The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe

by Chris Fowler

  The Künzing-Unternberg Kreisgrabenanlage was surrounded by a c. 9ha settlement, enclosed first by one ditch, later by two (Fig. 40.4). The isolated enclosure ditch was executed as an extremely v-shaped profile, just like the ditches of the roundel, but in contrast to the latter it was intentionally backfilled after a very short period of use (a few years at most, but probably less than a year). The investigated 35m stretch yielded no finds whatsoever, suggesting construction and refill at a time when no settlement rubbish had accumulated. It may hence have been the first building episode on this site. In contrast, the outer ditches were probably dug after or in conjunction with the roundel, as their causeways align with its north-west entrance.

  With the cessation of maintenance work on the v-shaped ditches, the roundel at Künzing-Unternberg was abandoned after at most a century. Instead, a circular palisade system of three concentric rings was erected in the former interior of the roundel (Fig. 40.4). With an outer diameter of 40m and an inner one of 25m, the palisade enclosure is significantly smaller than the original ditch system. Its central point and the axis through the palisade entrances towards the west are so clearly offset compared to those of the former roundel that, had both enclosures existed contemporaneously, it would have been impossible to look through the palisade rings. During the palisades’ period of use, an up to 3m wide and at most 1.5m deep depression was all that remained of the former inner ditch. The changes at the north-western entrance to the enclosures are the most striking. The narrow earthen causeway, flanked by deep v-shaped ditches, was transformed into a 15m long, 10m wide, and roughly 1m deep trough. Slowly, the depression collected further sediment and settlement refuse. The sediment was exceptionally rich in humic and clayey soils, leaving the derelict ditches wetter and more densely overgrown than other parts of the site. The palisade system at Künzing can be compared with examples from central Germany and Bohemia. Taken together, they suggest that circular palisade systems were a distinct monument type which dates to the later Stichbandkeramik (StBK, i.e. Stroke-Ornamented Pottery, 4600–4400 BC), is only marginally younger than the Kreisgrabenanlagen, and has a similar geographic distribution. The transition from one monument type to the other was probably roughly contemporary throughout central Europe.

  STRUCTURING THE DATA

  Generally, scientific terms are unequivocally defined and clearly separated from one another. Any object belongs to only one such ‘artificial’ category and its superordinate classes, but never to two different classes on the same hierarchical level simultaneously. In terms of their class membership, all objects of a class are equivalent and have the same defining characteristics. In different sciences, such as biology (taxonomy) and archaeology (typology), these terminological systems proved very successful for tackling a wide range of questions. Until now, for instance, almost all archaeological work concerned with bronze artefacts has prioritized questions of stylistic grouping, geographical distribution, and chronological classification. The methods for systematically addressing such topics, for example correspondence analysis, necessitate the unequivocal assignations provided by artificial categories.

  In everyday speech, however, people classify objects totally differently. The main characteristics of ‘natural’ categories are their fuzzy boundaries and the non-equivalence of their members, i.e. there are more and less typical examples. Psychological experiments have shown that categories are not defined by a list of simultaneously necessary and sufficient characteristics. Every single characteristic can, but does not have to be, present in a member of the category. Hence, the ‘fuzzier’ allocations connected to natural categories are less suitable for addressing many traditional archaeological questions. On the other hand, using these categories in archaeology has obvious advantages for interpretations privileging the function and meaning of monuments or objects. Since this is the case in the analysis of enclosures, it is understandable that all researchers on the topic have de facto tried to establish natural categories through their classifications, even though this has not been explicitly discussed.

  At present, the middle Neolithic roundels are probably the best-researched central European enclosures. They are hence used as an example for how ‘the search for the Neolithic category’ can work in practice. Researchers are and were exceptionally unanimous on what is and what is not a Kreisgrabenanlage, although there was no scientific discourse as such about it. In attempting to reconstruct the middle Neolithic category Kreisgrabenanlage, newly discovered sites were tentatively assigned to the existing group, and the resulting changes in the category—its traits and list of characteristics—were analysed. If necessary, sites were then removed again. This procedure is similar to learning a foreign language, when one is only communicating in the language to be learnt.

