Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:34:32.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a Chronology of megaliths: understanding monumental time and cultural memory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Cornelius J. Holtorf
Cornelius J. Holtorf*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Wales, Lampeter, Lampeter, Ceredigion, Great Britain SA48 7ED
Get access

Abstract

I argue in this paper that monuments such as megaliths can be understood in terms of ‘prospective’ and ‘retrospective memories’. They were originally built as permanent and widely visible mnemonics in order to transmit a particular message to the future, but that message is now lost. Megaliths were then, and stayed for much of their later history, ‘sites of memory’. In later ages, people considered such ancient monuments as part of their ‘cultural memory’ and interpreted them within the framework of the ‘history culture’ of their given social context. Since such re-interpretations are often equally significant and also contain hopes for the future (prospective memories), they can be termed ‘subsequent origins’ of monuments. One example for a ‘subsequent origin’ is the way megaliths are studied and treated according to the academic values of present-day archaeologists. In the paper I discuss several case-studies of megaliths’ ‘life-histories’ in different European regions. I conclude with the wish that a true chronology of monuments may be developed that reaches beyond chronographical tables and includes theories about monumental time: the pasts and futures of monuments, in each present.

Ich argumentiere in diesem Aufsatz, daß Monumente wie z. B. Megalithbauten mit Hilfe der Begriffe ‘vorausblickende’ und ‘zurückblickende Erinnerung’ verstanden werden können. Ursprünglich wurden sie als permanente und weithin sichtbare Gedächtnisstützen gebaut, die eine bestimmte Botschaft in die Zukunft leiten sollten. Doch die ursprüngliche Botschaft ist mit der Zeit verloren gegangen. Megalithbauten waren als ‘Gedächtnisorte’ gedacht, und sind es in ihrer späteren Geschichte fast immer geblieben. Die Menschen späterer Zeiten betrachteten derartige alte Monumente als Teil ihres ‘kulturellen Gedächtnisses’ und interpretierten sie im Rahmen der ‘Geschichtskultur’ ihres jeweiligen sozialen Kontextes. Da solche Neuinterpretationen oft ähnlich bedeutsam sind und ebenfalls Hoffnungen für die Zukunft (vorausblickende Erinnerungen) enthalten, können sie als ‘spätere Ursprünge’ von Monumenten bezeichnet werden. Ein Beispiel für einen salchen ‘späteren Ursprung’ stellt die Art und Weise dar, in der Megalithbauten gemäß den akademischen Werten heutiger Archäologen untersucht und behandelt werden. In diesem Beitrag stelle ich mehrere ‘Lebensgeschichten’ von Megalithbauten in unterschiedlichen europäischen Regionen als Fallstudien vor. Ich schließe mit dem Wunsch, daß eine wahrhaftige Chronologie von Monumenten entwickelt werden möge, die über chronographische Tabellen hinausgeht und Theorien über Monumentzeit miteinschließt: die Vergangenheiten und Zukünfte von Monumenten, in allen Gegenwarten.

