DOI Kapitel:
Grenzgänger, traders and the last hunter-gatherers of the North European Plain
DOI Kapitel:Müller, Michael; Schirren, Michael: Early and Middle Neolithic hoards in the area of the northern Mesolithic
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0141
140
Early and Middle Neolithic hoards in the area of the northern Mesolithic
assumedly high ranking people (Klassen et al. 2011;
Petrequin 2016, 419).
The depositions of the Michelsberg and espe-
cially the TRB groups, dating to the Younger Neo-
lithic (4,400-3,500 cal BC), are not the first kind
of Neolithic depositions known from Europe. Al-
ready in the Early and Middle Neolithic period
(5,500-4,400 cal BC) the people of the Linear Pot-
tery, Stroke-ornamented Pottery and Rossen cul-
tures showed extensive deposition practices which
involved mostly adze heads and axes with a shaft-
hole. So far, there has been no coherent elaborate
study about the hoards from the Linear Pottery,
Stroke-ornamented Pottery and Rossen cultures,
although many regionally focused articles provide
detailed catalogues, giving a very good overview.
Besides Schumacher’s paper from 1914, especially
an article by H. Quitta (Quitta 1955) provides a
catalogue in which he included material from Ger-
many, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.11
For the Czech Republic and Germany, S. Vend
(Vencl 1975) needs to be referred to, while M. Salas
(Salas 1986) focused on the Moravian depositions.
The few Stroke-ornamented Pottery / Rossen hoards
from Poland were mentioned in the catalogue about
Neolithic depositions from Poland by J. Kaflinska
(Kaflinska 2006).
Contents, compositions and sites of
Early and Middle Neolithic depositions
The data on which this investigation is based derives
mostly from catalogues as well as other relevant sourc-
es12 and includes finds from the territories of modern
Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and
Denmark. Some of the finds from northeastern Ger-
many and Denmark were personally examined.
As mentioned before, the main content of Early
and Middle Neolithic hoards in the study area are
heavy stone tools. From the 113 depositions analysed
here, only three do not contain heavy stone tools, but
instead consist only of flint blades. Of these three
11 Kaufmann 2012 shows that Quitta’s catalogue still pro-
vides the actual state of art, at least for central Germany.
12 Mainly the following sources were used for the Czech Re-
public: Quitta 1955; Vencl 1975; Salas 1986; Slowakia: Quit-
ta 1955; Vencl 1975; Poland: Kaflinska 2006; Germany:
Quitta 1955; Vencl 1975; Rech 1979; Denmark: http://www.
kulturarv.dk/fundogfortidsminder, and personal communica-
tion with Dr. Lasse Sorensen (National Museum Copenhagen),
whom we kindly thank.
only one hoard can be dated with certainty to the
Stroke-ornamented Pottery culture, the remaining
two possibly being Early or Middle Neolithic.
The German terminology - used to charac-
terise the different or even the same types of Early
and Middle Neolithic heavy stone tools - became
very confusing over the decades (cf. Brandt 1995;
Klassen 2004, 20-24). Those respective terms have
sometimes little to do with the prehistoric reality,
as they are more often connected with typological
determinations, without any prior statistical analy-
sis.13 Because tool shapes were described in a rather
individual manner, many different terms were formu-
lated. This, of course, is an often discussed aspect,
and we will not insist on it here. However, we choose
to mention it, as in the following descriptions we will
try to stay as technical as possible. Essentially, the
heavy stone tool industry is dominated by three main
types, namely adze heads, axe heads with shaft-hole
and axe heads without shaft-hole.14
During the Early Neolithic Linear Pottery culture,
adze heads represent the main heavy tool type, in
general, but also within hoards. It can be differentiated
between flat broad adzes (flat hoes / ‘Flachhacken’)
and narrow adze heads (known as shoe-last celts /
‘Schuhleistenkeile’). The latter type can be further
divided into variants determined by height.15 None
of them have a shaft-hole, which is a general aspect
for almost all heavy stone tools of the Linear Pottery
culture (Biermann 2011, 37). Shaft-hole tools emerge
only in its latest phase. One example is given by the so-
called double-edged adze or double hoe, a perforated
tool, made of soft stone, presenting two blunt edges
pointing away from each other (Biermann 2011, 40).
The first perforated shoe-last celts can possibly be
connected to the transition period from Early to Mid-
dle Neolithic. Because their shaft-holes are oriented
transverse to their cutting edges, they are technically
only perforated adze heads and not shaft-hole axe
heads, in which case their shaft-holes would have to
be oriented parallel to their cutting edges (Biermann
2011,40).
13 See Ramminger 2007 as an example of the possibilities for
statistical analysis on Early and Middle Neolithic heavy stone
tools.
14 The differentiation between the last two types is made
clearer in the German archaeological terminology: an axe head
with a shaft-hole is an ‘Axtklinge’, while an axe head without
shaft-hole is named ‘Beilklinge’.
