„Landschaft, Besiedlung und Siedlung“ Archäologische Studien im nordeuropäischen Kontext

Festschrift fürKarl-Heinz WillrotH

zu seinem 65. Geburtstag

Herausgegeben von immo HesKe, Hans-Jörg nüsse und Jens scHneeWeiss

„Landschaft, Besiedlung und Siedlung“ Archäologische Studien im nordeuropäischen Kontext

Festschrift für Karl-Heinz Willroth

Herausgegeben von Immo Heske, Hans-Jörg Nüsse und Jens Schneeweiß

GÖTTINGER SCHRIFTEN ZUR VOR- UND FRÜHGESCHICHTE

Herausgegeben vom Seminar für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Georg-August-Universität Göttingendurch Karl-Heinz Willroth

Band 33

Schriftenreihe des Heimatkundlichen Arbeitskreises Lüchow-Dannenberg

Herausgegeben von Wolfgang Jürries

Band 20

ISSN 0931-6086

„Landschaft, Besiedlung und Siedlung“ Archäologische Studien im nordeuropäischen Kontext

Festschrift fürKarl-Heinz WillrotH

zu seinem 65. Geburtstag

Herausgegeben von immo HesKe, Hans-Jörg nüsse und Jens scHneeWeiss

2013

WACHHOLTZ VERLAG, NEUMÜNSTER/HAMBURG

Dieser Band wurde gefördert durch die Landschaft des vormaligen Fürstentums Lüneburg und den Heimatkundlichen Arbeitskreis Lüchow-Dannenberg.

Wir danken den folgenden Personen und Institutionen für die großzügige finanzielle Unterstützung:

Almuth Alsleben, SchleswigJan Bock, Göttingen

Gerald Bredemann, HannoverJan-Heinrich Bunnefeld, GöttingenSandra Busch-Hellwig, Göttingen

Claus von Carnap-Bornheim, SchleswigMichael Geschwinde, Braunschweig

Immo Heske, GöttingenElke Kaiser, Berlin

Dietrich Meier, SchleswigDoris und Carsten Mischka, Erlangen

Hans-Jörg Nüsse, BerlinLothar Schulte, Berlin

Jens Schneeweiß, GöttingenArchaeoFirm Poremba & Kunze GbR, Isernhagen

Posselt & Zickgraf Prospektionen GbR, Marburg/TraisaStreichardt & Wedekind Archäologie GbR, GöttingenArchäologische Kommission für Niedersachsen e.V.

Georg-August-Universität GöttingenJohann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main

Redaktionelle Unterstützung: Dorothea Feiner, Jana Woyzek

Bildredaktion: Jan Klauke

Layout und Satz: Heiko Marx

ISBN 978 3 529 01533 5

© Wachholtz Verlag, Neumünster/Hamburg 2013Das Werk, einschließlich aller seiner Teile, ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.

Jede Verwertung ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlags unzulässig.Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen,

Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung inelektronischen Systemen.

Gesamtherstellung: Wachholtz VerlagPrinted in Germany

www.wachholtz-verlag.de

7

InhaltsverzeIchnIs

Zum Geleit ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................9Schriftenverzeichnis von Karl-Heinz Willroth ....................................................................................................................................................13Verzeichnis der von Karl-Heinz Willroth betreuten Hochschulschriften .......................................................................................................17

SiedlungS- und landSchaftSarchäologiezwischen Aller, Weser und Ems

RobeRt HintzDie jungbronzezeitliche Siedlung an der Walkemühle bei Göttingen und ihre Kontakte zur Unstrut-Gruppe ...................................23

immo HeskeWaren und Leben – Skizzen zu einer Mobilität zwischen den Landschaften .............................................................................................33

maRtin PosseltGeophysikalische Prospektion und archäologische Interpretation auf dem spätbronze- bis früheisenzeitlichen Gräberfeld von Beierstedt ....................................................................................................45

sandRa buscH-Hellwig und sebastian kRiescHDas eisenzeitliche Umfeld des Gräberfeldes von Leese, Ldkr. Nienburg ..................................................................................................51

Hans-geoRg stePHanSachsen und Franken, Slawen und Wikinger, Heiden und Christen − Ungewöhnliche archäologische Funde der Karolingerzeit im Tal der Oberweser und im Solling und ihre Verbindungen zur karolingischen Reichsgeschichte in Sachsen und an der Niederelbe ........................................69

stefan teubeR, gwendolyn PeteRs und wiebke kiRleisArchäologische und archäobotanische Einsichten in die Raumnutzung der mittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Stadt Einbeck.......................................................................................83

zwischen Oste, Elbe und Oderdaniela wittoRf

Kapern 21 – Ein Siedlungsplatz der Schönfelder Kultur im Hannoverschen Wendland .........................................................................99Jan Joost assendoRP

Grubenwolken: Ein jungbronzezeitliches Siedlungsphänomen im Elbegebiet ....................................................................................... 109maRio PaHlow

Gledeberg, Ldkr. Lüchow-Dannenberg – Ein Siedlungsplatz der jüngeren Bronzezeit mit Metallhandwerk ............................................................................................................. 119

Hans-JöRg nüsseDie befestigte Siedlung von Rathsdorf am niederen Oderbruch – Zur Charakterisierung eines zentralen Ortes der jüngeren Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit ................................................................... 127

ines beilke-VoigtDie früheisenzeitlichen Opferschächte von Lossow – Zum Forschungsstand, den Befunden und deren Deutung ....................................................................................................................... 139

acHim leubeDer Teltow und seine germanische Besiedlung im 1. bis 5./6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. .............................................................................. 155

floRian baackDie eisenzeitlichen Befunde der Siedlung von Klein Hesebeck bei Bad Bevensen (Ldkr. Uelzen) im Rahmen der DOW-Pipelinetrasse .................................................................................................. 167

