是谁和什么机制触发了新石器时代的纪念碑性，其背后的动因是什么？中欧北部和斯堪的纳维亚南部的漏斗颈陶文化时期的古环境和考古资料已经清楚地说明了社会过程的重建与农业的引进及首批纪念物的建造有关，并且其提供了一个精心研究新石器时代建筑和建造过程的诱发机制、意义的范例。

SPP 1400（DFG优先计划1400）“早期纪念碑性和社会分化”在为期六年（2010-2016年）的研究中，重点研究了纪念性建筑，特别是巨石建筑及其社会、经济背景。为了了解这些过程，学者们对现有的及新获得的数据进行了综合，并结合生态、社会历史和文化人类学观点进行解释。 SPP研究团队由超过25名科学家和考古学家组成，他们从德国北部和南斯堪的那维亚所谓的“漏斗颈陶文化时期”（TBS）地区的考古和古生态档案中收集并分析了相关信息。

在一个跨学科团队中，我们分析了与发展有关的环境、社会和文化，包括环境和经济背景，巨石热潮以及TRB社区的总体构成情况。

环境与经济

北部景观主要由封闭的混合橡树林构成，沿水域及海岸零散分布有开放区域。从觅食到农业的早期转变是与North Atlantic Bond Event 4 同时的，并在斯堪的纳维亚南部和德国北部有区域性的输入。这是根据公元前4000-公元前3800年左右的斯卡格拉克海峡深海重建和贝劳湖的高分辨率沉积学证据推导出的。有证据表明尤其是在公元前4050-4010的40年糟糕年份，在埃斯波尔斯坦，这一气候事件对经济和社会发展有巨大影响。从环境的角度来看，直到公元前35世纪，气候才变暖和改善，到公元前3200年左右的气候再次恶化。这些气候变化也可能调节了经济和社会发展，包括纪念物的兴衰。

孢粉代用记录表明了土地开垦和重新造林的阶段。在公元前4200-公元前3600年左右，土地开垦量不断增加，随后在公元前3600-公元前3400年左右开始出现明显的繁荣，直到公元前3200年左右达到顶峰，大约在公元前3100-公元前3000年左右突然萧条。通过增加或减少塌积发生率的数量所获得的塌积层数的加权值支持了这一观察。除了环境导致的土地开垦外，还必须在这个过程中考虑人类影响的强度，人口的发展以及经济战略的变化都可能是景观变化的原因。生业经济越来越依赖谷物栽培和家养动物。谷物谱图中自由脱粒的大麦和二粒小麦是其主要作物，其次是少量的单粒小麦（Triticum monococcum）和自由脱粒的小麦（Triticum aestivum sl）。畜牧业的发展显示约从公元前4000−公元前3700年，驯养的动物骨骼从大约10％稳定增长到70％；约从公元前3400−公元前3100年，由70％缓慢增长到90％；到公元前3千纪，仍在明显持续增长。对来自奥尔登堡–达瑙的动物骨骼的同位素分析表明，TRB移民在当地牧场有一项限制策略，也检测到了施肥迹象。除动植物外，采集的植物和鱼类在维持生业经济中也发挥了重要作用。

从经济学角度看，畜力在犁耕中的运用进一步促进了农业系统及土地利用方式的重大转变。虽然在公元前38世纪已经有了犁耕的证据，但新技术的突破大约发生在公元前3650年至公元前3300年之间。集约化农业日益重要可能就是这项技术变革的结果，同时可能也是公元前34世纪首批村落出现的触发因素。

巨石的流行及其过程

在上述环境和经济背景下，德国北部巨石的繁荣主要始于公元前3600年及公元前3450年纪念物的增加。我们正在讨论的位于西姆布莱恩半岛南部约1200座纪念物全部建于公元前3200年左右的50年间，这意味着每年修建25座巨石建筑。如果巨石建筑的分布是随机的，那么每25公里（约7小时的步行路程）就会建造一座。

