FroM FarMErS To HEroES?

arcHaEoLogIcaL STuDIES IN HoNor oF SławoMIr KaDrow

Editors: Maciej Dębiec, Jacek górski, Johannes Müller, Marek Nowak, andrzej Pelisiak, Thomas Saile, Piotr włodarczak
universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen archäologie 376, Bonn 2022, 43-64

DIEMARDEN IN LOWER SAXONY:

AN EARLY NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT AND ITS ENVIRONS

Thomas Saile, Martin Posselt

Abstract

In Diemarden, a large Linienbandkeramik settlement complex was magnetically prospected in its entirety. It is one of the few LBK settlement areas
which hardly attracted later prehistoric activity and at the same time has so far been largely spared from modern destruction. The prospecting
results show numerous Early Neolithic structures in great detail, including two earthworks and a large number of houses. Their ground plans are
often so clearly visible in the grey-scale image that they can be classified typologically and chronologically. The building tradition in Diemarden fits
well into the regional context, as comparisons with observations at neighbouring Early Neolithic settlements show.

Keywords: Linienbandkeramik (LBK), Linear Pottery culture, Early Neolithic, magnetic prospection, settlement plans, longhouses, earthworks

Introduction tern of the early farmers2. LBK settlements of different

The eastern branch of the Linienbandkeramik (LBK) be-
longs to the exceptionally wide range of interests of the
Jubilarian, Sławomir Kadrow. It is a topic he has dealt
with several times in significant works. Most recently, he
carried out a project on the well-known LBK settlement
chamber of Targowisko southeast of Cracow in Lesser
Poland. We therefore dedicate the following lines to
Sławomir Kadrow about the exploration of an Early Neo-
lithic settlement cluster in the loess landscape of southern
Lower Saxony, in the hopes of arousing his curiosity.
The landscape
The loess-covered landscape of the Leine Valley in Lower
Saxony lies on the northern periphery of the cultural
sphere of the LBK (Fig. ). The areas south of Göttingen
exemplify the characteristic agropastoral settlement pat-
 Kadrow et al. 202.
sizes are concentrated on the western and eastern mar-
gins of the loess zone on both sides of the Leine River,
where the hilly low mountain landscape begins (Fig. 2).
Of decisive importance in the choice of settlement sites is
the proximity to perennial watercourses, while the dry
central loess plateaus tend to be avoided. This pattern
continues in the Leine Valley to the north and to the
south. No LBK sites existed in the hilly low mountain
ranges adjoining to the west and to the east. Altogether,
only one settlement, Diemarden, is known from the earliest
stage of the LBK, while the later phases of the Band-
keramik are represented by about 40 sites.
In the Early Neolithic settlement landscape south of
Göttingen, comprehensive surface collections and excava-
tions, some of considerable extent, have been carried out
over the last century and a half, namely in the parishes of
Grone and Rosdorf, located west of the Leine River. Often
the scattered archaeological rescue excavations were fol-
lowed by enormous construction activities, so that today
2 Saile/Lorz 200; Lorz/Saile 20.
 Saile 200, 440, 44, fig. –2.
44 DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS
Fig. 1. Distribution area of the Linienbandkeramik, showing maximum extent of the cultural network (grey), the location of its earthworks (red), and the study
area (green), depicted here enlarged at the northern edge of the LBK
it is difficult to get a complete picture of the former rela-
tionships between the only partially investigated Neoli-
thic settlement sections. In particular, LBK areas in Göt-
tingen’s old town and the adjacent urban development
zones were destroyed without this being documented ac-
cordingly. An exception to this great devastation is the
settlement complex of Diemarden (Fig. ). Located in the
south-east of the region under consideration here, the site
has been completely documented in recent years by a large-
scale magnetic survey4; it is one of only a few LBK settle-
ment locations that have hardly been affected by either
modern disturbances or prehistoric activities.
Information on the size of LBK settlements can be de-
termined in about two-thirds (9 of 27) of the cases
shown in landscape cut-out Fig. 2. Often the settlement
activities extended over numerous hectares, whereby the
respective boundaries are mostly not as clearly known as
in Diemarden. If Diemarden (Fig. 2, no. ) and Klein
Lengden (Fig. 2, no. 9), which are separated only by the
Eichbach, are combined, they represent the largest find
complex, at 7 ha in total, which is at the same time also
best documented at least with regard to its extent. There
are of course however much larger settlements in the
world of the Bandkeramik, such as Bylany in Bohemia
(65 ha), Eythra in Saxony and Vráble in Slovakia (each
about 50 ha), or Gerlingen in Württemberg (45 ha)5, to
4 Saile 2009, 46, fig. .
5 Petrasch 202, 57, table ; Jürgens 209, 55, fig. 9; Cheben/Furholt
2020, 24.
name but a few. It is noteworthy that the Diemarden set-
tlement complex at the confluence of the Eichbach and
Garte Stream (Fig. 2, nos. , 2, and 9) is separated from
the Leine Valley by a Muschelkalk ridge, culminating in
the Diemardener Berg (26 m a.s.l.); this also accounts
for the comparatively long distance of about  km to the
nearest contemporaneous sites.
Besides Diemarden, the next largest settlements are in
Rosdorf at the Rasemühle at 6 ha (Fig. 2, no. 27) and at
the Mühlengrund at  ha (Fig. 2, no. 26). Both are lo-
cated approximately two kilometres apart on the banks of
the Rase Stream. Interestingly, no smaller satellite sites
were tolerated in their immediate vicinity. Such smaller
settlements are scattered at greater distances to the south
(Fig. 2, nos. 20–22) and to the east halfway to Diemarden
(Fig. 2, nos. 4, and 2–25). This observation is somewhat
reminiscent of the situation in the upper Schlangen-
grabental in the Rhineland, where there were also two
larger main sites about two kilometres apart, without sur-
rounding satellite settlements6.
A larger settlement concentration of eight LBK sites
around the Springmühle west of Grone (Fig. 2, no. 4) is
located on loess ridges between small streams running
west-east. This group of habitations is dominated by the
Lehmkuhle (Fig. 2, no. 2) and the Bruchfeld (Fig. 2, no.
6) sites, each encompassing 9 ha. The extent of the re-
6 Weisweiler 7 and Lohn : Krahn 2006. – See also the different situa-
tion in the neighbouring Merzbach Valley.
 THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT
45
Fig. 2. LBK settlement landscape on both sides of the Leine river south of göttingen. Base map: Kurhannoversche Landesaufnahme, sheet 155 göttingen (1784). For site names, see list
46 DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS
maining smaller settlements, some of which have been
known for a long time, can only be vaguely guessed at due
to modern disturbances (Fig. 2, nos. –8).
East of the Leine River, there were larger sites in the
north-eastern part of Göttingen’s old town (Fig. 2, nos.
6–7) and somewhat southeast of it in the Hainberg area
(Fig. 2, nos. 8–9). Since the present city now covers large
parts of the former farmland and modern construction
activity offers little insight, not much is known of these
settlements. Major sites in Göttingen (Fig. 2, nos. 6, and
9) and Geismar (Fig. 2, no. ) reportedly covered at least
6–7 ha each. Thus, although they appear to have once
been of considerable size, today we must consider them
to have been destroyed largely unobserved.
There seems to have been a regular distance of 2 to  km
between the larger settlement complexes. At the same
time, there are loess areas, especially to the west and to
the south of Göttingen, where there are no sites, so ob-
viously LBK settlements were not founded at all suitable
locations. This picture, after almost 50 years of research,
does not seem to be substantially blurred through the fil-
ters of the archaeological record. Rather, it seems that
there was sufficient land available in the Early Neolithic.
It is possible, however, that some areas had restricted ac-
cess rights and were claimed as property by neighbouring
communities, in whatever form.
The settlements
In addition to the magnetogram of Diemarden, three
large settlement excavations provide initial information
on the internal structure of Early Neolithic sites in southern
Lower Saxony. Before comparing the plans, a brief over-
view of previous archaeological activities at the four sites
seems in order.
The LBK settlements were first mentioned in regional
literature at the turn of the 9th and 20th centuries. As far as
this can still be judged today, they had been discovered se-
veral years earlier and the respective find zones extended
over large areas, which were repeatedly visited by the local
collectors of that time. Small-scale excavations soon began,
revealing pits and rows of postholes, the remains of the em-
blematic longhouses of the LBK. In this respect, southern
Lower Saxony, like the adjacent northern Hesse7, was a fo-
cal point for research into the Early Neolithic at the be-
ginning of the 20th century, a lead it was later to forfeit.
In the 960s, research-oriented, targeted excavations
began due to the increased construction activity. Unfor-
tunately, it must be stated today that none of the larger
7 Kneipp 2006, 8.
excavations of the area and their findings in the settle-
ment complexes of Rosdorf-Mühlengrund, Grone-Bruch-
feld or Rosdorf-Rasemühle have yet been conclusively
evaluated. Key questions that require precise control over
the sequence of the LBK, such as the intensity of settle-
ment, the density of population, the pace of change, and
the circumstances at the end of the cultural cycle, can
therefore not yet be answered satisfactorily. Thus, the re-
sults published so far correspond to an intermediate level
of knowledge, if we consider proficiently evaluated exca-
vation as a high standard and the more or less random
collection of surface finds at a site as a low one. The inter-
mediate level of information about a site also includes
magnetic surveying, since a magnetogram is only available
in a much lower resolution than a detailed excavation plan.
The LBK site Diemarden-Wasserbreite (Fig. 2, nos. ,
and 9), located about 6 km southeast of Göttingen be-
tween Diemarden and Klein-Lengden, was first men-
tioned in 90 in a letter from Wilhelm Krause to Max
Verworn. In the following years, the surface of the fields
was repeatedly searched for archaeological remains, and
in 909 and 90, targeted but small excavations were
carried out in several spots. Under the guidance of Max
Verworn, various pit complexes were uncovered, which
were dug up to .5 m into the grown soil. This was one of
the first systematic excavations with scientific objectives
at an Early Neolithic settlement site8. In 927 Bruno
Crome laid out a trial trench and was able to prove nu-
merous postholes in Diemarden for the first time. Regu-
lar surface collections resumed in the 960s after Klaus
Raddatz moved to Göttingen and became concerned with
the systematic recording of archaeological sites in the up-
land zone of southern Lower Saxony9. During an emer-
gency excavation in 992, an LBK granary containing
emmer and einkorn was recovered0.
In 200, magnetic prospection of the site was started
(Fig. ), which, after measurements on  ha, led to a com-
plete plan of the LBK settlement a few years later (Fig. 4).
The occupied area of the Early Neolithic covers 7 ha. The
course of the Eichbach divides the inhabited area into a lar-
ger south-western part and a smaller north-eastern part.
Fifty-three ground plans and  locations of buildings, as
well as two earthworks and a larger number of pits, were
8 Verworn 9; Crome 924, 5–57.
9 Raddatz 972; 98; 2002.
0 Grote 99.
 The survey was carried out with a Ferex DLG 4.02 fluxgate gradio-
meter from Förster (Reutlingen, Germany) with four channels (CON650
probes). The measurement grid was 0.2 m inline x 0.5 m crossline. Mea-
surements were made in 50 x 50 m grids fixed with wooden pegs and
guided with measuring tapes and nylon cords. The fixed points of the
local grid were subsequently converted to the national grid (DHDN
Gauss-Krüger Zone ) using a total station.
THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT 47

