Jastorf and Jutland (On the northern extent of the so-called Jastorf Culture)

Jochen BrandtBjörn Rauchfuß(Herausgeber)

D��

J��

��

� E�

��

�� M

��

D�� J��-K��und die vorrömische Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitt eleuropa

Veröff entlichung des Helms-Museums, Archäologisches Museum Hamburg, Stadtmuseum Harburg Nr. 105

Beiträge der Internati onalen Tagung zum einhundertjährigen Jubiläum der Veröff entlichung der „Ältesten Urnenfriedhöfe bei Uelzen und Lüneburg“ durch Gustav Schwantes, 18.–22.05.2011 in Bad Bevensen.

Jochen BrandtBjörn Rauchfuß(Herausgeber)

D��

J��

��

� E�

��

�� M

��

D�� J��-K��und die vorrömische Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitt eleuropa

Veröff entlichung des Helms-Museums, Archäologisches Museum Hamburg, Stadtmuseum Harburg Nr. 105

Beiträge der Internati onalen Tagung zum einhundertjährigen Jubiläum der Veröff entlichung der „Ältesten Urnenfriedhöfe bei Uelzen und Lüneburg“ durch Gustav Schwantes, 18.–22.05.2011 in Bad Bevensen.

Das Jastorf-Konzeptund die vorrömische Eisenzeit

im nördlichen Mitteleuropa

Stufe Kultur Zivilisation

JASTORF

Das Jastorf-Konzept und die vorrömische Eisenzeit

im nördlichen Mitteleuropa

Beiträge der internationalen Tagung zum einhundertjährigen Jubiläum der Veröffentlichung

„Die ältesten Urnenfriedhöfe bei Uelzen und Lüneburg“durch

Gustav Schwantes

18.–22.05.2011 in Bad Bevensen

Herausgegeben durch Jochen Brandt und Björn Rauchfuß

2014Archäologisches Museum Hamburg

Stufe Kultur Zivilisation

JASTORF

Vorwort

Zwischen 1904 und 1911 entwickelte Gustav Schwan-tes die chronologische und kulturelle Gliederung der vorrömischen Eisenzeit Nordostniedersachsens. Sein Ausgangspunkt hierfür waren die zahlreichen, unter anderem von ihm ausgegrabenen Urnenfriedhöfe in der Gegend von Bevensen, dem Wohnsitz seiner Jugend. Namengebend wurde das Gräberfeld bei Jastorf, Lkr. Uelzen, das in Schwantes Konzept zu-nächst eine einzelne Zeitstufe und deren Kultur be-schrieb. 1911 fand dieses Konzept seinen vorläufigen Abschluss in der Vorlage des Fundmaterials und der erheblichen Ausweitung des Begriffes der Jastorfkul-tur auf weite Teile Norddeutschlands und Südskandi-naviens, „... die Hauptsitze der Westgermanen“. Da-mit war eine ethnische Verknüpfung hergestellt, die – vor allem in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung – bis heute Wirkung zeigt.

Schwantes hat seinen Begriff der Jastorfkultur und der Jastorfzeit in den folgenden Jahrzehnten immer wieder modifiziert, zeitweilig sogar von einer Zivilisation gesprochen. Heutzutage ist der Begriff der Jastorfkultur als Bezeichnung für den zentra-len Teil der in Nordmitteleuropa und im südlichen Skandinavien beheimateten archäologischen Grup-pierungen des 6. bis 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. fest eta-bliert. Trotzdem bleibt das Jastorf-Konzept merk-würdig unscharf. Neuere Forschungen, insbesondere im nördlichen Mittel- und in Nordeuropa haben das Gebiet der Jastorfkultur weiter anwachsen lassen, als es Schwantes seinerzeit schon sah. Die Abgrenzung dessen, was Jastorf eigentlich bedeuten soll, ist dabei jedoch immer undeutlicher geworden. Insbesondere fehlt der Jastorf-Forschung bislang eine korrektive Betrachtung des Themas von außen. Was verstehen Prähistoriker, die sich mit benachbarten Kulturgrup-pen auseinandersetzen, unter dem Begriff? Existiert aus ihrer Sicht ein klares Bild von Jastorf? Auch ist aus heutiger Sicht etwa grundsätzlich zu hinterfragen, ob der von Gustav Schwantes vor einhundert Jahren verwendete Kulturbegriff mit seiner impliziten Ver-knüpfung damaliger Ethnos- und Sozialvorstellungen noch haltbar ist.

Das einhundertjährige Jubiläum der Veröffentli-chung „Die ältesten Urnenfriedhöfe bei Uelzen und

Lüneburg“ durch Gustav Schwantes im Jahre 1911 bot den Anlass, Schwantes’ Forschungen im Rahmen ei-ner internationalen Fachtagung vom 18.–22. Mai 2011 in Bad Bevensen zu würdigen, aber auch kritisch zu überprüfen. Als Referenten der Tagung konnten zahl-reiche Kollegen aus Deutschland, den Niederlanden, Polen, der Ukraine und Norwegen gewonnen werden, die das Jastorf-Konzept aus verschiedenen Blickwin-keln beleuchteten. Die Idee zur Durchführung dieser Tagung entstand bereits im Jahr 2006 bei der kon-stituierenden Sitzung des „Netzwerkes vorrömische Eisenzeit“ auf der 77. Jahrestagung des Nordwest-deutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung e. V. in Lüneburg. An dieser Sitzung nahm als Gast Knut Markuszewski, Bürgermeister der Samtgemeinde Be-vensen (heute Samtgemeinde Bevensen-Ebstorf), teil und lud dazu ein, im Gedächtnis an Gustav Schwan-tes in Bevensen eine Tagung abzuhalten. Das Netz-werk vorrömische Eisenzeit nahm diese Einladung dankbar an und begann daraufhin mit den Planungen für eine internationale Fachtagung. Auf Bitten des Netzwerks übernahm das Archäologische Museum Hamburg dabei die Federführung, als Partner und Mitveranstalter kamen die Samtgemeinde Bevensen sowie das Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin hinzu. Die Tagung selbst fand in den Tagungsräumen des Kurzentrums von Bad Bevensen statt. Im Foyer des Kurzentrums wur-de gleichzeitig eine kleine tagungsbezogene Ausstel-lung präsentiert. Zum Programm gehörten außerdem ein Abendempfang im Brauhaus des Klosters Medin-gen und eine Exkursion, die zu verschiedenen prä-historischen Fundstellen im Uelzener Becken führte. Hervorzuheben sind dabei eine Zwischenstation in Seedorf sowie das Abschlussessen im Schützenhaus von Jastorf, das direkt auf dem eponymen Fundort liegt. Sowohl hier als auch dort wurden die Tagungs-teilnehmer auf das herzlichste von den Einwohnern des Ortes empfangen und bewirtet.

