by Chris Fowler
Finally, the abundance and diversity of central European Neolithic enclosures may be down to the characteristics of the culture groups in question. However, the question of whether central European Neolithic communities really built earthworks more frequently than people in other regions must remain open, given the very different state of research in different areas.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
In central Europe, enclosures are known from the earliest Linearbandkeramik (LBK, c. 5500–5300 BC) onwards (Stäuble 1990). That earliest Neolithic sites are not yet known from many regions is more likely down to the state of research than to culture-historical reality. Geographical differences in absolute and relative enclosure numbers, very noticeable from the LBK onwards (Andersen 1997, fig. 178; Petrasch 1998, suppl. 6), can also be explained by research bias. From the later LBK onwards, our knowledge of enclosures (Fig. 40.1) considerably improves and is characterized by large-scale excavations, especially numerous in the Rhenanian lignite mining area. Here, there are small ditch systems without internal buildings at the edge of settlements, such as Langweiler 8 and 9. There are also large enclosures such as Köln-Lindenthal or Erkelenz-Kückhoven (Buttler and Haberey 1936; Lehmann 2004), which probably had contemporary houses inside. Findings from the middle Merzbach valley on the Aldenhoven plateau are particularly illuminating. This c. 5 km-long stretch of valley yielded several settlements ranging from single farmsteads to small clusters of houses. Overall, 10–20 buildings existed concurrently. From the thirteenth settlement phase onwards (i.e. late in the LBK), the inhabitants built an earthwork which was first located at Langweiler 9, later at Langweiler 8. These enclosures seem to have functioned as ‘central places’ for this settlement cluster, probably in the social, political, or religious sphere. Large enclosures, such as Köln-Lindenthal and Erkelenz-Kückhoven, probably fulfilled different functions in the context of a different kind of settlement structure. Here, most if not all houses of a settlement group were located at the same site and surrounded by a ditch system.
FIG. 40.1. Linearbandkeramik enclosures.
Middle Neolithic enclosures of the stroke-ornamented ceramic traditions of western central Europe and the earlier Lengyel culture along the middle Danube (4800–4600 BC) have been especially well studied. The most prominent monuments of this time are the so-called roundels (rondels) or circular ditch systems (Kreisgrabenanlagen) of central Europe. In the Lengyel culture, the small enclosures at the edges of LBK sites were first transformed into simple Kreisgrabenanlagen with a single ditch. At Svodín in south-western Slovakia, such a small monument was abandoned after a short time, perhaps only one or two generations, and replaced by a large enclosure consisting of two ditches and three palisade circuits (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995). At this time (c. 4800–4700 BC), numerous roundels were constructed in an area spanning south-western Slovakia, Lower Austria, Moravia and Bohemia, south-east Bavaria, and central Germany. After at most a century, perhaps after only two generations, no new roundels were built. Existing sites were left to decay, such as Svodín, or apparently intentionally levelled, such as Těšetice-Kyjovice in southern Moravia (Podborský 1988). After this, in the later part of Lengyel phase I and in phase II, Kreispalisadenanlagen (i.e. circular palisade systems), were built instead. The direct replacement of a ditch with a palisade system is known at Künzing-Unternberg in Lower Bavaria, making this one of the most interesting sites for the interpretation of Neolithic enclosures (see below). These observations show that in the central area of roundel distribution, palisade enclosures appear to be a direct substitute in the minds of the enclosure builders. In some regions of central Europe, earthworks with a circular plan continued to be built, but these are very different from the classic Kreisgrabenanlagen (Barna 2007).
