DOI Kapitel:
Grenzgänger, traders and the last hunter-gatherers of the North European Plain
DOI Kapitel:Hofmann, Daniela; Peeters, Hans; Meyer, Ann-Katrin: Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0269
268
Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
Fig. 4 Map of sites mentioned in the text. 1 Neustadt; 2 Schlamersdorf; 3 Kayhude; 4 Boberg; 5 Loniowa; 6 Harting; 7 Marktbergel;
8 Vaihingen; 9 Herxheim; 10 Blatterhbhle; 11 Arnoldsweiler; 12 Cuiry-les-Chaudardes; 13 Epse-Olthof; 14 Kampen-Reevediep/Hanzelijn-
Hattemerbroek; 15 Dronten-N23; 16 Swifterbant; 17 Hoge Vaart-A27; 18 Baarn-Drie Eiken; 19 Soest-Staringlaan; 20 Hardinxveld-Giessen-
dam; 21 Howick; 22 East Barns; 23 Mount Sandel.
In subsequent LBK phases, changes in domestic
architecture and the appearance of cemeteries may
have acted as alternative arenas for social competition
(e.g. Sommer 2001; Cladders/Stauble 2003). In ad-
dition, isotopic evidence connecting local origins and
the possession of polished stone adzes in male graves
across the LBK (Hedges at al. 2013), as well as differ-
ences in the intensity of care for agricultural plots at
the site of Vaihingen in Baden-Wiirttemberg (Bogaard
et al. 2011; Fig. 4) have been linked into one model
suggesting unequal access to land as a major factor
in status competition. In other words, the importance
of territoriality may have increased. Yet there are also
indications that not everyone did, in fact, stay put. Rela-
tively routine relocations of household groups could
for instance be indicated by the fluctuating number of
so-called ‘yards’ over the duration of longer-lasting and
well-excavated sites (Fig. 5). Recent work at Amolds-
weiler (Balkowski 2017) has even identified a general
settlement hiatus, while ups and downs in household
numbers are evident across the Merzbach valley se-
quence and elsewhere (e. g. summarised in Hofmann
2016a). New sites continued to be established whenever
the opportunity arose (see e.g. Pechtl 2011).
Such sites could even be founded in areas which
did not correspond to the classically chosen loess
lowlands. Instead, there is increasing isotopic evidence
for what must have been entire communities settling
in lower mountain ranges and sourcing a majority of
their diets on non-loess soils (Nehlich et al. 2009;
Turck 2019). Other LBK sites were located on small
loess patches at higher altitudes (e. g. Knipper et al.
2010; summary in Zeeb-Lanz 2019, 458-460) or may
have made use of upland locations for pasture (e. g.
Valde-Nowak 2009; Beigl 2020). If this is shown to
be a more general pattern, it could have made it more
difficult for hunter-gatherers in some environments
to survive alongside LBK communities. Still, there is
evidence for such survival.
Forager-farmer interaction
Genetically speaking, foragers did not make up a
large part of the initial Earliest LBK settlers, with a
larger proportion of European hunter-gatherer DNA
only reappearing later in the Neolithic (e.g. Beau
et al. 2017; Lipson et al. 2017). This also applies to
the isotopic non-locals at Herxheim (Blocher et al.
2019), so that LBK upland use is not connected to
Mesolithic ancestry. However, our evidence may still
be biased. Large areas, particularly in the western
part of the LBK (notably the Rhineland), where there
are stronger archaeological reasons for presupposing
hunter-farmer contacts, suffer from bad conditions
Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
Fig. 4 Map of sites mentioned in the text. 1 Neustadt; 2 Schlamersdorf; 3 Kayhude; 4 Boberg; 5 Loniowa; 6 Harting; 7 Marktbergel;
8 Vaihingen; 9 Herxheim; 10 Blatterhbhle; 11 Arnoldsweiler; 12 Cuiry-les-Chaudardes; 13 Epse-Olthof; 14 Kampen-Reevediep/Hanzelijn-
Hattemerbroek; 15 Dronten-N23; 16 Swifterbant; 17 Hoge Vaart-A27; 18 Baarn-Drie Eiken; 19 Soest-Staringlaan; 20 Hardinxveld-Giessen-
dam; 21 Howick; 22 East Barns; 23 Mount Sandel.
In subsequent LBK phases, changes in domestic
architecture and the appearance of cemeteries may
have acted as alternative arenas for social competition
(e.g. Sommer 2001; Cladders/Stauble 2003). In ad-
dition, isotopic evidence connecting local origins and
the possession of polished stone adzes in male graves
across the LBK (Hedges at al. 2013), as well as differ-
ences in the intensity of care for agricultural plots at
the site of Vaihingen in Baden-Wiirttemberg (Bogaard
et al. 2011; Fig. 4) have been linked into one model
suggesting unequal access to land as a major factor
in status competition. In other words, the importance
of territoriality may have increased. Yet there are also
indications that not everyone did, in fact, stay put. Rela-
tively routine relocations of household groups could
for instance be indicated by the fluctuating number of
so-called ‘yards’ over the duration of longer-lasting and
well-excavated sites (Fig. 5). Recent work at Amolds-
weiler (Balkowski 2017) has even identified a general
settlement hiatus, while ups and downs in household
numbers are evident across the Merzbach valley se-
quence and elsewhere (e. g. summarised in Hofmann
2016a). New sites continued to be established whenever
the opportunity arose (see e.g. Pechtl 2011).
Such sites could even be founded in areas which
did not correspond to the classically chosen loess
lowlands. Instead, there is increasing isotopic evidence
for what must have been entire communities settling
in lower mountain ranges and sourcing a majority of
their diets on non-loess soils (Nehlich et al. 2009;
Turck 2019). Other LBK sites were located on small
loess patches at higher altitudes (e. g. Knipper et al.
2010; summary in Zeeb-Lanz 2019, 458-460) or may
have made use of upland locations for pasture (e. g.
Valde-Nowak 2009; Beigl 2020). If this is shown to
be a more general pattern, it could have made it more
difficult for hunter-gatherers in some environments
to survive alongside LBK communities. Still, there is
evidence for such survival.
Forager-farmer interaction
Genetically speaking, foragers did not make up a
large part of the initial Earliest LBK settlers, with a
larger proportion of European hunter-gatherer DNA
only reappearing later in the Neolithic (e.g. Beau
et al. 2017; Lipson et al. 2017). This also applies to
the isotopic non-locals at Herxheim (Blocher et al.
2019), so that LBK upland use is not connected to
Mesolithic ancestry. However, our evidence may still
be biased. Large areas, particularly in the western
part of the LBK (notably the Rhineland), where there
are stronger archaeological reasons for presupposing
hunter-farmer contacts, suffer from bad conditions