Along the Road
332 pages
English

Along the Road , livre ebook

-

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus
332 pages
English
Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

Description

This volume takes a new look at causewayed enclosures in South Scandinavia based on a research area restricted to the Djursland Peninsula in eastern Jutland. The Djursland Peninsula in eastern Jutland was selected as region of concentration because of the richness of the region in terms of megalithic graves and burial mounds and because it has the largest number by far of known Neolithic enclosures within the northern TRB Group distribution area. Given that the awareness of as many enclosures as possible is necessary in any attempt to evaluate their significance for Neolithic societies within a given area, a major part of this work is devoted to the development of predictive modelling for the detection of enclosures in the landscape. It is only in relation to this step that it is possible to engage with such questions as the reasons for which certain locations were chosen as enclosure sites and how these relate to the history of Neolithic settlement within the wider region. The latter is at the heart of practically all settlement archaeological studies of the period under consideration in South Scandinavia. However, it has never been critically reviewed nor tested by comparisons with the results from other regions. A separate section is devoted to examining the European dimension of the Scandinavian enclosures in closer detail.
Preface Part I Along the Road. Aspects of Causewayed Enclosures in South Scandinavia and Beyond by Lutz Klassen 1 Introduction 2 The area of investigation 3 Causewayed enclosures and related sites in Djursland 4 Causewayed enclosures and related sites in the TRB North Group distribution area 5 Predicting the location of causewayed enclosures in South Scandinavia: Previous approaches 5.1 T. Madsen's work (1979-1988) 5.2 Klatt's study (2009) 5.2.1 The different criteria and calculations used by Klatt 5.2.2. Grid combination and calculation 5.2.3 Conclusion 6 Predicting the location of causewayed enclosures in South Scandinavia: A new approach 6.1 Classification of known enclosures 6.2 Evaluation of the parameters hitherto employed in predictive modelling 6.2.1 Relation to water 6.2.2 Distance to megalithic graves 6.2.3 Soil type 6.2.4 Neolithic finds 6.2.5 Topography 6.2.5.1 Promontory type enclosures 6.2.5.2 Hilltop type enclosures 6.2.5.3 Conclusion 6.3 New parameters for predictive modelling 6.3.1. Inter-enclosure spacing 6.3.2 Enclosures in relation to communication infrastructure 6.3.2.1 Danish enclosures and reconstructed prehistoric roads/paths 6.3.2.2 Danish Neolithic enclosures and historic roads 6.3.3 River crossings 6.3.4 Enclosures and Viking Age/Medieval military installations 7 Predicting enclosures in Djursland 7.1 Preparing required datasets 7.1.1 Reconstructing the coastline at 3500 BC 7.1.2 Defining freshwater paths and river confluences 7.1.3 Defining river mouths 7.1.4 Reconstructing Neolithic roads/paths and river crossings 7.1.5 Point datasets for Viking Age/Medieval fortifications and Neolithic finds 7.1.6 Soil type map 7.1.7 Historic roads 7.2 Pointing out potential enclosure locations 7.3 Testing potential enclosure locations 7.3.1 Aerial survey 7.3.2 Field survey 7.3.2.1 Results of the survey 7.3.2.2 The finds 7.3.2.3 Discussion 7.3.3 Geophysical survey 7.3.3.1 Selection of locations 7.3.3.2 Results 8 The predictive model: evaluation of predictive parameters, test methods and results 8.1 The predictive parameters 8.2 The test methods 8.2.1 Aerial photographs 8.2.2 Field surveying 8.2.3 Geophysical survey 8.3 Archaeological results 8.3.1 Specific research questions 8.3.2 Causewayed enclosures and related sites in Djursland: State of research after predictive modelling 9 Aspects of causewayed enclosures in South Scandinavia in light of the results of this study 9.1 Causewayed enclosures and their relation to the contemporary coastline 9.2 Causewayed enclosures and inter-enclosure distances 9.3 Causewayed enclosures and TRB settlement in Djursland 9.3.1 Late Mesolithic 9.3.2 Early Neolithic (EN I) 9.3.3 Late Early and early Middle Neolithic (EN II - MN A I) 9.3.4 Summary and conclusions 9.3.5 The east Jutland model: A critical review 9.3.5.1 Summary of the east Jutland model 9.3.5.2 Chronological aspects 9.3.5.3 Economic aspects 9.3.5.4 Pottery styles 9.3.5.5 Settlement 9.3.5.6 Enclosures and territories territories 9.3.5.7 Conclusion 10 Scandinavian enclosures from a European perspective 10.1 Parallels between Scandinavian and other European enclosures: An overview 10.2 Aspects of enclosure architecture 10.2.1 Enclosures with three or more (partial) ditch circuits 10.2.2 Enclosures with clavicle-type ditch segments and rectangular palisade annexes 10.2.3 Enclosures with wide ditch circuit spacing 10.2.4 Enclosures with differing circuit widths 10.2.5 Enclosures with egg-shaped site plans 10.2.6 Enclosures with double post entrance structures 10.2.7 Enclosures with post framed banks and ditches on both sides of the bank: The Vilsund site 10.2.8 Additional observations 10.2.9 Discussion 10.3 Aspects of enclosure chronology 10.3.1 Scandinavian enclosure chronology 10.3.1.1 14C-dated enclosures 10.3.1.2 Archaeologically dated enclosures 10.3.1.3 Enclosure-related sites 10.3.1.4 Summary and discussion 10.3.2. European enclosure chronology 10.3.2.1 Enclosures from 4400 to 4000 BC 10.3.2.2 Enclosures from 4000-3750 BC 10.3.2.3 Enclosures from 3750-3500 BC 10.3.2.4 Enclosures from 3500-3200 BC 10.4 Enclosure construction 3750-3500 BC and European corridors of (ritual) communication 10.4.1 Southern central Europe and South Scandinavia 10.4.1.1 Transverse pits on causeways 10.4.1.2 Entrance screens 10.4.1.3 Other entrance structures 10.4.1.4 Fenced rectangular annexes 10.4.1.5 Further links 10.4.1.6 Summary and conclusion 10.4.2 Southern central Europe and northern central Germany 10.4.3 Southern central Europe and southern England 10.4.4 Southern central Europe and central western France 10.4.5 Other long-distance routes 11 Conclusion: Long-distance routes, enclosures and South Scandinavia 12 Summary 13 References Appendix Part II Geophysical survey of potential Neolithic enclosure sites in Djursland By Lutz Klassen & Christina Klein 1 Introduction 2 Results of the geophysical survey 3 Evaluation 4 References

Sujets

Informations

Publié par
Date de parution 27 octobre 2014
Nombre de lectures 0
EAN13 9788771845952
Langue English
Poids de l'ouvrage 101 Mo

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,007€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Exrait

ALONG THE ROAD
Aspects of Causewayed Enclosures
in South Scandinavia and Beyond
Lutz Klassen
Aarhus University Press aAlong the Road
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Along the Road
Aspects of Causewayed Enclosures
in South Scandinavia and Beyond
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lutz Klassen
East Jutland Museum
Moesgaard Museum
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aarhus University Press aAlong the Road
Aspects of Causewayed Enclosures in South Scandinavia and Beyond
By Lutz Klassen
East Jutland Museum Publications vol. 2
© Museum Østjylland and Aarhus University Press 2014
Graphic design: Jørgen Sparre
Typesetting: Ea Rasmussen
Cover illustration: Photo by Gitte Lauritsen
E-bookproduction by Narayana Press, Denmark
ISBN 978 87 7184 595 2
AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS
Langelandsgade 177
DK-8200 Aarhus N
www.unipress.dk
Gazelle Book Services Ltd.