In the late Neolithic (Fig. 40.2; c. 4000–2900 BC), one can distinguish a northern area between the Rhine and the Elbe, with a cultural sequence of Michelsberg and Wartberg, and of Salzmünde and Walternienburg-Bernburg, and a southern area—Bavaria and Bohemia—with the cultural sequence Münchshöfen, Altheim, and Cham/Řívnáč. The Michelsberg culture yielded the two most exceptional enclosures known. The sites of Urmitz in the Neuwied basin and Wiesbaden-Schierstein (Boelicke 1976/77) are so entirely different from all other enclosures that they can with some confidence be regarded as a category of their own. Both share an interior of about 100ha, the construction with ditches and palisades, a roughly semi-circular plan, and a location directly on the Rhine. Overall, the differences from other contemporary enclosures are so large that these two sites must have had a different function and meaning for their builders. The interior of the other Michelsberg enclosures covers between 1 and 15ha (Meyer 1995; Knoche 2008), but this is too varied to form a single category. A sub-division into three size classes is possible: small sites with an interior of 1 to 3ha, such as Miel in the Rhineland; medium-sized examples (3–10ha), such as Mayen in the Eifel and Beusterburg in the Hildesheim Forest; and large sites (10–15ha), such as Salzkotten-Oberntudorf and Calden. At least two types can be defined on the basis of topographical location and ground plan: ditches cutting off promontories or river bends, such as Heilbronn-Klingenberg; and complete ditch circuits in flat areas, such as Mayen, or on the tops of gentle hills, such as Beusterburg.
FIG. 40.2. Late Neolithic earthworks from Bavaria and Bohemia. Stephansposching-Wischlburg (Cham culture), Homolka (Řívnáč culture), Bad Abbach-Alkofen, Altheim, Künzing-Bruck (Altheim culture), Buxheim, Riekofen, Obertraubling-Oberhinkofen, Oberschneiding-Riedling (Münchshöfen culture).
In the Bavarian Münchshöfen culture, most enclosures are rectangular, or occasionally almost square, but there are also sub-circular to oval examples. Many Münchshöfen sites are known, although only few excavations large enough to recognize enclosures have been carried out. This means that the Münchshöfen culture actually ranks among the communities with the greatest density and variety of enclosures. From the succeeding Altheim group, we know mainly small rectangular earthworks enclosing c.1 ha. Within the ditch system of Bad Abbach-Alkofen in the Kelheim basin, located directly on the Danube, there were only few settlement traces consisting of a few pits and six small pit huts. The ditches of the eponymous Altheim enclosure yielded numerous arrowheads, sherds, daub fragments, and human remains, interpreted as evidence for a battle. In later phases of the late Neolithic, i.e. during the Cham and Řívnáč cultures (c. 3300–2900 BC), relatively small earthworks were built, often on hilltops. In Homolka and Kutná Hora ‘Dänemark’ in Bohemia, the interior was investigated on a large scale and consisted of relatively closely packed rectangular houses sunk into the rocky ground. The ditches and palisade trenches were also cut into the bedrock. These places hence appear like proper hilltop settlements, planned and built for an extended period of settlement—arguments used in support of an interpretation as fortifications.
ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS
Alongside u-shaped ditches, v-shaped ditches are characteristic for the central European Neolithic. Occasionally, ditches were so extremely v-shaped that the narrowest parts of their bases were over a metre deep, but less than half a metre wide (Fig. 40.3). Less extreme examples grade into u-shaped profiles. With 60-70%, the relative proportion of v-shaped ditches is basically constant throughout the early and middle Neolithic. In contrast, over 90% of roundel ditches were dug as v-shapes—and very frequently as extreme v-shapes. With relative frequencies of under 5%, v-shaped ditches were essentially abandoned by the late Neolithic, and the very steep profiles of the middle Neolithic Kreisgrabenanlagen are now totally absent. Neolithic ditches can be between less than 1 and more than 10m wide, and they are still between 0.2 and 5.0m deep today. Given post-Neolithic erosion in the central European loess landscapes, an extra 0.5 to 1m has to be added to reveal the original depth. From the early to the middle Neolithic, average ditch depth increases slightly from 2.7 to 3.4m (Petrasch 1998, 194–195).
FIG. 40.3. Künzing-Unternberg. Section through the inner ditch of the middle Neolithic
roundel.
Given the sometimes extreme profiles of v-shaped ditches, we must ask the question of their potential function. Clearly, a 5 to 8m wide and 3.5 to 6m deep ditch, with a pointed base 1.5m deep and less than 0.5m wide, was an insurmountable obstacle for potential attackers lacking auxiliary devices. Yet alongside a defensive function, ditches could have had a ‘symbolic’ meaning. Due to the convex profile and the dimensions of these ditches, a person stood at the edge and looking down could not see the base—the ditches appeared endless, making for an impressive construction.
