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#0112
Klaus Gerken, Andreas Kotula, Clemens Ludwig, Hildegard Nelson and Alexandra Philippi
111
a general survey of Mesolithic sites was carried out.6
Most of the find material from the research area is
still in private hands or in regional museums and has
not yet been evaluated in detail. Thus, no systematic
recording of Mesolithic features and finds has yet been
conducted for the majority of the area under consid-
eration here, and it therefore remains an area empty
of finds on maps.
In addition, methodological problems have to
be taken into account researching Mesolithic sites
(Gerken 2016). Activity areas with a high number of
lithic artefacts are detected on the surface, but likewise,
in the excavations carried out in very large numbers
within the framework of the causative principle, Meso-
lithic find scatters are perceived and documented only
rudimentarily. Mesolithic pits and individual hearths
are often not recognised as artificial features and rather
attributed to natural, pedological processes or (fire)
events. Even if such features are recognised that are not
accompanied by stone artefacts, they are often assigned
to a ceramic period. Erichshagen (FStNr. 91; district
of Nienburg; Gerken 2020) represents a welcome ex-
ception; there numerous Mesolithic find scatters, pits,
and hearth features were recorded, documented and
excavated in the course of pre-construction measures.
In Rullstorf (FStNr. 8; district of Liineburg; Gebers
2002), Mesolithic find scatters were also identified
during the excavation of younger settlement features.
On the other hand, at the site Hiilsen 1 (district of
Verden), more than 180 charcoal pits in an Iron Age
settlement were initially identified as traces of burnt
posts (Schirnig 1965), later as pits and, in connec-
tion with a few pottery sherds that had entered them
through bioturbation, dated as at most ‘Neolithic’
(Nowatzyk 1990). Only four 14C-results allowed an
assignment to the Late Mesolithic at a later point of
research.7 More recently, large clusters of charcoal
pits have fortunately been assigned to the correct time
horizon.8 But here, too, dating series are necessary to
clarify the chronological depth of the numerous fea-
6 Adameck 1993; Schween 1993; Bischop 1997; Moser 1998;
Stark 2003.
7 Dr. Jutta Precht, Kreisarchaologie Verden, is thanked for
providing the excavation documentation and the 14C-data. Da-
ting results are: Hv-16559: 6,815±65 BP (5,842-5,619 calBC);
Hv-16560: 6,850±65 BP (5,876-5,633 calBC); Hv-16688:
6,855±70 BP (5,887-5,632 calBC); Hv-16689: 7,005±90 BP
(6,046-5,721 calBC).
8 E.g. Eversten FStNr. 3, city of Oldenburg (Fries 2011);
Stricken FStNr. 24 (Assendorp 1985); Wohlendorf FStNr. 24
and Ahlden FStNr. 31, both distr. Heidekreis; Erichshagen
FStNr. 91 and Holtorf FStNr. 9, both distr. Nienburg/Weser
(Gerken 2016; 2020), and also Eydelstedt FStNr. 68, distr.
Diepholz (Gerken 2016).
tures. Thus, flint artefact scatters detected at Hiilsen
have also been incorrectly assigned chronologically
and not documented accordingly
Mesolithic burials have so far remained unrecog-
nised in the lowlands of Lower Saxony, as the decalci-
fied sandy soils do not offer any preservation condi-
tions for organic material. However, features from the
excavations of Oldendorf (FStNr. 69, Ldkr. Rotenburg)
were discussed as possible Mesolithic graves due to
their shape and red colouration (Gerken et al. 2016).
Similar findings were documented by one of the authors
(K.G.) in Donstorf, FStNr. 37, in 2011 (unpublished).