Diese Tagung hätte nicht durchgeführt werden können ohne die Mithilfe und Unterstützung zahl-reicher Personen: Knut Markuszewski, Bürgermei-ster der Samtgemeinde Bevensen a. D., der sich als unermüdlicher Antreiber und bei der Einwerbung

Impressum

Veröffentlichung des Helms-Museums, Archäologisches Museum Hamburg, Stadtmuseum Harburg Nr. 105

Herausgeber: Rainer-Maria Weiss

Redaktion: Jochen Brandt, Björn Rauchfuß und Verena Schwartz

Grafik und Layout: Christl Meyenburg

Druck: BELTZ Bad Langensalza GmbH

Der Druck wurde gefördert durch den Landschaftsverband Lüneburg, die Landschaft des vormaligen Fürstentums Lüneburg und die SVO Holding GmbH.

ISBN 978-3-931429-23-2

Covergestaltung: Christl MeyenburgRückseite: Die Teilnehmer der Tagung zu Besuch in Jastorf am 22.05.2011

(Foto: A. Springer).

Alle Rechte, auch die des auszugsweisen Nachdrucks, der fotomechanischen Wiedergabe und der Übersetzung, vorbehalten

Archäologisches Museum Hamburg

Vorwort

Zwischen 1904 und 1911 entwickelte Gustav Schwan-tes die chronologische und kulturelle Gliederung der vorrömischen Eisenzeit Nordostniedersachsens. Sein Ausgangspunkt hierfür waren die zahlreichen, unter anderem von ihm ausgegrabenen Urnenfriedhöfe in der Gegend von Bevensen, dem Wohnsitz seiner Jugend. Namengebend wurde das Gräberfeld bei Jastorf, Lkr. Uelzen, das in Schwantes Konzept zu-nächst eine einzelne Zeitstufe und deren Kultur be-schrieb. 1911 fand dieses Konzept seinen vorläufigen Abschluss in der Vorlage des Fundmaterials und der erheblichen Ausweitung des Begriffes der Jastorfkul-tur auf weite Teile Norddeutschlands und Südskandi-naviens, „... die Hauptsitze der Westgermanen“. Da-mit war eine ethnische Verknüpfung hergestellt, die – vor allem in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung – bis heute Wirkung zeigt.

Schwantes hat seinen Begriff der Jastorfkultur und der Jastorfzeit in den folgenden Jahrzehnten immer wieder modifiziert, zeitweilig sogar von einer Zivilisation gesprochen. Heutzutage ist der Begriff der Jastorfkultur als Bezeichnung für den zentra-len Teil der in Nordmitteleuropa und im südlichen Skandinavien beheimateten archäologischen Grup-pierungen des 6. bis 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. fest eta-bliert. Trotzdem bleibt das Jastorf-Konzept merk-würdig unscharf. Neuere Forschungen, insbesondere im nördlichen Mittel- und in Nordeuropa haben das Gebiet der Jastorfkultur weiter anwachsen lassen, als es Schwantes seinerzeit schon sah. Die Abgrenzung dessen, was Jastorf eigentlich bedeuten soll, ist dabei jedoch immer undeutlicher geworden. Insbesondere fehlt der Jastorf-Forschung bislang eine korrektive Betrachtung des Themas von außen. Was verstehen Prähistoriker, die sich mit benachbarten Kulturgrup-pen auseinandersetzen, unter dem Begriff? Existiert aus ihrer Sicht ein klares Bild von Jastorf? Auch ist aus heutiger Sicht etwa grundsätzlich zu hinterfragen, ob der von Gustav Schwantes vor einhundert Jahren verwendete Kulturbegriff mit seiner impliziten Ver-knüpfung damaliger Ethnos- und Sozialvorstellungen noch haltbar ist.

Das einhundertjährige Jubiläum der Veröffentli-chung „Die ältesten Urnenfriedhöfe bei Uelzen und

Lüneburg“ durch Gustav Schwantes im Jahre 1911 bot den Anlass, Schwantes’ Forschungen im Rahmen ei-ner internationalen Fachtagung vom 18.–22. Mai 2011 in Bad Bevensen zu würdigen, aber auch kritisch zu überprüfen. Als Referenten der Tagung konnten zahl-reiche Kollegen aus Deutschland, den Niederlanden, Polen, der Ukraine und Norwegen gewonnen werden, die das Jastorf-Konzept aus verschiedenen Blickwin-keln beleuchteten. Die Idee zur Durchführung dieser Tagung entstand bereits im Jahr 2006 bei der kon-stituierenden Sitzung des „Netzwerkes vorrömische Eisenzeit“ auf der 77. Jahrestagung des Nordwest-deutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung e. V. in Lüneburg. An dieser Sitzung nahm als Gast Knut Markuszewski, Bürgermeister der Samtgemeinde Be-vensen (heute Samtgemeinde Bevensen-Ebstorf), teil und lud dazu ein, im Gedächtnis an Gustav Schwan-tes in Bevensen eine Tagung abzuhalten. Das Netz-werk vorrömische Eisenzeit nahm diese Einladung dankbar an und begann daraufhin mit den Planungen für eine internationale Fachtagung. Auf Bitten des Netzwerks übernahm das Archäologische Museum Hamburg dabei die Federführung, als Partner und Mitveranstalter kamen die Samtgemeinde Bevensen sowie das Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin hinzu. Die Tagung selbst fand in den Tagungsräumen des Kurzentrums von Bad Bevensen statt. Im Foyer des Kurzentrums wur-de gleichzeitig eine kleine tagungsbezogene Ausstel-lung präsentiert. Zum Programm gehörten außerdem ein Abendempfang im Brauhaus des Klosters Medin-gen und eine Exkursion, die zu verschiedenen prä-historischen Fundstellen im Uelzener Becken führte. Hervorzuheben sind dabei eine Zwischenstation in Seedorf sowie das Abschlussessen im Schützenhaus von Jastorf, das direkt auf dem eponymen Fundort liegt. Sowohl hier als auch dort wurden die Tagungs-teilnehmer auf das herzlichste von den Einwohnern des Ortes empfangen und bewirtet.

