R. Karl, J. Leskovar [Hrsg.] (2013), Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Tagungsbeiträge der 5. Linzer Gespräche zur interpretativen Eisenzeitarchäologie. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich, Folge 37, Linz, 123 –136. Materialized Prestige. Remarks on the archaeological research of social distinction based on case studies of the late Hallstatt golden necklaces and early La Tène Maskenfibeln Jennifer M. Bagley, Robert Schumann Zusammenfassung In der Archäologie der Eisenzeit wird Prestige als Kategorie sozialer Distinktion regelhaft diskutiert, auch wenn sich nur wenige Untersuchungen explizit mit Prestige als Forschungsgegenstand beschäftigen. Im Mittelpunkt dieser Überlegungen stehen zumeist Prestigeobjekte oder auch -güter, die über ihren außergewöhnlichen Charakter als solche angesprochen und somit als materieller Niederschlag sozialer Abgrenzung gesehen werden. Handlungen, die sich über den Kontext dieser Güter erschließen lassen, spielen dagegen zumeist eine untergeordnete Rolle. Zudem werden Prestigegüter häufig mit Statussymbolen gleichgesetzt und als Abzeichen sozialer Eliten verstanden. Im Gegensatz zum passiven Sozialstatus – gleichzusetzen mit einer festgeschriebenen und durch die Gesellschaft sanktionierten Position – besitzt Prestige oder auch soziales Ansehen jedoch einen aktiven und potentiell gesellschaftsverändernden Charakter und wird in zwischenmenschlichen Aushandlungsprozessen bewusst eingesetzt, um die eigene Position zu gestalten. In diesem Rahmen soll das Potential von Prestige als archäologischer Untersuchungsgegenstand aufgezeigt werden. Exemplifiziert wird dies anhand von späthallstattzeitlichen Goldhalsringen und frühlatènezeitlichen Fibeln im westlichen Mitteleuropa, welche aufgrund ihrer spezifischen Nutzung geeignet erscheinen, unterschiedliche Formen sozialer Abgrenzung in eisenzeitlichen Kontexten zu thematisieren. Gezeigt werden soll, dass nicht nur als Statussymbol interpretierte Fundgruppen zur sozialen Distinktion verwendet werden konnten und die Ansprache ebendieser als Statussymbole im Kontext der Prestigediskussion kritisch zu hinterfragen ist, sondern auch potentiell prestigeträchtige Handlungen und Güter in diesem Zusammenhang aufgrund ihres bewussten und aktiven Einsatzes eine wichtige Rolle spielten. 123 Abstract In Iron Age archaeology, prestige as a category of social distinction is discussed on a regular basis; even if it is seldom explicitly analyzed as an object of research. These considerations focus in most cases on prestige goods, characterized through their exceptional character and therewith representing materialized social distinction. Acts that might be reconstructed using the context of these prestige goods usually play a minor role. Moreover, the terms prestige good and status symbol are used synonymously in order to classify social elites. In contrast to the passive social status – a specified and sanctioned position in society – prestige or social esteem has an active character that potentially leads to social change. It is consciously applied in social discourse in order to shape one’s own position.We wish to discuss the value of prestige as an object of investigation, exemplified by late Hallstatt golden necklaces and early La Tène fibulae in central Europe. Based on specific ways of utilization they seem a fit subject for discussion of different kinds of social distinctions within Iron Age society. It becomes clear that not only those finds categorized as status symbols are fit for use in processes of social distinction but potentially prestige goods play an important role in this context through their conscious and active usage. In this respect the identification of prestige goods and status symbols must be discussed as well. Today as in times past, we are surrounded by many things that have disparate functions, though we barely take notice of them in our daily lives. These things make our lives easier, allow for otherwise impossible work processes, are instrumental in forming our identity (Habermas 1999; Bosch 2010), support nonverbal communications (Burmeister 2003; 2009; Kienlin 2005; critical: Hahn 2003; Eggert 2010) and lead to the establishment and reproduction of social structures (Mauss 1929; Godelier 1999). Nevertheless, objects were relegated to insignificance in the areas of Sociology and Philosophy for many decades. This situation has changed over the recent years through the impact of a “material turn” and many scientific studies have focused on objects and their relevance to the individual and society. In this context, concepts that see an object primarily as a passive element that is either consciously or subconsciously employed have come under criticism. So was the “Eigensinn der Dinge” (Self-will of Things) referenced (Hahn 2011) and objects were attributed an independent status as actants in a network consisting of people and things within the framework of the actor-network-theory by Bruno Latour (Latour 2010). Within the constructs of these and other studies, it has become clear that things have a great influence on our lives. The Internet has changed 124 the way we communicate, our concept of the terms ‘private’ and ‘public’, and the personal network of people that we come in contact with. Neurologic studies show that exposure to things can actually change our bodies. An examination of London Taxi drivers shows that their hippocampal volume was larger than that of the control subjects and that this increase in volume correlates to the time they have been working as a Taxi driver. But the introduction of modern GPS has caused a profound change of external