sign in sign up
<<
Home , Kaup (emporium), Yamnaya culture

KAUP 2014 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS & RESEARCH HISTORY

K R, I M, A M & V I. K with contributions by Adam Cordes, Kristian M. Gregersen, Marie Louise Jørkov, Niels Lynnerup & Egidijus Šatavičius

ABSTRACT Despite the uniqueness of the environment of the The article is a report on fi eld activities of 2014 at a peninsular, around 3000 BC, at the beginning of the renowned location of Kaup forest near Wiskiauten/ Late Neolithic in the Baltic Region, Sambia was already Viskiautai, nowadays Kaliningrad oblast of , and a part of the cultural development of huge territories in a sentimental journey through the research history in a central, northern and eastern , from the Rhine in region at the crossroads of ancient communication webs, the west, to the Upper in the east and from the Alps and more recently – of diverse political agendas. Field in the south to southern in the north. By 3000 BC activities focused on the so-called Barrow 1, the only new types of sites and artefacts appeared in these areas, known mound at Kaup dated to the Neolithic, otherwise in particular of the (Milisauskas dotted with of the . It was an attempt & Kruk 2011, 294). Vessels like amphorae, beakers, to reconstruct barrow architecture, which has resulted in cups and others were commonly decorated by cord a deconstruction of previous views based on rather scarce impressions. Boat-shaped stone axes, in fact, battle axes, excavation reports of the 19th – early 20th century. The triangular arrowheads, and knives of fl int, wrist guards, Neolithic barrow of Kaup remains a unique testimony of bone pins, beads and pendants also appeared in the social complexity and spatial awareness of the early the area, as well as new settlement and types. On 3rd millennium BC when Europe was under the spell of the basis of these quite radical changes in the material the Corded Ware and other related cultural phenomena. culture, it is claimed that almost all aspects of human life, social, ideological and economic have changed radically. The origin of the Corded Ware culture has been INTRODUCTION disputed for almost a century. Two main explanations have been proposed: a massive migration of the Pit Grave or LATER NEOLITHIC & EARLY BRONZE Yamnaya culture people, also known as the people AGE IN THE KAUP REGION from the steppe territories to the north of the Black and The Kaup burial mound is one of the key Late Neolithic the Caspian Sea, or locally initiated changes. According and archaeological sites in the southeastern to Gimbutas (Gimbutas 1991), a “massive infi ltration“ of part of the Baltic region. It is located in the northern part the Kurgan people from the steppe areas initiated cultural of the Sambian peninsula, close to the Curonian Spit, changes in central and (Gimbutas 1991, which is a 98 km long and 0.4-3.8 km wide, and sea water 384). This model has gained a signifi cant support from on both sides (note 1) (Fig. 1). The Sambian peninsula the recent DNA studies (Haak et al. 2015; Allentoft et al. itself is a unique environmental area in the Baltics, rich 2015). However, other archaeologists suggest that several in amber deposits. The northern part is bounded by the smaller innovations or gradual local changes played the Baltic Sea and the Curonian Lagoon; the western part main role in the cultural transformation of a very wide is surrounded by the Baltic Sea; the southern part by region (Waals 1984; Bankoff & Winter 1990, 175) (see the Vistula Lagoon and Pregel/ Prieglius River; and the also Nordqvist, this volume). In turn, such innovations eastern part by the Deima/Deimena River. gave rise to socio-economic and ideological changes. 86 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 1. Location of Kaup (1) and distribution of other sites in a broader region where barrows of Corded Ware temporal horizon have been encountered and investigated; all in Northern Poland: 2 - Babięty Małe, 3 – Żygląd, 4 – Modliborzyce, 5 – Kuczkowo, 6 – Krusza Zamkowa, 7 - Ciechrz, 8 – Bożejewice, 9 – Kęsocha (data from Okulicz 1973; Kośko & Kločko 1991; Sobieraj 2001 & Pospieszny et al. 2015).

In the southeastern and eastern part of the Baltic, a cultural layer attributed to ca. 3300-3000 calBC (Ibsen from the Bay of Gdansk and the Vistula Lagoon to the 2009, 72-73). Curonian Lagoon and the Latvian coast the local variant Larger excavations have recently been conducted in of the Corded Ware culture is termed the Baltic Coastal or the southern part of the peninsula. In 1994 Edwin Salts- Bay Coast culture (Rzucewo, Haff küstenkultur, Pamarių). man, an archaeologist from Kaliningrad, discovered the The knowledge of this complex in the Sambian peninsula Pribrezhnoye settlement (former Heyde-Waldburg) lo- is still quite limited. cated on the coast of the Vistula Bay, about 200 m to the west of the Pribrezhnoye suburban settlement, now part Settlements of Kaliningrad city (Saltsman 2004; 2013). It is diffi cult to reconstruct the settlement system of these According to the excavator, the settlement was estab- coastal people. Only a few settlements have been properly lished on the fl at northern slope of a sandy elevation, 7.5 excavated, such as Succase, Rzucewo, Tolkemit, Nida, m above sea level. The elevation is separated from the Šventoji, and some others (Žurek 1954; Kilian 1955; bay by marshy lowlands and seems to have occupied an Gimbutas 1956, 157-159; Gimbutas 1965, 395-397; area of about 15,000 m2. The southern and eastern parts Rimantienė 1989; Rimantienė 2005). Two types of sites of the settlement were destroyed before the excavations, are recorded: permanent settlements and seasonal camps which covered 1,760 m2. Remains of 16 built structures (Rimantienė 2005; Milisauskas & Kruk 2011, 307). Some were found, and at least two occupational horizons could archaeologists (Gimbutas 1956, 157-158; 1965, 395-396) be established. The earliest phase shows direct links with also mentioned fortifi ed hilltop settlements. According to the , underlining its still some- Gimbutas, the Rzucewo settlement is located on several how neglected importance for the cultural shaping of the terraces near the Bay of Gdansk, reinforced by timber region. The later can be attributed to the Baltic Coastal posts and big stone slabs (Gimbutas 1965, 395). All these culture (Saltsman 2013). mentioned sites are outside of the Sambian peninsula. At least three dwellings were occupied simultane- In Sambia, until now, only a few settlement sites have ously. Larger House 2 was located at the southern edge been discovered and only one of these excavated nearly of the settlement; it was orientated in SW-NE direction, completely. In 2007, close to the Kaup mound, and to the being 17.70 m long and c. 4 m wide (Fig. 2). Two double east of Kaup forest, in the village of Palve, Timo Ibsen, rows of postholes were left from the walls of the dwell- following Otto Kleemann’s inventories published in ing. Another row of more substantial postholes was found 1939, confi rmed through survey trenches the existence of inside this two-aisled building and served to support the Kaup 2014 87

Dwellings of both phases had sunken fl oors, thus ena- bling better preservation of remains. Pottery and some stone and amber artefacts were found both inside and out- side the houses. They include small trapezoid axes made of slate and crystal rock, amber beads and pendants, and some other fi nds. Huge amounts of various types of pot- tery, such as amphoras, beakers, bowls and others have been reported. Half of the pottery shards (51.36%) is un- decorated (Saltsman 2004, 142). According to the data obtained from the Baltic Coast- al settlements (Pribrezhnoye, Nida, Šventoji, and Rzuce- wo) it can be concluded that there were small scattered villages on the peninsula. They consisted of one to three small or medium size rectangular houses, with 7-40 peo- ple altogether in one village. Only in rare cases bigger houses were constructed, like the one in the Pribrezhnoye settlement. Each house contained from one to two – per- haps three rooms with one round hearth inside. It is as- sumed that small-scale societies, perhaps heterarchical with a common patrilineal ancestor, lived along the coast during this period. It is diffi cult to reconstruct the subsistence strategy of the Baltic Coastal people, since we have very little evi- dence on the economy, especially from older excavated settlement sites. Some archaeologists suggest that the population was a pastoralist one, others think that it was dependent on farming (Milisauskas & Kruk 2011, 304- Fig. 2. Plan of House 2 at Pribrezhnoye settlement. After Saltsman 2004, Fig. 2. 307). According to data from excavated sites in Nida and Šventoji, which are close to the Sambian peninsula, the gable roof. According to Saltsman, the dwelling was sub- people in the coastal areas near the Baltic Sea, subsisted divided into two rooms. Moreover, there are indications largely on maritime fi shing and sea-mammal hunting, as of further internal subdivision of space, resembling stall well as on hunting and gathering in the forests close to the dividers. A round hearth of 1.20 m in diameter was found settlements. In Nida and Šventoji 1A settlements, small almost in the centre of the dwelling. In fact, it was pos- scale farming and animal husbandry might have been sible to reconstruct two hearths at the same spot nearly practiced as well (Rimantienė 1989; Rimantienė 2005). completely overlapping each other. Charcoal from the Bones of cattle, sheep/goat, pig, dogs and horses in small hearth of the upper layer has been AMS-dated to 4220 +/- numbers, have been found in the Nida settlement, as well 40 BP (Le-6217) or 2924-2620 calBC (99.7% probability, as seeds of domesticated plants, such as wheat and millet Reimer et al. 2013) (Saltsman 2013, Table 1), represent- (Rimantienė 1989, 67-69). On the other hand, these fi nds ing the time frame of the upper horizon. might refl ect exchange with other societies, for sandy Traces of House 3 were found close to the House 2, soils were hardly fertile enough to sustain any feasible being orientated to SW-NE direction, just as House 2. farming. Amber artefacts were produced in big quanti- House 3 was 13.20 m long and 3.70 – 3.20 m wide. Sam- ties, certainly for exchange. Metal (copper) artefacts were ples of charcoal from the bottom layer of the House 3 almost absent in the region. were AMS-dated to 3376-2863 calBC (99.3% probabil- ity) (Le-6218, 4410 +/-80 BP) (ibid.), representing the time frame of the lower horizon. 88 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 3. Antler plates from Kaup Barrow 1 (1), Zvejnieki Grave 186 (2), Abora I settlement (3), Ząbie Grave 398 (4), Sarkaņi Grave (5), Żerniki Grave (6), Nohra Grave 6 (7) and Lagaža settlement (8).

Burials antler plates, supposedly wrist guards, even though they The main data on the Late Neolithic coastal Baltic are often presented as girdle clasps (Fig. 3.1) (Gaerte peoples comes from burial sites, mounds and fl at surface 1929, Fig. 33, 35e-g; Killian 1955, 291-292, Taf. XLV; cemeteries. Very few burial sites of the period have been Gimbutas 1956, 159, Fig. 97, 98b). Four almost identical discovered on the Sambian peninsula, more comes from artefacts of antler were found at three other sites in the burial sites southwest and northeast of the peninsula East Baltic, all in Latvia. One of them was discovered (Gimbutas 1965; Žukauskaitė 2004; Loze 2006; Grasis at the Abora I settlement (Loze 1979, Fig. LIII.6) (Fig. 2007). People buried their dead in skeletal single graves 3.3). Two others appeared as a pair of grave goods in the under low mounds, or in small moundless cemeteries. The Zvejnieki cemetery, Grave 186 (Zagorskis 1987, Fig. 31) graves usually contained a single skeleton in a contracted (Fig. 3.2). The last was discovered in a single grave in position (hocker). Sometimes it is diffi cult to determine Sarkaņi at Lake Sedzers (Loze 2006, Fig. 9) (Fig. 3.5). whether the dead bodies were buried under a mound or It should also be mentioned that a Latvian Lagaža Late in a moundless cemetery, since mounds have often been Neolithic settlement has produced two antler plates that ploughed away in recent times. The low barrows were deviate in shape from the above-mentioned ones, but surrounded by circles of wooden posts, later on by stone functionally must have been used in the same way (Loze rings, or ditches. Stone pavements are one of the most 1995, Fig. 3.4-5) (Fig. 3.8). Their complex and elaborate common structures of the graves (Gimbutas 1965, 396- decoration underlines the probability that antler plates 398). This contrasts from the burial traditions of the earlier were part of the equipment used as ethnic markers. At periods. The main grave goods are boat shaped battle Zvejnieki these were found above the palm bones of the axes, fl int knives and arrowheads, bone pins, pottery with hands of the skeleton (Zagorskis 1987, Fig. 22.186). The cord-impressions, and amber ornaments (Gimbutas 1956, ones from Kaup were also close to the palm bones. 158-164; Žukauskaitė 2004, 109-134; Loze 2006, 318- Outside the Baltics, such T-shaped or bell-shaped 320; Milisauskas & Kruk 2011, 311-315). antler plates are also occasionally encountered. A pair was The oldest grave at Kaup, Grave I, was furnished found in Żerniki grave (Czebreszuk & Łoś 1999, Fig. 5), with a fl int fl ake (possibly a scraper) and two decorated and another pair is known from Grave 398 in Ząbie (both Kaup 2014 89 sites in Poland), where the two plates were associated with a 2-3 year old child, but still located around the pelvic bones (Pospieszny 2015, Fig. 2) (Fig. 3. 4 & 6). The westernmost fi nding comes from Nohra burial site in Thuringia, , which has since its discovery in 1930s been dated to the Bronze Age (Stenberger 1960 with refs, Fig. 8) (Fig. 3.7). But recently Grave 6, where the two plates had been discovered were dated to 2800- 2600 calBC (Pospeszny 2015 with refs.). Even though it is still debatable how to interpret the function of these plates, which are, as a rule, found in pairs, and usually found around the pelvic area. The T-shape, which is also found in modern counterparts, supports the interpretation as wrist guards. The listed T-shaped wrist guards made of antler (when identifi ca- tion has been undertaken, the result is deer antler) form a separate group in terms of shape and decoration within this class of objects, and can be seen as a “local” (as opposed to foreign infl uences of the 3rd millennium BC) Neolithic contribution to the symbolic repertoire of male status, cf. for instance presence of a wrist guard in early 4th millennium BC Grave 2 at Dragsholm on Zealand, Denmark (Petersen & Egeberg 2009) or similar objects Fig. 4. Barrow No 1 at Rantava (Rantau), Sambia. After Šturms 1936, in Västerbjers burial site on Gotland, dated to 2900-2500 Plate 28 based on Engel 1935, Plate 54B. BC and interpreted as a burial site of a non-agrarian seal hunting community (Stenberger 1960, Fig. 2; Ericsson rings and other shapes (Gaerte 1929, 67-75; Gimbutienė 2004). Wrist guards gain a particular importance within 1985, 56-60). It is widely accepted that amber was the the Bell Beaker cultural context, and in fact manifesting main raw material used in the exchange of metal for cop- itself slightly later than the Baltic ones, i.e. from around per and bronze artefacts (Gimbutas 1965, 402-403). 2400 BC, when stone and simple rectangular shapes be- Despite the appearance of metals in the region, the come the preferred choice for their manufacture (Fokkens settlement pattern and burial traditions remained almost et al. 2008; Schaack 2009). the same at the beginning of the Bronze Age, continuing Late Neolithic traditions. The main data on the Bronze Bronze Age Age from the southeastern part of the Baltic region comes According to many archaeologists, including David W. from burial sites. More than 50 barrow cemeteries dated Anthony, “The Corded Ware horizon established the ma- to the Bronze Age are known from the Sambian penin- terial foundation for the evolution of most of the Bronze sula alone. The largest concentration of barrows is on the Age cultures of the northern European plain ...” (An- more elevated western part of the peninsula. Such mound thony 2007, 368). Observing the cultural continuity from cemeteries consist of 2-4 mounds, usually excavated in the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age in the southeastern the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century by German Baltic region, one can only agree with such a statement. archaeologists, with only very few excavated after World At the end of the third and at the very beginning of the War II, by Soviet Russian archaeologists (Gaerte 1929; second millennium BC the fi rst metal artefacts made of Engel 1936). An exceptional barrow cemetery, which copper and bronze appeared in the southeastern Baltic consisted of 12 mounds, was excavated at Rantau/Ran- Region, at fi rst in the area of the Gdansk Bay and the tava, former Kr. Fischhausen (Rus. Zaostrovje) (Šturms Sambian peninsula. The metal artefacts comprise fl at and 1936, 108-112, Fig. 28; Gimbutas 1965, 419-421, Fig. early fl anged axes, halberds, daggers, double axes, pins, 273, 274). Mound I was 2.3 m high and 18 m in diam- 90 Acta Archaeologica

A SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY TO KAUP The locality of Kaup, in fact a small forest at Wiskiauten, lies at the foot of the long narrow peninsula separating the Curonian lagoon from the Baltic Sea in what is today the northern part of former , Russian Kalinin- grad (German Königsberg) oblast. Kaup (54.932915°N / 20.476681°E) is situated on a dried up part on the lagoon some three kilometres south of Zelenogradsk (German Cranz, Prussian Krantas, and transl. coast), a holiday re- sort on the long beautiful sandy coast with its dunes and coniferous trees (Fig. 6). At Kaup is found a huge and very rich “Old Prus- sian” cemetery from the Nordic Viking Age, mainly the later phase of this period, including warrior graves with horses, Islamic coins, and many Scandinavian, even Dan- ish and Swedish artefacts, such as weapons and female ornaments (e.g., Kleemann 1939; Kulakov 2012). In fact, the Scandinavian element is surprisingly strong, as also at Elbing or Elbląg, or old , on the estuaries of the Vistula or Wisła River further to the west, while a Scan- dinavian element, surprisingly, is actually weaker in old Slavonian lands yet further to the west, such as at old Wollin on the estuary of the Oder. The Viking cemetery at Kaup has been excavated by several archaeologists including researchers from the Fig. 5. Grave goods found in Grave A of Barrow No 1 at Rantava German 1930s and the post-World War II Soviet period (Rantau), Sambia. 1 – fl ange-hilted sword, 2 - Baltic battle axe (Nortycken type), 3 – bracelet, 4 – necklace, 5 - pin, 6 - fragment of a (Wróblewski 2006, 140-145). It is suggested that an em- wooden artefact (sheath?), 7 - blue glass beads. After Gimbutas 1965, porium was situated nearby, but truly large scale mag- Fig. 274. netometer surveys, carried out with German support, and a few small excavations have not been conclusive, in part, eter, it contained 20 graves (Fig. 4). The oldest Grave A no doubt, due to the very limited scale of the excavations was positioned in the centre of the mound. The inhuma- accompanying the surveys (Ibsen 2009; 2010). ted body was furnished with several bronzes, a sword, The joint Danish-Lithuanian-Russian excavations of a Baltic battle axe of Nortycken type, a bracelet, a pin, 2014 took place at the eastern end of the cemetery where, a necklace, a few blue glass beads, and a fragment of a in 1873, a “rather large” multiphase burial mound was (likely) wooden artefact (Šturms 1936, 108-112, Fig. 16; investigated in part by Johannes Heydeck for the Königs- Gimbutas 1965, 419-421, Fig. 274) (Fig. 5). Other graves berg Museum (Heydeck 1877; 1893) (Fig. 7). The “di- held cremations and were found in diff erent places and ameter of the mound was 14½ metres at the height of at diff erent levels of the mound. The practice of crema- 0.9 metre” (Fig. 8). This mound was built on the highest tion appeared in the region around the 13th century BC geographical point of the whole area and was originally (Gimbutienė 1985, 69). Usually, cremated graves were taller. The [central] excavated area was of “9-16 square arranged in particular mounds as in the case of Rantau metres”. The main fi nding was two well preserved inhu- Mound I, thus Early Bronze mounds become cemeteries mation graves, the skeletons lying “fully parallel above for Late Bronze cremations. each other”. The dead bodies, placed on a layer of stones the size of a hand, were arranged in pronounced hocker on the right side with the heads towards the southwest, legs towards the northeast (note 2) (Fig. 9). The faces of Kaup 2014 91

Fig. 6. Map of the area around Kaup; old German maps from 1893 & 1911. Red dot shows Barrow 1 in Kaup forest and cemetery. Source: Karte des Deutschen Reichs 1:100.000.

Fig. 7. Remains of Barrow 1 in Kaup as recorded after the fi rst week of fi eldwork in 2014. View from NE. 92 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 8. A copy of J. Heydeck’s original fi eld drawing of the excavation at Kaup of 1873 that was used for later renderings and reconstructions. Dashed line marks the minimum extent of Heydeck’s excavation that has been much more extensive than reported by the excavator. Source: Museum for Pre- and Early History in Berlin.

Fig. 9. Neolithic burials and skeletons as excavated by J. Heydeck in Kaup in 1873. I – lower grave, II – upper grave. A high level of draftsmanship and documentation is noted. After Heydeck 1893. Kaup 2014 93

Fig. 10. Drawings of the skulls from the Neolithic burials at Kaup. I – lower grave, II – upper grave. After Heydeck 1893.

Fig. 11. Artefacts from the Neolithic graves depicted in Fig. 9. Upper row: fi nds from Grave II: a-b – stone battle axe, c - fl int blade, d - bone needle. Bottom row: fi nds from Grave I: e & g – antler plates, f – fl int fl ake. After Heydeck 1893. 94 Acta Archaeologica

and a small bronze axe or chisel (La Baume 1927, Taf. 216e-f; Šturms 1936, 93, Taf. 7a-b, 27; Kilian 1955, Abb. 291, III) (Fig. 12). A much later urn “of the oldest form”, according to Heydeck, holding cremated bones stood in a small cist of fl at stones at the southeastern edge of the barrow. Chronologically it can be assumed that this bur- ial was rather of the Viking period when the surrounding area was used for Prussian and Scandinavian burials. The lower Neolithic inhumation grave (Grave I) held a fl int fl ake or “scraper” and two identical T-shaped fi nely deco- rated antler wrist guards, originally interpreted as “belt fasteners” (Fig. 11e-g). The upper, almost identical Neo- lithic inhumation grave (Grave II) held a stone battle axe, a fl int blade and a bone needle (Fig. 11a-d). Grave II rested in a 1.10 m thick layer of yellow-brown chalk-rich coarse gravel (evidently, the building material of the mound), while the lower Neolithic grave (Grave I) rested in a 1.13 m thick homogeneous layer of clean yel- low beach sand with gravel (we are by the former coast of the lagoon). Nevertheless, at a depth of 2.23 m below the top of the mound (or 1.33 m below the ground sur- Fig. 12. Artefacts from the disturbed Bronze Age burial in Barrow 1 at face), under the layer of gravel, was a fi rm layer of clay, Kaup discovered by Heydeck in 1873. a - small bronze axe or chisel interpreted as subsoil, in which Heydeck had encountered (length: 6 cm, width of the edge: 2.7 cm), b - bent bronze dress pin with curled head (length of the arc: 15.6 cm, distance between the ends: 12.7 a regular rectangular pit, just under the hip of the lower cm). After Šturms 1936, Plate 7a-b. skeleton, in the same axis as the two graves, but oriented perpendicularly, i.e. N/NW-S/SE. Heydeck describes it as the dead persons, both clearly of the male sex and adults, being 1.20 m long, 0.61 m wide and 0.41 m deep (in his were turned to the right, thus facing southeast. The skel- fi eld sketches the length is shown as being 2.80 m and etons shared certain characteristics, including narrow, the width as 0.66 m). The pit dug into a layer of com- very powerful faces and a misalignment of the teeth that pact clay was fi lled with the same sort of coarse “clean had caused overbite, indicating the probability of genetic gravel” that Grave I was placed in. It was possible to ob- affi liation between the two individuals (the skeletons are serve traces of tools used to dig the pit, that left smooth only known from the drawings and description (Heydeck and rounded depressions, and that allowed the excavator 1893, Fig. 17, 18, 20); it is uncertain if they have survived to infer that metal tools should be excluded. In any case, World War II) (Fig. 10). Several Neolithic grave goods Heydeck witnessed a man-made structure. He emptied it from around 2800-2600 BC were found on and by the with his own hands, but no fi nds were produced. Thus the bodies (Fig. 11). question remains whether this pit, no doubt intended for The lower grave (Grave I) was 1.46 m below the top a burial, had ever come into use or was robbed in the past of the mound (or 0.56 m below the ground surface ac- before the burial of a man in Grave I. cording to Heydeck’s fi eld sketches (Fig. 8)), the upper Heydeck (or others?) has left at least one sketch of the one (Grave II) was 1.10 m (or 0.20 m below the ground excavated fi ndings of 1873, notably with measurements surface). The upper southeastern part of the mound held not given in Heydeck 1893, which indicate that the sketch a secondary interment that was likely covered with a is an original one (this sketch has been copied by V.I. Ku- new mound, with a skeleton in a supine position with lakov in the archive of the Museum for Pre- and Early crouched legs or in a sitting position, but “grave goods History in Berlin) (Fig 8). This sketch has later served for from the earliest Bronze Age”, which Heydeck does not a rather artistic colour reconstruction of the excavation describe: in fact, a bent bronze dress pin with curled head details and fi ndings (by a diff erent person to judge from Kaup 2014 95

Fig. 13: Color drawing representing cumulative information gathered during excavation of Barrow 1 at Kaup in 1873 by Heydeck, cf. Fig. 8. Source: Museum of Warmia and Mazuria in Olsztyn, Archive of the Department of Archaeology, photo: A. Prokop. 96 Acta Archaeologica comparative investigation of handwriting in fi eld and fi - nal drawings), depicting lower Grave I, grave goods from the Bronze Age burial and the stratigraphic observations regarding the location of the burials in the barrow (Hoff - mann 2013, Fig. 106) (Fig. 13). No detailed excavation plans have survived apart from the published drawings of the aforementioned Neolithic skeletons in hocker (Graves I & II). The collective information about the Neolithic to ear- liest Bronze Age mound is listed schematically in Table I here. Events during and after the chaotic World War II, especially on the eastern German fronts, and related to the protection and evacuation of the collections and ar- chives of the Prussia Museum in Königsberg/Kaliningrad to various new locations in the east as well as in the west, have not made matters easier to reveal. But before return- ing to the Kaup mound and the joint excavations of 2014, which even skirted the surrounding Viking Age cemetery, it is necessary to go back in time, since the re-excavation of the Neolithic barrow in 2014 revealed details of an ear- lier re-excavation of the Neolithic to Bronze Age barrow carried out by chance in 1933, but seemingly unknown by the Russian authorities working in the region today. This re-excavation turned out to be quite “modern” for its pe- Fig. 14. Prof. Dr. phil. Otto Kleemann (1911-1996): “…in these trenches riod in terms of methods. The excavation was carried out [of East Prussia], shovel in hand, we fi ght for our fatherland, just the by a very young Otto Kleemann (born 1911; some parts way soldiers do with their guns.” (Summer 1935). Cited from Hoff mann 2011, 170. Photo: Archive of the Institute for Pre- and Early History in of the information on this excavation are rendered in Kil- Bonn. ian 1955, as well as in Gimbutas 1956) (Fig. 14) (note 3). than the period after 1945, when conformity (and fear of the Nazi specter in form of still active professors, like H. GERMAN ARCHAEOLOGY 1930-1945 Jankuhn) reigned in West Germany, and Communist ideol- German prehistoric (and other) archaeology, despite the ogy rode East Germany. East German archaeology played existence of diff erent schools and “clubs”, has been char- an important role in the west during the period 1945-1989 acterized by an almost family like structure headed by (fall of the Berlin Wall) as a convenient linguistic bridge professors, which in turn were bred by their predecessors to the archaeology of as a whole. all the way back to the 19th century. Even the Nazi Third Older, but still quite recent, German history has been Reich and Communist DDR, for their horrors (including shaped by the unifi ed German Empire of 1871, which the Nazi use of the Jews as scapegoats and the eventual also formed the archaeological institutions of the country, actions to annihilate them), were representing less of an their structure, their size and ambition, and their linkage interregnum than is often believed when it comes to sci- to German politics, even abroad. World War I saw the fall entifi c practices, institutional links and solidarity among of the Empire, World War II was a tragic mistake of Ger- practitioners. We have been experiencing solid, even many. Nevertheless, these events did not fundamentally conservative German academic structures and linkages, alter the setup. In fact, much of the German expansion, which, at least in part, are also the reason for the high sci- also in archaeology, was planned long before the fall of entifi c quality of German archaeology, now embedded in the Berlin Wall in 1989. a democratic and affl uent state. Interestingly, the Nazi pe- With Hitler coming into power in January 1933, the riod seems to have seen more competition among leaders NSDAP (“Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter- Kaup 2014 97 partei”, the political party and organization of the Ger- including the signifi cant German East expansion since al- man Nazi movement) could instrument several agendas most the time of Charlemagne, supported by lords, their with regards to history and archaeology. It is a sad fact farmer, merchants and their towns, and not least the Ger- that very many prehistorians and other archaeologists man crusaders, the so-called Teutonic knights (the order joined the Nazi party, out of ideological conviction and/ existed till 1525 and the coming of Protestantism). The or to pave a career, including professor H.J. Eggers, H. fi ght against pagans in the east was an early narrative, Jankuhn, K. Kersten, E. Sprockhoff , and J. Werner, not to strangely coupled with an interest in paganism among the speak of H. Reinerth who followed famous G. Kossinna supposed ancient Germans. The existence of even older (his engagement in mapping ancient cultural groupings German cultural layers towards the east was supported by through time and space) as professor in Berlin and car- Roman Tacitus and certainly suggested by archaeologists ried out highly important excavations in Federsee Moor, around 1900, including Kossinna. Later Slavonic speak- used the natural sciences in archaeology and spearheaded ing cultural groups in the east were thus intruders accord- experimental and public archaeology by his open-air mu- ing to such political optics. In the context of the Baltic re- seum of 1938 at the Bodensee with reconstructed Stone- gions interesting to us here, the state of Germanized Prus- and Bronze Age houses. The archaeologists of the Nazi sia took over Brandenburg in 1618 and made Berlin the period were also active at the front of popularization (see new capital (from Königsberg) in 1701. In turn, Prussia Appendix II for biographical notes on here mentioned re- became the core of the unifi ed German Empire [“Reich”] searchers). In fact, the scientifi c accomplishments (and of the late 19th century, seeing its largest extension before sympathetic behavior) of these archaeologists made it 1918 with the treaties after World War I as humiliating in part possible to mislead Scandinavian colleagues and reductions. In fact, the idea of a united German Empire others during the decades between 1945 and 1989 with built on the so-called Holy Roman Empire of the Middle regards to the darker activities of these same personages Ages and the pre-modern period, however loosely knit, in during the Nazi period. particular during the latter period. After World War II, links with the SS Ahnenerbe or- G. Kossinna, among others, linked spatially defi ned ganization (cf. below), for instance, were belittled, even archaeological groups with particular societies and denied as by K. Kersten who held very strong interests even languages in a powerful paradigm, while biologi- in Danish-German archaeological collaboration and had cal anthropologists formed theories on human physical been on study tours in Denmark in the 1930s, collecting features (1911). Kossinna died already in 1931 but was data for his thesis and making other observations as well. much revered by Nazi scientists and useful in their vi- Kersten refrained from overt anti-Danish actions during sion of revisionist history. Ironically, not only Kossinna the German occupation of Denmark 1940-1945 and may but many Germans were recently Germanized. Kossinna, even have protected Danish archaeologists somehow, for instance, was a Polish Masurian, born in Tilžė/Tilsit including those digging in the preparation of German (nowadays Sovetsk on the border between Kaliningrad military installations, for instance on the Atlantic Wall oblast and Lithuania). This may explain certain traits of in Jylland/Jutland. Danish-German archaeological col- behavior and even some of the crimes of the members laboration has been hailed in a recent quite embarrass- of the Nazi elites when political fervor was employed to ing book, fi nanced by German institutions (Hare 2015). set things right and certainly to hide personal weaknesses The author, L. Hare, reveals little sense of the seemingly according to offi cial ideology. In fact, one may see the un- friendly double-tongued games applied both before and believable atrocities committed by the Germans and their during the Nazi regime, and even today when Germany is allied nations and groups against the Jews in the light of pressing vigorously forward beyond the borders in search creating national, linguistic and biological homogeneity of archaeological data and information. Thus, Hare’s vol- where none was found. ume comes to look like a German front for a rather one- The German Empire had already outgrown the re- way “collaboration”. gional and the “national state” but still considered that A strong interest in the particular “German”, or at latter the ideal model, which resulted in attempts at set- least Germanic, already existed in Germany before World ting things right by force; in other words, making Ger- War I. This interest was based on language and history, many all German. Ironically, Germany before World 98 Acta Archaeologica