Fig. 3. cut-out area of about 2 ha from the magnetogram of the Diemarden-wasserbreite site showing many details of the LBK features
48 DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS

Fig. 4. Diemarden-wasserbreite. Interpretative re-drawing of a grey-scale image obtained from magnetic surveys. apart from the two earthworks a and B,
the numbers of the houses are only given if they are mentioned in the text
THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT
documented2. Occupation of the site began in the earliest
Bandkeramik and continued until the end of the LBK pe-
riod. For the evaluation of the magnetogram, two profiles
from the southern enclosure A (Fig. 4: A. – Conf. Fig. )
and profiles of six massive postholes from the two southern
cross rows of the north-western section of house  (Fig. 4: .
– Conf. Figs.  and 0: A) were obtained during exploratory
excavations in 2004. The ditch of enclosure A had a maxi-
mum width of 2.5 m and a depth of .5 m below today’s
surface level4. The postholes had a diameter of up to .5 m
and a depth of about .2 m; in four of them the remains of
the posts were clearly recognizable by colour features. In
2005 and 2007, the northern enclosure B (Fig. 4: B) was
investigated, with a width of .0 m and a maximum depth
of .8 m below ground level; the south-eastern part of the
enclosure had already been severely affected by soil erosion.
Georg Pfanneberg, a student interested in archaeolo-
gy, reported on the first LBK surface finds from Rosdorf-
Mühlengrund (Fig. 2, no. 26) by referring to pottery frag-
ments found near the artificial lake of Hermann Levin’s
wool spinning mill in the northwest of the former Early
Neolithic settlement area5. The LBK settlement on a loess
ridge south of the Rase Stream and east of the present vil-
lage of Rosdorf was “rediscovered” in 96 during con-
struction work6. Large-scale rescue excavations on 2. ha
followed until 970, which were provisionally concluded
with a recent investigation in the immediate vicinity of
the first longhouse discovered7. In the 8 excavation
trenches, a total of 55 ground plans of Early Neolithic
houses were uncovered. Settlement of the site began in
the early Flomborn period and lasted until the end of the
LBK sequence8. Unfortunately, a detailed evaluation of
the archaeological material is still pending9. Neverthe-
less, the general plan of Rosdorf-Mühlengrund (Fig. 5),
derived from a combination of the previously published
plans20, is well suited for comparison with the interpretive
2 Saile/Posselt 2002; 2004b; 2007.
 Hoppe 206, 259–269, table 69.
4 A radiocarbon date obtained from charcoal (KIA 25798) assigns the
ditch very generally to the period between the 52nd and 49th centuries BC.
5 Pfanneberg 897, 90.
6 Raddatz 964.
7 Schlüter 98; Kettlitz 208.
8 Hoppe 206, 267, table 69.
9 Jan Graefe (2008; 2009) treated the Early Neolithic querns. Harald Stäu-
ble (2005) and Wiebke Hoppe (206, 24–28) dealt with selected LBK
houses. The post-LBK features and finds were discussed by Brigitte and
Wolfgang Schlüter (208). Paleoethnobotanical studies were conducted
by Wiebke Kirleis and Ulrich Willerding (2008). The animal bones were
evaluated by Hans Reichstein (977). The results of the geomorphological
and pedological investigations at the excavation site were presented by
Fritz Scheffer and Brunk Meyer (Scheffer/Meyer 965; Meyer 966).
20 Partial plans: Maier/Peters 965, 2, fig. ; Zimmermann 966, 24,
fig. 4; Schlüter 969, 2, fig. 4; Schlüter 97, 27, fig. ; Schwarz 972,
, fig. ; Kettlitz 208, 5, fig. 57. – Overview plans: Driehaus et al.
49
re-drawing of the grey-scale image obtained from mag-
netic surveys in Diemarden-Wasserbreite, if the respec-
tive blurriness is taken into account.
Between the two present-day villages of Groß Ellers-
hausen and Elliehausen, a large Early Neolithic settlement
complex extends over almost 2 km. On the southern
slopes of the undulating loess hills several LBK settle-
ments are located, which are known from surface finds
and are designated by various field names2. The first LBK
finds were collected in 894 around the Springmühle
(Fig. 2, no. 4), the core zone of the complex located about
 km west of Grone, by Pastor von Helmolt, and soon af-
ter the area was explored by Georg Pfanneberg and local
teacher Hermann Danne22. In the autumn of 92, Bruno
Crome undertook an excavation immediately north of
the Springmühle. He observed a system of postholes up
to 40 cm deep, running parallel to a longitudinal pit,
which he assumed served as supports for a massive roof
structure of a large building2. This was one of the first
discoveries of a fragmented LBK longhouse. About 400 m
to the north at the Lehmkuhle (Fig. 2, no. 2), Otto Fahl-
busch found two more fragmented ground plans of long-
houses in 97 in the course of preparatory work for the
construction of a motorway24. Meanwhile, LBK houses
are also known from the Gesundbrunnen25 (Fig. 2, no. )
and especially from the Bruchfeld26 (Fig. 2, no. 6). Here,
on a ridge of land sloping down to the east between the
Grone Stream to the north and the Rehbach and Elstal-
graben to the south, a substantial LBK settlement is lo-
cated. Major excavations were carried out in connection
with the development of a shopping centre between 994
and 997. Approximately 2. ha of the LBK settlement
site was investigated, and at least 52 ground plans of
houses and 8 settlement burials were found (Fig. 6); in
addition, the edge of the former settled area to the west
and to the south towards the Elstalgraben was recorded.
The pottery indicates an occupation of the site from the
Flomborn phase onwards, with the younger LBK being
less well attested27. Further investigations, especially on
the building features and graves, are still pending28.
972, 9, fig. ; Kirleis/Willerding 2008, 42, fig. 2; Schlüter/Schlüter
208, 72, 7, fig. .
2 Buttler 9, 6.
22 Pfanneberg 897, 89, 90; Maier 97, 2; 62, no. 7.
2 Crome 924, 62, 6.
24 Fahlbusch 940; Stieren 95, 78, no. 2, fig. 5, 5; Maier 97, 6,
64, no. 4.
25 Peters 995; Moos 996, no. 7.
26 Arndt 2000 a; 2004; Reinhard 2004a; 2004b; 2007.
27 Reinhard 2004a; 2004b.
28 The animal bones were taxonomically determined by Reinhold
Schoon (2004, 9, fig. 4) and again show a clear dominance of cat-
tle over all other animal species. A particularity of the site is the early
evi-dence of the wheat weevil, which can cause considerable damage
50 DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS

Fig. 5. rosdorf-Mühlengrund. general plan of the excavations from 1963–1970 and 2016 covering an area of 2.3 ha

