Religion and society in the Bronze Age

not for reproduction or distribution77

10

Religion and society in the Bronze Age

Kristian Kristiansen

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF RELIGION: A HISTORICAL OUTLINE

Why is it that in archaeology religious interpretations are the focus of research in some periods, while neglected in others? To answer that question, let me begin by presenting a long- forgotten scholar. In 1963 Åke Ohlmarks presented a popular synthesis on rock art and religion during the Bronze Age. Originally a specialist of comparative religion, he drew on a corpus of religious knowledge that was beyond that possessed by contemporary archaeologists who did not wish to acquire it in any case. He continued a research tradi-tion founded by Oscar Almgren with his 1927 book Hällristningar och kultbruk (“Rock Carvings and Cult Practices”). In this book, an archaeologist drew on European folk-lore and comparative religion to gain a better understanding of Bronze Age religion, as manifested in rock art. Th is path- breaking book was part of a revival of cultural- historical studies, initiated by Gustav Kossina in the decades around 1900. Th e original spirit was now expanded to encompass archaeological interpretation throughout Europe, although with other interpretative perspectives, such as the study of religion.

Th e cultural- historical revival was a widespread phenomenon in the humanities and social sciences during this period, represented in anthropology by the works of Franz Boas and James Frazer in the USA and England, most notably in the twelve volumes of Th e Golden Bough (1993) by James Frazer that appeared between 1890 and 1915, later sum-marized in a single volume in 1922 which is still in print. In Vienna, the Kulturkreislehre represented a related trend in anthropology, contemporary with the rise of phenomenol-ogy and of the comparative study of Indo- European mythology in France and Germany, along with Heidegger’s search for an irrational Being in philosophy. Much of this was revived during the post- modern period in the humanities and social sciences, and within comparative religion, most notably in the works of scholars such as Mircea Eliade and Georges Dumézil, who had their academic roots in the pre- war European paradigm, as critically discussed by Bruce Lincoln (1999: chs 3 and 7). In archaeology, a related trend is

not for reproduction or distribution

78 PREHISTORIC RELIGIONS

represented in the later works of Marija Gimbutas, where she contrasts an “Old European” Neolithic religion of the mother goddess with the later Copper Age “Indo European” reli-gion of war gods and male domination (Gimbutas 1974; 1991). In his critique, Lincoln concludes in a rather defeatist manner that it is not possible to study Indo- European mythology without being ideological, and therefore he now refrains from investigating that mythology and concentrates on studying the ideological use of myth in the present (Lincoln 1999: epilogue). However, his ideological critique can be applied to most of the humanities. Th e implication is therefore that we should not stop researching the past, but rather pursue such research with a critical consciousness about the interaction between past and present.

Whereas Oscar Almgren’s book justly earned him fame, this was not the case for Åke Ohlmarks’s. Th is book (like other works of his)1 was largely ignored and forgotten by the archaeological establishment, who had come to favour a more objective study of rock art. Th is research trend culminated in Göran Burenhult and Mats Malmer’s typological and quantitative exercises from 1980 and 1981 respectively, Bertil Almgren’s formalistic curvature analysis (typology in disguise; only published in 1987, nearly two decades aft er it was written), and Jarl Nordbladh’s structuralist interpretations from the late 1970s and early 1980s (Nordbladh 1978a; see Nordbladh, this volume, Ch. 3).

Why this dramatic change? Here we need to situate rock art research in the wider historical cycles of archaeological interpretation and theorizing. Th e ideological climate had changed aft er World War II; archaeology and the humanities followed suit. Pre- war historical interpretations were now considered ideologically tainted and methodologi-cally fl awed, and they were universally rejected, in Sweden in the work of Mats Malmer (Malmer 1963). Instead, a new concern for objective science prevailed, much in the tra-dition of the latter half of the nineteenth century, a trend which was to last well into the late twentieth century. In this, although forming a specialized niche, rock art research and the study of prehistoric religion followed the general global trends, as I have summarized in a diagram of cyclical change during the last 200 years (Kristiansen 1998: fi g. 14). In Figure 10.1 the cycle is redrawn, with new names added, to illustrate the point that rock art research and interest in religion corresponds to a historical barometer determined by the global cycle of Rationality versus Romanticism in the ideological climate (also recently supported by Flemming Kaul 2004a: ch. 1).

In periods of rational, positivistic thinking, religion is considered an irrational epiphe-nomenon, which functions as an ideological mirror of society. It can therefore be studied in order to understand social organization, that is, through analyses of grave goods. A classic example from the previous rationalistic cycle is Lewis Binford’s 1971 article on mor-tuary analysis, which gave rise to a whole research tradition. However, in more romantic periods of cultural historical thinking, religion is considered to be an independent organ-izing power, with a cosmology pervading all aspects of society. Th erefore an understand-ing of the inherent nature of religion becomes a central objective. In the Scandinavian context where my own work has been carried out, Lotte Hedeager’s book Skygger af en anden virkelighed (“Shadows of Another Reality”) published in 1997 may serve as a classic example in the present Romantic cycle. In Figure 10.1, I trace these changes back in time.