White Cross Mills, Hightown
Lancaster LA1 4XS, England
www.gazellebooks.com
ISD
70 Enterprise Drive
Bristol, CT 06010
USA
www.isdistribution.com
Published with the fnancial support of
 
Carlsberg Foundation
Farumgaard-Fonden
Dronning Margrethe II’s Arkæologiske Fond
Weblinks were active when the book was printed.
Tey may no longer be active.Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 Preface
11 Part I
Along the Road. Aspects of Causewayed Enclosures in South Scandinavia and Beyond
By Lutz Klassen
13 1 Introduction
17 2 Te area of investigation
23 3 Causewayed enclosures and related sites in Djursland
31 4 Causewayed enclosures and related sites in the TRB North Group distribution area
35 5 Predicting the location of causewayed enclosures in South Scandinavia:
Previous approaches
35 5.1 T. Madsen’s work (1979-1988)
37 5.2 Klatt’s study (2009)
5.2.1 Te diferent criteria and calculations used by Klatt
5.2.2. Grid combination and calculation
5.2.3 Conclusion
45 6 Predicting the location of causewayed enclosures in South Scandinavia:
A new approach
45 6.1 Classifcation of known enclosures
48 6.2 Evaluation of the parameters hitherto employed in predictive modelling
6.2.1 Relation to water
6.2.2 Distance to megalithic graves 6.2.3 Soil type
6.2.4 Neolithic fnds
6.2.5 Topography
6.2.5.1 Promontory type enclosures
6.2.5.2 Hilltop type enclosures
6.2.5.3 Conclusion
55 6.3 New parameters for predictive modelling
6.3.1. Inter-enclosure spacing
6.3.2 Enclosures in relation to communication infrastructure
6.3.2.1 Danish enclosures and reconstructed prehistoric roads/paths
6.3.2.2 Danish Neolithic enclosures and historic roads
6.3.3 River crossings
6.3.4 Enclosures and Viking Age/Medieval military installations
85 7 Predicting enclosures in Djursland
85 7.1 Preparing required datasets
7.1.1 Reconstructing the coastline at 3500 BC
7.1.2 Defning freshwater paths and river confuences
7.1.3 Defning river mouths
7.1.4 Reconstructing Neolithic roads/paths and river crossings
7.1.5 Point datasets for Viking Age/Medieval fortifcations and Neolithic fnds
7.1.6 Soil type map
7.1.7 Historic roads
92 7.2 Pointing out potential enclosure locations
94 7.3 Testing potential enclosure locations
7.3.1 Aerial survey
7.3.2 Field survey
7.3.2.1 Results of the survey
7.3.2.2 Te fnds
7.3.2.3 Discussion
7.3.3 Geophysical survey
7.3.3.1 Selection of locations
7.3.3.2 Results
121 8 Te predictive model: evaluation of predictive parameters, test methods and results
121 8.1 Te predictive parameters
124 8.2 Te test methods
8.2.1 Aerial photographs
8.2.2 Field surveying
8.2.3 Geophysical survey
125 8.3 Archaeological results
8.3.1 Specifc research questions
8.3.2 Causewayed enclosures and related sites in Djursland: State of research after predictive modelling 131 9 Aspects of causewayed enclosures in South Scandinavia in light of the results
of this study
131 9.1 Causewayed enclosures and their relation to the contemporary coastline
133 9.2 Causewayed enclosures and inter-enclosure distances
134 9.3 Causewayed enclosures and TRB settlement in Djursland
9.3.1 Late Mesolithic
9.3.2 Early Neolithic (EN I)
9.3.3 Late Early and early Middle Neolithic (EN II – MN A I)
9.3.4 Summary and conclusions
9.3.5 Te east Jutland model: A critical review
9.3.5.1 Summary of the east Jutland model
9.3.5.2 Chronological aspects
9.3.5.3 Economic aspects
9.3.5.4 Pottery styles
9.3.5.5 Settlement
9.3.5.6 Enclosures and territories
9.3.5.7 Conclusion
159 10 Scandinavian enclosures from a European perspective
159 10.1 Parallels between Scandinavian and other European enclosures: An overview
162 10.2 Aspects of enclosure architecture
10.2.1 Enclosures with three or more (partial) ditch circuits
10.2.2 Enclosures with clavicle-type ditch segments and rectangular palisade annexes
10.2.3 Enclosures with wide ditch circuit spacing
10.2.4 Enclosures with difering circuit widths
10.2.5 Enclosures with egg-shaped site plans
10.2.6 Enclosures with double post entrance structures
10.2.7 Enclosures with post framed banks and ditches on both sides of the bank: Te Vilsund site
10.2.8 Additional observations
10.2.9 Discussion
199 10.3 Aspects of enclosure chronology
10.3.1 Scandinavian enclosure chronology
14 10.3.1.1 C-dated enclosures
10.3.1.2 Archaeologically dated enclosures
10.3.1.3 Enclosure-related sites
10.3.1.4 Summary and discussion
10.3.2. European enclosure chronology
10.3.2.1 Enclosures from 4400 to 4000 BC
10.3.2.2 Enclosures from 4000-3750 BC
10.3.2.3 Enclosures from 3750-3500 BC
10.3.2.4 Enclosures from 3500-3200 BC
214 10.4 Enclosure construction 3750-3500 BC and European corridors of (ritual) communication
10.4.1 Southern central Europe and South Scandinavia
10.4.1.1 Transverse pits on causeways 10.4.1.2 Entrance screens
10.4.1.3 Other entrance structures
10.4.1.4 Fenced rectangular annexes
10.4.1.5 Further links
10.4.1.6 Summary and conclusion
10.4.2 Southern central Europe and northern central Germany
10.4.3 Southern central Europe and southern England
10.4.4 Southern central Europe and central western France
10.4.5 Other long-distance routes
239 11 Conclusion: Long-distance routes, enclosures and South Scandinavia
249 12 Summary
259 13 References
279 Appendix
285 Part II
Geophysical survey of potential Neolithic enclosure sites in DjurslandBy Lutz Klassen & Christina Klein
287 1 Introduction
291 2 Results of the geophysical survey
327 3 Evaluation
329 4 ReferencesPreface
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tis book is the outcome of a research project (Zurich), Torsten Madsen (Galten), Pierre
Pétreconducted both at Moesgård Museum in 2011- quin (Gray), Serge Cassen (Nantes), Daniel Nösler
2012 and East Jutland Museum in 2013-2014. Te (Wilhelmshaven), Anders Ödman (Lund), Jonas
project was made possible by generous grants from Beran (Langenweißbach), Esben Aarslef
(Hillthe Carlsberg Foundation, the Danish Agency for erød), Inge Kjær Kristensen (Struer), Signe Lützau
Culture (Kulturstyrelsen) and Dronning Mar- Pedersen, Lennart Madsen and Frauke Witte (all
grethe II’s Arkæologiske Fond. I wish to express Haderslev), Lis Helles Olesen (Holstebro), Günther
my thanks to all contributors for giving me the Wetzel, Joachim Henning (Frankfurt), Christian
chance to deal with the fascinating topic of caus-e Jeunesse (Strasbourg), Duncan Garrow (Liverpool),
wayed enclosures. Knut Rassmann (Frankfurt), Poul Otto Nielsen
Te Carlsberg Foundation, Farumgaard-Fonden (Copenhagen), Alasdair Whittle (Cardif), Peder
and Dronning Margrethe II’s Arkæologiske Fond Gammeltoft (Aarhus), Doris Mischka (Erlangen),
have graciously provided the means necessary for Miroslav Dobeš (Prague), Irenäus Matuschik
(Freithe printing of this volume. burg), Niels Hartmann (Kalundborg), Magnus
ArA tremendous number of colleagues have con - tursson, Magnus Andersson and Björn Wallebom
tributed to the study with invaluable help covering (all from Lund). My apologies to any I may have
everything from providing unpublished informa - forgotten to mention here.