Jens scHneeweissHirschkult bei den Germanen? Die Deponierung von Hirschgeweih und Feuerbock aus Vietze an der Elbe ................................. 177

iVonne baieR„Das Haus auf dem Hügel ...“ – Die Ausgrabungen von Hitzacker-Marwedel 2010 und 2011 ............................................................. 191

Julia oPitzDie Keramik der Römischen Kaiserzeit der Siedlung Hitzacker-Marwedel, Ldkr. Lüchow-Dannenberg, am Beispiel der Grubenhäuser 23 und 48 ............................................................. 201

Jan bockDer kaiser- und völkerwanderungszeitliche Siedlungsplatz Groß Meckelsen, Ldkr. Rotenburg (Wümme) – Bedeutung und Perspektiven seiner Erforschung ................................................................................... 209

lotHaR scHulteDie Altmark und der Norden – Zu technischen Adaptionen der jüngeren Römischen Kaiserzeit ..................................................... 217

JocHen faHRStrichfigur, Schriftzeichen oder doch etwas völlig anderes? Besondere Gefäßreste vom früh- bis hochmittelalterlichen Fundplatz Latdorf bei Bernburg (Salzlandkreis) .......................................................................... 233

andReas kieseleRMittelalterliche Fass- und Kastenbrunnen aus Plüggentin auf Rügen ..................................................................................................... 241

8

doRotHea feineRWohnen unter einem Dach? Zum Verhältnis von Slawen und Deutschen der Ostsiedlungszeit am Beispiel der aktuellen Ausgrabungen in Hitzacker/Elbe ................................................................................ 255

katHaRina mölleRÜberlegungen zum Umfeld des spätslawischen Gräberfeldes von Güstritz, Ldkr. Lüchow-Dannenberg ................................................................................................................................................... 267

susanne JaHns, Hans-JüRgen beug, JöRg cHRistiansen, wiebke kiRleis und fRank siRockoPollenanalytische Untersuchungen am Rudower See und Rambower Moor zur holozänen Vegetations- und Siedlungsgeschichte in der westlichen Prignitz, Brandenburg ................................................................. 277

im Nord- und OstseeraumdoRis miscHka

Die sozioökonomische Bedeutung von Pflugspuren im Frühneolithikum des nördlichen Mitteleuropas ......................................... 295anJa scHaffeRnicHt

Überlegungen zu Metallvorkommen und -verarbeitung in älterbronzezeitlichen Siedlungen Dänemarks......................................... 307dietRicH meieR

Bronzezeitliche Feuergruben in ungewöhnlicher Anordnung ................................................................................................................... 319kiRsti stöckmann

Die älter- und mittelbronzezeitlichen Metallfunde im Gebiet des ehemaligen Ostpreußens ............................................................... 331Jens-PeteR scHmidt

Ein „Nebenprodukt“ der Siedlungsforschung: Keramische Becken und Gürtelbuckel aus Mecklenburg-Vorpommern ............... 343sebastian messal and Romas JaRockis

The Iron Age hill-fort/settlement-complex of Opstainis-Vilkyškiai in south-western Lithuania ....................................................... 355tHomas scHatz

Zur Anwendung von OSL-Datierungen bei Auensedimenten unter Berücksichtigung der mittleren Bodenfeuchte ...................... 363micHael mülleR-wille

Russie viking ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 369almutH alsleben

Mittelalterliche Essgewohnheiten im Wandel – Am Beispiel Novgorods und anderer Städte an der südlichen Ostseeküste ......... 383Hanna kóčka-kRenz

Die Bedeutung Poznańs im frühen Piasten-Staat ....................................................................................................................................... 393

KulturtranSfer und SozialgeSchichteJulia goldHammeR

Flint in Grab und Siedlung – Die Bedeutung von Feuerstein in Spätneolithikum und älterer Bronzezeit......................................... 403Jan-HeinRicH bunnefeld

Häuptlinge oder freie Bauern? – Versuch einer quantitativen Auswertung bronzezeitlicher Schwerter der Perioden II und III in Dänemark und Schleswig-Holstein ................................................................. 417

RüdigeR kRause unter Mitarbeit von JocHen foRnasieR, ludmila n. koRJakoVa, lisa RüHl und astRid stobbe

Die bronzezeitliche Sintašta-Kultur im Trans-Ural – Impulsgeber in der Eurasischen Steppe............................................................ 427Jan dąbRowski

Symbolische Grabbeigaben in der Urnenfelderzeit ..................................................................................................................................... 439HenRik tHRane

Scrap metal razors. Late Bronze Age razors made of scrap metal – another source for the study of imported bronze vessels ... 445sigmund oeHRl

Das Uroboros-Motiv im germanischen Altertum und seine Kontexte – Eine Übersicht ..................................................................... 455PeteR ettel

Burg und Raum im Früh- und Hochmittelalter – Burgen und ihre Rolle im Rahmen von Raumerfassung und -erschließung anhand von Fallbeispielen in Bayern ................................................................... 469

tobias gäRtneRZur Soziologie hochmittelalterlicher ländlicher Siedlungen nach archäologischen Quellen ................................................................. 483

felix bieRmann und bettina Jungklaus„Totenfeuer“ und andere Brandriten in spätslawischen Körpergräbern Nordostdeutschlands ........................................................... 491

sebastian bRatHeR‚Slawische’ und ‚deutsche’ Keramik im 12./13. Jahrhundert − Handwerk, Chronologie und Identität ............................................. 501

cHRistoPH küHneZu den Auswirkungen der Pest auf die wirtschaftliche und demografische EntwicklungPaderborns unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des westfälischen Livlandhandels ............................................................................... 513

Autorenverzeichnis ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 527

355

by SebaStian MeSSal and RoMaS JaRockiS

The Iron Age hill-fort/settlement-complex of Opstainis-Vilkyškiai in south-western Lithuania

IntroductionAncient settlements are important sources for interdisciplinary studies of the material culture of past human communities and societies. Inter-disciplinary investigations of these sites may help to answer numerous questions about the social structures, economy, everyday life and living con-ditions of ancient populations.