Dans cet article je défends l'idée que les monuments tels que les mégalithes peuvent être considérés comme ‘mémoire prospectives’ et ‘rétrospectives’. A l'origine, ces monuments ont été construits comme mnémotechniques permanentes et constamment visibles afin de transmettre un message précis dans le futur, mais ce message est maintenant perdu. Les mégalithes étaient alors et sont demeurés pour une grande partie de leur histoire un ‘lieu de mémoire’. Plus tard, le peuple a considéré ces monuments comme un élément de sa ‘mémoire culturelle’ et les a interprété suivant la ‘culture historique’ spécifique à son contexte social. Etant donné que ces réinterprétations sont souvent d'égale importance et portent un message d'espoir pour le futur (mémoires prospectives), elles peuvent être envisagées comme ‘origines ultérieures’ des monuments. Un exemple d“origine ultérieure’ est la façon dont les mégalithes sont étudiées et considérés selon les valeurs académiques des archéologues contemporains. Dans cet article j'examine plusiers études de cas sur l“histoire de la vie’ des mégalithes dans différentes regions d'Europe. Je conclue en faisant le souhait qu'une véritable chronologie des monuments soit développée, qui aille au delá de tableaux chronographiques et inclue des théories sur l'époque des monuments: le passé et le futur des monuments, au moment présent.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of European Archaeology , Volume 4 , 1996 , pp. 119 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, Bettina, 1992. Germany's Nazi past: the past as propaganda. Archaeology 45 (July/Aug.): 30–37.Google Scholar
Arnold, Bettina and Hassman, Henning, 1995. Archaeology in Nazi Germany: the legacy of the Faustian bargain. In Kohl, P. L. and Fawcett, C. (eds), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology: 70–81. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Assmann, Aleida, 1991. Kultur als Lebenswelt und Monument. In Assmann, A. and Harth, D. (eds), Kultur als Lebenswelt und Monument. 11–25. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer.Google Scholar
Assmann, Aleida and Assmann, Jan, 1994. Das Gestern im Heute. Medien und soziales Gedächtnis. In Merten, K., Schmidt, S. J., Weischenberg, S. (eds), Die Wirklichkeit der Medien. Eine Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft: 114–140. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Assmann, Jan, 1988a. Kollektives Gedächtnis und kulturelle Identität. In Assmann, J. and Hölscher, T. (eds), Kultur und Gedächtnis: 9–19. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Assmann, Jan, 1988b. Stein und Zeit. Das ‘monumentale’ Gedächtnis der altägyptischen Kultur. In Assmann, J. and Hölscher, T. (eds), Kultur und Gedächtnis: 87–114. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Assmann, Jan, 1992. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen , München: Beck.Google Scholar
Barrett, John, 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Beard, Mary and Henderson, John, 1995. Classics: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berkelmann, R., 1937. Der Sachsenhain bei Verden a. d. Aller. Gartenkunst 50: 125–128.Google Scholar
Bender, Barbara, 1993. Stonehenge – contested landscapes (medieval to present-day). In Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives: 245–279. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, Reinhard, 1996. Ton, Steine, Permanenz. Erfahrungsraum und Erwartungshorizont in archäologischen Hinterlassenschaften des Alten Orients. In Gerhrke, H.-J. and Möller, A. (eds), Vergangehneit und Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikation, Traditionsbildung und historisches Bewußtsein: 79–107. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, 1984. Studying monuments. In Bradley, R. and Gardiner, J. (eds), Neolithic Studies. A Review of Some Current Research: 61–66. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (British Series 133).Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, 1991. Ritual, time and history. World Archaeology 23 (2): 209–219.Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard, 1993. Altering the Earth. The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.Google Scholar
Bukström, Mats, 1993. Mångtydiga Fornlämningar. En Studie av innebörder som tillskrivits fasta fornlämningar i österrekarne härad, Södermanland. Stockholm (Stockholm Archaeological Reports 27).Google Scholar
Chapman, John, 1995. The significance of time-value and place-value in European prehistory. Paper presented at the First Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, Santiago de Compostela, September 1995.Google Scholar