tion, helping with the GIS, helping to identify fnds Special thanks to Niels-Axel Boas, Esben
Kannefrom feld walking to securing grants and, not least, gaard and Lisbeth Wincentz for providing a wealth
participation and contributions in many fruitful of unpublished information regarding the caus-e
discussions. In no particular order, this is true for wayed enclosures of Djursland, to Benedikt Kno -
Jens Andresen, Bo Madsen, Niels H. Andersen, Jan che for inspiring discussions on prehistoric roads
Skamby Madsen, Jacob Kveiborg, Tobias Danborg and enclosures, to Ea Rasmussen for the graphical
Torfng, Søren H. Andersen, Ufe Rasmussen, Hen - production of this book, to Jens Møller Simonsen
rik Skousen, Peter Moe Astrup, Stefen Terp Laurs - for his hospitality, to Christina Klein for managing
en, Niels N. Johannsen, Michael Vinter Jensen and the geophysical feld campaign under challenging
Peter Jensen (all from Moesgård), Johannes Müller, conditions, to Samantha Reiter and Jens Damm for
Martin Furholt, Jan-Piet Brozio, Hauke Dibbern, correcting the English language of the text and to
Franziska Hage and Wiebke Kierleis (all from Kiel), Sanne Lind Hansen and Aarhus University Press
Stina Troldtoft Jensen (Varde), Jytte Nielsen, Jens- for the fne cooperation regarding the publication
Henrik Bech (both Tisted), Samuel van Willingen of this book.
Randers, May 2014
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.Part I
Along the Road
Aspects of Causewayed Enclosures
in South Scandinavia and Beyond
By Lutz Klassen1 Introduction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In 1968, the frst causewayed enclosure was found interpretation of their function revolved around
in the northern TRB distribution area in Büdel-s the useage as fortifcations (see the
above-mendorf in Schleswig-Holstein (Hingst 1971a; 1971b; tioned papers about Büdelsdorf and Sarup). How -
1973; 1974). Tis discovery was followed shortly ever, doubts concerning this initial interpretation
thereafter by others in Sarup, Denmark (Andersen, emerged rather quickly (Madsen, T. 1978b). Since
N.H. 1974; 1975a; 1975b). Since that time, an average the 1980s (Andersen, N.H. 1981; Madsen, T. 1982;
of one such site has been found in the region every 1988), causewayed enclosures in northern Germany,
year. To date, the total number of confrmed en - Denmark and southern Sweden have generally been
closures nears 40. Given that a considerable num- viewed as sites for the assembly of larger groups of
ber of probable or possible enclosures have yet to people in the broadest sense of the word. Just as in
be assessed, it is very likely that several hundred the frst years of enclosure research, this
interpreof these perplexing sites where in use during the tation is often refected in the terminology used in
Neolithic in Southern Scandinavia. site descriptions (Andersen, N.H. 1993).
Te discovery of this new type of site and the In his recent study of the enclosures, Klatt
concomitant development of new theoretical ap - (2009, 75f.) gives a detailed summary of the
variproaches had a marked impact both on settlement ous interpretations discussed over the course of
studies and the development of new models for the the last four decades. His fnal conclusion
epitounderstanding of social and economical change mizes the current state of research on the subject,
in TRB society. Tis is true both in a local and namely that causewayed enclosures were likely to
in a regional perspective. Te local perspective is have been assembly places where larger groups of
best exemplifed by the eforts of N.H. Andersen people met to engage in ritual activities (such as
both with the Sarup enclosures as well as their sur- those relating to death and burial) as well as
securoundings (see a selection of N.H. Andersen’s nu - lar social engagements and various other activities
merous publications in the reference list). For the related to barter and exchange. Among the more
regional perspective, by contrast, one should look recent debate contributions, it is only Haßmann
to T. Madsen’s work in eastern Jutland (1982; 1988) (2000, 111, 119 and 175) who diverges from this
as well as a number of national and supranational widely held view of enclosures as assembly places.
surveys (i.e. Nielsen, P.O. 1993; 2004; Andersen, Due to the fnds of large numbers of arrowheads
N.H. 1997; Klatt 2009; Larsson, L. 2012). at Büdelsdorf, he leans towards a more traditional
In the early days of archaeological investigation interpretation of fortifed settlements, at least as
into causewayed enclosures, the best-favoured regards the site at Büdelsdorf.
Introduction · 13
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.Te important role played by causewayed
enclosures in settlement studies is due in no small part to
their functional interpretation, as mentioned above.
If one follows an interpretation of the sites as a -s
sembly places for people from a larger region, this
allows for theoretical inferences in terms of group ?
Voldbæk
and territory sizes. Tis last is especially true when
all certain or suspected enclosure sites are mapped
within a region, as was done for eastern Jutland by
T. Madsen (1988)(Fig. 1). Furthermore, as described ?
by the same author (1982; 1988), many enclosure
sites developed into huge settlements over the
course of Middle Neolithic A, and therefore
natu?rally fow into the course of settlement research.