In Lithuania, only a few Iron-Age settlements have been excavated thoroughly. This is mainly caused by the fact that most of these settlements have been destroyed by ploughing, especially the so-called open-type settlements that in many cas-es have only been partially preserved.1 In hill-forts and adjacent foot settlements, which emerged next to hill-forts since the Roman Iron Age,2 the cultural layers have been preserved in better conditions. Moreover, the attention of Lithua-nian Iron-Age archaeology has been repeatedly focused on the material from burial monuments.3 Therefore not only cultural-ethnic-social, but also technological-economic-production issues of individual epochs of the Iron Age are covered by using predominantly material from Iron-Age cemeteries.4

Iron-Age hill-fort settlements are among those archaeological monuments in Lithuania that have been excavated the least. Archaeological excava-tions have been conducted in 81 of more than 350 foot settlements; however, the investigated area is usually very small. Therefore the character of these archaeological sites remains unexplored to the present day. The state of research concern-ing the settlement structure as well as the types of buildings of Iron-Age settlements is not much better.

The lack of scientific archaeological data from Iron-Age settlements and aspiration to start ues-ing modern methods and technologies in settle-ment archaeology were reasons why the Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Archaeology of Klaipėda University in cooperation with the Roman-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institute initialed small-scale ar-chaeological and geomagnetic investigations at the complex of Opstainis-Vilkyškiai Iron-Age hill-fort and settlement in 2008.

1 Zabiela 2005, 85.2 MichelbeRtaS 1986, 27; 237.3 SidRyS 1999, 212; 227. Zabiela 2005, 85.4 Zabiela 2007.

The purpose of this article is to present pre-liminary results of the on-going research and to summarize the data of archaeological and geo-magnetic surveys.

The Opstainis-Vilkyškiai hill-fort/settle-ment-complexThe settlement-complex is situated in western Lithuania, in the present-day Vilkyškiai ward of the Pagėgiai municipality (fig. 1). It is associated with the Iron-Age ethnic and cultural group of the lower part of the Nemunas River and the Skalvian tribes, defined by archaeological mate-rial from burial grounds.5 Since the middle of the 19th century, the hill-fort has been known under the name of Opstainis (Absteinen). For a long time during the post-war years, it was erroneously called Vilkyškiai hill-fort. At present, the name of the hill-fort listed in the Register of Cultural Heritage contains both names; its official name is Opstainis-Vilkyškiai hill-fort with an ancient settlement.

The fortification is erected on the tongue of a hill on the left-hand bank of the Apsta rivulet. The slopes are steep, 17–20 m high, and damaged by soil erosion on the western and the southern side. The hill-fort plateau is trapezium-shaped, 84 m long in the north-south direction, and 40 m wide in the northern part and 18 m wide in the

5 tautavičiuS 1996, 81ff.

Fig. 1: Location of Opstainis-Vilkyškiai Iron Age hill-fort/settlement-complex in Lithuania. Gra-phic: S. Messal.

356

SebaStian MeSSal and RoMaS JaRockiS

southern part of the hilltop. At the northern edge of the plateau is an earthen rampart 40 m long and 4 m high, the width at the basis reaches 39 m. It is believed that a slightly lower rampart primari-ly had surrounded the entire plateau in the earlier times; remains can be found in the eastern part only, whereas in the western part of the plateau the rampart must have slid down together with the eroded slope. A 9 m wide and 1 m deep moat separates the hill-fort from the neighbouring hill located north from the hill-fort. Most likely, the entrance to the castle was situated at the eastern edge of the large rampart (fig. 2).

The outer settlement of the hill-fort is – ac-cording to surface finds, small-scale excavations and geomagnetic data – situated in two places. One part of the settlement – indicated by an in-tensive cultural layer of “black earth” – is located east of the hill-fort; the inhabited area is approxi-mately 2.5 hectares. The other part of the settle-ment is situated north and northwest of the hill-fort; the area of this upper settlement occupies an area of approximately 3 hectares.

Geomagnetic dataGeomagnetic surveys are used in archaeological research since the late 1950ies.6 This non-invasive method enables the detection and investigation of various kinds of anthropogenic structures, geological and even climatic impacts within large areas in a relatively short time frame and without the need to interfere with the ground. In case of archaeological issues, in particular the remains of human activities – traces of settlements, for-tifications, cemeteries etc. – are in the focus of investigations. The application of geomagnetic surveys therefore permits the acquisition of data concerning structure, expansion and preservation

6 aitken 1959. neubaueR 2001. lueck 2005. caSten 2008.

of archaeological sites which then can be used as a basis for specific archaeological and geological investigations.

Geomagnetic surveys have been conducted in Opstainis-Vilkyškiai since 2010 when the hill-fort plateau (55 x 37.8 m) and parts of the eastern settlement were investigated to gain more infor-mation about the dimension, structure, as well as possible a fortification of the site. The prelimi-nary results of this surveys resulted in a large-scale geomagnetic survey in October 2011 when it was intended to measure all accessible areas along the eastern foot of the plateau. In 2012 also larger areas of the upper settlement north of the hill-fort were measured; currently a total area of 3.9 ha is investigated by geomagnetic surveys (fig. 3).