The bottom fills of large v-shaped ditches are characterized by thin and very thin layers of alternately light and dark sediments (Fig. 40.3), most probably washed in after very short-term events such as heavy rainfall or thunderstorms. Mostly, there were only few finds from these lower fills. In contrast, the upper fills seem quite homogeneous, are darker, and contain more humic and clayey soils than the basal fills. Fill conditions and timescales hence varied with ditch depth. In general, finds cluster in the upper fills. Some ditches are even characterized by an unusual quantity of finds. In some cases, such as Svodín, or Kamegg and Friebritz in Lower Austria, the large and originally deep ditches yielded finds dating several centuries or even millennia after the abandonment of the earthwork, up to 1.0–1.5m below the ground surface (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995). Only rarely did ditches, protected by pasture or woodland, remain visible above ground to the present day; examples are the Lengyel site at Falkenstein ‘Schanzboden’ in Lower Austria and the Michelsberg enclosure at Bonn ‘Venusberg’.
The early Neolithic was characterized by ditches without accompanying palisades. There are also single palisades surrounding parts of a settlement, perhaps from the earliest LBK onwards, but definitely in the later LBK. This phase also sees the first combinations of ditches and palisades, but these are even rarer than simple ditches. Ditch–palisade combinations are characteristic of the middle Neolithic. Single palisades surrounding the large settlements of this phase, such as Inden 1 in the Rhineland, or Těšetice-Kyjovice (Podborský 1988; Petrasch 1990), are also built much more frequently now. Ditches without palisades are less frequent than before and are mostly used to enclose settlements. The combination of ditches and internal palisades remained the most common construction method in the late Neolithic and was widespread beyond central Europe. Where excavations have been extensive enough to reach site edges, most northern Alpine lake villages were surrounded by palisades. Palisade- or fence-like constructions within ditches are rare, but occur throughout the Neolithic. So far, the reconstruction of palisades is based on few and ambiguous observations. It is hence often unclear whether they consisted of single posts, perhaps connected through beams or wattling, or whether posts were placed so close together as to form a continuous barrier. All these options seem attested. Data are even thinner when it comes to where the upcast was placed. Inferences on the possible location of banks, reached on the basis of ditch fills, do not stand up to critical scrutiny, but observing features behind and in front of ditches seems more promising. Since palisades were generally built close to the ditches, banks could only have existed behind the palisades, or, in the case of multiple palisades, piled between them. So far, the findings from the Svodín roundel are the most informative. Here, a wide strip of ground along the palisades was full of lime concretions, which could only have formed if a larger amount of lime-rich loess was placed here than on either side of the strip. Also, this area yielded no Baden culture finds, which were strewn all over the remainder of the site. It thus seems that the upcast was piled between the palisades and formed a wood and earth rampart, or possibly a rammed clay wall (Němejcová-Pavúková 1995). The Michelsberg enclosure at Heilbronn-Klingenberg near the Neckar shows yet another wall construction. In the ditches, large stones were found alongside the caved-in and burnt remains of a wooden structure, suggesting a stone-faced wooden wall with an earthen bank piled up behind (Seidel 2008). Alongside internal banks, which largely conform to our modern expectations, external banks are being discussed for some sites. Yet most sites yielded no information on banks at all, as this evidence depends on exceptionally good preservation. It also opens the possibility that many sites had no banks close to their ditches at all, with the upcast perhaps spread inconspicuously somewhere in the surrounding area.
Mostly, enclosure entrances were simple gaps in the ditches and palisades. However, ditch terminals can also turn outwards, and in the case of sites with several ditches connections between the outer and inner ditch can be made. For ditches, entrances are between 1.5 and 4.0m wide, for palisades between 1.5 and 2.5m. These narrow entrances are characteristic from the early to the late Neolithic, and sometimes further narrowed by additional features such as long slit-shaped pits placed longitudinally along the access route. Such elements again occur throughout the Neolithic. They render the entrances so narrow that people had to walk behind each other. Postholes in entrance areas suggest an above-ground construction. They range from single posts to the left and right of the entrance to alleyways formed by outward-turning palisades, and even to veritable gate constructions (see below), particularly frequent, varied, and elaborate in the late Neolithic. At this time, a divergent concept of the fundamental enclosure-building style also gains prominence, most clearly in the Michelsberg culture and Wartberg group. Here, enclosures are characterized by multiple causeways, occasionally boasting bastion-like constructions. This is strongly reminiscent of the contemporary interrupted ditch systems and causewayed enclosures of northern and western Europe.
