Abstract

The re-evaluation of the find concentrations Born­eck-north and -east, district of Stormarn, Schles­wig-Holstein, Germany, has resulted in new insights into old excavation results. Besides revealing problematic aspects in the documentation, which unfortunately could not be solved, the re-evaluation made it possible to obtain a deeper insight into the composition of the inventories and the production sequences. Based on the results, the interpretation of the rock assemblages as tent rings is considered unlikely. The spatial distribution of the artefacts does not allow for the conclusion that the work areas are spatially delimited, although the interpretation may be impaired by the coarse-mesh grid used during the excavation. Contemporaneous occupation of the concentrations could be excluded because of an absence of refits between the inventories. At the same time, the refits indicate discrepancies regarding the chronological assignment of the inventories. Because there is no recorded stratigraphy for the sites, there is no way to ascertain whether the artefacts were all from the same layer or, instead, separated by sediment. Overall, however, the inventories were sealed and were undisturbed by later processes. The artefact production methods in both analysed inventories are in accordance with earlier studies of Ahrensburgian technology, but they show slight variations between the inventories. Despite an overarching similar approach to the material, the end result was two inventories that are distinguishable even with the naked eye. As the technical knowledge and locally avail­able raw material can be assumed to have been similar in both inventories, the distinguishing factors here were more likely skill and intended end product. It seems, however, that both inventories had the end products removed as the occupants left the location, so no conclusions can be made about them. Although there are limits to the gain in knowledge when re-evaluating old excavations due to what seem from today’s perspective to be rather poor documentation and working methods, the effort is well worth it. In addition to bringing attention to the wealth of data that until now has been relatively unused, it is possible to clear up misinterpretations resulting from, for example, the fact that results were taken over uncritically and thus became unintentionally entrenched in research. Both will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the past.