Diese Tagung hätte nicht durchgeführt werden können ohne die Mithilfe und Unterstützung zahl-reicher Personen: Knut Markuszewski, Bürgermei-ster der Samtgemeinde Bevensen a. D., der sich als unermüdlicher Antreiber und bei der Einwerbung

Impressum

Veröffentlichung des Helms-Museums, Archäologisches Museum Hamburg, Stadtmuseum Harburg Nr. 105

Herausgeber: Rainer-Maria Weiss

Redaktion: Jochen Brandt, Björn Rauchfuß und Verena Schwartz

Grafik und Layout: Christl Meyenburg

Druck: BELTZ Bad Langensalza GmbH

Der Druck wurde gefördert durch den Landschaftsverband Lüneburg, die Landschaft des vormaligen Fürstentums Lüneburg und die SVO Holding GmbH.

ISBN 978-3-931429-23-2

Covergestaltung: Christl MeyenburgRückseite: Die Teilnehmer der Tagung zu Besuch in Jastorf am 22.05.2011

(Foto: A. Springer).

Alle Rechte, auch die des auszugsweisen Nachdrucks, der fotomechanischen Wiedergabe und der Übersetzung, vorbehalten

Archäologisches Museum Hamburg

INhaLt

Jochen Brandt/Björn Rauchfuss

Vorwort

9 Sonja Schäfer

Gustav Schwantes und die Jastorfkultur

Theorie und Methoden

19 Sebastian Brather

Archäologische Kultur und historische Interpretation. Zwischen Raumklassifikation und Raumanalyse

35 Ulrich Veit

Raumkonzepte in der Prähistorischen Archäologie – vor einhundert Jahren und heute

49 Frank Nikulka

Zur Regionalisierung der Jastorfkultur: Theoretische und methodische Grundlagen

57 Nico Roymans

Material Culture and multiple Identities. The Case of Latène Glass Armrings in the Lower Rhine Region

69 Jochen Brandt

Soziologische Aspekte des Jastorf-Konzepts

Binnenperspektive Jastorf – Gräber, Funde und Regionalgruppen

81 René Bräunig

Die Bestattungssitten der Jastorfkultur

91 Björn Rauchfuss

Entwicklungstendenzen und Stellenwert der Gefäßkeramik im Konzept der Jastorfkultur

113 Horst Keiling

Bemerkungen zu den Nadeln der Jastorfkultur

129 Kerstin Hofmann

Auf der Suche nach der Jastorf-Fibel. Die ältereisenzeitlichen Plattenfibeln Norddeutschlands – eine Leitform?

143 Andreas Wendowski-Schünemann

Zu den Fibeln der jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit im Jastorfkerngebiet

155 Markolf Brumlich

Alte Thesen und neue Forschungen zur Eisenproduktion in der Jastorfkultur

169 Peter Ettel

Das Gräberfeld von Mühlen Eichsen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Zum Stand der Ausgrabung, Aufarbeitung und Auswertung

Vorwort

von Fördermitteln verdient machte; Prof. Dr. Mi-chael Meyer, Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin, für die Mitarbeit bei der Konzeption und Planung der Tagung; Andreas Sprin-ger, Samtgemeinde Bevensen, der das Tagungsbüro leitete, die Website der Tagung aufsetzte und alle lo-gistischen Aufgaben der Tagung löste. Im Tagungs-büro standen ihm zur Seite: Martin Kallnischkies, Sa-brina Stecker, Nora Götze und Patric Bader; Dr. Fred Mahler, Kreisarchäologie Uelzen, für die Organisati-on der Begleitausstellung und die Vorbereitung der Exkursion; Äbtissin Monika von Kleist vom Kloster Medingen für die Einladung zum Abendempfang; Christl Meyenburg, Archäologisches Museum Ham-burg, für die Erstellung des Layouts und die grafische Bearbeitung; Nicole Kossmer und Jørgen Andersen, Museum Sønderjylland Arkæologi Haderslev, für die Erlaubnis, die Kartengrundlage auf dem Cover zu verwenden. Die Herausgeber möchten sich außer-dem sehr herzlich bei Prof. Rainer-Maria Weiss für die Bereitschaft bedanken, die Tagung im Namen des Archäologischen Museums Hamburg zu veranstalten und den Tagungsband in die Reihe der Veröffentli-chungen des Museums aufzunehmen.

Ohne finanzielle Unterstützung durch die nach-folgend genannten Institutionen wären die Durch-führung der Tagung und die Drucklegung des Ta-gungsbandes nicht möglich gewesen. Wir danken ihnen dafür ganz herzlich:

SVO Holding GmbH; Landschaftsverband Lü-neburg; Landschaft des vormaligen Fürstentums Lü-neburg; Wäscherei Erika, Bad Bevensen; Otto F. K. Franke GmbH, Bad Bevensen.