Th e Romanticism of the early nineteenth century was a great period of cultural- historical revival, with the translation of sagas: in Denmark, N. F. S. Grundtvig, a Danish polymath poet and priest, translated the Icelandic sagas and used them in his poetry and


RELIGION AND SOCIETY IN THE BRONZE AGE 79

history writing; in Germany, the Grimm brothers documented and studied folklore. In the same way, historians such as Finn Magnussen in Denmark combined the study of Norse mythology and archaeology. Here archaeology merely served to illustrate the historical sources. His work was critically scrutinized by Danish archaeologist Jens Jacob Asmussen Worsaae, a critique which paved the way for presenting archaeology as an independent discipline with its own methodology derived from the natural sciences (Kristiansen 2002). Th is led to a Rationalistic period of positivistic research led by such fi gures as Oscar Montelius, Hans Hildebrandt and Sophus Müller from 1860 onwards. By the early twen-tieth century, a new cultural- historical revival reintroduced the use of Norse mythology in archaeological interpretation in the works of Bernhard Sahlin, Oscar Almgren, Just Bing and – late in the period – Åke Ohlmarks. However, aft er 1950, the positivistic, rationalistic wave again swept through archaeology and the humanities, and empirical studies of clas-sifi cation took over in the works of Bertil Almgren and Mats Malmer, which owed much methodological inspiration to Montelius. It was later followed by structuralist analyses of rock art by Jarl Nordbladh, which paved the way for a reintroduction of religious inter-pretations by the 1990s.

So the answer to why Åke Ohlmarks was ignored and forgotten is, at least in part, that he was out of touch with the trends. His book came at the wrong time, too late to be considered interesting by a new generation of archaeologists raised to resist the earlier paradigm. And it came too early to be considered interesting by the new generation of archaeologists of the post- processual tradition who reintroduced the study of ritual and religion during the 1990s, in works by Anders Kaliff (1998), Flemming Kaul (1998) and Joakim Goldhahn (1999a, 1999b). Jarl Nordbladh may be said to bridge the two paradigms by introducing a structuralist approach that paved the way for an analysis of the meaning behind the rock art, yet without taking religion into account. His contribution in this book (see Chapter 3) explains how.

Figure 10.1 Cyclical changes between Rationalism and Romanticism in archaeological/cultural- historical interpretation, and the corresponding value (+ and – ) attached to religion. © Kristian Kristiansen.

Romanticism+ Religion

Rationalism– Religion



A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF PREHISTORIC RELIGION

Th e study of prehistoric religion is faced with the problem of identifying and interpreting religious symbolism and architecture in periods without written texts. It has resulted in a debate over the nature of prehistoric religion, exemplifi ed by the wide- ranging interpreta-tions of Marija Gimbutas of an “Old European” Neolithic religion based on her reading of painted and decorated fi gurines and painted symbolism on pottery in which she drew on the old evolutionary ideas of Bachofen (and others) of a “mother goddess” heading a matriarchal society (Gimbutas 1991). While her work is stimulating because of its striking historical narrative, linked to a dramatic downfall of “Old Europe” by waves of invading Proto- Indo- European- speaking groups with a patriarchal social order, her interpretations have been rejected, at least in part, as a result of new chronologies and a better understand-ing of the social transformations taking place during the later Neolithic in south- eastern Europe (Hansen 2007: 319–69). In particular, Early Neolithic fi gurines from south- eastern Europe and the Balkans rather closely resemble Anatolian and Mesopotamian fi gurines, and it would therefore seem worthwhile to explore this connection as an interpretative guide.

Another central debate concerns the existence of anthropomorphic gods from the Neolithic and Bronze Age onwards. Marija Gimbutas assumed a pantheon of female gods who were inherited in the Bronze Age in certain regions such as Crete; opposed to this conception are other scholars who prefer to talk in more neutral terms of “belief systems”, worship and rituals (see Christensen and Warburton on Ian Hodder in this volume, Ch. 6). Likewise Flemming Kaul (this volume, Ch. 9) sees the sun as a universal power in Bronze Age religion, which can be helped by various animals in its daily cycle of night and day. He sees no need for a pantheon of Bronze Age gods, even excluding a sun god or goddess, although this is well attested in Bronze Age societies with written sources, such as the Hittites. His position, and that of Jarl Nordbladh, is based on a strictly local archaeological reading of the evidence, which denies Nordic Bronze Age religion a place within a larger geographical and historical framework that also includes written sources. Th eir interpretations are thus determined by a specifi c theoretical understanding that excludes certain types of evidence as irrelevant.

As one would expect, recent years have seen a new focus on studies of prehistoric religion; exemplifying this trend are some recent books (e.g. Insoll 2004) and the Journal of Prehistoric Religion, published since 1987 and mainly focusing on the Mediterranean. However, there is very little discussion of theoretical frameworks, and very little advice about methodology, with the possible exception of Colin Renfrew’s work (Renfrew 1994). He presented a classifi cation of indicators of ritual, but it remained at a basic descriptive level. For Bronze Age religion I would suggest a division between an earthly sphere and a divine sphere, each with a number of basic domains that materialize in texts, iconog-raphy or ritual sites and objects (Fig. 10.2). Mediators between the two spheres are priest gods and priest goddesses, who organize the rituals, and preserve and reproduce the oral tradition of hymns and texts. Th e Bronze Age is thus characterized by the emergence of an institution of religious specialists, which I term ritual chiefs, or priest gods/goddesses. Bronze Age societies were theocratic, as chiefs and kings were empowered by the gods and were in command of a large corpus of religious texts, preserved as oral tradition, to be written down oft en much later.



Figure 10.2 Th eoretical model of the place of Bronze Age religion in society, embedded in both material and immaterial practices. © Kristian Kristiansen.

