Open Archaeology 2016; 2: 398–409
Original Study
Open Access
Eric Biermann*
Between Cultic Fear and Lack of Wood
DOI 10.1515/opar-2016-0028
Received May 25, 2016; accepted October 26, 2016
Abstract: During the first and second centuries of the fifth millennium BC, the LBK (Linearbandkeramik)
pottery style disappeared in the Rhineland (Germany); it was replaced by the Großgartach style, which
was in turn followed by the Rössen style. While in some regions, the former settlement sites of the LBK
population remained occupied by subsequent Middle Neolithic societies, nearly all were abandoned in
the vast loess area located between modern-day Cologne and the Netherlands. Middle Neolithic villages
were instead established in new locations. The following text considers some possible reasons for this
development.
Keywords: Early Neolithic, Middle Neolithic, LBK, Großgartach, Rössen, taboo, environment
“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.”
(Howard Phillips Lovecraft, 1890-1937)
1 Introduction
The Linearbandkeramik likely originated in Hungary (e.g. Bánffy 2015; Marton and Oross 2012) and expanded
as the first farming culture over a vast area of Europe (e.g. Whittle 1996). With its rapid dissemination, it
reached regions as far as Ukraine, the Paris Basin, and the North European Plain. Its enormous geographical
spread was likely associated with a massive wave of migration. As far as aDNA analysis of LBK burials have
shown up to now, that immigrant populations played an important role during neolithization (e.g. Brandt
et al. 2013; Brandt et al. 2014; Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2014). One crucial innovation of LBK people was the
longhouse tradition. According to Coudart, “the homogeneity of Bandkeramik archi­tecture […] bespeaks an
astonishing and exceptional cultural unity across a very large territory” (Coudart 2015: 310).
The arrival of the first farmers in Central Europe had a permanent impact on the environment and
influenced local settlements in a variety of ways. Trees were felled in former woodland, and the cleared
areas remained continuously in use over several hundred years. Deforestation and increased soil runoff—the
results of human activities—often led to further ecosystemic change (e.g. Dreibrodt et al. 2010; Whitehouse
and Kirleis 2014).
Many generations of LBK farmers built their houses in the same places. In addition to its function as a
dwelling, the typical longhouse perhaps embodied the cosmological and ideological ideas of its inhabitants.
Moreover, the house also signified the prestige and status of its owners, thus expressing the identity of the
members of the household while also reflecting social structure in general (Coudart 2015; Hodder 1990;
Pechtl 2009a; Whittle 2009; vide infra). Such interpretations are important to the discussion below.
Article note: This article is a part of Topical Issue on Understanding Diversity in Neolithic Houses and Households.
*Corresponding author: Eric Biermann, Parkstr. 59, D-51147 Köln, Germany, E-mail: eric.biermann@rheinland-archäologie.com
© 2016 Eric Biermann, published by De Gruyter Open.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
Between Cultic Fear and Lack of Wood 399
At the end of the LBK period in the Rhineland (c. 4.900 cal. BC) a recovery of the surrounding woodlands
is evident in the pollen record. The correlation with the intensity of human settlement is significant (already
Kalis and Meurers-Balke 1988; Lüning and Kalis 1988; Stehli 1989: 67, Fig. 7). Typologically, the Middle
Neolithic period starts with pottery of a developed middle-Großgartach phase (GG IIa/b: Biermann 1997;
mGG A/B: Spatz 1996), c. 4.800 cal. BC (Pollmann 2015: 134; Zimmermann et al. 2006: 182). After this period
of forest recovery, an intensive human impact is detectable within the Rössen pottery style again (Kalis
and Meurers-Balke 1997: 45; Lüning 2015: 182). Overall, the economic system was similar to that of the LBK
period (Bakels et al. 2003).
The avoidance of traditional LBK settlement places by Middle Neolithic societies (Großgartach, Rössen),
particularly in the famous region of the “Aldenhovener Platte” (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), is
notable (Zimmermann et al. 2006: 179-182; Middle Neolithic Settlements in the Rhineland: Arora et al. 2010:
67, Fig. 1) (Fig.1). Why did the LBK period end in the Rhineland, while at the same time in neighbouring
Westphalia, settlement at some LBK sites remained uninterrupted (e.g. Borgentreich-Großeneder
(Westphalia, Germany); 4.800-4.750 cal. BC: Pollmann 2012)? Why did the people of the new style deem it
necessary to build their houses on “virgin ground”?
Two possible explanations for this settlement gap will be discussed below. The first considers social,
religious, and psychological motivations, while the second explores an economic perspective.
Figure 1: Middle Neolithic settlements in North Rhine-Westphalia: Green: GG; Yellow: GG/RÖ; Red: RÖ (after Arora et al. 2010:
67, Fig. 1).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
400 E. Biermann
2 Cultic Fear
First, it is important to note that the differences between LBK and SBK (Stroke Ornamented
Ware/”Stichbandkeramik”) or LBK and GG (“Großgartach”) are defined by archaeologists. Such typologies
do not necessarily represent of the ways in which these former societies defined themselves. It is possible
that those whom we consider “SBK people” did not perceive these changes, while those described as “GG
people” might have been fully aware of their divergence, or vice versa. In any case, SBK pottery seems to
emerge continuously out of LBK styles and people often remained “faithful to the former habitat” (e.g. Link
2012a; Link 2012b and Link 2015).
On the other hand, houses have always had complex profane functions, as well as ritual meanings (e.g.
Bickle 2013; Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2003; Metcalf 2010; Naumov 2013; vide supra).
One can draw the following conclusion: settlements might have been avoided out of respect concerning
the ancestors - but why did people settle the same places several times before? On the other hand it is
possible, that the Middle Neolithic settlers feared “evil spirits” of former enemies and/or “foreign people”.
Besides settlements, not even burial places were used by the “next” pottery-style users very often. This
belief in “evil spirits” is not as farfetched as it might seem at first. The term “cultic fear”, as an explanation
for the gap in settlement continuity at the end of the LBK period in the Rhineland, was probably first used
by Jens Lüning (Lüning 1982). One can perhaps associate the concept of “cultic fear” with the more widely
used term “taboo”. With an origin in the Tongan word tapu (“forbidden”, “prohibited”, “disallowed”), the
English use of “taboo” dates to 1777 when the British explorer James Cook visited Tonga. “Taboo” means
a social or religious custom prohibiting or restricting a practice, or forbidding association with a person,
place, or thing (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de/definition/englisch/taboo).
