Chapter 9

Culture, Tradition and the Settlement Burials

of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture
Daniela Hofmann and Penny Bickle

The Problem
Culture has had a rough time recently. It has been denounced by archaeologists
and anthropologists alike, either because it has been simplistically opposed to
nature (e.g. Thomas 1996, 1315; Ingold 2000, 2931), or, more importantly for
this paper, because it creates false expectations of uniformity or cultural authenticity
in a groups social life. For instance, Cliffords (1988, 10) definition of culture as
a deeply compromised idea I cannot yet do without is followed by an eloquent
challenge to the view that links culture to tradition, persistence and collectivity and
opposes it to art, history and the particular. The normal state of culture, it is argued,
is to be contested, to have permeable boundaries, and to never stand still. In the
messiness of daily existence, where different interest groups with shifting memberships appropriate and strategically deploy symbols, it seems overly abstract to
speak of a unity of meaning or purpose (e.g. Kuper 1999, 121; Barnard and Spencer
1996, 141; Ingold 1994, 330; Turner 1993).
However, in spite of these vitriolic attacks, culture has refused to go away. This
is as true for archaeology as it is for anthropology. For the latter, Sahlins (1999,
2000) has repeatedly come to the defence of culture, characterising it as a set of
shared understandings which make social action possible. Culture furnishes the
conventional categories and concepts which are then made actual and referential in
the course of the situated actions of people (Sahlins 2000, 28391; see also Giddens
1984). This allows ample room for different perceptions, but not everything in the
contest is contested (Sahlins 2000, 488) there must be a minimal shared basis of
mutual intelligibility for contestation to work. To paraphrase Ingold (1994, 330),
people may not live in bounded cultures, but they still live culturally, they navigate
their way through the world in a specific style. Culture lives in the actions of its
participants, not in a set of abstract rules that can be challenged at will. It is because

P. Bickle(*)
Department of Archaeology and Conservation, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
e-mail:bicklepf@cf.ac.uk
B.W. Roberts and M. Vander Linden (eds.), Investigating Archaeological Cultures:
Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6970-5_9,
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

183

184

D. Hofmann and P. Bickle

of this interpenetration between shared practice and novelty that change and a certain
fuzziness of boundaries are part and parcel of a culture, without this implying a
total lack of coherence (Sahlins 2000, 290; see also Rosaldo 1989).
This is a rather selective glimpse of a vast anthropological discussion, but it
shows that the concept of culture there, at least, is not yet obsolete. It is not some
universal and abstract standard of behaviour and more of a pool of resources that is
fluid, but not limitless. It is the set of shared categories which enable meaningful
action, and can be altered as it becomes implicated in specific projects. With its
focus on instantiation in specific, materially grounded actions, this definition of
culture could be made to work in archaeology. Yet in our experience at least, this is
not the way the culture concept has been employed.
The following paper introduces the way culture has been discussed in our chosen
case study, the Linearbandkeramik (LBK; c. 56004900 cal bc; Fig.9.1), the first
Neolithic culture over large areas of Central and Western Europe. Here, culture is
often used as an abstract benchmark against which certain kinds of practices can be
compared, generally unfavourably. In the long run, this has perpetuated the interpretation of the LBK as a somewhat static and unproblematic entity, internally
coherent and with clearly defined beginnings and ends. Using settlement burials
from two LBK regions, Lower Bavaria and the Paris Basin, we argue that to classify
such practices as low status or marginal is to miss their impact in the communities
in which they are carried out. However, burial practices like any other form of
social action are not mechanically reproduced according to static codes and their
salience to the investigation of culture lies in the way LBK settlement burials speak
to both broader traditions and local practices. While drawing from a shared set of
possible forms of expression, the burials are made to matter at an intimate social
scale, which introduces variation and local trajectories. It is only once we come to
terms with this fact that we can begin to rethink how culture can retain interpretative
significance in the kinds of archaeologies we are trying to write.

Fig.9.1 Distribution of the LBK across Europe. Case study areas are (A) the Paris Basin; (B) Lower
Bavaria (after Jeunesse 1997, 10)

9 Culture, Tradition and the Settlement Burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture

185

Archaeological Cultures: Performing the LBK

The LBK is perhaps the classic archaeological culture, as its material repertoire
consists of a certain style of houses, economy, burial, pottery, stone tools and so
on constantly recurring together (Childe 1929, vvi). Although it is generally
accepted that in its later phases, the LBK becomes increasingly regionalised
(cf. Modderman 1988; Gronenborn 1999; Sommer 2001), this phenomenon has
still effortlessly been subsumed in universalising narratives. The LBK begins as
very homogenous in its earliest phase (e.g. Sommer 2001) and then progressively
fragments, giving rise to the geographically more circumscribed cultures of the
Middle Neolithic. As a general trajectory, this is valid everywhere in the LBK.
There is little discussion of how, or even whether, this process would have been
perceived and evaluated on the ground by the individuals and communities
involved. For this reason, narratives derived from one area of the LBK, be they
about the symbolic dimensions of the house (Bradley 2001), personhood and the
body (Jones 2005) or the violent end of the LBK in the face of climatic instability
(Golitko and Keeley 2006; Gronenborn 2007), are assumed to be valid throughout.
Therefore, while it seems we can deal with differences in material culture as a
classificatory tool, we are less good at coping with difference in historical trajectories of change.
As a result, LBK culture has increasingly become something almost metaphysical. Somewhere, there is an ideal LBK pot, or house, or burial against which
regionalisation or chronological change can be defined as a deviation. This ideal
material does not exist, yet it exerts considerable power. It is used to marginalise
some areas or practices, to construe them as somehow out of line. Often, this is
combined with a focus on big questions, such as the MesolithicNeolithic transition,
where it becomes crucial to identify just how real LBK a given practice is (for a
critique, see Robb and Miracle 2007).
This can, for instance, be seen in the ways in which two ceramic types contemporary to the LBK, La Hoguette and Limburg, are utilised in the discussion of
the transition. These ceramic traditions are known almost exclusively from their
presence on LBK sites (or entirely so in the case of Limburg) (Constantin 1985;
Jeunesse 1987, 2000; Lning etal. 1989; van Berg 1990; Constantin and Blanchet
1998; Manen and Mazurie de Keroualin 2003). Considered as representative of
terminal Mesolithic groups by virtue of their difference from LBK ceramics, when
these pots are found they remain resolutely separated from the rest of the LBK
assemblage in the archaeological report (see also Thomas 1996, 114). Similarly,
the presence of wild animals on LBK sites continues to be regarded as a transitional
practice or a Mesolithic throwback. Thus, hunters are considered to have a different identity and a lower status compared to the more LBK herders (Hachem 2000).
This is seen as part of a long-term tension, resolved only in later Neolithic contexts
when hunting is finally seen to give way to herding and to retain only a symbolic
significance (Sidra 2000; Tresset 2005). In the case of recent isotopic studies,
non-locals in burial assemblages have sometimes been identified as hunter-gatherers,