从类型学角度看，传统做法是将纪念物分为不同种类的支石墓和通道坟墓，这种分类方法已经沿用了几十年，目前没有明确的理由改变此分类系统。大多数的支石墓可以追溯到公元前3650—公元前3350年，通道坟墓则主要属于公元前3300—公元前3100/3000年。 一些测年较早的建筑的存在表明在每一种建筑概念兴起之前，新的建筑创新便已存在。因此，在公元前39世纪单个的支石墓，公元前36世纪单个的通道墓葬便已经开始兴建（这远远早于公元前3650年左右支石墓及公元前3350年左右通道墓葬的流行）。结合放射年代测定法、最早时期期巨石的排印年代测定法和把长期以来考古工作的经验和观察理论化使得对德国北部巨石发展的绝对量化成为可能。尤其是大约公元前3400—公元前3100年建立的纪念物是纪念碑性极大繁荣并走向萧条的年代。在约公元前3050年之后，几乎没有新的巨石建立，因此，在随后的两个世纪左右可被称为非纪念性世纪（在一些地区开始出现早期单坟之前）。

巨石建筑的流行改变了景观。不仅建立了令人印象深刻的纪念物，而且在几个世纪中被用作融合不同的社会和礼仪习俗。在霍尔施泰因Wangels LA 69号通道墓中，没有在内室里发现被清理的痕迹，也没有在甬道的前部发现奉纳式供品。但在墓室发现了丰富多样的陶器组合。用贝叶斯方法校准了85个放射性测年，确认了墓室的建造晚于公元前3350年左右基础仓库的建造，内室许多陶罐的堆积则发生在约公元前3200年，墓室最后的活动发生于公元前2100年左右。与此相关的发现是尽管里面的陶壶、陶罐等从未被触碰和被破坏，但墓道和墓室在数百年中都保持开放状态。我们将该遗址解释为制度化的祖先崇拜和创造，以及蓄意改变的记忆。单独埋葬仪式的合并（例如圆形土丘中附加长丘，在长丘中形成石堆墓），表明该遗址在大约公元前3100年开始出现新的思想实践。

虽然并没有任何清理事件发生（但思想意识方向肯定会发生改变），Wangels LA69 的例子显示了对该遗址的长期记忆。即使一些墓室可能会被清理，例如在Albersdorf-Brutkamp，遗址的废弃或墓室的关闭发生时间不早于公元前3100/3000年。即使上述要素瓦解或解构之后，该遗址的仪式或祖先崇拜即使在记忆改变的情况下也能使重造

仪式场地成为可能。

尽管这些地点促进了记忆的构建，但是巨石聚集的地方与某些特定的禁忌有关。空间上尊重邻近的巨石强调了更广阔的记忆聚集，这在诸如Flintbek，Borgstedt或者Haldensleber Forst等巨型石块构成的巨石墓以及Lüdelsen，Albersdorf等石块稍小的巨石墓群均有反映。在弗林特贝克3号墓群中，单个的墓葬或坟丘被链接成长的坟丘。显然，这是弗林特贝克许多巨石纪念物集合成整个墓区巨石链的反映。从微观到中观层面，作为一种结果，巨石景观因此成为生活世界的记忆地毯。

在艾德尔河谷中部的布德尔斯多夫和博格斯特遗址（距离1.5公里）也保持了这种状态。体现了围墙、居民点、非巨石建筑和巨石纪念物之间的关系及流动的结构。在长程的历史中，博格斯特地区森林面积为5.6公顷的大型堤道围栏构成的分界及部分较早的埋葬活动始于公元前3900年左右。经过不同阶段的更新和新纪念物的建造，包括将非巨石长丘重新布置为巨石墓，布德尔斯多夫1c的仪式性特征在大约公元前3300年被废除。一个大约由40-50间长屋构成的新的定居点被建立起来，包括内部的生活和工作区及外部的特殊活动区。此外，从一个礼仪性较弱的中心到以家庭区域为主的转变伴随的是博格斯特附近埋葬活动的延续和加强。大约经过了4代人，这个由大约400-500人构成的聚落再次被废弃（可能是因为过渡开发附近的土地），而布德尔斯多夫作为新的堤道围栏继续存在直到约公元前2800年。

