DOI chapter:
Grenzgänger, traders and the last hunter-gatherers of the North European Plain
DOI chapter:Gerken, Klaus; Kotula, Andreas; Ludwig, Clemens; Nelson, Hildegard; Philippi, Alexandra: Niedernstöcken – a settlement of the Linear Pottery culture beyond the loess border in the land of hunters and gatherers
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0111
no
Niedernstocken - a settlement of the Linear Pottery culture beyond the loess border in the land of hunters and gatherers
northern Lower Saxony - e. g. in the Calenberger Land
- was the exhaustion of the LBK’s expansion power.
After the discovery of the Niedernstocken settlement,
however, this view may be questioned. Why would the
LBK settlers have made a 50 km advance to the north,
but not to the neighbouring other bank of the Leine?
Most of the features in Niedernstocken only ap-
peared about 0.5 m below the present surface and
were initially hardly recognisable. Heege (1989, 181)
already stated that the LBK settlements in alluvial
plains or on level ground can only be recognised with
deep ground penetration. The remarkable number of
38 LBK settlements newly discovered in lignite mines
in the area around Leipzig during the last 15 years
(Stauble 2011) also shows that LBK settlements are
only found with deeper earthworks. The settlement
of Minden-Dankersen (North Rhine-Westphalia; Gun-
ther 1988) was discovered on the site of a railway
track that had previously been laid up to 3 m (!) deep
or on the neighbouring deeply ploughed field, respec-
tively. It is probably only a matter of time before the
first LBK settlement remains are also discovered in
the Calenberger Land. Further LBK settlements can
also be expected in the Leine valley north of Hanover,
due to the fact that a clear accumulation of unperfo-
rated adzes has been documented on a narrow strip
of land along the western bank of the Leine, where
soil of the same type as in the immediate vicinity of
the Niedernstocken site can be found.
Presumably, the Niedernstocken site offered the
LBK farmers good combination of soil workability,
quite high soil fertility, and remoteness from flood-
ing, which largely corresponded to the conditions
on the loess soils further south. Some time ago, W.-D.
Steinmetz interpreted single finds of adzes and pot-
tery vessels as evidence of settlement attempts by the
LBK and stated that he would not be surprised ‘if one
day a settlement of the LBK were discovered in the
north German lowlands’3 (Steinmetz 1985,319-320).
Even if the strong connection of the LBK to loess
soils is repeatedly emphasised (e.g. Saile 2009), Heege
(1989) already demonstrated that although Early Neo-
lithic settlements are located in the loess zone on a
large scale, other sites were also used on a small scale.
Two of the 14 Early Neolithic settlements mapped by
Heege 1989 are located in the floodplain and on the
edge of the floodplain (Algermissen FStNr. 2 and 3,
Rossing FStNr. 2, cf. Heege 1989). Due to the fact that
3 Translated from the German original text: „wenn eines
Tages eine Siedlung der LBK im Norddeutschen Tiefland ent-
deckt werden wiirde“.
these sites were only recognised in the case of mas-
sive ground interventions, their proportion is probably
underrepresented (Heege 1989, 181). This choice of
location is not only to be found in the Hildesheim area,
as an example on a low terrace of the Rhine shows
(Heinen 2010). In this context, the LBK colonisation
far beyond the loess zones to the northeast, especially
in the Uckermark, should be recalled, too (cf. Linde-
mann 2007; but see also Cziesla 2008).
The Late Mesolithic north of the loess
border in the central lowlands of
Lower Saxony
Can we assume that the area north of the loess zone
- and thus also the area around the sites Niedern-
stocken 21 and 24 - belonged to the foraging area
of Late Mesolithic groups around 5,200-5,000 BC?
Looking at the area north of the loess zone in a
radius of about 85 km around the site, to the eastern
lowlands near Bremervorde in the north, lake Dum-
mer in the west, and the border to Saxony-Anhalt in
the east, we can see that only a few sites with Late
Mesolithic features and/or artefacts have been sci-
entifically investigated.4 Beyond that, a large num-
ber of surface sites is known, which, however, does
not represent the result of systematic prospections,
but essentially reflects the different state of research.
Schwabedissen (1944) already stated that the discov-
ery of ‘pre-pottery age’ sites depends considerably on
the activities of local collectors, and this is still true
today for Lower Saxony.5
The surface sites in the area between the Harz
mountains and the river Aller were last comprehen-
sively reviewed and presented by Schwarz-Mack-
ensen (1978), those from the district of Gifhorn by
Zeitz (1969). More recent data, apart from the work
of Trebess / Eichfeld (2018), are not available. How-
ever, detailed analyses are available from the districts
of Rotenburg (Wiimme) and Celle (Breest 1993; 1997;
Gerken 2001a), although the district of Rotenburg has
only been partially processed. In contrast, only few
data are available from the district of Uelzen (Richter
2002). In the districts of Nienburg, Hameln-Pyrmont,
Schaumburg, Diepholz, and the Hanover region, only
4 Dehnke 1964; Gerken 2009; 2012; 2015a; 2016; 2020;
Trebess / Eichfeld 2018.