A taboo is a vehement prohibition of an action, based on the belief that such behavior is either too
sacred or too accursed for ordinary individuals to undertake, under threat of supernatural punishment
(Encyclopædia Britannica Online. “Taboo” Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012). Sigmund Freud explained
that the fundamental reason for the existence of such taboos is fear of the presence or return of a dead
person’s ghost (Freud 1950: 57). The fear of evil spirits gave rise to the universal dread of cemeteries and
the belief that burial grounds are haunted, as well as to the fear of a ghost’s return to its former living
place (e.g. Matthew 12:44: “Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house
unoccupied, swept clean and put in order”; Luke 11:24: “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it
goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’”).
People that suffered a violent end were feared even more, because they had good reasons for revenge. The
fear of dead persons and/or evil spirits is probably not as universal as Freud believed, but there are still
plenty of ethnographic examples from all over the world (Kümmel 2009: Tab. 9.3; Malinowski 1948; Metzgar
2004; Raahauge 2009).
A similar concept is the idea of so-called “non-places” (Augé 1995). A non-place is a place not lived in,
in which the individual remains anonymous and lonely. Motorways, hotel rooms, airports, and shopping
malls could be considered examples of non-places in modern times. The concept of the “anthropological
place” stands in direct opposition to that of the non-place. Such a place offers people a space that empowers
their identity, where they can meet others with whom they share social ties. The non-places, on the contrary,
are not meeting spaces and do not build common references to a group. The psychological background of
non-places is somehow opposite to taboo places, but the result is the same.
In merging these ideas, one could suggest that places like graveyards, battlefields, and ghost towns
acted as such taboo/non-places for early Middle Neolithic societies. Of course, a general avoidance of
former LBK villages is not verifiable in the record. Such bright secondary forests would have been excellent
places for herding the stock for example. For the Rhineland, one can only state that no new houses were
built in the same locations.
An archeologically-detectable fact is the appearance of mass graves and perhaps more frequent occurrences
of ritual killings in the late LBK phases. Several find spots provide evidence of such incidents. Talheim (BadenWürttemberg, Germany), Kilianstätten (Hessen, Germany) and Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld (Saxony-Anhalt,
Germany) represent such mass graves, while Herxheim (Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany) comes to mind as a
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
Between Cultic Fear and Lack of Wood 401
ritual place (e.g. Boulestin et al. 2009; Duering and Wahl 2014; Meyer et al. 2015; Schefzik 2015). The fortified
LBK village of Asparn-Schletz (Austria) provides one example of a settlement that was not rebuilt and settled
again after its destruction, commonly referred to as the “massacre of Schletz” (Teschler-Nicola et al. 2006;
Windl 1996). From this point of view, it is an inviting idea to connect the so-called “crisis” at the end of the LBK
with avoidance of the abandoned and destroyed settlements of potential enemies. Thus far, however, there is
no proof that these acts of violence were committed by Middle Neolithic people. Of course, one could argue it
is unlikely that any such perpetrators would take along a pot of his own decorative style during an assault, but
absence of proof is no proof in general. An internal conflict of neighbouring LBK societies is reasonable. Other
hints for violence are healed trauma (e.g. Herxheim (Germany): Häußer 1998), the appearance of weapons
within the archaeological record (e.g. stone mace-heads: Biermann 2012; Biermann 2014) and evidence of
trepanation as probable treatment for injuries (Wölfel 1925; Wölfel 1927; Wölfel 1936) in late LBK and Middle
Neolithic graves (especially in Alsace (France); e.g.: Alt and Jeunesse 2006; Rieth and Ulrich 1942); however,
there is insufficient evidence to identify the perpetrators.
Another archaeologically-visible change is the disappearance of clay figurines at the end of the LBK
period (Becker 2011). Their absence could further hint at the rejection of former traditions and a change of
belief and religion. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that the raw material used in production of
these artefacts changed to wood or another organic source material unlikely to have been preserved within
the archaeological record.
In conclusion, cultic fear cannot be denied as an explanation, but given the archaeological evidence at
hand, it remains difficult to prove.
3 Lack of Wood
It was undoubtedly necessary for the first farmers to clear forests for arable farmland and suitable land for
settlement. In selecting sites for clearance, several factors, particularly with regards to the construction
of infrastructure, would have been of importance—for example, access to a freshwater supply for the
inhabitants and their domestic livestock, the quality of the soil, the availability of timber (oak) as raw
material for construction, access to exchange networks, and sufficient space for herding.
It is difficult to state whether there was an existing form of landscape management, e.g. if a clear cut
took place or if some solitary trees would have been left for shadow (models of land use: Bendrey et al.
2014; Ebersbach and Schade 2005; Saqalli et al. 2015); however, the initial construction phase of a new
settlement would have required significant resources. On average, c. 140 oak trees were needed to build
one house (Pechtl 2006: 221, Tab. 2; calculation of workload/expenditure of work: Biermann 2009: 36-37).
Thus, it would have been necessary to exploit an area of up to five hectares (Bakels 1978). Furthermore, oak
trees grew mainly in the valleys of the Aldenhovener Platte region (Gerlach and Meurers-Balke 2015: 173),
making access to and transportation of this valuable resource an additional consideration in landscape
management. In addition to houses, it would have been necessary to build wells, fences, occasionally
palisades, and perhaps logboats or rafts. To a lesser extent, the supply of wood for handles, vessels, and
fire-building had to be secured continually. For firewood alone, there is an average annual need of 0.4 m3
per person (Dubouloz 2008; Mazoyer and Roudart 1997). Such materials would have been sourced within
an acceptable distance of attainability and transportability.
As an ethnographic comparison, it is helpful to consider the Iroquois, who relocated their settlements
time after time. Often, they moved in order to have firewood in convenient proximity or because elm bark
was no longer available for roofing houses (Hopkins 2010). A diminishing wood supply also made defensive
repairs more difficult, thus explaining why some settlements remained unfortified (Richter 1992: 136).
The carrying capacity of an environment is, in general, the maximum population size that the
environment can sustain indefinitely (e.g. Biermann 2001/2003: 216-217). In addition to food and water, one
must consider wood as an important part of such calculations.
LBK people exhausted this resource not only by taking wood themselves, but also by herding their
animals. Livestock will hinder to some extent the renewal of the surrounding woodland through grazing.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
402 E. Biermann
Over the past several decades, pollen analyses for the Rhineland have provided evidence of such an impact
(Kalis and Meurers-Balke 1988: 42-45; Kalis and Zimmermann 1988; more recent: Gerlach and MeurersBalke 2015: 172). The intensity of land-use likely differed according to settlement density and size. The
impact of large, long-term settlements like Vaihingen/Enz (Baden-Württemberg, Germany: Krause 1997)
or Stephanposching (Bavaria, Germany: Pechtl 2006) was surely more intensive than that of a single
farmyard (“Hofplatz”) (e.g. Hofmann et al. 2013: 214). Further evidence for herding far from the villages
is the appearance of non-local isotope signatures in analyses of skeletal remains (e.g. Bentley et al. 2008;
Bickle et al. 2011).