在艾德河谷中部，尽管巨石纪念物可能链状地位于各聚落连接道路上，但它们仍然聚集在当地人口密集的区域内。在这种空间布局的地方秩序中，景观纪念碑性所承载的社会实践意义被反映出来。

“记住”和“破坏”是两种叙事手法，在TRB遗址的家庭记录中也较为常见。例如，在奥尔登堡–达瑙，该定居点的最早特征是一名40-50岁妇女的平葬，直到公元前31世纪，该墓葬才开始受到人们的尊重。公元前3070年左右，村里的两口井以同样的方式被填埋，在底部有焚烧过的苹果和谷物，在上部有打碎的TRB陶罐、石磨和白色的贝壳。女性平葬墓股骨的增加为明显的仪式性填充，为此还专门挖了一个坑。原则上，在约250年间，女性村落创始人的墓葬受到尊重，尽管可以肯定的是，在某个时刻墓葬被摧毁并被用作仪式表演场地。

社会发展

无论是环境/经济背景信息还是北欧景观中具有先驱意义的纪念碑的历史都可以纳入TRB社会总体发展状况中。在资源获取、公共财产权力与个人财产、公共礼仪活动参与的有限区别是保持家庭生产模式的驱动力，并且在数个世纪中是以一种有效的互惠方式进行的。以考古学定义的具有特定社会特征的TRB社会发展阶段如下：

阶段1—糟糕的年份和开放网络（公元前4100-公元前3800年）。中石器时代晚期的Ertebølle群落被认为是通过群落活动来表达认同的社会。例如鱼栏的维护或在厨房堆积仪式性垃圾。日常生活和年度生活的集体组织体现了地方习俗和区域联系，例如在堆积中发现了许多“南方”稀有物品。作为一种特殊模式，仪式性破坏这些器物并将其排除于日常消费之外，阻碍了制度化社会分层的发展。

如上文描述的公元前41世纪的40年的糟糕年代使得这种刻意的社会行为受到压力。因此与其它地区的长距离联系得以实现，并将新工具和新技术融合到已有系统中。这并没有导致新的社会等级制度的建立，而是通过兼容创新延续了现有的社会实践。在这样的“世界”中，仪式和家庭意识形态之间并未区分开来。

阶段2—美好的年月和自我构建（公元前3800-公元前3600年）。以类似的方式，用单个墓葬建造非巨石长土丘并不是社会多元化和分层的表达，而是已经物质化的“厨房堆积”规则的继续实践（后者随着海水盐度的变化逐渐消失了）。如果是这样，如上所述，家庭和仪式领域的划分第一次创造了一个社会舞台，在这个舞台上不仅可以向社区而且也可以向个人或家庭显示社会力量。但是，这从未发生；反而是更好的年份促进了人口的增长和多种经济实践，从而使得更多的家养和栽培品种融入到生业经济中。

阶段3—流行与社会竞争（公元前3600-公元前3350年）。支石墓、围墙等主要巨石建筑初始阶段及主要堆积阶段属于公元前3650-公元前3300年。尽管仪式和家庭活动的划分促进了文化景观的建设，但很难推导出公元前3650年左右建筑活动增加以及随后流行的原因。最初的纪念物和堤道围墙建造于农业经济发生主要转变（公元前38世纪已经发生）之前，在核心发展区域伴随有部分开放景观。例如在墓葬和堆积习俗中，人口和经济的繁荣并未反映出对部分人群的排斥。相反，所有的仪式都几乎以每个人都能参与的方式组织。然而，除了互惠和分享原则—使用类似的原材料和建筑结构—外，社会竞争和等级结构也具有重要意义。例如单个平葬墓包含有不同质量的器物，甚至相邻的纪念物尺寸和类别也不尽相同。

阶段4—共享（公元前3350-公元前3100年）。就这些事态发展的分歧而言，于社会管理方面，答案似乎有所 不同。第一批村落的人口聚集再次使经济、社会和礼仪事物得以集体组织。具有社会集体内涵的巨石通道墓葬的建筑热潮再次代表了社会的无首领状态。即使权力是由其象征物组织和标记的。个人首先还是一个共同组织的参与者，而不是制度化的社会阶层。