  This study of middle Neolithic roundels yielded the so far most thoroughly argued category exclusively reconstructed from archaeological data. Analysis also determined both the geographical and temporal limits of their distribution and their contextual differentiation from other enclosures. Roundels occur in a roughly 300 by 500km region from south-east Bavaria, Bohemia, Moravia, Lower Austria, and south-west Slovakia in the south to central Germany in the north and date to a narrowly defined horizon spanning just a century and comprising the cultural groupings of middle Oberlauterbach, StBK IVa, Moravian Painted Ware I (MMK = Moravské Malované Keramiky), and Lengyel I. Kreisgrabenanlagen can be described with the following traits:

  •circular or almost circular plan

  •one or several, sometimes very large (v-shaped) ditches

  •one or more interior palisades

  •one to four generally small entrances

  •settlement traces (pits, houses) outside the roundel

  •the integration of the Kreisgrabenanlage into a complex settlement system (settlements, cemeteries, enclosures, and sometimes further roundels) within a microregion.

  As expected for a natural category, not all Kreisgrabenanlagen have all ‘defining’ characteristics. But it is surprising how few deviations from the ideal prototype with all traits, found for instance at Künzing-Unternberg, Těšetice-Kyjovice, or Svodín, actually exist (Petrasch 1990). Overall, formally, geographically, and chronologically, roundels are an unusually clear and narrowly defined group—the best argument for them being a natural category.

  INTERPRETATIVE POSSIBILITIES

  Finally, I wish to give a short overview of the interpretations offered for enclosures so far. The majority of researchers assumed a defensive function, differentiating between refuge forts and fortified settlements. Cattle corrals, winter quarters for animals, and animal markets were also suggested. Other possibilities included enclosed marketplaces and high-status residences. Alongside profane interpretations, a sacred function was argued, differentiating between ritual and funerary uses. In addition, enclosures were seen as central meeting places, which could then have fulfilled economic, social, political, and ritual functions (see Petrasch 1990 and references therein).

  The striking differences between the different enclosures militate against a generally valid, single interpretation for all earthworks. For instance, markets and religious festivals are combined in many societies. In addition, function and meaning may change throughout a monument’s use, or new functions can be added to the original one. It hence makes sense to look for the functions of different site categories separately and to search for the original function intended by the builders. Interpretations can be subdivided into two main kinds: direct and indirect interpretations.

  Direct interpretations rely on the ditches themselves. Finds from the ditches are key arguments for deducing enclosure function, as researchers hoped for direct evidence of activities within or at the enclosure. The site at Altheim (see above) is a good example for this approach. It was excavated on a large scale in 1914, but apart from a palisade following the course of the inner ditch very few internal features were revealed. In contrast, the ditches were exceptionally finds-rich, with material appar
ently concentrating in the inner ditch and along the entranceways through the outer circuit. Most striking were the large number of vessels (at least 600, of which 180 could be reconstructed), 174 flint arrowheads, large amounts of daub, and the remains of at least 20 humans. On this basis, P. Reinecke (1915) reconstructed the enclosure as a fortified farmstead, destroyed after a fierce battle. In his direct, vivid interpretation, he went as far as to state ‘that during the struggle, even pots were thrown at the attacking enemies’ (Reinecke 1915, 10). Most prehistorians followed these conclusions, but for a few the fortified character of the site did not seem sufficiently argued. They reasoned that large quantities of domestic wares, daub, and arrowheads cannot be unequivocally interpreted and that a ritual interpretation should hence not be excluded. Since this interpretation lacked supporting arguments, it was not convincing.

  Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines from the ditches, interpreted as sacred imagery, were used as arguments for a ritual function of enclosures (Podborský 1988). But as the builders intended the ditches as negative features, their filling up with sediment and artefacts was probably in general not deliberate. This is illustrated by the frequently attested multiple episodes of recutting. By the time the upper ditch fills, in which finds mostly concentrate, were deposited, the ditches were no longer maintained and may well have lost their primary function. Finds from these fills can hence not be used directly in support of a functional interpretation of the earthworks. Most figurines only survive as fragments, and therefore had also already lost their primary function at the time of deposition. A concentration of figurines is at most an indication that at some point, rituals took place somewhere on the site. This kind of interpretation does not relate the functions of the earthworks directly to the ditches and palisades, but seeks it in their interiors, and should thus be referred to as an indirect functional interpretation.