War I was already more like a present-day EU nation, and was able to draw on considerable solidarity among with several “ethnoi” than, for instance, Denmark of the co-professors and former students. Also SS Hauptstur- same period, reduced to its national core. Thus, at both mführer (Captain) P. Paulsen obtained new archaeology the national and the personal level, in terms of language, positions, as at Stuttgart Museum from 1961. Jankuhn culture, and biology there was much less homogene- and Paulsen headed “Sonderkommandos” with highly ity than Nazi propaganda would have it. Gifted Herbert dubious archaeological tasks in German-occupied East Jankuhn [Jankūnas] (died 1990) came from a family of European Regions (control of cultural heritage). Germanized Lithuanians, to judge by his family name. Other archaeologists were less lucky, including Pro- But there were many, many more prehistorians and oth- fessor C. Engel, Rector of Greifswald University, in the ers with non-German bloodlines, birthplaces in regions 1930s archaeologist with the Prussia Museum, Königs- lost to Germany after World War I, and thus prone to berg and even active at Kaup. The rather more skeptical revenge thinking, or who were born or lived in the new Engel worked for Rosenberg’s offi ces to re-organize the independent states after World War I. Many old German archaeological institutions in conquered “Ostland” (“East families in the Baltic countries, for instance, were forced Land”, the Baltic countries and Byelorussia) after the So- to leave due to agreements with the Soviets already in viet occupation, but was also instrumental in surrender- 1939/1940, starting the long line of own German suff er- ing Greifswald to the Russian army in April 1945, thus ing due to the Nazi regime. Among other examples just saving the city (and other cities further to the west) from in the present context are A. Rosenberg (born in Russian destruction. He died in a Russian concentration camp Estonia; hanged 1946), H. Reinerth (born in Austrian- in Germany in early 1947. Being arrested in July 1945, Hungarian Bistriz, now Romania), R. Wittram (born in Engel was probably sent to prison for his archaeological Russian Latvia), P. Paulsen (from old Danish Sydslesvig/ work in the former, and by 1945, again, Soviet “Ostland” South Schleswig; remained just inside Germany after (cf. below). World War I, but was strongly anti-Danish), H.-J. Eggers The Nazi regime created two ideologically loaded (born in St. Petersburg, Russia, lived as a child in Esto- umbrella institutions that involved archaeologists, even nia), and O. Kleemann (born in Strassburg, now France) though Hitler was not particularly interested in archaeol- (Fig. 14). In fact, as the fi rst names and surnames of very ogy. The fi rst one stems from Rosenbergs’ various ideo- many Germans even of this period are already revealing, logical offi ces, including the State Offi ce for Prehistory, Hitler’s Reich saw a host of diff erent backgrounds for its an independent institution from 1937 headed by H. Rein- own population, making Arian ideals even more absurd. erth; the second, and better known is Himmler’s Ahnen- Also, history is often demonstrating more diversity as we erbe (Ancestral Heritage) of 1935, headed by W. Sievers move back in time, not less. (executed 1948). C. Engel, through his acquaintance with From the other side of the east-west divide comes the H. Reinerth, was connected with Rosenberg’s less profi led example of F.D. Gurevitsch of Jewish origin, born 1911 and more political offi ce, while Jankuhn and Paulsen and in Riga, then part of Russia, who migrated to Leningrad several other prehistorians and archaeologists, including (now St. Petersburg), obtained a doctorate in archaeology K. Kersten, were attached to Ahnenerbe, which saw both in 1937 and served with the local archaeological institute high-quality archaeological fi eld work (e.g., Jankuhn in as responsible for Baltic archaeology. Surviving World ), theft of cultural heritage in Eastern Europe and War II, Gurevitsch excavated at Kaup from the 1940s on. dream research. The latter was conditioned by pseudo- Gifted H. Jankuhn also managed to survive World scientifi c ideas about Indoeuropeans (and their supposed War II, despite being a high ranking staff offi cer (SS northern “Urheim” [original home] and the Arian race, its Obersturmführer = Lieutenant Coronel) in the notori- particular role in World History. The later comprised the ous 5th SS Panzer Division “Wiking” till the very end, particular status and talents, though only vaguely defi ned, possibly due to the military code of honor and sense of of and of Germany; and worse, the in- solidarity among fi ghting soldiers, army units becoming credible “rights” of such people to reign. Ironically, the petty “states unto themselves” at the end of World War II. two archaeological Nazi institutions were actually fi ght- Jankuhn even landed on his academic feet after the war ing each other for power and archaeological sites, another as a professor in Göttingen, West Germany in the 1950s scourge of absolutism and its ideologies. Kaup 2014 99

It is characteristic that an offi cial settlement with the (I am not considered for [the professorship in] Posen [now German Nazi past only occurred in German archaeology Poznań, Poland] since I am not a member of the Ahnenerbe after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the German [Ancestral Heritage/Himmler]); probably Petersen for that; reunifi cation of 1990. In communist East Germany, the problems and intrigues among the in Posen). capitalist West was blamed for covering up the atroci- - February 6, 1940, … In the afternoon came Mr. Stephan ties of the Nazi period, while the East had undergone the [a house painter], who told about his impressions of the “purifi cation” of socialism and its society of the future. concentration camp: how the prisoners (including many It was only after about 2000 that German scientifi c ar- lawyers, priests) were starving terribly and lived in the cold, chaeological and historical symposia were taking place searched for food from pig troughs, while the guards were on these issues and authoritative books published (Steuer swimming in fat and meat, how they were brutally beaten, how 2001; Leube 2002; Geringer et al. 2013; Custodis 2014). many died, others searching for cigarette butts, begging from One reason for this delay no doubt rests with the respect the guard people: Oh Soviet Russia, how close to us you were!!! of leading younger German archaeologists, of the profes- Never have we thought it possible that such could happen in our sor stratum, for their “doctor fathers”, like prominent, German fatherland that we read with a shudder in the books of respected and authoritarian H. Jankuhn, for example, Solonewitsch, Rachmanowa and Dwinger! still being alive till well into the 1990s. The most recent - November 8, 1942, … From Neumann the fi rst information aspects being discussed are concerning the role of the on the English-American attack on Morocco and Tunisia: The ministers of education of the Nazi period, having hitherto beginning of the end?! been in the shadow, however important they were in the - January 27, 1943, … Terrible news from Stalingrad and play of nominations to academic posts, including profes- the whole eastern front: it goes towards the end! Horrible sorships. prospects! While the 20th century suff ered from German follies, - October 7, 1943, … Pleskau [Pskov, Russia]. Coff ee in atrocities, and crimes, today, radical Islam is remind- the Casino. Picked up food from the Front Collecting Point. … ing us daily that absolutism is not dead and that the 21st Walk along the city wall through the city to the Trinity church century is already challenging the World with extreme in wonderful sunshine. … Afternoon in the Pogankin Museum. ideological struggles and low-level warfare, repeating the The city. 7.30 p.m. lecture to the staff of Army Group North on misfortunes of past generations. “Northern Formation of the Eastern Territory”. Dinner with Field Marshal v. Küchler together with chief of staff Lieutenant General Kienzl etc. until 11 p.m. CARL ENGEL - AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL - April 29, 1945, … Not slept in the bed during the night. … FATE Decision on the surrender trip! … Leaving by Koitenhagen (last EXCERPTS FROM CARL ENGEL’S DIARIES German soldiers), Anklam Road to the junction at Moikuberg: (Mangelsdorf 2007): Met . Over Ziethen to Anklam (burning inferno!) to the - March 12, 1938, … Hochstimmung [Austria part of Russian divisional general: Negotiations on capitulation 3-5 Germany] … hours. … - July 11, 1939, … Sassnitz [on Rügen]. Finishing the Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Engel (1885-1947) was with excavations at the barrow by O.F. Werder. Inspection of the Königsberg Museum as the senior archaeologist re- barrows in the vicinity. With Irm [the wife], who picked me up, sponsible for the monuments in East Prussia and as a to Lenzberg (nice view) and over the harbor to the hotel, where very active excavator during the years 1929-1934, having dinner and later coff ee with Mr. Pontius [excavation assistant]. moved there from minor jobs in Magdeburg. He also car- - September 1, 1939, … The unimaginable has become ried out comprehensive museum studies and wrote very reality: since 5.30 in the morning it is war!!! And German many archaeological works and papers, often with an eye troops are already marching into Poland. to popularization. He seems to have preferred Gothic let- - September 3, 1939, … All that one struggling has built up ters and wrote a conservative but clear German. is crushed! The happy years that we have enjoyed here in Riga Engel was a member of the NSDAP (“Nationalsozial- are over! ... istische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”, the political party and - January 30, 1940, … Talk with Wittram in a coff ee house organization of the German Nazi movement) from May 100 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 15. Participants in the Erste Tagung für Vorgeschichte, Königsberg 24.07 - 02.08.1930. Photographed at the railway station of Königsberg. Gustaf Kossinna is no. 20, Carl Engel no. 12, Wilhelm Gaerte no. 10. After Kossinna 1931.

1933, no doubt a necessary instrument in his career, espe- artefacts in Latvia and Estonia in 1940 in connection cially after 1940. Engel left Königsberg to become docent with the negotiated Soviet takeover, and in 1941-1942 in Riga, in independent Latvia, but at the German Herder on inspection tours in connection with plans for a central Institute in 1934, from 1935/37 he was professor at the institution based in Riga for the archaeological cultural institute. He only returned to Germany after the Soviet heritage. This institution should, in particular, investigate Union had taken over the Baltic countries (and eastern ancient Nordic, i.e. “Germanic”, infl uence in “Ostland”; Poland) in 1939. Also in 1939, Engel became professor a hidden agenda, most probably also known to Engel, was at the University of Greifswald with personal support of actual theft of cultural heritage from the entire Ostland. the minister of education. In these years Engel is often In 1942 Engel became chancellor of the University lecturing on archaeology and history at various NSDAP of Greifswald. Engel seems positive towards the NSDAP “Ordensburgen” (the term taken over from castles of Ger- in the 1930s, but his diaries are carrying critical remarks man crusaders in the ). A relationship with already from the outbreak of World War II, some even Reinerth, from 1937 Director of the State Offi ce of Pre- outright dangerous to himself had they been known then. history of the NSDAP (under “Amt Rosenberg”), goes There is seemingly no direct reference to Jews in the di- back to Tübingen University where Engel fi nished his aries. Engel’s fi nest hour came in April 1945 when he, studies in 1928. along with other local dignitaries, was instrumental in Following the German off ensive in 1941, Engel was, the surrender of Greifswald (against Hitler’s order), thus as already mentioned, sub-attached to the “Ostland” [the preventing the destruction of this city (as well as that of Baltics and Byelorussia] Commissariat under Rosenberg Stralsund) in face of the approaching Russian army. He with respect to matters of archaeology. He travelled to died in a Soviet concentration camp in Germany early in the Baltics and Byelorussia six or seven times during the 1947, only 51 years old. Perhaps some of his thoughts early 1940s, at fi rst to safeguard German archives and during his last months went to happier periods in his life, Kaup 2014 101

Fig. 16. Topographic map of the Kaup cemetery, supposedly from 1936; note the Neolithic mound marked with red arrow. After Kulakov 2012, Fig. 64. as organizer of the East Prussian excursion of the Society the Kaup cemetery (Kulakov 2012, 106 Fig. 99 – even for German Prehistory in 1930, which brought Engel ac- though some of the stated coordinates (Nos.11 & 12) are claim, in particular from Kossinna (Engel 1931b) (Fig. evidently wrong) with a number of maps. Identifi cation 15); or as a fi eld archeologist during those same years of barrows and excavations at Kaup are made diffi cult by before other obligations and ambitions carried him away. historical circumstances and by the use of changing num- bering systems over time (Fig. 17). Indeed, the 1930s, in particular, the early 1930s, also saw a number of other KAUP IN THE 1930S professional excavators at Kaup then Nerman, Paulsen In the summer half of 1932, a team headed by Swedish and Jaensch (cf. Mühlen 1975 and Table II here). Birger Nerman and German Peter Paulsen and assisted An offi cial photo from Kaup of 1932 of fi ve persons by Draftsman Fritz Jaensch of the Prussia Museum in (plus a couple of unknowns in the background) is show- Königsberg was excavating in the large Viking Age cem- ing Birger Nerman (then 43) to the far left standing close etery surrounding the Neolithic mound. On a recent map, to a women, supposedly his cousin and spouse of the the Neolithic mound is marked on a map as having been same year, Zelma Maria Elisabeth Thyra Asta Anna Con- recorded by 1932 (Kulakov 2012, 9 Fig. 6; no doubt Bar- stantia Agnes Gerda Ester Barbro Margareta Axelsdotter row no. /1 near the road = Barrow 1 Heydeck 1873 in Nerman (32 years old, which fi ts) (Kulakov 2012, 14, Mühlen 1975). On another map, the same mound, at the Fig. 13) (Fig. 18). In the center is an unknown middle- highest point in the landscape, is marked by an old ex- aged gentleman, likely the Director of the Königsberg cavation pit as having already been excavated by 1936 museum, Wilhelm Gaerte, then 42, which may well fi t, (Kulakov 2012, 62 Fig. 64) (Fig. 16). The mound is iden- also in terms of looks (cf. Fig. 15 here). To the right of tifi ed positively by matching GPS mapping of the 2014 “Gaerte” is a self-conscious smartly dressed male person, excavation and recent mapping of the circumference of most likely Peter Paulsen, then 30 (which may well fi t); a 102 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 17. Modern archaeological map of the Kaup cemetery. The numbering of mounds recorded before 1932: -/2; from 1956: 1/-; when old excavations identifi ed: 2/2. Black areas show excavated mounds in 1980, 2000 and 2004. Red arrow marks the location of the Neolithic barrow. After Kulakov 2002/2003, Fig. 2. less likely option is Otto Kleemann, then 21 (cf. below). area to the east of the road; he found horse burials un- To the far right is Fritz Jaensch (age unknown), draftsman der “ash pits”, in fact cremation graves of the Viking Age and archaeological technician with the Prussia Museum (Kulakov 2012, 27, Fig. 32). There was no confl ict be- and close collaborator of antiquarian Carl Engel. The one tween the teams; for instance, Engel published in Swed- person “missing” in the photo is thus Carl Engel (then 37) ish “Fornvännen” these same years (Engel 1932; 1933). (cf. Fig. 15 here). Engel returned to Kaup in 1934, shortly before he left Being the senior digging archaeologist at the Königs- Königsberg and the Prussia Museum to become docent at berg Museum, Engel too was excavating at Kaup in 1932, the Herder Institute, Riga. The excavations in 1934 took but in a slightly diff erent part of the cemetery than the place over a few days in late August, merely a month Nerman-Paulsen-Jaensch team. He is not mentioned as before Engel started in his new occupation at Riga (cf. excavator of any of the Kaup mounds listed by Mühlen Kulakov 2012, 62f. with Fig. 65; the Neolithic barrow (Mühlen 1975; cf. Table II here), but was summoned to must be no. 41 on this map). This may explain why, seem- Kaup sometime in 1932 to carry out rescue excavations ingly, no report was submitted. The excavations in 1934 due to the construction, in fact extension, of a north-south comprised fi ve one metre wide north-south and east-west going road across the cemetery and the digging of a large going search trenches immediately to the east (I-III; right gravel pit to the east of this road to provide materials for at the excavation in 1932) and the west (IV-V) of the the new throughfare (Kulakov 2012, 64 & 63 Fig. 65; cf. road just north of the abovementioned large gravel pit; 25f. with Fig. 32). Engel’s excavations took place in an no information has survived on the fi nds and structures Kaup 2014 103

Fig. 18. Photograph of participants in the excavations at Kaup 1932. From left Swedish Birger Nerman (then 43) standing close to a woman, supposedly his cousin and spouse, Zelma Maria Elisabeth Thyra Asta Anna Constantia Agnes Gerda Ester Barbro Margareta Axelsdotter Nerman (32 years old, which fi ts). In the centre an unknown middle- aged gentleman, likely the Director of the Königsberg museum, Wilhelm Gaerte, then 42, which may well fi t, also in terms of looks (cf. Fig. 15, no. 10 here). To the right of “Gaerte” is a male person who most likely is Peter Paulsen, then 30 (which seems to fi t); a less likely option is a very young smartly dressed Otto Kleemann, then only 21 (features of the face may fi t). To the far right is Fritz Jaensch (age unknown), draftsman and archaeological technician with the Prussia Museum and Fig. 19. Newspaper photo of the excavation of Barrow 163 (= No. 70 in close collaborator of Antiquarian Carl Engel (not in the photo). Photo von Mühlen 1975) at Kaup; responsible archaeologist Voigtmann, 1934. from Kulakov 2012, Fig. 13. After Kulakov 2012, Fig. 50. observed, only the oral tradition that skeletal graves were A note, published in 1933, but not much paid attention observed to the west (personal information Kulakov). to, informs that Kleemann actually undertook a re-exca- Also K. Voigtmann, a collaborator of the Prussia vation of the Neolithic mound (Barrow 1) in 1933, and Museum since 1933, excavated at Kaup in 1934 (as well ought to be responsible for the advanced excavation using as 1933). He is recorded to have excavated Barrow 163, crossing profi le balks in the manner of van Giff en that which, according to a newspaper photo, displays the use of the 2014 team found the ruins of – and excavated (Kl- “modern” cross balks or profi les (Kulakov 2012, 48, Fig. eemann 1933 (not quoted in Kulakov 2012))! Strangely, 50; cf. 9, Fig. 6; Barrow no. 163/163 in the north central his excavation is not listed by von Mühlen, even though part of the cemetery) (Fig. 19). Otherwise, Voigtmann Kleemann’s note of 1933 is, as well as some Viking ar- excavated in the eastern part of the cemetery, near the tefacts which may come from Kleemanns re-excavation road and close to where Engel was active (Kulakov 2012, of Barrow 1 are (von Mühlen 1975). In fact, pieces of 9, Fig. 6; von Mühlen 1975, Katalog II; cf. Table II here) Kleemann’s information found their way into various (Fig. 20). other works (e.g., Engel 1935; Šturms 1936; cf. Gimbutas In fact, there was one more player in action at Kaup 1965). In addition, it seems that Kleemann mapped the in 1932, namely young Otto Kleemann (1911-1996) (Fig. entire cemetery with a leveling instrument in 1933, which 14), who was attached to the Prussia Museum during the may be the mapping used by Kulakov (Kleemann 1933, short period August to December 1932, thus overlapping 247; cf. Kulakov 2012, Fig. 6). in period with Nerman and Paulsen. According to von There is indeed a number of diffi culties in dating, Mühlen 1975 he excavated two barrows, one (Barrow 68) even numbering, a few of the excavations at Kaup in the at an unknown data, but supposedly in the 1930s, and one early 1930s, as well as determining the names of the ex- (Barrow 167) in 1937 (von Mühlen 1975, 121f. Katalog cavators. However, it is safe to say that they all worked II; cf. Table II here). for the Prussia Museum, Königsberg and formed part of 104 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 21. Soviet excavations at Kaup, directed by F.D. Gurevitsch (sitting in the center) in the late 1940s. After Kulakov 2012, Fig. 16.