In fact, a considerable proportion of what we now
know as enclosures were known as settlement sites
long before they were recognized as causewayed
Toftum ?enclosures. A classic example of this phenomenon
Årupgård
is from the site of Trelleborg on Zealand. Trelleborg
Bjerggård
was frst excavated in the 1930s (Mathiassen 1944),
but was not recognized as an enclosure until 1982
(Andersen, N.H. 1982). It should be noted, however, Fig. 1 | The results of T. Madsen’s east Jutland
that there appear to be regional diferences in the study in the 1980s had a profound infuence
post-constructional use of the enclosures. Increas- not only on the interpretation of the origins
ingly larger settlement sites in the later parts of the of causewayed enclosures in the TRB Culture
TRB are absent from northern Germany (see Hinz of South Scandinavia, but also on the
interet al. 2012), southern Sweden (Larsson, L. 2012) and pretation of the regional organisation of TRB
northern Jutland. settlements around those enclosures. Indeed,
Until recently, the accepted chronology of enclo - his fngerprints are still felt within this area
sure construction in South Scandinavia involved a of research. On this map, large dots with site
short period of intense building activity in the late names refer to certain causewayed enclosures,
Early and early Middle Neolithic (EN II and MN A I, large dots with question marks depict
susca. 3500-3200/3100 BC). Recently, however, a certain pected causewayed enclosures and small dots
amount of evidence has emerged to support the start mark the locations of megalithic graves (from
thof enclosure construction in the 37 or possibly even Madsen 1988).
ththe 38 century BC. On the opposite end of the time
scale, the evidence from the site of Kainsbakke po-s
sibly leads to a further blurring of an erstwhile clear Neolithic during which social organisation, material
picture of a short causewayed enclosure construc - culture, burial customs and economy were in fux.
tion horizon in South Scandinavia (see the detailed However, it can be argued that the changes that have
discussion in chapters 3 and 10.3.1). thus far exclusively been associated with the late
Settlement archaeological studies have yet to be Early Neolithic (EN II) started in the later phases
adapted to these new insights into enclosure con- of EN I (see Furholt 2011b). Terefore, it is possible
struction chronology. Tey emphasize the role of that the models which deal with the interrelation
these sites during a phase of intensive change gener - of enclosures and ordinary settlements, graves etc.
ally associated with the late Early and initial Middle possibly only need minor modifcations.
14 · Along the Road
This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed. ← ContentsTe study conducted here takes a new look at via. However, (at least with regard to causewayed
causewayed enclosures in South Scandinavia based enclosures), it has never been critically reviewed
on a research area restricted to the Djursland Pen- nor tested by comparisons with the results from
insula in eastern Jutland. Given that the awareness other regions.
of as many enclosures as possible is necessary in An important but never discussed part of Mad -
any attempt to evaluate their signifcance for Neo- sen’s study is devoted to the role that enclosure
lithic societies within a given area, a major part of building groups in neighbouring parts of Europe
this work is devoted to the development of predic - played in the process of introducing causewayed
tive modelling for the detection of enclosures in enclosures in the northern TRB Group. As will
the landscape. It is only in relation to this step that become apparent over the course of the argu -
it is possible to engage with such questions as the ments presented within this study, this European
reasons for which certain locations were chosen as background is of much greater importance for the
enclosure sites and how these relate to the history understanding of local processes related to
causeof Neolithic settlement within the wider region. wayed enclosures than has hitherto been assumed.
Te results can then be compared to T. Madsen’s Tis is also true for the focal area of this study: the
work in eastern Jutland. Te latter is at the heart of Djursland Peninsula. Terefore, a separate section
practically all settlement archaeological studies of is devoted to examining the European dimension
the period under consideration in South Scandina- of the Scandinavian enclosures in closer detail.
Introduction · 15
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.N
2 Te area of investigation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Te Djursland Peninsula in eastern Jutland was approach (see below). Furthermore, a large number
selected as region of concentration for several re-a of Neolithic sites are already known from Djurs -
sons (Fig. 2). Te frst is of a logistical nature and land. Moreover, for part of the area, a thorough
simply relates to travelling distances to and from study of the relations between surviving monu -
the museum at which the research was conducted. ments and known Neolithic sites on one side and
Relative proximity ensured easy access on a daily the once present number of these sites/monuments
basis without the need to establish a permanent has already been carried out (Vedsted 1986).
Djursbase elsewhere in the research area itself. While the land therefore has excellent potential for conduc-t
region around Århus would have been even better ing and contextualising the present research.
suited in this regard, it was disregarded due to the
vast extent of modern day settlement around the
0 50 kmcity (with its extended suburbs, Århus is the second
largest city in Denmark). Te modern settlement
boundaries cover a vast area, particularly along the
coast, which would have been of particular interest
to Neolithic peoples for the construction of caus-e
wayed enclosures. In fact, at least one causewayed
enclosure (the Voldbæk site) has been located
within the city limits of what is now an Århusian
suburb. Another, more central location (Langenæs)
has also been put forward as a potential enclosure
site (Madsen, T. 1988).While it would thus have
been possible to point out potential locations for
enclosures in the area around Århus, controlling
the prediction would have been problematic, due
to the vast extent of modern settlement in the area.
A second important argument for the choice of
Djursland as research area is the richness of the
region in terms of megalithic graves and burial Fig. 2 | Djursland is a peninsula which juts out
mounds, especially given that these kinds of sites into the Kattegat from the east coast of Jutland,
play an important role in the predictive modelling Denmark.
Te area of investigation · 17
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.­
­
N
Finally, thanks to the eforts of N. A. Boas, Djurs- Fjord). Te resulting area has a maximum east to
land is the region with the largest number by far west extent of ca. 48 km and a maximum north to
of known Neolithic enclosures within the northern south extent of ca. 50 km.
TRB Group distribution area (Boas 2001; see also Some parts of Djursland have been excluded
the catalogue in Klatt 2009, from which a number from the research area, either in order to reduce
of unpublished sites are missing). When all argu - the area to be covered, or because these
subments are combined, the region therefore ofered regions lacked characteristics or data crucial to
the best opportunities for the establishment of a the predictive modelling employed here (burial
model for the search of as-yet undiscovered sites mounds, well-defned watercourses)(Fig. 3). Due
on the basis of a comparatively large body of r-e to these reasons, the former island of Rougsø in
gional data. the northwestern part of Djursland as well as the
Te Djursland Peninsula juts out from the east southern part of Mols Peninsula in the southwest,
coast of Jutland, between the present towns of Ebeltoft Peninsula in the southeast as well as an
Århus in the south and Randers in the north. Tere area measuring ca. 8 x 9 km in the central
southis no generally agreed-upon western border for the ern parts of Djursland were not included in this
area. For this study, a border has been arbitrarily analysis (for a detailed description of the problems
established running north to south between the relating to the latter sub-region see chapter 7.1.4).
villages of Uggelhuse (at the bottom of Randers Te actual area under investigation thus measures
Fjord) and Lisbjerg (at the bottom of the fossil Egå ca. 48 km from east to west and 39 km from north
Fig. 3 | Digital ele­
vation model of the
study area indicat­
ing disregarded sub
regions (light shading).
Te borders of the
excluded subregions
were partially deter­
mined by the location
of the Neolithic coast ­
line, as this diverged
0 5 km from that of the pre ­
sent day (see Fig. 4).
18 · Along the Road
This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed. ← Contents­
­
4
N
to south. Comparatively large parts of this area rise and the development of beach ridges which
are made up of frths and bays. Te Neolithic land closed its entries. In the narrow western parts,
insurface area covered by the present investigation tensive growth of peat gradually transformed the
2measures ca. 1045 km . lake into a bog. Te wider and deeper eastern part
Since the end of the last Ice Age, Djursland (as remained a lake (Denmark’s largest) until the later
thwas the case with all of South Scandinavia) un - parts of the 19 century, when it was fnally drained
derwent dramatic changes with regard to its ter- in the interest of increased agricultural production.
restrial-maritime relationship (see chapter 7.1.1). Northern Djursland formed the largest of the
In the early Subboreal (approximately at the time Neolithic islands and included almost all land
of enclosure construction), a number of smaller north of the ford. It measured ca. 35 km east to
(and one very large) fords stretched far into areas west and 15 km north to south. Northern
Djurswhich are currently used as agricultural land (Fig. land is a moraine plateau with smooth, rolling hills
4). Kolindsund, the largest of these, split the pen- situated between ca. 40 and 60 m above sea level.
insula into a number of islands. Tis ford was ca. Several large peat bogs (which might have been
two km wide and approximately 10 m deep. It later lakes in the Early Neolithic, at least in part) are
turned into a freshwater lake due to isostatic land found in this area. Te predominant type of soil is
Fig. 4 | Digital eleva­
tion model of Djurs­
land, reconstructed for
the early Subboreal
th(early millennium
BC). Tis model shows
the approximate land
to sea relationship at
the time of causewayed
enclosure construction.