阶段5—个性化（公元前3100-公元前2800年）。然而上述过程与权力的集中有关。虽然最初在许多分散的地方通过建造较小的纪念物可以看出先前的能源开发和社会消费，但通道坟墓的概念仅限于少数几个地方。 聚落之间的竞争加剧了能源开采的集聚，这种竞争强调了个人的重要性，比如“战士”，进一步发展可能是一种个性化特征。通过这种个性化特征，TRB社会的集体体系被一种新型社会所克服：不一定是一个更加分层的社会，而是一个具有个人声音的社会（后来被称为“单一坟墓社会”）。这些变化究竟是由流动群体还有由漏斗颈陶文化时期社会内部凝聚过程引起的，或者两者兼有目前仍在讨论中。因此，TRB聚落以一种等级制和平衡的模式发展，导致了纪念物建筑和经济建设方面的繁荣与萧条。社会分层的趋势受到不同过程的阻碍，包括在纪念物建筑过程中与聚落融合在一起。

发展动因

有趣的是，新石器时代纪念物的兴衰或多或少与经济领域内的某些变化相关。土地开垦的增加及减少可能与巨石建筑的流行有关，随后的几代人首次受到新经济的影响。生产和堆积的人工制品数量也以类似的方式增加和减少。如果我们将特定物品赋予一个声望值（例如数量较少的斧子），我们也可以以同样的方式观测到其增长和减少。

由于文化发展与经济发展具有可比性，因此在TRB社会中赢得声望似乎与经济活动有关。随着其他因素的增加，土地开垦被发现早在几代人之前便已开始。就此而言，生业经济扩大所带来的改变和成功显然是合作群体取得社会成功的原因。如前所述，大多数人被埋在巨石冢中。这些纪念物的合作性特征通过墓室内的个体的去个体化特征得以表达。成为祖先与埋葬权力的集体主义息息相关。此外，堤道围栏并未显示对个人社会权力划分的迹象；相反，通过庆典活动表现出的合作似乎与这些遗址的仪式性特征有关。在已知的聚落中，房屋之间没有明显的区别。即使是村落内部或外部的个人坟墓中也没有表现出剩余积累。他们被聚落“用于”社会事件，或者以一个整体来表达社会群体身份。

这些社会的生产力可以通过其无头领的特征来解释。TRB社会纪念物的创建使得聚落保持平衡。因此，我们将TRB社会标记如下：在该社会中，共享作为一种社会原则得到了明确发展，同时也为TRB聚落的生产力负责。这些共享实践的标志物在我们当前的景观中仍然矗立着，因此，其结构价值不仅局限于平衡过去社会。

个人简介：

约翰内斯·穆勒（弗莱堡大学博士学位，1990年）是德国基尔大学史前和原史考古研究所的教授兼所长。他是约翰·梅斯托夫学会的创始主任；协作研究中心“转型的规模：史前和古社会中人与环境的相互作用”，卓越集群“根–过去社会中的社会、环境和文化连接”的发言人。他从事新石器时代和欧洲青铜时代的研究，探索将考古学的人类学方法与自然科学、社会科学、生命科学和人文科学内在地联系在一起。他带领的国际团队进行了大量的田野工作，例如东欧的大型遗址Tripolye；波斯尼亚–黑塞哥维那的新石器时代晚期遗址Okolište；德国北部新石器时代的居址和墓葬遗址；大波兰地区早期青铜时代遗址。他还在印度进行了民族考古的田野工作。约翰内斯·穆勒在基尔研究生院 “景观中的人类发展”和斯堪的纳维亚研究生院“过去的对话”中开设有国际博士学位项目。

Who and what triggered Neolithic monumentality, and why? As palaeo-environmental and archaeological archives of the northern central European and southern Scandinavian Funnel Beaker societies have proven to be excellent, the reconstruction of their social processes linked with the introduction of agriculture and the construction of first monuments displays a well-researched example for investigating the triggers and meanings of Neolithic structures and processes.