“Kaliningrad oblast” (the southern part was included in communist Poland), started a new round of excavations at Kaup in 1947 led by F.D. Gurevitsch, who even intro- duced a new numbering system for the barrows (Fig. 21). Her publications on Kaup are listed by Kulakov (Kulakov 2012). Since about 1979 the responsible archaeologist for Kaliningrad oblast was V.I. Kulakov, now retired, who also has excavated extensively at Kaup (cf. Kulakov 2012, with references). None of these excavations regarded the Neolithic Barrow 1, but dealt exclusively with the many Viking period monuments and fi nds. A German interlude was represented by joint investigations after the fall of Fig. 20. Excavations by Engel in 1932 (larger area in red, Trench 1) and the Berlin Wall concentrating on locating the settlements in 1934 (long survey trenches I-V); trenches R2-R6 – areas excavated by the Baltic expedition in 2008-2011; grey area - ash layers visible of Kaup, including the supposed Viking emporium (Ibsen at the surface (from Viking Age cremations); red line – reconstructed 2010). Other archaeologists have also participated in the eastern border of the road in 1932. Handwritten numbers mark mounds activities at Kaup, including Poles from the University of recorded by Engel. After Kulakov 2012, Fig. 65. Gdansk. the same group of archaeologists in terms of methods, with Engel no doubt the academically most brilliant per- son, and in overall charge. Engel was also closely linked KAUP 2014 to the circle around the Mannus series; from 1937 he was The aim of the joint Danish-Lithuanian-Russian excava- on the board and co-editor of Mannus, the periodical and tions of 2014 was, if possible, to establish the size and series of the German Society for Prehistory, later Soci- structure of the Neolithic to Bronze Age mound, to fi nd ety for German Prehistory, founded by Kossinna in 1909. out how much of this mound had survived previous ex- Engel’s own approach to the excavation of barrows, in- cavations, and to fi nd more Neolithic to Bronze Age cluding employment of regularly orientated trenches, is structures (cf. below) (note 4). A particular aim was to demonstrated by his rescue excavation in 1939 at Werder illuminate previous excavations at the site, including the near Sassnitz on Rügen (Engel 1940). methods employed in the 1930s and later. It also proved important to try to verify various oral and other claims about the excavations at the site, even such brought for- AFTER WORLD WAR II wards by modern archaeologists. After World War II the Soviet authorities, ruling the In most of these respects, the 2014 excavation was northern part of former East Prussia with Königsberg as a successful one, even confi rming the original measure- Kaup 2014 105

Fig. 22. Unpublished plan of O. Kleemann’s excavation of the Neolithic barrow at Kaup in 1933. Source: Museum for Pre- and Early History in Berlin, MVF Prusia-Archiv Inv. Nr. F670. ments of the mound stated by Heydeck. However, the of pages of newspapers. In the end the operation turned supposed early 1930s excavation also raised serious out to become a case study exposé of German (and So- problems of interpretation for the 2014 investigation. viet) archaeology at Kaup, as well as elsewhere, during Whitish blocks, in fact balks of gravel in the excavation the decades before and after World War II. As already areas and profi les, along with a number of layered phe- stated, important insights were gained on archaeological nomena and secondary intrusions, were very diffi cult to research history, as well as intellectual, political, military, explain without information on the previous activities in and personal circumstances and conditions of the period. the area and only revealed themselves fully at the very The southern end of the main north-south trench of end of the operation. The 2014 investigation was there- 2014 was cutting across Heydeck’s limited excavation, fore a re-excavation of much older as well as rather re- while the central and northern part of the same trench cent investigations as it was an original operation: what plus the east-west going main trench carried evidence of and whom to trust! The situation was clarifi ed in part by a main excavation of the Neolithic mound in the 1933, in the collected soil samples, holding both charred and non- fact unknown to the archaeological team of 2014 during charred botanical elements, the latter of course being of their period of work at Kaup (Fig. 22). a relatively recent age under the actual circumstances By joining the said features it was revealed that the of fi nd. Other supporting evidence was made up of dat- secondary excavation of 1933 was in fact a rather ad- able artefacts, from recent toy soldiers and tins to pieces vanced one in terms of methods, using crossing balks or 106 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 23. Map showing topographic situation around the remains of the Neolithic barrow and location of modern trenches. White dashed line marks the area excavated by V.I. Kulakov in 2009-2011, black dashed line shows the extent of trenches in 2014, grey line shows the edge of the modern road, circles – position of trees or tree trunks. Red triangle - point of depature (= 0). Elevation in metres. profi les, a technique that was already in use in the Nether- into the Viking Age cemetery, was a very pleasant tru- lands and comprehensively published in the Mannus Bib- ly Sherlock Holmesian operation, only at the very end liothek series in Germany in 1930, i.e. before the 1932 revealing the true secrets. During the process four new excavations by Nerman, Paulsen, Kleemann, Engel and, graves or “features” came to light, as mentioned above, others (cf. van Giff en 1930). In the rest of Europe such plus bits of new artefacts were found at greater depths, methods only became common after World War II. Un- including a lump of raw amber, a Neolithic decorated fortunately, essentially no report, nor drawings or other shard and a fl int blade that may have been overlooked pieces of information, seems to have survived on the sug- by Heydeck in 1873, or by the excavation in the 1930s. gested 1930s re-excavation of this particular mound. The “brush” with the Viking Age graves much higher up Thus, the 2014 exercise at Kaup, including digging revealed the bronze arm of a balance weight (10th century in several older excavations as well as both outside and AD), an iron belt buckle (11th century AD) with an iron Kaup 2014 107 knife. Later artefacts, a battered lead soldier, tinfoil (at a substantial depth), recent and even modern bottles, etc. were also found, assisting in dating the second excava- tion, supposedly of the 1930s. More important, a series of scientifi c samples were collected.

EXCAVATION DETAILS 2014 The excavations of 2014 took place in the easternmost part of the cemetery where the Neolithic burial mound was excavated in 1873. Extension of the area of excava- tion, due to uncertainty of the location and size of the Ne- olithic mound, brought parts of the Viking Age cemetery into the picture, but also revealed a very lowly placed pit deposition, or “grave”, of parts of a human skeleton (and the tooth of a horse). The mound deposits were thick, up to more than 1.5 m in height; they were hand shoveled, mapped in detail by total station, and the profi les and fi nds hand drawn by a Danish-Lithuania-Russian team from the Universities of Fig. 24. Plan of the trenches excavated in 2014. Copenhagen, Vilnius and Kaliningrad of sixteen archae- ologists, assistants and students in all during four weeks Age) mound at fi rst excavated in 1873 by Heydeck (Hey- in July 2014. 112 square metres were investigated, 90 of deck 1877; 1893), and again in 1932-33 by the group of these into the subsoil, in addition to detailed mapping and archaeologists then active at Kaup, in particular Nerman, other studies of the site (Fig. 23). Paulsen, and later Voigtman (1933-1934), plus Engel, The excavations of 2014 revealed that the fi rst Ne- with Jaensch - Engel being the leading prehistoric archae- olithic mound was built on a natural hillock of coarse ologist at the Prussia Museum, Königsberg, responsible whitish gravel on yellowish coarse sand; the same mate- for excavations. In fact, a visitor during a few months in rial was used as a building material after careful remov- 1933, the young O. Kleemann seems to be the one carry- al of layers of organic rich top soil that occasionally be ing out the re-excavation of the Neolithic barrow (Klee- recognized as tiny patches overlapped by whitish grav- mann 1933, Appendix I here). el. The secondary phase (or phases) was built from earth A series of excavations fi elds and trenches, up to about mixed with gravel. Seemingly, only smaller parts of the 1.5 metres deep) were opened in 2014 (Fig. 24). The main original mound are preserved. The abovementioned ex- trench was two metres wide and 24 m long, orientated cavation in 1873 by Johannes Heydeck (Heydeck 1877; in north-south, with slight deviation, 340˚N, in order to 1893) destroyed the centre of the mound (Fig. 8). A lat- cover the fullest extent of barrow remains (The northern er and larger, quite modern excavation using crossing portion till 9.50 m was named Trench 13, following the balks or profi les further reduced the original monument sequence of denomination established by Kulakov during (Fig. 22). As mentioned, crossing balks or profi les were his work in Kaup, and in fact also Engel, who’s rescue introduced by van Giff en in the Netherlands, his results work in 1932 during the road construction became re- comprehensively published in the Mannus Bibliothek corded as Trench 1 (Fig. 20). The southern part from 9.50 series in Germany in 1930 (van Giff en 1930). In fact, m till 24 m became Trench 14). A similar trench, Trench the fi rst secondary excavation of the Neolithic mound at 15, was placed perpendicularly, i.e. in east-west direc- Kaup was carried out in 1933, by Kleemann (Kleemann tion emanating from near the middle of the former one. 1933). At the junction, a two metres wide and fi ve metres long The aim of the 2014 excavations at Kaup was to es- extension was made towards the east, Trench 13B. At the tablish if remains still existed of the Neolithic (to Bronze western end of the east-west trench a smaller extension 108 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 25. Photo of the western end of Trench 15 showing a section of a stone circle that has been erected to frame Viking Age burials covered with now gone mound (cf. Fig. 26). Cremation burial K67 was discovered inbetween the stones at the southern edge shown in this photo. was made towards the north and a larger one towards the south. These two extensions were not excavated to the subsoil since they seemed to relate to the Viking Age cemetery only. The larger one was full of smaller stones and some larger ones, including parts of a stone circle for a mound (Fig. 25 & 26). All features and fi nds were carefully mapped (by To- tal Station), all long profi les and a few smaller ones were drawn (Fig. 27). Several soil and other samples were tak- en. Interpretation of the profi les was at fi rst diffi cult since only after a while it was realized that the original mound was constructed largely in gravel on layers of sand and in some parts on clay; and that only small parts of the original mound still existed. By far most of the “mound” was made up of redeposited heaps of dirt from the earlier excavations. A number of supposed original “features” turned out to be remains of trenches and profi le balks of the excavations of 1933. On the other hand, this re- alization did demonstrate that highly modern methods of excavation with wide and even highly systematic use of profi les had been employed by the pre-World War II ex- cavators. As suggested above, this approach was no doubt Fig. 26. Drawing of stone concentrations encountered in the western end of Trench 15 and in the neighboring Trenches 15C & 15B. Note inspired by Dutch A. E. van Giff en of Groningen (van rows of packed stones in NW and SE peripheries that form borders of Giff en 1930), but otherwise rarely used beyond the Neth- a Viking Age barrow measuring 7.5 m in diameter. Kaup 2014 109

Fig. 27. Prof. K. Randsborg and Dr. I. Merkytė making drawing of sections and stratigraphic analysis of layered deposits. erlands in the 1930s, and in general not used in Europe In 1932 when the investigations at Kaup were re- before after World War II. newed and continued in 1933 Kleemann considered it as a great fortune that during the topographic mapping of the Analysis of previous works in the light of 2014 excavation Viking Age mounds he managed to localize the Neolithic Excavations at Kaup became an exercise of reconstruc- barrow (Kleemann 1933). His motivation to undertake tion and deconstruction. The barrow has become famous further research of the barrow was based on information through elaborate multi-phase reconstructions by L. Kil- that J. Heydeck only managed to excavate a small trench, ian (1955, Abb. 289) based on excavations in 1873 by J. from the southeastern edge towards the center of the bar- Heydeck and especially in 1833 by O. Kleemann (Fig. row. Thus there was a need to understand the construc- 28). According to these reconstructions, the barrow was tion of the barrow, writes Kleemann. The same aspira- a neatly structured monument erected through a course tion drove the fi eld campaign in 2014! Heydeck himself of three burials placed on top of each other. The earliest has written in his report that he excavated “some 9-16 burial dug into the subsoil was covered with a low barrow m2” (1893). However, fi eld sketches reveal a diff erent and surrounded with a double row of densely spaced posts picture. Heydeck draws two cross-sections of the bar- sunken into narrow ditches. The subsequent barrow was row, NE-SW and NW-SE (Fig. 8). It can be accepted that enlarged, and the burial was enframed with a larger ditch cross-sections were partially reconstructed and were not with posts on both sides of the ditch. The latest phase based on the actual excavation. Yet the uncovering of the saw also an enlargement of the barrow, but now it was centrally located graves alone had demanded a signifi cant encircled with stones. Understandably, the Kaup barrow size of the excavation area. The fi eld sketches imply that has become handbook material, with unique architecture, Heydeck must have excavated at least two trenches, one as a remarkable witness of spatial awareness despite the from SE towards the center of the barrow. And another temporal span of use close to a thousand years, and also one from NE towards the center and covering at least 2/3 as the only certainly known barrow in the Baltics attrib- of the barrow’s diameter. It appears that Heydeck’s fi eld uted to the Corded Ware horizon. method was to follow the ground surface from the edge 110 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 28. Reconstruction by L. Kilian of the Neolithic barrow at Kaup showing three presumed phases of its restructuring and enlargement. After Kilian 1955, Fig. 289. of the barrow digging trenches some 2-3 m wide and then with a low mound. In-between the stones the excavators to expand in depth and size around the burials. This could found a shard with cord impression and a heart-shaped explain why Heydeck has not recorded any elements of bifacial arrowhead. He mentions other burials, both cre- barrow architecture, such as ditches, postholes or circles mations and inhumations. of stones. Both Heydeck and Kleemann have identifi ed some Kleemann has confi rmed that the Neolithic barrow of the cremation burials as belonging to the Early Iron was erected on the highest location, on top of a natural Age. Yet till now this temporal horizon has not been rep- hillock comprised of chalky gravel. Along the edges resented in Kaup, not even among a rather varied and rich of the barrow, he encountered concentric trenches with shard material. Thus it can be assumed that this conclu- pointed and rounded bases, postholes and pairs of post- sion was based on misinterpretation of rather varied rep- holes – remains of palisades. The published description resentations of features related to the Viking Age burials is otherwise sparse, and no stone circles are mentioned. and chthonic beliefs related to them (cf. Kulakov 2012, In southeastern part, disturbed by later cremation buri- 42, Fig 46 showing a 9th century AD burial in urn). als, Kleemann encountered a disturbed inhumation grave Although Kleemann regrets that he was not able to marked with a large upraised stone plate that he interpret- excavate the whole barrow, in reality it appears that the ed as Neolithic. The excavator was uncertain whether the whole barrow was completely excavated prior to 2014. latest expansion of the barrow took place during the Early Only remains of Kleemanns balks measuring around 1 m Bronze Age, in connection with the Bronze Age burial or in width could still be distinguished as intact (Fig. 29). during the Viking Age. He remarks that the barrow was No doubt Kleemann himself has encountered a much dis- overlapping a Viking Age mound in the south. Possibly turbed situation, not least created already in the Viking relocation of barrow material occurred later, when a road Age. Also of the more recent times there were plenty of to a church nearby went across the barrow, as noted by excavation traces, even practical jokes, such as a stone Heydeck (1893). Another mound, as noted by Kleemann, heap regularly formed (oval in shape, measuring 2x1 m, was on the northeastern side. On the western side, he re- orientated 318˚N) in the center of the barrow that was cov- corded a group of round and oval stone heaps covered ering a layer of burned tires and bags of chips anno 2009. Kaup 2014 111

Fig. 29. Trenches across the remains of the Neolithic barrow at Kaup. Left – view from South: remains of O. Kleemann’s balks are clearly visible crossing across an older and deeper excavation trench as well as across the central pit in the barrow encountered and emptied by J. Heydeck. Right – view from North: remains of O. Kleemann balks clearly visible as patches of whitish gravel in the cross-section; also the older trench and the central pit encountered by J. Heydeck are clearly distinct.