Examples from locations such as the Scottish Highlands or the Easter Islands group demonstrate the
extent of environmental changes resulting from clear cuts and/or herding. Even if such changes might have
happened in a much smaller local scale during the LBK period, it is reasonable that alternative places with
better access to resources, especially of building quality timber, were later chosen to set up new villages.
Psychology might influence perceptions of “acceptable distance” in this context: one might bear a greater
amount of work to keep his or her well-established home than one starting a new settlement under the best
possible conditions.
From an archaeological point of view, several challenges exist in any attempt to recreate the situation.
The number of inhabitants of LBK houses, as well as the LBK population size in general, is still a topic of
lively debate (e.g. Biermann 2009; Claßen and Zimmermann 2015). Still, the question of manpower is crucial,
especially with respect to transport. The trunks of the oak trees used for construction of houses would
have weighed up to, and occasionally more than, 1000 kg (e.g. Biermann 2009). One could hypothesize
that cattle were used to drag logs out of the forest. Such considerations would have been influential in
determining the “acceptable distance” for communities availing of these resources.
The availability of wood influenced everyday life during the LBK period. Castelletti analyzed the
charcoal from the pits of Langweiler 8 (“Merzbachtal”, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), proving a
decrease in the use of oak during the LBK period. Instead, branches of fruit trees and hedges were used
as firewood (Castelletti 1988). Such use of material from hedges became increasingly common during the
LBK period (Kalis and Meurers-Balke 1998: 254; Stehli 1989: 64). This shift led Lüning to determine that
in the immediate surroundings of settlements, oak trees were excessively exploited for lumber, which in
turn necessitated the use of other species for firewood (Lüning 1988: 78). Such use of hedges (German:
“Waldmantelgesellschaften”) disappears in Middle Neolithic contexts (Kalis and Meurers-Balke 1997: 35);
instead, elm trees seem to have been used, at least for pollarding, to an greater degree in this later period
(Gerlach and Meurers-Balke 2015: 172).
A decrease in oak pollen during the LBK period was also detected for the Wetterau (Hesse, Germany)
(Stobbe 1996: 159), followed by some woodland regeneration during the Middle Neolithic (Eisenhauer 1994:
97). The results of charcoal analyses are also similar to those obtained from the Rhineland (Kreuz 1988).
Some settlements were abandoned around the end of the LBK period as well (e.g. Ritter 2014). However,
in contrast to the Rhineland, several places were continuously occupied or reoccupied soon after their
abandonment (e.g. Wölfersheim “Geisenheimer Feld“ (Hesse): Eisenhauer (2002: Nr. 87); Saile (1998: 372,
Nr. 1819) or Münzenberg-Trais (Hesse): Eisenhauer (2002: Nr. 70, 72, 73); Kneipp (1998: 332-333, Nr. 344-346);
Saile (1998: 345, 346, Nr. 1404, 1408)).
Further east, e.g. in Dresden-Prohlis (Saxony, Germany) (Link 2012a; Link 2012b and Link 2015), Eythra
(Saxony, Germany) (Cladders et al. 2012) or Hrdlovka (Czech Republic) (Beneš et al. 2015: Fig. 2-3), such
“gaps” are not evident between LBK and SBK occupation. The places were inhabited continuously. Still,
one must keep in mind that the stylistic change from LBK to SBK already took place in this region c. 5.000
cal. BC (Link 2014).
The recently discovered well of Niederröblingen (Saxony-Anhalt, Germany) was built by LBK people
and subsequently repaired at least twice. The second set of repairs was completed by SBK people. However,
the 150 dendrochronologically-dated logs showed another astonishing result. The planks of the oldest
phase were made from 200–300-year-old oaks. The trees used for the first set of repairs had a maximum
age of 200, while those used in the second set of repairs had a maximum age of less than 150 years. Such
evidence supports the argument that there was a considerable decrease of available oak trees during this
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
Between Cultic Fear and Lack of Wood 403
time (Lecture: Susanne Friederich, Thorsten Westphal, René Wollenweber, Jahrgenaue Datierung – Dämon
oder Defizit? 83. Tagung des Nordwestdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung, AG Neolithikum / AG
Boden und Archäologie, 18.-21.9.2016, Münster).
Compared to agriculture and stockbreeding, hunting played a relatively minor role during the LBK
period, but has nevertheless been interpreted as an important social factor (Hachem 2000). The importance
of game to subsistence practices differed very much according to chronological and regional context. In
general, numbers of hunted animals decreased during LBK phases and were of greater importance in
southern and southwestern Germany than in other parts of the distribution area (e.g. Benecke 2001; Bentley
et al. 2013: 264; Biermann 2001/2003: 184-196; Küßner 2015: 174-178; Pechtl 2009b: 84). This chronological
trend could reflect a decreased availability of game in a more open landscape, but could also signify a loss
of hunting skills after several generations of farming.
Are there any further hints of a decrease in wood resources? Pit houses could have offered an alternative
to longhouses in the late LBK period and the beginning of the Middle Neolithic, and one possible reaction
to any shortage of wood. The general idea of pit houses is not new (Wüstehube 1993), but has recently been
discussed for some late LBK sites (Becker et al. 2011; Cziesla 2008: 430). Examples have been known from
SBK sites for several decades (e.g. Baumann 1964), but they are more likely connected with handicraft than
with habitation (Lüning et al. 1997: 92-93). Definitive proof of their presence is sparse, but it is possible that
researchers do not detect pit houses because they do not expect to find them in LBK or Middle Neolithic
contexts. Similar problems existed in the identification of LBK wells until the 1990s too (Weiner 2015: 159:
“Nur wer kennt, kann suchen!”). In the early twentieth century, the idea of so-called “Grubenhütten” was
still quite common (e.g. Schliz 1900; Koehl 1912: 59-60). It is possible that the change of opinion concerning
pit houses after the discovering of “real houses” (e.g. Köln-Lindental, Germany: Buttler and Haberey 1936)
continues to influence us today. Still, pit houses are exceptional, and thus up to now not a likely explanation
for the lack of evidence for wood as presented here.
LBK houses with surrounding ditches, which were probably plank walled (e.g. Husmann and Cziesla
2014: Fig. 21), provide another interesting contribution to the discussion at hand. It has been suggested
that these houses belonged to more privileged members of the community (Husmann and Cziesla 2014:
95-96), because the amount of wood needed is much greater than that used for “common houses”. If these
structures really were a sign of wealth and social stratification, this disparity could indicate that wood had
a high value and became rare somehow.