Fig. 6. grone-Bruchfeld. general plan of the core area of the excavations from 1994–
1997 with an area of 1.3 ha. House numbers are only given if the houses are mentioned
in the text

Fig. 7. rosdorf-rasemühle. general plan of the excavations from 1935 and 2013,
comprising a total area of 0.3 ha
THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT
After the first LBK pottery fragments and stone tools
had been collected since 89 by Georg Pfanneberg at the
Rosdorf-Rasemühle site (Fig. 2, no. 27), in 904 further
finds were made during a survey by Erich Kallius and during
construction work on the grounds of the then Province
Sanatorium29. The LBK site extends east of a Karst spring at
the Rasemühle on a southeast-facing slope north of the
Rase Stream. When a motorway was built in 95, excava-
tions supervised by Herbert Krüger revealed the postholes
of four fragmented longhouses0. In 20, further ground
plans and a short section of an enclosure were brought to
light during a rescue excavation between the Rasemühle
and the motorway. Even though only a small part of the
site was excavated, it is striking that the density of the fea-
tures clearly decreases towards the east, which seems to indi-
cate the eastern periphery of the settlement (Fig. 7). Ac-
cording to the decorated pottery, the settlement seems to
have existed from the Flomborn phase until the late LBK.
The settlement plans
While the magnetogram of Diemarden covers the entire
area settled in the Early Neolithic, only 8% of the site has
been excavated in Rosdorf-Mühlengrund; in Grone-
Bruchfeld it is at least 24%, and in Rosdorf-Rasemühle
only 2% has been investigated. The percentages reported
here are intended to give an idea of the order of magni-
tude and may vary somewhat because the approximate
extent of the sites was determined only by the scatter of
surface finds. Of course, we must also remember that our
knowledge is limited, as only small portions of the sites
have been excavated.
At first glance, the four settlement plans reveal estab-
lished ground plans of varying densities. In Grone-Bruch-
feld (Fig. 6) and in the western part of Rosdorf-Rasemüh-
le (Fig. 7) they often overlap, while in the elongated settle-
ment area of Rosdorf-Mühlengrund (Fig. 5) the houses
give the impression of being each placed next to one an-
other. The situation is somewhat different in the Die-
marden-Wasserbreite site (Fig. 4), where the densest part
of the overlapping ground plans cannot be disentangled
by magnetic prospection; it is in the centre around the
southern earthwork. It seems that shorter or less massive
buildings are somewhat underrepresented in Diemarden-
Wasserbreite (Fig. 4) compared to the excavated settle-
to harvested storage grain and may drastically reduce crop yields (Büch-
ner/Wolf 997).
29 Pfanneberg 897, 90; Crome 924, 58; Buttler 9, 62; Maier 97,
2; 00, no. 607; 0, no. 62; Moos 996, no. 5.
0 Krüger 96a, 4; 97, 2, 22, fig. ; Sangmeister 95, 0, fig. 6.
 Streichardt 205.
51
ment areas in Rosdorf-Mühlengrund (Fig. 5) and Grone-
Bruchfeld (Fig. 6), which exhibit a larger number of
smaller buildings. However, smaller, less massive houses
are often less recognizable in grey-scale images.
Within the framework of the generally known LBK
settlement pattern, all four sites may be classified as cen-
tral locations based on their size, the number of houses,
and the occurrence of monumental architecture in the
form of earthworks. These sites show outstanding signifi-
cance and enjoyed special attraction for the people of the
surrounding areas, as it was here that interactions of all
kinds were concentrated. These locations provided the as-
signed additional areas of the central places with central
functions in the domains of trade and production, rule,
protection, and cult2. It is interesting that the site with
apparently the most regular settlement structure, Rosdorf-
Mühlengrund, is also the one that tolerates the fewest sa-
tellite sites in its immediate vicinity. This can be under-
stood as an indication of a possibility for further differen-
tiation of the central places.
The enclosures
The concept of enclosure is a phenomenon that com-
menced in the Early Neolithic and is found in several
subsequent societies. Although enclosures were con-
structed during the initial phase of the LBK, they find
their temporal focus in the more recent phases. They are
usually related to larger regular settlements, where they
often delimit an exclusive place within the settlement
area. Monumental enclosures were widespread with varying
spatial emphases in the western LBK, but it is curious that
they are not known to us from the eastern part of the
range of this archaeological culture (Fig. ). Some earth-
works exhibit striking similarities despite great spatial
distances, which can be understood as an initial stand-
ardization of their forms. Several sites are associated
with acts of violence, while others show irregular burials
and open burial forms within ditches that were obviously
part of complex depositional practices. A few LBK earth-
works were also of supra-regional importance.
The most diverse functions of LBK earthworks have
already been discussed4. A ditch can be considered as
2 See the recent reassessment of the concept of centrality and the cen-
tral place theory by Oliver Nakoinz (209).
 See for example the trapezoidal ground plan of the Gladebeck enclo-
sure in Lower Saxony and its parallels in the so-called type Langweiler
(Saile/Posselt 2004a, 68, fig. 6) or the irregular-oval shaped complexes
of the Stephansposching group (Pechtl 209, 495).
4 Recently with previous literature: Jürgens 209, 59–62; Pechtl
209, 509–54; Wunderlich et al. 2020, 58–524.
52 DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS
an outward demarcation of the settlement community
or as a spatial separation of the neighbourhood it en-
closes. Working together on a common project and the
effort required to build these monumental construc-
tions can be understood as a physical manifestation of
strengthened community cohesion and consolidated so-
cial order.
The collectively organized endeavour of the popula-
tion may have increased the appeal of the enclosed house-
holds. On the other hand, the contemporaneity of houses
and an enclosure ditch is often not proven, and the en-
closed space might have served for feasts and ritual cere-
monies organized by charismatic personalities of the LBK
society5. This would have been one of the places where
the principle of gift and reciprocal gift was implemented.
Through the redistribution of gifts and resources, a cycle
of pledges and obligations was perpetuated, thus strength-
ening social relations. One may wonder how the LBK
succeeded in maintaining its cultural core across vast
spaces and times. If culture is understood to mean learned
behaviour, there should have been places where repro-
duction of the LBK occurred. Earthworks may have been
such communal facilities. Familiar rituals performed
here, through their constant repetition, reaffirmed the
order of the whole and created an aura of eternal imper-
ishability. They unfolded their special effect when they
were executed under witnesses in perfect external cor-
rectness.
Two earthworks of more or less rectangular to trape-
zoidal shape are known from Diemarden-Wasserbreite
(Fig. 4). While enclosure A measures approx. 00 x 0 m
and has an interior area of about . ha, enclosure B, lo-
cated to the north of it, is considerably smaller with an
inner area of approx. 0.8 ha (85 x 90 m). Both enclosures
have entrances evidenced by causeways. The gateways in
the northern ditch of enclosure B and the southern circuit
of enclosure A are quite obvious. It is likely that the enclo-
sures were not built at the same time, which does not pre-
clude the possibility that the one constructed earlier was
still in use or visible or at least perceptible on the land-
scape when the more recent enclosure was built. Some of
the ground plans of the longhouses do not seem to take
into account the course of the ditches, so they could be
considered earlier, since it is unlikely that a house would
be erected over a ditch. Thus, while the ditches cut through
the locations of some former houses, the course of the
ditches appears to respect the locations of other houses,
5 On the levels of social complexity of Early Neolithic societies – oscil-
lating between egalitarian acephaly, big-men systems, and chieftaincy
of rank societies – and the archaeologically verifiable manifestations of
these socio-political strategies, recently again: Květina/Řídký 209.
so it can be assumed that these were more or less contem-
poraneous with the enclosures. Corresponding examples
can be found, especially on the eastern ditches of both
enclosures.
In Rosdorf-Rasemühle another enclosure of unknown
size was partially excavated (Fig. 7). The earthwork seems
to have existed only in a certain phase of the settlement,
because the palisade ditch is intersected by features that at
the same time overlay older structures that could not have
been there simultaneously with the enclosure. It is also
noticeable that the reconstructable buildings avoid the
area between the palisade ditch and the main ditch, espe-
cially in the south.
In Diemarden and Rosdorf the area enclosed by the
earthwork was much smaller than the settlement itself. It
is also very likely that the comparatively small enclosures
existed only during a relatively short period in the later
life of the settlement. This contrasts with observations
made about 25 km to the north in Hollenstedt. There, a wide
rampart-ditch construction surrounded the whole vil-
lage, which apparently had a predominantly defensive
function6. Certainly, this interpretation is not applicable
to the numerous other enclosures with their smaller fea-
tures and shorter lifetimes.
As the example of the Leine Valley in southern Lower
Saxony shows7, enclosures are a quite common pheno-
menon in several LBK regional groups (Fig. ). Occasion-
ally, even two ditched enclosures were erected in close
proximity to each other, but obviously not at the same
time, as the well-known examples of Langweiler 8 and 9
in the Rhineland and the lesser-known cases of Dassensen
or Mangolding demonstrate8.
The houses
The Early Neolithic longhouse is the most characteris-
tic architectural feature of a farmstead, which represents
a household comprising several generations. It was the
main reference point for people’s daily lives and consti-
tuted the basic socio-economic unit. The spatial disper-
sion of the longhouses on a site underlines the autonomy
6 Saile et al. 208. – See also Großeneder in Westphalia (Jürgens 209)
and Vaihingen an der Enz in Baden-Württemberg (Bogaard et al. 207).
Presumably, large, fortified enclosures were also constructed in the final
phase at two LBK central sites in neighbouring northern Hesse, Maden
(Thiedmann 205) and Wernswig (Kneipp 2006, 85, fig. 4).
7 Earthworks of the Leine Valley in Lower Saxony attributed to the
LBK: Dassensen , Dassensen 5 (?), Diemarden , Gladebeck 2, Hol-
lenstedt 2, Kalefeld , Klein Lengden 6, Niedernjesa  (?), Rosdorf 87,
Sülbeck 2.
8 Dassensen (Lower Saxony): Saile 2009, 46, fig. 5–6. – Mangolding
(Bavaria): Posselt/Saile 2020, 8, fig. 4.
THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT
Fig. 8. Diemarden-wasserbreite. grey-scale images and interpretative drawings of longhouses 1 and 18 with circumferential wall ditches and y-configurations
(Modderman type 1a)
and self-sufficiency of the farmsteads. The competition
between the farmsteads is reflected in the different sizes
of their houses. Economic differentiation between them
seems to be related to different access to raw materials or
different subsistence strategies.
The magnetic plan of the settlement complex of Die-
marden provides constructional details of the longhouses,
which otherwise can only be determined by excavations.
However, the information obtained is sometimes blurred
53
by overlapping ground plans, longpits and pits, as well
as less visible remnants of smaller building structures
(Fig. ). The houses can be discussed from different points
of view. Using the grey-scale image of Diemarden, we
would like to focus here on the house types, chronologi-
cal development, size, and orientation.
The longhouses in Diemarden-Wasserbreite are divis-
ible into those with a circumferential wall ditch and those
with a north-western wall ditch (Modderman types a
54 DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS

Fig. 9. Diemarden-wasserbreite. grey-scale images and interpretative drawings of longhouse 47 with north-western wall ditch (Modderman type 1b), and houses
15 and 38 from the earliest LBK
THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT 55

Fig. 10. Diemarden-wasserbreite. grey-scale images and interpretative drawings of longhouse 3 with post arrangement in the middle part in the form of
a y-configuration, houses 7 and 8 showing degenerated y-configurations, and house 25 with transverse rows of three posts in the central part
56 DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS

Fig. 11. grone-Bruchfeld. Longhouse 23 with circumferential wall ditch and double-post walls (Modderman type 1a), longhouse 33 with north-western wall ditch
and outer ditches (Modderman type 1b), longhouse 2 with x-configuration, a particular manifestation of the degenerated y, house 22 with y-configuration and
outer ditches, and oversized longhouse 12 with a length of 42 m
THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT 57

Fig. 12. rosdorf-Mühlengrund. Longhouse I with circumferential wall ditch and y-configuration (Modderman type 1a), longhouse xII with north-western wall
ditch and double-row longitudinal walls (Modderman type 1b), longhouse II which still shows outer ditches and already displays a y-configuration in the middle
part, longhouse xvII with outer ditches and transverse rows of three posts in the middle section, and longhouse Ix with post arrangement in the central part in
the form of several transoms of triple posts
58
and b). Perhaps the most impressive and clear examples
of type a are houses  and 8 (Fig. 8), and type b is well
represented by house 47 (Fig. 9: A and B). Corresponding
examples with circumferential wall diches exist in Grone-
Bruchfeld, house 2 (Fig. : A), and in Rosdorf-Mühlen-
grund, house I (Fig. 2: A). For those with a north-
western wall ditch, examples are given from Rosdorf-
Mühlengrund, house XII (Fig. 2: B) and from Grone-
Bruchfeld, house  (Fig. : B). Houses Figs. : A and
2: B show double-row longitudinal walls. Such double-
post walls are most common in Lower Bavaria and in an
area stretching from Bohemia to the Rhineland9.
The arrangement of the posts in the central part of
the LBK longhouse is a further element of typological
differentiation, which also turned out to be chronologi-
cally sensitive. Characteristic examples are clearly visible
in the magnetic plan of Diemarden. The earliest phase of
the LBK comprises houses with a mullion-free middle
section, which is terminated in the north by a particularly
deep cross row of three posts, the so-called Querpfos-
tenriegel 20. In Diemarden at least two houses belong to
this earliest phase of the LBK, which does not occur at
other LBK settlements in the Leine Valley of southern
Lower Saxony. Both houses 5 and 8 also show the
characteristic narrow outer ditches that usually accom-
pany the central part of the longhouse (Fig. 9: C–F). The
two early LBK structures mark the simultaneous begin-
ning of settlement activity in the central and northern
residential subunits of the later settlement area (Fig. 4).
At the typological interface of the building tradition
of the earliest LBK to the Flomborn phase, there are
houses that preserve handed-down formal elements, but
at the same time already present new structural details.
Houses which still show outer ditches accompanying the
central part and at the same time display post arrange-
ments in the form of a Y or a degenerated Y can be classi-
fied into this transitional phase. A good example is
Rosdorf-Mühlengrund, house II (Fig. 2: C). There are
also houses that still possess outer ditches and already ex-
hibit post arrangements in the form of several transoms
made up of triple posts, such as house XVII of Rosdorf-
Mühlengrund (Fig. 2: D). Thus, a persistence of elements
of the earliest LBK building tradition can be detected
here, while in Diemarden, which was founded a few ge-
nerations earlier, buildings from this alleged transitional
phase are apparently not present. However, smaller posts
are difficult to detect by geophysical means.
Longhouses with the characteristic Y-shaped post ar-
rangement in the middle part were present in all neigh-
9 Link 204, 6–64, fig. 49. – Conf. also Schwiegershausen: Saile et al.
200, 97, fig. .
DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS
bourhoods of Diemarden-Wasserbreite (Fig. 4), indica-
ting a complete occupation of the village in the Flomborn
horizon. Good examples are houses  (Fig. 8: A and B)
and  (Fig. 0: A and B) and in Rosdorf-Mühlengrund
houses I (Fig. 2: A) and II (Fig. 2: C). Houses 7 and 8 of
Diemarden-Wasserbreite show degenerated Y-configura-
tions (Fig. 0: C and D). A special form of the degenera-
ted Y, perhaps better termed as an X-configuration, is
known from Diemarden-Wasserbreite, house 8 (Fig. 8:
C and D). Comparable observations were made at Grone-
Bruchfeld, in houses 240 (Fig. : C) and possibly 22 (Fig.
: D); the latter could perhaps be better classified as Y,
illustrating the genetic link between the two configura-
tion types. X-configurations, which seem to be associated
more likely with the interior spacing of the houses rather
than with the roof-bearing function of the interior posts,
are generally rare4. In addition to the two cases men-
tioned from southern Lower Saxony, they were disco-
vered in western Saxony (Eythra, Großdalzig, Zwenkau-
Hardt), Bohemia (Bylany), and Hesse (Ober-Erlenbach).
Houses of the later LBK, which have post arrange-
ments in the form of several three-post transoms in the
central section, are common in the Leine Valley. A good
example is known from Diemarden-Wasserbreite, house
25 (Fig. 0: E and F). House IX from Rosdorf-Mühlen-
grund (Fig. 2: E) and house 2 from Grone-Bruchfeld42
(Fig. : E) also belong to this category.
The length of a house appears to correspond with the
status of its occupants in the local LBK communities4.
Besides earthworks, exceptionally long houses are ano-
ther category of Early Neolithic monumental architec-
ture. The longest tripartite LBK houses in southern Lower
Saxony are found in Diemarden-Wasserbreite (house 8;
Fig. 8: C and D) and Grone-Bruchfeld (house 2; Fig. : E)
at 42 m each. In Diemarden-Wasserbreite alone, there
were – in addition to two enclosures – another six houses
that were 5 m or longer (houses 4, 27, 48,  [Fig. 8: A],
4, and 49); there were, however, such extremely long
houses in Rosdorf-Mühlengrund as well (houses XXIV
and XXVI; Fig. 5). The frequent juxtaposition of ditched
enclosures and extra-long houses in the same location44 is
40 Reinhard 2007, 08, fig. 4. – A regional peculiarity is found in long-
houses with wall ditches only at the gable ends, but not along the longi-
tudinal walls. However, this observation could also be a result of a deeper
foundation of the gable walls, which would still be visible at an interme-
diate level of soil erosion (conf. Rosdorf-Mühlengrund, house XXVI:
Schlüter 98, 56, fig. 6).
4 Kaltofen 200, ; Bartelt 2004, 9–2, fig. 4; Cladders et al. 202,
5, fig. 5: a.
42 Reinhard 2007, 08, fig. 5.
4 Pechtl 2009; Hofmann/Lenneis 207.
44 On a ditched enclosure and a 4 m long house from Mangolding
(Bavaria) recently: Posselt/Saile 2020, 24, fig. 9.
THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT
Table 1. westward deviation of LBK longhouse orientation from the north (counter-clockwise in degrees) of selected settlements in southern Lower Saxony
Site [n]
Diemarden-Wasserbreite 6
Grone-Bruchfeld 9
Rosdorf-Mühlengrund 40
Rosdorf-Rasemühle 9 58,
total 124
at odds with recently expressed views that there was a spa-
tial separation of enclosures and extremely long houses,
and that the latter represented a lesser degree of social
integration45.
An interesting aspect of early Neolithic longhouses is
their orientation. There is an overall tendency for their
alignments to change in a clockwise direction from west
to east. In the west of the LBK distribution area, the long-
houses tend to be oriented from west to east, and in the
east, they are almost oriented from north-northeast to
south-southwest46. Westward deviation of LBK longhouse
orientation from the north in selected settlements in
southern Lower Saxony ranges from a minimum of  to
a maximum of 9 degrees, with an arithmetic mean of 5
degrees; these values were established on the basis of 24
ground plans (Table ). The average deviation amounts to
44 degrees in Diemarden-Wasserbreite, 5 degrees in
Rosdorf-Mühlengrund and 6 degrees in Grone-Bruch-
feld, while it comes to 62 degrees in Rosdorf-Rasemühle.
While on the one hand a considerable range of values
can be observed, the Leine Valley is consistent with the
general expectation of a more or less northwest-south-
east orientation of the longhouses in the central areas of
the LBK.
Based on observations in Vráble in southwestern Slo-
vakia, it was hypothesized that the regular counter-clock-
wise rotation of buildings can be used to estimate the da-
ting of individual houses in large-scale LBK settlements.
It was assumed that whenever houses were to be aligned
in a certain direction of an older building or parallel to
each other, there was a systematic deviation of perception
to the left, resulting in a slight counter-clockwise rotation
(“pseudo-neglect”)47. The derivations made in Vráble are
based on the longpits established in the geophysical
prospection, which apparently represent only a smaller
number of the houses once present on the site, conside-
ring the excavation results of other LBK settlements. Even
at first glance, it becomes clear that such an unintentional,
unconscious deviation did not come into play at the Die-
45 Pechtl 2009, 9, 9.
46 Vondrovský 208.
47 Müller-Scheeßel et al. 2020.
59
min. max. mean median
5,0 70,5 4,7 45,0
45,0 9,0 60,9 6,0
,5 8,0 5,0 54,5
69,4 6,7 6,5
13,5 91,0 52,8 54,9
marden-Wasserbreite (Fig. 4) and Rosdorf-Mühlengrund
(Fig. 5) sites. It is conspicuous that just the oldest LBK
houses in Diemarden, i. e. houses 5 (52°; Fig. 9: C and D)
and 8 (8°; Fig. 9: E and F), are not those which are most
strongly aligned N-S. Furthermore, houses with Y-con-
figuration prove to be more N-S oriented at both sites
(median in Diemarden-Wasserbreite ° and in Rosdorf-
Mühlengrund 26°). Obviously, there is no temporal gra-
dient of house orientations at the site, an observation that
compares well with similar findings in the Rhineland48. In
this respect, the explanatory potential of the pseudo-ne-
glect model for the entire LBK seems rather constrained.
Outlook
The LBK existed in a field of tension between egalitaria-
nism and acephality on the one hand, and patrilocality
and status-laden older males on the other. Status is re-
flected not only in burials, but also in the size of houses
and the construction of earthworks. It seems that in the
western area of the LBK the social integration and the size
of the groups acting politically jointly was greater than in
the east.
Magnetic surveying is proving to be a suitable tool for
producing large-scale settlement plans with high resolu-
tion. Although it cannot replace excavation, it can pro-
vide, for example, exceptionally detailed house plans,
which can already be approximately dated according to
typological criteria. The foundations for targeted excava-
tions were laid.
Most LBK sites in Lower Saxony were discovered de-
cades ago, and in the meantime many sites have been
completely or partially destroyed without prior investiga-
tion. In this respect, a great opportunity for Neolithic re-
search was lost. The Diemarden-Wasserbreite settlement
complex seems to be one of the few LBK sites not yet af-
fected by severe modern destruction and which hardly
attracted later prehistoric activity. It deserves special at-
tention and protection.
48 Krahn 2006, 95, fig. 92–9.
60 DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS
List: LBK settlements on both sides of the Leine River
south of Göttingen
The list contains the name of the parish, the field name,
other names by which the site is also known, the number
of the site within the official municipality-related site re-
gistration, the sheet number of the Topographic Map
:25,000, the Gauss Krüger coordinates, a short charac-
terization of the features and finds including the size of
the site, and selected literature.
. Diemarden, “Wasserbreite”, site no. . – 4525: 5 69
080 / 57 06 680. – Earthwork, 7 longhouses (including
24 building locations determined only by longpits), pits
( ha); pottery (including earliest LBK), stone tools. –
Verworn 9; Crome 924, 5–57; Buttler 9, 6;
Raddatz 972, nos. 8–9; 98; 2002, nos. 4–5; Saile/
Posselt 2002.
2. Diemarden, “Hinter der Bornwiese”, site no. 4. –
4525: 5 68 900 / 57 06 00. – Pits (5 ha); pottery, stone
tools. – Raddatz 972, no. 2; 2002, no. 8.
. Geismar, “Kampstraße”. – 4425: 5 66 500 / 57 08
500. – Pits (7 ha); pottery, stone tools. – Raddatz 972,
nos. 22–2; Moos 996, no. 6.
4. Geismar, “Reinshof ”. – 4525: 5 65 050 / 57 07 00.
– Surface finds from  ha; pottery, stone tools. – Raddatz
972, no. 0; Moos 996, no. 7.
5. Göttingen, “Kreuzbergring 6”. – 4425: 5 65 200 /
57 2 580. – 2 pits; pottery. – Moos 996, no. 24.
6. Göttingen, “Untere Karspüle” (“Ritterplan”). – 4425:
5 65 070 / 57  850. – Longhouse, 6 pits (6 ha); pottery,
stone tools. – Steinmetz 985, nos. 2–; Jarecki 99;
Moos 996, nos. 26–28.
7. Göttingen, “Friedrichstraße” (“Wilhelmsplatz”). –
4425: 5 65 00 / 57  540). – 4 pits; pottery, stone tools.
– Steinmetz 985, nos. 5–6; Moos 996, nos. 29–0;
Stephan 200, 5, fig. .
8. Göttingen, “Am Sölenborn”. – 4425: 5 66 90 / 57
 040. – Surface finds; pottery, stone tools. – Pfanneberg
897, 84–88; Buttler 9, 6; Steinmetz 985, no. 4;
Moos 996, no. 4.
9. Göttingen, “Hainberg” (“Am Steinsgraben”, “Kep-
lerstraße 7 and 28”, “Münchhausenstraße 6”), site no.
24. – 4425: 5 65 800 / 57 0 850. – Pits (6 ha); pottery,
stone tools. – Pfanneberg 897, 84–88; Buttler 9, 6;
Steinmetz 985, no. 8; Moos 996, nos. 2– and 5;
Lönne 200, 08 Nr. 4.
0. Göttingen, “Bürgerstraße 42–44 and 50”. – 4425:
5 64 850 / 57 0 880. – Pit; pottery. – Moos 996, no.
.
. Grone, “Gesundbrunnen” (“Gallwiesengraben”),
site nos. , 4, and 5. – 4425: 5 6 50 / 57 2 400. –
Longhouses, 4 pits (2 ha); pottery, stone tools. – Stein-
metz 985, no. 9; Peters 995; Moos 996, no. 7.
2. Grone, “Lehmkuhle” (“height 68.6”, “motor-
way”). – 4425: 5 60 950 / 57  750. – 2 longhouses, pits
(9 ha); pottery, stone tools. – Krüger 94; Fahlbusch
940; Stieren 95, 78, no. 2, fig. 5, 5; Maier 97, 6–
64 no. 4; Steinmetz 985, nos. 20 and ; Moos 996,
nos. 8–9.
. Grone, “Helvesanger”. – 4425: 5 6 480 / 57 
570. – Pits; pottery. – Moos 996, no. .
4. Grone, “Springmühle” (“Gronespring”), site nos. 5
