DOI chapter:
Grenzgänger, traders and the last hunter-gatherers of the North European Plain
DOI chapter:Thielen, Laura: The Late Mesolithic in Hamburg-Boberg: inter-cultural interactions and impacts
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0205
204
The late Mesolithic in Hamburg-Boberg: inter-cultural interactions and impacts
Site
Lab.-no.
C14 age BP
C14 age calBC 1s
C14 age calBC 2s
613C
Friesack 4
AAR-15046
5419±27
4289±30
4336-4241
-34.51±0.05
Rhinow 30
AAR-18757
5250±30
4073±72
4229-3977
-28.95±0.05
Rhinow 30
AAR-18758
5138±36
3923±65
4038-3804
-28.83±0.05
Boberg 15
LuS 11578
5820±55
4767-4600
4799-4539
—
Boberg 15
LuS 11658
5300±60
4231-4046
4317-3985
—
Boberg 15
LuS 11577
5000±60
3932-3706
3984-3661
—
Table 1 Radiocarbon dates of pottery from sites Friesack 4 and Rhinow 30, dist. Haveland (after Kotula et al. 2015, 495, table 1).
Various distributions of specific bottom shapes
are also mentioned in the context of the Swifterbant
culture (Raemaekers 1999, 112). In comparison,
Ertebolle and Swifterbant ceramics show similari-
ties especially concerning bases with a pronounced
pointed end, but the pointed bottoms with triangu-
lar and conical shape of Ertebolle vessels differ. It is
worth noting that all types of bottoms are preserved
at Boberg (see Fig. 2.1-9). In sum, the final Meso-
lithic pottery from Boberg resembles both Ertebolle
and Swifterbant manufacturing in terms of building
technique and bottom shapes. Therefore, interactions
with groups of the Swifterbant culture might have
influenced local pottery production. Concerning the
potential chronological succession of the building
techniques, the predominant use of U-technique at
the Boberg sites might also depend on the chrono-
logical setting. The various types of bottoms might
also reflect functional dimensions instead of cultural
backgrounds. However, lamps are a clear exception,
because they are only represented in the Ertebolle
culture, and the imported sample indicates intra-cul-
tural contact, as does the pointed base decorated with
rounded impressions. In sum, the resemblance to both
Ertebolle and Swifterbant pottery makes it possible
that impacts from Ertebolle and Swifterbant groups
resulted in the fusion of techniques at the Boberg
sites and therefore both influenced the local pottery
tradition. In this context, a permanent stay of persons
of the Swifterbant culture at the Boberg sites can also
be discussed. The interaction between the Ertebolle
settlers from Boberg with Swifterbant groups and their
influence might indicate a fundamental difference
from the interactions with persons of the Neolithic
Rossen and Stroke-ornamented ware culture, perhaps
due to a higher sense of association and proximity
between Mesolithic communities.
Such a higher sense of association and proxim-
ity can also have had an effect on the development of
the Boberg pottery with horizontal rows of fingernail
impressions that cover the whole vessel body. As men-
tioned above, potential influences of the Swifterbant
culture are obvious, as ornamentation covering the
whole or a large part of the vessel is common, even
though more frequent in the Southern Group. If the
Swifterbant culture, distributed in the southern region,
influenced the development of the pottery with finger-
nail impressions covering the whole surface, a knowl-
edge transfer of grog temper can also be discussed.
Nonetheless, it must be noted that grog temper has not
been identified in pottery with fingernail impressions
from Boberg. In contrast, the vessel shape, particu-
larly the flat bottom, shows that Neolithic cultures
also played an active part during the development of
the local pottery. Inter-cultural interaction between
Boberg settlers and Gatersleben people is indicated
by the flat-bottomed vessel decorated with rounded
impressions covering the shoulder. In sum, the pot-
tery with overall fingernail impression from Boberg
illustrates inter-cultural interactions and impulses from
final Mesolithic and Neolithic societies, resulting in
an adaptation and combination of specific elements,
including shape and ornamentation. Indeed the tech-
nology of both vessels built in U-technique and pottery
with overall fingernail impressions seems comparable,
especially the temper, grain size and wall thickness.
The perpetuation of the final Mesolithic technological
tradition as well as the use of local clay indicates that
the Boberg settlers were involved and, in consequence,
an expulsion of the locals seems improbable.
In this context it is notable that pointed bases and
lamps from Friesack 4 also indicate a settlement of this
site during the final Mesolithic and moreover represent
material of the southernmost archaeological site of the
Ertebolle culture in inland eastern Germany (Kotula
etal. 2015,494,499-501; Wetzel 2015,518,523). The
settlement of Boberg and Friesack by final Mesolithic
groups of the Ertebolle culture, together with the radio-
carbon dates of the decorated pottery, imply that both
vessel types were produced at the same time (Table 1).
A completely decorated vessel from Friesack 4 yielded
a final Mesolithic date (Tab. 1; AAR-15046). Similar
dates are associated with two samples from Rhinow
30 (Tab. 1; AAR-18757; AAR-18758; cf. Kotula et al.