Against this background, a mapping of Late
Mesolithic sites can only represent an interim status,
whereas the original frequency of Late Mesolithic sites
was probably much higher (Fig. 10). On the one hand,
the mapping reveals the preferred areas of exploration
by collectors. On the other hand, a regular location of
Late Mesolithic sites on the dunes and smaller hilltops
along rivers can be discerned. These types of sites can
also be assumed for regions with similar topographical
and ecological conditions that have so far been largely
empty of finds. Systematic surveys and the examination
of collections in recent years have revealed, for exam-
ple, nine new Late Mesolithic sites in the immediate
vicinity of the Niedemstocken 21 site (Fig. 10). Since
there are no larger and closed Late Mesolithic inven-
tories from the surroundings of Niedemstocken so far,
no statement can be made about their composition.
In the following, Late Mesolithic sites with abso-
lute dates from the research area will be considered.
From the site Schwitschen FStNr. 42, district of Roten-
burg (Wiimme), only 35 km away (Gerken 2012;
2015a), seven dates are available. Four dates fall into the
early trapezoidal phase with a range from 6,372 to 5,898
calBC (2c).9 Three further dates prove a younger phase
with results between 5,719 and 5,330 calBC.10 * * * Both
time phases are also evidenced by significant artefacts.
From Oldendorf FStNr. 52, district of Rotenburg
(Wiimme) (Gerken 2012), 17 dates are available; be-
ginning at the transition from the Early to the Late
Mesolithic and ending at the onset of the trapezoidal
industry (6,420-6,110 calBC; Poz-7548: 7,430±50
BP). Accordingly, trapezoids occur in only a few speci-
mens. From Oldendorf FStNr. 69, district of Roten-
9 All the following dates mentioned in the text indicate age
ranges in the 2g range.
10 ERL-18750 (8,285±56 BP); ERL-18753 (7,550±55 BP);
ERL-18755 (7,512±54 BP); KN-69 (7,430±60 BP); ERL-14453
(7,341±55 BP); HV-1348 (7,320±130 BP); ERL-14452 (7,239±69
BP); ERL-14451 (7,148 ± 54 BP); ERL-18751 (6,790±51 BP);
ERL-18754 (6,724±51 BP); ERL-18752 (6,480±51 BP).
111
a general survey of Mesolithic sites was carried out.6
Most of the find material from the research area is
still in private hands or in regional museums and has
not yet been evaluated in detail. Thus, no systematic
recording of Mesolithic features and finds has yet been
conducted for the majority of the area under consid-
eration here, and it therefore remains an area empty
of finds on maps.
In addition, methodological problems have to
be taken into account researching Mesolithic sites
(Gerken 2016). Activity areas with a high number of
lithic artefacts are detected on the surface, but likewise,
in the excavations carried out in very large numbers
within the framework of the causative principle, Meso-
lithic find scatters are perceived and documented only
rudimentarily. Mesolithic pits and individual hearths
are often not recognised as artificial features and rather
attributed to natural, pedological processes or (fire)
events. Even if such features are recognised that are not
accompanied by stone artefacts, they are often assigned
to a ceramic period. Erichshagen (FStNr. 91; district
of Nienburg; Gerken 2020) represents a welcome ex-
ception; there numerous Mesolithic find scatters, pits,
and hearth features were recorded, documented and
excavated in the course of pre-construction measures.
In Rullstorf (FStNr. 8; district of Liineburg; Gebers
2002), Mesolithic find scatters were also identified
during the excavation of younger settlement features.
On the other hand, at the site Hiilsen 1 (district of
Verden), more than 180 charcoal pits in an Iron Age
settlement were initially identified as traces of burnt
posts (Schirnig 1965), later as pits and, in connec-
tion with a few pottery sherds that had entered them
through bioturbation, dated as at most ‘Neolithic’
(Nowatzyk 1990). Only four 14C-results allowed an
assignment to the Late Mesolithic at a later point of
research.7 More recently, large clusters of charcoal
pits have fortunately been assigned to the correct time
horizon.8 But here, too, dating series are necessary to
clarify the chronological depth of the numerous fea-
6 Adameck 1993; Schween 1993; Bischop 1997; Moser 1998;
Stark 2003.