Hill-fort plateauThe measurements on the hill fort plateau re-vealed a scattered distribution of anomalies (fig. 4). This may be explained by erosional pro- cesses, but also by probable log-house construc-tions which usually do not leave any traces in the subsoil. In addition, the use of the plateau during the 2nd World War could have led to the destruc-tion of numerous archaeological features.

Nevertheless, the geomagnetic survey con-firmed several anomalies which may be con- nected with the habitation of the site. These anomalies are distributed all over the plateau and should be interpreted as archaeological features like pits of various functions as well as hearths. The distribution of the features confirms the habitation of the entire plateau, open spaces be-tween the features may probably indicate the lo-cation of former log-houses.

Along the edges of the plateau several larger anomalies were detected. An interpretation of these anomalies in the form of traces of the former fortification of the hill-fort or as trenches of the 2nd World War can currently not be decided and should be verified by further investigations.

The settlement east of the hill-fort (lower settle-ment)The measurements within the outer settlement east and northeast of the hill-fort were con- ducted in 2010 (5-channel-magnetometer) and 2011 (16-channel-magnetometer) and covered a 320 m and long 110 m wide field which is slightly rising from south towards north, the hilltop is lo-cated in the northwest of the field. Due to high vegetation the areas close to the hill-fort could not be investigated (fig. 3).

Remarkable within the magnetometer-image is the strong contamination with obviously mo-dern metal scrap which is displayed by numerous contrasty black-white dipoles. These are distri- buted within the entire plot, but also form small

Fig. 2: Aerial photo-graph of Opstainis-

Vilkyškiai Iron Age hill-fort/settlement-complex

from the north-west. Photo: G. Zabiela, 01.03.2009.

357

The Iron Age hill-fort/settlement-complex

accumulations along the field borders, especially at the former entrance to the field. The dipoles may mostly be caused by waste disposals or loss of small metal machinery-parts during field work.

Within the geomagnetic image several distinctive anomalies are recognizable, including at least two linear, N-S orientated structures (old paths/ero-sion channels?) and numerous larger-scale anoma- lies (diameter > 2 m). The majority of anoma-lies are displayed as small, usually rounded or oval anomalies with dimensions of up to 1−1.5 m;also detectable are some slightly grey shadows of various shapes and dimensions which seem to be caused by less magnetic or deep buried objects. The anomalies are irregularly distributed within the entire measuring area; certain accumulations – including some of the larger anomalies – can, however, be recognized within the so called “black earth” as well as along the slopes. On the hilltop however only a few anomalies could be detected which may be explained by ongoing ero-sion processes.

Evidences for human activities on the site are quite difficult to determine because a precise characterization and interpretation of the detec- ted anomalies usually need further investigations. However, it can be suggested that accumulations of anomalies may indicate suspected areas of an-thropogenic impact, primarily settlement traces. Especially close spaced anomalies in the southern part of the measured area which are located with-in or close to the known “black earth” area of the settlement can be interpreted as archaeologi-cal features of various types already confirmed by excavations of selected anomalies (semi-pit houses, storage pits; see below). Based on this assumption, similar accumulations of anomalies – especially along the slopes – may also indicate suspected objects of archaeological significance as well as a probable intensive habitation of the site. However, an assumed fortification of the settlement could not be detected.

In few cases also linear arrangements of anoma- lies can be stated, but clear structures indicating a striking settlement pattern (buildings, fences) could not be identified. Only in the northernmost part of the measurement-plot a rectangular struc-ture consisting of at least 20 small rounded and oval anomalies could be detected. The structure is about 19 m long and 7−9 m wide; the average distance between the single anomalies is about 1.8 and 2 m. The interpretation of this structure re-mains open but the rectangular plot as well as the size of the structure may indicate the location of a post building.

The settlement north of the hill-fort (upper settle- ment)In 2012 also initial surveys within the outer set-tlement north of the hill-fort were conducted

(fig. 4). The geomagnetic survey revealed numer-ous anomalies of various kinds which were pri-marily accumulated in the southern and western parts of the survey plot. Remarkable is a rectan-gular structure with dimensions of 6 x 4 m which may be interpreted – according to numerous analogies7 – as remains of a burnt building. Other larger accumulations of anomalies south and east of this structure may therefore indicate similar structures. The eastern part is mainly character-ized by numerous smaller and rounded anomalies (up to 75 cm diameter) and few larger anomalies

7 bátoRa u. a. 2009, 9. buRdo u. a. 2012.

Fig. 3 (up): Opstainis-Vilkyškiai. Geomagnetic surveys 2010-2012 (5-/16-channel-magneto-meter; -6/+6 nT). Fig. 4 (down): Opstainis-Vilkyškiai. Geomagnetic survey; de-tails hill-fort plateau and northern settlement with probable ditch and burnt houses (5-/16-channel-magnetometer; -6/+6 nT). Graphics: S. Messal.

358

(up to 1.5 m diameter). These anomalies are uni-formly distributed without any detectable accu-mulation and may be interpreted as archaeologi-cal features indicating settlement activities like pits, postholes or hearths/fire places. Whether this difference in the distribution of accumula-tions of anomalies is caused by different condi-tions of preservation (burnt/not burnt) or by different spatial functions within the settlement must currently remain open and should be veri-fied by further investigations.

In the northern part of the surveyed area only few anomalies could be detected. However, two linear structures stand out in the geomagnetic record. The first structure extends with interrup-tions roughly from west to east turning off to the south. The recorded length is about 70.5 m; the width about 6 m. Remarkable is the obvious ori-entation of the structure to the rampart of the hill-fort which may indicate an interpretation as a ditch. It is also noticeable that the detected settle- ment traces were divided from the course of this possible ditch by a 10 m wide stripe without any significant anomaly. This may also indicate the possibility of a levelled rampart behind the ditch. The buildings were probably constructed immediately behind this assumable fortification structure.