preconditions; meaning that the increase in hippocampal volume is no longer necessary (Malafouris 2010). This shows that the relationship a person has with an object is of great importance. It is characterized by a mutual influence – the object animates the person to take action but on the other hand persons fill the object with meaning and usage (Bagley forthcoming). Against this background, the idea of the self-will of things and their active action seems to be a bit too fanciful. More realistically, objects provide people opportunities to exploit things to the fullest of their imagination and capabilities. But it should be remembered that the object offers some possibilities, some uses by implication, and yet others must be excluded by either form or material properties. Furthermore, it is to be realized that an object can be evaluated differently under different sit- uations. Hans Peter Hahn names this the Polysemy of things (Hahn 2003: 35).They can be imbued with differing meanings, and not all members of society must understand or accept these interpretations. This aspect appears to be mainly of interest when use and production are clearly separated – which often happens in a modern society. We are usually not informed about the production of those things that surround us; but in prehistoric societies artisans and users were often quite closely linked to each other (for the separation of use and production see Liessmann 2010: 11–23). But here also the import of foreign goods or the introduction of innovations can create an empty vessel that must be filled with meaning. These aspects should be kept in mind when considering archaeological findings even if it means that interpretations are always context-dependent and thus result in a more difficult understanding of the object. Current thinking on material culture provides a common ground for fruitful discussions between archeology and other scientific disciplines that are beginning to study things in society. Archeology, which has indeed dealt from the start with the material remains of a society, has awakened the interest of ethnology, sociology, and philosophy in this area of study (see for example Bosch 2010: 27–9). One possibility that arises from the use of things is the previously mentioned change and reproduction of social structures. Objects of prestige and status symbols play an important role in this context. It is crucial to accurately clarify relevant terminology to promote in-depth discussions within the field of archeology as well as with other disciplines. It is questionable that valid and usable definitions for prestige and status can be agreed upon for inter-disciplinary use. But if all parties are aware of what the terms mean in each case then interesting discussions between disciplines can begin. Prestige and social distinction Prestige plays an important part in the foundation of societies; so it seems hard to find an appropriate definition. The best circumscription for prestige would be social esteem. The research training group “Formen von Prestige in Kulturen des Altertums” at the LMU Munich defined prestige as “esteem which a person, a thing, or a behavior, is being awarded in a specific en- vironment”1. According to another definition appreciation is emphasized when prestige is described as social esteem, social inclusion as well as appreciation. This esteem can be awarded to persons, groups, or social positions, to a different extent (Lamnek 2002). It is obvious that prestige is a phenomenon of attribution that has different forms, depending on the specific social context in which it is discussed. On various occasions prestige is divided into social prestige and individual prestige, especially in older sociological literature (see e.g. Kluth 1957). If so, social prestige means the esteem of different groups or social positions whereas individual prestige describes the prestige achieved through personal accomplishments.This differentiation of prestige could be of interest in archaeological research because especially in works focusing on graves, social groups are merged from individual burials, and graves are allocated to such social groups. As the ascription of prestige is a process of negotiation, at least two persons have to be part of it. Whoever wants to gain prestige chooses an object or action that seems suitable for this purpose and has to make sure that it is visible to the public as well as being associated to him- or herself. This may be achieved by taking part in a ritual, or wearing a potentially prestigious object directly on the body. The distinctiveness of such an object is of high importance, as it enables societal differentiation. This may be achieved through limited access of a certain material, an extraordinary production method or labor intensive and time consuming production. Nevertheless, the latter should not be overestimated in relation to the value of a given object, as Michael Vickers is able to show that in antiquity, neither the hours of work nor the craftsmanship has an impact on the price of metallic vessels.This was exclusively dictated by the weight of the raw material (Vickers 2004). Innovation is of high importance in this respect as well, since development may have a prestigious aspect. But it is connected to an amount of uncertainty too, as it may not be accepted by the community and the effort taken might therewith be in vain (Braun-Thürmann 2005: 14–5). In the course of time, some materials, objects, acts or techniques may begin to be bound to certain groups in society and therewith start on their way to become a status symbol, which makes clear how difficult