The SPP 1400 (DFG Priority Program 1400) “Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation” focused on the investigation of these phenomena of monumental structures, in particular on megalithic constructions and their social and economic backgrounds for six years of research (2010-2016). From the synthesis of available and newly-acquired data combined with the interpretation from ecological, socio-historical and cultural anthropological perspectives, an understanding of these processes was aimed at. The SPP, was comprised of a group of more than 25 scientists and archaeologists, that gathered and analysed information from archaeological and palaeo-ecological archives for the region of the so-called Funnel Beaker Societies (“Trichterbechergesellschaften” –  TBS) in North Germany and South Scandinavia.

Within this interdisciplinary team, we analysed environmental, social and cultural aspects of the development, including the environmental and economic background, the megalithic boom, and the general constitution of the TRB communities.

Environment and Economy

Within the northern landscape that mainly comprised closed mixed oak forests with patchy open areas along the waters and open areas along the coasts, the early transformation from foraging to farming is contemporary to the with regional input in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany. This was conducted from Skagerrak deepwater reconstructions around 4000−3800 BCE and high-resolution sedimentological evidence from Lake Belau. Evidence for 40 bad years from 4050−4010 BCE in Eastholstein suggests that this climatic event had a huge impact on the economic and social development. From an environmental perspective, the warmer and bettering conditions until the 35th century BCE and the climatic deterioration around 3200 BCE might have modulated the economic and social developments, including the boom and bust of monuments.

Phases of land opening and reforestation are indicated by the palynological proxy record. Increasing land openings around 4200−3600 BCE are followed by an impressive boom around 3600−3400 BCE with a high level until around 3200 BCE, as well as a steep bust around 3100−3000 BCE. Weighted numbers of colluvial layers support these observations by increasing and decreasing amounts of colluvial incidence. Besides environmental triggers for the land openings, the intensity of human impact has to be seen as the primary cause. Both demographic developments as well as changes in the economic strategy could be the cause for the landscape changes. Subsistence economy increasingly depended on cereal cultivates and domesticated animals. The cereal spectrum mainly included free-threshing barley and emmer as the main crops, followed to a minor extent by einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and free-threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum sl). The development of animal husbandry displays a steady increase of domesticates around 4000−3700 BCE from about 10 to 70 % of the bone assemblages, a smooth increase from 70 to 90 % around 3400−3100 BCE, which obviously also continues in the 3rd millennium BCE. Isotopic analysis of the animal bones from Oldenburg-Dannau indicates a restricted local pasture strategy of the TRB settlers. Indications of manuring are detected. Besides animals and plants, both gathered plants and fish also played an important role within the subsistence economy.

From an economic perspective the introduction of the animal-pulled plough and the wheal furthered important changes within the agricultural system and the land use practices. While evidence of ploughing is already indicated in the 38th century BCE, the main breakthrough of the new technology took place between ca. 3650 and 3300 BCE. The increasing role of intensive agricultural practices might be a result of this technological change, as well as the possible trigger for the appearance of the first villages in the 34th century BCE.

The Megalithic Boom and Biographies of Memorialization

Within such an environmental and economic background, the major boom of the megaliths in northern Germany started with an increasing number of monuments around 3600 BCE and the boom around 3450 BCE. We are talking about 1,200 monuments that were erected around 3200 BCE in about 50 years only on the southern Cimbrian Peninsula, which means about 25 megaliths each year! If the distribution of megaliths was random, a megalith would have been constructed every 25 km (a walking distance of about 7 hours by foot).