Hamburg/Berlin, 28.11.2013 Jochen Brandt und Björn Rauchfuß

INhaLt

Jochen Brandt/Björn Rauchfuss

Vorwort

9 Sonja Schäfer

Gustav Schwantes und die Jastorfkultur

Theorie und Methoden

19 Sebastian Brather

Archäologische Kultur und historische Interpretation. Zwischen Raumklassifikation und Raumanalyse

35 Ulrich Veit

Raumkonzepte in der Prähistorischen Archäologie – vor einhundert Jahren und heute

49 Frank Nikulka

Zur Regionalisierung der Jastorfkultur: Theoretische und methodische Grundlagen

57 Nico Roymans

Material Culture and multiple Identities. The Case of Latène Glass Armrings in the Lower Rhine Region

69 Jochen Brandt

Soziologische Aspekte des Jastorf-Konzepts

Binnenperspektive Jastorf – Gräber, Funde und Regionalgruppen

81 René Bräunig

Die Bestattungssitten der Jastorfkultur

91 Björn Rauchfuss

Entwicklungstendenzen und Stellenwert der Gefäßkeramik im Konzept der Jastorfkultur

113 Horst Keiling

Bemerkungen zu den Nadeln der Jastorfkultur

129 Kerstin Hofmann

Auf der Suche nach der Jastorf-Fibel. Die ältereisenzeitlichen Plattenfibeln Norddeutschlands – eine Leitform?

143 Andreas Wendowski-Schünemann

Zu den Fibeln der jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit im Jastorfkerngebiet

155 Markolf Brumlich

Alte Thesen und neue Forschungen zur Eisenproduktion in der Jastorfkultur

169 Peter Ettel

Das Gräberfeld von Mühlen Eichsen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Zum Stand der Ausgrabung, Aufarbeitung und Auswertung

Vorwort

von Fördermitteln verdient machte; Prof. Dr. Mi-chael Meyer, Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin, für die Mitarbeit bei der Konzeption und Planung der Tagung; Andreas Sprin-ger, Samtgemeinde Bevensen, der das Tagungsbüro leitete, die Website der Tagung aufsetzte und alle lo-gistischen Aufgaben der Tagung löste. Im Tagungs-büro standen ihm zur Seite: Martin Kallnischkies, Sa-brina Stecker, Nora Götze und Patric Bader; Dr. Fred Mahler, Kreisarchäologie Uelzen, für die Organisati-on der Begleitausstellung und die Vorbereitung der Exkursion; Äbtissin Monika von Kleist vom Kloster Medingen für die Einladung zum Abendempfang; Christl Meyenburg, Archäologisches Museum Ham-burg, für die Erstellung des Layouts und die grafische Bearbeitung; Nicole Kossmer und Jørgen Andersen, Museum Sønderjylland Arkæologi Haderslev, für die Erlaubnis, die Kartengrundlage auf dem Cover zu verwenden. Die Herausgeber möchten sich außer-dem sehr herzlich bei Prof. Rainer-Maria Weiss für die Bereitschaft bedanken, die Tagung im Namen des Archäologischen Museums Hamburg zu veranstalten und den Tagungsband in die Reihe der Veröffentli-chungen des Museums aufzunehmen.

Ohne finanzielle Unterstützung durch die nach-folgend genannten Institutionen wären die Durch-führung der Tagung und die Drucklegung des Ta-gungsbandes nicht möglich gewesen. Wir danken ihnen dafür ganz herzlich:

SVO Holding GmbH; Landschaftsverband Lü-neburg; Landschaft des vormaligen Fürstentums Lü-neburg; Wäscherei Erika, Bad Bevensen; Otto F. K. Franke GmbH, Bad Bevensen.

Hamburg/Berlin, 28.11.2013 Jochen Brandt und Björn Rauchfuß

Binnenperspektive Jastorf – Chronologie

205 Ronald Heynowski

Der Beginn der Eisenzeit in Norddeutschland – Terminologie und vergleichende Chronologie

223 Norman Döhlert-Albani

Zum Ende der Jastorfkultur – Der späte Abschnitt der jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit und Übergang zur frühen römischen Kaiserzeit

Jastorf-Peripherien

245 Jes Martens

Jastorf and Jutland

267 Henryk Machajewski

On the Study of the Jastorf Culture in Northwest Poland

287 Andrzej Michałowski

Elements of the Jastorf Culture in Wielkopolska. Import of Ideas or Migration of Peoples?

303 Grzegorz Domański

Die Gubener Gruppe. Kontakte zwischen der Jastorf- und der Przeworskkultur

313 Piotr Łuczkiewicz

Fremde Ansiedler oder fremd wirkende Waren? „Jastorf-Materialien“ aus Ostpolen

331 Rostislav Terpilovskij

The Mutyn Burial Site from the Turn of Eras on the Seym River (preliminary Report)

347 Andrzej Maciałowicz

Über die Ostsee. Jastorfeinflüsse im westbaltischen Kulturkreis an der Wende von der älteren zur jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit im Lichte der Funde aus dem ehemaligen Ostpreußen

Jastorf und Latène

367 Susanne Sievers

Jastorf aus der Sicht der Latènekultur

377 Martin Schönfelder

Internationale Formen und lokale Gruppen – Unterschiede in der Latènekultur?

Jastorf and Jutland

Jes Martens

Since Gustav Schwantes in 1911 included Jutland in the territory of the Jastorf culture this has been taken as a fact within Ger-man archaeology, while Danish archaeology on the other hand never accepted it. When Schwantes later revised his opinion on Jutland‘s relation to the Jastorf culture, this was not adopted by German archaeology. In Danish archaeology the topic was never discussed at length – a fact which may be due to political reasons (the issue of Slesvig) as well as research tradition. However, several researchers agree that the local group of south Jutland is closely related to the Jastorf culture, while the Jastorf influence is gradually diminishing with the increasing distance to the river Eider. In fact, a review of the material record of the North Jutland local group leads to the conclusion that if it were included in the Jastorf culture, the effect would be that this notion were deprived of any meaning.

