LBK

8/9/2019 LBK

1/22

Linearbandkeramik enclosures: evidenceof Fortification in the early Neolithic of

central Europe

Mark Golitko

Lawrence H. Keeley

University of Illinois at Chicago

Department of Anthropology

8/9/2019 LBK

2/22

The Linearbandkeramik (LBK)

=Enclosed LBK sites Dark grey stippling indicates limits of earliest LBK,

light grey stippling limits of late phases of the culture

c. 5700 BC

c. 5300BC

c. 5300-5200 BC

c. 5100-4900 BC

The Linienbandkeramik, or LBK, culture is the first Neolithic culture in much of

central Europe. It originated near modern day Budapest early in the 6th millennium

BC, and spread through much of western, central and eastern Europe during the

following eight centuries, divided here into three phases, early, middle, and late.

Because of the novelty of the material culture and mode of subsistence introduced

by the LBK, most researchers have tended to view migration as the primary meansby which the LBK spread into central Europe. In the past, it was common to view

this as an essentially peaceful process, but much recent research contradicts this

view.

8/9/2019 LBK

3/22

Rates of Traumatic Injury(From Petrasch

1999, Milisauskas

2002)

17.2%

6.2%

2.2%

10-15%

32.2%

A recent review of frequency of traumatic injuries on skeletons from LBK contexts

by Jrg Petrasch reveals some startling numbers.

He found that some 17.2% of all known individuals suffered at least one traumatic

injury during their lives, often fatal. This number includes all skeletal material found

at the sites of Herxheim, where caches of skulls and other remains representing

some 330 individuals were found, and Schletz-Asparn and Talheim, where

massacres of whole village populations seem to have occurred. Removing these

sites, some 6.2% of all individuals had suffered injury. This number is much lower

in the eastern LBK region, where only some 2.2% of burials bore such evidence,

meaning that in the western area, 32.2% of all burials evidenced injury, or some 10-

15% if one removes the material from Talheim and Herxheim. Furthermore, it

seems that trauma became more frequent during later phases of the LBK,

particularly in the west.

8/9/2019 LBK

4/22

Examples of Traumatic InjuryVaihingen a.d. Enz Franzenhausen

LBK Adze

Much of this evidence takes the form of wounds caused by characteristic LBK axes

or adzes.

We see here some examples of bodies dumped into the enclosure ditch at the site

of Vaihingen, as well as skulls recovered at Franzenhausen bearing evidence of

injuries caused by LBK adzes. In most ethnographically studied sedentary cultures,

violence of this frequency necessitates a host of cultural responses, which may

include relocation to more defensible sites, aggregation into larger settlements, as

well as the construction of some form of defensive architecture.

8/9/2019 LBK

5/22

Darion-Colia(from Bosquet

1992)

Kln-LindenthalPalisade

Ditch

Pond

Ditch and

Berm

Palisade

(from Schmotz 1997)

Enclosed LBK villages have been known since the early 20th century, and even the

type site of the culture, Kln-Lindenthal, was surrounded by a series of enclosing

palisades and ditches for most of its occupation.

8/9/2019 LBK

6/22

Proposed functions of LBK Enclosures

Fortification Animal penning

Delimitation of social space

Ritual-possible precursors to middle Neolithic

ring ditch installations

Researchers referred to these as defensive in nature, but this view of their function has beencriticized as of late.

Kaufmann, for instance, while recognizing the likely defensive function of some enclosures, definesthose with an internal area of less than 1ha. and lacking clear signs of internal settlement as non-defensive, while other researchers have claimed that the ditches found at some sites are not deepenough to be effective as fortifications. However, neither of these criticisms is grounded in a reviewof historically and ethnographically known fortifications. There is in fact no lower limit to the effective

size of a fort, and smaller refuge forts are known from many cultures-these tend to be easier to buildand maintain, and require fewer people to defend effectively. Our review of known LBK enclosures,of which there are at present at least eighty-four, indicates that enclosure ditches average 2.8 meterswide and 1.6 meters deep-taking into account the erosion that has occurred almost every LBK site,these must originally have been between .5 and 1.5 meters deeper than at present, and 1-2 meterswider.

Given that the Roman army found a ditch of 9/10 of a meter deep enough to defend their camps,there is no reason to suppose that a 1.5 to 3 meter deep ditch would have been insufficientlydefensive.

