Die nördlichen Badener Keramikstile im Kontext des mitteleuropäischen Spätneolithikums (3650–2900 v. Chr.)

Was verbirgt sich hinter dem Begriff der „Badener Kultur"? Welche kulturellen Ebenen berührt er? Wie ist er in Raum und Zeit einzuordnen? Es handelt sich um ein Konzept von überregionaler Bedeutung, das die mittel- und südosteuropäische Forschung wesentlich geprägt hat. Diese Arbeit stellt eine notwendige Diskussion und Neubestimmung des gängigen Konzeptes vor, basierend auf einer ausführlichen Materialvorlage und Aufarbeitung von archäologischen Funden aus spätneolithischen Siedlungen der Regionen Mähren, Oberschlesien und Kleinpolen

A Virtual and a Practiced Neolithic? Material Culture Symbolism, Monumentality and Identities in the Western Baltic Region

Besides the economic, technical and social innovations most Neolithic societies of the old world are separated from Pre-Neolithic societies by a new stage of the manipulation of material objects and structures as media of symbolic communication. Since the Neolithic, the proportion of intentional production and use of material symbols clearly rises compared to unintentional symbol production. Particularly the extensive symbolism on utilitarian, everyday artefacts like pottery is much more elaborated. Proceeding from these observations, the early Neolithic period in northern Central Europe / Southern Scandinavia, that is the time from 4100 to 3500 BC, is more or less a time of continuation of Pre-Neolithic behavioural patterns. At this time Neolithic innovations are known and implemented, but not yet in a quantity that would practically change cultural behaviour and thus identity towards what has been defined as Neolithic above. It is probably not earlier than 3500 BC that a real “Neolithic Package” consisting of large-scale monumental buildings storing cultural memories, an extensive and genuine variability in material culture symbolism, especially pottery and stone tool production, appear together with an increase of economic impact and supra-regional contacts. Thus it is possible to speak of a “Virtual Neolithic” preceding the “Realised Neolithic” since 3500 BC

Social Worlds and Communities of Practice: a polythetic culture model for 3rd millennium BC Europe in the light of current migration debates

As an alternative to the traditional practice of cultural history using a monothetic classification of material, creating “archaeological cultures”, a polythetic culture model based on Strauss´s social worlds and Wenger´s communities of practice is proposed, which better represents the archaeological record dated to the 3rd millennium BC in Central Europe. Based on this approach current migration models elaborated for the 3rd millennium in connection with aDNA evidence are re-evaluated. It is argued that the use of “archaeological cultures” misleads our understanding of population movements. Steppe ancestry, as representing migrants or their descendants, is not primarily connected to specific “cultures” such as the Corded Ware or the Bell Beaker, but rather to a specific social world, a new set of burial practices, i.e. the Late Neolithic complex of individual, gender-specific burials with strict rules of orientation. A strong expression of a new cosmological understanding, a specific set of values is the migration process, rather than specific pottery styles, specific weapons or specific tool types. Including the differential patterns of material culture in the archaeological record results in suggestions of different scenarios of population mixing and social change.Nous proposons ici un modèle polythétique basé sur les mondes sociaux de Strauss et les communautés de pratique de Wenger en tant qu’alternative à la pratique traditionnelle de l’histoire culturelle qui met en œuvre une classification monothétique des vestiges matériels en créant des « cultures archéologiques ». Celui-ci permet de mieux représenter les données archéologiques du IIIe millénaire en Europe centrale. Les modèles de migration actuels élaborés pour le IIIe millénaire en relation avec des données aDNA sont réévalués sur la base de cette approche. Nous soutenons que l’emploi de « cultures archéologiques » en tant que modèle explicatif induit en erreur notre compréhension des mouvements de population. L’ascendance steppique, représentée par des migrants ou leurs descendants, n’est pas essentiellement connectée à des « cultures » spécifiques comme le Cordé ou le Campaniforme mais plutôt à un monde social spécifique, un nouvel ensemble de pratiques funéraires qui correspond au complexe des sépultures individuelles à différenciation sexuelle du Néolithique final avec des règles d’orientation strictes. Le processus de migration correspond précisément à cette forte expression d’une vision cosmologique nouvelle, d’un nouvel ensemble spécifique de pratiques funéraires, plutôt que la diffusion de styles céramiques particuliers, d’armes ou de types d’outils spécifiques. En incluant différents modèles de culture matérielle aux interprétations archéologiques, divers scénarios de mélanges de populations et de changements sociaux sont proposés

Mondes sociaux et communautés de pratique : un modèle culturel polythétique pour l’Europe du IIIe millénaire avant notre ère à la lumière des débats actuels sur la migration