In his classical work “Die Urnenfriedhöfe in Nie-dersachsen” from 1911, Schwantes made the fol-lowing statement about the extent of his recently defined Jastorf culture: “Ihr Hauptverbreitungsgebiet umfasst Hannover, Schleswig-Holstein, Jütland und das westliche Mecklenburg, also die Hauptsitze der Westgermanen”1. By this he enlarged the territory well beyond the borders of his original notion and into regions with quite different research traditions and sources. And, most important2, he expanded it across a modern, at the time, much disputed political border, the German-Danish border. While the expan-sion of the notion of the Jastorf culture was readily received and adopted by German scholars the situa-tion was different in Denmark. The aim of this paper is to illuminate how the expansion was received in Denmark and to what extent the archaeological sour-ces may support it3.

The notion of the Jastorf phase and the Jastorf cul-ture was defined by Gustav Schwantes in 1909 basing on material from cemeteries in East Hannover4. In 1911 he expanded the notion to neighbouring areas like Holstein, Schleswig, Western Mecklenburg and Jutland5. Later the extent was widened even further, and finally the concept of a Jastorf Civilization was formulated6. The Jastorf concept that is used today is very much like the final concept of Schwantes, i. e. a wide cultural territory including many local groups each with their specific traits7. Furthermore, the mo-dern concept of the Jastorf culture is generally un-derstood as equivalent with the Pre-Roman Iron Age in most of the territories it is assumed to be present. Finally, the Jastorf culture is seen as an equivalent to cultural concepts such as the La Tène culture and the Przeworsk culture. When Schwantes expanded the concept of the Jastorf culture he also began to di-

1 Schwantes 1911, 5.2 He also linked the culture to the notion of West Germans i. e.

originally a linguistic term. The Germanic language family is devided into three branches; west, north and east. From the West Germanic language group evolved modern langu-ages such as the various German languages, Dutch, Frisian and English, while the Northern Germanic language group counts Swedish, Danish, and the Norse languages spoken in Norway, Iceland and at the Faroe Islands. How far back this

tripartite division can be traced is an issue outside the scope of this paper.

3 I thank Michael Meyer for suggesting this theme to me, in Berlin 2009, when the network first started out planning this conference.

4 Schwantes 1909.5 Schwantes 1911, 5.6 See Künnemann 1995 for further details and references.7 Keiling 1983, 90 ff., note 6, fig. 15, map 2.

tal style, pottery style, burial customs or the like. But in its pure sense an archaeological culture does not imply shared genetics, language, ethnicity or social superstructure. The archaeological culture is a system of classification, and as all systems of classification it is a tool which the researcher applies in order to put order to a disorderly amount of information. There is no guarantee that this classification has any relevance to the reality that it describes.

However, there is always a risk that systems of classification turn into a notion of reality. In archaeolo-gy this is expressed by studies such as “the transition from phase A to phase B”, or “the migrations of the X Beaker people”. The same is the case when speaking of centre and periphery in the case of the Jastorf cul-ture. The reason why the “centre” of the culture lies in Jastorf is because it was this material that was used to define the culture, but it would have been different if it had been defined on material from Holstein, Meck-lenburg or Brandenburg, or if it had been defined on settlement material instead of burial grounds. In these cases the analytical tools have materialized themselves and have become real calendar, real people interacting and travelling. There were no doubt both “people”, tribes, and languages in Prehistory, and they had no doubt a notion of time and therefore calendars, but they were most likely not equivalent to our classifi-cations. If we wish to reach for these phenomena we have to go beyond and behind our classifications.

An attempt at reaching for the history behind the artefacts was made by Gustaf Kossina with his “sied-lungsarchäologische Methode”12. Basing on distribu-tions of different archaeological artefacts he aimed at linking archaeological sources with ethnic groups and historical interpretations. Though his method has been met with critique he had great influence on con-temporary and later archaeology and has shaped many of the concepts we use today, especially the notion of an archaeological culture.

While Kossina and his followers turned to the earliest written sources and linguistics, others have chosen to look to the so-called “primitive world” of

today in order to reach a deeper understanding of the Prehistory. In his dissertation Jochen Brandt chose a neo-evolutionistic approach taken from anthropology in order to explain the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Nort-hern Europe13. Similar attempts have been done ear-lier14. In anthropology cultural or social evolutionism is based on the assumption that the development of human society follows through certain stages that can be derived from a typological study of present primi-tive societies, i. e. present primitive societies are seen as fossilized stages of earlier history of our own civi-lization. Thus certain social institutions are linked to certain levels of technological development, an idea shared with the Marxist notion of history. This way of thinking has been met with serious critique15 since it ignores completely the factors of time and context and shows no respect for the present representatives of “primitive culture” and their particular history, or for the past and its particular history. A culture never evolves in a vacuum and is always part of a world sy-stem which makes it what it is. The cultural context of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe was the contemporary cultures of Central Europe, the Medi-terranean, the Black Sea, and the western part of the Steppe and Forest zones of Eastern Europe. These cultural zones communicated with each other directly or indirectly and thus shaped the conditions for each other.

To conclude: There is a Jastorf culture, but only as long as we say there is one, because it is our construc-tion. To say that something belongs to the Jastorf culture is to signify that a number of coexisting cul-tural phenomena are present in a certain archaeolo-gical material that falls within the limits of what we have defined as diagnostic for the Jastorf culture. So the Jastorf culture is what we make it. But as Wiebke Künnemann16 has demonstrated there is not only dis-agreement between researchers of what signifies the Jastorf culture but also about in which territories it is present. However, this does not make the notion of the Jastorf culture more or less true, it only makes it more or less useful as a system of classification.

Jastorf and Jutland – the Danish reception

Gustav Schwantes’ notion on the Jastorf culture was based on the study of cemeteries, the burial custom and the goods found in the graves. Everyone familiar with his writings are aware of the expansion and me-tamorphosis of his notion of the culture, how it chan-ged from local to regional and finally super-regional scale and from “Culture” to “Civilization”.

