2. Neolithic Periods
by J E N S L Ü N I N G , K ö l n *)
P r o b a b l y the most significant point in the hitherto existing research of the Neolithic in G e r m a n y came in 1 9 3 8 . In the t w o volumes of the " H a n d b u c h der Urgeschichte Deutsch
l a n d s " W. B U T T L E R a n d E . S P R O C K H O F F g a v e for the first time a comprehensive survey of the m a t e r i a l a n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n of research ( B U T T L E R 1 9 3 8 ; S P R O C K H O F F 1 9 3 8 ) . Thereby the intensive preoccupation with the neolithic finds, begun a t the end of the nineteenth century, reached its hight. S t a r t i n g from numerous local a n d regional publica
tions a n d existing older summaries a n d further supported b y the results of the first large a r e a excavations of neolithic settlement-sites (e.g. K ö l n - L i n d e n t h a l , G o l d b e r g near N ö r d - lingen), the two authors described the source-material, situation a n d finds, arranged it into larger groups (e. g. Kulturkreise) a n d examined the chronological a n d cultural con
nections. Thereby they were following prevailing opinion a n d proceded from an abstract a n d theoretical basis that was p r i n c i p a l l y aligned with an ethnic interpretation. The find- material was classified according to its formal characteristics in Kulturkreise, cultures a n d g r o u p s whereby on the lowest level pottery was the dominating criterion. This classifica
tion w a s a directly essential factor for reading in the "historical" chapters history in its narrowest sense, n a m e l y , political events such as migration, superimposition, absorption a n d the suppression of " p e o p l e s " and "tribes". This onesided view of neolithic historiography was based on the a x i o m , that "cultures a n d groups each were produced b y a n independent n a t i o n a l i t y " ( B U T T L E R 1 9 3 8 , 6 6 ; S P R O C K H O F F 1 9 3 8 , 1 5 0 ) . S o the cultures with their back
grounded different peoples were the a c t i v e a n d essential element in the historical process of the Neolithic. F r o m this assumption this restriction of their history w a s quite legitimate a n d understandable.
T h e volumes of both B U T T L E R a n d S P R O C K H O F F embraced a b o v e all N o r t h - , West-, M i d d l e - a n d South G e r m a n y and, in respect of time, terminate before the endneolithic beaker-cultures. A v o l u m e dealing with this period, p l a n n e d by O . K U N K E L a n d a further v o l u m e b y K . L A N G E N H E I M on the former E a s t G e r m a n y , were no longer possible because of the w a r . In general, it w a s not possible for this generation to pursue its Neolithic research, research which in the nineteen-thirties within the context of M i d d l e Europe h a d p r o d u c e d a considerable expansion of k n o w l e d g e .
Continuation after this great synthesis could only mean a renewed a n d intensive return to the find-material a n d at the same time new theoretical considerations. In point of fact neolithic research since then is in the m i d d l e of this process a n d the time is not yet ripe for a similar synthesis. Neither is the regional publication of the find-material sufficient nor h a v e enough modern excavations been m a d e a n d published, so that one could speak of real a n d b r o a d l y based progress since 1 9 3 8 .
L e a s t treated h a v e been concepts a n d theories a n d new questions with regard t o neolithic material. A n exception is p r o v i d e d by the w o r k of U . F I S C H E R ( 1 9 5 6 , 1 9 5 8 ) . H e c a m e to the surprising result d r a w n from the M i d d l e German M a t e r i a l that the
" c u l t u r a l " groups which a r e defined m o s t l y by pottery styles a n d some other artifacts h a v e also their o w n types of funerary customs. H e concludes that these customs indicate i m p o r t a n t historical groupings a n d not just temporary fashions. T w e n t y years a g o this
*) I wish to thank J . Jones, Eschweiler, for her help in translating the text into English.
result w o u l d have been greeted as very w e l c o m e proof of the ethnic view. In the nineteen- fifties is contradicted the then sceptical reserve about ethnic interpretation as an object of neolithic research.
This scepticism survives t o d a y . C u r i o u s l y enough F I S C H E R ' S results p r o d u c e d no critical analysis nor were they d e v e l o p e d further a n d they were only discussed in a worth while article b y H . - E . M A N D E R A ( 1 9 6 5 ) . This is v e r y astonishing since the ethnic interpretation as a point of research s l i p p e d into the b a c k g r o u n d leaving the neolithic "cultures" without content s a v e that of chronology.
A discussion of the results from M i d d l e G e r m a n y is really necessary for in the last few years new methodological ideas especially from Anglo-American publications have led to much criticism of the concept of culture (e.g. H A R R I S S 1 9 7 1 ; D A N I E L 1 9 7 1 ) . Besides the traditional research into cultural g r o u p s there is an a d d e d growing interest in eco
logical-geographical a n d sociological-demographical questions. S o that "culture" is no longer the important archaeological unit but rather single settlements ( C H A N G 1 9 6 7 ; R E N F R E W 1 9 7 2 , articles in B I N F O R D and B I N F O R D 1 9 6 8 , and U C K O and D I M B L E B Y 1 9 6 9 ) . The old concept of culture is further undermined by the new preoccupation with clas
sification resulting from statistical methods a n d the use of computers. These aids generally lead to a better definition of concepts a n d methods.
In this long process of research these last ten years which will be further discussed are only an arbitrary section as are the g e o g r a p h i c a l boundaris imposed b y the theme of this article. Similarly only certain selected results and problems indicative of the state of research can be dealt with because of the restricted length.
T w o areas of cultural development must be differentiated: that in the South- and W e s t - G e r m a n Loess A r e a whose northern extension stretches a p p r o x i m a t e l y to the nor
thern B o r d e r of the G e r m a n Mittelgebirge and that of the N o r t h G e r m a n plain. Diffi
culties arise from the existence of two s i m i l a r l y named chronological systems ( O l d - , Middle-, L a t e Neolithic, the last p e r i o d being s u b d i v i d e d in Southern G e r m a n y into " Y o u n g - and E n d N e o l i t h i c " ) . For c l a r i t y the N o r t h G e r m a n system will a l w a y s be refered to as such.