5 Cf. Metzger-Krahe 1977; Breest 1993; 1997; Gerken
2001a; Mahlstedt 2015.
Niedernstocken - a settlement of the Linear Pottery culture beyond the loess border in the land of hunters and gatherers
northern Lower Saxony - e. g. in the Calenberger Land
- was the exhaustion of the LBK’s expansion power.
After the discovery of the Niedernstocken settlement,
however, this view may be questioned. Why would the
LBK settlers have made a 50 km advance to the north,
but not to the neighbouring other bank of the Leine?
Most of the features in Niedernstocken only ap-
peared about 0.5 m below the present surface and
were initially hardly recognisable. Heege (1989, 181)
already stated that the LBK settlements in alluvial
plains or on level ground can only be recognised with
deep ground penetration. The remarkable number of
38 LBK settlements newly discovered in lignite mines
in the area around Leipzig during the last 15 years
(Stauble 2011) also shows that LBK settlements are
only found with deeper earthworks. The settlement
of Minden-Dankersen (North Rhine-Westphalia; Gun-
ther 1988) was discovered on the site of a railway
track that had previously been laid up to 3 m (!) deep
or on the neighbouring deeply ploughed field, respec-
tively. It is probably only a matter of time before the
first LBK settlement remains are also discovered in
the Calenberger Land. Further LBK settlements can
also be expected in the Leine valley north of Hanover,
due to the fact that a clear accumulation of unperfo-
rated adzes has been documented on a narrow strip
of land along the western bank of the Leine, where
soil of the same type as in the immediate vicinity of
the Niedernstocken site can be found.
Presumably, the Niedernstocken site offered the
LBK farmers good combination of soil workability,
quite high soil fertility, and remoteness from flood-
ing, which largely corresponded to the conditions
on the loess soils further south. Some time ago, W.-D.
Steinmetz interpreted single finds of adzes and pot-
tery vessels as evidence of settlement attempts by the
LBK and stated that he would not be surprised ‘if one
day a settlement of the LBK were discovered in the
north German lowlands’3 (Steinmetz 1985,319-320).
Even if the strong connection of the LBK to loess
soils is repeatedly emphasised (e.g. Saile 2009), Heege
(1989) already demonstrated that although Early Neo-
lithic settlements are located in the loess zone on a
large scale, other sites were also used on a small scale.
Two of the 14 Early Neolithic settlements mapped by
Heege 1989 are located in the floodplain and on the
edge of the floodplain (Algermissen FStNr. 2 and 3,
Rossing FStNr. 2, cf. Heege 1989). Due to the fact that
3 Translated from the German original text: „wenn eines
Tages eine Siedlung der LBK im Norddeutschen Tiefland ent-
deckt werden wiirde“.
these sites were only recognised in the case of mas-
sive ground interventions, their proportion is probably
underrepresented (Heege 1989, 181). This choice of
location is not only to be found in the Hildesheim area,
as an example on a low terrace of the Rhine shows
(Heinen 2010). In this context, the LBK colonisation
far beyond the loess zones to the northeast, especially
in the Uckermark, should be recalled, too (cf. Linde-
mann 2007; but see also Cziesla 2008).
The Late Mesolithic north of the loess
border in the central lowlands of
Lower Saxony
Can we assume that the area north of the loess zone
- and thus also the area around the sites Niedern-
stocken 21 and 24 - belonged to the foraging area
of Late Mesolithic groups around 5,200-5,000 BC?
Looking at the area north of the loess zone in a
radius of about 85 km around the site, to the eastern
lowlands near Bremervorde in the north, lake Dum-
mer in the west, and the border to Saxony-Anhalt in
the east, we can see that only a few sites with Late
Mesolithic features and/or artefacts have been sci-
entifically investigated.4 Beyond that, a large num-
ber of surface sites is known, which, however, does
not represent the result of systematic prospections,
but essentially reflects the different state of research.
Schwabedissen (1944) already stated that the discov-
ery of ‘pre-pottery age’ sites depends considerably on
the activities of local collectors, and this is still true
today for Lower Saxony.5
The surface sites in the area between the Harz
mountains and the river Aller were last comprehen-
sively reviewed and presented by Schwarz-Mack-
ensen (1978), those from the district of Gifhorn by
Zeitz (1969). More recent data, apart from the work
of Trebess / Eichfeld (2018), are not available. How-
ever, detailed analyses are available from the districts
of Rotenburg (Wiimme) and Celle (Breest 1993; 1997;
Gerken 2001a), although the district of Rotenburg has
only been partially processed. In contrast, only few
data are available from the district of Uelzen (Richter
2002). In the districts of Nienburg, Hameln-Pyrmont,
Schaumburg, Diepholz, and the Hanover region, only
4 Dehnke 1964; Gerken 2009; 2012; 2015a; 2016; 2020;
Trebess / Eichfeld 2018.
5 Cf. Metzger-Krahe 1977; Breest 1993; 1997; Gerken
2001a; Mahlstedt 2015.