When Schwantes in 1911 expanded the territory of the Jastorf culture to include Jutland it was still less than two decades that the period was distinguished in the material of Jutland17. Thus the material base was less than solid. Though Neergaard had published ma-terial from all landscape of the peninsula it was only piecemeal and only serving as a demonstration of the existence of the period at the peninsula, but still he managed to demonstrate that the period could be di-vided into an early and a late part, the latter under influence of the La Tène culture18. Furthermore he noted that the finds were unevenly distributed – the early period was best known from South Jutland whi-le the later period was best known in the north of the peninsula. Before Neergaard already Undset19 and Engelhardt20 had discussed the possible existence of a Pre-Roman Iron Age in Jutland, but though they could demonstrate La Tène influenced artefacts of both local origin and imports, they did not find the evidence sufficient enough to postulate an Iron Age before the Roman Iron Age. It was thus not a very broad material base that Schwantes based his expan-sion on.

The earliest Danish reaction to Schwantes’ sugge-stion was published in 1916 by Carl Neergaard in a treatise on the Early Iron Age of Southern Jutland. As indicated above Neergaard was one of the pioneers in the history of research on the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe as he was the one to demonstrate it was present as an independent period in Jutland. When Neergaard took up the Jastorf challenge, it was at a time when the whole of Southern Jutland, or Sles-

246 JES MARTENS Jastorf and Jutland 247

stinguish between a Jastorf culture “im engeren” and “weiteren Sinne” (narrower and wider terms). Even this distinction has won general acceptance in Ger-man archaeology8, though the extent of the culture “im weiteren Sinne” in Schwantes understanding has not been adopted, since he included the territory of the Pomeranian Face Urn culture and the Scandina-vian peninsula into the wider terms. This distinction between narrower and wider terms has lately been tur-ned into a notion of “centre” and “periphery” within the culture9. Thus, within German archaeology there appears to be wide agreement upon the contents and extent of the Jastorf culture and that Jutland is a part of it. However, when Wiebke Künnemann wrote her dissertation on Schwantes and the Jastorf culture she discovered that this understanding was not shared by Danish archaeologists10 who generally referred to the Jastorf culture in Schwantes original understanding of the concept11 and consequently saw the Jastorf cul-ture as confined to Northwest Germany (North East Niedersachsen, Holstein and West Mecklenburg) and the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age.

What is an archaeological culture?

Before dealing with this disagreement and the possi-ble causes for it it is necessary to spend a few words on the concept of “culture”. There are many ways to deal with this question but the first is to look at it in its context. In this case the context is the archaeo-logical discourse. By this distinction I wish to avoid going into a discussion of the much wider issue: what is culture?

In the archaeological discourse the word “culture” in relation to names like Przeworsk, Jastorf or the like is a word of classification. It is a way of signalling that we are speaking about a certain number of coexisting cultural expressions within more or less well defined geographical and chronological limits. These cultural expressions may be dress style, armament, ornamen-

8 Keiling 1983.9 Brandt 2001, 25 ff.10 Künnemann 1995, 95 ff.11 Schwantes 1909.

12 Schwerin von Krosigk 1982, 16 ff. 13 Brandt 2001, 201 ff.14 E. g. Cullberg/Jensen/Mikkelsen 1978; Jensen 1979.15 E. g. Friedman 1981; Høiris 1981.16 Künnemann 1995.

17 Neergaard 1892.18 Ibid. 235 ff.19 Undset 1881, 371 f.20 Engelhardt 1881, 80 ff., especially 109.

tal style, pottery style, burial customs or the like. But in its pure sense an archaeological culture does not imply shared genetics, language, ethnicity or social superstructure. The archaeological culture is a system of classification, and as all systems of classification it is a tool which the researcher applies in order to put order to a disorderly amount of information. There is no guarantee that this classification has any relevance to the reality that it describes.

However, there is always a risk that systems of classification turn into a notion of reality. In archaeolo-gy this is expressed by studies such as “the transition from phase A to phase B”, or “the migrations of the X Beaker people”. The same is the case when speaking of centre and periphery in the case of the Jastorf cul-ture. The reason why the “centre” of the culture lies in Jastorf is because it was this material that was used to define the culture, but it would have been different if it had been defined on material from Holstein, Meck-lenburg or Brandenburg, or if it had been defined on settlement material instead of burial grounds. In these cases the analytical tools have materialized themselves and have become real calendar, real people interacting and travelling. There were no doubt both “people”, tribes, and languages in Prehistory, and they had no doubt a notion of time and therefore calendars, but they were most likely not equivalent to our classifi-cations. If we wish to reach for these phenomena we have to go beyond and behind our classifications.

An attempt at reaching for the history behind the artefacts was made by Gustaf Kossina with his “sied-lungsarchäologische Methode”12. Basing on distribu-tions of different archaeological artefacts he aimed at linking archaeological sources with ethnic groups and historical interpretations. Though his method has been met with critique he had great influence on con-temporary and later archaeology and has shaped many of the concepts we use today, especially the notion of an archaeological culture.

While Kossina and his followers turned to the earliest written sources and linguistics, others have chosen to look to the so-called “primitive world” of

today in order to reach a deeper understanding of the Prehistory. In his dissertation Jochen Brandt chose a neo-evolutionistic approach taken from anthropology in order to explain the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Nort-hern Europe13. Similar attempts have been done ear-lier14. In anthropology cultural or social evolutionism is based on the assumption that the development of human society follows through certain stages that can be derived from a typological study of present primi-tive societies, i. e. present primitive societies are seen as fossilized stages of earlier history of our own civi-lization. Thus certain social institutions are linked to certain levels of technological development, an idea shared with the Marxist notion of history. This way of thinking has been met with serious critique15 since it ignores completely the factors of time and context and shows no respect for the present representatives of “primitive culture” and their particular history, or for the past and its particular history. A culture never evolves in a vacuum and is always part of a world sy-stem which makes it what it is. The cultural context of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe was the contemporary cultures of Central Europe, the Medi-terranean, the Black Sea, and the western part of the Steppe and Forest zones of Eastern Europe. These cultural zones communicated with each other directly or indirectly and thus shaped the conditions for each other.

