Monumental enclosures, non-megalithic and megalithic tombs of the Early and Middle Neolithic in Schleswig-Holstein: Studies on the construction history, age determination, function and landscape relations within the micro-regions of Büdelsdorf and Albersd

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

In the regions of Büdelsdorf/Borgstedt and Albersdorf, it is possible to investigate Neolithic enclosures as well as megalithic and non-megalithic tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture of South Jutland with respect to their function and their embeddedness in the landscape. The reconstruction of the diachronic development of Early and Middle Neolithic relationships in the mentioned micro-regions will contribute to the identification of processes of social differentiation and will help to verify models of the emergence of early monumentality. In the micro-region of Büdelsdorf near the Eider River, a ditch system with interior constructions and a cemetery with megalithic and non-megalithic tombs have been long-known. The graves show a radial orientation towards the enclosure. The analysis of finds and features provides a unique opportunity to synchronise construction activities of the two-phased site Büdelsdorf LA 1, on the one hand, and at the monumental graves, on the other hand. In turn, it is then possible to correlate the whole spectrum of monumental sites of the Funnel Beaker Culture with one another. From the region of Albersdorf, a ditch system without interior constructions has been known since 1992. It is situated in a micro-region in the vicinity of several megalithic and non-megalithic tombs. A spatial relation between the graves and the enclosure seems to be missing. This leads to the conclusion that the system of land use and spatial development differed from that observed in Büdelsdorf. The completed excavations at the ditch system of Dieksknöll, the polygonal dolmen at Brutkamp and the long barrow LA 56 indicate a development sequence beginning with the enclosure and non-megalithic long barrows around 3700 BC. Megalithic constructions first followed approximately one hundred years later. All constructions were used in parallel for several centuries. A transformation of non-megalithic long barrows to megalithic graves is observable in Borgstedt as well. Whether the monuments were also used over such a long time period in the eastern micro-regions remains to be verified. Both enclosures appear to be very different from each other at first sight. Albersdorf-Dieksknöll fulfilled a purely ritual function, while Büdelsdorf can be identified as a settlement site. However, the latter only regards its second utilization phase. The initial construction of Büdelsdorf and its first phase also has to be viewed in a ritual context. Due to a lack of clear evidence indicating profane settlement sites, the settlement system of the Albersdorf region can only continue to be indirectly investigated on the basis of known structures from the surrounding area. A comparison between both micro-regions should help to explain the causes for the plausible different spatial planning concepts. Therefore, a reconstruction of social as well as environmental development plays an important role. With a precise chronological structure of the developmental processes, the character of social differentiation and the emergence of monumentality will be investigated.