it is to draw a line between a 125 prestige good and a status symbol. Prestige goods that became status symbols should, from this point on, be termed as status symbols. Nevertheless those objects can still be used in social discourse and negotiation of prestige based on their material characteristics. As was mentioned above, the ascription of prestige has to be negotiated. Following this, persons or groups of persons in search for prestige are dependent on the (positive) interest of their counterparts. At the same time, the prestige good does not have to be readily noticeable from afar; the desired effect can often be obtained when it is viewed by small groups. Since prestige is attributed according to the situation, differing levels of prestige cannot be defined. Ideally, this positive interest leads to the wished for ascription of reputation, but moreover, it may wake desires. Therefore, prestige goods and acts, once they are accepted as such, are liable to mechanisms of imitation as broader parts of society try to hold or improve their place in the social order (Neunert 2010: 14–7). In these cases, archaeology can recognize the approval of prestige goods since they are reproduced and can more often be found in the archaeological record. But they must be adapted and changed repeatedly, even if only in small details, to avoid the annulment of their distinctiveness (Pollock 1983: 18–20). This aspect shows parallels to the phenomenon of fashion, which is also used to form identities and define one’s place in society (Simmel 1905 – and see the concepts of lifestyle as well: Veblen 1899; Bourdieu 1987) – but is not always used to struggle for a higher social position. In the worst case, completely new ways of gaining prestige must be found. But according to David Miller and Heinz Kluth, the easiest and most economic way to do this is to obtain something of cultural closeness, as this ensures comprehensibility (Miller 1987: 93–4; Kluth 1957: 46). In this way, objects and acts can be integrated into social conventions and values. On the other hand, the fact that not all parts of society are able to understand the full meaning of an object is a way of differentiation as well. To review, different aspects are important for using certain objects to gain prestige: their visibility, the positive interest of their observers, and their distinctiveness (Neunert 2010; Bagley forthcoming).The role of their cultural comprehensiveness must be regard- 126 ed with differentiation. On the one hand, new or imported objects offer a high degree of uniqueness and attraction; on the other hand their use to gain prestige is potentially related to a high effort that will not necessarily lead to success. In the context of discussing prestige, the term ‘social status’ is of great importance. Social status is defined as a specific position of an individual or a group in any social system (Peukert 2006). When defining the social system as well as status positions, different criteria can be applied. Two different forms of social status can be distinguished: inheritable status, which cannot be acquired through personal attainments, and acquirable status. Again, the differentiation is of interest in archaeological research in this context especially in the late Hallstatt Period, where the forming of dynastic structures is intensively discussed (see e.g. Krausse 2006: esp. 70 –2). The main distinction between status and prestige is the fact that every social status possesses a specific social prestige, while prestige in a wider sense acts simultaneously as a mechanism of social distinction, more or less independent of social status whose effect on the development and shift of societies is more active than that of the more passive social status. Furthermore social status is not as easily liable to changes as attributed prestige. Referring to status symbols and prestige goods as materialized condensations of social distinction, it may be stated that status symbols indicate a social status already obtained, and therefore work passively, whereas prestige goods reveal a claim on prestige. In contrast to status symbols these objects are therefore used actively in achieving prestige and in the course of social distinction. Whereas his concept of the different forms of capitals (see e.g. Bourdieu 1983) experiences a broad reception in archaeological publications, the relationship between status and prestige can be described better using the relation of Pierre Bourdieu’s field of social positions, lifestyles, and the habitus based on this theory of capitals (fig. 1; Bourdieu 1987). While the field of social positions shows the ranking of different status groups in a social system, the field of lifestyles displays a specific way of life depending on a particular habitus. Prestige plays an important role here because every lifestyle – as well as taste – can generate prestige depending on the specific context. Fig. 1: Simplified part of Pierre Bourdieus Field of Social Positions. Drawn after Bourdieu 1987: 212–213 fig. 5–6. To summarize this shortened definition and discussion of prestige in the context of social behavior and differentiation, prestige can be described as a mechanism of distinction which affects groups and individuals of a given society. In contrast to social status which is difficult to change, members of a society use prestige actively to shape their individual appearance therein as well as the recognition of the social groups they belong to. Although such aspects of human behavior are difficult to investigate in prehistoric cultures due to the nature of archaeological sources, prestige seems a