For details regarding
0 5 kmthe reconstruction, see
chapter 7.1.1.
Te area of investigation · 19
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.
Stubbe FjordKalø Vig
KolindsundNot yet
mapped
0 10 km
Fig. 5 | Soil type map for Djursland (from Schack Pedersen/Strand Petersen 1997). Part of the area has
not yet been mapped. Blue signatures: marine deposits, green signatures: freshwater deposits, yellow
signatures: aeolian sand deposits, orange signatures: meltwater sand and gravel, brown signature: mo­
raine clay, red and reddish brown signature: moraine and meltwater sand.
sand, although more clayey soils are found in the of some minor fords and inlets which penetrated
northwest and northeast (Fig. 5). Tis kind of land - up to ca. 4 km inland, the northern and
northeastscape is also found south of Kolindsund Fjord in ern coasts of Djursland were much more irregular
the eastern part of Djursland. Due to the presence in shape than they are today.
20 · Along the Road
This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed. ← Contents
NFrom the central part of Djursland, a branch of characterised by undulated moraine terrain. Te
Kolindsund penetrated up to eight km to the south. coastal areas around Kalø Vig Bay as well as the
In its northern parts, this body of water was up eastern parts of Ebeltoft Peninsula are covered by
to nine km wide and was flled with a number of clayey soil. Te remainder is characterised by
betterlarge and small islands characterised by a complex drained soil. Te hills of the Mols Peninsula (which
coastline with low elevations. reach a maximum height of 137 m above sea level)
In the western part of Djursland, a sandy, fat are the highest in Djursland. Tey were pushed up
area called Tirstrup Hedeslette (2-5 km wide) fol- by the last advance of glaciers in the last Ice Age,
lows the southern shores of Kolindsund Fjord. In which also carved out the comparatively greater
Djursland’s eastern parts, these meltwater deposits depths of Kalø Vig Bay near to the coast.
from the end of the last Ice Age follow the southern A detailed description of the landscape and its
edge of the moraine plateau immediately south of history was completed by Schack Pedersen and
Kolindsund. Te area is characterized by very poor, Strand Petersen (1997). A detailed description of
sandy and gravelly soils. the procedure employed here for the reconstruc -
Finally, south of Tirstrup Hedeslette, the penin - tion of the Early Neolithic coastline is provided in
sulas of Mols and (to a lesser degree) Ebeltoft are a subsequent part of this text (see chapter 7.1.1).
Te area of investigation · 21
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.3 Causewayed enclosures and related
sites in Djursland
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Within South Scandinavia, Djursland is the region it remains the best published of all Djursland’s
with both the highest number and concentration enclosures (Fig. 7).
of known causewayed enclosures (Fig. 6). Tis fact Te site was explored by rescue excavations in
has gone largely unnoticed in the literature, cer- 1985 and 1986 after its discovery in some old gravel
tainly due to the fact that almost all of these sites pits. Only a very small part of the enclosure (which
remain practically unpublished, and – contrary to consisted of a single ditch circuit) has been
excawhat was the case in eastern Jutland as investigated vated. Its former size is unknown, and no sections
by T. Madsen – no further study of these enc-lo through the ditches (ca. 1 m deep) have been
pubsures’ possible function etc. has been undertaken. lished. Parts of what might have been a palisade
A short survey of published material is pre- trench with posts (up to 1.5 m deep) were observed,
sented below, supplemented by a variety of un - but the excavated parts of this feature formed no
published information. I am grateful to N.A. Boas recognizable pattern. Te most remarkable
disand L. Wincentz Rasmussen (the discoverers and covery on the site was that of a pottery kiln which
excavators of most of these sites) as well as to E. still held the remains of ca. 15 misfred pots. Fur -
Kannegaard Nielsen for the provision of valuable thermore, large depositions of more than 70 pots
unpublished information. were discovered in two excavated ditch segments.
Madsen and Fiedel (1988, 84f.) believe these large
amounts of pottery were dumps of misfred vessels.
Store Brokhøj, Vivild Parish
However, as has recently been argued by Torfng
Te Store Brokhøj enclosure is situated in the (2011, 36f.), they more likely represent regular,
ritnorthwestern part of Djursland on a hummocky ual depositions of large amounts of pottery which
plateau overlooking the Kattegat (which lies less had been produced on site.
than 1000 m to the north) and Kolindsund Fjord Te pottery from Store Brokhøj has been attrib -
(itself approximately equidistant to the west). uted to the late Early Neolithic (EN II) by Madsen
Store Brokhøj is one of very few causewayed en - and Fiedel (1988) as well as Ebbesen (1994, 78f.).
closures in South Scandinavia that is situated on Torfng’s (2011; 2013) thorough analysis, however,
a hilltop, the others being Bjerggård (Madsen, T. argues that it most probably represents a local
1988, 309f.) north of Horsens Fjord in eastern variant of the earliest Middle Neolithic (MN A
Jutland and Skævinge Boldbaner in the northern Ia), which Torfng dubbed ‘Blakbjerg-Brokhøj style’.
part of Zealand (Andersen, A.H. 1987). Because Due to the lack of any published profles and
of a preliminary report (Madsen, B./Fiedel 1988), stratigraphical information, it is not possible to
Causewayed enclosures and related sites in Djursland · 23
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.N
Fig. 6 | Te distribu­
tion of certain and
probable causewayed
enclosures as well
as a single enclosure
1 related site in Djurs­
land. 1 Store Brokhøj,
2 Blakbjerg, 3 Bal ­
7 8 legård, 4 Galgebakken,
6 5 Fuglslev, 6 Ginnerup,
9
7 Skærvad, 8 Kains ­112
3 bakke, 9 Grenå, 10
Taastrup Kolindvej,
4
12 11 Fannerup, 12 Ræve ­
bakken, 13 Lystrup
Kildevang I.10 5
13
Causewayed enclosure
Probable causewayed enclosure0 5 km
Enclosure-related site
determine whether the Store Brokhøj enclosure constitute the western and eastern borders of the
was constructed in the MN A Ia, or whether it site from which there is a magnifcent view over
might have had an older phase. Unfortunately, no Kolindsund to the south.