G e n e r a l W o r k s o n t h e N e o l i t h i c
A m o n g s t the regional publications, " D i e jüngere Steinzeit in B a y e r n " by R . A . M A I E R ( 1 9 6 4 ) is espicially w o r t h y of mention, because he is one of the few who tries to break a w a y from the rigid classification of the p o t t e r y "cultural g r o u p s " . H e insists upon the more c o m p l i c a t e d structure of the neolithic material, amongst which pottery p l a y s a large role only because of its a b u n d a n c e and — it can be a d d e d — because of the great interest in chronology. Moreover even the classification of pottery is neither clear nor simple.
This v i e w , which he himself describes as "synthesized", is sometimes troubled by old t a x o n o m i c problems which have a l r e a d y been clarified; on the other h a n d it opens u p new avenues of research, which are in a c c o r d a n c e with the above mentioned trend of the last few years.
While M A I E R does not systemically publish his find-material, M. G A L L A Y in " D i e B e siedlung der südlichen Oberrheinebene in Neolithikum und Frühbronzezeit ( 1 9 7 0 ) " pu
blished relatively few p l a t e s but a rich c a t a l o g u e was appended to the m a p s . The point of interest lies in the development of settlement. It is important to note that here as well as in other regions there are areas with o n l y lithic material (e.g. axes), outside the areas of neolithic settlements w i t h pottery.
In this context the publication by W. K I M M I G ( 1 9 6 6 ) of a site in southern Württem
berg (Kirchberg bei Reusten) should be mentioned. T h e material can be d a t e d from M i d d l e until E n d Neolithic a n d the author gives a balanced survey of the relevant problems a n d
literature. A further regional publication with a wider basis by R . M A I E R (1970) deals with the Neolithic in the region of Göttingen. The i m p o r t a n c e of this region lies in its position between the cultural centres in Northern, M i d d l e a n d South G e r m a n y whose interrelationships during the L a t e Neolithic are still not clear on m a n y points. T h e existing finds indicate that correlations will be possible. E v e n more restricted is the a r e a dealt with by K . B R A N D T (1967) who has published the neolithic settlements from the urban region of Bochum. H i s results are of more than regional importance and especially noteworthy for the development of the neolithic house.
The most complete description of the present chronological discussion in southern G e r m a n y has been published by K . M A U S E R - G O L L E R ( 1 9 6 9 ) . She gives an accurate picture of the concepts and content, which leaves much to be desired (cf. the review in G e r m a n i a 50, 1972, 275 ff.). A v e r y useful survey is to be found in the " H a n d b u c h der Vorgeschichte"
b y M Ü L L E R - K A R P E ( 1 9 6 8 ) , in which he elucidated the general European context. For an understanding of the historical meaning of the Neolithic a n d especially of its beginnings the t w o books by S M O L L A ( 1 9 6 0 , 1 9 6 7 ) , which often deal with this region, are indispensible.
L a s t l y , studies dealing with single phenomena of the neolithic must be mentioned because once again they cut across the traditional "cultural" classification. Such is a dis
sertation by S I E L M A N N on the relationship between ecology a n d culture in the early N e o lithic in southwest G e r m a n y . H e has n o w further developed the economic approach ( S I E L M A N N 1971a, 1971b, 1971c). The economic structure of the whole middle European Neolithic has been a n a l y z e d in a Polish book whose short French summary gives little indication of its contents ( T A B A C Z Y N S K I 1 9 7 0 ) . In the prehistoric volume of the "Deutsche Agrargeschichte" a fundamental treatment of the sources for farming and the earliest domestication of plants a n d animals in the G e r m a n area is given ( J A N K U H N 1969).
O n the beginnings of metal working in late Neolithic one must mention the second v o l u m e of the well-known metal analysis by J U N G H A N S , S A N G M E I S T E R , S C H R Ö D E R (1968), in which the archaeological interpretation is fully discussed.
T h e concept of b a t t l e - a x e cultures is n o r m a l l y confined to the End Neolithic period.
In the last few years through the w o r k of ZÄPOTOCKy ( 1 9 6 6 ) it has been widened to include also the late D a n u b i a n axes ("Breitkeile und hohe durchlochte Schuhleistenkeile") of the Middle Neolithic. This view brings out a surprising continuity, especially when one considers the structural comparisons between Y o u n g a n d E n d Neolithic m a d e by U . F I S C H E R (1958). In this connection a publication by K . H . B R A N D T ( 1 9 6 7 b) should be mentioned, which deals fully with the finds from a rich " a x e and a d z e province"
(Northwestern G e r m a n y ) .
Another, and seldom recognized, g r o u p of finds has been systematically treated by R . A . M A I E R (1961). H e describes cult-objects and pendants m a d e from animal bones in E u r o p e and underlines new contacts and correlations. T h e s a m e author discusses possible cult aspects of the neolithic earthworks in southern B a v a r i a and elswhere in Central E u r o p e ( M A I E R 1962).
As for the state of C1 4 research, several newer lists of dates and commentaries which touch upon our area are mentioned as well as works dealing with the influence of dendro
chronology on C1 4 dating, which is now much discussed ( B A K K E R , V O G E L , W I S L A N S K I 1969;
N E U S T U P N y 1968, 1 9 6 9 ; Q U I T T A 1 9 6 9 ; W I L L K O M M 1 9 7 0 ; N O B E L - S Y M P O S I U M 1 9 7 0 ) .
E x c a v a t i o n s c o v e r i n g s e v e r a l P e r i o d s
A m o n g s t the excavations covering several neolithic periods are those with stratigraphy which in our area is extremely rare. The material from the site of Lauterach ( K r . Ehingen in the upper D a n u b e ) is especially informative ( T A U T E 1 9 6 7 ) . T h e stratified finds com-
prise the following p e r i o d s : local E n d Mesolithic — older B a n d k e r a m i k — Aichbühl group — Schussenried g r o u p — developed Tumulus Bronze A g e .
