Schuttberg
mound made of rubble or out of a rubbish heap
Schuttberg (English: debris hill) is a German term for a mound made of rubble or out of a rubbish heap.
Many were amassed following the extensive damage from strategic bombing during World War II. These types are more specifically termed Trümmerberg (rubble mountain) and are known colloquially by various namesakes such as Mont Klamott (Mount Rag), Monte Scherbelino (Mount Shard), and Scherbelberg (Shard Mountain). Most major cities in Germany have at least one Schuttberg.
Known Schuttberge
Berlin
The amount of debris in Berlin is about 15 percent of the total rubble in the whole of Germany.
Frankfurt am Main
To remove and recycle the rubble the city authorities in the autumn of 1945 created the non-profit Trümmerverwertungsgesellschaft which was tasked with removing the rubble and recycling it. Initially the removed rubble was piled up on a rubble mountain called Monte Scherbelino, before the material was recycled and processed to such an extent that by 1964 the pile of rubble had completely disappeared.
Nuremberg
Silberbuck is in the Dutzendteich recreation area and former Reichsparteitagsgelände. The Silbersee is at the base of the disposal. The lake is contaminated with various toxic substances.
“Schuttberg” enters the record as mound made of rubble or out of a rubbish heap. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Schuttberg, mound and made can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Schuttberg” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Schuttberg, mound and made provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Oct 5, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q843181. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1945 and 1964.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Schuttberg”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Schuttberg primary sources, Schuttberg archive and Schuttberg research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Schuttberg”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Schuttberg” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.