186

D. Hofmann and P. Bickle

an interpretation then hypothetically confirmed through the accompanying grave

goods (Price etal. 2001; Bentley etal. 2002, 2003; Price and Bentley 2005; see
also Bickle and Hofmann 2007).
The difficulty with this approach is that variations in the archaeological assemblages become deviations from an imagined norm, which are reified as either
regional or inauthentic cultural practices. Narratives of the MesolithicNeolithic
transition are thus reduced to explaining what particular patterns of material represent, with some aspects of the material world being seen as more informative than
others. It is as a reaction to these kinds of narratives that, in our research so far, we
have chosen an alternative focus, writing mainly about the construction of identities
and communities in daily practice and intimate settings (Hofmann 2006; Bickle
2008; Bickle and Hofmann 2009). It seemed easier in those instances to trace the
specific histories of the multi-tradition communities (Gronenborn 2007, 84; see
also Zvelebil 2004; Whittle 1996, 2003) that are now increasingly seen to characterise the LBK. Writing about the small-scale meant paying attention to difference and valuing it.
In these kinds of narratives, archaeological traces should not be seen as a passive
reflection in the material world of an idealised culture existing only in Neolithic
peoples heads. Rather, as Barrett (2001, 156) argues, material remains take a far
more active role in the constitution of past societies, providing the material condition
which necessarily and actively facilitated certain strategies of social practice. This is
to encounter the material remains of the past through how it is inhabited, or in our
terminology, performed. The notion of performance as understood here is largely
founded on Bourdieus (1977, 1990) practice-based approaches to social life.
Practice and performance are an essential part of Bourdieus (1990, 967)
conception of the habitus, in which physical action in the world is not a mere
execution as if performing a character from a play, but rather it is that active
presence in the world which directly commands words and deeds without
ever deploying [the performance] as a spectacle. This means that, rather than
habitus being the rules within which communities live, creating the boundaries of
social possibilities, it is the framework which enables action in the world.
Therefore, performance is at once both the producer and regulator of discourse in
the world (Butler 1993; for archaeological discussions, see Meskell 1996; Pearson
and Shanks 2001). While these discussions show a convergence with some of the
anthropological arguments rehearsed above, their application to the LBK specifically remains limited.
The challenge is therefore to address the role of bodily remembered practices in
carrying forward the performances which form LBK daily life, ultimately creating
our archaeological entities. In this kind of framework, LBK materials are not a
direct record of either a perfect or imperfect performance of LBK culture, but rather
the contexts in which life occurred. We need to consider how the assembled
evidence facilitated the continuation of social relationships and led to regionally
diverging trajectories in how material culture was employed. The focus of this
paper, therefore, is the tension between the existence of culture as similarity of
action within a social grouping and the material remains which constitute our

9 Culture, Tradition and the Settlement Burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture

187

archaeological knowledge base. We expect differences and similarities in the

associations of practice and material objects but the challenging and interesting
questions lie in the different social actions and mentalities which led to their creation.
For this purpose, we focus on the interpretation of burial practices.

The Dead on Settlements

The classic LBK burial rite is inhumation in cemeteries with a specific range of
grave goods, including stone tools, pots and shell beads (Jeunesse 1997). This
remains the benchmark against which other kinds of burial, for instance, interment
on settlements, cremation or fragmentation and secondary burial, can be compared.
For cemeteries, the presence of grave goods and the normative tendencies to choose
a specific position and orientation for the deceased (crouched on the left side with
the head to the east) are generally interpreted as a sign of piety and care. Other
kinds of burials are defined by the lack of one or more of these attributes and hence
valued negatively (e.g. Veit 1992, 1996; Jeunesse 1997; Lning 1997). Repetition,
it seems, shows care while variation implies a lack of it. Again, the terms of this
discussion encourage the definition of culture-wide norms.
Using examples from Lower Bavaria and the Paris Basin (Fig.9.1), we wish to
examine further the variations observable even within each region, letalone across
the whole of the LBK distribution. We are explicitly focusing on settlement burials,
partly to challenge the idea that they are the graves of the unimportant dead, but
similar points could also be made in an investigation of cemeteries (see e.g.
Hofmann 2009, 22223). It is our aim to explore the specific meshing of the LBK as
a widely shared perspective on the world with small-scale, face-to-face engagement of
a specific set of people in the world.

