DOI chapter:
Grenzgänger, traders and the last hunter-gatherers of the North European Plain
DOI chapter:Hofmann, Daniela; Peeters, Hans; Meyer, Ann-Katrin: Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0268
Daniela Hofmann, Hans Peeters and Ann-Katrin Meyer
267
Fig. 3 Simplified map of the spread of agriculture in western Eurasia . The Linearbandkeramik is shown in green (image by D. Gronen-
born/B. Horejs/M. Borner/M. Ober 2019 [RGZM/OREA], Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License).
sely defined categories. In the following sections we
investigate the roles of mobility and migration in the
‘sedentary’ Neolithic communities of the LBK, and in
two forager scenarios set in very different ecological
and landscape settings, southern Scandinavia and the
northwest European lowlands.
Migration and mobility in the LBK
As has been forcefully driven home by recent genetic
evidence (e.g. Haak et al. 2010), the initial expansion
of the LBK apparently did not involve substantial bio-
logical input from foragers (although there are a few
individuals, see e.g. Nikitin etal. 2019). However,
in the context of the present discussion, two facets
of LBK society deserve to be drawn out. One is the
potential for continuous mobility even in this alleg-
edly ‘sedentary’ Neolithic society, more fully devel-
oped elsewhere (Hofmann 2016a; 2020). The other is
how these mobility regimes and the permanent sites
impacted the foragers with which LBK communities
must in some way have come into contact.1
Movement and migration in the LBK: a constant
As we now know, the Earliest and Early LBK cul-
ture expanded rather rapidly across Europe (Fig. 3),
although the precise date for its arrival in various
regions remains debated (Jakucz et al. 2016; Strien
2017a; Banffy et al. 2018). While the so-called ‘Neo-
lithic Demographic Transition’ could have fuelled
this expansion (Bocquet-Appel 2008; Shennan
2018), the reasons why settlers moved remain un-
clear. Given the large spatial gaps between Earliest
LBK settlements, a largely prestige-driven migration
is often argued for, in which those offspring not in
line to inherit the farmstead were sent on costly and
risky colonisation ventures, potentially taking place
in a climate of competition between descent groups.2
It is likely that forager populations could have per-
sisted in the resulting large gaps, in particular if they
used areas of the landscape which were not the prime
targets of LBK settlers, for example river floodplains,
uplands, or sandy or boggy areas. Indeed, the Late
Mesolithic economy may have increasingly relied on
fishing (Gehlen et al. 2017, 56-57).
1 For an excellent introduction to the forager background in
central Europe, see Gronenborn 1999.
2 See e.g. Zimmermann etal. 2005; Frirdich 2005; Fiedel/
Anthony 2003; Strien 2017b.
267
Fig. 3 Simplified map of the spread of agriculture in western Eurasia . The Linearbandkeramik is shown in green (image by D. Gronen-
born/B. Horejs/M. Borner/M. Ober 2019 [RGZM/OREA], Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License).
sely defined categories. In the following sections we
investigate the roles of mobility and migration in the
‘sedentary’ Neolithic communities of the LBK, and in
two forager scenarios set in very different ecological
and landscape settings, southern Scandinavia and the
northwest European lowlands.
Migration and mobility in the LBK
As has been forcefully driven home by recent genetic
evidence (e.g. Haak et al. 2010), the initial expansion
of the LBK apparently did not involve substantial bio-
logical input from foragers (although there are a few
individuals, see e.g. Nikitin etal. 2019). However,
in the context of the present discussion, two facets
of LBK society deserve to be drawn out. One is the
potential for continuous mobility even in this alleg-
edly ‘sedentary’ Neolithic society, more fully devel-
oped elsewhere (Hofmann 2016a; 2020). The other is
how these mobility regimes and the permanent sites
impacted the foragers with which LBK communities
must in some way have come into contact.1
Movement and migration in the LBK: a constant
As we now know, the Earliest and Early LBK cul-
ture expanded rather rapidly across Europe (Fig. 3),
although the precise date for its arrival in various
regions remains debated (Jakucz et al. 2016; Strien
2017a; Banffy et al. 2018). While the so-called ‘Neo-
lithic Demographic Transition’ could have fuelled
this expansion (Bocquet-Appel 2008; Shennan
2018), the reasons why settlers moved remain un-
clear. Given the large spatial gaps between Earliest
LBK settlements, a largely prestige-driven migration
is often argued for, in which those offspring not in
line to inherit the farmstead were sent on costly and
risky colonisation ventures, potentially taking place
in a climate of competition between descent groups.2
It is likely that forager populations could have per-
sisted in the resulting large gaps, in particular if they
used areas of the landscape which were not the prime
targets of LBK settlers, for example river floodplains,
uplands, or sandy or boggy areas. Indeed, the Late
Mesolithic economy may have increasingly relied on
fishing (Gehlen et al. 2017, 56-57).
1 For an excellent introduction to the forager background in
central Europe, see Gronenborn 1999.
2 See e.g. Zimmermann etal. 2005; Frirdich 2005; Fiedel/
Anthony 2003; Strien 2017b.