Fig. 30. Excavation of 2014. Left – view from NW, right – view from W. Dr. A. Merkevičius taking photos of stone heaps discovered within the stone circle.

Larger and smaller pits have perforated all the layers balks were dug deeper by some 5-10 cm to check for of the excavation trenches that could also be explained subsoil creating shovel- broad channels where organic- with immense interest from the part of local “hunters” rich matter has since accumulated. Kleemann’s trenches with metal detectors. The “ghost of Kleemann” has also were not orientated exactly North-South as his drawing created some false expectations, as for instance in Trench implies (Fig. 22), but with a slight eastern deviation of 13B a “chamber grave” was discovered. On the plane sur- 11 degrees. face we could record a regular outline of a corner of what So what can be said about barrow No 1 in Kaup or looked like a square, decayed timber structure. Eventu- Kleine Kaup as the eastern part of the forest and burial ally, it was realized that Kleemann’s trenches along the ground has been coined (Fig. 30)? The central pit, de- 112 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 31. Map of the area of excavation in 2014, including excavation trenches from 2009-2011 with numerous Prussian burials by V.I. Kulakov and reconstructed outlines of barrows. Green line – reconstructed extent of J. Heydeck’s excavation in 1873, red line – remains of balks from O. Kleemann’s excavation in 1933, yellow marks minimum extent of the area excavated by O. Kleemann, grey rectangle – location of the central pit described by Heydeck as located below the two Neolithic skeletons, black rectangle – reconstructed location of the two Neolithic skeletons (based on Heydeck, cf. Figs. 8 & 13 here). a – features containing human bones, b – stones, c – modern stone heap from 2009, d – postholes, e – ditch with a rounded base, f – ditch with a pointed base. K66 – area with spread calcinated human bones and fi re-eff ected sediments. scribed by Heydeck as orientated towards West-NW of rounded stones. The clay excavated from the pit was indeed discovered. Part of it was found at the corner was used to create some kind of surface around the pit, of trenches 13B and 14 (Fig. 31, cf. Fig. 29). The longer clearly discernible due to its pinkish colour. Nearby a visible side in Trench 14 was 1.77m, and its parallel side fl int blade was found, very similar to the one discovered was 1.60 m. These dimensions and orientation implied by Heydeck as a grave gift in Grave II (upper Neolithc that its total length was above 2 m, thus 2.80 m length burial). as indicated in Heydeck’s sketch is more probable than Heydeck mentions that the two Neolithic skeletons any later information. The width was 0.72 m (slightly were found on the layer of stones. This observation can wider than 0.66 m given by Heydeck) and the depth as also be supported by the observation of rounded (not fl at), described by Heydeck – around 0.40 m. The rectangular fi st size stones accumulating on the same level above the pit was dug into a layer of pure clay, seemingly the only described pit and in a formation perpendicular to it. place uncovered by our trenches where such layer has Within the central area of the barrow, at the juncture existed. It should be said that geology was indeed very of Trenches 13B and 14 was discovered a fi rst premolar varied, changing between coarse sand, whitish gravel from a male mandible (LP3) that based on enamel wear with many fossils of the Cretaceous, natural pavements would suggest an age of 25-40 years (Jørkov 2016). Hey- Kaup 2014 113 deck’s Neolithic skeletons were recovered with a full set believe that the regularly shaped pit has been used as or of teeth in their mandibles, judging from the drawings, intended for a burial. Kilian must have come to the same thus the tooth may have derived from Heydecks’s Bronze conclusion when he reconstructed Phase I of the barrow Age burial. Otherwise, non-cremated human bones were (Fig. 28). There were no indications of the existence of a very rare fi nd. a parallel ditch as suggested in Kilian’s reconstructions. Contrary to the expectations, it was not possible to The natural terrain rises from South to North and from fi nd the wealth of postholes as presented in Killian’s East to West, so stratigraphically it is possible that the reconstruction. Those that could be documented with ditch is contemporary with the central pit despite the ap- certainty did not form any clear confi guration, perhaps parent higher position of the ditch. apart from the two postholes at the northern edge of the Despite the knowledge that only a minor portion of the barrow (Fig. 31). The southern edge was marked with a barrow could have survived until present days, every fi nd ditch with rounded curvature. This ditch could be detect- regardless age and even including tiny calcinated bones ed already at 0.40-0.70 m above its base, and at its widest have been recorded with precise coordinates. These re- part could be ca. 0.70 m wide narrowing to 0.26 m at the cordings have produced patterns of fi nd concentrations base. The depth of the ditch varied between 0.60-0.70 m. that also helped to reconstruct actions of the previous This ditch together with the studies of profi le walls was researchers. Distribution of “modern fi nds” (i.e. from used to reconstruct the maximum extent of the barrow Heydeck till today) has confi rmed the reality that every that was 15 m (very close to Heydeck’s 14.50 m!). The stone within the limits of the Neolithic barrow has been upper edges of the ditch were 0.40 m above the centrally turned during earlier excavations (Fig. 32). A toy soldier located and still preserved rectangular pit (Plate IA). This wearing infantry uniform of the World War I was discov- level can be taken as an indication of level for Heydeck’s ered just below a large stone measuring 0.60 x 0.46 m in oldest burial, although according to his sketches a layer Trench 14 thus destroying any hopes that the large stone of 0.57 cm should have separated the enigmatic pit and could have been left in its original location and a clue Grave I (lower Neolithic burial). This ditch was probably for further reconstructions. Also, fragments of bottles of recorded by Kleemann as the ditch with a rounded base wine have shown that Kleemann’s crew had a taste for and used by Killian for reconstruction of Phase II of the pleasantries! The distribution of calcinated bones shows barrow (Fig. 28). However, no traces of postholes sup- basically that the whole area has been dotted with burials, posedly located on both sides of the ditch could be dis- and that Viking Age burials have not been restricted to covered either in horizontal or vertical planes. It is more the areas outside the Neolithic barrow. Notably a large, likely that the ditch itself served both as a demarcation, though diff use, concentration of calcinated bones and bits but also for embedding of timber posts. The best pre- of rusted iron was recorded in the central part of Trench served till today and investigated parallel in terms of such 15, close to the reconstructed limits of the Neolithic bar- construction is a barrow in Kruszyn, Poland, some 300 row. This must have been one of the Viking Age crema- km SW from Kaup (Pospieszny et al. 2015). The burial tion burials destroyed by Kleemann’s excavation. Distri- was surrounded by a 10 m ditch 0.3-0.55 m wide with bution of “special fi nds” also confi rms this observation traces after massive posts. since a bronze arm of a balance weight has been located The vertical outline of another ditch could be distin- at the same spot (Fig. 33). Pottery shards are also widely guished in both profi le walls of Trench 15 crossing the encountered. Yet the central part of the Neolithic barrow remains of the barrow towards West (Plate II). The ditch is more devoid than other areas in terms of fi nds, being is rather sharply pointed at the base, what indicates that more thoroughly wiped during repeated excavations. Sur- timber poles have been inserted into the ground by pres- prising is a relatively high number of worked fl ints, 23 sure. The depth of the ditch was at least 0.90 m and the pieces in total (Fig. 33). E. Šatavičius (Vilnius Universi- width was around 0.40-0.45 m. These observations have ty) has made an in-depth investigation of fl int from Kaup allowed a possible reconstruction of the full ring being 13 and has discovered that the full repertoire of fl int items m in diameter. Surprisingly, the centrally located rectan- was represented in the material, including fl akes, blades, gular pit appears at the center of this ring. If the two fea- cutting tools, scrapers, fragment of core and even a tip of tures were connected then there are even more grounds to an arrow head. However, he concluded that almost all of 114 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 32. Distribution of human bones (with only a few exceptions all calcinated) (grey dots), bits of rusted iron (red triangles) and fi nds postdating Heydeck’s excavation (yellow triangles). S – position of a lead toy soldier of WWI.

Fig. 33. Distribution of ceramic shards (orange diamonds), fl int (blue triangles), bits of bronze (green diamonds), and special fi nds (black stars). K67- inventory of the 10-11th-century burial (based on buckle shape in a form of “8”), B – bronze arm on an iron balance weight, W – stone spindle whorl, R – iron rivet. Kaup 2014 115

Fig. 34. Feature K68 containing non-cremated human bones, two animal bones, and a horse tooth (marked with red arrow). a – bones with intact surfaces, b – bones with eroded surfaces. these pieces of blue-bluish patinated fl int should be dated 68713), placing it within the 10th century AD. This date to the Late Dryas and likely to Swiderian technological has arisen the suspicion that this feature is not a burial, tradition. Only one blade (mentioned above) and a fl ake, but a discarded collection of a more modern date. The both of pink fl int, are of later date and likely imports from Prussians have subscribed to the custom of cremation in a the Valdai Hills in Russia. most strict way; if even a single bone was left non-cremat- ed then the transition of the deceased to the afterlife was Grave or discard? not possible (Beresnevičius 2001, 38-39). Other ethnic At the bottom of the east-west trench, Trench 15 (Fig. groups represented in Kaup cemetery of the Viking Age 31, K68) parts of non-cremated human bones were dis- have also followed well-established burial customs that covered in a pit measuring 0.55 x 0.65 m (Fig. 34). The have not included excarnation or the like. In the northern topmost layer of bones was encountered 0.50 m below profi le wall of Trench 15 (Plate IIA) it is possible to see present surface. The bones were highly fragmented and an outline of a pit at the same longitude as feature K68. in a porous state of preservation despite rather an advan- But rather well-defi ned borders of K68 excludes the pos- tageous environment in the layer of chalky gravel. There sibility that it could be interconnected with the pit half a was some admixture of darker, organic-rich sediments, metre from its northern limit. On the other hand, it is ob- but at the same time the pit was rather clearly discernible. vious that the layers above feature K68 are redeposited, The compacted distribution of bones has suggested that so this could explain why only a smaller portion of the the bones were placed into the pit in a container, possi- human skeleton is represented in the collection. bly a bag. Two fragments of animal bones (one is a part M.L. Jørkov and N. Lynnerup (Univ. of Copenhagen, of mandible) and a horse tooth were found nearly in the Department of Forensic Medicine) have studied the poor center of this accumulation. K. M. Gregersen (Univ. of remains (Jørkov 2016). Their fi ndings are summarized Copenhagen, Zoological Museum) has studied the tooth in Fig. 35. They have concluded that the collection rep- and concluded that it was a milk tooth, an upper molar resents bones of minimum two adult individuals, likely from a horse (Equus sp.). It belonged to a younger ani- males. There were no cranial bones apart from a small mal, perhaps 2½-3 years old. The tooth was sent for AMS fragment of a mandible. Knowing that in the past ar- dating to Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory. There was chaeologists have valued only the skulls as a source of enough collagen to produce a date of 1085 ± 30 BP (Poz- information, but otherwise paid little attention to the sub- 116 Acta Archaeologica

certain determination. Charcoal pieces found in the lower portion of the layer were identifi ed as deriving from oak (Quercus) and birch (Betula). Feature K66 was fi rst interpreted as a burial, due to fi nds of tiny bits of calcinated bones, but consequently, this interpretation was changed: it was assumed that the pit could have been used for the cremation of the dead. A number of small postholes attested during excavation could have been used as a frame to support the wood of the bonfi re, and the discoloration of sediments has also implied that some kind of fi re manipulation was taking place on the spot. Thus soil samples were collected for investigation with an infrared spectrometer (Nicolet iS 5 FT-IR Spectrometer, Thermo Scientifi c, for methods see Weiner 2010 (note 5)). And indeed it was confi rmed, as supported also by the heating experiments, that the sedi- ments were aff ected by fi re. Since sediments are gener- ally resilient to changes caused by fi re, the fi ndings in- dicate that the area has been exposed to prolonged and intensive periods of heating. Investigation of calcinated bones show that they have been subjected to temperatures between 200˚ and 300˚C and occasionally even 400˚C, in a reduced atmosphere. The four sorts of trees attested in the feature thus dem- onstrate several episodes of use of this pit, feature K66, Fig. 35. Graphic representation of identifi ed human bones from feature for cremations. K68. Not all fragments could be identifi ed or which side of the body they represent. After Jørkov 2016. CONCLUSIONS cranial bones, the likely conclusion is that feature K68 is The Kaup endeavor of 2014 became a project on the ar- not a burial, but a re-burial of the post-Heydeck period, a chaeology of Archaeological Science, so much biased by pile of some of the encountered inhumations during the time and personalities. In that respect, it is again a con- excavation of Barrow 1. fi rmation that archaeology is always contemporary and always responding to social and political agendas. Other studies The Neolithic barrow at Kaup remains unique in its Stud. Mag. Adam Cordes (Univ. of Copenhagen, Saxo complexity, size, setting and now also due to the history Institute) has collected a number of soil samples for mac- of research. Through the present excavation, it was possi- ro-botanical studies. The majority of these samples had ble to dismiss some of the more fantasy-fi lled reconstruc- to be discarded due to the uncertainty of age of largely tions or to explain them with a multifaceted history of redeposited layers. However, under the supervision of the site formation where Neolithic melts with the Viking Claudia Baittinger of National Museum of Denmark, he Age and the periods in between. Yet other observations undertook studies of charcoal deriving from an undis- have been confi rmed demonstrating the special attrac- turbed layer of ca 0.15 m of feature K66 dated to the Vi- tion of the place, like a Tree of Eternity, known for gen- king Age (Fig. 31). Charcoal found in the upper portion erations. What a magnifi cent sight it must have been: a of the said layer has been identifi ed as deriving from pine mound rising higher than the surroundings and encircled (Pinaeceae) and from hazel (Corylus Avellana) or alder with massive timber poles! At least two phases of such (Alnus) – the pieces of charcoal were too small for a more structures have been attested during excavation in 2014. Kaup 2014 117

Fig. 36. The team of 2014. Standing in front: Dr. V.I. Kulakov.