From a typological perspective, the traditional categorisation of the monuments into different kinds of dolmen and passage graves has been in use since decades and there is no obvious reason to change the classification system used. As the majority of dolmen are dated to 3650−3350 BCE and passage graves mainly to 3300−3100/3000 BCE, some earlier dates indicate the presence of new architectural innovation before the boom of each architectural concept started. Thus, already in the 39th century BCE singular dolmen were erected and in the 36th century BCE singular passage graves were erected (long before the dolmen boom after ca. 3650 BCE and the passage grave boom after ca. 3350 BCE). The combination of radiometric dating, typochronological dating of the earliest inventories within the megaliths and the aoristic approach made an absolute quantification of the megalithic development in northern Germany possible. Monuments were especially erected between ca. 3400−3100 BCE, an extraordinary boom and bust period of monumentality. After ca. 3050 BCE, almost no new megaliths were erected, whereby two more or less non-monumental centuries followed (before the boom of early Single Grave mounds started in some areas).

The boom in megalithic architecture changed the landscape. Not only the impressive monuments were erected, but they were also used for centuries with the integration of different social and ritual practices. At the Holsteiner passage grave of Wangels LA 69, neither a clearing of the inner chamber nor votive offerings in front of the passage were detected, but rich and manifold ceramics were deposited within the chamber.

The Bayesian calibration of 85 radiometric dates confirmed the construction of the chamber around 3350 BCE, followed by the deposition of many pots in the inner part around 3200 BCE and more activities within the chamber around 2100 BCE. Highly relevant is the observation that the passage and chamber were hold open for hundreds of years, although the deposition of pots and jugs was never touched or destroyed. In our interpretation, the site signifies the institutionalised ancestor worship and the creation, as well as deliberate change of memories. The incorporation of individual burial practices – represented in a stone heap grave in an additional long mound elongation of the round mound – describes the beginning of a new ideological practice at the site around 3100 BCE.

The example of Wangels LA69 displays the long-lasting memorialization of the site without any clearing events (but surely with changes in the ideological orientation). Even if such clearings of the chamber are probable (like at Albersdorf-Brutkamp), the dismantling of sites or the closing of chambers took place not before 3100/3000 BCE. The ritual practices at the sites and the ancestor worship enabled the creation of ritual places with changed memories even after described elements of deconstruction or disintegration.

While the places catalysed memory construction, sites of agglomerated megalithic places were also linked to certain taboos. The spatial respecting of neighbouring megaliths highlights the agglomeration of further memories both within the agglomeration of megaliths at megalithic cemeteries like Flintbek, Borgstedt or the Haldensleber Forst, and within smaller megalithic grave groups like Lüdelsen or Albersdorf. Obviously, the chain-like agglomeration of single burials and burial mounds to a long mound at Flintbek 3 is mirrored by the integration of the many megalithic monuments at Flintbek into the chain of megaliths of the whole cemetery. From the micro to the meso level, as a product megalithic landscapes are consequently consequently a memorialized reflection of the living world.

This perspective also applies to the middle Eider Valley with the Büdelsdorf and Borgstedt sites (1.5 km distance), which exemplify the relational and partly fluid structure between enclosures, settlements, non-megalithic and megalithic monuments. Within the long-lasting history (Hage 2016), the demarcation of the forested area with the 5.6 ha large causewayed enclosure and the partly earlier burial activities at Borgstedt started around 3900 BCE. After different phases of renewals and erections of new monuments, including the re-arrangement of the non-megalithic long mounds to megalithic tombs, around 3300 BCE the ritual character of Büdelsdorf 1c was abolished. A new settlement with probably about 40−50 longhouses was constructed with an inner living and working area and an outer area for special activities. Besides, the transformation from a purely ritual centre to a mainly domestic area was accompanied by a continuation and intensification of the burial activities in nearby Borgstedt. After about four generations, the agglomeration of probably about 400−500 people was abandoned again (probably due to over-exploitation of the nearby soils) and Büdelsdorf continued as a renewed causewayed enclosure until around 2800 BCE.

Within the middle Eider valley, megalithic monuments cluster within the areas of local population agglomerations, although they are also situated as links between settled areas. Within such a local ordering of the spatial arrangements, the ‘loading’ of the landscape with the meaning of social practices of monumentality is evident.