Nous proposons ici un modèle polythétique basé sur les mondes sociaux de Strauss et les communautés de pratique de Wenger en tant qu’alternative à la pratique traditionnelle de l’histoire culturelle qui met en œuvre une classification monothétique des vestiges matériels en créant des « cultures archéologiques ». Celui-ci permet de mieux représenter les données archéologiques du IIIe millénaire en Europe centrale. Les modèles de migration actuels élaborés pour le IIIe millénaire en relation avec des données aDNA sont réévalués sur la base de cette approche. Nous soutenons que l’emploi de « cultures archéologiques » en tant que modèle explicatif induit en erreur notre compréhension des mouvements de population. L’ascendance steppique, représentée par des migrants ou leurs descendants, n’est pas essentiellement connectée à des « cultures » spécifiques comme le Cordé ou le Campaniforme mais plutôt à un monde social spécifique, un nouvel ensemble de pratiques funéraires qui correspond au complexe des sépultures individuelles à différenciation sexuelle du Néolithique final avec des règles d’orientation strictes. Le processus de migration correspond précisément à cette forte expression d’une vision cosmologique nouvelle, d’un nouvel ensemble spécifique de pratiques funéraires, plutôt que la diffusion de styles céramiques particuliers, d’armes ou de types d’outils spécifiques. En incluant différents modèles de culture matérielle aux interprétations archéologiques, divers scénarios de mélanges de populations et de changements sociaux sont proposés.As an alternative to the traditional practice of cultural history using a monothetic classification of material, creating ‘archaeological cultures’, a polythetic culture model based on Strauss´s social worlds and Wenger´s communities of practice is proposed, which better represents the archaeological record dated to the 3rd millennium BC in Central Europe. Based on this approach current migration models elaborated for the 3rd millennium in connection with aDNA evidence are re-evaluated. It is argued that the use of “archaeological cultures” misleads our understanding of population movements. Steppe ancestry, as representing migrants or their descendants, is not primarily connected to specific ‘cultures’ such as the Corded Ware or the Bell Beaker, but rather to a specific social world, a new set of burial practices, i.e. the Late Neolithic complex of individual, gender-specific burials with strict rules of orientation. A strong expression of a new cosmological understanding, a specific set of values is the migration process, rather than specific pottery styles, specific weapons or specific tool types. Including the differential patterns of material culture in the archaeological record results in suggestions of different scenarios of population mixing and social change

Absolutchronologie und die Entstehung der Schnurkeramik

The analysis of the available radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates of the Central European Corded Ware/Single Grave Culture gives new evidence for the evaluation of the formation processes of the Central European Corded Ware and the problem of the so-called „A-Horizon“. Ceramic forms in single graves develop earlier in Poland than in western and southern Central Europe. It is possible to show the development of a non-ceramic Corded Ware – or the development of a „corded ware-fashioned“ burial rite – in the western parts that takes place contemporaneous with the early CWC in Poland. This points towards a spread of Corded Ware cultural traits through a wide-spanning communication network rather than through migration.The dates also point towards the existence of an „A-Horizon“ in the 28th century BC, though it is shown that this horizon is to be understood as a number of connencting forms within different regional contexts

MegaForm – Ein Formalisierungssystem für die Analyse monumentaler Baustrukturen des Neolithikums im nördlichen Mitteleuropa

MegaForm is a recording system for Neolithic megaliths in northern Central Europe and southern Scandinavia. It was created in the context of the Priority Program 1400 “Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation”. It aims at formalising the recording of architectural traits of megaliths, non-megalithic monuments and simple graves, focussing on single characteristics, not on complex types. Specific national traditions have resulted in different terminologies. MegaForm unites these into one overall recording system, a new standard for the recording and description of megaliths. In this article, the recording system is proposed and commented, and it is possible to download a suitable database system

Proto-Urban Establishments in Inner Asia : Surveys of an Iron Age Walled Site in Eastern Mongolia

Funding Information: The field expedition in 2015 was funded by National Geographic Society (#W321-14). Geomagnetic and DGPS survey equipment was graciously loaned to us from the Graduate School of Human Development in Landscapes at Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, and members of the Institut für Ur-und Frühgeschichte at CAU-Kiel gave assistance in the field. Radiocarbon dating of bone and charcoal samples were conducted at Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory through funding from the ERC Consolidator Grant (#615040) for the “Nomadic Empires” Project at University of Oxford. Pedestrian surveys were conducted primarily by J. Wright, faunal analyses by T. Tüvshinjargal, and magnetic modelling by T. Wunderlich. We wish to thank D. Schultz for assistance in the field, as well as the National Museum of Mongolia and Tsagaan-Ovoo sum for helping facilitate many of the in-field project logistics. Lastly, our thanks to the extremely thorough comments from the editors and anonymous reviewers which greatly improved the clarity of the content. All remaining mistakes are of course ours. Publisher Copyright: © 2019, © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.Peer reviewe

Forum : Populism, Identity Politics, and the Archaeology of Europe

SSR gratefully acknowledges M.J. Walsh, J.-L. Renaud, and another anonymous col- league for comments on this manuscript. MB would like to thank P. Pavúk, N. Vlhová, and M. Havlíková for reading and commenting on his paper. KK grate- fully acknowledges the editorial help of his friend Sappho Haralambous-Howe. Naturally, the views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of other agencies.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Dichtezentren und lokale Gruppierungen - Eine Karte zu den Großsteingräbern Mittel- und Nordeuropas

Until today a detailed mapping of the megalithic structures from the 4th millenium BC in northern Europe seems a desideratum. The DFG-Priority Program 1400 “Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation” is currently working on the Neolithic of the northern European plain. One important aim is to record and analyse the archaeological evidence within the working region in a systematical way. As a first step, an account of all megaliths available is of crucial importance. The map presented here reveals remarkable spatial patterns that may serve as a starting point for further research