The team failed to discover the oldest material that could Saddest of all it is to see the general deterioration be dated and/or investigated in terms of revealing the ge- and neglect of the material cultural heritage in modern netic origin of the Neolithic “founding fathers” of the 3rd Russian East Prussia, from ancient barrows to Mediae- millennium BC. Luckily, the growing body of evidence val churches and more recent buildings. Despite thou- supports the estimation that the oldest burial, the lower sands of holiday guests and wealthy part-time residents Grave I, was laid some time around 2800-2600 BC (Po- the small museum at Crantz, housed in the attic of an old spieszny 2015, Tab. 2 & Tab. 5). And the upper Grave II German villa by the old German railroad station, is in an was laid shortly after Grave I, perhaps a generation of two appalling condition. Old Crantz is still standing, like a later (Gumiński & Kowalski 2011, 485-486). slightly ghostly but strangely homely German shell in a The travels through research history, the beautiful completely diff erent modern setting belonging to a post- old East Prussian coastal landscapes, and the repeated Communist crypto-fascist capitalist Russia 25 years after meetings with older German, recent Soviet and modern the fall of the Berlin Wall. Russian realities were highly rewarding, not least due The one good is that there is a small but slightly to very fi ne Summer weather and the lovely cool forest growing local appreciation of the cultural values of the of Kaup (Fig. 36). And for future archaeologists, there German past, and, hopefully, also of the archaeological are still untouched pockets of the Neolithic barrow left, remains of the region, so well cared for by Carl Engel as well as very much to do in the Viking Age cemetery; and others at the Prussia Museum in Königsberg before plus, last but not least, the unexcavated large settlement the second wave of European disasters in the 19th century, area, which needs to be investigated soon due to the truly including the inclusion of the Baltic States into the Soviet massive expansion of the holiday resort of Zelenogradsk/ Union, and the Ragnarok in Germany that Engel helped Cranz, with thousands of new middle class homes in high to avoid as far as Greifswald and his own university were rises and upper-class mansions in the dunes right on the concerned in 1945. Baltic coast (a major civilian, even international airport is only a few kilometres away). Even the burial ground of Kaup is under threat, having supposedly been bought by a millionaire. 118 Acta Archaeologica

NOTES 1. The Sambian peninsula has been part of the lands between the rivers of Vistula and Neman inhabited by Prussians that linguistically were related to the pre- sent-day Lithuanians and Latvians. The whole Prussian territory was conquered by the German crusaders in the 13th century. The region was completely Germanized by around 1700. Germanized Prussia has played a key role in the early unifi cation process of Germany. With the fall of the Nazi regime in 1945, the western part of Prussia was incorporated into Poland, the eastern part became Soviet. The Soviet regime has carried out a re-settling program fi lling up the region with typically lower class opportunists from Byelorussia, Ukraine and other parts of the USSR. Some of the deportees of Baltic origin, upon return from places of exile such as Siberia, would also settle in the region due to the restrictions to return to their home countries. In order to erase all earlier historic legacy the Soviets have undertaken a rather uninventive re-naming policy with numerous recurrences, thus Kaup is located in Prussian Viskiautai, German Wiskiauten or Russian Mokhovoje, after Russian мохово = moss, a mossy place. 2. The drawings suggest that the dead were resting on their backs, rather than on their sides, with bent knees. 3. Nazi Report on O. Kleemann: “Overall assessment: Scientifi cally not signifi cant, very careful, almost pedan- tic, he lacks an overview of his scientifi c fi eld. In sharp contrast to the director of Prussia Museum, Gaerte.” (Vorgeschichtler Dossiers). Despite such assessment Kleemann pursued a successful scientifi c career becom- ing a professor at The Institute for Pre- and Early History in Bonn. 4. The fi eldwork of 2014 was driven by the energy and dedication of students from the Universities in Kaliningrad, Vilnius and Copenhagen, including Adam Rekweg Cordes, Anders Schaloff sky Hagensen, Caspar Schlaikjær Nielsen, Søren Feldborg Pedersen, Andreas Valentin Wadskjær Petersen, Ann-Frijda Schmidt, Daniel Dam Toftegaard, Johan Viktor Villemoes, Medeina Gailiūtė, Antanas Mėlinis, Vytautas Podolianka and Kristina Kropinova. 5. FTIR analysis was carried out by I. Merkytė with special thanks to prof. Steve Weiner for the introduction of the method during her stay at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. APPENDIX I. EXCAVATION OF THE NEOLITHIC MOUND IN 1933 Published note by Otto Kleemann, as translated from German by K. Randsborg (cf. Kleemann 1933)

NEW EXCAVATIONS IN WISKIAUTEN added, placed in a round-bottomed ditch. The mound was Excavations in the Viking cemetery in Kaup at Wiski- disturbed in the early by a segment-shaped ex- auten, Kr. Fischhausen in Samland were renewed by the cavation, but also made larger and used for cremations. A Prussia-Museum-Königsberg in the Sommer of 1932. Neolithic secondary grave was disturbed in this process, Gaerte reported on this in Nachrichtenblatt IX (1933), 13 since a pit for an inhumation with a large standing stone and in Forschungen und Fortschritte IX (1933), 73. The at the end was found under the last phase of the barrow, work could be undertaken in 1933 with support from the along with human skeletal remains in Iron Age layers. It Emergency Foundation for German science. The excava- could now be established as far as the western part is con- tions were carried out over nine weeks, from the begin- cerned, but originally no doubt for the entire monument, ning of August to Mid-October and were directed by the that yet another enlargement followed, which, according author. to the mixed character of the soil, should place this along Apart from a general mapping of Kaup with a level with the Viking barrows; however, also the Early Bronze instrument, the work concentrated on the southeastern Age inhumation grave may be brought into the picture. part of the cemetery. The results were quite agreeable in This big barrow is, at its southern and southwestern spite of unusually diffi cult conditions in the soil, numer- edges, overlaying a Viking barrow. Towards the west is a ous superpositions and intrusive cuttings of phenomena group of four enclosing in part oval, in part round stone of diff erent age. settings and stone packings, lying together under a very Due to a lucky coincidence the Corded Ware barrow, fl at mound. A long gone interment in a coffi n, probably a known for its artefacts, was found anew (Kossinna, Man- tree trunk, held no artefacts. But one of three small sec- nus II, 76; Gaerte, Urges. Ostpr. Abb. 33-5, 44). Since, in ondary burials held cremated bones. Between the stones 1873, only a narrow trench was dug from the southeast- of one of the packings were a Corded Ware shard and a ern edge towards the middle of the mound, the structure heart-shaped arrow-head of fl int. All in all, the issue of of the barrow remained rather unclear. In 1873 an empty dating is still open, in particular since the monument is “grave pit” (today considered a misinterpretation) was still not completely investigated. Towards the northeast found and safeguarded above which were two Late Neo- the complex was superimposed by a Viking barrow of the lithic inhumations, and, towards the southeast from the 11th century, and thereby slightly disturbed. At the west- centre of the mound, a disturbed Early Bronze Age grave ern edge a female grave of the 9th century was found, no as well as an Early Iron Age urn grave. doubt a fl at grave, the grave goods being deposited in a The construction of the barrow can now be estab- small basket. Interestingly, the old humus layer under an- lished. The lower Stone Age grave was dug into the mid- other mound, no doubt Viking too, was preserved. dle of a small natural gravel mound and marked at the sur- Finally, just as last year, the Old Prussian horse cem- face by several concentric ditches with pointed bottom, in etery was investigated and its extension towards the south which was placed a hedge supported by pairs of small established along a long line. post as well as a low palisade. Thus, the grave held a mid- Important for East Prussian research is thus the de- dle position between a fl at fi eld interment and a barrow lineation of the transition from Neolithic (and connected one. Exactly above this on the surface was later placed a Bronze Age) fl at graves to graves in barrows. The treas- second burial above which a very low barrow was con- ure of Viking graves has been enriched and the massive structed, but before this a second hedge was probably and idespread use of the whole cemetery documented. APPENDIX II. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

The persons listed below are ranked according to their year contributions in Steuer 2001; Leube 2002; Legendre et al. of birth, all before the outbreak of World War I; they also 2007; Geringer et al. 2013; Custodis 2014). died before the internet made a wealth of documents public In fact, the internet and other public sources have knowledge. For the secret pre-World War II SS reports made it much easier to learn about details of events and on pre-historians and other archaeologists, often quite to the life and actions of the persons involved in the Nazi the point concerning their scientifi c achievements, thus regime and the World War II than only a few decades ago. possibly to other things as well, see, e.g., http://homepages. Also, the restraints on the fl ow of information instrument- uni-tuebingen.de/gerd.simon/DSVorgesch.pdf (Also see ed by the Cold War are now long gone.

Johannes Heydeck (1835/Sakuthen, Memel district, East Prussia [today Director of the museum in Danzig [Polish Gdańsk]. 1928-1933, and Klaipeda district, Lithuania] - 1910). - Painter (rather mediocre), again from 1939 Professor (in Prehistory), Königsberg university. 1938 fi ne archaeological draftsman; and very well connected. [By famous Director of the Offi ce for Prehistory, Königsberg (after Gaerte). Close German painter Lovis Corinth (1858-1925), himself from Tapiau collaboration with a wide range of archaeologists of the larger region on (Russian Gvardeysk) in East Prussia characterized as infl uenced by the excavations, archaeological societies, publications and other projects, bigot Lithuanian character of his home province.] including K. Voigtmann and C. Engel (cf. Engel & La Baume 1937). Professor at the Academy of Art, Königsberg. Engaged in At the provincial museum in Schleswig after 1945; Director of the prehistory; many excavations for Altertumsgesellschaft Prussia. Prehistoric Workgroup at the Herder Research Committee at Marburg [Excavations at Kaup 1873 (cf. Heydeck 1893); excavation of the grave from 1950. Important in integrating science and archaeology. of philosopher Immanuel Kant in the cathedral of Königsberg 1880.] Honorary doctorate at the Albertus University Königsberg in 1894 for Birger Nerman (1888/Norrköping, - 1971). - Docent in the excavations, etc. archaeology at Uppsala University 1919. Professor at Tartu University, Estonia 1923-25. Excavations in Estonia, Latvia (1929-30/Grobin), Gustaf Kossinna (1858/Tilsit, East Prussia [today Sovetsk, Russia] - Lithuania (1931/Apuolė, cf. Lamm 2009), and East Prussia (1932/ 1931). - Germanized Masurian Pole. Studies in Classical and Germanic Kaup). Director of Historical Museum, Stockholm 1938-1954. Philology at Göttingen, Leipzig, Berlin, and Strassburg (doctorate 1887) universities. Later on engagement in prehistory. Librarian; from 1902 Wilhelm Gaerte (1890/Eydtkuhnen, East Prussia [today Cherny- Professor in Germanic archaeology, University of Berlin. 1909 founder shevskoye, Russia] - 1958). - Student of classical archaeology & of the German Society for Prehistory, later as the Society for German philology, and of ethnology. Dr. 1914. Teacher. 1919 to the Prussia Prehistory, with the two Mannus series (periodical and monographs). Museum, Königsberg; it’s energetic Director 1925. Many archaeological Father of the “settlement archaeological method” (well-defi ned excavations and studies. Till 1933 supporter of the German Centre cultural groups = social groups; e.g., Corded Ware Culture = early Parti; later member of the Nazi Automobile Corps. Fired from his Indoeuropeans). Kossinna’s main occupation was the delineation of post as director of the museum in 1938; continued as chairman of the Germanic societies through the ages; he also coined the expression “Die Altertumsgesellschaft Prussia and editor of “Prussia”. deutsche Vorgeschichte - eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft” in a work of 1912 (cf. Kossinna 1911). Alfred Rosenberg (1893/Tallinn [German Reval, then part of Russia] - 1946). - German Balt; architect and leading ideologue of the NSDAP Kurt Voigtmann (1881-1942 [family name common among Jews]). - (member since 1919). 1923 Editor of the party newspaper People’s High school teacher, later Co-rector, Marienburg in East Prussia [Polish Observer. 1933 Director of the Foreign Offi ce of the NSDAP. 1934 Malbork]. Undertook excavations for the local museum. From 1933 supervisor of the ideological and educational development of the under instructions from the Königsberg museum. NSDAP [“Amt Rosenberg” is used as a collective term for this and other offi ces headed by Rosenberg, including a Department for Pre- and Early Albert Egges van Giff en (1884/Noordhorn, The Netherlands - 1973). - History under Reinerth from 1937; independent institution from 1940]. Professor at universities of Groningen and Amsterdam. Director of the 1940 founder of the “Organization for Aquisition of Jewish Cultural Biological-Archaeological Institute at Groningen 1922-1954, Director Goods”. 1941 Minister for the occupied Eastern territories and Director of the State Archaeological Service at Amersfoort 1951-56. Promoted of the administration of region “Ostland”. Arrested 1945, executed 1946 new methods in several important areas, including use of the natural (the Nürnberg Process). sciences, the quadrant method employed in excavations of settlements and burial mounds, and in the area of administrative archaeology (van Eduards Šturms (1895/Riga? - 1959). - 1927-1938 Inspector for Giff en 1930; 1936). Prehistoric artefacts in Latvia. 1938-1940 Director of the museum in Jelgava. 1940-1944 docent at the University of Riga. Flight to Wolfgang La Baume (1885/Wurzen - 1971). - Science studies in Jena, Greifswald in 1944 [Engel’s university]. 1946-1949 Professor at Baltic Freiburg, and Berlin 1903-1907. Dr. 1908, 1924. 1911 Keeper, 1923 University in Hamburg. 1949-1953 at the German Research Committee. Kaup 2014 121

1953-1959 Director of the Baltic Research Institute, Bonn; 1955 Slesvig, Germany - 1985). - Studies i Kiel, Copenhagen, Stockholm. Visiting Professor at the University of Bonn. Dr. at Kiel University 1932, 1934 (“Studien zur Wikingerkultur“). [Excavations with Birger Nerman at Viking Age Kaup in 1932.] Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Engel (1895/Magdeburg, Germany - Numerous travels in Europe etc. in search of the “Germanic expansion“. 1947). - Studies in philosophy and sciences 1913; 1914 voluntary Member of NSDASP 1928; SS Untersturmführer [Lieutenant] in German soldier, fi ghting throughout the entire World War I as a Central Offi ce for Race and Settlement 1937; from 1939 active in the non-commissioned offi cer; returning an English prisoner of war in Ahnenerbe [“Ancestral Heritage“] and a member of Himmler’s personal 1919. Married 1925, no children. Till 1927 a bookseller also doing staff . Docent at Berlin University 1938, Professor 1939. voluntary archaeological work. Organizing the prehistoric exhibition at Director of Sonderkommando Paulsen [Special Task Unit to Magdeburg (the Museum of Science and Prehistory). External doctorate “secure” archaeological fi nds and other cultural values] since 1939 studies fi nished at Tübingen university 1928 (departmental friend of H. regarding Poland and its “Germanic“ artefacts and books, incl. theft of Reinerth). Many publications on the Middle Elbe region, in particular, the famous Veit-Stoss Altar in Kraków‘s St. Mary. SS Hauptsturmführer the Neolithic. At the Prussia Museum, Königsberg in 1929 (no available [Captain] 1941; teacher at various SS centres and institutions. Teaching archaeology jobs in Magdeburg); till 1934 engaged in administrative/ during WW II at Rostock and Königsberg universities. - Worked as rescue excavations. By moving to the East Engel became entangled in a teacher after World War II; from 1958 with the Scientifi c Research post-World War I state and cultural politics, as well as archaeological Society on Syria; 1961-67 at the Württembergisches Landesmuseum reasoning inspired by Kossinna. Stuttgart. (Jacobs 2002). Member of NSDAP since May 1, 1933 [Hitler chancellor by January 30, 1933]. October 1, 1934 Docent, 1935/1937 Professor at the Ernst Petersen (1905/Berlin - 1944). - Member of NSDAP 1931, and Herder Institute, Riga (now in Marburg); 1939 Professor at Greifswald of the SS; highest grade Obersturmführer (First Lieutenant). 1934 University, with the help of the minister of education. Attached to the Director of the offi ce for Prehistory, Breslau. Dr. 1938; 1939 Professor “Ostland” Commissariat (Balticum and White Russia) 1941-42 with in Rostock, 1941 in Posen [Poznań, Poland]. In the German fi ghting respect to matters of archaeology (Amt Rosenberg, with its very active army since 1942; fell at Kriwoj Rog in the Ukraine. and suppressing cultural politics). From 1942 Rector [chancellor] of Greifswald University. Initiated, against Hitler’s orders, the surrender of Herbert Jankuhn (1905/Angerburg in the Masurian district, East Prussia the city without a fi ght on April 29, 1945 (planned by Engel already in [today Węgorzewo, Poland] - 1990); family name implies a Germanized January 1945). Died in Soviet concentration camp at Neubrandenburg Lithuanian background. - Studies at Königsberg, Jena and Berlin on January 27, 1947; buried in mass grave. (For his diary of 1938-45, universities. Dr. 1931, 1935. Docent 1936 (Kiel); 1931 keeper, 1940 see Mangelsdorf 2007; cf. Mangelsdorf 1997; Beran 1997). director of the prehistoric museum, Kiel. Professor at the University of Kiel 1942. Member of the NSDAP, and a highly important fi gure in Heinrich Himmler (1900/Munich - 1945). - Highly abbreviated CV: German archaeology before, during and after World War II (due to the Member of the NSDAP 1923. Joined the SS 1925 (SS Regional Leader scientifi c quality of his work). 1926, SS State Leader [“Reichsführer SS”] 1929. 1939 foundation Doctoral thesis “Gürtelgarnituren der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit of “Ahnenerbe” [Ancestral Heritage] 1935, an institute meant to im Samland” was submitted in 1931 and published in 1933. Important investigate the archaeological and cultural history of the Arian race; excavations at Hedeby (Viking Age) [in the constructed much colored by pseudo-scientifi c ideas (director Wolfram Sievers still used in Germany, “Haithabu”; should be “Hætheby”, if anything], (1905-1948), executed). Himler supported Jankuhn’s excavations at supported by SS Ahnenerbe/H. Himmler. Head of the archaeological Old Hedeby, which became subordinated to Ahnenerbe. Very powerful operations of Ahnenerbe 1940. Excavations on the Crimea and in the in Nazi Germany, numerous “crimes against humanity”. Suicide 1945. in search of the Goths 1942 (“Sonderkommando” Jankuhn [Special Task Unit to “secure” archaeological fi nds and other cultural Hans Reinerth (1900/Bistriz, Austria-Hungary, today in Rumania - values]). Obersturmführer [Lieutenant Coronel] and high ranking staff 1990). - Studies in Tübingen, important excavations at Federsee. Dr. intelligence offi cer with the 5th SS Panzer Division “Wiking” till 1945 1921, 1925. Docent of Prehistory at Tübingen 1925 (departmental friend (this SS division was mainly made up of Scandinavians and Dutchmen of C. Engel). Member of NSDAP 1931. 1934 Professor at the University under German offi cers). In allied concentration camp till 1948. of Berlin and Chairman of the State Society for German Prehistory. Professor at the University of Göttingen 1956/1959. (Archaeological 1937 Director of the State Offi ce for Prehistory of the NSDAP [under bibliography: Steuer 2000.) “Amt Rosenberg”]. In opposition to Himmler’s Ahnenerbe organization [“Ancestral Heritage”, founded 1935]. Arrested 1946. In the 1950s Hans-Jürgen Eggers (1906/St. Petersburg - 1975). - Upbringing in Director of the Unteruhldingen open air museum on the Bodensee Estonia, family to Greifswald 1918. Studies in Tübingen, Berlin, and (reconstructions of horses and settlements from the Neolithic and the Greifswald. Ethnological interests. Dr. 1930, 1941. From 1933 with Bronze Age). the Provincial Museum in Stettin. 1937 member of the NSDAP (rather late). After 1945 keeper at the Ethnological and Prehistoric Museum, Reinhard Wittram (1902/Bilderlingshof, Latvian Bulduri - 1973). - Hamburg. 1946-1971 Adjunct Professor at Hamburg university. Studies in history at Riga, Jena and Tübingen universities. Dr. 1925, Important work on Roman imports; theoretical statements. 1928; Professor 1938 at the Herder Institute, Riga. In NSDAP 1941. SS- Hauptsturmführer (Captain). 1941-1945 Professor and Dean in Posen Karl Kersten (1909/Stade - 1992). - Studies in Hamburg, Berlin and [now Poznań, Poland]. 1946 teaching at Göttingen university. Kiel. Dr. 1934, 1942. 1935 Assistant, 1940 Keeper, 1944 Director at the Prehistoric Museum, Kiel. 1937 member of NSDAP (rather late). 1941 Peter Paulsen (1902/Klixbüll [Frisian Klexbel; Danish Klægsbøl], South Docent at Kiel University. From 1942 in “Sonderkommando” [Special 122 Acta Archaeologica