KÜNZING-UNTERNBERG: A CENTRAL EUROPEAN ENCLOSURE
The middle Neolithic Lower Bavarian site of Künzing-Unternberg (Fig. 40.4) has been chosen as a detailed case study of a central European earthwork to allow fuller discussion of the actual appearance of various features and the associated problems of excavation and interpretation. The site lies at the end of a low loess promontory right on the edge of the Danube floodplain. The most remarkable feature, and probably the most important for the Neolithic inhabitants, is a Kreisgrabenanlage. Like all Bavarian examples, it consists of two extremely v-shaped ditches. The outer and inner ditch join up at the four entrances, creating the impression of 20m-long causeways. Excavations in 1985 revealed that, with a width of up to 6m and a depth of 3.7m (Fig. 40.3), the inner ditch was considerably larger than the 2.2m wide and 1.7m deep outer ditch. Given erosion of at least a metre in the best preserved parts of the site, a depth of roughly 5m for the inner roundel enclosure seems realistic. With these ditch dimensions and an outer diameter of 106m, Künzing-Unternberg is by far the largest Bavarian Kreisgrabenanlage.
FIG. 40.4. Künzing-Unternberg.
The extremely pointed lowest parts of the ditches, especially the inner ditch, were rapidly filled in naturally through washed-in material (Fig. 40.3). If the builders of the enclosure valued this original ditch shape, they hence had to renew it, probably within one generation (25 years). The inner ditch shows three to five such renewal episodes, during which the bottom 2m of the ditch were recut. Interestingly, these repairs did not extend over the entire course of the ditch, but were carried out in sections a few metres long. These individual stretches could well have been the responsibility of different ‘work teams’, probably at least partly independent of one another. A similar system could have been in use during the initial building of the enclosure. North of the north-western entrance, the outer ditch shows a curious bend reaching far beyond the ideal ground plan (Fig. 40.4). Given the great care with which the roundel was otherwise built, this structure seems a ‘construction error’, which could easily be due to two independent teams working towards one another, but is difficult to explain otherwise.
Within the roundel are two palisade rings, concentric with the ditches. This reduces the free space in the interior to a diameter of 60m, resulting in an area of 5600m2. In terms of these figures, too, Künzing-Unternberg is the largest Bavarian enclosure and is surpassed by only few Kreisgrabenanlagen even in the Leng
yel culture. At Künzing there are few features in the interior, and given the lack of finds none could be dated. Comparing the feature density and the number of finds in features within and outside the enclosure suggests that the interior was kept free. The only notable features are four slit-shaped pits, one of which was situated between the two palisade rings. All pits of this kind excavated here are from within the roundel.
The western entrance of the enclosure boasted a structure with no known parallels to date. The ditches connecting the outer and inner ditch each had three postholes in the area towards the enclosure’s interior. The posts reach 1.5m below the Neolithic surface and were dug into the sloping ditch sides. Further along the axis created by these two post rows, between the inner ditch and the outer palisade, a posthole each was dug to the right and left of the entrance. It seems plausible to reconstruct these features as a gatehouse (Fig. 40.4), followed by the slit-shaped pit, oriented longitudinally towards the entrance through the outer palisade. The distances between all of these postholes could have been bridged using Neolithic technology, so that gatehouses of different lengths can be reconstructed. These could have reached from the inner connecting ditch to just before, or even right up to, the palisade. In total, the distance from the outer ditch to the empty interior was 25m. Regardless of the different possible reconstructions of the gatehouse, this entrance was hence an unusual, impressive construction. A further peculiarity is the burial of an adult male dog in the inner palisade, just south of the north-western entrance (Petrasch 2004).
