88 Kristian Kristiansen
of political institutions with their own blueprints for social actions and heroic deeds
(Kristiansen 2008, 2012). We are far beyond a New Guinean perception of personhood
and “dividuals,” whose relevance for any prehistoric period may indeed be questioned
(Spriggs 2008).
It should also be observed that the relationship between ritual chiefs and warrior chiefs
could become strained and competitive if foreign relations collapsed. Also, in periods
of warfare, the war chiefs would be able to amass more power. However, if warrior
chiefs, through their deeds, could aspire to become ritual/political leaders, that would
certainly ease the strain. However, it would also be dependent upon the numerical
relationship between the two groups. During the centuries from 1300 to 1100BC,
flange-hilted swords become more numerous, whereas Nordic full-hilted swords become
less numerous. It suggests that the warrior group could threaten the role of ritual chiefs.
However, it may also indicate that ritual chiefs had strengthened their power and created
larger political entities with lesser opportunities for warriors to achieve high office as
ritual leaders. However, this double institution also represented a clever division of
power that we meet in many societies, both in anthropological literature and in early
historical texts (Dumezil 1988). The later Spartan double kingship may be taken to
represent an inheritance from the Bronze Age, where it was widespread, as my example
from northern Europe suggests. During Mycenaean times, this dual leadership was
designated by the term “wanax” (the political/ritual leader), and “lawagetas” (the war
leader). In theIliad’s Catalogue of Ships, two leaders represent each kingdom/ethnic
group. Neither in Greece nor in Scandinavia, however, is there any doubt that the
ritual/political leader was over and above the war leader, but that did not imply that
tensions could not arise between them, as indeed is exemplified in Homer’sIliadby the
opposition between Agamemnon and Achilles, although that relationship operates at a
higher level of royalty.
What kind of identity did the new regional or “national” cultural traditions provide
for its member communities? In his review of Jonathan Hall’s first book,Ethnic Identity
in Greek Antiquity, Colin Renfrew raised this question by proposing that there already
existed a shared Greek ethnicity above the local, which forged a shared identity for all
Greek city-states (Renfrew 1998). Our findings lend support to this proposition, as it is
clear that such supra-local “national” identities already existed in the mature Bronze
Age. I further propose that such regional “national” identities/ethnicities over time
might develop into semi-autonomous long-term traditions. This can be observed in the
Nordic tradition, which remained a more or less stable feature into historic times, when
we know that a shared early Germanic, Norse language accompanied it. It makes sense as
such larger, shared cultural traditions presuppose regular and frequent interaction. Once
instituted, the shared cultural and perhaps language identity of the Nordic realm in the
Bronze Age became so deeply embedded that it took on a life of its own and became
a structuring force also in subsequent social transformations, although it also changed
in the process. In this, it resembles what anthropologists have called “great traditions”
(Odner 2000; Rowlands 2003). One of the forces in forging the Nordic cultural tradition
from the early Bronze Age onward was the emergence of highly improved technologies
in boat building, which allowed regular, and more safe, sea journeys with large boats that