Finally, it is necessary to consider changing house shapes. Rectangular houses were typical during the
LBK period (e.g. Pollmann 2015: 132, Fig. 1; Rück 2007: Fig. 9). The average length of 25—30 m (in extreme:
e.g. Schwabhausen (Thüringen, Germany): 71 m (Grasselt 2000)) was still about the same as that of
houses found in Middle Neolithic contexts (e.g. Lüning 1982: 29, Fig. 13). However, the shape of the houses
eventually became shiplike or “naviform”, and later changed to become more trapezoidal (GG: Biel 1994: 40,
Fig. 14/A-B; Dohrn-Ihmig 1983; Pollmann 2015: Fig. 2; RÖ: Lüning 1982: 29, Fig. 13; Pollmann 2015: Fig. 4).
Both types are found in the same settlements, which seem to have been occupied continuously during
the GG and RÖ periods, in contrast to the abandoned and avoided LBK sites (e.g. Elsbachtal, brown coal
area between Cologne and Jülich, Germany (Arora et al. 2010: 68, Fig. 2-3)). The tendency to change shape is
sometimes found in the late LBK period (e.g. Sierentz, France: Jeunesse 1994: 7, Fig. 5; Alsace: Bickle et al.
2013: Tab. 8.2; Paris Basin: Bickle 2013: Fig. 7.2) and can also be observed during the SBK period at the end of
phase Ib (Kaufmann 1976: 45-46, Tab. 1; e.g. Straubing-Alburg-Lerchenhaid, Bavaria, Germany: Engelhardt
1997: 49, Fig. 23). This movement away from a rectangular to a trapezoidal ground plan seems to have been
a general trend throughout Europe (e.g. Czerniak 2002; Last 1996; Lönne 2003: 43).
Why change shape? Studies have suggested this development to be a result of improvements in
craftsmanship (e.g. Hampel 1989: 82; Riedhammer 2003: 478-481). When viewed within the context of
dwindling resources, one could suggest such constructions permitted the use of smaller trunks in greater
proportions.
Ship-shaped or trapezoid houses did not need the same length of timber on the smaller sides to span
the distance as would have been necessary for rectangular houses. Even the height and width of the ridgeposts could be partly reduced, because the roofs were probably graded in the direction of the smaller slopes
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
404 E. Biermann
(Pollmann 2015: 135-134, Fig. 3-4). An example of such a house can be seen in Oerlinghausen (Germany). In
the 1980s, this house was the first evidence-based reconstruction of Neolithic architecture of the German
post-war period, modelled on “House 9” of the RÖ settlement “Inden I” from the brown coal area between
Cologne and Jülich (Luley 1990; Luley 1992). With a size of 23 m x 7.30 m and a maximum height of 5.25 m,
it is a very impressive building, but within RÖ contexts it is only average in size. To conclude, trees smaller
in both length and diameter could have been used to build houses with a similar floor space. With fewer
trees needed, especially “old” ones, the cumulative cost of cutting trees, transporting them, and erecting
the building is much lower than that required in the construction of traditional LBK houses.
4 Conclusion
In summary, there is evidence to support hypothesizes related to both belief systems and resource extraction
in discussions of settlement patterns. Still, for the people of this period, there may have been plenty of other
reasons to avoid former settlement areas. There are several arguments that lumber became rarer in the end
of the LBK period in general. However, while the transition between the LBK and SBK periods seems to have
been smooth, a break or gap between the LBK period and Middle Neolithic (GG) is detectable, especially
in the Rhineland. This distinction suggests that a material shortage cannot be the only explanation for the
avoidance of these settlements. It is necessary to search for another possible “trigger mechanism”. Lüning’s
idea of “cultic fear” offers a possible explanation, but is difficult to prove.
In any case, according to materialist theorists like Marvin Harris, a synthesis of both explanations is
possible. Harris explained taboos as a consequence of ecological and economic conditions (Harris 1966).
In the case presented here, one should not discuss antitheses, but rather interlocked reasons. Using the
words of Daniela Hofmann, Luc Amkreutz, Fabian Haack and Ivo van Wijk: “The presumed “crisis” at the
end of the LBK, cannot solely be explained by tracing possible environmental or demographic factors, but
also largely depends on the specific trajectories a given set of sites was involved in, and hence on social
relationships and worldviews” (Hofmann et al. 2016: 12-13).
References
Alt, K. W. & Jeunesse, Ch. (2006). Blutige Rituale oder medizinische Indikation? Reflektionen über die älteste Schädeltrepanation Mitteleuropas aus Ensisheim, Elsass (Frankreich). In J. Piek & Terberger, T. (Eds.), Frühe Spuren der Gewalt
– Schädelverletzungen und Wundversorgung an prähistorischen Menschenresten aus interdisziplinärer Sicht (Workshop
Rostock-Warnemünde, 28.-30. Nov. 2003. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 41), 51-60.
Schwerin.
Arora, S-K., Biermann, E., Matzerarath, S., Münch, U. & Schyle, D. (2010). Mittel- bis endneolithische Besiedlung im
Rheinland. In T. Otten, H. Hellenkemper, J. Kunow & M. M. Rind (Eds.), Fundgeschichten – Archäologie in NordrheinWestfalen (Katalog zur Landesausstellung 2010), 67-73. Köln & Mainz.
Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London & New York: Verso.
Bakels, C. C. (1978). Four Linearbandkeramik Settlements and Their Environment: A Paleoecological Study of Sittard, Stein,
Elsloo and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 11, Leiden.
Bakels, C. C., Alkemade, M. J., Vermeeren, C. E. (2003). Botanische Untersuchungen in der Rössener Siedlung MaastrichtRandwijck uit 7000 Jahre bäuerliche Landschaft: Entstehung, Erforschung, Erhaltung. Archaeo-Physika 13, 35-48.
Bánffy, E. (2015). Wurzeln und Herkunft der ersten Bauern aus dem südöstlichen Mitteleuropa. In: T. Otten, J. Kunow, M. M.
Rind & M. Trier (Eds.), Revolution Jungsteinzeit. Archäologische Landesausstellung Nordrhein-Westfalen. Schriften zur
Bodendenkmalpflege in Nordrhein-Westfalen Bd. 11/1, 73-81. Theiss, Darmstadt.
Baumann, W. (1964). Ein stichbandkeramisches Grubenhaus von Dresden-Nickern. Ausgrabungen und Funde 9, 66-69.
Becker, V. (2011). Anthropomorphe Plastik der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 83.
Habelt, Bonn.
Becker, T., Lorscheider F. & Schade-Lindig, S. (2011). Die jüngstbandkeramische Siedlung von Idstein-Walsdorf. Hessenarchäologie 2011, 19-24.
Bendrey, R., Richardson, A., Elliott, S. & Whitlam, J. (2014). Environmental archaeologies of Neolithisation: Europe.
Environmental Archaeology, 19(3), 181-183.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
Between Cultic Fear and Lack of Wood 405
Beneš, J., Vondrovský, V., Šída, P., Divišová, M., Kovačiková, L., Kovárník, J. & Vavrečka, P. (2015). The Rare Deposition of
Neolithic (SBK) Grinding Tools and Longhouse 8 from Hrdlovka (Czech Republic): Analysis and 3D Virtual Reconstruction.
Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica. Natural Sciences in Archaeology, 6(2), 161–179.
Benecke, N. (2001). Zur Bedeutung der Jagd während der Linienbandkeramik im südöstlichen Mitteleuropa und in Osteuropa.
In R.-M. Arbogast, Chr. Jeunesse, J. Schibler (Eds.), Rolle und Bedeutung der Jagd während des Frühneolithikums Mitteleuropas (Linienbandkeramik 5.500-4.900 v.Chr.). Premières rencontres danubiennes.: Strasbourg, 20 et 21 novembre
1996. Actes de la 1ère Table-Ronde. Rôle et statut de la chasse dans le Néolithique ancien danubien (5500-4900 J.-C.),
39-56. Leidorf, Rahden/Westf.
Bentley, R. A., Wahl, J., Price, T. D., Atkinson, T. C. (2008). Isotopic signatures and hereditary traits: snapshot of a Neolithic
community in Germany. Antiquity 82, 290-304.
Bentley, R. A., Bickle, P., Francken, M., Gerling, C., Hamilton, J., Hedges, R., Stephan, E., Wahl, J. & Whittle, A. (2013). BadenWürttemberg. In P. Bickle & A. Whittle (Eds.), The First Farmers of Central Europe: Diversity in LBK Lifeways. (Cardiff
Studies in Archaeology), Oxbow Books.
Bickle, P. (2013). Life and death of the longhouse: daily life during and after the early Neolithic in the river valleys of the Paris
Basin. Ann Arbor, MI.
Bickle, P., Hofmann, D., Bentley, R. A., Hedges, R., Hamilton, J., Laiginhas, F., Nowell, G., Pearson, D. G., Grupe, G. & Whittle,
A. (2011). Roots of diversity in a Linearbandkeramik community: isotope evidence at Aiterhofen (Bavaria, Germany).
Antiquity 85(330), 1243–1258.
Biel, J. (1994). Siedlungsreste der Hinkelstein- und Großgartacher Kultur bei Heilbronn-Neckargartach, „Böllinger Höfe“.
Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1993 (1994), 38-40.
Biermann, E. (1997). Großgartach und Oberlauterbach. Interregionale Beziehungen im süddeutschen Mittelneolithikum,
Archäologische Berichte 8, Habelt, Bonn.
Biermann, E. (2001/2003). Alt- und Mittelneolithikum in Mitteleuropa. Untersuchungen zur Verbreitung verschiedener
Artefakt- und Materialgruppen und zu Hinweisen auf regionale Tradierungen. Köln. (https://www.academia.
edu/9112502/Alt-_und_Mittelneolithikum_in_Mitteleuropa._Untersuchungen_zur_Verbreitung_verschiedener_Artefakt-_
und_Materialgruppen_und_zu_Hinweisen_auf_regionale_Tradierungen._Bd._1).
Biermann, E. (2009). Die ersten Großbauten Mitteleuropas: Bandkeramische Langhäuser. Überlegungen zur Ökonomie
und Bevölkerungsgröße altneolithischer Siedlungen. Tagungsband der AG Neolithikum, „Monumente im Raum“,
Schleswig 2007. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 56. Varia Neolithica VI, Neolithische Monumente und
neolithische Gesellschaften, 29-41. Langenweissbach.
Biermann, E. (2012). Krieg in der Vorgeschichte: Die Interpretation archäologischer Funde und Befunde im interkulturellen
Vergleich am Beispiel steinerner Keulenköpfe des Mesolithikums bis Mittelneolithikums. In R. Gleser & V. Becker (Eds.),
„Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend vor Christus“, Beiträge zur Internationalen Konferenz in Münster 2010. 331-357. Berlin.
Biermann, E. (2014). Gewalt und Aggression in Alt- und Mittelneolithikum – Keulenköpfe und Äxte als Indikator für Krieg,
Prestige und Gruppenidentität. In T. Link & H. Peter-Röcher (Eds.), Gewalt und Gesellschaft. Dimensionen der Gewalt in
ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie Bd. 259, 237-246. Bonn.
Boulestin, B, Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, Chr. Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M. & Danaire, A. (2009). Mass cannibalism in the Linear
Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83. 968–982.
Brandt, G., Haak, W., Adler, C. J., Roth, C., Szécsényi-Nagy, A., Karimnia, S., … The Genographic Consortium. (2013). Ancient
DNA reveals key stages in the formation of Central European mitochondrial genetic diversity. Science (New York,
N.Y.), 342(6155), 257–261. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241844
Brandt, G., Szécsényi-Nagy, A. Roth, C., Alt, K. W. & Haak, W. (2014). Human paleogenetics of Europe - The known knowns and
the known unknowns. Journal of Human Evolution 30, 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.06.017
Buttler, W. & Haberey. W. (1936). Die bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei Köln-Lindenthal. Röm. Germ. Forschungen 11, Berlin &
Leipzig.
Castelletti, L. (1988). Anthrakologische Untersuchungen. Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 8, Gemeinde
Aldenhoven, Kreis Düren. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 28, 853-886.
Cladders, M., Stäuble, H., Tischendorf, T. & Wolfram, S. (2012). Zur linien- und stichbandkeramischen Besiedlung von Eythra,
Lkr. Leipzig. Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sachsischen Bodendenkmalpflege Beiheft 25, 146-159. Dresden.
Claßen, E. & Zimmermann, A. (2015). Soziale Strukturen im Neolithikum. In T. Otten, J. Kunow, M. M. Rind & M. Trier (Eds.),
Revolution Jungsteinzeit. Archäologische Landesausstellung Nordrhein-Westfalen. Schriften zur Bodendenkmalpflege in
Nordrhein-Westfalen Bd. 11/1, 189-195. Theiss, Darmstadt.
Coudart, A. (2015). The Bandkeramik longhouses: a material, social, and mental metaphor for small-scale sedentary societies.
In Ch. Fowler, J. Harding & D. Hofmann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe, 309–325. Oxford.
Czerniak, L. (2002). Settlement of the Brześć Kujawski type on the Polish Lowlands Arch. Rozhledy 54/1, 9–22.
Cziesla, E. (2008). Zur bandkeramischen Kultur zwischen Elbe und Oder. Germania 86, 405-464.
Dohrn-Ihmig, M. (1983). Ein Rössener Siedlungsplatz bei Jülich-Welldorf, Kreis Düren. Archäologie in den Rheinischen
Lössbörden. Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte im Rheinland. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 24, 287-297, Köln.