Double Burials as a Local Tradition at Otzing

The largest number of settlement burials from a single site in Lower Bavaria comes
from the mid to late LBK settlement at Otzing near Deggendorf. Rescue excavations
uncovered 45 burials scattered between roughly 30 house plans (Schmotz 2000,
2002; Schmotz and Weber 2000). Few of the burials can be assigned to a particular
building. Many are located at roughly equal distance between two houses, others
are loosely scattered on free spaces between buildings. There is also a tighter cluster
of seven badly preserved inhumations near the north end of the site. Schmotz (2002,
267) mentions two isolated skulls, but gives no further detail.
On one level, the interments at Otzing correspond to the general characteristics
identified as typical for LBK settlement burials (cf. Veit 1996; Orschiedt 1998).
Many of the pits containing burials are general refuse pits, and many of the deceased
receive few or no grave goods. This is especially true for children and juveniles who,

188

D. Hofmann and P. Bickle

in line with archaeologists expectations, constitute the majority of burials (25).

The bias towards female burials identified on other sites (Veit 1996) is, however, not
repeated here (Schmotz and Weber 2000). The position and orientation of bodies is
also less standardised than on cemetery sites. Moreover, there is a particularly high
incidence of double burials, and these form the focus of discussion here.
Double inhumations can occur on cemeteries (cf. Peschel 1992), but are generally more common among settlement burials. At Otzing, their proportion is even
higher than usual, and this can form the starting point for drawing out performative links and contrasts. This is all the more pertinent since double burials
have in the past been interpreted as merely a labour-saving device to dispose of
the least important members of a community, mostly children (Veit 1996, 204).
This makes sense within the general and rather abstract LBK-wide models of status
and prestige presented above, but it can be challenged when we focus down to the
tableaux created in the course of the rites and on the performances occasioned by
these deaths. This can reveal a much subtler interplay between wider norms and
local traditions.
One striking contrast at Otzing is between burials whose occupants are facing
away from each other and those which share the same orientation. The resulting
picture is quite different in each case, and we may speculate that the relationships
that existed between the deceased may be responsible for this. For example, the
grave of a mature person and small child, probably both female, gives a cramped
impression (Fig.9.2). Although there would have been ample room for the girl to
the right of the older woman, their bodies were not arranged side by side. Rather,
the womans head has been squeezed tightly against the edge of the cut and her legs
have been folded back onto her thighs to create room for the girl. The girl is even
more tightly crouched and is facing away from the woman, even avoiding touching
her knees. Thus, while the bodies share the same grave pit, direct physical contact
seems deliberately minimised.
Grave 19, containing two children, gives a very different impression (Fig.9.3).
The two bodies are not only buried in the same position and facing in the same
direction, but the older child is also embracing the younger, suggesting a relationship of intimacy or even tenderness. This arrangement is also observed in the few
double burials from Lower Bavarian cemeteries, such as Aiterhofen and Sengkofen
(Nieszery 1995). Hence, only one of the possible variations on double burials
evidenced at settlements was replicated in cemeteries. Rather than a complete contrast between the two contexts, we can perhaps suggest a focus on more stereotypical practices in cemeteries, perhaps linked to a different, wider audience present at
the time of burial.
Otzings grave 27 again drives home the point of variability on settlement sites.
The two children buried here lie on the sherds of a smashed coarse ware pot. Their
heads are in opposite directions, but their legs overlap, creating tension between the
intimacy of touch and the antithetical positioning. The closest parallel comes not
from another double burial, but from the sequential interment of two children in
the same pit complex, in close proximity, but with their heads facing north and
south, respectively.

9 Culture, Tradition and the Settlement Burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture

189

Fig.9.2 Otzing, grave 10: double burial of an older adult woman and child (after Schmotz and
Weber 2000, 29)

Graves 22 and 29 may show evidence of later manipulation, which is also

implied by the isolated skulls reported from Otzing (see Schmotz and Weber 2000,
25). The two older children/juveniles in grave 29, for instance, were buried successively in irregular positions. It is not clear how much time elapsed between the two
interments, but the first burial may have been disturbed by the second, resulting in
the displacement of the head and the removal of the arms. It seems unlikely that this
is solely due to the rescue conditions of the excavation. The meaning of juxtaposing
the two bodies in this way, at almost right angles, is unclear, but may well dramatise
the specific circumstances of the deaths or a particular relationship.
The differences observed between these burials militate against a single explanation, such as carelessness or labour-saving devices. What we are seeing is a set of
practices including the positioning and orientation of two bodies relative to each
other, the selection of a specific spot on the site and the potential for further manipulation at a later date being selectively deployed on different occasions. Idealised
versions of relationships or more idiosyncratic dramatisations can both occur.

190

D. Hofmann and P. Bickle

N
Fig.9.3 Otzing, grave 19: double burial of two children (after Schmotz and Weber 2000, 29)

We can even begin to discuss the possibility of local traditions, although ideally
this would require more detail on the relative sequence of the burials and the overall
duration of the site. In contrast to nearby cemeteries, such as Aiterhofen (Nieszery
1995), the burials at Otzing form few distinct clusters or groupings, and none of a
size comparable to burial grounds. We hence cannot really apply the idea of family
groups returning to specific plots (cf. Nieszery 1995, 66). Yet, graves reference
each other in subtler ways, through tableaux and practices. How individuals are
positioned relative to each other, for instance, links graves from different parts
of the site: children in antithetical orientations, bodies arranged at right angles or
parallel to each other provide recurrent choices. The practice of manipulation is
again relatively frequent.