Chapman, John, forthcoming. Places as timemarks – the social construction of prehistoric landscapes in eastern Hungary. In Nash, G. and Children, G. (eds), The Social Construction of Landscape. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Chapman, Robert, 1981. The emergence of formal disposal areas and the ‘problem’ of megalithic tombs in prehistoric Europe. In Chapman, R., Kinnes, I. and Randsborg, K. (eds), The Archaeology of Death: 71–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cherry, John, 1978. Generalisation and the archaeology of the state. In Green, D., Haselgrove, C. and Spriggs, M. (eds), Social Organisation and Settlement: Contributions from Anthropology, Archaeology and Geography: 411–437. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series (Supplementary) no. 47 (ii)).Google Scholar
Chippindale, Christopher, 1994. Stonehenge Complete. Revised edition. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Connerton, Paul, 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Criado B., Felipe, 1995. The visibility of the archaeological record and the interpretation of social reality. In Hodder, I., Shanks, M. et al. (eds), Interpreting Archaeology: 194–204. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Daniel, Glyn, 1962. The Megalith-Builders of Western Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Daniel, Glyn, 1972. Megaliths in History. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Elias, Norbert, 1994. Über die Zeit. Arbeiten zur Wissenssoziologie II [1987]. 5th edition. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp (English translation: 1992, Time: An Essay. Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Elsner, John, 1994. From the pyramids to Pausanias and Piglet: monuments, travel and writing. In Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R. (eds), Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture: 224–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eriksen, Palle, 1990. Samsøs store stengrave. Skippershoved.Google Scholar
Evans, Christopher, 1985. Tradition and the cultural landscape: an archaeology of place. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 4 (1): 80–94.Google Scholar
Fleming, Andrew, 1973. Tombs for the living. Man n.s. 8 (2): 177–193.Google Scholar
Foxhall, Lin, 1995. Monumental ambitions: the significance of posterity in Greece. In Spencer, N. (ed.), Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology. Bridging the ‘Great Divide’: 132–149. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gramsch, Alexander, 1995. Death and continuity. Journal of European Archaeology 3 (1): 71–90.Google Scholar
Grinsell, Leslie, 1976. Folklore of Prehistoric Sites in Britain. London: David and Charles.Google Scholar
Halbwachs, Maurice, 1985. Das kollektive Gedächtnis [1950]. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer. (English translation: 1980, The Collective Memory. New York and London: Harper and Row)Google Scholar
Hansen, W., 1933. Zur Verbreitung der Riesensteingräber in Norddeutschland. Mannus 25 (4): 337–352.Google Scholar
Hennies, Wolfram, 1991. Rathauseiche und Gedenksteine. Perleberger Hefte 7.Google Scholar
Herzfeld, Michael, 1991. A Place in History. Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian, 1994. The interpretation of documents and material culture. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research: 393–402. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, 1993. Bodendenkmale und ihre heutige Bedeutung: zur Rezeption von Megalithbauten. . University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, 1994. Die heutigen Bedeutungen des Gollensteins von Blieskastel. Für eine empirische Rezeptionsforschung der Archäologie. Saarpfalz 1994 (4): 11–21.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, 1995. Vergangenheit, die nicht vergeht: Das Langbett von Waabs-Karlsminde und seine heutigen Bedeutungen. Archäologische Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein 6: 135–149.Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, forthcoming (a). Landscapes of megaliths as landscapes of the mind. The contemporary meanings of megaliths. In Nordbladh, J. (ed.), Megaliths and Landscapes. Göteborg (URL: http://www.lamp.ac.uk/∼cjh/Falköping.html).Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, forthcoming (b). Constructed meanings: the receptions of megaliths after the Neolithic. In Nielsen, P.-O. (ed.), Megalithic Tombs – their Context and Construction. København. (URL: http://www.lamp.ac.uk/∼cjh/Kalundborg.html).Google Scholar
Holtorf, Cornelius, n.d. Megaliths, monumentality and memory. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Jonker, Gerdien, 1995. The Topography of Remembrance. The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in Mesopotamia. Leiden etc.: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Kaul, Flemming, 1987. Dysser og jættestuer i Horn Herred. Jægerspris: Jægerspris Historisk Forening.Google Scholar
