Systems of the Niedźwiedź type

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Niedźwiedź type (NTT) systems in southern Poland are long mounds of earth-wood construction, dating from around 3500 BC. BC, earlier than the stone-framed, chamberless giant beds in central Germany and northern Poland, were built by the supporters of the funnel beaker culture (TBK). To stabilize the mound, long rows of posts ( palisades ) were rammed into foundation trenches or wattle walls were built. Some of these mounds had solid split log walls. As in the east of England, the lack of megaliths is due to resources or as a protomegalithic preform. The palisade in the context of the cult square, which was particularly common at this time, shows that palisades, which are usually linked with fortification properties, had a Temenos function here , which was also applied to edging made of other materials, such as stone (curbs, stone circles, etc. .) is to be transferred.

Total funnel cup culture

S. Rzepecki lists all sites (possibly several) chamber-less systems of the funnel beaker culture (TBK), regardless of whether they have / had a megalithic border or not - whereby he records the NTTs individually.

  • 13 in the Czech Republic (including 1 Niedźwiedź type - NTT)
  • 45 in Denmark (including 10 NTTs - 9 on Jutland; one on Funen)
  • 161 in Germany (including 159 NTTs - all in the Elbe-Saale area)
  • 144 in Poland (including 9 NTTs - 2 in Pomerania, 2 in Kujavia and 5 on the upper Vistula)
  • 1 in Sweden (Scania - no NTT)

Name and classification

For the unmegalithic systems of the TBK, S. Rzepecki postulates the inclusion in the area of ​​the megalithic systems based on British classifications. Magdalena Midgley has shown, for example, that there was a direct connection between the tradition of the so-called “unchambered longbarrows” in East England and the megalithic complexes. The state of research was summarized in a lecture by Chr. Tilley (1996).

Rzepecki considers terms such as “restricted megaliths” (Jażdżewski 1970: 21), “quasimegaliths” (Kośko 2006) or “megaxylons” (Tunia 2006) to be unusable. In his opinion, in view of the analogy to the Kujavian complexes, it is just as impossible to define the NTTs as “wood graves” (Rzepecki 2004: 124). The phenomenon has a European dimension and is much more widespread than the TBC area.

description

The nine Polish plants were mainly built in the southeast group of the TBK, (Lublin-Sławinek, Niedźwiedź, Pawłow, Słonowiece and Zagaje Stradowskie) along the upper Vistula and in Kujawy and Pomerania (Inowrocław, Jastrzębiec, Podgaj and Renice). The systems are stretched out rectangular with strongly rounded corners or either strictly trapezoidal or trapezoidal with rounded corners at the narrow end, which is often 40 to 50 m long hill. The trapezoidal shape is reminiscent of the Brześć-Kujawski-type houses of the Lengyel culture , which regionally preceded the TRB.

The most common construction within the burial mound was a box-shaped rectangular chamber made of stone and wood, inside which individual burials were found. Due to the unfavorable soil conditions, however, only a little more than 20% evidence of burial was found, and skeletal parts were preserved in only 16% of the NTTs. Burials took place in pits or above ground. The dead were buried stretched out, some apparently in wooden coffins. The grave goods were modest. Ornate vessels, boar tusks and occasionally flint tools . The only pearls were in the form of amber necklaces. If the skeletons are missing bones, this is explained by the fact that the chambers remained open until complete excarnation. Ash remains in the ritual buildings refer to rituals.

Time position

S. Rzepecki suggests a time model for the use of the stone chamberless architectural forms:

context

Denmark

Frames made of wood are known for Danish mounds under the term Konens Høj (women's mounds - named after a place where they were found - Swedish Långhögar ). As in Stengade on Langeland and Ravning Mark in East Jutland (Denmark) there are also stone-wood constructions of the walls. In many cases, however, the remains of massive wooden facades were found. There were also rectangular constructions made of split logs, which were filled with stones instead of earth. The interior of the long hill was divided into several compartments by cross walls made of stone or stone-wood structures. In Barkjaer in Djursland , wooden barriers were set up to divide them. The two systems in Barkaer are around 85 m long and 6.5 and 7.5 m wide. They were divided into 26 fields, each about three meters long. Wooden fixtures were added to the spatial subdivision, a typical cultic element. Rectangular wooden structures, about 3 to 5.0 m in length, were also built into the triangular Kujavian giant beds without a chamber at the wider end . In Bygholm Norremark (Denmark), an oval building about 12.0 x 6.0 meters from wooden posts with a grave in the middle of the hill was built. In Kujavian graves - as in Sarnowo - this wooden structure was erected over the grave.

Central Europe

There are earth-wood structures also in Bohemia and Germany, here under the term long hill. In Schleswig-Holstein ( long hills of Tinnum ) at least 3,000 overgrown grave structures are said to have existed, most of which have been destroyed. Jürgen Hoika counted 207 long beds in 1990, for which he determined an average length of 40 m. Nine of them are longer than 100 m. In the Borgdorf district of Rendsburg-Eckernförde , a 199 m long long bed was excavated without the overall findings being recorded. The enormous lengths find equivalents in enclosures of the Passy type in France, where lengths of over 300 m have been observed.

See also

literature

  • Peter Vilhelm Glob : prehistoric monuments of Denmark. Wachholtz, Neumünster 1968, p. 56.
  • L. Brandstätter, D. Mischka: In search of Neolithic long beds. In: Archaeological News from Schleswig-Holstein. 2011, pp. 36–38.
  • Seweryn Rzepecki: The roots of megalitism in the TRB culture . Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Łódźkiego, 2011, ISBN 978-83-933586-1-8 . ( Online version ).
  • Jürgen E. Walkowitz: The megalithic syndrome. European cult sites of the Stone Age (= contributions to the prehistory and early history of Central Europe. Volume 36). Beier & Beran, Langenweißbach 2003, ISBN 3-930036-70-3 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ JE Walkowitz: The megalithic syndrome: European cult places of the Stone Age. Beier & Beran, Langenweißbach 2003, ISBN 3-930036-70-3 , p. 201 ff.
  2. ^ Seweryn Rzepecki: The roots of megalitism in the TRB culture . Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Łódźkiego, 2011, ISBN 978-83-933586-1-8 , p. 9 “The presence of stone material cannot serve as either a necessary or a sufficient condition for classification of any monuments as megaliths (cf. Hodder 1984; Sherratt 1990, 1999; Midgley 2005: 77-78, 2008: 23-25) "" The presence of stone material can be either a necessary or an insufficient condition for the classification of the monuments as megaliths (Hodder 1984; Sherratt 1990, 1999; Midgley 2005: 77-78, 2008: 23-25) "
  3. ↑ When interpreting the religious phenomena, he refers to p. 11 on Gimbutas 1994: 286–305, 2001; Wunn 2001: 161-166, 2005: 387-399; Walkowitz 2003: 189-191; Krzak 2007.