The second linear structure was detected in the north-eastern part of the plot and is extend-ing from north to south; the recorded length is 22.5 m. This structure is also visible in the field and marks the current field boundary to the adja-cent field track. An archaeological significance of this structure can be excluded.

Archaeological dataFirst archaeological investigations took place in Opstainis-Vilkyškiai in 2005, but only since 2008 continuous excavations were conducted by the Institute of Baltic Sea Region History and Ar-chaeology of Klaipėda University.

Hill-fortSmall-scale archaeological investigations on the hill-fort plateau were conducted in 2008 and 2009; a total area of 76 m² was excavated along the southern edge and slopes of the plateau. Re-mains of a cultural layer containing abundant handmade pottery were uncovered in the areas excavated along the slopes. A 20–25 cm thick black-grey cultural layer containing burnt stones was uncovered in the southern part of the hilltop plateau. In this part also a ditch – 80 cm deep – was detected under the cultural layer. It can be assumed that during the early stage of the hill-fort a moat was located at this place, which was filled up when the settlement on the plateau ex-panded southwards. The archaeological finds from the hilltop settlement – handmade pottery with a fine-grained, coarse and polished surface, sherds of handmade pots decorated with orna-ments of cross-shaped imprints, an iron rivet, an iron spur, a bronze horseshoe fibula with animal-shaped terminals and other finds – are dating to the 1st millennium AD and to the early 2nd mil-lennium.8

Outer SettlementThe outer settlement is being excavated since 2005; currently a total area of 358 m² is inves-tigated in both parts of the settlement. The es-timated size of the settlement and the thickness of the cultural layer – varying from some tens of centimetres to 1.5 m – were primary located by means of archaeological surveys. The eastern settlement situated at the foot of the hill-fort can be divided into three zones according to the in-tensity of the cultural layer. In the area of the set-tlement closest to the foot of the hill-fort, a non-intensive cultural layer up to 45 cm in thickness and containing few sherds of handmade pottery and pieces of burnt clay plaster was detected. According to known analogies from Lithuania, it can be suggested that remote defensive fortifica-

8 Zabiela/JaRockiS 2009. JaRockiS 2010.

Fig. 5: Archaeologi-cal excavations of hill-fort

foot settlement in 2012, excavation site No. 5: the section of semi-pit house-

type building from the west. Photo: D. Balsas.

Fig. 6: Archaeological excavations of hill-fort foot

settlement in 2011, excava-tion site No. 4; handmade

coarse-surface pots found in semi-pit house. Photo:

R. Jarockis.

SebaStian MeSSal and RoMaS JaRockiS

359

tions – like moats and earthen ramparts – might have been erected at the foot of the hill-fort.

The so-called central part of the settlement is located farther to the east. In this part an inten-sive cultural layer (“black earth”) up to 1.2 m in thickness and containing abundant handmade pottery, animal bones and burnt stones was ex-plored during the excavations. It is the main part of the hill-foot settlement inhabited through-out the entire existence of the hill-fort. Small moulding boxes and parts of crucibles as well as combustion products formed during the mel-ting process i. e. slag and cinders found during archaeological excavations indicate that bronze was melted and bronze artefacts were manufac-tured in this part of the settlement.

In the part of the lower settlement, which is situated easternmost of the hill-fort no continu-ous cultural layer was found. It seems to be de-stroyed by ploughing; only single pits or other in-ground structures might have been preserved in the subsoil. Remains of an Iron-Age settlement were also found on the right-hand bank of the Apsta rivulet in 2009, where a cultural layer up to 30 cm thick containing handmade pottery was recorded.9

In 2011/2012, a 45 m² small plot uncovered by archaeological excavations – based on the geomagnetic record – a building of the semi-pit house type, a well and several storage pits of regular shape. The recorded dimensions of the house are 2.3 x 2.0 m, the depth reaches down to 1.2 m (fig. 5). The interpretation as a building is primarily based on the massive concentration of burnt clay plaster pieces within the structure as well as on the filling which consist of a mixed grey-black and brown cultural layer also contain-ing intermediate layers of burnt clay plaster pieces and charred material; in the pit-house also two upper rubbing stones of manual rotary querns, a large pieces of handmade household pottery (fig. 6) and three loom weights made of clay were found.

Besides this semi-pit house also a well – based on the funnel shape of the structure and the contents of its filling – was located. The outlines of the 1.4 x 1.2 m oval-shaped pit were discov-ered at a depth of 0.5–0.55 m under the existing ground surface; the upper part of the structure – down to a depth of 0.70 m from its top – was filled with a cultural layer containing intermedi-ate layers of charred material and pieces of burnt clay plaster, numerous archaeological finds were discovered within this layers. The lower part of the well was filled with a brown-grey sandy layer containing inclusions of yellowish sand. No ar-chaeological finds were made in the lower part of the pit. The flat bottom of the pit was reached

9 ŠiMėnaS 2006, 401f. Zabiela/JaRockiS 2009. JaRockiS 2010; 2011.

at a depth of 2.05 m from the existing ground surface (fig. 7). Ground water began oozing at this depth.