Task Unit] Jankuhn in Ukraine etc. After 1945 Director, and later (Polish Racibórz) and Breslau. Autumn 1933 assistant with the Prussia Professor, of the Provincial Museum of Prehistory, Slesvig. Massive Museum, Königsberg, 1934 with the Museum in Dresden; 1935 again engagement in the publication of Nordic Early Bronze Age data. with the Prussia Museum [seemingly critical of Director Gaerte’s “cavalier” methods]. Member of NSDAP; from 1933 in the SA (1934 Joachim Werner (1909/Berlin - 1994). - Studies in Berlin, Vienna and with SA Standart [Troop] 100, Dresden; seemingly attempts at being Marburg. Dr. 1932 (Marburg). Member of NSDAP and the organization attached to the SS). Pilot since 1940 (air photography). English prisoner Stahlhelm/SA 1933. 1933 with the German Archaeological Institute, of war (“dropped by”): participation in archaeological activities. 1954 including excavations in Bulgaria. Docent at the Frankfurt University Adjunct Professor at the University of Bonn (cf. Moser 1971). 1938. 1941 Professor at the University of Strassburg [French Strasbourg]. In the German army 1939-1945. Professor in München Frida Davydovna Gurevitsch (1911/Riga, then in Russia - 1988). 1946, 1948. Several excavations (Late Roman forts); numerous - School teacher 1931 (Leningrad, now St. Petersburg). Dr. 1937 important works mainly on the . (Leningrad). 1937-1958 at the Institute of the History of Material Culture, 1959 the Archaeological Institute, Soviet Academy of Otto Kleemann (1911/Strassburg, France [then Germany] - 1996). Sciences, Leningrad. Excavations in Kaliningrad oblast and in White - Studies in Breslau (Polish Wrocław) & Marburg. Dr. 1933, 1942. Russia. Many publications on Baltic archaeology, the conclusions Junior assistant with the archaeological monument offi ces at Ratibor colored by Soviet Marxism of the period. PLATES

1 – topsoil, dark brown-grey, borders are not sharply defi ned everywhere due to recent disturbances, sandy layer with 3-5 mm grains, friable, hard, heterogeneous, humuous. 1b – ancient A-horizon, now sandy humuous layer with many rootlets. In some areas underlies the layer of gravel, layer 4. 2 – loamy sand, dark greyish brown layer, more homogenous than layer 1, hard, more compact but also friable, con- taining small pebbles 1-5 cm big. Ancient topsoil, but in most places a refl ection of formation of layers after modern excavations, humuous. 2b – loamy sand, disturbed, humuos, brown layer, encountered in re-fi lled of German trenches. 2c – forest bed, silty sand, dark grey, loose without visible admixture of charcoal (O horizon). 2d – as layer 2, but more heterogeneous, dark grey-brown, humuous, a layer of redeposited sediments by the German excavations. 2e – silty sand, dark grey, humuous, heterogeneous, many rootlets, and small pebbles, friable. 3 – sandy loam with distinct borders, more compact than layer 2, brown orange with darker specks containing char- coal, hard, compact, blocky, well-sorted and homogenous. Interpreted as a pit, probably for cremations, dated to the period of the Prussian cemetery. 4 – gravel, whitish. The gravel is of geological occurrence on the site, and where undisturbed, appears regularly de- posited with larger pebbles (5-6 cm) in lower horizons and fi ne pebbles (0.5-1 cm) higher up. The lower portions include also a higher amount of sand that provides higher compactness. The gravel was used as the main building material for the erection of the Neolithic barrow. 4b – mixture of layers 4 & 2, more greyish is color. 4c – as layer 4, but mixed with coarse yellow sand. 4d – as layer 4, but appearing as separate lenses, redeposited gravel during German excavations. 4e – undisturbed geological layer shifting between fi ne gravel and coarse sand. 4f – gravel mixed with humus rich silty sand, dark brown, porous, loose. 4g – mixture of layers 4 & 1. 5 – loamy sand, black to brown-black, rich in charcoal, humuous, heterogeneous, specks of calcinated bones, the borders are not always sharp but distinct due you to the darkest color as compared to other layers. Interpreted as the fi ll of pits containing cremation burials or similar features. 6 – fi ne silty sand, light yellow, homogenous. 6b – mixture of layers 11 & 2. 7 – fi ne silt loam, light olive brown (Munsell 2.5YR 5/3) very homogenous, compact. 8 – silty clay loam, brownish with lighter intrusions of silt (Munsell 10YR 4/4), compact, hard, platy. 9 – silty clay, light grey to pink, very hard and very compact, blocky. 9b – redeposited clay. 10 – ash-rich layer. 11 – plant-rich layer. 12 – ashy posthole. 124 Acta Archaeologica Plate I. Profi le drawings of North – South trench, covering trenches No 13 and No 14 (before removal of the balk separating Trench 13B). A – eastern wall, B western wall. A 13B). Trench No 14 (before removal of the balk separating le drawings of North – South trench, covering trenches No 13 and Plate I. Profi B A Kaup 2014 125 Plate II. Profi le drawings of East – West trench, covering Trench No 15. A – northern wall, B – southern wall. – A No 15. Trench trench, covering West le drawings of East – Plate II. Profi A B TABLES

Table I. Structures and levels in the Neolithic to Bronze Age mound at Kaup according to Heydeck (Heydeck 1893).

Top of mound +0.90 m (originally somewhat higher) Secondary Early Bronze Age inhumation grave; and Late Bronze Age cremation in urn Surrounding level of the terrain 0.00 m Grave II -0.20 m (in 1.10 m thick layer of gravel [the mound]; thus at the bottom of this layer) Top of layer of sand -0.20 m [diff erence between 1.33 and 1.13 m] Grave I -0.56 m (in 1.13 m thick layer of sand with gravel) Firm clay layer (subsoil) from -1.33 m and down Bottom of pit fi lled with sand with gravel -1.74 m

Table II. Kaup, Wiskiauten. Excavators before World War II, and dates of excavation (Mühlen 1975, Katalog II; cf. Ku- lakov 2012, 121ff .). Note the particular numbering system of the 1930s (Fig. 17).

1. Heydeck 1873: August [and in 1932, cf. Kleemann 1933] 2. Heydeck 1873: August 3. Heydeck 1873: August 4. Heydeck 1873: August 5. Heydeck 1874: 18/9 6. Heydeck 1877: 21/9 7. Heydeck 1877: September 8. Heydeck 1877: September 9. Heydeck 1877: September 10. Heydeck 1877: September 11. Heydeck 12. Heydeck 1880: August 13. Heydeck 1880: August 14. Heydeck 1880: August 15. Heydeck 1880: August 16. Heydeck 1880: August 17. Heydeck 1880: August 18. Heydeck 1880: August 19. Heydeck 1880: August 20. Heydeck 1880: August 21. Heydeck 1880: August 22. Heydeck 1880: August 23. Heydeck 1880: August 24. Heydeck 1880: August 25. Heydeck 1880: August 26. Heydeck 1880: August 27. Heydeck 1880: August 28. Heydeck 1880: August 29. Heydeck 1880: August 30. Bezzenberger 1897: 9/8 31. Heydeck 1897 32. Heydeck 1897 33. Heydeck 1897 34. Heydeck 1897 Kaup 2014 127

35. Heydeck 1897 36. Heydeck 1897 37. Heydeck 1897 38. Heydeck 1897 39. Heydeck 1897 40. Heydeck 1897 41. Heydeck 1897 42. Heydeck 1897 43. Heydeck 1899 44. Heydeck 1899 45. Heydeck 1899 46. Heydeck 1899 47. Heydeck 1899 48. Heydeck-Kretschmann 1899 49. Gaerte 1927 50. Gaerte 1927: 16-20/7 51. Ebert 1924 = Barrow 151a 52. Nerman-Paulsen = Barrow 43 53. Nerman = Barrow 44 (Kulakov 2012, 30 Fig. 33?) 54. Nerman = Barrow 64 55. Nerman = Barrow 72 56. Nerman 1932: October = Barrow 73 57. Nerman 1932: October = Barrow 74 58. Nerman = Barrow 133 59. Nerman = Barrow 138 60. Nerman = Barrow 139 61. Nerman = Barrow 139a 62. Nerman = Barrow 140 63. Nerman-Jaensch 1932: September = Barrow 141 64. Nerman-Jaensch 1932: October = Barrow 143 65. Nerman = Barrow 144 66. Nerman = Barrow 144a 67. Nerman-Paulsen = Barrow 144b 68. Kleemann = Barrow 145 69. Found by clearing of roots 1930 = Barrow 151a 70. Voigtmann = Barrow 163, excavated in 1934: 23/7-8/8 (cf. Kulakov 2012, 48 Fig. 50 – use of crossing balks) 71. Kleemann 1937 = Barrow 167 [also excavated by Voigtmann 23/-8/8, 1934? (cf. Kulakov 2012, 137f.)] 72. Paulsen = Barrow 170 73. Paulsen = Barrow 170a 74. Paulsen = Barrow 170b 75. Paulsen = Barrow 170c 76. Paulsen = Barrow 170d 77. Paulsen = Barrow 172 78. Paulsen = Barrow 174 79. Paulsen = Barrow 175 80. Voigtmann 1933 = Barrow 181 81. Voigtmann 1934 = Barrow 183 82. Voigtmann 1934: 23/7-8/8 = Barrow 184 83. Nerman 1932: October = Barrow 185 84. Nerman 1932: October = Barrow 189 85. Nerman = Barrow 204 86. Nerman = Barrow 207 REFERENCES

Allentoft, M.E., M. Sikora, K.-G. Sjögren, S. Rasmussen, M. -. (R. Grenz, ed.). 1962. Typen ostpreussischer Hügelgräber. Rasmussen, J. Stenderup, P.B. Damgaard, H. Schroeder, T. Ahlström, Göttinger schriften zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 3. Neumünster L. Vinner, A.-S. Malaspinas, A. Margaryan, T. Higham, D. Chivall, N. (Wachholtz). Lynnerup, L. Harvig, J. Baron, P. Della Casa, P. Dąbrowski, P.R. Duff y, Engel, C. & W. La Baume. 1937. Kulturen und Völker der A.V. Ebel, A. Epimakhov, K. Frei, M. Furmanek, T. Gralak, A. Gromov, Frühzeit im Preussenlande. Erläuterungen zum Atlas der ost- und S. Gronkiewicz, G. Grupe, T. Hajdu, R. Jarysz, V. Khartanovich, westpreussischen Landesgeschichte 1. Königsberg (Gräfe & Unzer). A. Khokhlov, V. Kiss, J. Kolář, A. Kriiska, I. Lasak, C. Longhi, G. Eriksson, G. 2004. Part-time farmers or hard-core sealers? McGlynn, A. Merkevicius, I. Merkyte, M. Metspalu, R. Mkrtchyan, V. Västerbjers studied by means of stable isotope analysis. Journal of Moiseyev, L. Paja, G. Pálfi , D. Pokutta, Ł. Pospieszny, T.D. Price, L. Anthropological Archaeology 23. 135ff . Saag, M. Sablin, N. Shishlina, V. Smrčka, V.I. Soenov, V. Szeverényi, G. Gaerte, W. 1929. Urgeschichte Ostpreussens. Königsberg (Gräfe & Tóth, S.V. Trifanova, L. Varul, M. Vicze, L. Yepiskoposyan, V.Zhitenev, Unzer). L. Orlando, T. Sicheritz-Pontén, S. Brunak, R. Nielsen, K. Kristiansen -. 1933. Neue Ausgrabungen auf dem Wikinger-Friedhof bei & E. Willerslev. 2015. Population Genomics of Bronze Age . Wiskiauten, Kr. Fischhausen (Ostpreussen). Forschungen und 522. 167ff . Fortschritte 9:6. 73ff . Anthony, D. W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language. How -. 1935a. Neue Grabungsergebnisse auf dem Wikinger-Friedhof Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the Modern bei Wiskiauten, Kr. Fischhausen (Ostpreussen). Forschungen und World. Princeton and Oxford (Princeton University Press). Fortschritte 9:20. Februar 1933, No. 6. Bankoff , H. A. & F. A. Winter. 1990. The Later Aeneolithic in -. 1935b. Neue Grabungsergebnisse auf dem Wikingerfriedhöfe Southeastern Europe. American Journal of Archaeology 94 (2). 175ff . von Kaup bei Wiskiauten in Ostpreussen. Nachrichtenblatt für deutsche Becker, V., M. Thomas & A. Wolf-Schuler (eds.). 2009. Vorzeit 11:2. 40f. [On excavation of Barrow 163.] Zeiten - Kulturen - Systeme: Gedenkschrift für Jan Lichardus. -. 1937. Der Wikinger Friedhof von Wiskiauten durch Ankauf Schriften des Zentrums fü r Archä ologie und Kulturgeschichte des geschützt. Nachrichtenblatt für deutsche Vorzeit 13. 72. Schwarzmeerraumes 17. Langenweissbach (Beier & Beran). van Giff en, A.E. 1924. Ein neolithischer Grabhügel mit Beran, J. 1997. Carl Engel 1895-1947. Alteuropäische Forschungen Holzkonstruktion in Harendermolen, Gem. Haren, Prov. Groningen, N.F. 1. 133ff . Weissbach (Beier & Beran). Niederlande. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 15. 52ff . Beresnevičius, G. 2001. Trumpas lietuvių ir prūsų religijos -. 1930. Die Bauart der Einzelgräber. Betrag zur Kenntnis der älteren žodynas. Vilnius (Aidai). individuellen Grabhügelstrukturen in den Niederlanden. Mannus- von Carnap-Bornheim, C. 2001. Hans Jürgen Eggers und der Weg Bibliothek 44 & 45 (Textband & Tafelband). Leipzig (Kabitzsch). aus der Sackgasse der ethnischen Deutung. Steuer 2001. 173ff . -. 1936. Die Warf in Ezinge, Provinz Groningen, Holland. Und Custodis, M. (ed.). 2014. Herman-Walter Frey. Ministerialrat, seine westgermanische Häuser. Germania 20. 40ff . Wissenschaftler, Netzwerker. Münsteraner Schriften zur zeitgenössischen Geringer, S., F. von der Haar, U. Halle, D. Mahsarski & K. Walter Musik 2. Münster (Waxman). (eds.). 2013. Graben für Germanien. Archäologie unterm Hakenkreuz. Czebreszuk J. & J. Łoś. 1999. Grób kultury ceramiki sznurowej Bremen & Stuttgart (Focke-Museum. Bremer Landesmuseum für Kunst w Żernikach, gm. Kruszwica, woj. kujawsko-pomorskie. Sprawozdania und Kulturgeschichte & Theiss). Archeologiczne 51. 97ff . Gimbutas, M. 1956. The Prehistory of Eastern Europe I. Mesolithic, Ebert, M. (ed.). 1924-1932. Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte. 15 Neolitic and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic Area. Bände. Berlin (de Gruyter). American School of Prehistoric Research. Peabody Museum, Harvard Engel, C. 1931a. Zur Bauart und Chronologie der ostpreussischen University. Bulletin 20. Cambridge, Mass. (Peabody Museum). Hügelgräber. Mannus: Zeitschrift für Vorgeschichte. VIII. -. 1965. Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. The Ergänzungsband: Bericht über die erste Tagung für Vorgeschichte Hague (Mouton). Königsberg, 24. Juli bis 2. August 1930. 41ff . -. 1991. The Civilzation of the Goddness: The world of Old Europe. -. 1931b. Zur Vorgeschichte der Kurischen Nehrung. (Kurzer Bericht San Francisco (Harper). über die auf dem Ausfl ug am 28. Juli 1930 gegebenen Erläuterungen). Gimbutienė, M. 1985. Baltai priešistoriniais laikais. Etnogenezė, Mannus: Zeitschrift für Vorgeschichte. VIII. Ergänzungsband: Bericht materialinė kultūra ir mitologija. Vilnius (Mokslas). über die erste Tagung für Vorgeschichte Königsberg, 24. juli bis 2. Gossler, N. 2014. Wikingerzeitliche Waff en- und Reitzbehörfunde August 1930. 97ff . aus dem Berliner Bestand der Prussia-Sammlung (ehemals Königsberg/ -. 1932. Das vierstöckige Gräberfeld von Linkuhnen. Fornvännen Ostpreussen) und ihre Beziehung zu Skandinavien. Acta Praehistorica 27. 168ff . et Archaeologica 46. 1ff . -. 1933. Die ostpreussischen Megalithgräber. Fornvännen 28. 85ff . Grasis, N. 2007. The Skaistkalnes Selgas Double Burial and -. 1935. Vorgeschichte der altpreussischen Stämme I. Untersu- the Corded Ware/Rzucewo Culture: A Model of the Culture and the chungen über Siedlungs-stetigkeit und Kulturgruppen in vorgeschicht- Development of Burial Practices. Lietuvos Archeologija 31. 39ff . lichen Ostpreussen. Königsberg (Gräfe und Unzer). Gumiński, W. & T. Kowalski. 2011. Aby na górce. Dwa -. 1940. Ein altbronzezeitliches Hügelgrab bei der Oberförsterei późnoneolityczne groby z Dudki w Krainie Wielkich Jezior Mazurskich. Werder in der Stubnitz auf Rügen. Mittteilungen aus dem Kowalewska-Marszałek & Włodarczak 2011. 467ff . Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar der Universität Greifswald 11/12. 86ff . Haak, W., I. Lazaridis, N. Patterson, N. Rohland, S. Mallick, B. Engel, C. (ed.). 1939. Ostbaltischer Frühzeit. Baltische Lande Llamas, G. Brandt, S. Nordenfelt, E. Harney, K. Stewardson, Q. Fu, 1. Leipzig (Hirzel). Kaup 2014 129