2015, 495 table 1; Wetzel 2015, 516). The range of
the radiocarbon dates of pottery from Friesack 4 and
Rhinow 30 indicates a dating of the pottery with finger-
nail impressions that cover the vessel body to the final
The late Mesolithic in Hamburg-Boberg: inter-cultural interactions and impacts
Site
Lab.-no.
C14 age BP
C14 age calBC 1s
C14 age calBC 2s
613C
Friesack 4
AAR-15046
5419±27
4289±30
4336-4241
-34.51±0.05
Rhinow 30
AAR-18757
5250±30
4073±72
4229-3977
-28.95±0.05
Rhinow 30
AAR-18758
5138±36
3923±65
4038-3804
-28.83±0.05
Boberg 15
LuS 11578
5820±55
4767-4600
4799-4539
—
Boberg 15
LuS 11658
5300±60
4231-4046
4317-3985
—
Boberg 15
LuS 11577
5000±60
3932-3706
3984-3661
—
Table 1 Radiocarbon dates of pottery from sites Friesack 4 and Rhinow 30, dist. Haveland (after Kotula et al. 2015, 495, table 1).
Various distributions of specific bottom shapes
are also mentioned in the context of the Swifterbant
culture (Raemaekers 1999, 112). In comparison,
Ertebolle and Swifterbant ceramics show similari-
ties especially concerning bases with a pronounced
pointed end, but the pointed bottoms with triangu-
lar and conical shape of Ertebolle vessels differ. It is
worth noting that all types of bottoms are preserved
at Boberg (see Fig. 2.1-9). In sum, the final Meso-
lithic pottery from Boberg resembles both Ertebolle
and Swifterbant manufacturing in terms of building
technique and bottom shapes. Therefore, interactions
with groups of the Swifterbant culture might have
influenced local pottery production. Concerning the
potential chronological succession of the building
techniques, the predominant use of U-technique at
the Boberg sites might also depend on the chrono-
logical setting. The various types of bottoms might
also reflect functional dimensions instead of cultural
backgrounds. However, lamps are a clear exception,
because they are only represented in the Ertebolle
culture, and the imported sample indicates intra-cul-
tural contact, as does the pointed base decorated with
rounded impressions. In sum, the resemblance to both
Ertebolle and Swifterbant pottery makes it possible
that impacts from Ertebolle and Swifterbant groups
resulted in the fusion of techniques at the Boberg
sites and therefore both influenced the local pottery
tradition. In this context, a permanent stay of persons
of the Swifterbant culture at the Boberg sites can also
be discussed. The interaction between the Ertebolle
settlers from Boberg with Swifterbant groups and their
influence might indicate a fundamental difference
from the interactions with persons of the Neolithic
Rossen and Stroke-ornamented ware culture, perhaps
due to a higher sense of association and proximity
between Mesolithic communities.
Such a higher sense of association and proxim-
ity can also have had an effect on the development of
the Boberg pottery with horizontal rows of fingernail
impressions that cover the whole vessel body. As men-
tioned above, potential influences of the Swifterbant
culture are obvious, as ornamentation covering the
whole or a large part of the vessel is common, even
though more frequent in the Southern Group. If the
Swifterbant culture, distributed in the southern region,
influenced the development of the pottery with finger-
nail impressions covering the whole surface, a knowl-
edge transfer of grog temper can also be discussed.
Nonetheless, it must be noted that grog temper has not
been identified in pottery with fingernail impressions
from Boberg. In contrast, the vessel shape, particu-
larly the flat bottom, shows that Neolithic cultures
also played an active part during the development of
the local pottery. Inter-cultural interaction between
Boberg settlers and Gatersleben people is indicated
by the flat-bottomed vessel decorated with rounded
impressions covering the shoulder. In sum, the pot-
tery with overall fingernail impression from Boberg
illustrates inter-cultural interactions and impulses from
final Mesolithic and Neolithic societies, resulting in
an adaptation and combination of specific elements,
including shape and ornamentation. Indeed the tech-
nology of both vessels built in U-technique and pottery
with overall fingernail impressions seems comparable,
especially the temper, grain size and wall thickness.
The perpetuation of the final Mesolithic technological
tradition as well as the use of local clay indicates that
the Boberg settlers were involved and, in consequence,
an expulsion of the locals seems improbable.
In this context it is notable that pointed bases and
lamps from Friesack 4 also indicate a settlement of this
site during the final Mesolithic and moreover represent
material of the southernmost archaeological site of the
Ertebolle culture in inland eastern Germany (Kotula
etal. 2015,494,499-501; Wetzel 2015,518,523). The
settlement of Boberg and Friesack by final Mesolithic
groups of the Ertebolle culture, together with the radio-
carbon dates of the decorated pottery, imply that both
vessel types were produced at the same time (Table 1).
A completely decorated vessel from Friesack 4 yielded
a final Mesolithic date (Tab. 1; AAR-15046). Similar
dates are associated with two samples from Rhinow
30 (Tab. 1; AAR-18757; AAR-18758; cf. Kotula et al.
2015, 495 table 1; Wetzel 2015, 516). The range of
the radiocarbon dates of pottery from Friesack 4 and
Rhinow 30 indicates a dating of the pottery with finger-
nail impressions that cover the vessel body to the final