worthwhile research subject for it reveals interesting aspects of social life and differentiation. Case study: Golden necklaces of the late Hallstatt Period Whereas the discussion on social structures and distinction in the Neolithic is dominated by the question of the negotiation of prestige (see for example Müller, Bernbeck 1996; Siklósi 2004), in the archaeology of the Iron Age, and especially in the discussion on social structures of the late Hallstatt Period in the western Hallstatt region, considerations on social status dominate the debate2.This becomes exceedingly obvious in Stefan Burmeister’s work on „Geschlecht, Alter und Herrschaft“ (gender, age and reign) in the late Hallstatt Period in south-western Germany in which he points to several burial objects with „hohem Statuswert bzw. mit Insigniencharakter“ (high status value or insignial character; Burmeister 2000; fig. 2). In fact, his set of status symbols (Burmeister 2000: 171 Tab. 17) of the later Hallstatt Period enfolds almost all burial objects of this era which makes a critical discussion on whether all of them were status symbols or used distinctively seem appropriate. At this point the question can be raised if some of those finds should be interpreted as prestige goods which – relying on the shortened def- 127 Fig. 2: Stefan Burmeisters finds with high status value or insignial character. After Burmeister 2000: 171, Tab. 17. initions given above – offer different mechanisms of distinction and therefore have different validity regarding social structures. One type of artifacts from the late Hallstatt Period that is usually interpreted as status symbols and can be labeled a classic example in this era are the golden necklaces which were first interpreted as tiaras. Except for one example from Uttendorf in Upper Austria that is considered an eastern imitation (Egg 1985: 357; 128 Stöllner 2002: 73), the golden necklaces are distributed in the western Hallstatt Region spreading from eastern France and Switzerland to south-western Germany (fig. 3). Among other golden artifacts they have already played an important role in discussions on social structures in early research. During the course of time the interpretation of upper class status symbols was formed and evolved into a paradigm. In his article, dealing with this group of artifacts, Stefan Burmeister Fig. 3: Distribution of late Hallstatt golden necklaces. Mapped after Egg 1985: 358, Abb. 28. states that „there is no doubt in the scientific community that these rings were former status symbols of the upper class as were imported Mediterranean goods, wagons and bronze vessels“ (Burmeister 2003: 274)3. Nevertheless, there are divergent views about which elements of the necklaces make them not only distinctive finds but status symbols. Leif Hansen (2010: 97) stressed that probably not the necklace itself is the status symbol but that the material gold is playing the decisive role in the symbolic meaning of those finds (already indicated by Wolfgang Adler [2003: 304]). However, he does not doubt that the (golden) necklaces were status symbols: „that the golden necklaces were status symbols has already been stated correctly several times and has never really been doubted.“ (Hansen 2010: 98)4. On the other hand, the spread of golden artifacts in graves of the late Hallstatt and early La Tène period indicates that gold itself – as well as necklaces made of bronze – cannot generally be interpreted as a status symbol, for it appears in different contexts (Hansen 2010: 132). One argument for the interpretation of golden necklaces as status symbols is their appearance in exceptional graves. In several contexts, like the well known burial-site from Hochdorf, this cannot be doubted but it must be noted that in some graves the most remarkable artifact is the golden necklace; the danger of a circular reasoning is evident. The link to (archaeologically defined) graves of males was the main argument for Thomas Stöllner (2002: 73) to interpret the golden necklaces as status symbols although Leif Hansen noted that this is only the case for earlier examples (Hansen 2010: 98). From Ha D3 throughout Lt A they also appear in female burials such as the exceptional grave of the so called princess of Vix and therefore cannot be interpreted solely as male status symbols. The most frequently stressed arguments, however, relate to the objects themselves – as already shown above with the material gold – and not the context they were found in. This was recently compiled and discussed by Stefan Burmeister (2003). He mainly focuses on conspicuity, exclusiveness of the material, and manufacturing technology. Those attributes make the golden necklaces special but they only become a 129 status symbol because of the symbolic meaning they are linked to. When comparing these attributes with those for prestige-objects sketched above – visibility, positive interest of their observers, distinctiveness and cultural comprehensiveness – it becomes evident that quite similar arguments define prestige goods and status symbols on a material level. Both are distinctive objects and therefore the difference is primarily in the symbolic and social significance. Meaning simplified that prestige goods do not represent the social status of their owner. Research focusing on the objects themselves can show the distinctiveness of those finds but an interpretation of their social meaning in terms of status symbols and/or prestige goods remains difficult. Here, the context can clearly give more hints for a scrutinizing interpretation. In the case study of the golden necklaces arguments for an interpretation as