A n exavation at Kärlich, K r . K o b l e n z , produced a layer with material of the later Rössen group of Bischheim, above this a layer containing older Michelsberg a n d above this l a y e r s with finds of the periods H a l l s t a t t A — C . Moreover, it g a v e significant infor
mation about settlement and g e o m o r p h o l o g y ( L Ü N I N G , S C H I R M E R , J O A C H I M 1 9 7 2 ) . T h e site of H ü d e on the D ü m m e r , not fully published, has not produced a clearly defined stratigraphy but there seem to be v a r i o u s concentrations within the cultural layer which a r e producing material and C1 4- d a t e s ( D E I C H M Ü L L E R 1965, 1969). A t the very bot
tom lies a complex which contains, a m o n g s t others, indisputable examples of late Rössen- Bischheim type pottery. Further a b o v e lies a settlement of Trichterbecher culture; in bet
ween is possibly a hiatus .
Of the large area-settlement e x c a v a t i o n s that on the "Aldenhovener P l a t t e " lying west o f K ö l n must be mentioned. It is situated on the edge of a brown coal open-cast mine near Jülich. H e r e it has been possible to investigate the settlement patterns over a complete small landscape. The evidence of neolithic settlement extends from B a n d k e r a m i k to B e a k e r time. Through previous systematic observations a n d now through the systematic e x c a v a t i o n of all find-spots along a section of valley and on the surrounding l a n d , in total 2,5 km long, it should be possible, when the work is complete, to submit a solid basis for the statistical investigation of settlements ( K U P E R et al. 1 9 7 1 ; 1972).
T h e research into house types in the O l d and Middle Neolithic, by P. J . R . M O D D E R - MAN ( 1 9 6 9 ) in his e x c a v a t i o n s at H i e n h e i m , K r . Kehlheim (upper D a n u b e ) , provides a pleasant departure in this long neglected topic of southern G e r m a n y . As well as remains of B a n d k e r a m i k and Stichbandkeramik structures, a settlement area a n d a ditched en
closure of the late neolithic Chamer g r o u p were disclosed. In a further south German find-area, in the region of Schwäbisch H a l l B a n d k e r a m i k a n d Rössen structures h a v e been found ( H U B E R 1971).
O l d N e o l i t h i c
T h e spread of neolithic culture in the middle European loess area, insofar as can be established, begins with the oldest B a n d k e r a m i k . The discussion kindled b y V . M I L O J C I C in the 1950's over a possible pre-ceramic p h a s e of the Neolithic cannot yet be substantia
ted by finds. Conversely, objections h a v e been raised against the early deposition of cereal pollen in the Federsee d i a g r a m s ( S C H Ü T R U M P F & S C H W A B E D I S S E N in Z Ü R N 1 9 6 8 ) . As to the relationships of the late palaeolithic-mesolithic and neolithic flint tools discussed espe
cially b y L . Z O T Z no real progress c a n be recorded. The present state of the total ambi
guity h a s been critically reviewed b y H . Q U I T T A (1964). In contrast the new theses of R. R . N E W E L L (1970) referring to a considerable influence of the late Oldesloe group of the Mesolithic upon the flint tools of the B a n d k e r a m i k on the Meuse and in the Nieder
rhein a r e a requires thorough discussion. Altogether large a r e a investigations of find spots of the oldest stages of the B a n d k e r a m i k as described by H . Q U I T T A (1960) are lacking, a p r o b l e m general in M i d d l e Europe a n d not only in west a n d southern G e r m a n y .
O f the very necessary regional publication of bandkeramic material, p a r t has already been produced and p a r t can be expected in the near future. In addition to the publica
tions mentioned earlier reference should be m a d e to comprehensive publications on sou
thern H a n n o v e r ( A N K E L 1961), the lower M a i n area ( M E I E R - A R E N D T 1966) a n d that part of F r a n c o n i a lying in B a d e n ( E C K E R L E 1 9 6 3 ) . Several dissertations, some a l r e a d y conclu
ded, dealing with Westfalia, N o r t h H e s s e n , the Rhineland, the area around the mouth of the N e c k a r and the m i d d l e area of the N e c k a r bring thorough synthesis into the realms
of possibility. As this synthesis strives to elucidate the fine chronological questions, how
ever, a serious obstacle is mainted b y the lack of systematically e x c a v a t e d settlements.
T h e change between five bandkeramic phases at present discernible takes p l a c e mainly as a quantitative shift in characteristics which can only be persued through statistical analysis of closed finds. In this respect the fore-mentioned investigations in the a r e a of Jülich should bring an e x e m p l a r y investigation into the possibilities and limits of these methods.
Amongst the other excavations p a r t i c u l a r l y of the O l d Neolithic t h a t of Rosdorf, K r . Göttingen, w a s especially outstanding ( M A I E R et al. 1 9 6 5 ; Z I M M E R M A N N et al. 1966;
S C H L Ü T E R 1969). H e r e archaeologists, botanists, zoologists and soil scientists worked together in an e x e m p l a r y way. The results of soil investigations besides the numerous structual finds of importance have, a b o v e all, a broad and more than regional significance.
A l s o in Westfalia in the regions of Bochum and Münster large area e x c a v a t i o n s of old and m i d d l e neolithic settlements have brought fresh evidence for house types a n d earthworks ( N E U J A H R S G R U S S M Ü N S T E R 1967, 1970, 1 9 7 1 , 1972, 1 9 7 3 ; G Ü N T H E R 1 9 7 3 ) .
The excavation of the bandkeramic settlement of Müddersheim, K r . D ü r e n should be mentioned, in whose publication K . S C H I E T Z E L (1965) has m a d e numerous methodological suggestions concerning the processing a n d evaluation of finds.
M i d d l e N e o l i t h i c
In this section the last ten years h a v e possibily brought the greatest changes, although this is the least researched period of the Neolithic. The reversion of the chronology of the Rössen culture, established by A. S T R O H 1938, by a series of authors (lastly by M A U S E R - G O L L E R 1969) is therefore still more an admittedly plausible model than a fait accompli.