“Memorialization” and “destruction” are narratives that are also visible in the domestic record of TRB sites. For example at Oldenburg-Dannau, the earliest feature of the settlement is the flat burial of a 40−50 year-old woman, which was respected until the 31st century BCE. Around 3070 BCE, two wells of the village were filled in the same manner, with burned apples and cereal at the ground, destroyed TRB pots and querns following and white shining shells at the top. This obviously ritual infilling included the femur of the female from the flat grave, for which a pit was specially dug. Thus, for about 250 years the burial of the female village founder was respected, although at a moment of other changes it was destroyed and used for ritual performances.

The Societal Development

Both the environmental/economic background information and the history of the first monumentalisation of the Nordic landscape could be put into a general picture of the development of TRB societies. Limited differences in access to resources, common property rights in contrast to individual properties and participation in common ritualised activities were vehicles to keep the household mode of production and a kind of reciprocity valid for centuries. Archaeologically defined TRB phases with certain societal characteristics were detected.

Phase 1 – Bad years and open networks (4100-3800 BCE). Late Mesolithic Ertebølle communities were identified as societies in which social identity was expressed by communal activities like the maintenance of fish fences or the ritual waste deposition in kitchen middens. The collective organisation of daily and yearly life was expressed in local customs and regional ties that included the integration of rare objects from the south into deposits. As a specific pattern, the ritual destruction of objects and the exclusion of such objects from utilitarian consumption hindered the development of institutionalised social stratification.

The already described 40 bad years of the 41st century BCE brought this deliberate social behaviour under pressure. Consequently, the long-lasting ties to other regions were used for the integration of new tools and technologies into the existing system. This did not result in the creation of social hierarchies but rather the continuation of existing social practices by compatible innovations. Within such a world, the division between ritual and domestic ideologies did not exist.

Phase 2 – Better years and self-construction (3800-3600 BCE). In a similar manner, the construction of non-megalithic long mounds with individual burials is not the expression of a diversification and a stratification of the society, but rather a continued practice that was already materialised in the “kitchen midden” principle (the latter disappearing with the changing sea salinity) (Müller 2013d). If so, for the first time the division of domestic and ritual spheres as described above created a social arena in which the display of social power was possible for communities and also for individuals or families. However, this never happened; instead, the better years furthered a demographic growth and a manifold of economic practices that led to the integration of further domesticates and cultivars into subsistence economies.

Phase 3 – Boom and social competition (3600-3350 BCE). The beginning main building phase of megaliths like dolmens, enclosures and the main depositional period followed around 3650−3300 BCE. While the division of ritual and domestic activities furthered the construction of cultural landscapes, it is difficult to estimate reasons for the increased building activities around 3650 BCE and the boom afterwards. The first monuments and causewayed enclosures were built before the main shift towards an agrarian economy (already in the 38th century BCE) with partly open landscapes in the core areas of the development. The demographic and economic boom was not reflected in the exclusion of parts of the population, e.g. from burial or depositional customs. Instead, all practices were organised in a manner that left almost everybody with possibilities to participate. Nevertheless, beside the principle of reciprocity and sharing that is detectable e.g. in similarly used raw material resources or constructed architecture, social competition and hierarchical structures also gained significance. Examples include different qualities of the equipment of individual flat graves or even different size categories of neighbouring monuments.

Phase 4 – Sharing (3350-3100 BCE). In terms of the divergence of such developments, the answer seemed to differ in respect to governance. The accumulation of populations in first villages again allowed the collective organisation of economic, social and ritual matters. The construction boom of megalithic passage graves with a collective social connotation again represented the acephalous or polyphalous orientation of the society. Even if power were organised and marked by symbols of power, the individuals were first of all actors of a common organisation and not so much an institutionalised social class.

Phase 5 – Individualisation (3100-2800 BCE). Nevertheless, the described processes were associated with a concentration of power. While the prior energy investment and conspicuous consumption of communities was originally visible at many dispersed places with the construction of smaller monuments, the new concept of passage graves was restricted to a small number of places. This agglomeration of energy investment was enforced by a kind of competition between communities that furthered the importance of individuals, e.g. warriors. The further development might be characterised as an individualisation through which the collective system of the TRB societies was overcome by a new kind of society: not a necessarily more hierarchized one, but a society with the pronunciation of the individual (later the Single Grave societies). Whether these changes were induced by mobile groups, cohesion processes within the Funnel Beaker societies or by both is a matter of discussion. Consequently, TRB communities developed themselves in a mode of hierarchy and balance, triggering booms and busts in respect to monument building and economic input. Tendencies towards social stratification were hindered by different processes, including the integration communities in the construction of monuments.