9 Culture, Tradition and the Settlement Burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture

191

It seems likely, then, that specific performances and dramatisations were

remembered, perhaps keenly for a while, and these provided the template against
which other rites were performed. In contrast to cemeteries, places set aside for the
dead, the remembrance of settlement burials would rely on encountering grave sites
in the course of everyday routines and on the repeated choice of certain elements
of performance. This meshing of significant places and actions means that, while
individual settlement burials may have been forgotten over time, the community at
Otzing could develop a micro-tradition in which some practices were considered
more effective and appropriate, and were hence repeated more often. It is these
idiosyncratic and unquantifiable factors that result in the observed pattern of burials
being at once similar to LBK-wide norms for instance, in demographic composition or provision with grave goods and at the same time different, for example, in
the frequency of double inhumations (see also Sangmeister 1999). The burials at
Otzing are a unique set of theatralisations designed to cope with specific, emotionally charged events. They draw on a certain pool of practices, but to judge them by
how well they conform to static norms is to miss the point of their embeddedness
in a specific local sequence.

The Performance and Context of Child

Burials in the Paris Basin
In the case of the Paris Basin, a number of significant differences in the context of
burial and the associated rites can be identified (Jeunesse 1997; Constantin and
Blanchet 1998; Constantin etal. 2003; Pariat 2007). Inhumation in cemeteries was
not practised and the gendered division in grave goods was not as strongly marked;
instead, burials are found in settlement contexts, and there is a strong sense of performance associated with the time of interment (Bickle 2008).
Furthermore, the placing of child burials close to longhouses, a highly varied
aspect of inhumation rites across the LBK, is also found in the Paris Basin (Veit
1996). This practice has often been commented on (Veit 1996; Whittle 1996;
Jeunesse 1997; Bradley 2001; Constantin et al. 2003; Jones 2005; Pariat 2007),
though it is usually discussed away from the context of the longhouse. Bradley
(2001, 53) has attempted a connection between burials and architecture. However,
the lack of detailed consideration of the actual place of burial around the house, the
demographic variability of the persons thus treated in different areas of the LBK
and the different practices that constituted an inhumation has led to an overly broad
connection between some of the dead and architecture, which in this form does not
hold true for the whole of the LBK.
The problem with this approach to the archaeology is that such practices become
homogenised as one particular category of evidence. Rather than comparing the
child burials to an idealised form of burial, it is far more productive to think about
their context in the settlement and the performances associated with the moment
of interment. For instance, child burials in the Paris Basin are actually very varied.
In two cases, at Berry-au-Bac, Le Chemin de la Pcherie and Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes,

192

D. Hofmann and P. Bickle

10m

10m

Fig.9.4 The child burials (in grey) found inside longhouses in the Paris Basin. (a) Burial 308 in
house300 from Berry-au-Bac Le Chemin de la Pcherie, Aisne (after Dubouloz etal. 1995, 29).
(b) Burial 315 in house 330 from Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes, Aisne (after Ilett etal. 1980, 32)

Les Fontinettes, the burials were placed in pits inside the houses (Fig.9.4; Farruggia
and Guichard 1995; Ilett et al. 1980). There have been suggestions that child
burials may have been placed in the loam pits next to houses, which also received
waste from daily life at the settlement, because they were of little value or were
given little attention in burial (Jeunesse 1997, 98). This assumption has been made
partly because they have received far fewer grave goods than adult burials, but this
lack of grave goods conceals the significant effort that goes into child burials.
Frequently, burials have their own grave cut and even when placed in the loam
pit, they are in an area apparently set aside. For example, the child interred in the
northern loam pit of house 245 at Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes Les Fontinettes is provided

9 Culture, Tradition and the Settlement Burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture

193

with its own area, which is prepared for the burial by the sprinkling of ochre on
the bowl of the cut (see Fig.9.5; Coudart and Plateaux 1978). Each burial, therefore, had its own particular location around the house, whether inside, by the walls
or in the loam pits.

Fig.9.5 Burial 271 from the northern loam pit of house 245. The grey shading around the skeleton
indicates the presence of ochre (after Soudsk etal. 1982, 75)

194

D. Hofmann and P. Bickle

Not only were the burials given a particular space in the settlement, but the rite
of burial may have been fairly dramatic. The natural soil into which the burials were
placed is alluvial silt and frequently creamy white or yellow in colour (Ilett etal.
1982; Chartier 1991). Therefore, the presence of reddy orange ochre would have
stood out particularly well, distinguishing the space of the burial from the rest of
the soil. Burials are also occasionally furnished with beads, which were frequently
white (or grey) in colour, as they were made from limestone, shell (including
Spondylus) and bone (Jeunesse 1997; Constantin et al. 2003; Bonnardin 2003).
These colours may have metaphorically stood for bodily fluids (such as blood or
semen) or, through the associations of particular colours, drawn on complex relations
between material substances and the body of the deceased (Bori 2002, 39; Jones
and MacGregor 2002, 11), thus playing a significant part in the range of possible
performances at the grave side.
The particular efficacy of this event is local, immediate and within the knowledge
of those who threw ochre, placed the body in the grave cut or stood and watched.
However, these rites were not repeated every time, but rather were part of the
possibilities present when each burial was made. Therefore, the household or the
community chose the appropriate place for the deceased, made time and space in
the daily round and chose to follow or ignore tradition. The implication is that each
burial is not an impartial representation of social order or culture, but a place in
time and space in which emotion, memory and intention meshed together with the
expectations of childhood in the Paris Basin.
The onus on the archaeologist is not to explain this particular practice as a
means of identifying the extent to which communities in the Paris Basin conformed to general LBK rules, but rather to explore how these practices were
inhabited (Barrett 2001). With this approach, the connections between child
burials and architecture become more interesting. Bradley (2001, 53) has previously suggested that the presence of child burials by houses may imply a link
between houses and the dead. However, rather than simply arguing that houses
represent the ancestors, Bradley (2001) implies that they are part of a connected
world-view in which the orientation of burials and houses forms an orientation for
LBK life on its origins, built around the direction along which the first farmers
migrated out of central Europe. The discussion of the child burials above can now
elaborate on this point, illustrating that childhood may have been in some way tied into
the architectural space of the house and the practices of building and using longhouses. The longhouse would have provided a particular forum for daily life and
the formation of social relationships; the mediation of death in this setting may
have evoked the solidarity of community in the space of the settlement. However,
even within the Paris Basin this is subject to manipulation and creative responses,
in which it would be difficult to define an essential practice that could be identified
as meaning one thing or representing one identity.
These creative responses to the interplay of social relationships and architecture
will have had a considerable temporal dimension at the settlement. LBK longhouses
are generally considered to have lasted for just 2030years or one generation, with
abandoned houses left to decay in situ (Coudart 1998; Last 1996; Whittle 1996; but