To conclude: There is a Jastorf culture, but only as long as we say there is one, because it is our construc-tion. To say that something belongs to the Jastorf culture is to signify that a number of coexisting cul-tural phenomena are present in a certain archaeolo-gical material that falls within the limits of what we have defined as diagnostic for the Jastorf culture. So the Jastorf culture is what we make it. But as Wiebke Künnemann16 has demonstrated there is not only dis-agreement between researchers of what signifies the Jastorf culture but also about in which territories it is present. However, this does not make the notion of the Jastorf culture more or less true, it only makes it more or less useful as a system of classification.

Jastorf and Jutland – the Danish reception

Gustav Schwantes’ notion on the Jastorf culture was based on the study of cemeteries, the burial custom and the goods found in the graves. Everyone familiar with his writings are aware of the expansion and me-tamorphosis of his notion of the culture, how it chan-ged from local to regional and finally super-regional scale and from “Culture” to “Civilization”.

When Schwantes in 1911 expanded the territory of the Jastorf culture to include Jutland it was still less than two decades that the period was distinguished in the material of Jutland17. Thus the material base was less than solid. Though Neergaard had published ma-terial from all landscape of the peninsula it was only piecemeal and only serving as a demonstration of the existence of the period at the peninsula, but still he managed to demonstrate that the period could be di-vided into an early and a late part, the latter under influence of the La Tène culture18. Furthermore he noted that the finds were unevenly distributed – the early period was best known from South Jutland whi-le the later period was best known in the north of the peninsula. Before Neergaard already Undset19 and Engelhardt20 had discussed the possible existence of a Pre-Roman Iron Age in Jutland, but though they could demonstrate La Tène influenced artefacts of both local origin and imports, they did not find the evidence sufficient enough to postulate an Iron Age before the Roman Iron Age. It was thus not a very broad material base that Schwantes based his expan-sion on.

The earliest Danish reaction to Schwantes’ sugge-stion was published in 1916 by Carl Neergaard in a treatise on the Early Iron Age of Southern Jutland. As indicated above Neergaard was one of the pioneers in the history of research on the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe as he was the one to demonstrate it was present as an independent period in Jutland. When Neergaard took up the Jastorf challenge, it was at a time when the whole of Southern Jutland, or Sles-

stinguish between a Jastorf culture “im engeren” and “weiteren Sinne” (narrower and wider terms). Even this distinction has won general acceptance in Ger-man archaeology8, though the extent of the culture “im weiteren Sinne” in Schwantes understanding has not been adopted, since he included the territory of the Pomeranian Face Urn culture and the Scandina-vian peninsula into the wider terms. This distinction between narrower and wider terms has lately been tur-ned into a notion of “centre” and “periphery” within the culture9. Thus, within German archaeology there appears to be wide agreement upon the contents and extent of the Jastorf culture and that Jutland is a part of it. However, when Wiebke Künnemann wrote her dissertation on Schwantes and the Jastorf culture she discovered that this understanding was not shared by Danish archaeologists10 who generally referred to the Jastorf culture in Schwantes original understanding of the concept11 and consequently saw the Jastorf cul-ture as confined to Northwest Germany (North East Niedersachsen, Holstein and West Mecklenburg) and the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age.

What is an archaeological culture?

Before dealing with this disagreement and the possi-ble causes for it it is necessary to spend a few words on the concept of “culture”. There are many ways to deal with this question but the first is to look at it in its context. In this case the context is the archaeo-logical discourse. By this distinction I wish to avoid going into a discussion of the much wider issue: what is culture?

In the archaeological discourse the word “culture” in relation to names like Przeworsk, Jastorf or the like is a word of classification. It is a way of signalling that we are speaking about a certain number of coexisting cultural expressions within more or less well defined geographical and chronological limits. These cultural expressions may be dress style, armament, ornamen-

8 Keiling 1983.9 Brandt 2001, 25 ff.10 Künnemann 1995, 95 ff.11 Schwantes 1909.

12 Schwerin von Krosigk 1982, 16 ff. 13 Brandt 2001, 201 ff.14 E. g. Cullberg/Jensen/Mikkelsen 1978; Jensen 1979.15 E. g. Friedman 1981; Høiris 1981.16 Künnemann 1995.

17 Neergaard 1892.18 Ibid. 235 ff.19 Undset 1881, 371 f.20 Engelhardt 1881, 80 ff., especially 109.

248 JES MARTENS Jastorf and Jutland

vig as the landscape is also known, had been under German rule for fifty years, and there was no sign that it would ever become Danish again. In spite of this, Neergaard dealt with the subject not as the Early Iron Age of Slesvig but of Southern Jutland (Sønderjyl-land), as opposed to Northern Jutland (Nørrejylland) which at that time meant the Jutland peninsula to the north of the river Kongeåen (Königsau). Neergaard did not use the term Jastorf culture though he refer-red to Schwantes, but it was to his paper in Prähi-storische Zeitschrift from 1909 he referred21 and not to Urnenfriedhöfe from 1911 in which Schwantes made the provocative statement about the extend of the Jastorf culture. Neergaard chose not to comment this directly. Instead, his whole paper was an indirect comment.

Initially, Neergaard described how all cultural phenomena and innovations have an origin in some place later to be transmitted and transformed to other places. This was done primarily through “cul-tural transfer”. The local groups adopted inventions transferred to them from distant places through other groups and thus the innovations gradually changed and were fit into the local environment22. The relati-on between Southern Jutland and the local groups in Holstein and Northwest Hannover were no different. The local group of Southern Jutland had close affi-nities with the group to the north of the Königsau, while the similarity between forms and types from Southern Jutland and Holstein were perceived as due to “influence” through cultural transfer23. Neergaard described the difference between Jutland and Holstein as a difference in style and wealth. The Jutland style was simple and functional, the Holstein style rich and bombastic. He even went so far as to remark that this stylistic gap could be located to the river Eider – the historical border between Denmark and Germany.