7 Dr. Jutta Precht, Kreisarchaologie Verden, is thanked for
providing the excavation documentation and the 14C-data. Da-
ting results are: Hv-16559: 6,815±65 BP (5,842-5,619 calBC);
Hv-16560: 6,850±65 BP (5,876-5,633 calBC); Hv-16688:
6,855±70 BP (5,887-5,632 calBC); Hv-16689: 7,005±90 BP
(6,046-5,721 calBC).
8 E.g. Eversten FStNr. 3, city of Oldenburg (Fries 2011);
Stricken FStNr. 24 (Assendorp 1985); Wohlendorf FStNr. 24
and Ahlden FStNr. 31, both distr. Heidekreis; Erichshagen
FStNr. 91 and Holtorf FStNr. 9, both distr. Nienburg/Weser
(Gerken 2016; 2020), and also Eydelstedt FStNr. 68, distr.
Diepholz (Gerken 2016).
tures. Thus, flint artefact scatters detected at Hiilsen
have also been incorrectly assigned chronologically
and not documented accordingly
Mesolithic burials have so far remained unrecog-
nised in the lowlands of Lower Saxony, as the decalci-
fied sandy soils do not offer any preservation condi-
tions for organic material. However, features from the
excavations of Oldendorf (FStNr. 69, Ldkr. Rotenburg)
were discussed as possible Mesolithic graves due to
their shape and red colouration (Gerken et al. 2016).
Similar findings were documented by one of the authors
(K.G.) in Donstorf, FStNr. 37, in 2011 (unpublished).
Against this background, a mapping of Late
Mesolithic sites can only represent an interim status,
whereas the original frequency of Late Mesolithic sites
was probably much higher (Fig. 10). On the one hand,
the mapping reveals the preferred areas of exploration
by collectors. On the other hand, a regular location of
Late Mesolithic sites on the dunes and smaller hilltops
along rivers can be discerned. These types of sites can
also be assumed for regions with similar topographical
and ecological conditions that have so far been largely
empty of finds. Systematic surveys and the examination
of collections in recent years have revealed, for exam-
ple, nine new Late Mesolithic sites in the immediate
vicinity of the Niedemstocken 21 site (Fig. 10). Since
there are no larger and closed Late Mesolithic inven-
tories from the surroundings of Niedemstocken so far,
no statement can be made about their composition.
In the following, Late Mesolithic sites with abso-
lute dates from the research area will be considered.
From the site Schwitschen FStNr. 42, district of Roten-
burg (Wiimme), only 35 km away (Gerken 2012;
2015a), seven dates are available. Four dates fall into the
early trapezoidal phase with a range from 6,372 to 5,898
calBC (2c).9 Three further dates prove a younger phase
with results between 5,719 and 5,330 calBC.10 * * * Both
time phases are also evidenced by significant artefacts.
From Oldendorf FStNr. 52, district of Rotenburg
(Wiimme) (Gerken 2012), 17 dates are available; be-
ginning at the transition from the Early to the Late
Mesolithic and ending at the onset of the trapezoidal
industry (6,420-6,110 calBC; Poz-7548: 7,430±50
BP). Accordingly, trapezoids occur in only a few speci-
mens. From Oldendorf FStNr. 69, district of Roten-
9 All the following dates mentioned in the text indicate age
ranges in the 2g range.
10 ERL-18750 (8,285±56 BP); ERL-18753 (7,550±55 BP);
ERL-18755 (7,512±54 BP); KN-69 (7,430±60 BP); ERL-14453
(7,341±55 BP); HV-1348 (7,320±130 BP); ERL-14452 (7,239±69
BP); ERL-14451 (7,148 ± 54 BP); ERL-18751 (6,790±51 BP);
ERL-18754 (6,724±51 BP); ERL-18752 (6,480±51 BP).