A c c o r d i n g l y the Hinkelstein group is succeeded by the Großgartach and the Rössen cul
ture and the final p h a s e is formed by the late Rössen horizon of the Bischheim—Schwie
berdingen—Straßburg—Wauwil and Aichbühl groups. A transitional phase m a y be indi
cated by the Planig-Friedberg group between Großgartach a n d Rössen.
As with the B a n d k e r a m i c thorough regional publications are also necessary for the M i d d l e Neolithic. Unfortunately this w o r k is only just beginning. It is significant that the few existing publications have resulted from investigations of the problems either of the O l d or of the Y o u n g Neolithic. W. M E I E R - A R E N D T (1969) treats the Hinkelstein group, which lies in the transition of the O l d to the Middle Neolithic. The late Rössen horizon a n d the early young neolithic groups are dealt with by L Ü N I N G (1969, 1970, 1971). Among the publication of material must be mentioned finds of the Großgartach group and the Stichbandkeramik in the area west of the Bodensee ( H e g a u ) and before all the important g r a v e complex of the Hinkelstein-group in the Stuttgart area in Ditzingen, K r . Leonberg ( S A N G M E I S T E R 1967, 1967 b ) . B y m a p p i n g this group S A N G M E I S T E R has finally demolished the traditional view that it is a local phenomenon in the northern upper R h i n e area. O n the contrary the pottery is now p r o v e n to be an independent horizon in the two most important neolithic regions, the R h e i n - M a i n area a n d the middle N e c k a r region. It is indicative of the insufficient state of research that no full excavation of a Hinkelstein settlement has taken p l a c e .
While serveral dissertations have been begun on the northern Rössen a r e a , such inten
sive work has not yet been undertaken in southern G e r m a n y . Also especially desirable, as in the case of the O l d Neolithic, for the period under discussion would be a publication of the rich finds of N i e d e r b a y e r n . O n l y from the Münchshöfen group, which lies at the end of the Middle N e o l i t h i c , has some new material been published ( U E N Z E 1964, 1 9 6 5 ; S ü s s 1967a). This region is of interest because of the eastern and south-eastern influences transversing it a n d transforming the cultural development in south G e r m a n y . These in-
fluences can be found in this period in the Stichbandkeramik a n d in the Lengyel culture ( S ü s s 1 9 6 7 ; Z Ä P O T O C K Ä 1 9 7 0 ) .
Of the m i d d l e neolithic excavations that of the Rössen settlement near Inden, K r . Jülich, must be mentioned; here it was possible for the first time to uncover a nearly complete settlement of this period. H e r e were f o u n d the t r a p e z o i d a l long houses which are a p p a r e n t l y characteristic of middle and west E u r o p e ( K U P E R & P I E P E R S 1 9 6 6 ) .
In general great efforts are necessary to o b t a i n more information about the M i d d l e Neolithic in south and west G e r m a n y , because the important trends are being d e v e l o p e d in this period which become clear at the beginning of the Young N e o l i t h i c . It is not a question
of radical change but one of continous development.
Y o u n g N e o l i t h i c N o r t h w e s t a n d N o r t h G e r m a n y
During the late Middle Neolithic (that is the p e r i o d of the Rössen culture and the late Rössen horizon) a highly significant development begins with the s p r e a d of the N e o l i t h i c into the N o r t h G e r m a n plain.
This has been clearly shown by the Bischheim finds from the D ü m m e r ( D E I C H M Ü L L E R 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 6 9 ) which underlined the importance of the well-known a n d somewhat older Rössen finds from Böberg near H a m b u r g . H . S C H W A B E D I S S E N ( 1 9 6 7 ) has discussed this situation and has reconsidered the possibilities of the beginnings of the Trichterbecher culture. This is the more v a l u a b l e because he includes in this his o w n excavations in Schleswig-Holstein, which have only been published in short summaries. H i s results differ greatly from the well-known ideas of C . J . B E C K E R on the classification of the early Trichterbecher culture. There will seem to be much necessary w o r k to clarify this nor
thern E a r l y N e o l i t h i c . On the other hand the g o o d preservation of organic material gives the possibility of g o o d ecological results. F o r m e r finds and observations hold few possi
bilities and real progress is only to be expected from further settlement excavations espe
cially those north of the loess area in Westfalia a n d southern H a n n o v e r .
This is a general need in north and northwest G e r m a n y for the whole Trichterbecher culture. The o l d material comes mostly from g r a v e s a n d above all from collective g r a v e s . In the last ten years a number of such complexes h a v e been e x c a v a t e d but give little in
formation for chronology and settlement patterns. T h a t new finds yet await us has been shown by the unexpected discovery of a Trichterbecher settlement with a complex system of ditches at Büdelsdorf, K r . R e n d s b u r g ( H I N G S T 1 9 7 1 ) .
Amongst other publications the Atlas of megalithic graves in G e r m a n y (vol. Schles
wig-Holstein) must be mentioned ( S P R O C K H O F F 1 9 6 6 ) and in this context a study of the dolmens in Schleswig-Holstein ( A N E R 1 9 6 3 ) . T h e material from northwest G e r m a n y has been thoroughly treated by H . K N Ö L L ( 1 9 5 9 ) . In a d d i t i o n the publication of a rich m e g a lithic g r a v e b y E . S C H L I C H T ( 1 9 6 8 ) is important. T h e r e is no such publication for Schles
wig-Holstein.
A m o n g s t the new excavation results a curious o v a l house of the Trichterbecherkultur from Wittenwater, K r . Uelzen ( V o s s 1 9 6 4 ) a n d a g r a v e complex from Pevestorf, K r . Lüchow-Dannenberg, containing material from the Bernburg and K u g e l a m p h o r e n culture are important. T h e latter indicates complex inhumation rites.