14C-dates have yet been taken. However, suitable Te site was discovered by schoolteacher and
samples for such dating may be available, as some amateur archaeologist S. Andersen in 1917. How -
bones were preserved, due to the deposition of ever, it was frst suspected to be a causewayed
marine shells in the ditch segments. enclosure by Ebbesen some sixty years thereafter
(Ebbesen 1979, 74). Tis suspicion was fnally
confrmed by the recent excavation of minor areas in
Blakbjerg, Marie Magdalene Parish
1991-92 (Boas 2001) as well as in 2004-2005
(unTe Blakbjerg enclosure is situated on a moraine published). Te material excavated by Andersen
plateau just west of the town of Ryomgård. Te has been referred to in the literature on several
ocsite is bordered by water on three sides. To the casions under diferent names (“Såbydal”: Ebbesen
south, a steep incline traces the 20 m elevation 1979, 74; “Ryomgård”: Madsen, T./Petersen 1984;
diferential between the plateau on which the site Ebbesen 1994, 79, note 4). More recently, Torfng
is located and the former shores of Kolindsund. (2011; 2013) engaged intensively with the ceramics
Te deeply incised valleys of two minor rivers from the latest excavations.
24 · Along the Road
This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed. ← ContentsFig. 7 | Te Store Brok­
høj enclosure in north­
western Djursland is
one of the rare hilltop
enclosure sites in South
Scandinavia. Over the
course of a rescue ex­
cavation, the remains
of at least three ditch
segments were discov­
ered in a single circuit.
A) Modern sand pit, B)
Pottery kiln, C­E) Ditch
segments (from Madsen/
Fiedel 1988).
14In the course of the earlier excavations, a single Tree C-dates on cattle bones (one from each of
circuit of segmented ditches was demonstrated the three shell layers defning the three phases) were
to exist along the eastern, northern and western made in the course of this study. All three point to
sides of the plateau. However, whether there were the third millennium BC, and thus to a phase from
ditch segments along the southern side of the pla- which no artefacts are known from the site.
Furteau remains unknown. Te outline of the site is thermore, the results do not follow any stratigraphic
almost rectangular. Te latest excavations proved order. It is obvious that these dates (listed in Tab.
that the enclosure consisted (at least partially) of 12 together with those from other enclosures), are
two circuits of ditches. Te size of the enclosed afected by some kind of yet-to-be identifed error,
area is approximately 9 ha. Te excavator collected and have therefore been disregarded.
more than a thousand scrapers from the surface on
a single day (Boas 2001).
Ballegård, Skarresø Parish
Inside the ditch segments (up to 2.3 m deep and 4.5
m wide with a v-shaped cross-section), shifting layers Five km southeast of Blakbjerg on the tip of an island
of consciously deposited marine shells and sand were in the central parts of Kolindsund lies the Ballegård
observed. Both animal and human bones (a mandi- enclosure. Te site has a very low elevation and the
ble) are preserved in situ where they are in contact ditch segments (which were present in two circuits)
with the shells. Te observation of this stratigraphy were partly fooded by the ford, as evidenced by
and the fnds contained in the diferent layers allowed washed-in marine snails etc. (Boas 2001, 8).
Torfng (2011; 2013) to defne three separate phases As is the case for all causewayed enclosures in
of use. Tese included one original excavation at the Djursland, excavations (1988 and 1993) only un -
time of construction and two episodes of recutting. covered very small parts of the enclosure. Tis was
Torfng dated the three phases to the EN I/EN II tran - probably the largest in the region with an
estimatsition, EN II and MN A Ia, respectively. Te sequence ed size of more than 20 ha (N.A. Boas, personal
is topped by a cultural layer containing mixed fnds communication; judgment based on faint, possible
dating to the EN II – MN A II period. Te fnds from traces of segmented ditches on historical aerial
the third phase as well as those from the Store Bro - photographs). Available information is restricted to
khøj enclosure represent the local Blakbjerg-Brokhøj very short excavation reports and comments
(Houstyle at the start of the Middle Neolithic. gaard Rasmussen 1989; Wincentz Rasmussen 1994
Causewayed enclosures and related sites in Djursland · 25
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.and Boas 2001, 8). Inside the segmented ditches PWC layers at the bottom of the ditch segments (L.
(which ranged from 0.6 to 2.0 m deep), were found Wincentz Rasmussen, oral communication). Due
stratifed layers with fnds dating to the TRB, Late to the lack of characteristic fnd material, these
Single Grave Culture, early and late phases of the layers cannot be precisely dated.
Late Neolithic (including Bell Beaker ceramics) and
the Early and Late Bronze Age. Te lowest (TRB)
Skærvad, Ginnerup Parish
layers contained human bones. According to
Hougaard Rasmussen (1989), the comparatively few Tis site contains an unpublished causewayed
TRB shards date to MN A I. Nevertheless, it is not enclosure consisting of a single circuit of
segclear whether these fnds represent the time period mented ditches. Skærvad is situated on a
well-deduring which the enclosure was constructed. fned promontory delineated by two minor rivers
which fow into a northern branch of Kolindsund
Fjord. Te enclosure is known only from surface
Galgebakken, Albøge Parish
registration of the segmented ditches from which
Te Galgebakken enclosure is situated on a prom- some PWC fnds were noted (N. A. Boas, personal
ontory delimited by two small creeks which fow communication). As yet, no proper excavation has
into Kolindsund Fjord a few hundred meters away. taken place.
Te only information available about the site comes
from a very short description of the small-scale
Kainsbakke, Ginnerup Parish
excavations which took place there in 2002
(Wincentz Rasmussen/Harder 2003) in which two ditch Kainsbakke numbers as the third enclosure site
circuits (spaced 10 m apart) were recorded. Te within Ginnerup Parish. It is situated on a
shalindividual ditch segments were 3-8 m long and 2-4 low oval elevation inside a river meander and is
m wide. Marine shells were deposited inside the bordered on its southern side by a tributary of
ditches, which resulted in the preservation of bone Kolindsund Fjord. Archaeological investigations
as well as pottery and fint. Te excavators dated of the site took place between 1979 and 1982, and
all fnds to the early Middle Neolithic (MN A I). then again in 1999 and 2001.
Early excavations concentrated on the
investigation of half of a large pit (A47) which contained
Ginnerup, Ginnerup Parish
the largest closed assemblage of PWC fnds that
Te Ginnerup enclosure is situated on a high mo- has been recovered in Denmark to date as well as
raine plateau whose southern edge borders Kolind- skeletal remains from brown bear, elk and humans.
sund Fjord. Te eastern side of the plateau is delim - Several other features on the site were also
invesited by a steeply incised creek valley. Small-scale tigated. Te results of the initial excavations were
excavations in 2001 revealed two ditch segments published, both in preliminary reports as well as
in a single row. Tey were respectively 11 and 25 a monograph (Wincentz Rasmussen/Boas 1982;
m long and ranged between 5-6 m wide. Te two Wincentz Rasmussen 1984; 2000; Richter, J. 1987a;
ditch segments were flled with marine shells and 1987b; 1989; Wincentz Rasmussen/Richter1991).
cultural layers dating to the Middle Neolithic Pit- Pit A 47 contained large amounts of marine shells
ted Ware Culture (PWC)(Wincentz Rasmussen as well as cultural debris, all of which belonged to
142002). A single shard of the TRB Culture indicates, the PWC. Several C-dates from the shell-bearing
nevertheless, that the enclosure was constructed layers (1 and 3) point to c. 2900-2800 BC, and thusly
in TRB times (N.A. Boas, oral communication). are in accordance with their cultural context.