and 5a. – 4425: 5 60 750 / 57  450. – Longhouse, pits (2
ha); pottery. – Pfanneberg 897, 89–90; Crome 924, 6–
6; Buttler 9, 6; Moos 996, no. 0.
5. Grone, “Erdbost”. – 4425: 5 60 850 / 57 0 900. –
Surface finds from  ha; pottery. – Buttler 9, 6; Stein-
metz 985, no. 2; Moos 996, no. 2.
6. Grone, “Bruchfeld” (“Fachmarktzentrum”), site
nos. 9–22. – 4425: 5 6 00 / 57 0 900. – 52 long-
houses, pits, 8 settlement burials (9 ha); pottery; stone
tools. – Büchner/Wolf 997; Arndt 2000 a; 2004; Rein-
hard 2004 a; 2004 b; 2007.
7. Grone, “Siekhöhe”, site no. 27 and 7. – 4425: 5 6
00 / 57 0 20. – Pits; pottery. – Peters 997, no. 05;
Arndt 2000 b.
8. Groß Ellershausen, “Diebeskammer”. – 4425: 5
60 800 / 57 09 850. – Surface finds from 4 ha; pottery,
stone tools. – Steinmetz 985, no. 2; Moos 996, no. ;
Peters 997, nos. 27–0.
9. Klein Lengden, site no. 6. – 4525: 5 69 200 / 57 07
000. – Earthwork,  longhouses (including 7 building
locations determined only by longpits), pits (4 ha); pot-
tery, stone tools. – Raddatz 972, no. ; 98; 2002, no.
6; Steinmetz 985, no. 22; Grote 99; Saile/Posselt
2002.
20. Lemshausen, site no. . – 4525: 5 60 00 / 57 05
00. – Surface finds from  ha; pottery, stone tools. – Moos
996, no. 6.
2. Mengershausen, “Hinter dem Dorfe”, site no. 20.
– 4525: 5 60 0 / 57 06 275. – Pit, postholes; pottery,
stone tools, animal bones. – Local files of the Göttingen
district archaeology.
22. Mengershausen, “Pfingstanger”, site no. 2. – 4525:
5 60 85 / 57 06 075. – Pottery. – Local files of the Göt-
tingen district archaeology.
2. Niedernjesa, “east of elevation 69.5”. – 4525: 5
64 660 / 57 06 575. – Pits (2 ha); pottery, stone tools. –
Krüger 96 b, 74 (listed under “Geismar, ‘Reinshof ’”);
Maier 97, no. 560; Raddatz 972, no. ; Steinmetz 985,
no. 25; Moos 996, no. 8 (listed under “Reinshof, site
no. 5”); Saile/Lorz 200, no. 0.
THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT
24. Niedernjesa. – 4525: 5 65 200 / 57 06 400. – Sur-
face finds from  ha; pottery, stone tools. – Raddatz 972,
no. ; Steinmetz 985, no. 26; Moos 996, no. 9 (listed
under “Reinshof, site no. 9”); Saile/Lorz 200, no. 04.
25. Niedernjesa, “close east of the village”, site no. . –
4525: 5 64 600 / 57 05 00. – Earthwork (?), pits ( ha);
pottery, stone tools. – Buttler 9, 62; Krüger 96 b, 86;
Maier 97, nos. 555 and 560; Steinmetz 985, no. 24;
Moos 996, no. 7; Saile/Lorz 200, no. 05.
26. Rosdorf, “Mühlengrund”, site no. 6. – 4425: 5 6
080 / 57 08 20. – 55 longhouses ( ha); pottery, stone
tools, animal bones. – Pfanneberg 897, 90; Raddatz
964; Driehaus et al. 972, 8–2; Schlüter 98; Stein-
metz 985, no. 28; Moos 996, no. 4.
27. Rosdorf, “Rasemühle” (“Tiefbrunn”), site nos. 4, 5,
8, 24, 27, and 87. – 4425: 5 60 900 / 57 07 500. – Earth-
work, 7 longhouses, pits (6 ha); pottery, stone tools. –
Site extends to the west into the parish of Mengershausen.
– Pfanneberg 897, 90; Crome 924, 58–59; Buttler 9,
62; Krüger 96 a, 4; 97, 2–22, fig. ; Sangmeister
95, 0, fig. 6; Steinmetz 985, no. 5; Moos 996, nos.
5 and 68; Streichardt 205.
References
Arndt 2000 a: B. Arndt, Großflächige Ausgrabungsarbei-
ten einer bandkeramischen Siedlung mit Bestattungen
in Göttingen. Ein Beispiel für die Umsetzung des Ver-
ursacherprinzips. Die Kunde N. F. 5, 2000, 205–22.
Arndt 2000 b: B. Arndt, Grone FStNr. 7. In: Fundchronik
Niedersachsen 999. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens
Urgeschichte, Beiheft 4, 2000, 7 no. 5.
Arndt 2004: B. Arndt, Ein Siedlungs- und Bestattungs-
platz der linienbandkeramischen Kultur in Göttin-
gen-Grone. In: M. Fansa/F. Both/H. Haßmann (eds),
Archäologie Land Niedersachsen. 25 Jahre Denkmal-
schutzgesetz – 400000 Jahre Geschichte. Archäologi-
sche Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, Beiheft
42 (Oldenburg 2004) 24–245.
Bartelt 2004: U. Bartelt, Beste Wohnlage am Auenrand
der Weißen Elster – Siedlungsbefunde vom Frühneo-
lithikum bis in die Eisenzeit bei Großdalzig, Lkr.
Leipziger Land. Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur
sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege 46, 2004, 5–7.
Bogaard et al. 207: A. Bogaard/R.-M. Arbogast/R. Ebers-
bach/R. A. Fraser/C. Knipper/C. Krahn/M. Schäfer/A.
Styring/R. Krause, The Bandkeramik settlement of Vai-
hingen an der Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg (Baden-
Württemberg): an integrated perspective on land use,
economy and diet. Germania 94, 206 (207), –60.
61
Büchner/Wolf 997: S. Büchner/G. Wolf, Der Kornkäfer
– Sitophilus granarius (Linné) – aus einer bandkera-
mischen Grube bei Göttingen. Archäologisches Kor-
respondenzblatt 27, 997, 2–28.
Buttler 9: W. Buttler, Die Bandkeramik in ihrem nord-
westlichsten Verbreitungsgebiet (Marburg 9).
Cheben/Furholt 2020: I. Cheben/M. Furholt, The research
project at the LBK and Želizovce settlement site of
Vráble. In: M. Furholt/I. Cheben/J. Müller/A. Bistáko-
vá/M. Wunderlich/N. Müller-Scheeßel, Archaeology
in the Žitava Valley I. The LBK and Želizovce settle-
ment site of Vráble (Leiden 2020) 5–0.
Cladders et al. 202: M. Cladders/H. Stäuble/T. Tischen-
dorf/S. Wolfram, Zur linien- und stichbandkerami-
schen Besiedlung von Eythra, Lkr. Leipzig. In: R. Smol-
nik (Ed.), Siedlungsstruktur und Sozialwandel in der
Bandkeramik. Beiträge zur internationalen Tagung
“Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Al-
ten?!” Leipzig, 2. bis 24. September 200. Arbeits-
und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenk-
malpflege, Beiheft 25 (Dresden 202) 46–59.
Crome 924: B. Crome, Steinzeitliche Provinz um Göt-
tingen. Nachrichtenblatt für Niedersachsens Vorge-
schichte N. S. , 924, 49–7.
Driehaus et al. 972: J. Driehaus/H. Steuer/M. Last/R. Busch,
Die Ur- und Frühgeschichte des Göttinger Raumes
dargestellt aufgrund der Bestände des Städtischen
Museums (Göttingen 972).
Fahlbusch 940: O. Fahlbusch, Ein bandkeramischer
Wohnplatz bei der Springmühle (Ausgrabung Mai bis
Juli 97 auf dem Gelände der Reichsautobahn west-
lich Göttingen). In: Gabe des Geschichtsvereins für
Göttingen und Umgebung zur Fünfzigjahrfeier des
Städt. Museums Göttingen (Göttingen 940) –7.
Graefe 2008: J. Graefe, Bandkeramische und späthallstatt-
zeitliche Mahlsteine aus der Siedlung Rosdorf „Müh-
lengrund“, Ldkr. Göttingen. In: F. Verse/B. Knoche/
J. Graefe/M. Hohlbein/K. Schierhold/C. Siemann/
M. Uckelmann/G. Woltermann (eds), Durch die Zei-
ten … Festschrift für Albrecht Jockenhövel zum 65.
Geburtstag. Internationale Archäologie. Studia hono-
raria 28 (Rahden/Westf. 2008) 5–28.
Graefe 2009: J. Graefe, Neolithische Mahlsteine zwischen
Weserbergland und dem Niederrhein. Zur wirt-
schaftsarchäologischen Aussagekraft einer Fundgrup-
pe. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Ar-
chäologie 74 (Bonn 2009).
Grote 99: K. Grote, Ein frühneolithischer Getreide-
speicher auf dem bandkeramischen Siedlungsplatz
Klein Lengden 6. Göttinger Jahrbuch 4, 99, 4–
7.
62 DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS
Hofmann/Lenneis 207: D. Hofmann/E. Lenneis, Size
matters? Exploring exceptional buildings in the cen-
tral European early Neolithic. In: P. Bickle/V. Cum-
mings/D. Hofmann/J. Pollard (eds), The Neolithic of
Europe: papers in honour of Alasdair Whittle (Ox-
ford, Philadelphia 207) 45–58.
Hoppe 206: W. Hoppe, Kontinuität oder Bruch? Der
Übergang von der ältesten Bandkeramik zu Flomborn
in Hessen am Beispiel der Siedlungen Ebsdorfer-