9 Culture, Tradition and the Settlement Burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture

195

see Rck 2009, 17980). Settlements were thus composed of tangible material reminders
of past generations that could be engaged with on a daily basis. In this sense, time
was thick (Bori 2003, 48) at all LBK sites, but the responses to such an engagement
would have been tempered by the shared memories held by the community. These
have the potential to have been both oral and material (Bloch 1998, 109).
Harrisons (2004) study on the relationship between former Aboriginal inhabitants of the settlement of Dennawan and its archaeological remains focuses on the
relationships between shared memories and the interactions between people and
objects. Specifically, Harrison (2004, 199200) emphasises the importance of
making physical contact with the site during visits through touch, which inspires
particular emotions and physical responses. Thus, Harrison (2004, 214) states that
such memories materialise only with re-enactment as individuals tell stories in
reaction to their bodily engagement with the site. Burial near houses would have
drawn upon such acts of collective rememberings, building local narratives around
the house. These, as much as any perceived rule, may have encouraged the repetition of particular ways of doing things. The striking association between children
and pits very near or in the house, which is not repeated in all areas of the LBK (see
Hofmann 2009, 222), is the product of recurrent practices that had come to make
sense locally, built up through the micro-chronology of individual episodes of grief,
burial and commemoration. Small-scale and intimate, each child burial would have
blended living memory and tradition together. Therefore, the social interactions
around longhouses were not passive representations of a single LBK identity, but
rather a mediation of the complex interplay of daily life, memory and identity,
together building up the time depth of settlements and their specific biographies.

Conclusion: Anchoring Culture in the Local

Looking at different aspects of funerary rites in different regions blurs the associations between different identities and burial practices. It shows overlapping, but also
diverging trends within LBK communities, both among groups at the different ends
of its distribution and those living in the same place (Hofmann 2006, 2009; Bickle
2008). The study of burials is, therefore, at its most interesting and productive when
it is considered as part of the formation of various scales of identity, community and
temporality at the settlement. Social life is a complex interaction between people,
materials and environment, and we only do justice to these patterns when the boundaries between different categories of evidence are viewed as permeable and variety
in practice is allowed visibility in the archaeological dialogue. The apparent orthodoxy of the LBK is, therefore, undermined by close and detailed attention to its
archaeological remains. If a united LBK is assumed, then the variations become
problematic and require considerable explanation by us before we have even begun
to ask questions of LBK life itself. However, this is a problem of our own making:
we have mistakenly assumed that unity in human behaviour is produced as a result
of fixed cultural rules (Bourdieu 2002).

196

D. Hofmann and P. Bickle

Moddermans (1988) conclusion that the LBK was characterised by diversity

in uniformity manages to capture some of the qualities of LBK traditions. Both at
Otzing and in the Paris Basin, burial practices were guided by an interplay of variation and more widely held ideas. Working within and upon the traditions provided
by shared living, communities in the LBK were not passively repeating static
identities or senses of belonging. The act of sprinkling ochre before the burial in
the Paris Basin or smashing pots at Otzing were events caught up in the mediation
of appropriate ways of acting and feeling. In this sense, the creation of tradition
comes about through collective memory work by a group of people.
Remembering is not a solitary activity (Middleton and Edwards 1990). A relation to the past is given in the participation in recurrent practices, as well as in more
formal instances of recollection. Both are rooted in a wider field of interaction,
which influences the content, context and occasion of remembering, drawing out
some aspects as central to the identity and integrity of a community (Middleton and
Edwards 1990, 1017). Linked to daily practice and to dialogue with others,
remembering is partial and subject to change. It is here that tradition is transformed,
whether accidentally (Mizoguchi 1993) or through selectively emphasising some
aspects at the expense of others. This link with practice also accords objects and
places a crucial part in grounding memory work in daily experience and investing
it with emotional salience (e.g. Radley 1990; Kchler 1987, 1993; Battaglia 1990,
186). Therefore, traditions are not just a repetitive representation, but an openended practice of remembering (Ingold 2000, 148), significant at various
levels of social interaction. These practices selectively draw upon shared items
of material culture or ideas of appropriateness to play out specific instances of
situated actions.
For us, the interest in studying culture hence lies in the way in which certain
kinds of materials and their deployment in practice create something akin to a
pool of resources, which are in turn drawn upon and transformed in specific
instances. The significance and emotional salience of these materials and practices
is of necessity local, but as a medium of expression they are more widely shared.
In contrast, the material definition so often adopted for culture leads to a system of
strict rules, which then limits the archaeologist to focus on the explanation of
difference. This approach has diverted attention away from the significant questions of how the LBK way of life found coherence within both the local scale and
the widely shared network and how different scales of social action can best be
meshed in our accounts of the past.
Admittedly, and partly as a consequence of these limiting research priorities, the
ways in which shared pools of resources could have been created are so far rather
vague. For the LBK, we have shown that it is at the local level of this network
that the habitus or LBK world-view must first be addressed. The insights provided
by localised case studies, however, go beyond the local, as broadly shared practices
find their meaning at this scale. It is here that we feel research and theoretical
effort in LBK studies should concentrate. We must get beyond using culture as a
divisive entity for the classification and evaluation of practices, a tool to measure
conformity, and come to terms with its messy involvement at various social scales.