Reasons Behind the Development

Interestingly, the boom and bust in Neolithic monuments is linked to certain changes within the economic sphere, which are more or less correlated. The increase in land openings and its decrease could be associated with the megalithic boom, which followed some generations later then the first impact of the new economy. The quantity of produced and deposited artefacts increased and decreased in a similar manner. If we associate certain objects with a prestigious value (e.g. the few axes), an increase and decrease in a similar way is also detectable.

As the cultural development is comparable with the economic one, gaining prestige within TRB societies seems to be associated with economic activities. Land openings are detectable some generations earlier than the boom of the other factors. Accordingly, the changes and success within the broadening of the subsistence economy is obviously responsible for social success of the cooperative groups. As already described, most of the people were buried within megaliths. The cooperative character of these monuments is expressed in the de-individualisation of the individuals in the chamber. Becoming an ancestor is linked to the collectivism within the burial right. Moreover, the causewayed enclosures do not display any sign of the demarcation of individual social power; instead the cooperation through festivities seems to be associated with the ritual character of these sites. Within the known settlements, no pronounced differences are detectable between houses and their inventories. Even individuals who are buried inside or outside villages in individual graves do not display an accumulation of surplus. They are used by the communities for social events and the expression of the social group as a whole.

The productivity of these societies could be explained by its acephalous character. Monuments of TRB societies were created and constructed to keep the communities in balance.  Insofar as we would label the TRB societies as such, sharing as a societal principle is clearly developed and also responsible for the still visible productivity of TRB communities. These signatures of sharing practices are still visible within our current landscapes and thus signalise structural values which are not necessarily restricted to past societies of balance.

Acknowledgment:  The SPP1400 was financed by the German Research Foundation. The insights into the near Neolithic past would not have been possible without the tremendous teamwork of many technicians, students and scholars, especially Jan Piet Brozio, Hauke Dibbern, Walter Dörfler, Stephan Dreibrodt, Martin Furholt, Barbara Fritsch (Heritage Sachsen-Anhalt) Franziska Hage, Sönke Hartz, Martin Hinz, Ben Krause-Kyora, Wiebke Kirleis, Stephanie Kloos, Moritz Mennenga, Almut Nebel, Knut Rassmann (RGK Frankfurt), Christoph Rinne, Kay Schmütz, Mara Weinelt, Maria Wunderlich from Kiel University.

Biographic Sketch

Johannes Müller (PhD, University of Freiburg, 1990) is a Professor and Director of the Institute for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology at Kiel University, Germany. He is the founding director of the Johanna Mestorf Academy (https://www.jma.uni-kiel.de/en), Speaker of the Collaborative Research Centre “Scales of Transformation: Human-environmental Interaction in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies” (https://www.sfb1266.uni-kiel.de/en) and of the Excellence Cluster “ROOTS – Social, Environmental, and Cultural Connectivity in Past Societies” (https://www.cluster-roots.uni-kiel.de/en). He conducts research on Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe, including the challenge of interlinking natural, social, life sciences, and the humanities within an anthropological approach of archaeology. Intensive fieldwork was and is carried out in international teams, e.g., on Tripolye mega-sites in Eastern Europa, the Late Neolithic tell site of Okolište in Bosnia-Hercegovina, different Neolithic domestic and burial sites in Northern Germany, and Early Bronze Age sites in Greater Poland. Ethnoarchaeological fieldwork has been conducted, e.g., in India. Within the Kiel Graduate School “Human Development in Landscapes”, now the Young Academy of ROOTS, and the Scandinavian Graduate School “Dialogues of the Past”, Johannes Müller promotes international PhD projects.