In the following I shall argue that written sources and archaeological sources are com-plementary from the Bronze Age onwards. Written sources can be used to formulate hypotheses that can be tested in the archaeological record according to normal scien-tifi c practice. Th is is due to the fact that from the Bronze Age onwards a new historical situation emerged, as societies became interlinked owing to the distribution of metal, the consequences of which will be demonstrated below (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005). Th is relationship between material culture and text in the study of prehistoric religion is exemplifi ed in Figure 10.3. It suggests that archaeology can provide a complementary and independent method to determine the chronological and spatial structure of the formation of the various elements preserved in oral tradition and mostly written down much later. When used with due respect to source criticism and sound methodology, archaeology has the potential to revitalize and sometimes even reorganize textual evidence from compara-tive mythology on prehistoric cosmology and religion. Th e prescribed method consists of identifying religious institutions/gods and their diagnostic features in the texts, which can then be identifi ed in the archaeological record.

Institutions can sometimes be demonstrated in material culture through a combination of symbolic traits that relates to ritual performance and to divine features. In the following I shall use the textual evidence of the so- called Divine Twins to defi ne their diagnostic features, their dominant rituals and the myths in which they participate. I shall then link textual evidence, fi rst, to the newly discovered Nebra fi nd in central Germany (dating to the seventeenth century bce), and subsequently to the application of the institution of the Divine Twins in Scandinavia from the sixteenth century onwards. My method is grounded in a traditional archaeological hypothesis testing through correspondence



between a hypothesis with a set of diagnostic traits, in this case derived from texts, and a set of material correlates. Th e degree of correspondence between the diagnostic features of the hypothesis and the archaeological features defi nes the degree of verifi cation. A full correspondence, as in the case of the Divine Twins, implies that the archaeological record is able to identify and defi ne the distribution of these gods in time and space. It lends support to the archaeological verifi cation based on a complex set of four correspond-ences that are not random, and which suppose a full knowledge of the functions of the Divine Twins and the corresponding myths. It should also be stated that while twins are a common phenomenon in many religions, the particular historical functions of the Divine Twins set them apart from this general phenomenon. Before proceeding I shall give a brief overview of Bronze Age religion in general as known through textual and archaeological evidence, stretching from India to Scandinavia. Th is geographical space was historically connected during the Bronze Age (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005).

THE NEW GODS OF THE BRONZE AGE AND THEIR ATTRIBUTES

A small pantheon of early gods shares their names within the Indo- European languages and hence goes back to the Proto- Indo- European period (West 2007: ch. 4). Language thus testifi es to the existence of a small pantheon of gods before and during the early period of expansion of Indo- European languages and social formations in the early third millennium bce. Presiding over them is the sky god with his club or rather hammer axe. Th is would correspond very well with the western expansion of Indo- European speaking societies during the early third millennium bce, where males are oft en buried with an axe made of precious stone or copper.

Figure 10.3 Relationship between material culture and oral/written culture. © Kristian Kristiansen.



Aft er 2000 bce, texts from the Near East and India present the second and third gener-ations of gods, and among them the “Divine Twins” are the most interesting and important also from an archaeological point of view. Th eir archaeological history and their attributes will therefore be the focus of this contribution. Th ey persist until the end of the Bronze Age, when new gods mark their arrival in many Indo- European speaking societies, not least in central and northern Europe, in the form of the Æsir gods, which corresponds to the decline of the dominant Bronze Age gods. We fi nd no archaeological parallels to this change until the beginning of the Iron Age, when some rock art panels are carved over by a gigantic spear- holding fi gure, which could count as a proto- Odin, but otherwise the most likely arrival of this new layer of gods can be archaeologically identifi ed and dated to the fi ft h and sixth centuries ce (Hedeager 2007).

Th e main gods of the Bronze Age are the sun, its god and goddess, and their helpers: the Divine Twins. A myriad of rock art panels in Scandinavia and a thousand bronzes with solar symbolism attest to this (R. Bradley 2006; Kristiansen 2010). It is also clear from this archaeological evidence that the solar journey is a shared myth throughout Europe (Sprockhoff 1954; Pasztor 2008; Vianello 2008), just as the twin symbolism linked to the helpers of the sun: the Divine Twins. Th ere are most certainly other shared myths that can be identifi ed in archaeological iconography, but so far little work has been done in these areas of research (but see Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: fi g. 152; Fredell 2006).

Bronze Age texts and Bronze Age rock art are dominated by male gods, or rather their earthly representatives, the priest chiefs, mostly armed and with a huge phallus. In a quantitative study of gender in rock art in Østfold in Norway it could be demonstrated that non- phallic males rarely had weapons, while among the phallic males more than half carried a sword. Figures with horned helmets, lur blowers, and fi gures with bird masks, or rather eagle heads or masks, are always phallic (Skogstrand 2006: fi gs 16–20). Th e warrior ethos is strong, and is linked to an ideology of sexual strength and penetration, which is echoed in Indo- European texts as well.

Th e eagle- headed fi gures in rock art may relate to the sky god. Th ere are several myths about how the drink of wisdom was snatched by eagles/birds, or by Odin in the shape of an eagle. However, this would be a proto- Odin, which also sometimes fi gures as a sun god in rock art, the body being a sun wheel. A bronze eagle- headed fi gure from the Late Bronze Age has one eye with radiating rays like a sun, and one eye without. We may here have the dark side and bright side of the sun, a Bronze Age prototype of Odin, as a sun god. In the Rig Veda there are also many allusions to the story that a falcon or an eagle brought the Soma plant to Indra (West 2007: 158f.). Th is legend thus belongs to a shared mythological past, in the fashion of the Divine Twins, as we shall see.