9 Culture, Tradition and the Settlement Burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture

197

Culture should become an enabling concept in our narratives, a way to discuss

networks, connections and similarities between specific projects and practices
carried out at different times and places. In this guise, the concept of culture can
become once more a challenging and fruitful starting point in the more nuanced
archaeologies we seek to write.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the editors for inviting us to write this paper and for
their comments and suggestions. Thanks also to Stevie Miller and Ian Dennis for their help with
Figs.9.2 and 9.3.

References
Barnard, A. and Spencer, J. (1996). Culture. In Barnard, A. and Spencer, J. (eds), Encyclopedia of
social and cultural anthropology, Routledge, London, pp. 13643.
Barrett, J. (2001). Agency, the duality of structure, and the problem of the archaeological record.
In Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological theory today, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 14164.
Battaglia, D. (1990). On the Bones of the Serpent. Person, memory, and mortality in Sabarl island
society, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Bentley, R.A., Price, T.D., Lning, J., Gronenborn, D. and Fullagar, P.D. (2002). Prehistoric
migration in Europe: strontium isotope analysis of early Neolithic skeletons. Current
Anthropology 43: 799804.
Bentley, R.A., Krause, R., Price, T.D. and Kaufman, B. (2003). Human mobility at the early
Neolithic settlement of Vaihingen, Germany: evidence from strontium isotope analysis.
Archaeometry 45: 48196.
Bickle, P. (2008). The life and death of the longhouse: daily life during and after the
Linearbandkeramik in the Paris Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
Bickle, P. and Hofmann, D. (2007). Moving on: the contribution of isotope studies to the early
Neolithic of Central Europe. Antiquity 81: 102941.
Bickle, P. and Hofmann, D. (2009). Researching across borders. In Hofmann, D. and Bickle, P.
(eds), Creating communities: new advances in central European Neolithic research.
Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 110.
Bloch, M. (1998). How we think they think. Anthropological approaches to cognition, memory and
literacy, Westerview Press, Oxford.
Bonnardin, S. (2003). La parure funraire des 6e et 5e millnaires avant J.-C. dans le Bassin
parsisien et la plaine du Rhin suprieur: traces dusure, fonctionnement et fonction des objets
de parure. In Chambon, P. and Leclerc, J. (eds), Les pratiques funraires Nolithiques avant
3500 av. J.-C. en France et dans les rgions limitrophes, ditions Errance, Paris, pp. 99113.
Bori, D. (2002). Apotropaism and the temporality of colours: colourful Mesolithic-Neolithic
seasons in the Danube Gorges. In Jones, A. and MacGregor, G. (eds), Colouring the past,
Berg, Oxford, pp. 2343.
Bori, D. (2003). Deep time metaphor: mnemonic and apotropaic practices at Lepenski Vir.
Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 4674.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (translated by R. Nice, first published 1972),
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). A logic of practice (translated by R. Nice, first published 1980), Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Habitus. In Hillier, J. and Rooksby, E. (eds), Habitus: a sense of place,
Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 2734.
Bradley, R. (2001). Orientations and origins: a symbolic dimension of the longhouse in Neolithic
Europe. Antiquity 75: 506.

