HANSSON, W. STROEBE, & H. SCHUT (Eds.), Handbook
of bereavement research (pp. 63–88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
SOLBERG, B. (2004). Ritual feasts: Glass vessels in Norwegian graves of the late Roman and 55
Migration period. In M. LODEWIJCKX (Ed.), Bruc Ealles Well: Archaeological essays concerning
the peoples of north-west Europe in the first millennium AD (Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia
Monographiae 15) (pp. 203–210). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
STEUER, H. (1982). Frühgeschichtliche Sozialstrukturen in Mitteleuropa (Abhandlungen der

5 Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil Hist. Klasse, 3. Folge 128). Göttingen:
AQ28 Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
STOODLEY, N. (1999). The spindle and the spear: A critical enquiry into the construction and meaning
of gender in the early Anglo-Saxon burial rite (British Archaeological Reports 288). Oxford:
Hedges.
10 SWANTON, M. (1978). Beowulf. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
TARLOW, S. (1999). Bereavement and commemoration: An archaeology of mortality. Oxford:
Blackwell.
TARLOW, S. (2000). Emotion in archaeology. Current Anthropology, 41, 713–746.
TAYLOR, A. C. (1993). Remembering to forget: Identity, mourning and memory among the
15 Jivaro. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (Man), 28, 653–678.
TOYNBEE, J. M. C. (1971). Death and burial in the Roman world. London: Thames & Hudson.
TUMMERS, H. A. (1980). Early secular effigies in England: The thirteenth century. Leiden: Brill.
UCKO, P. J. (1969). Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. World
AQ29 Archaeology, 1, 262–280.
20 VEECK, W. (1926). Der Reihengräberfriedhof von Holzgerlingen. Fundberichte aus Schwaben,
AQ30 N.F., 3, 154–201.
AQ31 de VRIES, S. P. (1986). Jüdische Riten und Symbole (4th ed.). Wiesbaden: Fourier.
WAGNER, A. (1967). The heralds of England. London: HMSO.
WALKER, S. (1985). Memorials to the Roman dead. London: British Museum.
25 WALTER, T. (1996). A new model of grief: Bereavement and biography. Mortality, 1, 7–25.
WALTER, T. (1999). On bereavement: the culture of grief. Buckingham: Open University Press.
WATSON, J. L., & RAWSKI, E. S. (Eds.). (1988). Death ritual in late imperial and modern China.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
WERNER, J. (1964). Frankish royal tombs in the cathedrals of Cologne and Saint-Denis.
30 Antiquity, 38, 201–216.
WHITLEY, J. (2002). Objects with attitude: Biographical facts and fallacies in the study of late
AQ32 bronze age and early iron age warrior graves. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 12, 217–232.
AQ33 WILLIAMS, H. (2001a). Lest we remember. British Archaeology, 20–23.
WILLIAMS, H. (2001b). Death memory and time: A consideration of the mortuary practices at
35 Sutton Hoo. In C. HUMPHREY & W. ORMROD (Eds.), Time in the medieval world (pp. 35–71).
AQ34 York.
WILLIAMS, H. (2003). Material culture as memory: Combs and cremation in early medieval
Britain. Early Medieval Europe, 12, 89–128.
WILLIAMS, H. (2004). Potted histories – Cremation, ceramics and social memory in early Roman
40 Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 23, 417–427.
WILLIAMS, H. (2005). Rethinking early medieval mortuary archaeology. Early Medieval Europe,
AQ35 13, 195–217.
WILLIAMS, H. (2006). Death and memory in early medieval Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
45 WILLIAMS, H. (2010a). At the funeral. In M. CARVER, A. SANMARK, & S. SEMPLE (Eds.), Signals of
belief in early England: Anglo-Saxon paganism revisited (pp. 67–82). Oxford: Oxbow.
WILLIAMS, H. (2010b). Engendered bodies and objects of memory in final phase graves. In
J. BUCKBERRY & A. CHERRYSON (Eds.), Burial in Later Anglo-Saxon England c. 650–1100 AD
(pp. 26–37). Oxford: Oxbow.
50 WOODWARD, J. (1997). The theatre of death: The ritual management of royal funerals in Renaissance
England, 1570–1625. Woodbridge: Boydell.
ZEITEN, M. K. (1997). Amulets and amulet use in Viking Age Denmark. Acta Archaeologica, 68,
1–74.
ZENDER, M. (1959). Die Grabbeigaben im heutigen deutschen Volksbrauch. Zeitschrift für
55AQ36 Volkskunde, 55, 32–51.

Харке - Гробићи PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Харке - Гробићи PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROOF COVER SHEET

Journal acronym: CMRT

For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please see

Sequence Prefix Given name(s) Surname Suffix

Grave goods in early medieval burials: messages and

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

The early medieval grave-goods custom 40

Grave goods in early medieval burials 3

The meanings of grave goods

Grave goods in early medieval burials 5

Equipment for the hereafter

Grave goods in early medieval burials 7

Indicators of rank, status and identity

Grave goods in early medieval burials 9

Beowulf poem demonstrates that swords and chain-mail corselets were in

Gifts to the deceased

Remains of the funeral feast

Disposal of polluted items

Grave goods in early medieval burials 11

25 Protection of the living (and the dead?)

Mixed messages and shifting meanings

Grave goods in early medieval burials 13

An archaeological illustration of these ‘mixed messages’ is provided by the

Grave goods in early medieval burials 15

Grave goods in early medieval burials 17

HÄRKE, H. (2011). Gender representation in early medieval burials: Ritual re-affirmation of a

Grave goods in early medieval burials 19

STEUER, H. (1982). Frühgeschichtliche Sozialstrukturen in Mitteleuropa (Abhandlungen der

You might also like