W e s t - a n d S o u t h e r n G e r m a n y
At the beginning of the period under discussion stands the m o n o g r a p h from J . D R I E - H A U S on the Altheim group and the Y o u n g N e o l i t h i c in Middle E u r o p e ( D R I E H A U S 1 9 6 0 ) .
Together with the well-known Eneolithic S y m p o s i u m ( S y m p o s i u m P r a g 1 9 6 1 ) it f o r m s the climax of the vital discussion in the nineteen-fifties. The material of our area w a s n o t well-known a t this time. In the meantime the material of the largest South a n d West German group, the Michelsberg culture, has been published ( L Ü N I N G 1 9 6 8 ) . R e c e n t l y a stratigraphy has been found which verifies the chronological phases ( K O C H 1 9 7 1 ) . A r e g i o nal publication of E I C H - F R A N K E ( 1 9 6 7 ) should be a d d e d . Other small groups h a v e been treated b y H . M Ü L L E R - K A R P E ( 1 9 6 1 ) , L Ü N I N G ( 1 9 6 9 ) a n d I T T E N ( 1 9 7 0 ) , leaving o n l y the material of the Schussenried g r o u p to be dealt with. There a r e a l s o several gaps in the local complexes, e.g. U r m i t z a n d especially the rich material o f the Bodensee a r e a . Recently a c a r t o g r a p h i c synthesis of the old a n d m i d d l e section o f the Young N e o l i t h i c has a p p e a r e d ( L Ü N I N G 1 9 7 1 ) .
The most important new e x c a v a t i o n is that of Ehrenstein on which two v o l u m e s h a v e already a p p e a r e d ( Z Ü R N 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 6 8 ) . B u t the earlier publications have shown o n l y too well that u p t o now no large area-excavation of the Y o u n g N e o l i t h i c has taken p l a c e in south a n d west G e r m a n y . A p a r t from the relatively little information on the i m p o r t ant trend in the building of earthworks so typical of this period a l m o s t nothing is k n o w n of the houses a n d settlement patterns in the loess a r e a .
Therefore v e r y little is k n o w n about the e c o n o m y a n d ecology. T h e much cited houses of the G o l d b e r g , from lake-side settlements a n d from marshy land (e.g. Ehrenstein), b e c a u s e of their special topographic situation, are no replacement for l a r g e excavations in the main settlement area, that is on loess. Besides this new research should be begun on the lake-side settlements, especially in the Bodensee region, perhaps using Swiss m e t h o d s including modern diving techniques. It is new field w o r k which will bring a better u n d e r standing of the economic a n d social change which seems to h a v e taken place at the b e ginning of the Y o u n g Neolithic.
The area of Hessen-Westfalia which lies between northern a n d southern G e r m a n y and which becomes more a n d m o r e culturally autonomous during the young neolithic period has been thoroughly a n a l y z e d by W. S C H R I C K E L ( 1 9 6 6 , 1 9 6 9 ) . It is important t h a t in addition t o the well-known g r a v e s of this " G a l e r i e g r a b " g r o u p in the last y e a r s the very first settlements have been found, which contain rich materials ( K R Ü G E R & S C H R I C K E L 1 9 6 4 ; G E N S E N 1 9 6 4 ) .
The process of change between the Y o u n g N e o l i t h i c and the beaker cultures of the End Neolithic is still unknown. T h e change in source-material from settlements t o g r a v e s results in methodological p r o b l e m s ; there is the a d d i t i o n a l fact t h a t the last phases o f the Y o u n g Neolithic a r e not well-known. R e g a r d i n g the state of research in the E n d N e o lithic several basic publications a r e listed ( S A N G M E I S T E R & G E R H A R D T 1 9 6 5 ; S A N G M E I S T E R 1 9 6 7 c; B E H R E N S & S C H L E T T E 1 9 6 9 ; B U C H V A L D E C K 1 9 7 1 ) .
C o n c l u s i o n
In general the state of neolithic research in o u r area shows a return to the intensive analysis of p r i m a r y sources a n d especially of the material collected since the nineteenth century. This process has attained different s t a n d a r d s within the several periods a n d areas. It should lead to a state of research, where large scale settlement-excavations a r e undertaken with a firm background of associated problems a n d material. It a p p e a r s t h a t above all a b r o a d e r knowledge of settlement patterns, economy, social, d e m o g r a p h i c a l and ecological aspects of the neolithic can bring a deeper understanding to the results which have been gained by the morphological studies in the past.
These a r e n o t the only questions but they c a n be answered b y our sources a n d f o r m a new a n d v a l u a b l e approach (cf. J A N K U H N 1 9 6 5 ) .
L i t e r a t u r e
ANER, E . : Die Stellung der Dolmen Schleswig-Holsteins in der nordischen Megalithkultur. — Offa, 20, 9—38, Neumünster 1963.
ANKEL, C.: Eine linearbandkeramische Siedlung bei Duderstadt (Süd-Hannover). — Veröffl. der urgeschichtl. Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover, 16, 1—58, Hildesheim 1961.
BAKKER, J . A., VOGEL, J . C , WISLANSKI, T.: TRB and other O4 dates from Poland. — Helinium, 9, 3—27, 209—238, Wetteren 1969.
BEHRENS, H . & SCHLETTE, F. (Hrsg.): Die neolithischen Becherkulturen im Gebiet der D D R und ihre europäischen Beziehungen. Vorträge der Tagung 1967, 1—285, Berlin 1969.
BINFORD, S. R. and BINFORD, L. R. (eds.): New perspectives in archaeology, 1—373, Chicago 1968.
BRANDT, K . : Neolithische Siedlungsplätze im Stadtgebiet von Bochum. — Quellenschr. zur westdt.
Vor- und Frühgesch., 8, 1—109, Bonn 1967 (1967 a).
BRANDT, K. H : Studien über steinerne Äxte und Beile der jüngeren Steinzeit und der Steinkupfer
zeit Nordwestdeutschlands. — Münsterische Beitr. zur Vorgeschichtsforsch., 2, 1—210, Hildes
heim 1967 (1967 b).