Dreibrodt, S., Lubos, C., Terhorst, B., Damm B. & Bork, H.-R. (2010). Historical soil erosion by water in Germany: scales and
archives, chronology, research perspectives. Quaternary International 222, 80–95.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
406 E. Biermann
Dubouloz, J. (2008). Impacts of the Neolithic demographic transition on Linear Pottery Culture settlement. In J.-P. BocquetAppel & O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.), The Neolithic demographic transition and its consequences. Springer, Berlin, 207–235.
Duering, A. & Wahl, J. (2014). A massacred village community? Agent-based modeling sheds new light on the demography of
the Neolithic mass grave of Talheim. Anthropol. Anz. 71/4, 447–468.
Ebersbach, R., Schade, C (2005). Modelle zur Intensität der bandkeramischen Landnutzung am Beispiel der Altsiedellandschaft Mörlener Bucht / Wetterau. In J. Lüning, C. Frirdich & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21.
Jahrhundert. Internationale Archäologie 7, 259-273. Rahden/Westf.
Eisenhauer, U. (1994). Mittelhessen zwischen Bandkeramik und Michelsberg. Zur Siedlungsgeschichte des hessischen
Mittelneolithikums. In H.-J. Beier (Ed.), Der Rössener Horizont in Mitteleuropa, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte
Mitteleuropas 6, 93-108. Willkau-Hasslau.
Eisenhauer, U. (2002). Untersuchungen zur Siedlungs­und Kulturgeschichte des Mittelneolithikums in der Wetterau.. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 89. Bonn.
Engelhardt, B. (1997). Jungsteinzeit. In Katalog Gäubodenmuseum Straubing. Abteilung Vorgeschichte, 42-70. Straubing.
Freud, S. (1950). Totem and Taboo: Some Points of Agreement between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics. trans.
Strachey. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Gerlach, R. & Meurers-Balke, J. (2015). Neolithische Landschaften im Rheinland und Westfalen. Thomas Otten, Jürgen Kunow,
Michael M. Rind & Marcus Trier (Eds.), Revolution Jungsteinzeit. Archäologische Landesausstellung Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Schriften zur Bodendenkmalpflege in Nordrhein-Westfalen Bd. 11/1, 171-177. Theiss, Darmstadt.
Grasselt, T. (2000). Langhaus - im wahrsten Sinne. Archäologie in Deutschland 3/2000, 49.
Hachem, L. (2000). New observations on the Bandkeramik house and social organization Antiquity, 74(284), 308-312. (DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00059342).
Häußer, A. (Ed.), (1998). Krieg oder Frieden? Herxheim vor 7000 Jahren. Katalog Sonderausstellung, Herxheim.
Hampel, A. (1989). Die Hausentwicklung im Mittelneolithikum Zentraleuropas. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen
Archäologie 1, Bonn, Habelt.
Harris, M. (1966). The Cultural Ecology of India`s Sacred Cattle. Current Anthropologie, Vol. 7, 51-59.
Hodder, I. (1990). The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Hofmann, D. (2006). Different times, different places. Architectural changes from the Early to the Middle Neolithic in Lower
Bavaria. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 8, 185-202.
Hofmann D., Pechtl, J., Bentley, R. A., Bickle, P., Fibiger, L., Grupe, G., Hamilton, J., Hedges, R., Schultz, M. & Whittle,
A. (2006). Southern Bavaria. In: D. Hofmann & J. Smyth (Eds.), Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism,
Architecture and Practice, 205-250. Springer.
Hofmann, D., Amkreutz, L., Haack, F. & van Wijk, I. (2016) Introduction: Diversity and Uniformity in LBK Studies. In: L.
Amkreutz, F. Haack, D. Hofmann & I. van Wijk (Eds.), Something Out of the Ordinary? Interpreting Diversityin the Early
NeolithicLinearbandkeramik and Beyond, 3-30. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Cambridge.
Hopkins, K. Y. (2010). A New Landscape: Changing Iroquois Settlement Patterns, Subsistence Strategies, and Environmental
Use, 1630-1783. Ph.D., University of California, Davis (online: http://gradworks.umi.com/34/22/3422771.html).
Husmann, H. & Cziesla, E. (2014). Bandkeramische Häuser, Brunnen und ein Erdwerk. In E. Cziesla & T. Ibeling (Eds.),
Autobahn 4. Fundplatz der Extraklasse. Archäologie unter der neuen Bundesautobahn bei Arnoldsweiler. 71-118. Langenweisbach.
Jeunesse, C. (1994). Le Néolithique du sud de la plaine du Rhin supérieur. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 69, 1-31.
Kalis, A. J. & Meurers-Balke J. (1988). Wirkungen neolithischer Wirtschaftsweisen in Pollendiagrammen. Archäologische
Informationen 11/1, 39-53.
Kalis, A. J. & Meurers-Balke J. (1997). Landnutzung im Neolithikum. In J. Richter (Ed.), Geschichtlicher Atlas der Rheinlande.
Neolithikum. Beiheft II/2.1-II/2.2, 25-47, Köln.
Kalis, A. J. & Meurers-Balke J. (1998). Zur pollenanalytischen Untersuchung neolithischer Brunnensedimente - ein Zwischenbericht. in: H. Koschik (Ed.), Brunnen der Jungsteinzeit – Internationales Symposium in Erkelenz, 27. bis 29. Oktober 1997.
Mat. z. Bodendenkmalpfl. Rheinld. 11, 247–260, Köln.
Kalis, A. J. & Zimmermann A. (1988). An integrative model for the use of different landscapes in Linearbandkeramik times. In
J. L. Bintliff, D. A. Davidson, E. Grant (Eds), Conceptual issues in environmental archaeology, Edinburgh, pp. 145 – 152,
Edinburgh.
Kaufmann, D. (1976). Wirtschaft und Kultur der Stichbandkeramik im Saalegebiet. Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für
Vorgeschichte Halle 30, Berlin.
Kneipp, J. (1998). Bandkeramik zwischen Rhein, Weser und Main. Bonn.
Koehl, C. (1912). Die Zeitfolge der rheinischen Steinzeitkulturen nach neuesten Beobachtungen in Rheinhessen. Mannus 4,
49-70.
Krause, R. (1997). Un Village rubané avec fossé d‘enceinte et nécropole près de Vaihingen/Enz, dept. Ludwigsburg. In C.
Jeunesse (Ed.), Le Néolithique danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine [22. Coll. Strasbourg 1995]. Cahiers Assoc.
Promotion Rech. Arch. Alsace, Suppl. 3, 45–56. Strasbourg.
Kreuz, A. (1988). Holzkohle-Funde der ältestbandkeramischen Siedlung Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken: Anzeiger für BrennholzAuswahl und lebende Hecken? In H. Küster (Ed.), Der prähistorische Mensch und seine Umwelt. Forschungen und
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
Between Cultic Fear and Lack of Wood 407
Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg, Bd. 31. (Festschrift für Udelgard Körber-Grohne zum 65.