Kopytoff, Igor, 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In Appadurai, A. (ed.), The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective: 64–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart, 1979. Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Kristian, 1993. ‘The past and its great might’; an essay on the use of the past. Journal of European Archaeology 1 (1): 3–32.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Henri, 1991. The Production of Space [1984]. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Liebers, Claudia, 1986. Neolithische Megalithgräber in Volksglauben und Volksleben. Frankfurt/M. and New York: Lang.Google Scholar
Lohfink, Ingeborg, c. 1991. Mein Pommernbuch. Rostock: Hinstorff.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, David, 1979. Age and artifact. Dilemmas of appreciation. In Meinig, D. W. (ed.), The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Geographical Essays: 103–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowenthal, David, 1985. The Past Is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas, 1977. Weltzeit und Systemgeschichte [1975]. In Oelmüller, W. (ed.), Wozu noch Geschichte?: 203–252. München: Fink. (English translation: 1982, World-time and system history. In N. Luhmann, The Differentiation of Society: 289–324. New York: Columbia University Press.)Google Scholar
Lynch, Kevin, 1972. What Time Is this Place? Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maier, Charles S., 1993. A surfeit of memory? Reflections on history, melancholy and denial. History and Memory 5: 136–151.Google Scholar
Marquardt, Jens, 1992. Vom Blutbad zum Ratespiel. 4500 Steine dokumentieren Geschichte. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
Mecklenburg, Christian Ludwig Herzog zu, 1996. Erzählungen aus meinem Leben. Schwerin: Stock u. Stein.Google Scholar
Meyer, Enno, 1981. Fünfundzwanzig Ereignisse deutscher Geschichte 1900 bis 1955. Heft I: Aus dem kaiserlichen Deutschland . Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Michell, John, 1982. Megalithomania. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Miles, Dillwyn, 1978. The Royal National Eisteddfod of Wales. Swansea: C. Davies.Google Scholar
Miles, Dillwyn, 1992. The Secret of the Bards of the Isle of Britain. Llandybie: Gwasg Dinefwr Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Donald, 1976. Cambrian antiquity: Precursors of the prehistorians. In Boon, G. C. and Lewis, J. M. (eds), Welsh Antiquity: 193–221. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales.Google Scholar
Morgan, Prys, 1975. Iolo Morganwg. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Morphy, Howard, 1995. Landscape and the reproduction of the ancestral past. In Hirsch, E. and O'Hanlon, M. (eds), The Anthropology of Landscape. Perspectives of Place and Space: 184–209. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Nora, Pierre (ed.), 1984–92. Les lieux de mémoire (seven volumes). Paris: Edition Gallimard.Google Scholar
Nora, Pierre, 1989. Between memory and history: les lieux de mémoire [1984]. Representations 26 (spring): 7–25. (Also In Nora, P. and Kritzman, L. D. (eds), Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, vol. 1, conflicts and divisions: 1–20. New York and Chichester: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Nora, Pierre, 1996. From lieux de mémoire to realms of memory, In Nora, P. and Kritzman, L. D. (eds), Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, vol. 1, conflicts and divisions: xv–xxiv. New York and Chichester: Columbia University Press.)Google Scholar
Nora, Pierre and Kritzman, Lawrence D. (eds), 1996. Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, vol. 1, conflicts and divisions. New York and Chichester. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, Bjørnar, 1990. Roland Barthes: from sign to text. In Tilley, C. (ed.), Reading Material Culture: 163–205. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Patton, Mark, in press. La Hougue Bie à Jersey: transformation d'un monument du Néolithique à nos jours. In Soulier, P. (ed.), Monumentalisme funéraire et sépultures collectives. Actes du colloque de Cergy-Pontoise 1995. Paris: Documents d'Archéologie Française.Google Scholar
Patton, Mark and Finch, Olga, 1993. Excavations at La Hougue Bie, Jersey. Second Interim Report. Ann. Bull. Société Jersiaise 26: 116–132.Google Scholar
Pryor, Francis, 1995. Abandonment and the role of ritual sites in the landscape. Scottish Archaeological Review 9/10: 96–109.Google Scholar
Quadt, Heinz-Gerhard and Ehlert, Max, 1995. Aus der Geschichte des Ulanendenkmals. Demminer Nachrichten 5 (15): 16f. Google Scholar
Rappaport, Joanne, 1989. Geography and historical understanding in indigenous Colombia. In Layton, R. (ed.), Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology: 84–94. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Rawson, Jessica, 1993. The ancestry of Chinese bronze vessels. In Lubar, S. and Kingery, W. D. (eds), History from Things. Essays on Material Culture : 51–73. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin, 1973. Before Civilization. The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin, 1976. Megaliths, territories and populations. In De Laet, S. J. (ed.), Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe, Mainly during the Neolithic period and the Bronze Age: 198–220. Brugge: de Tempel.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Michael, 1993. The role of memory in the transmission of culture. World Archaeology 25 (2): 141–151.Google Scholar
