Content:
In 2009, a long-term project was realized in Eythra, a large-scale and find-rich Linear Pottery settlement in western Saxony. The aim was, besides the presentation of the finds and features, above all methodological criticism.
As usual in Eythra the chronological order of the finds and features had priority. In archaeology it is the necessary prerequisite for answering questions of cultural history. This is the reason for the primacy of typochronology, among others, in the settlement research of the Linear Pottery of Central Europe. Here, dating is based on the idea of linear style developments of ceramic decoration elements in the respective settlement area. Furthermore, it presupposes that in the past 'simultaneously' existing ornamental elements were deposed in closed, i.e., immediately filled and subsequently not changed contexts.
This model has been criticized on various occasions in the past. Style developments often do not proceed linearly even in relatively small settlement areas but are an expression of sometimes contradictory interests of the pottery producers. At the same time, so-called 'outliers' are found again and again in so-called closed deposits. Finds for which experts know that they cannot belong together chronologically. In fact, dating accuracies are getting worse and worse. What we do not know and accordingly cannot control has a negative effect on dating.
Addressing the issues announced in this lecture series should be the desideratum of any typo-chronological research. In this paper, some examples from Eythra will be used to show why typo-chronological research needs further knowledge about its source material.