BUCHVALDEK, M.: Bemerkungen zur neuen Schnurkeramikforschung. — Pamätky Arch., 62, 551 — 562, Prag 1971.
BUTTLER, W.: Der donauländische und der westische Kulturkreis der jüngeren Steinzeit. — Handb.
der Urgesch. Deutschlands, 2, 1—108, Berlin/Leipzig 1938.
CHANG, K . C : Rethinking Archaeology, 1—172, New York 1967.
CLARKE, D. L . : Analytical Archaeology, 1—684, London 1968.
DANIEL, G.: From Worsaae to Childe: the models of prehistory. — Proc. Prehist. S o c , 37 (II), 140—153, Cambridge 1971.
DEICHMÜLLER, J . : Eine neolithische Moorsiedlung am Dümmer. — Neue Ausgrabungen und Forsch.
in Niedersachsen, 2, 1—18, Hildesheim 1965.
— : Die neolithische Moorsiedlung Hüde I am Dümmer, Kr. Grafschaft Diepholz. — Neue Aus
grabungen und Forsch, in Niedersachsen 4, 28—36, Hildesheim 1969.
DRIEHAUS, J . : Die Altheimer Gruppe und das Jungneolithikum in Mitteleuropa, 1—245, Mainz 1960.
ECKERLE, K . : Bandkeramik aus dem Badischen Frankenland. — Badische Fundber., Sonderh. 2, 1—22, Freiburg/Br. 1963.
EICH-FRANKE, E . : Die Funde der Michelsberger Kultur aus dem westlichen Oberrheingebiet. — Der Wormsgau, Zeitschr. der Kulturinstitute der Stadt Worms und des Altertumsvereins Worms. Beih. 22, 1—240, Worms 1967.
FISCHER, U.: Die Gräber der Steinzeit im Saalegebiet. — Vorgeschichtl. Forsch., 15, 1—327, Berlin 1956.
— : Mitteldeutschland und die Schnurkeramik. — Jahresschr. f. mitteldeutsche Vorgesch., 41/42, 254—298, Halle 1958.
GALLAY, M.: Die Besiedlung der südlichen Oberrheinebene in Neolithikum und Frühbronzezeit.
Bad. Fundber., Sonderh. 12, 1—199, Freiburg/Br. 1970.
GENSEN, R.: Neue Siedlungen der westeuropäischen Steinkistenkultur in Nordhessen. — Fundber.
aus Hessen, 4, 57—61, Bonn 1964.
GÜNTHER, K . : Eine neue Variante des mittelneolithischen Trapezhauses. — Germania, 51, 1973, 41—53. Berlin 1973.
HARRISS, J . C : Explanations in Prehistory. — Proc. Prehist. S o c , 37 (I), 38—55, Cambridge 1971.
HINGST, H . : Ein befestigtes Dorf aus der Jungsteinzeit in Büdelsdorf (Holstein). — Arch. Kor- respondenzbl., 1, 191—194, Mainz 1971.
HUBER, H : Grabungen in der neolithischen Siedlung auf dem „Wolfsbühl" bei Schwäbisch Hall. — Fundber. aus Schwaben N.F., 19, 28—50, Stuttgart 1971.
ITTEN, M.: Die Horgener Kultur. — Monogr. z. Ur- und Frühgesch. d. Schweiz, 17, 1—112, Basel 1970.
JANKUHN, H . : Siedlungsarchäologie als Forschungsaufgabe. — Probleme der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet, 8, 1 ff., Hildesheim 1969.
— : Vor- und Frühgeschichte vom Neolithikum bis zur Völkerwanderungszeit. Mit Beiträgen von H. Jankuhn, E. May, U. Willerding. Deutsche Agrargesch., 1, 1—300, Stuttgart 1969.
JUNGHANS, S., SANGMEISTER, E. & SCHRÖDER, M.: Kupfer und Bronze in der frühen Metallzeit Europas. — Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie, 2/1, 1—175, Berlin 1968.
KIMMIG, W.: Der Kirchberg bei Reusten. Eine Höhensiedlung aus vorgeschichtl. Zeit. — Urkunden z. Vor- und Frühgesch. aus Südwürttemberg-Hohenzollern, 2, 1—97, Stuttgart 1966.
KNÖLL, H . : Die nordwestdeutsche Tiefstichkeramik und ihre Stellung im nord- und mitteldeut
schen Neolithikum, 1—180, Münster 1959.
KOCH, R.: Zwei Erdwerke der Michelsberger Kultur aus dem Kreis Heilbronn. — Fundber. aus Schwaben N . F . , 19, 51—67, Stuttgart 1971.
KRÜGER, H . & SCHRICKEL, W.: Die neolithischen Funde von Inheiden, Kr. Gießen, ein Beitrag zur hessischen Galeriegrabgruppe. — Fundber. aus Hessen, 4, 33—56, Bonn 1964.
KUPER, R. & PIEPERS, W.: Eine Siedlung der Rössener Kultur in Inden, Kr. Jülich und Lamersdorf, Kr. Düren. — Bonner Jahrb., 166, 370—376, Bonn 1966.
KUPER, R.: Beitrag im Jahresber. 1966. — Bonner Jahrb., 168, 441—444, Bonn 1968.
KUPER, R., ECKERT, J . , IHMIG, M., JÜRGENS, A., LOHR, H., LÜNING, J . & SCHRÖTER, I.: Untersuchun
gen zur neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte. — Bonner Jahrb., 171, 558—664 Bonn 1971.
KUPER, R., ECKERT, J . , IHMIG, M., LOHR, H. & LÜNING, J . : Untersuchungen zur neolithischen Be
siedlung der Aldenhovener Platte I I . — Bonner Jahrb., 172, 344—394, Bonn 1972.
LÜNING, J . : Die Michelsberger Kultur. Ihre Funde in zeitlicher und räumlicher Gliederung. — 48.
Ber. R G K . (1967), 1—350, Berlin 1968.