THE RITUAL CYCLES

Rituals are the means by which mortals come into contact with the gods and secure their divine support. Although daily routines would entail many small rituals, from greeting the sun to bringing small sacrifi ces and libations (R. Bradley 2005), the main rituals were linked to those critical transformations that ensured the yearly cycle of the sun (the sea-sonal rituals of midsummer and midwinter), the life cycle from birth to death (the rituals of initiation and fi nally death rituals), and protective rituals to secure safe travels, and



those linked to the transformative processes of craft s, not least metal working (Goldhahn & Østigård 2007).

When it comes to the seasonal rituals, hieros gamos is the classical wedding and intercourse between king and queen to secure fertility, and it is well known throughout the Bronze Age from Mesopotamia to Scandinavia (Fari 2006). In the Indo- European- speaking Bronze Age societies of the steppe and temperate Europe this ritual is taken over by a horse as the main divinity with whom either the king or the queen copulates. It corresponds to the unique position of the horse in these societies, and it refers back to the original story of the birth of the Divine Twins as sons of the sky god, and helpers of the Sun goddess in the shape of horses. It is well attested in rock art where both forms of copulation are illustrated – that between man and woman and that between man and a mare (ibid.: fi gs 43–6).

Th e festivals of the sun shared a number of rituals in Indo- European- speaking socie-ties, among them the swinging of the sun. Rock art testifi es to the active use of sun discs in rituals, both hand- held and swung with ropes by humans or simply shown as a circular rope with a sun disc at the end. Another custom known across Europe from Russia to Wales is the use of a wheel that was set on fi re and while burning rolled down a hill and into a river or lake where it was extinguished (West 2007: 214). It has numerous parallels in the use of wheels as sun symbols on rock art and in metalwork. Also the use of ritual fi res is widely shared across western Eurasia (Kaliff 2007).

Th e most critical transformation was that from death to the aft erlife. Th erefore, Bronze Age burial rituals across western Eurasia mobilize all of the major gods: the fi rst step of the construction of the barrow was a circular stone ring, sometimes with spokes to symbolize the sun wheel, and later the barrow itself was added as a symbol of the rising sun. But fi rst the burial itself was placed in the centre of the stone ring. An oak tree was commonly used for the coffi n, symbolizing the tree of life, and the dead and his/her belongings were always wrapped in the fresh hide of an animal (ox or cow) sacrifi ced to the sky god. In this way, the tree of life, the sky god and the Sun god supported the journey to the aft erlife. Th e dead would thus enter the eternal cycle of the sun into the aft erlife. Later in the Bronze Age, a ship oft en took over the transport function, represented by numerous stone ship settings around the Baltic (Østmo 1997; Bradley & Widholm 2007; Skoglund 2008).

Aft er this brief summary of some general aspects of Bronze Age religion and ritual I shall exemplify the historical context of the Divine Twins.

THE “DIVINE TWINS” IN TEXTS AND MATERIAL CULTURE

Th e extraordinary Nebra fi nd combines well- known ritual practices from the Early Bronze Age with a unique object, a bronze disc depicting the heavenly realm with moon, sun and stars, and a sun- ship, all in gold (Meller 2004). It takes the idea of the Bronze Age sun cult, as represented by the Trundholm sun chariot, one step further back in time, and it indicates that the myth about the journey of the sun (Kaul 1998: fi g. 170) was anchored in complex astronomic and cosmological knowledge (Randsborg 2006: ch. X). Th is knowledge probably originated in the Near East, where the sun and moon are oft en displayed on seals, but in Europe it was wedded to a shared Indo- European religion that placed the sun cult and its practitioners in a milieu of dual gods (Gonda 1974; Olmsted



1994; Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: ch. 6.3). Most famous among them were the so- called “Divine Twins”, the Vedic Asvins and the Greek Dioscuri (Ward 1968, 1970), who were sons of the sky god and brothers of the Sun goddess, her helpers and rescuers during the night when she was taken away to the underworld. Th e replay of this myth is attested in Nordic Bronze Age iconography, rock art and bronze fi gurines dating from 1700 to 500 bce (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: fi g. 146; Kristiansen 2010). Th ey are also said to rep-resent the morning and evening star, and the twin stars in the constellation of Gemini. Th is stellar constellation, which belongs to the winter sky, may possibly be identifi ed in the lower part of the Nebra disc, as it consists of eight stars in a formation much like what we see on the disc.

Th eir divine functions as rescuers of sailors, protectors of travellers, helpers in battle, healers of illness, master musicians and dancers are further testifi ed to by recurring scenes on rock art, bronze work and fi gurines where they appear in pairs, as ships carrying the sun, as humans carrying cult axes and playing lurs, or as dancers with their staff s or poles, another of their attributes. With minor changes these functions remained intact throughout the Bronze Age. Th us, the archaeological correlates of the main functions of the Divine Twins as handed down to us in texts recur consistently in hundreds of contexts during the entire Bronze Age and testify to the central role played by the “Divine Twins” for more than a millennium.

Th e Divine Twins may also appear in their transformed shape as horses (their name “asvins” means “horse tamer”, and “possessed of horses”, and they were born as horses) pulling the sun, or they transform into twin ships with horse heads – retaining their identity – as they carry the sun safely through the sea of the underworld. Such motifs are common on Scandinavian rock art (Kristiansen 2010). However, there is a link between this iconography and its material attributes (axes, lurs), as these items are regularly found deposited, mostly in pairs, throughout central and northern Europe (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: fi g. 146). I shall now discuss the meaning of these deposits, based on the textual evidence of the Divine Twins in early Indo- European religion, the result of which will also pertain to the Nebra hoard.