  A further indirect interpretation sees enclosures as places at which a phase in a multi-stage burial rite was carried out. This idea goes back to research into enclosures and megalithic monuments in the British Isles, which chronologically roughly correspond to the German late Neolithic (Raddatz 1980). It is argued that corpses were first laid out in the interior to decompose. Later, single bones and possibly anatomically connected skeletal elements were collected and deposited in megaliths. New excavation results have recently made this model popular in central Europe. The ditches of the Michelsberg enclosure at Salzkotten-Oberntudorf in Westphalia revealed isolated scattered human bones with cutmarks, which can plausibly be interpreted as the remains of multi-stage funerary rites (Orschiedt 1998).

  For some years, an interpretation of enclosures, especially Kreisgrabenanlagen, as astronomical observatories has gained in popularity. This is based on the observation that entrances at many roundels pointed very accurately, and hence deliberately, towards prominent events of the ‘celestial year’. This begs the question of whether the significance of astronomical orientations was connected to a specific function. A function as calendar, specifically for determining particular dates, or sowing time, has been suggested (Becker 1996). In temperate areas, however, no farmer would rely on a calendar to determine sowing, but instead on the current state of vegetation. This interpretation hence appears contrived and abstract. It is a very different matter if roundels were used to determine the date of a yearly religious, political, or social event, e.g. a celebration, a gathering, or similar. Inspired by analogies from later periods, we could first and foremost suggest solstice celebrations. Indeed, the entrances of some, but by no means all, roundels are aligned on the corresponding cardinal points. Further clusters of orientations refer to marked stellar events. Thus, if Kreisgrabenanlagen functioned as calendars, they determined different dates. The date for an important yearly occurrence does not, however, have to fall on astronomical events, as shown by modern national holidays. Thus, entrance axes not oriented towards solar or stellar events could still be calendars. This remains impossible to prove for periods without written sources, such as the Neolithic.

  If the function of roundels as calendars is so far not persuasive, but an astronomical orientation was important at least at some sites, what did the builders of these monuments connect with such events? In this context, it is illuminating to calculate the likelihood of a solar orientation for Neolithic earthworks compared to other kinds of site. The middle Neolithic Kreisgrabenanlagen fall between buildings and settlements for which solar orientation was insignificant and those with definite solar orientations, such as the pyramids of Giza or imperial Beijing. As the function of the latter two is known and the ‘worldview’ of at least the builders of Beijing is well recorded, they can illustrate the possible functions of astronomically aligned buildings and the reasons for such an orientation. It is revealing that neither monument had a calendrical function. The aim was rather to integrate human activity into a conceptual ‘harmonious world order’ (Petrasch 2012). In this context, the meticulous attention to the necessary orientation of burials or the capital city was only one of many important aspects. Although the pyramids of Giza and the city of Beijing were built by state-level societies, a similar aim for the alignments of middle Neolithic roundels seems at present more likely than the comparatively contrived calendrical function. The frequently observed orientation of entrance axes towards cardinal points supports the idea that roundels were aligned astronomically due to such a symbolic ‘action’. This is especially salient for the northward orientation, as no events that would make sense in a Neolithic calendar can be observed there (Petrasch 2012).

  REFERENCES

  Andersen, N.H. 1997. The Sarup enclosures: the Funnel Beaker culture of the Sarup site including two causewayed camps compared to the contemporary settlements in the area and other European enclosures. Moesgaard: Jutland Archaeological Society.

  Barna, J.P. 2007. A new site of the Lengyel culture in Sormás-Török-földek (county Zala, south-western Transdanubia): preliminary report. In J.K. Kozłowski and P. Raczky (eds), The Lengyel, Polgár and related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in central Europe, 365–380. Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.

  Becker, H. 1996. Kultplätze, Sonnentempel und Kalenderbauten aus dem 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In M. Petzet (ed.), Archäologische Prospektion, Luftbildarchäologie und Geophysik, 101–122. München: Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege.