— : Die jungsteinzeitliche Schwieberdinger Gruppe. — Veröffentl. des Staatl. Amtes für Denk
malpflege Stuttgart. Reihe A, Heft 13, 1—33, Stuttgart 1969.
— : Eine Siedlung der Bischheimer Gruppe in Schwalheim, Kr. Friedberg/Hessen. — Fundber.
aus Hessen, 9/10, 22—50, Bonn 1970.
— : Die Entwicklung der Keramik beim Übergang vom Mittel- zum Jungneolithikum im süd
deutschen Raum. — 50. Ber. R G K . (1969) 1—95, Berlin 1971.
LÜNING, J . , SCHIRMER, W. & JOACHIM, H.-E.: Eine Stratigraphie mit Funden der Bischheimer Gruppe, der Michelsberger Kultur und der Urnenfelderkultur in Kärlich, Kr. Koblenz. — Prähist. Zeitschr., 46 (1971), 37—101, Berlin-New York 1972.
MAIER, R.: Zum Neolithikum im Kreise Göttingen. — Nachr. aus Niedersachs. Urgesch., 39, 28—
90, Hildesheim 1970.
MAIER, R., P E T E R S , H . G., WILLERDING, U., MAY, E., SCHEFFER, F. & MEYER, B . : Urgeschichtliche Siedlungsreste in Rosdorf, Kr. Göttingen. — Neue Ausgrabungen und Forsch, in Niedersach
sen, 2, 19—88, Hildesheim 1965.
MAIER, R. A.: Neolithische Tierknochen-Idole und Tierknochen-Anhänger Europas. — 42. Ber.
RGK. (1961), 171—305, Berlin 1962.
— : Fragen zu neolithischen Erdwerken Südbayerns. — Jahresber. der bayer. Bodendenkmalpflege, 3, 5—21, München 1962.
— : Die jüngere Steinzeit in Bayern. — Jahresber. der bayer. Bodendenkmalpflege, 5, 9—197, München 1964.
MANDERA, H.-E.: Zur Deutung neolithischer Kulturen. Probleme urgeschichtlicher Methodik. — Nassauische Ann., 76, 1—14, Wiesbaden 1965.
MAUSER-GOLLER, K . : Die relative Chronologie des Neolithikums in Südwestdeutschland und der Schweiz. — Sehr, zur Ur- u. Frühgesch. der Schweiz 15, 1—107, Basel 1969.
MEIER-ARENDT, W.: Die bandkeramische Kultur im Untermaingebiet. — Veröffentl. des Amtes für Bodendenkmalpflege im Reg.-Bez. Darmstadt, 3, 1—147, Bonn 1966.
— : Zur relativen Chronologie der Gruppen Hinkelstein und Großgartach sowie der Rössener Kultur. — Kölner Jahrb. für Vor- und Frühgesch., 10, 24—36, Berlin 1969.
MODDERMAN, P. J . R . : Ausgrabungen in Hienheim, Ldkr. Kelheim. — Jahresber. der bayer. Bo
dendenkmalpflege, 10, 7—26, München 1969.
MÜLLER-KARPE, H . : Die spätneolithische Siedlung von Polling. — Materialh. zur bayer. Vorgesch., 17, 1—45, Kallmünz 1961.
— : Handbuch der Vorgesch. II, 1—612, München 1968.
Neujahrsgruß Münster. Landesmuseum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte und Altertumskommission für Westfalen 1967; 1970, 4—8; 1971, 4—6; 1972, 4—8; 1973, 7—9. Münster.
NEUSTUPNy, E . : Absolute Chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic Periods in Central and South-Eastern Europe. — Slovenskä Arch., 16, 19—60, Bratislava 1968.
— : Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods in Central and South-East Europe I I . — Arch. Rozhledy, 21, 783—810, Prag 1969.
NEWELL, R. R.: The flint industry of the dutch Linearbandkeramik. — Analecta Prehist. Leiden- sia, 3, 144—183, Leiden 1970.
Nobel Symposium: Radiocarbon variations and absolute Chronology. — Proc. of the 12. Nobel Sympoisum Uppsala (1969), 1—652, Uppsala 1970.
QUITTA, H.: Zur Frage der ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. — Prähist. Zeitschr., 38, 1—38, 153—188, Berlin 1960.
— : Zur Herkunft des frühen Neolithikums in Mitteleuropa. — Varia Archaeologica. Dt. Akad.
d. Wiss. Berlin. Sehr. d. Sektion f. Vor- und Frühgesch., 16, 14—24, Berlin 1964.
— : Neue Radiocarbondaten zum Neolithikum und zur frühen Bronzezeit Südosteuropas und der Sowjetunion. — Zeitschr. f. Arch., 3, 223—255, Berlin 1969.
RENFREW, C . : The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the third mil- lenium B. C , 1—595, London 1972.
SANGMEISTER, E. & GERHARDT, K . : Schnurkeramik und Schnurkeramiker in Südwestdeutschland.
— Bad. Fundber. Sonderh., 8, 1—120, Freiburg/Br. 1965.
— : Siedlungen der Rössener Kultur im Hegau. — Bad. Fundber., 23, 9—28, Freiburg/Br. 1967 (1967 a).
— : Gräber der jungsteinzeitlichen Hinkelsteingruppe von Ditzingen, Kr. Leonberg. — Fundber.
aus Schwaben N.F. 18/1, 21—43, Stuttgart 1967 (1967 b).
— : Die Datierung des Rückstroms der Glockenbecher und ihre Auswirkung auf die Chronologie der Kupferzeit in Portgual. — Palaeohistoria, 12 (1966), 395—407, Groningen 1967 (1967 c).
SCHIETZEL, K : Müddersheim, eine Ansiedlung der jüngeren Bandkeramik im Rheinland. — Fun
damenta A / l , 1—155, Köln 1965.
SCHLICHT, E . : Die Funde aus dem Megalithgrab 2 von Emmeln, Kr. Meppen. — Göttinger Sehr. z.