THE DIVINE TWINS AND THEIR EARTHLY REPRESENTATIVES

Th e textual evidence of the Divine Twins is securely dated to the Bronze Age, as they are known by their Vedic name as divine protectors in a treaty between the vassal prince Kurtiwaza of Mitanni and his Hittite overlord and great king Shuppiluliuma from 1350 bce. Th e most detailed evidence, however, comes from the Rig Veda, probably written down in the mid or late second millennium bce, but referring back to an earlier period. Th e Greek evidence is generally a bit later, and in Germanic and Celtic texts the impor-tance and the identity of the Divine Twins diminishes, as they were written down much later during the Iron Age and the early medieval period. Baltic folklore retains more evi-dence of their role (Ward 1968; Zeller 1990). Th e importance of the Divine Twins is thus greater the further back in time we go. Th is is supported by archaeological evidence that testifi es to their importance during the Bronze Age, whereas they seem to largely disappear during the Iron Age. Th eir role is thus safely linked to a mature stratum of Indo- European religion in a phase which (on archaeological grounds) cannot be much earlier than 2000



bce. Th at is the earliest appearance of two- wheeled chariots and well- trained horses that the Divine Twins embody both as chariot drivers and horses.

While their role originally was as helpers of the Sun goddess, circling day and night in their chariot to draw the sun and break open the daylight, their roles seem to diff erenti-ate over time. Th us in Greek and later Roman tradition one twin represented the warrior function (horse), and the other fertility and farming (ox) (Ward 1970). However, there is a peculiarity of the Divine Twins that makes them interesting from an archaeological perspective, and that is their role as communicators between gods and humans, which includes their many roles as rescuers and protectors, which date back to the Rig Veda (Zeller 1990: 36–84; Oberlies 1993; West 2007: 186ff .), and is also attested for the Greek Dioscuri (Burkert 1985: ch. 5.2). Th is is also refl ected in the fact that in some legends one twin is divine while the other is human, and thus mortal. Th e obvious implication of this is that if some gods can become human, then some humans can also become divine. Th is “theocratic” trait creates an alliance between the rules of the gods and the ruling of humans, which materializes archaeologically. It explains the rich evidence of twin deposi-tions and twin representations in iconography during the Bronze Age, beginning already around 2000 bce.

In the Early Bronze Age we fi nd a rare group of burials and hoard fi nds with twin deposits of objects and chiefl y males, the most prominent being Leubingen (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: fi g. 48). Th e two males, an old and a young person, lay across each other in a cross, as did their weapons, axes and daggers. Here we have a twin deposition linked to the burial of two aristocratic males. It indicates a special relationship between them, and it throws light on the widespread deposits of hoards of twin axes and swords, as well as other objects. A similar cross deposit to that in Leubingen is evidenced in a burial from Brittany (Hansen 2002: fi g. 6), just as the oft en large number of daggers and axes suggests that the royal or chiefl y elites were connected by trade and alliances. If we take the cross symbolism in these early contexts to represent the spokes of a chariot wheel, this was also a symbol of the sun. In this way a symbolic link is created between the divine sphere and the earthly sphere defi ning the twin males and their material correlates as earthly incarna-tions of the divine, heavenly twins, helpers of the Sun goddess.

However, during the Early Bronze Age it was more common to make ritual deposits of prestige goods in moors and lakes or in the ground. In the Aunjetitz Culture (present- day eastern Germany and central Europe) we also fi nd – along with the many hoards with ring ingots – pair- wise deposits of halberds and axes, in particular. In multi- type hoards, it is oft en possible to fi nd twin sets of ritual axes or halberds, which suggests that several of these hoards had a ritual meaning. During Montelius period 1 (1750–1500 bce), which in Scandinavia corresponds to the time of the Nebra hoard, ritual axes and a group of magnifi cent swords or scimitars of Hittite inspiration were deposited in pairs. Th e scimitar was a royal and divine attribute in the Middle East already from the middle of the second millennium bce, and in Hittite contexts – besides the scimitar – we fi nd another divine attribute: the kalmus. Th is is a staff with a crook at the end; originally a herding staff . It is known as a symbol of human political power in Egypt from the end of the fourth millennium bce, appearing in the Indo- European area with the Hittites. Th e Mycenaeans used the straight staff , as in Mesopotamia. Yet, following the Egyptian tradi-tion, the Hittites and northern Europeans used the shepherd’s crook. Together, crook and scimitar (Krummstab and Krummschwert in German) served as symbols of paramount



profane and divine rank, and linked to the Sun god:. “De[r] Krummstab kalmus, [ist] das Herrschaft ssymbol des hethitischen Königs und des Sonnengottes” (Haas 1994: 512f.). Both these symbolic objects were employed in the Nordic realm where we fi nd scimitars deposited in pairs in ritual hoards, and the kalmus is displayed on rock art in Bohuslän, western Sweden, carried by a sun wheel fi gure/god. Th ese symbols and their transmission to northern Europe point to the same kind of international connections as those under-lying the Nebra disc and the famous Kivik grave on the east coast of Scania in Sweden (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: ch. 5.3). Th ey were part of international connections in the earlier part of the second millennium bce between the steppe, Anatolia, the Carpathians and Scandinavia which are archaeologically well documented (Kristiansen 1998: fi g. 191). But fi rst I want to situate the Divine Twins and their earthly representatives in a Nordic Bronze Age context of the fi ft eenth and fourteenth centuries bce with its rich burial evidence. Here, hundreds of rich burials allow us to present a more detailed picture of their now institutionalized role, which materialized in a recurring set of prestige objects of high artistic quality.