  Boelicke, U. 1976/77. Das neolithische Erdwerk Urmitz. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 7/8, 73–121.

  Burgess, C., Topping, P., Mordant, C., and Maddison, M. (eds) 1988. Enclosures and defences in the Neolithic of western Europe. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Buttler, W. and Haberey, W. 1936. Die bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei Köln-Lindenthal. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  Knoche, B. 2008. Die Erdwerke von Soest (Kr. Soest) und Nottuln-Uphoven (Kr. Coesfeld): Studien zum Jungneolithikum in Westfalen. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

  Lehmann, J. 2004. Die Keramik und Befunde des bandkeramischen Siedlungsplatzes Erkelenz-Kückhoven, Kreis Heinsberg (Grabungskampagnen 1989-1994). In H. Koschik (ed.), Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz von Erkelenz-Kückhoven I: Archäologie, 1–364. Mainz: P. von Zabern.

  Meyer, M. 1995. Bemerkungen zu den jungneolithischen Grabenwerken zwischen Rhein und Saale. Germania 73, 69–94.

  Němejcová-Pavúková, V. 1995. Svodín 1: Zwei Kreisgrabenanlagen der Lengyel-Kultur. Bratislava: Universitas Comeniana Bratislavensis.

  Orschiedt, J. 1998. Die menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem Erdwerk von Salzkotten Oberntudorf (Grabung 1988/90–1992). In D. Schyle (ed.), Das jungneolithische Erdwerk von Salzkotten-Oberntudorf, Kr. Paderborn: Die Ausgrabungen 1988 bis 1992, 107–116. Mainz: P. von Zabern.

  Petrasch, J. 1990. Mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Mitteleuropa. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 407–564.

  Petrasch, J. 1998. Graben und Palisadenanlagen. In J. Preuß (ed.), Das Neolithikum in Mitteleuropa: Kulturen, Wirtschaft, Umwelt vom 6. bis 3. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. - Übersichten zum Stand der Forschun
g, 187–199. Weißbach: Beier & Beran.

  Petrasch, J. 2004. Von Menschen und Hunden: Befunde aus Kreisgrabenanlagen der Oberlauterbacher Gruppe und der Lengyel Kultur und deren Interpretationen. In E. Studeníková and B. Hänsel (eds), Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis: Neolithikum und ältere Bronzezeit. Gedenkschrift für V. Němejcová Pavúková, 295–308. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

  Petrasch, J. 2012. Die mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlagen in Zentraleuropa: Forschungs-stand und Interpretationstheorien zu Funktion und Bedeutung. In F. Bertemes and H. Meller (eds), Neolithic circular enclosures in Europe. International workshop Goseck (Saxony-Anhalt, Germany) 7.-9.5.2004, 41–66. Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt/Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale).

  Podborský, V. 1988. Těšetice-Kyjovice 4: Rondel osady lidu s moravskou malovanou keramikou. Brno: Universita J.E. Purkyně v Brně.

  Raddatz, K. 1980. Anmerkungen zum Totenbrauchtum im Mittelneolithikum. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 49, 61–65.

  Reinecke, P. 1915. Altheim (Niederbayern): Befestigte jungneolithische Siedlung. Römisch-Germanisches Korrespondenzblatt 8, 9–11.

  Seidel, U. 2008. Michelsberger Erdwerke im Raum Heilbronn: Neckarsulm-Obereisesheim ‚Hetzenberg’ und Ilsfeld ‚Ebene’, Lkr. Heilbronn, Heilbronn-Klingenberg ‚Schloßberg’, Stadtkreis Heilbronn. 1: Text, Literatur und Anhänge. Stuttgart: Theiss.

  Stäuble, H. 1990. Die ältestbandkeramische Grabenanlage in Eitzum, Ldkr. Wolfenbüttel: Überlegungen zur Verfüllung und Interpretation von Befunden. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 331–344.

  Topping, P. and Varndell, G. (eds) 2002. Enclosures in Neolithic Europe. Essays on causewayed and non-causewayed sites. Oxford: Oxbow.