Vor- und Frühgesch., 9, 1—101, Neumünster 1968.
SCHLÜTER, W . : Urgeschichtliche Siedlungsreste in Rosdorf, Kr. Göttingen (III). — Neue Ausgra
bungen und Forsch, in Niedersachsen, 4, 11—27, Hildesheim 1969.
SCHRICKEL, W . : Westeuropäische Elemente im neolithischen Grabbau Mitteldeutschlands und die Galeriegräber Westdeutschlands und ihre Inventare. — Beitr. z. vor- und frühgeschichtl. Arch, d. Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes, 4 u. 5, 1—499, Bonn 1966.
— : Die Funde vom Wartberg in Hessen. — Kasseler Beitr. zur Vor- u. Frühgesch., 1, 1—157, Marburg/L. 1969.
SCHWABEDISSEN, H.: Ein horizontierter „Breitkeil" aus Satrup und die mannigfachen Kulturver
bindungen des beginnenden Neolithikums im Norden und Nordwesten. — Palaeohistoria, 12 (1966) 409—468, Groningen 1967.
SIELMANN, B . : Zur Interpretationsmöglichkeit ökologischer Befunde im Neolithikum Mitteleuropas.
— Germania, 49, 231—238, Berlin 1971 (1971 a).
— : Zum Verhältnis von Ackerbau und Viehzucht im Neolithikum Südwestdeutschlands. — Arch.
Korrespondenz^., 1, 65—68, Mainz 1971 (1971 b).
— : Der Einfluß der Umwelt auf die neolithische Besiedlung Südwestdeutschlands unter beson
derer Berücksichtigung der Verhältnisse am nördlichen Oberrhein. — Acta Praehistoria et Archaeologica, 2, 65—197, Berlin 1971 (1971 c).
SMOLLA, G.: Neolithische Kulturerscheinungen. Studien zur Frage ihrer Herausbildungen. — An- tiquitas, Reihe 2, Bd. 3, 1—180, Bonn 1960.
— : Epochen der menschlichen Frühzeit, 1 —168, Freiburg/München 1967.
SPROCKHOFF, E.: Die nordische Megalithkultur. — Handb. d. Urgesch. Deutschlands, 3, 1—164, Berlin 1938.
— : Atlas der Megalithgräber Deutschlands. Teil 1: Schleswig-Holstein, 1—88, Bonn 1966.
Süss, L . : Zu Neufunden der Münchshöfener Gruppe aus Irlbach, Ldkr. Straubing. — Bayer. Vor- geschichtsbl., 32, 14—22, München 1967 (1967 a).
— : Zum Problem der zeitlichen Stellung der Münchshöfener Gruppe. Symposium über den Len- gyelkomplex und die benachbarten Kulturen (1967). — Studijne Zvesti, 17, 393—414, Nitra 1969 (1967 b).
Symposium Prag: L'Europe ä la fin de l'age de la pierre. Actes du Symposium consacre aux pro- blemes du Neolithique europeen. Prague-Liblice-Brno. 5—12. octobre (1959), 1—644, Prag 1961.
T A B A C z y N S K i , S.: Neolith Srodkowoeuropejski Podstawy Gospodarcze (Le neolithique de l'Europe centrale: Structures economiques), 1—381, Warschau 1970.
Taute, W . : Das Felsdach Lautereck, eine mesolithisch-neolithisch-bronzezeitliche Stratigraphie an der oberen Donau. — Palaeohistoria, 12 (1966), 483—504, Groningen 1967.
UCKO, P. J . & DIMBLEBY, G. W . (eds.): The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals, 1—581, London 1969.
UENZE, H . P.: Funde der Münchshöfener Kultur von Penning, Gde. Weihmörting, Ldkr. Griesbach.
— Bayer. Vorgeschichtsbl., 29, 1—25, München 1964.
— : Neue Funde der Münchshöfener Gruppe von der unteren Isar. — Bayer. Vorgeschichtsbl., 30, 56—70, München 1965.
Voss, K . L . : Der Schwarze Berg bei Wittenwater, Kr. Uelzen — ein siebenperiodiger Fundplatz.
— Nachr. aus Niedersachs. Urgesch., 33, 1964, 78 ff.
— : Ein vierperiodiger Fundplatz auf dem „Hasenberg" bei Pevestorf, Kr. Lüchow-Dannenberg.
— Neue Ausgrabungen und Forsch, in Niedersachsen, 2, 165—182, Hildesheim 1965.
WILLKOMM, H.: Möglichkeiten der Cl4-Datierung. — Germania, 48, 98—109, Berlin 1970.
ZÄPOTOCKÄ, M.: Die Stichbandkeramik in Böhmen und in Mitteleuropa. — Fundamenta A/3, Teil 2 (östliches Mitteleuropa, Vorabdruck), Köln/Graz 1970.
— : Streitäxte und Streitaxtkulturen. — Pamatky Arch., 57, 172—209, Prag 1966.
ZIMMERMANN, W. H., WILLERDING, U., M A Y , E., REDEMANN, G. & MEYER, B . : Urgeschichtliche Siedlungsreste in Rosdorf, Kr. Göttingen. — Neue Ausgrabungen und Forsch, in Niedersach
sen, 3, 20—48, Hildesheim 1966.
24 Eiszeitalter u. Gegenwart
ZÜRN, H.: Das jungsteinzeitliche Dorf Ehrenstein, Kr. Ulm. Teil 1: Die Baugeschichte. — Ver
öffentl. Staad. Amt f. Denkmalspflege, Reihe A 10/1, 1—98, Stuttgart 1965.
— : Das jungsteinzeitliche Dorf Ehrenstein, Kr. Ulm. Teil 2: Naturwissenschaftliche Beiträge. — Veröffentl. Staad. Amt f. Denkmalpflege, Reihe A, 10/2, 1—121, Stuttgart 1968.
Manuscript received July 28, 1972.
Address of the author: Dr. J . Lüning, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, 5 Köln, Weyertal 125.