During the Early Bronze Age period 1 (1750–1500 bce) there is no strict diff erentia-tion between weapons deposited in individual graves and those ritually deposited in pairs, mainly in hoards, except that ritual twin depositions contained mostly unused and beauti-fully craft ed pieces. During the subsequent period 2 (1500–1300 bce) a diff erentiation takes place, so that a class of divine cult objects are singled out virtually exclusively for ritual use, and are never or rarely deposited in burials (Vandkilde 1999: fi gs 8, 9). Th ey are richly decorated cult axes, later also musical wind instruments (lurs), bronze shields and helmets. Th ey belonged to the gods and could not be owned by mortals. In addition, a group of “divine” priestly burials (where the spiral decoration and the other ritual objects defi ne them as being priestly) are now characterized by an exclusive use of – equally priestly – solar and equine symbolism. I shall characterize only the male burials, but they are paralleled by a group of female priestly burials with sun discs and spiral decoration, which are oft en found in ritual hoards as well (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: 298ff .). In the Tumulus Culture in Germany the use of wheel pins may have had the same symbolic meaning.

During Montelius period 2 (1500–1300 bce) the horse head and the employment of spiral decoration/sun symbolism is a defi ning attribute of a group of chiefl y priests in the Nordic realm, as we know them from several hundred rich tumulus burials. We fi nd such images on the handles of razors, which are symbolically formed as ships, and also on belt hooks (Fredell 2003: fi g. 5.14). Some of these graves also contain small hat- shaped tutuli,2 another reference to the Divine Twins. A typical grave of such Nordic “asvin priests” would thus contain a full- hilted parade sword decorated with sun symbolism, a razor with horse head symbolizing a ship, and also a belt hook with a horse head.

Th e importance of the horse head as a symbol/replacement of the Asvins is apparent from the Vedic texts:

When, by the horse’s head, Atharvan’s off spring Dadhyac made known to you the Soma’s sweetness. (Rig Veda Book 1, Hymn CXVI, 12)

Ye brought the horse’s head, Asvins, and gave it unto Dadhyac the off spring of Atharvan. (Rig Veda Book 1, Hymn CXVII, 22, rendering David A. Warburton)



Th e role of the horse – and especially its head – in rituals is well known. Th e horse was divine, and the Asvins were horse- born and symbolized by a horse head in some hymns. Th e horse head was supposed to be able to speak on behalf of the Divine Twins.

Th us, by the middle of the second millennium bce we fi nd in the Nordic realm a new religious institution of ritual chiefs, who employed the horse head as a main symbol on razors which could also have been used for medical and ritual purposes. Th is very same group of graves also contains a special type of full- hilted swords with spiral decorations (the sun symbol), which were used mainly for parading (Kristiansen 1984a), a war axe with spiral decoration, drinking cups with a protruding sun star at the bottom, and sometimes also a so- called “shaman bag”, as in the Hvidegård grave (Kaul 1998: ch. 2.2). We have here all the attributes of a mortal Asvin, or rather a divine “Asvin- priest”. He was a medical expert/healer, a war leader (but not warrior), leader of rituals and drinking ceremonies, and also performed in the important rituals, especially linked to the sun journey, as testi-fi ed on rock art (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005: fi g. 139).

Later in the Bronze Age a goose or swan head replaces the horse head on razors and ritual iconography, and ox horns become a defi ning element on the helmets worn by ritual priests. Th e use of such horns corresponds to the several passages in the Veda where the Asvins are called bulls, and, according to the archaeological evidence, this is a later trait. Th e important role of honey (which is the basis for mead) in the Veda is interesting, as it was part of an important morning ritual for the Asvins in order to break open the daylight. Th ey used their whips to mix the honey into the soma drink:

Waken the Asvin Pair who yoke their car [i.e. chariot] at early morn: may they approach to drink this Soma juice. We call the Asvins Twain, the gods born in a noble car [chariot], the best of charioteers, who reach the heavens. Dropping with honey is your whip, Asvins, and full of pleasantness. Sprinkle therewith the sacrifi ce. (Rig Veda, Book 1, Hymn XXII, 1–3, translation Ralph Griffi th)

Renowned, with noble horses, come ye hither: drink Wondrous Pair, the cup that holds sweet juices. (Rig Veda, Book 7, Hymn LXIX, 3, translation Ralph Griffi th)

Herewith, O Asvins, while the dawn is breaking, to this our sacrifi ce bring peace and blessing. (Rig Veda, Book 7, Hymn, LXIX, 5, translation Ralph Griffi th)

Th is ceremony is directly refl ected in the artful wooden cups in the same graves (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: fi g. 138). Pollen analysis has in two cases demonstrated that cups in graves from this period contained honey, probably as an ingredient in mead/soma (E. Koch 2003), a tradition that is also documented in the Single Grave Culture of the third millennium bce (Klassen 2005: 39ff .). Th us, when the cup was lift ed to the mouth the sun would rise, as the protruding star at the bottom became visible. I can think of no better parallel between a ritual text and its corresponding piece of material culture, although separated by thousands of miles, but once unifi ed by Bronze Age long- distance networks with a Eurasian origin in the early second millennium bce, to which I shall turn in the next section.