Results of geomagnetic and archaeological investigationsThe chronology of the site is mainly based on the analysis of the pottery found in the strati-graphic strata of the cultural layer within the low-er settlement as well as the small scale investiga-tions on the hill-fort plateau. The hill foot settle- ment and the hill-fort existed throughout the 1st millennium AD. All main types of Iron-Age household pottery (fine-grained surface pottery, polished-surface handmade pottery, coarse-sur-face pottery) were found in the cultural layer and indicate settlement continuity. The lack of par-tially wheel-thrown and early wheel-thrown pot-tery suggest that the hill-fort and its settlement were abandoned by their inhabitants around the year 1000 AD.

The geomagnetic investigations revealed an intensive habitation of the site; especially within the outer settlements numerous evidences of former human activities – without any chrono-logical dates – could be detected and already par-tially proved by archaeological excavations. The upper foot settlement in front of the hill-fort was probably fortified as traces of an assumed ditch may indicate; evidences of burnt houses within the circumvallated area point toward a densely in-habited area. The lower settlement was also built up densely as the geomagnetic and archaeological data – a semi-pit house, several oval-shaped flat-bottom pits interpreted as storage pits and a well – suggest. In the central part of the lower foot set-tlement a working place could be explored where bronze was melted and processed. This fact is attested by metal melting and processing pro-ducts and waste (slabs, cinders, bronze scrap for

Fig. 7: Archaeological excavations of hill-fort foot settlement in 2011, excava-tion site No. 4: the section of pit No. 1 (well) from the west. Photo: D. Balsas.

The Iron Age hill-fort/settlement-complex

360

melting, and fragments of small moulding boxes) found during the archaeological excavations. To what extend a probable functional separation between the upper fortified and lower unfortified settlement existed needs further investigations.

In Opstainis-Vilkyškiai hill-fort also handmade pottery with cross-shaped imprints were found (fig. 8). In the territory of Lithuania such kind of pottery is currently only known from one Iron-Age settlement in Palanga. According to V. ŽulkuS, this pottery originated in the south-western Baltic Sea region and may serve as evi-dence of contacts of the local population of the lower part of the Nemunas River with Western Slavonic and Germanic tribes in the 9th–10th cen-tury AD.10 In addition, also buildings of a semi-pit house type and storage pits of regular shapes may indicate contacts to the south-western Baltic Sea region in the second half of the 1st millen-nium AD. Especially semi-pit houses – which are quite common along the south-western Baltic Sea region11 – are currently unknown from Iron Age settlements in the territory of Lithuania; only in north-eastern Lithuania archaeological excavations at Sokiškis and Reškutėnai hill-forts revealed a few buildings of this type dating, how-ever, to the Roman period.12

ConclusionThe ongoing investigations in Opstainis-Vilkyškiai reveal information about structure, chronology and function of the site; furthermore, the geomagnetic surveys detected interesting

10 ŽulkuS 1997, 242 Fig. 99,3. See also Schuldt 1981, 28f.11 tuMMuScheit 2011.12 GRiGalavičienė 1984, 23; 2001. banytė-Rowell 2007, 152.

suspected areas of probable archaeological sig-nificance north of the lower foot settlement. If these settlement traces belonged to one complex remains unknown since no dates of the features can be provided; older settlement activities can therefore be assumed, indicating continuous set-tlement activities on the site. However, currently only preliminary interpretations concerning the settlement history of the Opstainis-Vilkyškiai Iron-Age hill-fort/settlement-complex can be stated. During the next years the site – based on the geomagnetic results – should be subsequently investigated by means of specific small scale ar-chaeological or other non-destructive methods to obtain more knowledge of settlement structure, chronology and function and to draw a much clearer picture of the ancient population along the lower Nemunas River.

Referencesaitken 1959

M. J. Aitken, Magnetic prospecting: An interim assess-ment. Antiquity 33, 1959, 205–207.

banytė-Rowell 2007R. Banytė-Rowell, Romėnų įtakos ir baltų kultūrų klestėjimo laikotarpis. In: G. Zabiela (Hrsg.), Geležies amžius. Lietuvos istorija II t. Vilnius 2007, 25–172.

batoRa u. a. 2009J. Batora, B. Eitel, S. Hecht, A. Koch, K. Rassmann, G. Schukraft, K. Winkelmann, Fidvár bei Vráble (Kr. Ni-tra, Südwestslowakei). Untersuchungen auf einem äneo-lithisch-frühbronzezeitlichen Siedlungshügel. Germania 87:1, 2009, 1–23.

buRdo u. a. 2012N. B. Burdo, M. Y. Videiko, V. V. Chabaniuk, K. Rassmann, R. Gauss, F. Lüth, D. Peters, Large-scale geomagnetic pro-spections at Maydanetskoe. Using of new equipment to understanding the Tripolye Megasite phenomenon. Stra-tum Plus 2, 2012, 265–285.

caSten 2008U. Casten, Geophysikalische Erkundungsmethoden in der Archäologie. In: A. Hauptmann, V. Pingel (Hrsg.), Archäometrie. Methoden und Anwendungsbeispiele. Stuttgart 2008, 221–235.

GiRininkaS 2001 A. Girininkas, Reškutėnų piliakalnis. Lietuvos archeologija 26, 2001, 147–158.

GRiGalavičienė 1984E. Grigalavičienė, Sokiškių piliakalnis. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Liettuvoje 1982 ir 1983 metais, 1984, 22–25.

JaRockiS 2010 R. Jarockis, Opstainių (Vilkyškių) piliakalnis ir papėdės gyvenvietė. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2009 metais, 2010, 37–38.

lueck 2005E. Lueck, Der Einsatz der Geomagnetik in der Archäo-logie. In: W. de Bruyn (Hrsg.), Georadar und andere zer-störungsfreie Untersuchungsmethoden von Bodenaltertü-mern. Grenzen und Möglichkeiten. Storkow 2005, 61–79.