status symbols can be found on a different level of consideration. The sepulchral stele of Hirschlanden – as well as the Glauberg stele and fragments of further poorly preserved examples dating to the early La Tène Period (Frey 2002) and other steles form the early Iron Age (see Raßhofer 1999; Kimmig 1987) – shows a male person equipped with a dagger, as well as what can be regarded as a golden necklace by its broadness. The stele can be interpreted in different ways. Among other possible meanings it could depict the person buried under the tumulus (see e.g. Zürn 1964: 31; 1970: 68; Frey 2002: 216) or it could show an idealized representation of a „warrior“ of the early Iron Age (Pauli 1972: 55–6; Hoppe 2012: 227; see Raßhofer 1999: 25–9, 115–7 for a critical discussion of the arguments). In the latter case this would clearly provide an interpretation of the necklace, the hat and the dagger as being status symbols of the social group which is represented. Taking into account the similarities of the stele and the burial site of Hochdorf where the same attributes as displayed on the stele of Hirschlanden can be found as burial objects the interpretation as an idealized representation seems appropriate. This theory clearly supports a designation of the necklaces, or the displayed ensemble as status symbols. In this context the stele’s arm position must be evaluated as well, for it also seems to be special. The same arm positions can also be observed in different graves of females in the early Iron Age, recently 130 discussed by Nils Müller Scheeßel (2008) and Melanie Augstein (2009).This subject clearly shows the importance of deeds that consign no material remains, in terms of artifacts, in archaeological contexts in the matter of social distinction. The arguments discussed show that there are good reasons to interpret these finds as late Hallstatt Period status symbols. Nevertheless, the golden necklaces are a good example for the problems in consideration of the negotiation process of prestige and the identification of social markers in prehistoric societies. From our point of view the connotation of prestige goods and status symbols for social distinction is too great to justify an often noted equivalent definition in archaeological works, especially when dealing with status symbols which display inheritable status. The interpretation of those objects forms our understanding of the whole social system. The discussion whether distinctive finds are prestige goods or status symbols is therefore too important to justify an equivalency of these terms and to interpret artifacts as status symbols without thorough discussion5. Case study: Maskenfibeln of the early La Tène Iron Age Within the context of analyzing the early La Tène Iron Age social structure, chieftain graves most often become the center of attention. The fundamental groundwork in connection with this are the deliberations of Georg Kossack (1974; see Gronenborn 2009). He proposes that consideration of the location in relation to other graves, the size and architecture of the complex, as well as the presence of certain offerings such as horse’s harnesses and wagons, high quality attire, imported goods and the usage of precious material and symbolic ornaments are of high importance in the identification of chieftain graves. Rudolf Echt states, that there still is no definition of chieftain graves of the early La Tène Iron Age without controversy. In his thoughts on the topic he has drawn two elements into consideration – the inclusion of bronze vessels, regardless of whether they were imported or locally made, and gold in the grave offerings (Echt 1999: 255–257). Moreover, it appears that the addition of wagons had a special meaning; although wagons were Fig. 4: Grave ensembles of the early La Tène period containing Maskenfibeln. See Bagley forthcoming for further information. included in early La Tène period graves, they no longer seem to be part of a set of standard grave offerings. This means that bronze vessels and the material gold are placed at the same socially significant level. Fibulae usually play no role in these contexts. Depending on the design, the opulent character of such objects as the fibulae from Parsberg or the pieces found in the chieftain tombs of Glauberg is accentuated. This was achieved through the use of special materials such as gold and colorful appliqués like coral, a large size, or through design elements such as early La Tène art. All of these aspects make a fibula suitable for use in social discourse and therewith a potential prestige good.This assumption will be discussed in the following example of early La Tène Maskenfibeln. A prestige good must be readily identifiable with the owner – for example by pinning a fibula to one’s clothing. A positive interest and acceptance by society can be assumed since there was an abundance of decorative figures throughout the early La Tène period. It is primarily birds in the form of Vogelkopffibeln that were depicted, but also anthropomorphic heads are to be found on various objects such as fibulae and rings (see Binding 1993). Aspects of imitation and fashion probably played a role in the spread of art during the early La Tène period as figurative art, a formerly relatively unknown form of expression at least in the western Hallstatt culture, saw an ever broader use in many segments of the population. In this respect, it is noteworthy that the bird has a long tradition north of the Alps (Lang 2002; Kossack 1954), while new designs like mythical beasts were mainly restricted to objects recovered from chieftain tombs. And there might be a peculiarity