Rüsen, Jörn, 1994. Was ist Geschichtskultur? Überlegungen zu einer neuen Art, über Geschichte nachzudenken. In Füßmann, K., Grüttex, H. T., Rüsen, J. (eds), Historische Faszination. Geschichtskultur heute: 3–26. Köln: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Holger, 1985. Julianehøj. Julianehøjs restaurering. (Fortidsminder 1985). Antikvariske studier 7: 25–35.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Siegfried J. (ed.), 1991. Gedächtnis. Probleme und Perspektiven der interdisziplinären Gedächtnisforschung. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schnapp, Alain, 1993. La consuète du passé. Aux origines de l'archéologie. Paris: Édition Carré. (English trans.: 1996. Discovery of the Past. London: British Museum Press.)Google Scholar
Schuldt, Ewald, 1972. Die mecklenburgischen Megalithgräber. Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Schwerin. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Bezirke Rostock, Schwerin und Neubrandenburg 6).Google Scholar
Seidenspinner, Wolfgang, 1993. Archäologie, Volksüberlieferung, Denkmalideologie. Anmerkungen zum Denkmalverständnis der Üffentlichkeit in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 18: 1–15.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael, 1996. Classical Archaeology of Greece. Experiences of the discipline. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael, n. d. The Life of an Artifact. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher, 1982. Ideology, symbolic power, and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology: 129–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael and Tilley, Christopher, 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
Sherratt, Andrew, 1995. Instruments of conversion? The role of megaliths in the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in North-west Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14 (3): 245–260.Google Scholar
Smiles, Samuel, 1994. The Image of Antiquity. Ancient Britain and the Romantic Imagination. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sørensen, Marie Louise Stig, 1996. The fall of a nation, the birth of a subject: the national use of archaeology in nineteenth-century Denmark. In Díaz-Andreu, M. and Champion, T. (eds), Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe: 24–47. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Speer, Albert, 1985. Foreword [1978]. In Albert Speer Architecture 1932–1942: 213f. Bruxelles: Archive d'Architecture Moderne.Google Scholar
Stommer, Rainer, 1985. Die inszenierte Volksgemeinschaft. Die ‘Thing-Bewegung’ im Dritten Reich. Marburg: Jonas.Google Scholar
Teichmann, Frank, 1983. Der Mensch und sein Tempel. Megalithkultur in Irland, England und der Bretagne: die drei vorchristlichen Kulturarten in ihren Grundzügen. Stuttgart: Urachhaus.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1995. Monuments, Materiality and Modernity. Paper given to the Department of Archaeology, University of Wales, Lampeter, 22.11.1995.Google Scholar
Thomas, Julian, 1996. Time, Culture and Identity. An interpretive archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thorsen, Sven, 1985. Julianehøj – Lidt om den arkæologiske undersøgelse af et politisk monument i græstørv og marmor. (Fortidsminder 1985) Antikvariske studier 7: 9–24.Google Scholar
Tilley, Christopher, 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Tilley, Christopher, 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic. Early Prehistoric Societies in Southern Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G., 1990. Monumental architecture: a thermodynamic explanation of symbolic behaviour. World Archaeology 22 (2): 119–131.Google Scholar
Vansina, Jan, 1985. Oral Tradition as History. London: Currey.Google Scholar
Walsh, Kevin, 1992. The Representation of the Past. Museums and heritage in the postmodern world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weissmann, Karl, 1991. Schwarze Fahnen, Runenzeichen: Die Entwicklung der politischen Symbolik der Deutschen Rechten zwischen 1890 und 1945. Düsseldorf: Droste.Google Scholar
Whitley, James, 1995. Tomb cult and hero cult. The uses of the past in Archaic Greece. In Spencer, N. (ed.), Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology. Bridging the ‘Great Divide’: 43–63. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P., 1985. Competition and co-operation. In Wiseman, T. P. (ed.), Roman Political Life 90 BC–AD 69: 3–19. Exeter: University of Exeter (Exeter Studies in History 7).Google Scholar
Woodburn, James, 1982. Egalitarian societes. Man n. s. 17:431–51.Google Scholar