Geburtstag), 139-153. Stuttgart.
Kümmel, C. (2009). Ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Grabraub. Archäologische Interpretation und kulturanthropologische
Erklärung, Tübinger Schriften zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, 9, Münster.
Küßner, M. (2015). Zur Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Jagd zwischen Thüringer Wald und Harz in der Steinzeit – von den
Anfängen bis zum Ende des Neolithikums. Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie 32, 161–184.
Last, J. (1996). Neolithic Houses – A central European perspective. In T. C. Darvill & J. S. Thomas (Eds.), Neolithic Houses in
Northwest Europe and beyond. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers, 27-40. Oxford.
Lönne, P. (2003). Das Mittelneolithikum im südlichen Niedersachsen. Materialhefte zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Niedersachsens 31. Rahden/Westf.
Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., van de Velde P. & Kamermans H. (2003). The Bandkeramik settlement of Geleen-Janskamperveld:
its intrasite structure and dynamics. In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer & A. Zimmermann. (Eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven,
Analyse und Interpretationen im Wandel, Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag, 373 - 397.
Link, T. (2012a). Neue Kultur oder jüngerlinienbandkeramische Regionalgruppe? Dresden-Prohlis und die Entstehung
der Stichbandkeramik. In R. Smolnik (Ed.), Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik. Beiträge der
internationalen Tagung »Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!« Leipzig, 23. bis 24. September 2010,
Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 25. 274–283. Landesamt für Archäologie,
Dresden.
Link, T. (2012b). Stilwandel contra Siedlungskontinuität: zum Übergang von der Linien- zur Stichbandkeramik in Sachsen. In R.
Gleser & V. Becker (Eds.), Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend vor Christus. Neolithikum und altere Metallzeiten, Studien und
Materialien 1, 115–131, Berlin.
Link, T. (2014). Die linien- und stichbandkeramische Siedlung von Dresden-Prohlis. Eine Fallstudie zum Kulturwandel in der
Region der oberen Elbe um 5000 v. Chr. Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Archäologie Sachsen Band 60, Dresden.
Link, T. 2015. New ideas in old villages. Interpreting the genesis of the Stroked Pottery Culture. Anthropologie 53, 3. 351-362.
Lüning, J. (1982). Siedlung und Siedlungslandschaft in bandkeramischer und Rössener Zeit. Offa. 39, 9-33.
Lüning, J. (1988). Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 35.1, 27-93.
Lüning, J. (2015). Landwirtschaft und Landnutzung im Neolithikum des Rheinlandes und Westfalens. In: T. Otten, J. Kunow, M.
M. Rind & M. Trier (Eds.), Revolution Jungsteinzeit. Archäologische Landesausstellung Nordrhein-Westfalen. Schriften zur
Bodendenkmalpflege in Nordrhein-Westfalen Bd. 11/1, 178-184.
Lüning, J & Kalis, A. J. (1988). Die Umwelt prähistorischer Siedlungen - Rekonstruktionen aus siedlungsarchäologischen und
botanischen Untersuchungen im Neolithikum. Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie-Geschichte-Geographie 6, 39-55.
Lüning, J., Jockenhövel, A., Bender, H. & Capelle, T. (1997). Deutsche Agrargeschichte. Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Theis.
Stuttgart.
Luley, H. (1990). Die Rekonstruktion eines Hauses der Rössener Kultur im archäologischen Freilichtmuseum Oerlinghausen.
In: M. Fansa (Ed.), Experimentelle Archäologie in Deutschland, 31-44. Oldenburg.
Luley, H. (1992). Urgeschichtlicher Hausbau in Mitteleuropa. Grundlagenforschung, Umweltbedingungen und bautechnische
Rekonstruktion. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 7. Habelt, Bonn .
Malinowski, B. (1948). Magic, Science and Religion. New York, Anchor Book.
Marton, T., Oross, K. (2012). Siedlungsforschung in linienbandkeramischen Fundorten in Zentral- und Sudtransdanubien –
Wiege, Peripherie oder beides? In R. Smolnik (Ed.), Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik. Beiträge
der internationalen Tagung »Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!« Leipzig, 23. bis 24. September 2010,
Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 25, 220-239. Dresden.
Mazoyer, M., Roudart, L. (1997). Histoire des Agricultures du monde, dune´olithique a` la crise contemporaine. Seuil, Paris.
Metcalf, P. (2010). The Life of the Longhouse: An Archaeology of Ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Metzgar, (2004). Sacred space, Taboo place. Negotiating Roang on Lamotrek Atoll; Micronesian, Journal of the Humanities and
Social Sciences Vol. 3, nº 1-2 December 2004.
Meyer, C., Kürbis, O., Dreseley, V. & Alt, K. W. (2015). Das jüngst entdeckte Massengrab von Halberstadt. In H. Meller & M.
Schezik (Eds.), Begleitband zur Sonderausstellung des Landesmuseums Halle vom 06.11.2015 – 22.05.2016. Krieg - eine
archäologische Spurensuche, 177-178. Stuttgart.
Naumov, G. (2013). Embodied houses: the social and symbolic agency of Neolithic architecture in the Republic of Macedonia.
In D. Hofmann & J. Smyth (Eds.), Tracking the Neolithic house in Europe. Sedentism, architecture, and practice. Springer,
New York, 65-94.
Pechtl, J. (2006). Stephansposching im Landkreis Deggendorf – Eine linienbandkeramische Großsiedlung und ihr Ressourcenbedarf, Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/West- und Südböhmen. 15. Treffen, 15. bis 18. Juni 2005 in
Altdorf bei Landshut., 214-228. Leidorf. Rahden/Westf..
Pechtl, J. (2009a). A monumental prestige patchwork. In: D. Hofmann & P. Bickle (Eds.), Creating Communities. New Advances
in Central European Neolithic Research, 186-201. Oxford.
Pechtl, J. (2009b). Überlegungen zur Historie der ältesten Linienbandkeramik (ÄLBK) im südlichen Bayern. In M. Chytráček,
H. Gruber, J. Michálek, R. Sandner & K. Schmotz (Eds.), Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern / West- und
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
408 E. Biermann
Südböhmen / Oberösterreich. Archeologická pracovní skupina východní Bavorsko / západní a jižní Čechy / Horní
Rakousko. 18. Treffen 25. bis 28. Juni 2008in Manching. Fines Transire Jahrgang 18, 79-116. Leidorf, Rahden/Westf.
Pollmann, H. (2012). Die befestigte linearbandkeramische Zentralsiedlung von Borgentreich-Großeneder. Archäologie
in Westfalen-Lippe 2011. Herausgegeben von der LWL-Archäologie für Westfalen und der Altertumskommission für
Westfalen, 36-40. Langenweissbach.