grund-Wittelsberg, Ldkr. Marburg-Biedenkopf, und
Hof Schönau, Ldkr. Groß-Gerau. Fundberichte aus
Hessen, Beiheft 0 (Wiesbaden 206).
Jarecki 99: H. Jarecki, Urgeschichtliche Funde und Be-
funde vom Areal der Göttinger Stadtburg. Göttinger
Jahrbuch 4, 99, 09–.
Jürgens 209: F. Jürgens, Der bandkeramische Zentralort
von Borgentreich-Großeneder (Kr. Höxter). Universi-
tätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 40
(Bonn 209).
Kadrow et al. 202: S. Kadrow/M. Posselt/T. Saile/M. Wąs/
J. Abramów/A. Golański, Culture transformation in
the Targowisko microregion. Trends of changes among
Danubian farmers. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne
7/, 202, 5–76.
Kaltofen 200: A. Kaltofen, Die linienbandkeramische
Siedlung von Schwiegershausen FStNr. 9, Ldkr. Oste-
rode am Harz. Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen
in Niedersachsen 24, 200, 9–22.
Kettlitz 208: E. Kettlitz, Rosdorf FStNr. 6. In: Fund-
chronik Niedersachsen 206. Nachrichten aus Nie-
dersachsens Urgeschichte, Beiheft 2, 208, 5–5.
Kirleis/Willerding 2008: W. Kirleis/U. Willerding, Die
Pflanzenreste aus der linienbandkeramischen Sied-
lung von Rosdorf-Mühlengrund, Ldkr. Göttingen, im
südöstlichen Niedersachsen. Praehistorische Zeit-
schrift 8, 2008, –78.
Kneipp 2006: J. Kneipp, Bandkeramische Zentralplätze in
Nordhessen. Immenhausen bei Kassel – Homberg-
Wernswig – Bad Zwesten-Niederurff. Berichte der
Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in
Hessen 8, 2004/2005 (2006), 8–90.
Krahn 2006: C. Krahn, Die bandkeramischen Siedlungen
im oberen Schlangengrabental. Studien zur bandke-
ramischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte. Rhei-
nische Ausgrabungen 57 (Mainz 2006).
Krüger 94: H. Krüger, Bandkeramische Siedlungen in
der Feldmark Grone bei Göttingen. Die Kunde 2,
94, 2–25.
Krüger 96 a: H. Krüger, Vorgeschichtliche Funde beim
Bau der Reichsautobahn im Bauabschnitt Göttingen-
Kassel. Tecklenburgs Heimatkalender für Süd-Nie-
dersachsen 27, 96, 6–4.
Krüger 96 b: H. Krüger, Vorgeschichtliche Funde und
Fundstätten im Kreise Göttingen. Göttinger Blätter
für Geschichte und Heimatkunde Südhannovers N. F.
2 (/4), 96, 64–90.
Krüger 97: H. Krüger, Weitere vorgeschichtliche Funde
beim Bau der Reichsautobahn im Bauabschnitt Göt-
tingen-Kassel. Tecklenburgs Heimatkalender für Süd-
Niedersachsen 28, 97, 2–26.
Květina/Řídký 209: P. Květina/J. Řídký, Traditional and
archaic societies – problems linked to the search for
social and power attributes in the archaeological
record. In: J. Řídký/P. Květina/P. Limburský/M. Kon-
čelová/P. Burgert/R. Šumberová (eds), Big men or
chiefs? Rondel builders of Neolithic Europe (Oxford,
Philadelphia 209) 6–4.
Link 204: T. Link, Die linien- und stichbandkeramische
Siedlung von Dresden-Prohlis. Eine Fallstudie zum
Kulturwandel in der Region der oberen Elbe um 5000
v. Chr. Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Ar-
chäologie Sachsen 60 (Dresden 204).
Lönne 200: P. Lönne, Das Mittelneolithikum im südlichen
Niedersachsen. Untersuchungen zum Kulturkomplex
Großgartach – Planig-Friedberg – Rössen und zur
Stichbandkeramik. Materialhefte zur Ur- und Frühge-
schichte Niedersachsens  (Rahden/Westf. 200).
Lorz/Saile 20: C. Lorz/T. Saile, Anthropogenic pedoge-
nesis of Chernozems in Germany? – A critical review.
Quaternary International 24, 20, 27–279.
Maier 970: R. Maier, Zum Neolithikum im Kreise Göt-
tingen. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte
9, 970, 28–0.
Maier 97: R. Maier, Die ur- und frühgeschichtlichen
Funde und Denkmäler des Kreises Göttingen. Mate-
rialhefte zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Niedersachsens
5 (Hildesheim 97).
Maier/Peters 965: R. Maier/H. G. Peters, Urgeschichtli-
che Siedlungsreste in Rosdorf, Kreis Göttingen. I. Die
archäologischen Befunde und der Fundstoff. Neue
Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 2,
965, 9–4.
Meyer 966: B. Meyer, Urgeschichtliche Siedlungsreste in
Rosdorf, Kreis Göttingen. IV. Bodenkundliche Unter-
suchungen an der Grabungsfläche 965 in Rosdorf,
Kreis Göttingen. Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschun-
gen in Niedersachsen , 966, 70–8.
Moos 996: U. Moos, Der Siedlungsplatz bei Diemarden.
Studien zur Bandkeramik im Landkreis Göttingen
(Göttingen 996) [unpublished PhD thesis].
Müller-Scheeßel et al. 2020: N. Müller-Scheeßel/J. Mül-
ler/I. Cheben/W. Mainusch/K. Rassmann/W. Rabbel/
THoMaS SaILE, MarTIN PoSSELT
E. Corradini/M. Furholt, A new approach to the tempo-
ral significance of house orientations in European Early
Neolithic settlements. PLoS ONE 5/: e0226082.
https://doi.org/0.7/journal.pone.0226082
Nakoinz 209: O. Nakoinz, Zentralität. Theorie, Metho-
den und Fallbeispiele zur Analyse zentraler Orte. Ber-
lin Studies of the Ancient World 56 (Berlin 209).
Pechtl 2009: J. Pechtl, A monumental prestige patchwork.
In: D. Hofmann/P. Bickle (eds), Creating Communi-
ties: New Advances in Central European Neolithic
Research (Oxford 2009) 86–20.
Pechtl 209: J. Pechtl, Stephansposching und sein Um-
feld. Studien zum Altneolithikum im bayerischen
Donauraum. Würzburger Studien zur Vor- und Früh-
geschichtlichen Archäologie 4 (Würzburg 209).
Peters 995: E. Peters, Grone FStNr. 4. In: Fundchronik
Niedersachsen 994. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens
Urgeschichte 64, 995, 242, no. 48.
Peters 997: E. Peters, Die ur- und frühgeschichtlichen
Funde und Fundstellen im Göttinger Becken und an-
grenzenden Leinebergland. Besiedlungsgeschichte im
Spiegel der archäologischen Landesaufnahme (Göt-
tingen 997) [unpublished MA thesis].
Petrasch 202: J. Petrasch, Ausgrabungspläne, die Be-
wohner bandkeramischer Häuser und die Sozial-
struktur des mitteleuropäischen Frühneolithikums.
In: R. Smolnik (Ed.), Siedlungsstruktur und Sozial-
wandel in der Bandkeramik. Beiträge zur internatio-
nalen Tagung “Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder
alles beim Alten?!” Leipzig, 2. bis 24. September 200.
Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bo-
dendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 25 (Dresden 202) 5–67.
Pfanneberg 897: G. Pfanneberg, Beiträge zur Vorge-
schichte Göttingens. Protokolle über die Sitzungen
des Vereins für die Geschichte Göttingens /5, 897,
67–9.
Posselt/Saile 2020: M. Posselt/T. Saile, Bandkeramische
Erdwerke bei Mangolding im nordwestlichen Gäubo-
den. Beiträge zur Archäologie in der Oberpfalz und in
Regensburg , 2020, –26.
Raddatz 964: K. Raddatz, Ein bandkeramischer Haus-
grundriß von Rosdorf, Kr. Göttingen. Göttinger Jahr-
buch 2, 964, 7–8.
Raddatz 972: K. Raddatz, Probleme einer archäologi-
schen Landesaufnahme im Mittelgebirgsgebiet. Neue
Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 7,
972, 4–80.
Raddatz 98: K. Raddatz, Die frühneolithische Siedlung
Diemarden, Ldkr. Göttingen. In: Frühe Bauernkultu-
ren in Niedersachsen. Linienbandkeramik, Stich-
bandkeramik, Rössener Kultur. Archäologische Mit-
63
teilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, Beiheft  (Ol-
denburg 98) 7–44.
Raddatz 2002: K. Raddatz, Beobachtungen an archäologi-
schen Oberflächenfundplätzen und -funden der Göt-
tinger Gegend. Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen
in Niedersachsen 2, 2002, 9–02.
Reichstein 977: H. Reichstein, Bemerkungen zu einigen
Tierknochen aus frühneolithischen Siedlungsgruben
von Rosdorf, Kreis Göttingen. Nachrichten aus Nie-