Other researchers have viewed LBK enclosures as having an exclusively ritual function, and aspossible precursors to middle Neolithic ring ditches, or as social delineations of space. Never theless, the ethnographic record makes it clear that warfare and ritual are in no way mutually exclusiveactivities, so the performance of ritual at enclosed sites does not rule out a defensive function. Whatwe know of early LBK religious practice shows clear ties to early Neolithic practices in the Balkans,and involves items such as clay idols and altars. By the middle and later LBK, such items virtually

disappear from the archaeological record. The ritual found at most enclosed LBK sites is of a verydifferent type, typically involving intentional physical manipulation of human beings, or their remains.

Skull drinking cups are known from a number of sites including the earliest enclosed LBK site ofEilsleben, while at later western sites, there is even evidence for cannibalism, for instance at Ober-Hrgern, where charred left leg bones were recovered from the enclosure ditch. Remains of this kindare virtually never found at unenclosed sites-this has led some to argue that the enclosures served apurely ritual function, with human remains come by in a peaceful manner. While there is no denyingthat many cultures use human remains of ancestors or other members of the community in a ritualmanner, the LBK evidence does not support such an argument. Ritual remains are often carelesslydeposited in trash pits, and the more than 300 cached skulls and skull-caps at Herxheim showevidence of injuires inflicted by LBK axes or adzes, for instance those shown here.

8/9/2019 LBK

7/22

Trophy Skulls from Herxheim

(from Huer 1998)

Furthermore, it is unlikely that a village of less than 100 individuals would be able to

peacefully acquire 300 skulls in a relatively short period of time. The most likely

scenario is the sacrifice of captured enemies.

One must therefore ask, what evidence is there as to the potential defensive nature

of these sites? While there have been several comprehensive reviews of known

enclosed villages, notably by Hckmann and Lning, neither sought to

comprehensively analyze the frequency of features associated specifically with

fortification.

A forthcoming review of the historical, ethnographic, and archaeological record by

one of us indicates that there are a number of such features, two of which are

pertinent to the analysis of LBK enclosures: V-profiled enclosure ditches, and

complex gates.

8/9/2019 LBK

8/22

V/Y-profiled Ditches

Cutting a ditch into a V or Y profile is more difficult than most other shapes, as they

are harder to maintain, and erode much more quickly than a flat-bottomed or U-

sectioned ditch. They are thus impractical to dig if one simply needs earth for other

construction purposes, or for purposes of drainage or irrigation. However, they

provide a number of advantages when used for defense, primarily because they are

difficult to traverse for attackers, and because they offer no protection againstprojectiles launched from above. It was for these reasons that Roman military

engineers recommended this shape for fortification ditches, which they referred to

as fossae fastigata.

8/9/2019 LBK

9/22

Defensive Gates

There are many types of complex gates used for defensive purposes, most notably

of several forms that may be referred to as baffled, including bent-axis, crab-claw,

and screened forms.

8/9/2019 LBK

10/22

Defensive Gates

Gates of this sort are needlessly difficult to traverse if defense is not a

consideration, particularly if one needs to move large herds of livestock in and out of

a village. Their chief defensive purposes include screening defenders from

projectile fire, while forcing attackers to traverse a longer route, and forcing them to

expose an undefended side to attack upon entry.

8/9/2019 LBK

11/22

Defensive Gates

Larger gates are often defended with inward flanking curtain walls, or flanked by

chambers or bastions, which balance improved defensiveness with the need to

accommodate every day activities. It should be stressed that these features are not

sometimes associated with fortification and response to military threat; they are

invariablybuilt for this purpose. Finding them on prehistoric enclosures therefore

implies that at least one of the purposes of the enclosure was defense againstattack, although this does not rule out secondary functions such as penning

animals.

8/9/2019 LBK

12/22

V/Y-profiled Ditches from LBK Sites

Rosheim

Vaux-et-

Borset

c. 1.4m

c. 2 m

(from Jeunesse 1992)

(from Laufer 2002)

(redrawn from Caspar et al. 1991)

1.9m

Usingen

75% of all known LBK enclosures include ditches. V or Y sectioned ditches are

found at many LBK enclosed sites, while those that do not have such ditches tend

to be either U profiled, flat-bottomed, or irregular in profile. We show here a sample

of ditches of this type from several sites, including the ditch we continued

excavation of during the summer of 2005 at the Belgian site of Waremme-

Longchamps

8/9/2019 LBK

13/22

Waremme-Longchamps

c. 2mc. 2m

(from Keeley and Cahen 1989)

8/9/2019 LBK

14/22

Defensive Gates at LBK Sites

Baffled Gate

(redrawn from Uenze 1951)

Bracht Kln-Lindenthal

(redrawn after Bernhardt 1986)

Baffled

Gate

While gates were not excavated at all known LBK enclosures, a number of complex

gate arrangements are shown here, primarily of the baffled, screened, inset, and

oblique types.