198

D. Hofmann and P. Bickle

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of sex. Routledge, London.
Chartier, M. (1991). Paloenvironnements de la valle de lAisne lHolocne. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, Universit de Paris 7, Paris.
Childe, V.G. (1929). The Danube in Prehistory. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture. 20th century ethnography, literature and art.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Constantin, C. (1985). Fin du Ruban, cramique du Limbourg et post-Ruban: le Nolithique le
plus ancien en Bassin parisien et en Hainaut. British Archaeological Reports International
Series 273, Oxford.
Constantin, C. and Blanchet, J.-C. (1998). Le nord de la France (Bassin parisien). In Guilaine, J. (ed.),
Atlas du Nolithique Europen: lEurope occidentale, University of Lige, Lige, pp. 585 651.
Constantin, C., Farruggia, J.-P., Bonnardin, S., Guichard, Y. and Sidra, I. (2003). Les tombes
rubanes de la valle de lAisne. Prsentation. In Chambon, P. and Leclerc, J. (eds), Les pratiques funraires Nolithiques avant 3500 av. J.-C. en France et dans les rgions limitrophes,
ditions Errance, Paris, pp. 5563.
Coudart, A. (1998). Architecture et socit nolithique: Lunit et la variance de la maison
danubienne. ditions de la Maison des Sciences de LHomme, Paris.
Coudart, A. and Plateaux, M. (1978). Le site Nolithique et Chalcolithique de Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes
(Les Fontinettes- les Gravelines). Les Fouilles Protohistoriques dans la Valle de lAisne 6:
3549.
Dubouloz, J., Le Bolloch, M. and Robert, B. (1995). Historique des fouilles: Les fouilles anciennes
sur le commune de Berry-au-Bac. In Ilett, M. and Plateaux, M. (eds), Le site Nolithique de
Berry-au-Bac Le Chemin de la Pcherie, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris,
pp. 2338.
Farruggia, J-P. and Guichard, Y. 1995. Les spultures. In Ilett, M. and Plateaux, M. (eds), Le site
nolithique de Berry-au-Bac le Chemin de la Pcherie, Centre national de la recherch
scientifique, Paris, pp. 15764.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Golitko, M. and Keeley, L. (2006). Beating ploughshares back into swords: warfare in the
Linearbandkeramik. Antiquity 81: 33242.
Gronenborn, D. (1999). Variations on a basic theme: the transition to farming in southern central
Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13: 123210.
Gronenborn, D. (2007). Climate change and socio-political crises: some cases from Neolithic
central Europe. In Pollard, T. and Banks, I. (eds), War and sacrifice: studies in the archaeology
of conflict, Brill, Leiden, pp. 1332.
Hachem, L. (2000). New observations on the Bandkeramik house and social organization.
Antiquity 74: 30812.
Harrison, R. (2004). Shared landscape: archaeologies of attachment and the pastoral industry in
New South Wales. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
Hofmann, D. (2006). Being Neolithic: life, death and transformation in Neolithic Lower Bavaria.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
Hofmann, D. (2009). Cemetery and settlement burials in the Lower Bavarian LBK. In Hofmann,
D. and Bickle, P. (eds), Creating communities: new advances in central European Neolithic
research. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 22034.
Ilett, M., Plateaux, M. and Coudart, A. (1980). Le site nolithique et chalcolithique de Cuiry-lsChaudardes Les Fontinettes, les Gravelines 19791980. Les fouilles protohistoriques dans
la valle de lAisne 8: 2137.
Ilett, M., Constantin, C., Coudart, A. and Demoule, J.-P. (1982). The late Bandkeramik of the Aisne
valley: environment and spatial organisation. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 15: 4561.
Ingold, T. (1994). Introduction to culture. In Ingold, T. (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of anthropology, Routledge, London, pp. 32949.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill.
Routledge, London.

9 Culture, Tradition and the Settlement Burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture

199

Jeunesse, C. (1987). La cramique de La Hoguette: un nouvel lment non-ruban du Nolithique

ancien de lEurope du Nord-Ouest. Cahiers Alsacians dArchologie, dArt et dHistoire 26: 533.
Jeunesse, C. (1997). Pratiques funraires au Nolithique ancien: spultures et ncropoles danubiennes 55004900 av. J. C. ditions Errance, Paris.
Jeunesse, C. (2000). Les composantes autochtone et danubienne en Europe centrale et occidentale
entre 5500 et 4000 av. J.-C.: contacts, transferts, acculturations. In Richard, A., Cupillard, C.,
Richard, H. and Thvenin, A. (eds), Les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs dEurope occidentale
(130005500 av. J.-C.): actes du colloque international de Besanon, Universit de Besanon,
Besanon, pp. 36178.
Jones, A. (2005). Lives in fragments? Personhood and the European Neolithic. Journal of Social
Archaeology 5: 193224.
Jones, A. and MacGregor, G. (2002). Introduction: wonderful thingscolour studies in archaeology
from Munsell to materiality. In Jones, A. and MacGregor, G. (eds), Colouring the past, Berg,
Oxford, 121.
Kchler, S. (1987). Malangan: art and memory in a Melanesian society. Man 22: 23855.
Kchler, S. (1993). Landscape as memory: the mapping of process and its representation in a Melanesian
society. In Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape. Politics and perspectives, Berg, Oxford, pp. 85106.
Kuper, A. (1999). Culture: an anthropologists account. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Last, J. (1996). Neolithic houses: a central European perspective. In Darvill, T. and Thomas, J.
(eds), Neolithic houses in north-west Europe and beyond, Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 2740.
Lning, J. (1997). Wohin mit der Bandkeramik? Programmatische Bemerkungen zu einem
allgemeinen Problem am Beispiel Hessens. In Becker, C., Dunkelmann, M.-L., MetznerNebelsick, C., Peter-Rcher, H., Roeder, M. and Feran, B. (eds), Chronos. Beitrge zur
prhistorischen Archologie zwischen Nord- und Sdosteuropa. Festschrift fr Bernhard
Hnsel, Marie Leidorf, Espelkamp, pp. 2157.
Lning, J., Kloos, U. and Albert, S. (1989). Westliche Nachbarn der bandkeramischen Kultur: La
Hoguette und Limburg. Germania 67: 355420.
Manen, C. and Mazuri de Keroualin, K. (2003). Les concepts La Hoguette et Limburg: un
bilan des donnes. In Besse, M., Stahl Gretsch, L.-I. and Curdy, P. (eds), ConstellaSion: hommage Alain Gallay, Lausanne, Cahiers darchologie romande 95, pp. 11545.
Meskell, L. (1996). The somatisation of archaeology: institutions, discourses and corporeality.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 29: 116.
Middleton, D. and Edwards, D. 1990. Introduction. In Middleton, D. and Edwards, D. (eds), Collective
remembering, Sage, London, pp. 122.
Mizoguchi, K. (1993). Time in the reproduction of mortuary practices. World Archaeology
25: 22335.
Modderman, P.J.R. (1988). The Linear Pottery Culture: diversity in uniformity. Berichten van de
Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodermonderzoete, 38: 63139.
Nieszery, N. (1995). Linearbandkeramische Grberfelder in Bayern. Internationale Archologie
16, Marie Leidorf, Espelkamp.
Orschiedt, J. (1998). Bandkeramische Siedlungsbestattungen in Sdwestdeutschland.
Archologische und anthropologische Befunde. Marie Leidorf, Rahden.
Pariat, J.-G. (2007). Des morts sans tombe? Le cas des ossements humains en contexte non spulcral en Europe tempre entre les 6e et 3e millnaires av. J.-C, Interant. BAR International
Series 1683, Oxford.
Pearson, M. and Shanks, M. (2001). Theatre/archaeology. Routledge, London.
Peschel, C. (1992). Regel und Ausnahme. Linearbandkeramische Bestattungssitten in Deutschland
und angrenzenden Gebieten, unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Sonderbestattungen.
Internationale Archologie 9, Marie Leidorf, Buch am Erlbach.
Price, T.D., Bentley, R.A., Lning, J., Gronenborn, D. and Wahl, J. (2001). Prehistoric human
migration in the Linearbandkeramik of central Europe. Antiquity 75: 593603.
Price, T.D. and Bentley, R.A. (2005). Human mobility in the Linearbandkeramik: an archaeometric
approach. In Lning, J., Frirdich, C. and Zimmermann, A. (eds), Die Bandkeramik im 21.
Jahrhundert, Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden, pp. 20315.