We may conclude that a recurring twin symbolism characterizes a certain segment of the material and iconographic world of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in central



and northern Europe. In the Aegean, it is restricted to double and twin axe symbolism, although we fi nd twin fi gures seated on campstools toasting. Th e twin symbolism in material culture is introduced already in the Aunjetitz Culture, and in the Leubingen grave we can link the twin symbolism to a ritual pairing of princely “twin” males. In all probability, it defi ned a ritual dual leadership. Later – during the Middle Bronze Age from 1500 bce onwards – a class of priestly chiefs can be defi ned, and they are linked to the Asvins through horse- head symbolism and the exclusive use of sun sym-bolism through spiral decoration and wheel symbolism. A small number of double or “twin” male chiefl y burials continue the tradition introduced by the Leubingen grave. Th e importance of the ritual sphere is underlined by the production of special ritual objects that are rarely or never found in burials. Th us, a complex ritual and religious system had emerged, headed by chiefl y priests (ritual leaders), who were in the service of the Asvins, or rather their worldly representatives. Th ey constitute a ritualized, political leadership. Below them a chiefl y group of warriors without ritual functions were now in place defi ned by the fl ange hilted sword. A large group of commoners which are ritually invisible must be assumed to have supported this chiefl y structure, which was anchored in each local community.

Th us, the twin swords and axes in the Nebra hoard correspond to a widely shared ritual tradition of such deposits, which are the material correlates of the Divine Twins in Bronze Age ritual. It is further supported by the Nebra disc, and later the sun chariot from Trundholm, which links the Divine Twins and the sun cult, and thus confi rms their intimate relation. Th e archaeology thus correlates with the texts and indicates that the Divine Twins were dominant Bronze Age gods from Scandinavia to India.

DIVINE TWINS AND TWIN KINGS: A BRONZE AGE INNOVATION

Th e material and iconographic correlates of the myths of the Divine Twins are most clearly represented during the Bronze Age. In the Vedic texts they are among the most popular of gods, and they were also very popular in Greece. In India they helped Indra, their mother’s brother and thus uncle, to get the soma from Tvastar, the sky father, which suggests their importance in the second and third generation of gods. Th erefore, they are constantly referred to as young. Based on archaeological evidence from Europe, it is clear that the Divine Twins were dominant gods during the second millennium bce and well into the early fi rst millennium bce. Th eir popularity is linked to the expansion of the war chariot aft er 2000 bce, which they used to drive around the earth with the sun. However, in the Vedic texts this vehicle is oft en described as a cart with three wheels (or sets of wheels/axles), and in this it corresponds to the sun chariot from Duplje, which has three wheels (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: fi g. 139), but the cart carrying the horse and sun in the Trundholm miniature could also be considered to be a three- axled cart. Th ese examples suggest that the Vedic texts refer to the use of miniatures that were to be rolled in rituals, and therefore needed an extra set of wheels.

Based on their close connection with the technological innovations of the late third and early second millennium (chariot and horsemanship), as described in the Rig Veda and later European sources, the Divine Twins cannot be much older than ca. 2000 bce. By this time the second and third generation of young gods, headed by the Divine Twins,



had taken precedence. More complex Bronze Age societies with a new warrior class, chariots and horses demanded new gods with new functions, which also redefi ned the role of an earlier pantheon of fi rst and second generation gods, as we have seen. Th ese new gods are oft en referred to as young and shining with many roles. By acting as media-tors between the sky and the earth, between the divine and the profane, they instituted a divine, ritualized leadership based on dual kings or twin chiefs. In 1960, Norbert Wagner had already pointed out this relationship, and also the role of the Divine Twins in train-ing young warriors, as they were supreme sportsmen, winners of running and boxing contests in the fi rst Olympic games, but also dancers and leaders of the weapon dance (a training programme). Th us he links them to the training and initiation of young war-riors, which would then be in the hands of their earthly representatives: the twin kings. Wagner further points to several examples from later Germanic sources of twin or dual leadership, the best known being Horsa and Hengist of the Jutes who migrated to Kent in England in the fi ft h century, and whose ritualized names refer to horses. Among the Greeks we also fi nd dual kingship, most famously in Sparta, where it was traced back to the Dioscuri, their national gods (for discussion, see Miller 1998). Th e Spartans were originally migrants, just like the Jutes in Kent. Wagner therefore points to a possible rela-tionship between dual leadership and conquest migrations, leading to the foundation of new royal lineages and chiefdoms.

If this holds true, we should expect dual kingship to have played an important role during the expansion of the social and religious institutions of early Indo- European- speaking societies both during the third and second millennia bce. And that is indeed the case, as I have demonstrated for the second millennium bce. Consequently both the institution of dual leadership and the institution of young war- bands were an essential feature of early Indo- European societies as we know them archaeologically during the third and second millennia bce, but later textual evidence also points to the role of groups of youth organized in warlike brotherhoods (Sergent 2003).

