DOI Kapitel:
Grenzgänger, traders and the last hunter-gatherers of the North European Plain
DOI Kapitel:Hartz, Sönke: Hunter-gatherer pottery from the Baltic Sea coast – some regional examples from Schleswig-Holstein
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0213
212
Hunter-gatherer pottery from the Baltic Sea coast - some regional examples from Schleswig-Holstein
Fig. 1 Ertebolle sites mentioned in the text.
eastern Holstein c. 4,700 to 4,600 calBC on sites like
Grube-Rosenhof LA 58, Wangels LA 505 and Neustadt
LA 156 (Fig. 1). However, ceramics appear more or less
contemporaneously in the geographical area encom-
passing Denmark, Scania (southern Sweden), Schles-
wig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in
northeast Germany.1 On the island of Riigen Terminal
Mesolithic pottery has been absent so far, but only a
few sites with good preservation were investigated
(Hirsch et al. 2008; Lubke / Terberger 2004). Much
older dates from inland sites like Schlamersdorf LA 5
and Kayhude LA 8 (Meyer 2016) seem very problema-
tic, since they were measured from charred remains
attached to the inner parts of the vessel. These samples
could be contaminated by the hardwater reservoir
effect in view of the contribution of fresh water fish in
the diet (Philippsen 2013; Philippsen / Heinemeier
2013).
Ceramic vessels from coastal sites are associated
with the younger ERT and appeared some centuries
before the introduction of domesticated fauna and flo-
ra. Pottery seems of special importance in the Meso-
lithic record as it is one indicator of cultural contacts
and developments between northern Germany and
the neighbouring regions. Culturally, the first appear-
ance of pottery marks the border between the older
1 Andersen 2010; 2011; Lubke 2004; Prangsgaard 2013;
Sorensen 2015; Terberger 2006.
(Jackelberg and Rosenfelde phase) and the younger
Ertebolle culture (Jarbock and Timmendorf phase)
in the region around Mecklenburg Bay.
In contrast to sites on mineral soils the preserva-
tion of potsherds in marine/brackish gyttja layers is
generally excellent, and sometimes larger pieces to
the size of half pots or even fully preserved vessels
occur (Fig. 2). However, the sites of Wangels LA 505
and Neustadt LA 156 yielded early Neolithic (EN I)
sherds as well, and these settlements are discussed
as transitional sites, where Ertebolle ceramic is as-
sociated alongside a set of new pottery types from
the early Funnel Beaker culture. However, observa-
tions from sherds from waterlogged sediments could
elucidate the dating and use of early pottery craft in
late forager societies in Schleswig-Holstein.
It seems very likely that hunter-gatherers of
the early ERT already had container technology
for gathering and storage, and therefore the ques-
tion needs to be specified to what reason pottery
was introduced into the material culture of such
complex societies. Various authors prefer the idea
that ceramic containers may be understood as the
need for pots for new (prestige) food preparation
modes, and that the vessels were associated with
ritual uses (Jennbert 1984; Fischer 2002; Povlsen
2013). However, currently no clear variation in the
subsistence pattern or fundamental changes in the
material culture (stone, bone/antler and wooden ar-
tefacts) is observed at the shift from the older to the
Hunter-gatherer pottery from the Baltic Sea coast - some regional examples from Schleswig-Holstein
Fig. 1 Ertebolle sites mentioned in the text.
eastern Holstein c. 4,700 to 4,600 calBC on sites like
Grube-Rosenhof LA 58, Wangels LA 505 and Neustadt
LA 156 (Fig. 1). However, ceramics appear more or less
contemporaneously in the geographical area encom-
passing Denmark, Scania (southern Sweden), Schles-
wig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in
northeast Germany.1 On the island of Riigen Terminal
Mesolithic pottery has been absent so far, but only a
few sites with good preservation were investigated
(Hirsch et al. 2008; Lubke / Terberger 2004). Much
older dates from inland sites like Schlamersdorf LA 5
and Kayhude LA 8 (Meyer 2016) seem very problema-
tic, since they were measured from charred remains
attached to the inner parts of the vessel. These samples
could be contaminated by the hardwater reservoir
effect in view of the contribution of fresh water fish in
the diet (Philippsen 2013; Philippsen / Heinemeier
2013).
Ceramic vessels from coastal sites are associated
with the younger ERT and appeared some centuries
before the introduction of domesticated fauna and flo-
ra. Pottery seems of special importance in the Meso-
lithic record as it is one indicator of cultural contacts
and developments between northern Germany and
the neighbouring regions. Culturally, the first appear-
ance of pottery marks the border between the older
1 Andersen 2010; 2011; Lubke 2004; Prangsgaard 2013;
Sorensen 2015; Terberger 2006.
(Jackelberg and Rosenfelde phase) and the younger
Ertebolle culture (Jarbock and Timmendorf phase)
in the region around Mecklenburg Bay.
In contrast to sites on mineral soils the preserva-
tion of potsherds in marine/brackish gyttja layers is
generally excellent, and sometimes larger pieces to
the size of half pots or even fully preserved vessels
occur (Fig. 2). However, the sites of Wangels LA 505
and Neustadt LA 156 yielded early Neolithic (EN I)
sherds as well, and these settlements are discussed
as transitional sites, where Ertebolle ceramic is as-
sociated alongside a set of new pottery types from
the early Funnel Beaker culture. However, observa-
tions from sherds from waterlogged sediments could
elucidate the dating and use of early pottery craft in
late forager societies in Schleswig-Holstein.
It seems very likely that hunter-gatherers of
the early ERT already had container technology
for gathering and storage, and therefore the ques-
tion needs to be specified to what reason pottery
was introduced into the material culture of such
complex societies. Various authors prefer the idea
that ceramic containers may be understood as the
need for pots for new (prestige) food preparation
modes, and that the vessels were associated with
ritual uses (Jennbert 1984; Fischer 2002; Povlsen
2013). However, currently no clear variation in the
subsistence pattern or fundamental changes in the
material culture (stone, bone/antler and wooden ar-
tefacts) is observed at the shift from the older to the