AcRenewed excavations in 2003 uncovered a further cording to Wincentz Rasmussen/Richter (1991, 14),
5-7 ditch segments lying in a row on three sides the earliest phase of the pit (layer 5) is actually loca-t
of the plateau and confrmed the presence of pre- ed below the shell layers and their Pitted Ware
mate26 · Along the Road
This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed. ← Contentsrial, demonstrating that the latter represent only a Fuglslev is the only known causewayed enclosure
second stage of use. Due to a lack of characteristic in Djursland that was not situated on the coast.
14fnds and C-dates, it was not possible to date layer Te frst excavations at this site took place some
5 (and thereby the initial pit cut). While the pit may four decades ago. However, it is only more recently
belong to the PWC, it could also be older. that Fuglslev has been recognized as a probable
Tis question is of great importance, particu - enclosure. Tis allocation was made by N.A. Boas
larly as later excavations (Østergård Sørensen/Boas in the course of renewed small-scale excavations
2002) demonstrated that the large feature (A47) in 1980 (Boas 2001, 8). Te initial excavation
rewas part of a row of a further four pits, one of port describes the presence of large stones on top
which appears to have been fenced of. Further- of a ditch (N.A. Boas, oral communication) and
more, parts of a possible palisade were discovered is thereby reminiscent of the situation present at
as well. Te site seems to represent an enclosure (or the possible enclosure at Taastrup Kolindvej (see
possibly an enclosure-related site, see chapter 4). below). A number of pottery shards from a pit un -
Such constructions are unknown from PWC con - covered there were dated to MN A I.
texts. While it is possible that the pits in question
were originally dug in TRB times, no TRB fnds One additional site must be discussed in addition
have been made there, leaving the actual age of this to the enclosures described above. While this last
enclosure/enclosure-related site still undecided. site cannot be classifed as a classical causewayed
enclosure, it closely resembles many known sites
of this type in terms of its topography and setting
Grenå, Grenå Parish
as well as the presence of pits with traces of
recutTis enclosure is also unpublished. It was situated ting and ritual depositions. For these reasons, it has
on what was once a minor island a mere 150 m of been included in the present list.
the northern coast of Kolindsund Fjord. Today,
this area is covered by the town centre of Grenå,
Lystrup Kildevang I, Egå Parish
the largest town in Djursland. During construction
work close to the church, a single profle showing a Tis site was fully excavated few years ago in the
v-shaped ditch containing a scatter of TRB pottery course of the motorway construction work by
remains was recorded (N.A. Boas, oral communi- which it was subsequently destroyed. It is situated
cation). As is the case with the Taastrup Kolind - on a shallow south-facing promontory located on
vej site (see below), very little is known about this the northern shore of what was once Egå Fjord, and
enclosure. While an alternative interpretation of lies at the mouth of a minor stream which emptied
the ditch as part of a grave construction is pos- into the latter body of water (Fig. 8). In contrast to
sible, apart from the TRB pottery, the overall ge-o a great many of the sites previously discussed, the
graphical position of this site is much more in line excavation results from Lystrup Kildevang I were
with what is known from other TRB enclosures in published in a number of papers (Ravn 2005; 2011;
Djursland and the remainder of South Scandinavia Skousen 2008, 156f.).
than with what one would expect for a funerary On the edge of the promontory (and partly sur -
context in this region. rounding it) are a number of ritual pits with deliber -
ately broken artefacts. Te pits show clear traces of
14recutting. C-dates suggest a use-window between
Fuglslev, Fuglslev Parish
th ththe 38 and 37 centuries BC. Study of the ceramics
Fuglslev is an unpublished site in the southern part suggests that the site can be allocated to the EN I
Volof Djursland and is located on a promontory in a ling Group, a regional group of the Early TRB Culture.
river meander. With a distance of ca. 2.7 km to In almost all respects, the Kildevang site shows
what once was Stubbe Fjord (today Stubbe Lake), strong resemblances to causewayed enclosures
Causewayed enclosures and related sites in Djursland · 27
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.N
links between the site of Kildevang I and
standard causewayed enclosures. If one considers the
possibility that construction came to a halt and
was never continued, this site might represent
the very frst attempt to construct a causewayed
enclosure in Scandinavia. Alternatively, it could
represent the frst reaction of a local TRB com -
munity to the ideas of enclosure construction
that were spreading through Europe at this point
in time (see chapter 10.3.2.3).
Apart from the nine regular enclosures and the
single enclosure-related site listed above, there are
three other sites in Djursland which are likely to be
A1 causewayed enclosures. Unfortunately, at present,
these sites ofer insufcient information for any
0 50 m
categorical determination of their natures. One of
these sites is Fannerup in Ginnerup Parish.
SevFig. 8 | Lystrup Kildevang I is not what one might
eral decades ago, workers observed features in the
consider a proper causewayed enclosure; it is
ground that could probably have been identifable
rather what one might call an enclosure­related
as the segmented ditches of an enclosure. Due to
site. A row of pits was found on the western p­e
the destruction of the site, unfortunately, this in -
rimeter of a shallow promontory. Tese pits dem ­
formation can no longer be verifed. Te Ørum
onstrated traces of re­cutting. Select, sometimes
Aa kitchen midden is located on the tip of the
deliberately broken artefacts were deposited in
promontory on which the enclosure possibly was
the pits (from Skousen 2008).
located (Neergaard 1900, 135). Te fnds made
during the small scale excavation of this site in the late
thand was consequently referred to as an assem- 19 century comprise no less than three Middle
bly place by Skousen (2008). Its topographical Neolithic battle axes, what appears to have been
situation on a promontory at the coast of a ford a deposition of two fint axes and one greenstone
next to a river mouth, the presence of ritual axe and isolated human bones with cutting marks
features showing recuttings and the deliberate (Neergaard 1900, 138f.). Te character of this ma -
deposition (and possibly also destruction) of se- terial is very unusual for an ordinary kitchen mid -
lected artefacts at the edge of the promontory den, but corresponds very well with what is known
are conditions virtually identical to those ob- from causewayed enclosures, e.g. Sarup (Andersen,
servable at classical causewayed enclosure sites. N.H. 1997). Also in terms of its location, Fannerup
Te only diference appears to be the fact that appears to be a good candidate for causewayed en -
its ritual features were comparatively small pits closure status: it is located on the southern coast of
rather than oblong ditches. It should be noted northern Djursland and borders Kolindsund Fjord
that one of these ritual pits (A283) turned out to at a river mouth, just as is the case for many of the
have originally consisted of three separate pits, other enclosures in Djursland.
which were combined into a single, larger version No further information is available for the site
upon later recutting. Exactly the same process of Rævebakken in Ålsø Parish. Rævebakken is lo -
of amalgamation has been documented at both cated close to the east coast of Djursland and lies
Danish (Sarup: Andersen, N.H. 1997, 46 Fig. 46) south of Kolindsund Fjord. Excavations of an Iron
and Central European enclosures (Jeunesse 2011). Age settlement were carried out on this location in
Tese observations further buttress potential the 1970s. In the course of said work, features that
28 · Along the Road
This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed. ← Contents
LYSTRUPVEJ
E
L
L
E
B
Æ
K
K
E
Nmight well have represented segmented enclosure cal to that observed in many of the other enclo -
ditches where encountered (N.A. Boas, oral com- sures and was decidedly “Neolithic” in character
munication). Te topography of the site is very typi - (personal communication). Furthermore, the site
cal for South Scandinavian causewayed enclosures; is situated at a place in which a minor river fows
it is situated on a well-defned promontory at the into Korup Sø, the southernmost part of what used
confuence of two minor rivers and lies some 700 to be Kolindsund Fjord. Tis setting is identical
metres to the west of the Kattegat coast. to that of most other enclosures in Djursland as
A potential enclosure was recently discovered well as the entire northern TRB distribution area.