200

D. Hofmann and P. Bickle

Radley, A. (1990). Artefacts, memory and a sense of the past. In Middleton, D. and Edwards, D.
(eds), Collective remembering, Sage, London, 4659.
Robb, J. and Miracle, P. (2007). Beyond migration versus acculturation: new models for the
spread of agriculture. In Whittle, A. and Cummings, V. (eds), Going over. The MesolithicNeolithic transition in north-west Europe, Oxford University Press for the British Academy,
Oxford, pp. 99115.
Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: the remaking of social analysis. Routledge, London.
Rck, O. (2009). New aspects and models for Bandkeramik settlement research. In Hofmann, D.
and Bickle, P. (eds), Creating communities: new advances in central European Neolithic
research. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 15985.
Sahlins, M. (1999). Two or three things that I know about culture. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 5: 399422.
Sahlins, M. (2000). Culture in practice. Selected essays. Zone Books, New-York.
Sangmeister, E. (1999). Zu Siedlungsbestattungen im Neolithikum Mitteleuropas. Germania 77:
66178.
Schmotz, K. (2000). Die altneolithische Siedlung von Otzing, Landkreis Deggendorf, Niederbayern.
Das Archologische Jahr in Bayern 2000: 147.
Schmotz, K. (2002). Bestattungsformen des 6. und 5. Jahrtausends im Landkreis Deggendorf
(Niederbayern) Erkenntnisse aus 20 Jahren kommunaler Denkmalpflege. Archeologick
Rozhledy 54: 26478.
Schmotz, K. and Weber, W. (2000). Untersuchungen in der linienbandkeramischen Siedlung von
Otzing, Lkr. Deggendorf. In Schmotz, K. (ed.), Vortrge des 18. Niederbayerischen
Archologentages, Marie Leidorf, Rahden, pp. 1537.
Sidra, I. (2000). Animaux domestiques, btes sauvages et objets en matires animals du Ruban
au Michelsberg: de lconomie aux symbols, des techniques la culture. Gallia Prhistoire 42:
10794.
Soudsk, B., Bayle, A., Beeching, A, Biquard, A., Boureux, M., Cleuziou, S., Constantin, C., Coudart,
A., Demoule, J.-P., Farruggia, J.-P. and Ilett, M. (1982). Lhabitat nolithique et chalcolithique
de Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes: Les Fontinettes-Les Gravelines (19721977). Revue Archologique
de Picardie, supplment 2: 57119.
Sommer, U. (2001). Hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: change
and persistence in the European early Neolithic. Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 24470.
Thomas, J. (1996). Time, culture and identity: an interpretive archaeology. Routledge, London.
Tresset, A. (2005). La place changeante des bovinsdans les bestiaires du Msolithique final et du
Nolithique dArmorique et des rgions adjacentes. In Marchand, G. and Tresset, A. (eds),
Unit et diversit des processus de Nolithisation sur la faade atlantique dEurope: 6e4e
millnaires av. J.-C., Socit Prhistorique Franaise, Paris, pp. 27386.
Turner, T. (1993). Anthropology and multiculturalism: what is anthropology that multiculturalists
should be mindful of it? Cultural Anthropology 8: 41129.
van Berg, P.-L. (1990). Cramique du Limburg et nolithisation en Europe du Nord-Ouest. In Cahen,
D. and Otte, M. (eds), Ruban et Cardial: actes du colloque de Lige, Novembre 1988,
Universit de Lige, Lige, pp. 16185.
Veit, U. (1992). Burials within settlements of the Linienbandkeramik and Stichbandkeramik
cultures of central Europe. On the social construction of death in early-Neolithic society.
Journal of European Archaeology 1: 10740.
Veit, U. (1996). Studien zum Problem der Siedlungsbestattung im europischen Neolithikum.
Waxmann, Mnster.
Whittle, A. (1996). Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Whittle, A. (2003). The archaeology of people: dimensions of Neolithic life. Routledge, London.
Zvelebil, M. (2004). The many origins of the LBK. In Lukes, A. and Zvelebil, M. (eds), LBK
Dialogues. Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture, British Archaeological
Reports International Series 1304, Oxford, pp. 183205.