In 1940, Johannes Brøndsted published the Iron Age volume of the first edition of his influential work “Prehistory of Denmark”. Brøndsted only offered the

“Jastorf culture” a few sentences, but from these it is evident that he considered it to be a phenomenon confined to a number of urn cemeteries in North East Hannover and Holstein. He by no means denied the similarities between the material of Jutland and that of the Jastorf culture, but he considered these to be an expression of “influence” – a key word in Danish archaeology and self understanding. The Danish area had always been independent but not isolated. Even concerning the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age Brøndsted did not deny a relationship between Southern Jutland, Fyn and Northwest Germany but it was still consi-dered as a result of influences24. Contrary to this, he was able to suggest that the special traits of the Krag-hede group of Vendsyssel could be due to a migration from Sląsk i. e. the Przeworsk culture25. It is evident that a migration of a Silesian population was less pro-blematic to Brøndsted than a border adjustment bet-ween Denmark and the Jastorf-culture. But in 1940 the border had been adjusted.

In 1920, after a referendum Slesvig or Southern Jutland had been divided in two parts and the northern part was incorporated into the Kingdom of Denmark while the southern part remained German. What hap-pened to the part south of the new very unhistorical border? The Danish mental geography was already adjusting to the new state of affairs. Brøndsted wrote of North Slesvig and South Jutland as two different things, but the new thing was that South Jutland in his words meant a part of what was formerly known as Northern Jutland (Nørrejylland). What Neergaard understood as Southern Jutland had become North Slesvig, and Northern Jutland had become Jutland.

But what about South Slesvig? Brøndsted solved this problem by only working with the prehistory of Denmark within the present borders. This was, howe-ver, only possible in a period like the Pre-Roman Iron Age. When it came to the Viking Age he had to make the painful step across the present border to deal with Danevirke, Hedeby, and the history of the border26.

21 Neergaard 1916, 237 note 2.22 Ibid. 227.23 Ibid. 239 ff.24 Brøndsted 1940, 22; 51.25 Ibid. 99 f.26 Ibid. 328 ff.

But did this mean that he accepted a more norther-ly border of the Jastorf culture? He did not comment this.

When Brøndsted revised his Prehistory of Den-mark27 he rephrased his description of the relation between Jutland and the Jastorf culture admitting a strong affinity between the Southern Jutland group and the Jastorf culture. In between the two editions C. J. Becker had distinguished three cultural groups of Jutland in the early Pre-Roman Iron Age, a southern, a central and a northern (see later). Now Brøndsted wrote that the southern group, to which even the westcoast of Fyn should be counted, was rooted in and related to the Jastorf culture of Northwest Ger-many28 while the central Jutland group only was indi-rectly influenced by the Jastorf culture29. He did not state it directly but the text can be interpreted in this way that he at this time was ready to acknowledge a closer relationship between the Jastorf culture and Becker’s southern group. Concerning the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age he did not revise his words so he still wrote about relations and affinity and did not see any part of Jutland as a part of a “Jastorf culture” – he did not even use this word concerning this period but used the term “West Germanic” instead30. Apparently Brøndsted still restricted the term “Jastorf culture“ to the Jastorf phase. He even maintained the hypothesis of a Przeworsk settlement in Vendsyssel31.

In the first decade after the war a great effort was made in researching the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Den-mark. Apart from Brøndsted also C. J. Becker, Ole Klindt-Jensen and Erling Albrectsen were involved. While Brøndsted and Klindt-Jensen concentrated on North Jutland and Bornholm, Albrectsen on Fyn, Becker worked on South Jutland, Zealand and Born-holm.

Dealing with South Jutland Becker was the only one to deal with the question in a more direct manner. In a paper published in Kuml 1956, Becker distingu-ished three local groups in the region, a theme that he

elaborated later32. The southernmost group covered “South Jutland” which according to Becker meant North Slesvig and a south-western part of Northern Jutland up to the south-end of Ringkjøbing fjord. In this way Becker integrated the material Neergaard had used to demonstrate the close relationship bet-ween Southern and Northern Jutland into one group. Concerning the relation of his groups with the Jastorf culture he at that time restricted his comments to a declaration of agreement with Neergaard. Jutland was not a part of the Jastorf culture, though the two cul-tural areas had many traits in common33. In 1959, he mentioned the Jastorf culture and the South Jutland Aarre-Uldal group side by side, indicating that they were on the same level of concept34. In 1961, Becker suggested that at least parts of South Slesvig ought to be included into his southern group. Furthermore, he argued that the Aarre-Uldal group was based on local tradition and therefore did not have to be a part of the Jastorf culture. The admittedly many common traits could be explained by common roots in the lo-cal Bronze Age and common stylistic impulses35. Be-cker further concluded that the Central Jutland group could not be signified as Jastorf culture, and that the South Jutland group had more traits in common with the Central Jutland group than with the Jastorf cul-ture36.

A more direct and not to misunderstand statement concerning the relationship between the Jastorf Cul-ture and Jutland was produced by Ulla Lund Hansen in 1979. In the archaeological pocket encyclopaedia “Arkæologisk håndbog” referring to Becker’s mono-graph from 1961 she wrote that “Contemporary with the La Tène Culture in Central Europe and the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Scandinavia the so-called Jastorf-Culture existed in Holstein, North- and East Hanno-ver”37.

In a paper on the Kraghede group38, I described Southern Jutland as an area under strong influence from the Jastorf culture39. In 1994, I illustrated this

27 Released 1960. A German translation was published in 1964.28 Brøndsted 1960, 19.29 Ibid. 24.30 Ibid. 67.31 Ibid. 114 f.32 Becker 1956; 1959; 1961.

33 Becker 1956, 58 note 9.34 Becker 1959, 18.35 Becker 1961, 249 ff.36 Ibid. 253.37 Lund Hansen 1979, 86.38 Martens 1992.39 Martens 1992, 123; see also 1998, 164 f.