in regard to the understanding of these representations: not all members 131 Fig. 5: Distribution of early La Tène Maskenfibeln. See Bagley forthcoming for further information. of the early La Tène society could necessarily interpret the meaning of these ornaments. In this respect they might be especially distinctive, showing special religious beliefs or connections with the Mediterranean region and thereby generating prestige. Thus, visibility and positive interest are achieved. Cultural understanding can be assumed in some cases; in others the distinctiveness is probably increased, because parts of society could not understand their full meaning. Since the objects are comparatively rare in occurrence, the archaeological record makes it at least probable that they are also distinctive elements in themselves. Hence, the Maskenfibeln of the early La Tène Iron Age were potentially prestige goods. But further archaeological research is necessary to determine who used these fibulae and in what context. In order to do this, burial sites 132 containing a Maskenfibel will be surveyed in respect to their grave offerings (for more detail see Bagley forthcoming). At first glance, they can be found in very different kinds of ensembles (fig. 4). In some cases, the Maskenfibel is the only (surviving) piece in the grave, however, these features were very often excavated earlier than the year 1900, opened without archaeological surveillance, or the circumstances of their discovery are completely unknown. Furthermore, a couple of graves contain food, ceramic vessels or cutting knives – all of which are related to eating and drinking. Combinations of fibulae and armlets are in the record as well. All of these features cannot be directly related to certain groups of people in early La Tène society. But five pieces are combined with a set of anklets, neck, arm and finger rings, which indicate the interment of a fe- male. In nine examples, weapons like swords or spears suggest male interment. Regarding their regional extension, these graves with sets of rings and weapons generally focus on the central Rhine region, suggesting that these ornaments were used in different ways in the various regions of their appearance (fig. 5). In the case of the middle Rhine region the Maskenfibel probably was associated to a group of persons characterized through their rich burial offerings, possibly representing the social elite. Wearing a Maskenfibel might have been part of their lifestyle and identified their social position as Pierre Bourdieu described it. Their usage as prestigious objects is hard to grab in the archaeological record – especially as so many findings lack essential data. Nonetheless, it becomes clear that fibulae as well as other objects normally not included in the discussion on social structure, prestige and status of the La Tène society, should be recognized and analyzed in this respect. Conclusions Objects, here in the context of archaeological finds, offer various options to shape and negotiate one’s respect and communal position in the social dialogue. In contrast to the relatively passive social status which is a specified and sanctioned position in society, prestige or social esteem is used actively in social discourse and therefore has an active character and potentially leads to social change. Status symbols and prestige objects, as the materialized remnants of past social distinction, become the center of attention from an archaeological perspective. Status symbols can attain prestige by their specific material characteristics but do not have to do so. Nevertheless, a differentiation between status symbols and prestige goods, which do not indicate a social status, seems necessary to analyze different forms of social distinction. Discussion on social structures is dominated by the question of different status groups in the case of the late Hallstatt and early La Tène period in southern Central Europe. In this paper, emphasis is placed on the importance of prestige as a subject of social archaeology based on the examples of the later Hallstatt period golden necklaces and early La Tène Maskenfibeln. This approach clearly illustrates that analyses of the artifacts prove only the distinctiveness of certain groups of objects.The differences between status symbols and prestige goods, and thereby the social implication of these finds, remains difficult to determine on this basis. For further information their use in social discourse should be surveyed.This is demonstrated by the cases of the golden necklaces and their pictorial representations on stelae, and the Maskenfibeln in relation to their combination with other grave goods in early La Tène burials. In addition to objects that build the center of attention in most archaeological works, archaeological features, as remnants of former acts, can be interpreted in the course of social distinction as well. The negotiation of prestige plays an important role in the formation and shift of societies and therefore in the (re)construction of prehistoric social structures. A serious discussion seems necessary when interpreting parts of the material culture or other aspects of past societies as status symbols or prestige goods, since they have a related but different social meaning. 