Fig. 8: Smoothed-surface handmade pottery

decorated with an orna-ment of cross-shaped im-prints inside a circle that

was found on the hill-fort plateau. Photo:

R. Jarockis.

SebaStian MeSSal and RoMaS JaRockiS

361

MichelbeRtaS 1986M. Michelbertas, Senasis geležies amžius Lietuvoje. Vilni-us 1986.

neubaueR 2001W. Neubauer, Magnetische Prospektion in der Archäo-logie. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 44. Wien 2001.

Schuldt 1981E. Schuldt, Gross Raden. Die Keramik einer slawischen Siedlung des 9./10. Jahrhunderts. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Bezirke Rostock, Schwerin und Neu-brandenburg 14. Berlin 1981.

SidRyS 1999R. Sidrys, Kasinėjimai be teorijos? Kritiškas optimisto žvilgsnis į Lietuvos archeologiją. Lietuvos sovietinė istori-ografija. Teoriniai ir ideologiniai kontekstai. Vilnius 1999, 205–238.

ŠiMėnaS 2006V. Šimėnas, Vilkyškių, Opstainių ir Šereiklaukio piliakalnių gyvenvietės. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2005 metais, 2006, 400–404.

tautavičiuS 1996A. Tautavičius, Vidurinis geležies amžius Lietuvoje V–IX a. Vilnius 1996.

tuMMuScheit 2011A. Tummuscheit, Die Baubefunde des frühmittelal-terlichen Seehandelsplatzes von Groß Strömkendorf, Lkr. Nordwestmecklenburg. Frühmittelalterliche Archäo-logie zwischen Ostsee und Mittelmeer 2. Wiesbaden 2011.

Zabiela 2005G. Zabiela, Piliakalnių papėdžių gyvenvietės: tyrinėjimų problematika Lietuvoje. Lietuvos archeologija 27, 2005, 85–104.

Zabiela 2007G. Zabiela (Hrsg.), Geležies amžius. Lietuvos istorija II t. Vilnius 2007.

Zabiela/JaRockiS 2009G. Zabiela, R. Jarockis, Opstainių (Vilkyškių) piliakalnis ir papėdės gyvenvietė. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje 2008 metais, 2009, 89–93.

ŽulkuS 1997V. Žulkus, Palangos viduramžių gyvenvietės. Acta Histori-ca Universitatis Klaipedensis VI. Klaipėda 1997.

The Iron Age hill-fort/settlement-complex

362

527

Autorenverzeichnis

Almuth AlslebenAkademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz Projekt Siedlungen der Bronzezeit Arbeitsstelle Schleswig Haddebyer Chaussee 14 24866 Busdorf/Schleswig alsleben@schloss-gottorf.de

Jan Joost AssendorpNiedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege / Stützpunkt LüneburgAuf der Hude 221339 Lüneburgjan-joost.assendorp@nld.niedersachsen.de

Florian BaackZimmermannstr. 64, App. 10337075 GöttingenFlorian.Baack@gmx.de

Ivonne BaierFreie Universität BerlinInstitut für Prähistorische ArchäologieAltensteinstraße 1514195 Berlinivon@sblogic.de

Ines Beilke-Voigt Freie Universität BerlinExzellenzcluster TopoiHittorfstr. 1814195 Berlinibvoigt@julio.de

Hans-Jürgen BeugWalther-Nernst-Weg 937073 Göttingenhj.beug@arcor.de

Jan BockGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenSeminar für Ur- und FrühgeschichteNikolausberger Weg 1537073 GöttingenJan.Bock@gmx.de

Felix BiermannGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenSeminar für Ur- und FrühgeschichteNikolausberger Weg 1537073 Göttingenfelix.biermann@phil.uni-goettingen.de

Sebastian BratherAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgInstitut für Archäologische WissenschaftenAbteilung für Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie und Archäologie des MittelaltersBelfortstrasse 2279098 Freiburg i. Br.brather@ufg.uni-freiburg.de

Jan-Heinrich BunnefeldGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenSeminar für Ur- und FrühgeschichteNikolausberger Weg 1537073 Göttingenjan-heinrich.bunnefeld@gmx.de

Sandra Busch-HellwigGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenSeminar für Ur- und FrühgeschichteNikolausberger Weg 1537073 Göttingensandra.busch-hellwig@gmx.de

Jörg ChristiansenGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenAlbrecht-v.-Haller-Institut für PflanzenwissenschaftenAbteilung für PalynologieWilhelm-Weber-Str. 2a37073 GöttingenJ.Christiansen@biologie.uni-goettingen.de

Jan Dąbrowskiul. Marsylska 5 m. 1802-763 Warszawa, Polen jotde1@wp.pl

Peter EttelFriedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaBereich für Ur- und FrühgeschichteLöbdergraben 24a07743 JenaP.Ettel@uni-jena.de

Jochen FahrFichtestr. 2704275 Leipzigjfahr@archlsa.de

Dorothea FeinerAngerstraße 137073 Göttingend.feiner@web.de

Tobias GärtnerUniversität RegensburgLehrstuhl für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Universitätsstraße 31 93053 Regensburgtobias.gaertner@geschichte.uni-regensburg.de

Michael GeschwindeNiedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege / Stützpunkt BraunschweigHusarenstraße 7538102 BraunschweigMichael.Geschwinde@nld.niedersachsen.de

Julia GoldhammerNiedersächsisches Institut für historische KüstenforschungViktoriastr. 26/2826382 Wilhelmshavenjulia.goldhammer@nihk.de

Immo HeskeGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenSeminar für Ur- und FrühgeschichteNikolausberger Weg 1537073 Göttingeniheske@gwdg.de

