×
![]( "Buchcover ISBN 9783896465696")
Ziel der Arbeit ist es, wissenschaftliche Aspekte urgeschichtlicher Kalender zu beleuchten. Für ausgewählte Objekte und Bauwerke mit postulierter Kalenderfunktion wurde untersucht, wie darüber publiziert wird und welche fachlichen Probleme damit einhergehen. Gestirnsbeobachtung, die eingeschränkt feststellbar ist, kann nicht als Kalender gelten, der schriftliche Fixierung erfordert. Vielmehr ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit von Kalendern anhand der Kenntnis der Lebensverhältnisse und aller Quellen einer Epoche zu prüfen. Es zeigt sich, daß urgeschichtliche Gemeinschaften in Mitteleuropa weder Bedarf für den Gebrauch noch die Voraussetzungen zur Entwicklung von Kalendern hatten. Kalenderaufsätze sind jedoch beim breiten Publikum sehr beliebt. Eingängige Bilder stellen sicher, daß sich die Aussage schon über Graphiken und Bildunterschriften erschließt und seitens der Leser kaum die Mühe aufgewendet wird, mathematische Herleitungen zu verstehen. Fachlich besteht die Gefahr, daß “Kalender in der Urgeschichte” unkritisch in den archäologischen Wissenskanon eingehen. Fachzeitschriften sind bei Beiträgen zu Kalendern viel zu großzügig bei idealisierender Darstellung und fehlender Quellenkritik.
The aim of this study was to clarify some scholarly aspects of prehistoric calendars. For selected objects and buildings with a supposed calendar function, their mode of publication and the scientific problems connected to this were investigated. The observation of celestial bodies that is attested to a limited degree, must not be considered proof of calendars that require written documentation. Rather, the likeliness of calendars has to be pondered by means of the general knowledge of living conditions and all kinds of sources available for a certain period. It becomes quite clear that prehistoric communities in Central Europe had neither the demand for using nor the prerequisites of developing calendars. However, papers on calendars are very popular with the broad public. Intriguing images warrant that contents become clear from illustrations and captions alone and few readers bother to attempt to understand mathematical deductions. Therefore, there is an imminent threat of “calendars in prehistory” uncritically becoming included into the approved canon of archaeological knowledge. Learned journals are far too liberal with papers on calendars as to idealisation and deficient source criticism.
The aim of this study was to clarify some scholarly aspects of prehistoric calendars. For selected objects and buildings with a supposed calendar function, their mode of publication and the scientific problems connected to this were investigated. The observation of celestial bodies that is attested to a limited degree, must not be considered proof of calendars that require written documentation. Rather, the likeliness of calendars has to be pondered by means of the general knowledge of living conditions and all kinds of sources available for a certain period. It becomes quite clear that prehistoric communities in Central Europe had neither the demand for using nor the prerequisites of developing calendars. However, papers on calendars are very popular with the broad public. Intriguing images warrant that contents become clear from illustrations and captions alone and few readers bother to attempt to understand mathematical deductions. Therefore, there is an imminent threat of “calendars in prehistory” uncritically becoming included into the approved canon of archaeological knowledge. Learned journals are far too liberal with papers on calendars as to idealisation and deficient source criticism.