A. Mittnik, E. Bánff y, C. Economou, M. Francken, S. Friederich, R. -. 1931. Äusserer Verlauf der Tagung. Mannus: Zeitschrift für Garrido Pena, F. Hallgren, V. Khartanovich, A. Khokhlov, M. Kunst, Vorgeschichte. VIII. Ergänzungsband: Bericht über die erste Tagung für P. Kuznetsov, H. Meller, O. Mochalov, V. Moiseyev, N. Nicklisch, S.L. Vorgeschichte Königsberg, 24. Juli bis 2. August 1930. Pichler, R. Risch, M.A. Rojo Guerra, C. Roth, A. Szécsényi-Nagy, J. Kowalewska-Marszałek, H., P. Włodarczak (eds.). 2011. Kurhany Wahl, M. Meyer, J. Krause, D. Brown, D. Anthony, A. Cooper, K.W. Alt i obrządek pogrzebowy w IV–II tysiącleciu p.n.e. Kraków, Warszawa & D. Reich. 2015. Massive Migration from the Steppe was a Source for (Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk & Instytut Indo-European Languages in Europe. Nature 522. 207ff . Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego). Halle, U. 2014. “Frey […] hat mal wieder völlig versagt” – Her- Kulakov, V.I. 2002. Archäologische Forschungen im Baltikum man-Walther Frey im Netzwerk der Vorgeschichtforscher. Custodis zwischen 1933 und 1945. Leube 2002. 536ff . 2014. 43ff . -. 2002/2003. Die wikingerzeitliche Siedlung und das Gräberfeld Harding, A. F. 2011. The Bronze Age. Milisauskas 2011. 327ff . Kaup bei Wiskiauten. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1956- Hare, J.L. 2015. Excavating Nations. Archaeology, Museums, and 2004. Off a 59/60. 55ff . the German-Danish Borderlands. Toronto (University Press). -. 2012 / В.И. Кулаков. Неманский янтарный путь в эпоху Heydeck, J. 1877. Bericht über Ausgrabungen bei Wiskiauten und викингов. Калининград (Министерство культуры Калининградской Wikiau im Samlande. Prussia 33 [Old Series] (Königsberg). 5ff . области - Калининградский областной музей янтаря & Российская -. 1893. Zwei Steinzeitskelette (liegende Hocker) in dem Prussia- Aкадемия наук - Институт археологии). Museum. Prussia = Sitzungsberichte der Altertumsgesellschaft Prussia -. 2015 / В.И. Кулаков Отчёт об археологических раскопках, (Königsberg) 18. 46ff . проведённых Балтийским отрядом ИА РАНв 2014 г. на курганном -. 1896-1900. Die Wikingergräber der Kaup bei Wiskiauten, Kr. могильнике Моховое, расположенном в лесном урочище Кауп у Fischhausen (Samland). Prussia 21. 60ff . пос. Моховое Зеленоградского р-на Калининградской области. Hoff mann, M.J. 2011. Nazi Ideology in the Archaeology of Москва, Институт археологии Российской Академии наук. [Report] East Prussia. Echa Przeszłości XII/Echoes of the Past XII. Olsztyn La Baume W. Ostpreussen. B. Bronzezeit und vorrömischen (Uniwersytet). 165ff . Eisenzeit. Ebert 1927. 269ff . -. 2013. Dzieje archeologii prus wschodnich od początku XVIII Lamm, J.P. (ed.). 2009. Apuolė. Ausgrabungen und Funde 1928- wieku do 1920 roku. Monumenta literaria Prussiae 4. Olsztyn. 1932. Klaipėda (University). Ibsen, T. 2009. “Etwa hier die Siedlung” - Der frühmittelalterliche Larsson, L. & I. Zagorska. (eds.). 2006. Back to the Origin. Fundplatz Wiskiauten/Mohovoe im Kaliningrader Gebiet im Lichte New Research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki Cemetry and alter Dokumente und neuer Forschungen. Dissertation. Kiel. [PhD Environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series thesis, retrieved from academia.edu] in 8, No 52. Stockholm (Almqvist & Wiksell International). -. 2010. Annäherung an einen Mythos – auf der Spur der Siedlung Larsson, L., F. Lüth & T. Terberger (eds.). 2009. Innovation and von Wiskiauten. Lund Hansen & Bitner-Wróblewska 2010. 527ff . Continuity – Non Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic. New Jacobs, J. 2002. Peter Paulsen. Ein Wanderer zwischen zwei methods and research into the development of Stone Age Society. Welten. Leube 2002. 451ff . Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 88. Mainz (Philipp Jankuhn, H. & H. Beck (eds.). 1973-2007. Reallexikon der Ger- von Zabern). manischen Altertumskunde. 35 Bände. Belin-New York (de Gruyter). Legendre, J.-P., L. Olivier & B. Schnitzler (eds.). 2007. Jørkov M.L. 2016. Antropologisk undersøgelse af knoglemateriale L’archéologie nationale-socialiste dans les pays occupes à l’ouest du fra grav K68 i Kaup 20.07.2014, Zelenogradsk, gl. Østprøjsen, Reich. Actes de la table ronde internationale « Blut und Boden » tenue Kaliningrad oblast, Rusland. Jr.nr. As 13/15. [Report] à Lyon (Rhône dans le cadre du Xe congrès de la European Association Fokkens, H., Y. Achterkamp, M. Kuijpers. 2008. Bracers or of Archaeologists (EAA), les 8 et 9 septembre 2004. Gollion (Infolio). bracelets? About the functionality and meaning of bell beaker wrist- Leube, A. (ed.), with M. Hagewisch. 2002. Prähistorie und guards. Proceedings of the prehistoric society 74. 109ff . Nationalsozialismus. Die mittel- und osteuropäische Ur- und Kazakevičius, V. & R. Sidrys (eds.). 1995. Archaelogia Baltica 1. Frühgeschichtforschung in den Jahren 1933-1945. Studien zur Vilnius (Institute of Lithuanian History). Wissenschafts- und Universitätsgeschichte 2. Heidelberg (Synchron). Keyser, E., C. Engel & W. La Baume. 1936. Atlas der Ost- und Loze, I. 1979 / И. A. Лозe. Поздний неолит и ранняя бронза Westpreussischen Landesgeschichte. Teil 1. Kulturen und Völker der лyбанской paвнины. Рига (Зинатне). Frühzeit im Preussenlande. Königsberg (Keyser). -. 1995. Late Neolithic burial practices and beliefs in Latvia. Kilian, l. 1955. Haff küstenkultur und Ursprung der Balten. Bonn Kazakevičius & Sidrys 1995. 33ff . (Habelt). -. 2006. Crouched burials of the Corded Ware Culture in the East Kleemann, O. 1933. Fundnachrichten. Ostpreussen. Neue Baltic. Larson & Zagorska 2006. 311ff . Ausgrabungen in Wiskiauten. Nachrichtenblatt für deutsche Vorzeit 9. Lund Hansen, U. & A. Bitner-Wróblewska (eds.) 2010. Worlds 247ff . Apart? Contacts across the Baltic Sea in the Iron Age. Network -. 1939. Die vorgeschichtliche Funde bei Cranz und die Siedlung Denmark-Poland 2005-2008. Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie C:7. von Wiskiauten. Prussia 33:1-2. 201ff . København – Warszawa (Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab – Kośko A. & V.Kločko 1991. Bożejewice, gm. Strzelono, woj. Państwowe Museum Archelogiczne). Bydgoszcz, stanowisko 8. Kurhan z póżnego okresu epoki neolitu. Mangelsdorf, G. 1997. Ein Leben zwischen Wissenschaft und Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia 4. 119ff . Politik. Zum 50. Todestag von Prof. Dr. Carl Engel. Mangelsdorf (ed.) Kossinna, G. 1911. Die Herkunft der Germanen. Zur Methode der 1997. 9ff . Siedlungsarchäologie. Würzburg (Kabitzsch). Mangelsdorf, G. (ed.). 1997. Tradition und Fortschritt -. 1926 & 1928. Ursprung und Verbreitung der Germanen in vor- archäologischer Forschung in Greifswald. Greifswalder Mitteilungen und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Mannus-Bücherei 6. Leipzig (Kabitzsch). 2. Frankfurt am Main (Lang). -. 2007. Zwischen Greifswald und Riga. Auszüge aus den 130 Acta Archaeologica

Tagebüchern des Greifswalder Rektors und Professors der Ur- und Sobieraj, J. 2001. Neolityczne kurhany z Babięt Małych koło Frühgeschichte, Dr. Carl Engel, vom 1. November 1938 bis 26. Juli Susza. Z otchłani wieków 56/4. 30ff . 1945. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Universität Greifswald. Band 7. Stenberger, M. 1960. Östlicher Einfl uss in der Schwedischen Stuttgart (Steiner). Wohnplatzkultur der jüngeren Steinzeit. Światowit 23. 201ff . Mahsarski, D. 2011. Herbert Jankuhn (1905-1990). Ein Steuer, H. 2000. Jankuhn. Reallexikon der Germanischen deutscher Prähistoriker zwischen nationalsozialistischer Ideologie Altertumskunde 16. 23ff . und wissenschaftlicher Objektivität. Internationale Archäologie 114. Steuer, H. (ed.), with D. Hakelberg. 2001. Eine hervorragend Rahden (Leidorf). nationale Wissenschaft. Deutsche Prähistoriker zwischen 1900 Martens, J. 2002. Die nordische Archäologie und das “Dritte und 1995. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Reich“. Leube 2002. 603ff . Altertumskunde 29. Milisauskas, S. (ed.). 2011. European Prehistory: Interdisciplinary Šturms, E. 1936. Die ältere Bronzezeit in Ostbaltikum. Berlin & Contributions to Archaeology. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, Leipzig (de Gruyter). London (Springer). Vorgeschichtler Dossiers. Online access: homepages.uni-tuebingen. Milisauskas, S. & Kruk, J. 2011. Late Neolithic/Late Cooper Age de//gerd.simon/VorgeschDossiers.pdf [retrieved on 01.11.2016] 3500–2200 BC. Milisauskas 2011. 293ff . Waals, J. D. van der. 1984. Discontinuity, cultural evolution and the Moser, E. (ed.). 1971. Festschrift für Otto Kleemann zum 60. historical event. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Geburtstag am 10.2.1971. I-II. Bonner Hefte zur Vorgeschichte 3-4. 114. 1ff . Bonn (Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Universität). Weiner, S. 2010. Microarchaeology: Beyond the Visible Mühlen, B. von Zur. 1975. Die Kultur der Wikinger in Ostpreussen. Archaeological Record. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press). Bonner Hefte zur Vorgeschichte 9. Wróblewski, W. 2006. Wiskiauten. Jankuhn & Beck 2006. 140ff . Nerman, B. 1933. Die Verbindungen zwischen Skandinavien und Zagorskis, F. 1987. Zvejnieku akmens laikmeta kapulauks. Riga dem Ostbaltikums in der Bronzezeit und der ältesten Eisenzeit. Acta (Zinātne). Archaeologica 4. 237ff . Žukauskaitė, J. 2004. Rytų Baltijos regiono virvelinės keramikos Okulicz, J. 1973. Pradzieje ziem pruskich od późnego paleolitu do atstovų kapai. Lietuvos archeologija 25. 109ff . VII w. n.e. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk. Žurek, J. 1954. Osada z młodszej epoki kamiennej w Rzucewe, pow. Petersen, E. B. & T. Egeberg. 2009. Between Dragsholm I and II. wejherowski, i kultura rzucewska. Fontes Archeologici Poznaniensis Larsson et al. 2009. 447ff . 1953, 4. 1ff . Pluskowski, A. 2013. The Archaeology of the Prussian Crusade. Holy War and Colonization. London (Routledge). Pospieszny, Ł. 2015. Freshwater reservoir eff ect and the radiocarbon Addresses of authors chronology of the cemetery in Ząbie, Poland. Journal of Archaeological Science 53. 264ff . Inga Merkytė & Klavs Randsborg. Saxo Institute, University of Pospieszny, Ł, I. Sobkowiak-Tabaka, T. D. Price, K. M. Frei, I. Copenhagen, Karen Blixens vej 4, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark. - Hildebrandt-Radke, H. Kowalewska-Marszałek, M. Krenz-Niedbała, [email protected] M. Osypińska, M. Stróżyk, M. Winiarska-Kabacińska. 2015. Remains of a late Neolithic barrow at Kruszyn. A glimpse of ritual and everyday life Algimantas Merkevičius. Institute of Archaeology, University of in early Corded Ware societies of the Polish Lowland. Praehistorische Vilnius, Lithuania. - [email protected] Zeitschrift 90 (1–2). 185ff . Pringle, H. 2006. The Master Plan. Himmler’s Scholars and the Vladimir I. Kulakov. Institute of Archaeology, University of Holocaust. New York (Hyperion). Kaliningrad, Russia. - [email protected] Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. B. Ramsey, C. E Buck, H. Cheng, R. L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, H. Hafl idason, I. Hajdas, C. Hatté, T. J. Heaton, D. L. Hoff mann, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S. W. Manning, M. Niu, R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, E. M. Scott, J. R. Southon, R. A. Staff , C. S. M. Turney, J. van der Plicht. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4). 1869ff . Rimantienė, R. 1989. Nida: Senųjų baltų gyvenvietė. Vilnius (Mokslas). Rimantienė, R. 2005. Akmens amžiaus žvejai prie Pajūrio lagūnos. Vilnius (Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus). Saltsman, E. B. 2004. The Settlement Pribrezh noye. Lietuvos archeologija 25. 135ff . -. 2013. Dwelling Construction Materials from Pribrezhnoye in the Context of the Formation of Primorskaya Culture. Archaeologia Baltica 19. 13ff . Schaack, M. 2009. Typologischer Vergleich von Armschutzplatten aus dem Saar-Mosel-Raum und Mitteleuropa. Becker et al. 2009. 255ff .