133 Notes 1 2 3 4 See Hildebrandt 2009. For different approaches of the Munich research group also see Hildebrandt,Veit 2009. The most influential work on prestige in Hallstatt Culture was Susan Frankenstein‘s and Mike J. Rowlands‘ discussion on the substitution of prestige goods in south-western Germany (Frankenstein, Rowlands 1978). Recently Stefan Burmeister discussed prestige in the same epoche (2009). Prestige is also to be seen in context with power as e.g. Ursula Naue and MariaChristina Zingerle (2007) pointed out for the reconstruction of prehistoric societies. In German: „Es besteht in der Forschung heute kein Zweifel daran, dass es sich bei diesen Ringen – wie auch beim mediterranen Import, bei Wagen und dem Bronzegeschirr – um einstige Statussymbole der sozialen Oberschicht handelt“ (Burmeister 2003: 274). In German: „Dass es sich bei den goldenen Halsringen um Statussymbole handelt, wurde mehrmals zu Recht bemerkt und auch nie ernsthaft angezweifelt“ (Hansen 2010: 98). 5 The possibility of interpreting distinctive actions and objects in archaeological contexts as well as the differentiation of status and prestige and the impact of discussing prestige on our (re)construction of social structures are the framework of my (R.S.) PhD thesis with the working title „Status und Prestige in der Hallstattkultur. Aspekte sozialer Distinktion in ältereisenzeitlichen Fundgruppen zwischen Altmühl und Save / Status and prestige in Hallstatt culture. Aspects of Social distinction in Early Iron Age regional groups between Altmühl and Sava“ at the Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie und Provinzialrömische Archäologie of the University of Munich. The thesis is supervised by Carola Metzner-Nebelsick and funded by a doctorate stipendium of the research training group „Formen von Prestige in Kulturen des Altertums“ at the LMU Munich. Bibliography Adler, W. (2003), Der Halsring von Männern und Göttern. Schriftquellen, bildliche Darstellungen und Halsringfunde aus West-, Mittel- und Nordeuropa zwischen Hallstatt- und Völkerwanderungszeit. Saarbrücker Beitr. Altkde. 78. Bonn. Augstein, M. (2009), Der Körper als Zeichen? Deutungsmöglichkeiten von Körperinszenierungen im hallstattzeitlichen Bestattungsritual. In: Karl, R., Leskovar, J. [Hrsg.], Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Tagungsbericht der 3. Linzer Gespräche zur interpretativen Eisenzeitarchäologie. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 22. Linz: 11–25. Bagley, J. M. (forthcoming), Zwischen Kommunikation und Distinktion – Ansätze zur Rekonstruktion frühlatènezeitlicher Bildpraxis. Unpubl. Diss. München (in preparation). — (forthcoming), Vergessen und neu belebt – Das neolithische Steinbeil von seiner Produktion bis in die Neuzeit. In: Bokern, A., Rowan, C. [eds.], Embodying Value. BAR Internat. Series (in preparation). Binding, U. (1993), Studien zu den figürlichen Fibeln der Frühlatènezeit. UPA 16. Bonn. Bourdieu, P. (1983), Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In: Kreckel, R. [Hrsg.], Soziale Ungleichheiten. Soziale Welt, Sonderbd. 2. Göttingen: 183–98. Bourdieu, P. (1987), Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt a. Main. Bosch, A. (2010), Konsum und Exklusion. Eine Kultursoziologie der Dinge. Bielefeld. 134 Braun-Thürmann, H. (2005), Innovation. Einsichten. Themen der Soziologie. Bielefeld. Burmeister, St. (2000), Geschlecht, Alter und Herrschaft in der Späthallstattzeit Württembergs. Tübinger Schr. Ur- u. Frühgesch. Arch. 4. Münster et al. — (2003), Die Herren der Ringe. Annäherung an ein späthallstattzeitliches Statussymbol. In: Veit, U., Kienlin, T., Kümmel, Ch., Schmidt, S. [Hrsg.], Spuren und Botschaften: Interpretationen materieller Kultur. Tübinger Arch. Taschenbücher 4. Münster et al.: 265–96. — (2009), „Codierungen/Decodierungen“. Semiotik und die archäologische Untersuchung von Statussymbolen und Prestigegütern. In: Hildebrandt, B., Veit, C. [Hrsg.], Der Wert der Dinge – Güter im Prestigediskurs. Münchner Stud. Alte Welt 6. München: 74–102. Echt, R. (1999), Das Fürstinnengrab von Reinheim. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte der Früh-La-Tène-Zeit. Blesa 2. BliesbruckReinheim. Egg, M. (1985), Die hallstattzeitlichen Hügelgräber bei HelpfauUttendorf in Oberösterreich. Jahrb. RGZM 32: 323–93. Eggert, M. K. H. (2010), Hermeneutik, Semiotik und Kommunikationstheorie in der prähistorischen Archäologie: Quellenkritische Erwägungen. In: Juwig, C., Kost, C. [Hrsg.], Bilder in der Archäologie – Archäologie der Bilder. Tübinger Arch. Taschenbücher 8. Münster et al.: 49–74. Frankenstein, S., Rowlands, M. J. (1978), The internal structure and regional context of early Iron Age society in south-western Germany. Bull. Inst. Arch. 15. London: 73–112. Frey, O.-H. (2002), Menschen oder Heroen? Die Statuen vom Glauberg und die frühe keltische Grossplastik. In: Glaube – Mythos – Wirklichkeit. Das Rätsel der Kelten vom Glauberg. Stuttgart: 208–18. Godelier M. (1999), Das Rätsel der Gabe. Geld, Geschenke, heilige Objekte. München. Gronenborn, D. (2009), Zur Repräsentation von Eliten im Grabbrauch. Probleme und Aussagemöglichkeiten historischer und ethnographischer Quellen Westafrikas. In: Egg, M., Quast, D. [Hrsg.], Aufstieg und Untergang. Zwischenbilanz des Forschungsschwerpunktes „Studien zur Genese und Struktur von Eliten in vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften. Monogr. RGZM 82: 217–45. Habermas, T. (1999), Geliebte Objekte. Symbole und Instrumente der Identitätsbildung. Frankfurt. Hahn, H. P. (2003), Dinge als Zeichen – eine unscharfe Bezeichnung. In: Veit, U., Kienlin, T. L., Kümmel, Ch., Schmidt, S. [Hrsg.], Spuren und Botschaften: Interpretationen materieller Kultur. Tübinger Arch. Taschenbücher 4. Münster et al: 29–52. — (2011), Konsumlogik und Eigensinn der Dinge. In: Drügh, H., Metz, C.,Weyand, B. [Hrsg.],Warenästhetik – Neue Perspektiven auf Konsum, Kultur und Kunst. Frankfurt a.M.: 92–110. Hansen, L. (2010), Hochdorf VIII. Die Goldfunde und Trachtbeigaben des späthallstattzeitlichen Fürstengrabes von Eberdingen-Hochdorf (Kr. Ludwigsburg). Forsch. u. Ber. Vor- u. Frühgesch. Baden-Württemberg 118. Stuttgart. Hildebrandt, B.,Veit, C. [Hrsg.] (2009), Der Wert der Dinge. Güter im Prestigediskurs. Münchner Stud. Alte Welt 6. München. Hoppe, Th. (2012), Ahne, Heros, Totenbild – Der Krieger von Hirschlanden. In: Die Welt der Kelten. Zentren der Macht – Kostbarkeiten der Kunst. Ostfildern: 226–7. Kienlin, T. L. (2005), Die Dinge als Zeichen: Eine Einführung in das Thema. In: Kienlin, T. L. [Hrsg.], Die Dinge als Zeichen. Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur. UPA 127. Bonn: 1–20. Kimmig, W. (1987), Eisenzeitliche Grabstelen in Mitteleuropa. Versuch eines Überblicks. Fundber. Baden-Württemberg 12: 251–97. Kluth, H. (1957), Sozialprestige und sozialer Status. Stuttgart. Krausse, D. (2006), Prunkgräber der nordwestalpinen Späthallstattkultur. Neue Fragestellungen und Untersuchungen zu ihrer sozialhistorischen Deutung. In: Carnap-Bornheim, C. von, Krausse, D., Wesse, A. [Hrsg.], Herrschaft – Tod – Bestattung. Zu den vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Prunkgräbern als archäologisch-historische Quelle. UPA 139. Bonn: 61–80. Kossack, G. (1954), Studien zum Symbolgut der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit in Mitteuropa. Röm.-Germ. Forsch. 20. Berlin. — (1974), Prunkgräber. Bemerkungen zu Eigenschaften und Aussagewert. In: Kossack, G., Ulbert, T. [Hrsg.], Studien zur vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Festschrift für Joachim Werner zum 65. Geburtstag. Münchner Beitr.Vor- u. Frühgesch., Ergbd. 1. München: 3–33. Lamnek, S. (2002), Prestige. In: Endruweit, G., Trimmdorff, G. [Hrsg.], Wörterbuch der Soziologie. Stuttgart: 575–76. Lang, A. (2002), Vogelsymbolik im spätbronze- und ältereisenzeitlichen Mitteleuropa (13.-7. V. Chr.). Ökol. Vögel (Ecol. Birds) 24: 115–28. Latour, B. (2010), Eine neue Soziologie für eine neue Gesellschaft. Einführung in die Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. Frankfurt. Liessmann, K. P. (2010), Das Universum der Dinge. Zur Ästhetik des Alltäglichen. Wien. Malafouris, L. (2010), The brain–artefact interface (BAI): a challenge for archaeology and cultural neuroscience. In: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Jun-Sep; 5(2–3): 264–73. Published online 2010 January 19. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsp057. Mauss, M. (1929), Die Gabe. Form und Funktion des Austauschs in archaischen Gesellschaften. Frankfurt. Miller, D. (1987), Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford. Müller, J., Bernbeck, R. [Hrsg.] (1996), Prestige – Prestigegüter – Sozialstrukturen. Beispiele aus dem europäischen und vorderasiatischen Neolithikum. Arch. Ber. 6. Bonn. Müller-Scheeßel, N. (2008), Auffälligkeiten bei Armhaltungen hallstattzeitlicher Körperbestattungen: Postdeponale Eingriffe, funktionale Notwendigkeiten oder kulturelle Zeichen? In: Kümmel, Ch., Schweizer, B.,Veit, U. [Hrsg.], Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Monumentalisierung. Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäologische Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlier Perspektive. Tübinger Arch. Taschenbücher 6. Münster et al.: 517–36. Naue, U., Zingerle, Ch. (2007), Macht und Prestige: Kategorien der Rekonstruktion urgeschichtlicher Gesellschaften. In: Karl, R., Leskovar, J. [Hrsg.], Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Tagungsbericht der 2. Linzer Gespräche zur interpretativen Eisenzeitarchäologie. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 19. Linz: 187–200. Neunert, G. (2010), Mein Grab, mein Esel, mein Platz in der Gesellschaft. Prestige im alten Ägypten am Beispiel Deir el-Medine. Edition Manetho 1. Berlin. Pauli, L. (1972), Untersuchungen zur Späthallstattkultur in Nordwürttemberg. Analyse eines Kleinraumes im Grenzbereich zweiter Kulturen. Hamburger Beitr. Arch. II,1. Hamburg. Peukert, R. (2006), Status, sozialer. In: Schäfer, B., Kopp, J. [Hrsg.], Grundbegriffe der Soziologie 9. Wiesbaden: 313–5. Pollock, S. (1983), The Symbolism of Prestige. An Archaeological Example from the Royal Cemetery of Ur. Unpublished Dissertation. Michigan. Raßhofer, G. (1999), Untersuchungen zu metallzeitlichen Grabstelen in Süddeutschland. Internationale Arch. 48. Rahden/ Westf. Siklósi, Z. (2004), Prestige Goods in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin. Material Manifestations of Social Differentiation. Acta. Arch. Academia Scientiarum Hung. 55: 1– 62. 135 Simmel, G. (1905 [1995]), Philosophie der Mode. In: Simmel, G. [Hrsg.] Gesamtausgabe Band 10. Frankfurt: 9–37. Stöllner, Th. (2002), Die Hallstattzeit und der Beginn der Latènezeit im Inn-Salzach-Raum. Auswertung. Arch. Salzburg 3,1. Salzburg. Veblen, T. (1899 [1986]), Theorie der feinen Leute. Frankfurt. Vickers, M. (2004), Was ist Material wert? Eine kleine Geschichte über den Stellenwert griechischer Keramik. Antike Welt 35: 63–9. Zürn, H. (1964), Eine hallstattzeitliche Stele von Hirschlanden, Kr. Leonberg (Württbg.).Vorbericht. Germania 42: 27–36. Zürn, H. (1970), Hallstattforschungen in Nordwürttemberg. Die Grabhügel von Asperg (Kr. Ludwigsburg), Hirschlanden (Kr. Leonberg) und Mühlacker (Kr. Vaihingen). Veröff. Staatl. Amt Denkmalpfl. Stuttgart A 16. Stuttgart. 136 Jennifer M. Bagley Graduiertenkolleg „Wert und Äquivalent“ Goethe-Universität, Campus Westend Grüneburgplatz 1, Fach 136 D-60629 Frankfurt am Main bagley@em.uni-frankfurt.de Robert Schumann Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie und Provinzialrömische Archäologie Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 80539 München mail@rschumann.eu