Pollmann, H. (2015). Hausbau und Siedlungswesen im Neolithikum als Spiegel sozialer Phänomene. In T. Otten, J. Kunow, M.
M. Rind & M. Trier (Eds.), Revolution Jungsteinzeit. Archäologische Landesausstellung Nordrhein-Westfalen. Schriften zur
Bodendenkmalpflege in Nordrhein-Westfalen Bd. 11/1, 134-139.
Raahauge, K. M. (2009). ‘Contextual Autism. Anthropological Fieldwork about the Experience of Ghosts and Haunting’.
Tønsberg, Ivar (illustrator). In R. Vidal & S. Sparkes (Eds.), Ghosts II: Hosting I: Haunted Houses, 4-10. London: University
of London.
Richter, D. K. (1992). The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Riedhammer, K. (2003). Ein neuer mittelneolithischer Hausgrundriß mit Zaun aus Niederbayern. In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer
& A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel [Festschrift Lüning].
Internat. Arch. Studia honoraria 20, 471-488. Rahden/Westf.
Rieth, A., Ulrich, H. (1942). Eine bandkeramische Männerbestattung mit Schädeltrepanation aus Suffelweyersheim, Kr.
Straßburg. Germania 26, 177-181.
Ritter, J. (2014). Zu Chronologie und Herstellungstechniken der Bandkeramik anhand der Fundstelle Friedberg B3a km 19
(Wetteraukreis). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 44, 325-335.
Rück, O. (2007). Neue Aspekte und Modelle in der Siedlungsforschung zur Bandkeramik. Die Siedlung Weisweiler 111 auf der
Aldenhovener Platte, Kr. Düren. Intern. Arch. 105. Rahden/Westf.
Saile, T. (1998). Untersuchungen zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Besiedlung der nördlichen Wetterau. Materialien zur Vorund Frühge­schichte von Hessen 21. Wiesbaden.
Saqalli, M., Salavert, A., Bréhard, S., Bendrey, R., Vigne, J-D., Tresset, A. (2014). Revisiting and modelling the woodland
farming system of the early Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture (LBK), 5600–4900 B.C.. Veget Hist Archaeobot . Springer.
Berlin/Heidelberg. (DOI 10.1007/s00334-014-0436-4).
Schefzik, M. (2015). Hinweise auf Masaker in frühneolithischer Zeit. In H. Meller, M. Schezik (Eds.), Begleitband zur Sonderausstellung des Landesmuseums Halle vom 06.11.2015 – 22.05.2016. Krieg - eine archäologische Spurensuche, 171-176.
Stuttgart.
Schliz, A. (1900). Eine neolithische Wohnstätte bei Heilbronn. Fundberichte Schwaben 7, 1899 (1900), 25-30.
Spatz, H. (1996). Beiträge zum Kulturenkomplex Hinkelstein - Großgartach - Rössen: Der keramische Fundstoff des Mittelneolithikums aus dem mittleren Neckarland und seine zeitliche Gliederung. Materialheft Archäologie Baden-Württemberg 37,
Stuttgart.
Stehli, P. (1989). Merzbachtal-Umwelt und Geschichte einer bandkeramischen Siedlungskammer. Germania 67, 51-76.
Stobbe, A. (1996). Die holozäne Vegetationsgeschichte der nördlichen Wetterau. Paläoökologische Untersuchungen unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung anthropogener Einflüsse. Dissertationes Botanicae 260. Berlin.
Szécsényi-Nagy, A., Keerl, V., Jakucs, J., Brandt, G., Bánffy, E., Alt, K. W. (2014). Ancient DNA evidence for a homogenous
maternal gene pool in sixth millennium cal BC Hungary and the central European LBK. In A. Whittle & P. Bickle (Eds.),
Early farmers. The view from archaeology and science, 71-93. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Teschler-Nicola, M., Prohaska, T., Wild, E .M. (2006). Der Fundkomplex von Asparn/Schletz (Niederösterreich) und seine
Bedeutung für den aktuellen Diskurs endlinearbandkeramischer Phänomene in Zentraleuropa. In: J. Piek & T. Terberger
(Eds.), Frühe Spuren der Gewalt – Schädelverletzungen und Wundversorgung an prähistorischen Menschenresten
aus interdisziplinärer Sicht. Workshop Rostock-Warnemünde, 28.-30. Nov. 2003. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 41 (Schwerin 2006), 61-76.
Weiner, J. (2015). Kühl, klar und köstlich. Wasserversorgung und Brunnen im Neolithikum. In T. Otten, J. Kunow, M. M. Rind
& M. Trier (Eds.), Revolution Jungsteinzeit. Archäologische Landesausstellung Nordrhein-Westfalen. Schriften zur
Bodendenkmalpflege in Nordrhein-Westfalen Bd. 11/1, 156-169.
Whitehouse, N. J., Wiebke, K. (2014). The world reshaped: practices and impacts of early agrarian societies, Journal of
Archaeological Science (doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.08.007).
Whittle, A. (1996). Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whittle, A. (2009). The people who lived in longhouses: what’s the big idea? In D. Hofmann & P. Bickle (Eds.), Creating
communities: new advances in central European Neolithic research, 249–263. Oxford: Oxbow.
Windl, H. (1996). Archäologie einer Katastrophe und deren Vorgeschichte. In: Rätsel um Gewalt und Tod vor 7.000 Jahren.
Katalog des NÖ Landesmuseums, N.F. 393, 7-46. Asparn-Zaya.
Wölfel, D. J. (1925). Die Trepanation. Studien über Ursprung, Zusammenhänge und kulturelle Zugehörigkeit der Trepanation.
Anthropos 20, 1925, 1-50.
Wölfel, D. J. (1927). Die kulturelle Stellung der Trepanation. ‟Tagungsberichte der Deutschen Anthropologischen
Gesellschaft”/ Tagungsbericht der 48. Versammlung 1926 Salzburg (deshalb = Sonderdruck aus den Sitzungsberichten
der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, Jg. 1926-27), 104-107.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM
Between Cultic Fear and Lack of Wood 409
Wölfel, D. J. (1936). Die Methoden der urgeschichtlichen und primitiven Trepanation. Ciba Zeitschr. 4/39, 1331-1338.
Wüstehube, V. (1993). Frühneolithische Grubenhäuser?- Neue Überlegungen zu einem alten Problem, Germania, 71, 521-531.
Zimmermann, A., Meurers-Balke, J., Kalis, A. J. (2006). Das Neolithikum. In J. Kunow & H. H. Wegner (Eds.), Urgeschichte im
Rheinland: Jahrbuch 2005 des Rheinischen Vereins für Denkmalpflege und Landschaftsschutz, 159-202. Köln: Verlag des
Rheinischen Vereins für Denkmalpflege und Landschaftsschutz.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 12:45 PM