8/9/2019 LBK

15/22

Inset Gate

(redrawn from Schmotz 1997)

Straubing-Lerchenhaid Becseheley

(redrawn from Hckmann 1990)

Kln-Lindenthal

(redrawn from Bernhardt

1986)

Screened Gate

Oblique

Gate

8/9/2019 LBK

16/22

Waremme-Longchamps

Baffled Gate

Off-set

Palisade

(from Keeley and Cahen 1989)

While we did not excavate any gate areas during the summer of 2005, excavation in

the late 1980s at Waremme-Longchamps uncovered the sites south gate, which

has both a baffled ditch opening, and an offset palisade backing this up. There

would likely have been a berm behind the ditch, as well.

8/9/2019 LBK

17/22

Percentage of Sites with Defensive Features

Far from being occasional or uncommon features of LBK enclosures, a full 59% of

those with ditches are of the V or Y profiled type, while 54% of all enclosed sites at

which at least one interruption was excavated possessed some form of complex

gate that can be reconstructed as having served a defensive function. Combining

both lines of data, the total number of LBK enclosures that possess defensive

features is 51, or 70% of those for which sufficient data is available.

It should be noted, however, that the lack of such direct evidence of fortification can

be a result of limited excavation or preservation in some cases, and that a defensive

role cannot be ruled out for sites that possess neither such features. Schletz-

Asparn, for instance, was clearly attacked, as the remains of some 300 individuals

found in its enclosure ditch demonstrate, yet the ditch was flat bottomed, and no

complex gates have been uncovered to date.

8/9/2019 LBK

18/22

Earliest LBK Enclosures (12%)

=sites with V-profiled ditches, and/or complex gates =sites lacking these features.

Grey stippling indicates limits of LBK settlement

During the earliest stages of settlement, enclosures are exclusively located on the

very fringes of territory settled by the LBK

8/9/2019 LBK

19/22

Middle Period LBK Enclosures (41%)



During the middle stages of LBK settlement, enclosed sites are located equally in

eastern and western central Europe. I define west vs. east as roughly divided by

the Rhine valley and uplands to the east of the river, which marks a cultural and

stylistic divide in the LBK culture that begins in this period. 41% of enclosed sites

date to this period.

8/9/2019 LBK

20/222

Late LBK Enclosures (47%)



47% of LBK enclosures date to the final phase of the culture, and 76.5% of these

are located in the western LBK area.

8/9/2019 LBK

21/222

Earliest LBK: Low levels of violence, ritual primarily

associated with Balkan traditions, few enclosures, all locatedon boundaries of LBK distribution

Middle LBK: Moderate levels of violence, some violent

ritual, even distribution of enclosures between the eastern and

western LBK regions

Late LBK: Extreme violence in the west, continued low levels

of violence in the east-majority of violent ritual at enclosed

western sites, majority of enclosures found in the western LBK

region

Combining this data with frequent inclusion of defensive

features, we view these enclosures as primarily functioning asfortifications

Conclusions:

Thus, we have three converging lines of evidence-violence, which is indisputable

and attested to by traumatic injuries found on buried human remains, violent ritual,

which seems related to this conflict, and the presence of enclosed LBK villages, the

majority of which have features ethnographically and historically known to imply a

defensive function. These three lines of data are well correlated spatially and

temporally: where there is little violence, in early and eastern LBK contexts, there islittle violent ritual, and few enclosures. Where there is extreme violence, in later

western contexts, there is much evidence of violent ritual, and many fortified sites.

The evidence would suggest that the LBK was not different from many other human

cultures when faced with increasing violence, building fortifications to protect

themselves, utilizing tried and true elements of military architecture.

While we contend that the primary function of LBK enclosures was the protection of

those living inside, there is no need to assign a single function to LBK villages to the

exclusion of others, and it is to be expected that any number of activities took place

at them, including all the normal components of human economic, social, and ritual

life.

8/9/2019 LBK

22/22

Thanks to:

Dr. Ivan Jadin, Dominique Bosquet, the Institut Royal de

Sciences Naturelles de Belgique (I.R.S.N.B.) and

Russell Quick

Our database of enclosed LBK sites is available for

download at:

http://www.uic.edu/depts/anth/faculty/keeley.html

Documents

LBK