dersachsens Urgeschichte 46, 977, –26.
Reinhard 2004 a: J. Reinhard, Die Keramik der linien-
bandkeramischen Siedlung Göttingen-Grone/Fach-
marktzentrum (Freiburg i. Br. 2004) [unpublished
MA thesis].
Reinhard 2004 b: J. Reinhard, Die Keramik der linien-
bandkeramischen Siedlung Göttingen-Grone/Fach-
marktzentrum. Archäologische Informationen 27,
2004, 09–.
Reinhard 2007: J. Reinhard, Die bandkeramische Sied-
lung Göttingen-Grone – zum Stand der Aufarbeitung.
Berichte zur Denkmalpflege in Niedersachsen 27,
2007, 07–09.
Reinhard 209: J. Reinhard, Die linienbandkeramische
Siedlung Göttingen-Grone/Fachmarktzentrum. Kata-
log der Gebäudegrundrisse und Pfostengruben (Göt-
tingen 209) [unpublished manuscript].
Saile 2009: T. Saile, Siedlungsarchäologische Untersu-
chungen zum Frühneolithikum im südlichen Nieder-
sachsen. In: H.-J. Beier/E. Claßen/T. Doppler/B. Ram-
minger (eds), Varia neolithica VI. Neolithische Mo-
numente und neolithische Gesellschaften. Beiträge
der Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Neolithikum
während der Jahrestagung des Nordwestdeutschen
Verbandes für Altertumsforschung e. V. in Schleswig,
9.–0. Oktober 2007. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühge-
schichte Mitteleuropas 56 (Langenweißbach 2009)
4–5.
Saile 200: T. Saile, Aspects of neolithisation in the Weser-
Harz region. In: D. Gronenborn/J. Petrasch (eds), Die
Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neo-
lithic to Central Europe. RGZM-Tagungen 4 (Mainz
200) 49–447.
Saile/Lorz 200: T. Saile/C. Lorz, Anthropogene Schwarzer-
degenese in Mitteleuropa? Ein Beitrag zur aktuellen
Diskussion. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 78, 200, 2–
9.
Saile/Posselt 2002: T. Saile/M. Posselt, Durchblick in Die-
marden. Geomagnetische Prospektion einer bandke-
ramischen Siedlung. Germania 80, 2002, 2–46.
Saile/Posselt 2004a: T. Saile/M. Posselt, Zur magnetischen
Erkundung einer altneolithischen Siedlung bei Glade-
64
beck (Ldkr. Northeim). Ein „maître d’œuvre qualifié“ im
Moringer Becken? Germania 82, 2004, 55–8.
Saile/Posselt 2004b: T. Saile/M. Posselt, Magnetprospek-
tionen auf bandkeramischen Zentralplätzen in Süd-
niedersachsen. In: M. Fansa/F. Both/H. Haßmann
(eds), Archäologie Land Niedersachsen. 25 Jahre
Denkmalschutzgesetz – 400000 Jahre Geschichte. Ar-
chäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland,
Beiheft 42 (Oldenburg 2004) 20–27.
Saile/Posselt 2007: T. Saile/M. Posselt, Un maître d’œuvre
qualifié pour le Néolithique ancien de Basse-Saxe?
Prospections magnétiques sur les places centrales du
Rubané. Archaeologia Mosellana 7, 2007, 55–64.
Saile et al. 200: T. Saile/M. Posselt/S. Flindt, Frühe Bauern
im südwestlichen Harzvorland. Archäologie in Nieder-
sachsen , 200, 95–98.
Saile et al. 208: T. Saile/M. Posselt/R. Schoon/C. Tinapp,
Hollenstedt 2. Eine bandkeramische Siedlung an der
mittleren Leine. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 9, 208,
25–47.
Sangmeister 95: E. Sangmeister, Zum Charakter der band-
keramischen Siedlung. Bericht der Römisch-Germa-
nischen Kommission , 94–950 (95), 89–09.
Scheffer/Meyer 965: F. Scheffer/B. Meyer, Urgeschichtli-
che Siedlungsreste in Rosdorf, Kreis Göttingen. IV.
Ergebnisse pedologischer Untersuchungen an der
Grabungsfläche: Pedogenetische und stratigraphische
Phasengliederung und weitere Beiträge zur Herkunft
dunkler Grubenfüllungen in Lößgebieten. Neue Aus-
grabungen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 2,
965, 72–88.
Schlüter 97: B. Schlüter, Urgeschichtliche Siedlungsre-
ste in Rosdorf, Kr. Göttingen. Vorläufiger Bericht über
die Grabungen in den Jahren 969 und 970. Nach-
richten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 40, 97,
26–29.
Schlüter 98: B. Schlüter, Die bandkeramische Siedlung
auf dem Mühlengrund in Rosdorf, Landkreis Göttin-
gen. In: Frühe Bauernkulturen in Niedersachsen. Li-
nienbandkeramik, Stichbandkeramik, Rössener Kul-
tur. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwest-
deutschland, Beiheft  (Oldenburg 98) 45–90.
Schlüter/Schlüter 208: B. Schlüter/W. Schlüter, Die nach-
bandkeramischen Befunde und Funde vom Mühlen-
grund in Rosdorf, Ldkr. Göttingen. Nachrichten aus
Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 87, 208, 69–9.
Schlüter 969: W. Schlüter, Urgeschichtliche Siedlungsre-
ste in Rosdorf, Kr. Göttingen III. Neue Ausgrabungen
und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 4, 969, –27.
Thomas Saile, university of regensburg, chair of Prehistory and Early History, Institute of History, universitätsstraße 31, 93053 regensburg, germany.
E-mail: thomas.saile@ur.de
Martin Posselt, university of regensburg, chair of Prehistory and Early History, Institute of History, universitätsstraße 31, 93053 regensburg, germany.
E-mail: martin.posselt@ur.de
DIEMarDEN IN LowEr SaxoNy: aN EarLy NEoLITHIc SETTLEMENT aND ITS ENvIroNS
Schoon 2004: R. Schoon, Aspekte archäozoologischer
Forschung an Tierknochenfunden aus Niedersachsen.
Fallbeispiele. In: M. Fansa/F. Both/H. Haßmann (eds),
Archäologie Land Niedersachsen. 25 Jahre Denkmal-
schutzgesetz – 400000 Jahre Geschichte. Archäologi-
sche Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, Beiheft
42 (Oldenburg 2004) 6–28.
Schwarz 972: W. Schwarz, Urgeschichtliche Siedlungsre-
ste in Rosdorf, Kreis Göttingen IV. Neue Ausgrabun-
gen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 7, 972, –2.
Stäuble 2005: H. Stäuble, Häuser und absolute Datierung
der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Universitätsforschungen
zur prähistorischen Archäologie (Bonn 2005).
Steinmetz 985: W.-D. Steinmetz, Die Verbreitung der Li-
nienbandkeramik in Niedersachsen. Die Kunde N. F.
6, 985, 05–27.
Stephan 200: H.-G. Stephan, Geländeforschungen des
Seminars für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität
Göttingen. Göttinger Jahrbuch 49, 200, 07–2.
Stieren 95: A. Stieren, Bandkeramische Großbauten bei
Bochum und ihre Parallelen in Mitteleuropa. Bericht
der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission , 94–
950 (95), 6–88.
Streichardt 205: S. Streichardt, Rosdorf FStNr. 87. In: Fund-
chronik Niedersachsen 20. Nachrichten aus Nieder-
sachsens Urgeschichte, Beiheft 8, 205, 50–5, no. 50.
Thiedmann 205: A. Thiedmann, Neues zur alten Sied-
lung bei Gudensberg-Maden. hessenArchäologie
204, 205, 24–26.
Verworn 9: M. Verworn, Die Ausgrabung des neoli-
thischen Dorfes bei Diemarden. Korrespondenz-Blatt
der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Eth-
nologie und Urgeschichte 42, 9, 46–52.
Vondrovský 208: V. Vondrovský, Let the Sunshine In:
The Issue of Neolithic Longhouse Orientation. Euro-
pean Journal of Archaeology 2, 208, 528–549.
Wunderlich et al. 2020: M. Wunderlich/J. Müller/I. Che-
ben/A. Bistáková/M. Furholt/N. Müller-Scheeßel, The
political economy of the LBK and Želiezovce settle-
ment site of Vráble. In: M. Furholt/I. Cheben/J. Müller/
A. Bistáková/M. Wunderlich/N. Müller-Scheeßel, Ar-
chaeology in the Žitava Valley I. The LBK and Želi-
zovce settlement site of Vráble (Leiden 2020) 5–5.
Zimmermann 966: W. H. Zimmermann, Urgeschichtli-
che Siedlungsreste in Rosdorf, Kreis Göttingen. I. Sied-
lungsspuren der Bandkeramik, der Bronzezeit und
der jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit. Neue Aus-
grabungen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen , 966,
20–48.