Robert HintzBraunschweigisches Landesmuseum Burgplatz 1 38100 Braunschweig robert-hintz@gmx.de Susanne JahnsBrandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches LandesmuseumWünsdorfer Platz 4-515806 Zossen OT Wünsdorfsusanne.jahns@bldam-brandenburg.de

Romas JarockisKlaipėda UniversityInstitute of Baltic Region and HistoryTilzes Str. 13LT – 91251 Klaipedaromasjarockis@yahoo.com

Bettina JungklausAnthropologie-Büro JungklausWeißwasserweg 412205 Berlininfo@anthropologie-jungklaus.de

Andreas KieselerGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenGraduiertenkolleg „Interdisziplinäre Umweltgeschichte“Bürgerstraße 5037073 Göttingen andik80@gmx.de

Wiebke KirleisChristian-Albrechts-Universität KielInstitut für Ur- und FrühgeschichteArchäobotanik / Environmental ArchaeologyJohanna-Mestorf-Strasse 2-624118 Kielwiebke.kirleis@ufg.uni-kiel.de

Hanna Kóčka-KrenzInstytut Prahistorii UAM Św. Marcin 78 61-809 Poznań, Polenkockrenz@amu.edu.pl

528

Rüdiger KrauseGoethe-Universität Frankfurt am MainInstitut für Archäologische WissenschaftenVor- und FrühgeschichteGrüneburgplatz 160323 Frankfurt (Main)R.Krause@em.uni-frankfurt.de

Sebastian KrieschGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenSeminar für Ur- und FrühgeschichteNikolausberger Weg 1537073 Göttingenskriesc@gwdg.de

Christoph KühneLWL-Archäologie für WestfalenStadtarchäologie PaderbornBusdorfwall 233098 Paderbornchristoph.kuehne@paderborn.com

Achim LeubeFichtelbergstr. 3012685 Berlinaui.leube@t-online.de

Dietrich MeierProjekt Siedlungen der BronzezeitSchloss Gottorf24837 Schleswigmeier@schloss-gottorf.de

Sebastian MessalAbteilung Kulturgüterschutz / SPP 1630 - OstseehäfenDeutsches Archäologisches InstitutPodbielskieallee 69-71D-14195 BerlinSebastian.Messal@dainst.de

Doris MischkaFriedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-NürnbergInstitut für Ur- und FrühgeschichteKochstr. 4/1891054 Erlangendoris.mischka@fau.de

Katharina MöllerBangor UniversitySchool of History, Welsh History & ArchaeologyCollege RoadBangorGwynedd LL57 2DGUnited Kingdomkatharina_moeller@yahoo.de

Michael Müller-WilleHoltenauer Str. 17824105 Kielmmw.kiel@t-online.de

Hans-Jörg NüsseFreie Universität BerlinInstitut für Prähistorische ArchäologieAltensteinstraße 1514195 Berlinhjnuesse@fu-berlin.de

Sigmund OehrlAkademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen „Runische Schriftlichkeit in den germanischen Sprachen“Skandinavisches SeminarGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenKäte-Hamburger-Weg 337073 Göttingensigmund.oehrl@zentr.uni-goettingen.de

Julia OpitzGlenetalstraße 931061 Alfeldopitz.juli@gmail.com

Mario PahlowNiedersächsisches Landesamt für DenkmalpflegeReferat ArchäologieScharnhorststr. 130175 HannoverMario.Pahlow@nld.niedersachsen.de

Gwendolyn PetersChristian-Albrechts-Universität KielInstitut für Ur- und FrühgeschichteArchäobotanik / Environmental ArchaeologyJohanna-Mestorf-Strasse 2-624118 Kiel

Martin PosseltPosselt & Zickgraf Prospektionen GbR Büro TraisaFürthweg 964367 MühltalPosselt@pzp.de

Anja SchaffernichtGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenSeminar für Ur- und FrühgeschichteNikolausberger Weg 1537073 Göttingenschaffernichta@aol.com

Thomas SchatzBoden & GeoarchäologieWissenschaftliche Beratung und ProjektmanagmentZerndorfer Weg 7513465 Berlin-Frohnauthschatz@gmx.net

Jens Peter SchmidtLandesamt für Kultur und Denkmalpflege Mecklenburg-VorpommernLandesarchäologie und LandesdenkmalpflegeDomhof 4/519055 Schwerinj.p.schmidt@kulturerbe-mv.de

Jens SchneeweißGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenSeminar für Ur- und FrühgeschichteNikolausberger Weg 1537073 Göttingenjschnee@gwdg.de

Lothar SchulteGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenSeminar für Ur- und FrühgeschichteNikolausberger Weg 1537073 Göttingenlothar_schulte@yahoo.de

Frank SirockoJohannes-Gutenberg-Universität MainzInstitut für GeowissenschaftenJ.-J.-Becher-Weg 2155128 Mainzsirocko@uni-mainz.de

Kirsti StöckmannArchäologisches Museum FrankfurtKarmelitergasse 160311 Frankfurt am MainKirsti.Stoeckmann@stadt-frankfurt.de

Hans-Georg StephanMartin-Luther-Universität Halle-WittenbergInstitut für Kunstgeschichte und Archäologien Europas Standort Prähistorische Archäologie und Archäologie des Mittelalters und der NeuzeitBrandbergweg 23c06120 Halle/Saale hans.stephan@praehist.uni-halle.de

Stefan TeuberStadt EinbeckArchäologische DenkmalpflegeTeichenweg 137574 Einbecksteuber@einbeck.de

Henrik ThraneDuevej 16 DK 2000 Frederiksberghenrikthrane2@hotmail.com

Daniela WittorfRiedstraße 963225 Langendaniela@wittorf.org