Th e introduction of innovations was another characteristic feature of the Divine Twins. Th is can be linked to travelling, and therefore they are also the protectors and rescuers of sailors and travellers. Th e Divine Twins were eternal travellers in their golden chariot, and thus epitomized the importance of speed and travelling in the new, more international and interconnected, Bronze Age world. Th at is part of their dominant position. Th eir chariot further represented the new warrior aristocracy that rose to power throughout Eurasia aft er 2000 bce, one that was oft en based on dual leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Long ago Georges Dumézil demonstrated that in Indo- European mythology the dual lead-ership of the fi rst, divine function was a widespread phenomenon from India to Rome and Scandinavia (Dumézil [1948] 1988). One might envisage that a ritual/political leader or king, supported by a war leader in periods of warfare, constituted local political leadership. Th e divine twin leadership would thus represent a higher level of leadership, for a whole chiefdom or kingdom, whereas the ritual leader and warrior chief would be the normal model at community levels. Th e Greek evidence supports this where in Mycenaean times the king was named wanax (“sovereign”), whereas the war leader was named lavagetas



(“leader of the people”), and was subordinate to him. Th is relationship could oft en be one of foster brothers, as in the case of Achilles and Patrocles. Furthermore, in the cata-logue of ships in the Iliad, twin leaders oft en represent the participating kingdoms. Th e Mycenaean and Scandinavian evidence suggests that dual kingship was common through-out Bronze Age Europe. Th e Spartan model of two equal kings would thus represent an old Bronze Age heritage that the Dorians brought into their new territories from the Balkans. Recently, based on textual evidence, Asko Parpola (2005) reassessed the historical role of the Asvins, or the Nasatyas as they are oft en named. He reaches conclusions similar to those presented in this contribution: that they were among the most important gods in the Bronze Age (cf. the section “Th e Asvins as the deifi ed chariot team” in Parpola 2005), and that their dual roles imply dual leadership or kingship as a dominant principle during the Bronze Age (the section “Th e Asvins and dual kingship”). He further adds new important information about their role in burial rituals, including the chariot race, as seen on many Scandinavian rock art scenes, most explicitly in the Kivik burial. Th us, an archaeologist working with material culture and seeking textual support has come to conclusions virtually identical to those reached quite independently by a textual scholar seeking the support of material culture.

Th e beginning of this dual leadership, instituted in heaven, is thus represented by the Leubingen burial and in the many twin depositions that followed, of which the Nebra hoard is the most prominent. Its origin may be found in the rare, but recurring, twin male burials of the third millennium bce. From 2000 bce onwards, it came to a wedding between old Indo- European religion and new astronomical knowledge from the Near East, which also characterized other areas of Bronze Age society, and which lends it a unique historical character. Shortly thereaft er, steppe societies from the Urals to the Black Sea introduced a new form of chariot- based warfare and the concomitant institution of aris-tocratic military leadership supported by the chariot- driving Divine Twins (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: ch. 5.2). Th ese new institutions spread as a package through conquest and migrations to India in the east and to central Europe and the Aegean in the west, and from there to Scandinavia. Th e Divine Twins were the new Bronze Age gods with no clear antecedents in the late Proto- Indo- European- speaking societies of the third millennium bce. Th ey belong to a separate stage of the more complex and mature Indo- European- speaking societies of the Bronze Age in the second millennium bce, which were distinctly diff erent from later Indo- European- speaking Iron Age societies, when regional diff eren-tiation became more pronounced, chariot warfare came to an end and the Divine Twins lost their dominant position.

Th us, in this chapter, I have tried to place the study of the Divine Twins – as a central religious and political phenomenon of Bronze Age Eurasia – into the context of the histori-cal changes in the study of religion by archaeologists. Th e concepts discussed here have been repeatedly discovered and discussed during the last century and a half, but only come to the fore as the paradigms move away from positivistic data- oriented studies, giving way to an interdisciplinary environment in which interpretation is allowed more leeway. It is inevitable that such new interpretations inspire doubt. However, the rediscovery of the phenomenon and the complementary character of the archaeological and textual evidence suggest that the argument carries historical weight.



NOTES

1. Late in life, Åke Ohlmarks (1979) summarized his views in a grand synthesis on the development of prehistoric religion in Scandinavia, based on a combination of Norse mythology and archaeology. Th e book was printed in 2000 numbered copies, and provides interesting reading, despite some rather bold interpretations of the archaeological evidence.

2. Th ese are small round bronzes ca. 5 cm across, sewn into clothing.

SUGGESTED READING

Davidson, H. R. E. 1982. Scandinavian Mythology: Library of the World’s Myths and Legends. London. Davidson, H. R. E. 1988. Myth and Symbols in Pagan Europe: Early Scandinavian and Celtic Religions. Manchester.Kaliff , A. 2007. Fire, Water, Heaven and Earth: Ritual Practice and Cosmology in Ancient Scandinavia: An Indo-

European Perspective. Stockholm. Kristiansen, K. 2010. “Th e Nebra Find and Early Indo- European Religion”. In Der Griff nach den Sternen. Wie

Europas Eliten zu Macht und Reichtum kamen, 2 vols (Internationales Symposium in Halle (Saale), 16–21 February 2005. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale), Band 5), H. Meller & F. Bertemes (eds), 431–7. Halle (Salle).

Kristiansen, K. 2010. “Rock Art and Religion: Th e Sun Journey in Indo- European Mythology and Bronze Age Rock Art”. In Representations and Communications: Creating an Archaeological Matrix of Late Prehistoric Rock Art, Å. Fredell, K. Kristiansen & F. Criado Boado (eds), 93–115. Oxford.

Kristiansen, K. & T. Larsson 2005. Th e Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmission and Transformations. Cambridge. (See esp. ch. 6, “Th e Cosmological Structure of Bronze Age Society”, 252–319.)

Religion and society in the Bronze Age

Documents

Transcript of Religion and society in the Bronze Age