15 This division was also suggested by statistical analyses:
Ramminger 2007.
Early and Middle Neolithic hoards in the area of the northern Mesolithic
assumedly high ranking people (Klassen et al. 2011;
Petrequin 2016, 419).
The depositions of the Michelsberg and espe-
cially the TRB groups, dating to the Younger Neo-
lithic (4,400-3,500 cal BC), are not the first kind
of Neolithic depositions known from Europe. Al-
ready in the Early and Middle Neolithic period
(5,500-4,400 cal BC) the people of the Linear Pot-
tery, Stroke-ornamented Pottery and Rossen cul-
tures showed extensive deposition practices which
involved mostly adze heads and axes with a shaft-
hole. So far, there has been no coherent elaborate
study about the hoards from the Linear Pottery,
Stroke-ornamented Pottery and Rossen cultures,
although many regionally focused articles provide
detailed catalogues, giving a very good overview.
Besides Schumacher’s paper from 1914, especially
an article by H. Quitta (Quitta 1955) provides a
catalogue in which he included material from Ger-
many, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.11
For the Czech Republic and Germany, S. Vend
(Vencl 1975) needs to be referred to, while M. Salas
(Salas 1986) focused on the Moravian depositions.
The few Stroke-ornamented Pottery / Rossen hoards
from Poland were mentioned in the catalogue about
Neolithic depositions from Poland by J. Kaflinska
(Kaflinska 2006).
Contents, compositions and sites of
Early and Middle Neolithic depositions
The data on which this investigation is based derives
mostly from catalogues as well as other relevant sourc-
es12 and includes finds from the territories of modern
Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and
Denmark. Some of the finds from northeastern Ger-
many and Denmark were personally examined.
As mentioned before, the main content of Early
and Middle Neolithic hoards in the study area are
heavy stone tools. From the 113 depositions analysed
here, only three do not contain heavy stone tools, but
instead consist only of flint blades. Of these three
11 Kaufmann 2012 shows that Quitta’s catalogue still pro-
vides the actual state of art, at least for central Germany.
12 Mainly the following sources were used for the Czech Re-
public: Quitta 1955; Vencl 1975; Salas 1986; Slowakia: Quit-
ta 1955; Vencl 1975; Poland: Kaflinska 2006; Germany:
Quitta 1955; Vencl 1975; Rech 1979; Denmark: http://www.
kulturarv.dk/fundogfortidsminder, and personal communica-
tion with Dr. Lasse Sorensen (National Museum Copenhagen),
whom we kindly thank.
only one hoard can be dated with certainty to the
Stroke-ornamented Pottery culture, the remaining
two possibly being Early or Middle Neolithic.
The German terminology - used to charac-
terise the different or even the same types of Early
and Middle Neolithic heavy stone tools - became
very confusing over the decades (cf. Brandt 1995;
Klassen 2004, 20-24). Those respective terms have
sometimes little to do with the prehistoric reality,
as they are more often connected with typological
determinations, without any prior statistical analy-
sis.13 Because tool shapes were described in a rather
individual manner, many different terms were formu-
lated. This, of course, is an often discussed aspect,
and we will not insist on it here. However, we choose
to mention it, as in the following descriptions we will
try to stay as technical as possible. Essentially, the
heavy stone tool industry is dominated by three main
types, namely adze heads, axe heads with shaft-hole
and axe heads without shaft-hole.14
During the Early Neolithic Linear Pottery culture,
adze heads represent the main heavy tool type, in
general, but also within hoards. It can be differentiated
between flat broad adzes (flat hoes / ‘Flachhacken’)
and narrow adze heads (known as shoe-last celts /
‘Schuhleistenkeile’). The latter type can be further
divided into variants determined by height.15 None
of them have a shaft-hole, which is a general aspect
for almost all heavy stone tools of the Linear Pottery
culture (Biermann 2011, 37). Shaft-hole tools emerge
only in its latest phase. One example is given by the so-
called double-edged adze or double hoe, a perforated
tool, made of soft stone, presenting two blunt edges
pointing away from each other (Biermann 2011, 40).
The first perforated shoe-last celts can possibly be
connected to the transition period from Early to Mid-
dle Neolithic. Because their shaft-holes are oriented
transverse to their cutting edges, they are technically
only perforated adze heads and not shaft-hole axe
heads, in which case their shaft-holes would have to
be oriented parallel to their cutting edges (Biermann
2011,40).
13 See Ramminger 2007 as an example of the possibilities for
statistical analysis on Early and Middle Neolithic heavy stone
tools.
14 The differentiation between the last two types is made
clearer in the German archaeological terminology: an axe head
with a shaft-hole is an ‘Axtklinge’, while an axe head without
shaft-hole is named ‘Beilklinge’.
15 This division was also suggested by statistical analyses:
Ramminger 2007.