(2010) during road construction at Taastrup Terefore, this site is accepted here (with some
Kolindvej in Feldballe Parish (unpublished). Al- reservations) as a probable TRB Culture enclosure,
though a single ditch profle (ca. 1 m deep) was although fnal confrmation of this assertion is
necobserved, it was not recorded, due to profle col- essary through excavation on a somewhat larger
lapse. On the bottom of the ditch, fragments of scale. Such an excavation would also clarify wheth -
a thin-butted fint axe were discovered. A large er the ditch might represent a yet-unknown
varistone was found in the uppermost part of the ditch ant of ditches previously observed on the sides of
(information kindly provided by the excavator, E. both earthen and megalithic long barrows. Several
Kannegaard Nielsen). Trough geophysical survey, such barrows are known from the region, includ -
it was possible to follow the ditch over a distance ing the famous Barkær monuments (Glob 1949;
of approximately 16 m, revealing that the stones Liversage 1992), which lay only 600 m removed to
present appear to have been placed along the top the northwest. Ditches resembling those typical
of the ditch for almost its entire length (Klassen/ for causewayed enclosures have been found on the
Klein, this volume). side of a barrow in at least one instance in
DjursTe evidence available for this enclosure is land (barrow Sb. 44 in Hørning Parish – Fiedel
sparse. Moreover, the observations that do exist 2006, 45f. Figs. 22-23).
could also possibly be interpreted as representing Te distribution map of the certain and probable
other kinds of constructions, even from entirely causewayed enclosures and related constructions
diferent periods of (pre-) history. However, ac- described above shows a very clear picture (Fig.
cording to N.A. Boas (who has excavated many of 6). Almost all known sites are distributed evenly
the enclosures known from Djursland), the type of along the shores of Kolindsund Fjord, spaced out
the ditch fll which was present there was identi- like beads on a necklace. Tis is true for both cer -
Fig. 9 | Causewayed enclosures have been discovered in several parts of Europe with similar, approxi ­
mately equidistant spacing along the course of rivers. Te distributional pattern closely resembles that
observed for enclosures along the shores of Kolindsund Fjord in Djursland. Tis illustration shows the
older Michelsberg enclosures in the Aisne river valley in northern France as an example of this trend
(encircled big dots)(from Dubouloz et al. 1991).
Causewayed enclosures and related sites in Djursland · 29
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.tain and probable enclosures. Only three of the 13 superregional importance (Fig. 9). Tis question will
mapped locations are found outside the Kolind - be taken up again later (chapters 10.4 and 11).
sund Fjord area. However, two of these are located Another aspect of the distribution map that
reeither close to the shoreline of another ford or in quires attention is the coastal or near-coastal
situa near-coastal setting comparable to that of the ation of all causewayed enclosures (save one). Te
site of Store Brokhøj. Only the Fuglslev enclosure deviant site of Fuglslev immediately raises the outlier
deviates from this pattern (inland location). question, although one must also wonder whether
Tis specifc distribution pattern along Kolind- a larger number of presently-undetected enclosures
sund Fjord immediately recalls that of the river remain to be found in inland Djursland. Tis
quesvalley enclosures in northern France (Blanchet/ tion is obviously of central importance if any recon -
Martinez 1988; Dubouloz et al. 1988; 1991; Delor et struction of settlement systems and social organi -
al. 1988; Mordant/Mordant 1988) and hints at the sation shall be undertaken for the region and thus
potential presence of factors which might have had forms an extra incentive for further investigations.
This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed. ← Contents4 Causewayed enclosures and related
sites in the TRB North Group
distribution area
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A number of surveys of the causewayed enclosures an area enclosed by a turf wall held in place by a
known from the distribution area of the northern construction based on rows of posts on either side
TRB Group have been published over the last three rather than by circuits of segmented ditches.
Howdecades (i.e. Madsen, T. 1988; Andersen, N.H. 1997, ever, a few pits or ditch segments have been found
Nielsen, P.O. 2004; Klatt 2009; Larsson, L. 2012). following the turf wall, and the topography of the
Te area in question is comprised of Denmark, site is completely in line with that typical for Dan -
the southern and central parts of Sweden, parts ish causewayed enclosures on promontories. Te
of southern Norway and northern Germany. No site is dated to the late Early Neolithic and has thus
causewayed enclosures have yet been published nothing to do with the palisade enclosures known
from the northernmost parts of this area (Norway, from the MN A-MN B transition in the eastern
central Sweden). Tese regions are therefore disre- parts of South Scandinavia (Svensson 2002).
garded here. Unfortunately, no single geographical On a number of sites with ditch segments, only
term is sufcient to describe the remaining areas. very small areas have been excavated. Several of
In order to avoid lengthy descriptions, in the fol - these have been accepted as causewayed
enclolowing, ‘South Scandinavia’ is employed in refer - sures, even though we do not know at present
ence to this area (with the inclusion of northern whether the ditches of which we are aware form
German Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg- parts of full- or partial circuits. Tese sites were
Vorpommern, although those regions are not tra- accepted on the basis of their topography, which
ditionally covered by that term). in all cases was identical to that of causewayed
A comparison between the diferent published enclosures on promontories.
lists of enclosures reveals some disagreements with Te catalogue recently published by Klatt (2009)
regards to those sites that have been accepted as includes the vast majority of relevant sites with
enclosures and those which have not. As this ques- brief descriptions and references to original pub -
tion is relevant with regard to the following studies, lications. Te reader is referred to this publication
a few remarks are necessary here. for a general overview of published site plans and
In general, only the sites with proven ditch seg- other information. However, a few unpublished or
ments in full or partial circuits which actually de - newly published enclosures have yet to be added.
limit a given area are counted as causewayed en- Tese include the sites of Starup Langelandsvej in
closures within this study. An exception to this rule southern Jutland (Lützau Pedersen 2010; Lützau
is Vilsund in northern Jutland (Nielsen, J./Bech Pedersen/Witte 2012), Bad Segeberg in
Schleswig1989 and see chapter 10.2.7). Te site of Vilsund has Holstein (Guldin 2011), Fuglslev, Grenå and
SkærCausewayed enclosures and related sites in the TRB North Group distribution area · 31
← Contents This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed.

  • Accueil Accueil
  • Univers Univers
  • Ebooks Ebooks
  • Livres audio Livres audio
  • Presse Presse
  • BD BD
  • Documents Documents