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#0270
Daniela Hofmann, Hans Peeters and Ann-Katrin Meyer
269
Phase V
Phase VIII
®®
®
= maximum
extent of site
500 m
Phase XII
® = yard
= maximum
extent of site
®
®
® ®
®
500 m
Fig. 5 Merzbach valley: Number of yards on sites in the middle Merzbach valley in phases V, VIII and XII. Location of houses is sche-
matic. LW = Langweiler; LB = Laurenzberg; NM = Niedermerz (after data and base map in Stehli 1994, with corrections by Munch 2009).
for bone preservation, so that no genetic data are
available. Identifying potential hunter-gatherer survi-
val must thus rely on either the persistence of forager
sites, or on artefactual evidence for contact.
Beginning with possible persistence, interesting
data have come to light. While the isotopic indicators
for a hunter-gatherer-fisher lifestyle reported for the
Blatterhbhle in western Germany (Bollongino et al.
2013) post-date the LBK, and thus need not refer
to the continuous presence of people of Mesolithic
descent in the area, these findings lend new impetus
to an on-going discussion centred on artefactual evi-
dence. In the Rhineland, for instance, Mesolithic-style
lithic and bone artefacts associated with ‘Neolithic’
absolute dates show that hunter-gatherers did per-
sist for several generations after initial neolithisation
(Banghard/ Gehlen 2014). Similarly, burials in a
Mesolithic tradition, but with Neolithic 14C dates are
known from Saxony (Stauble/ Wolfram 2013), while
in the Czech Republic there are environmental indica-
tors for continuities in landscape exploitation from
Mesolithic into Neolithic times (Pokorny et al. 2010).
Mesolithic societies also continued to coexist beyond
the southern margins of the LBK for several centuries,
and their networks were considerably impacted by the
spread of the LBK (Jeunesse et al. 2019, 93-99). Yet
evidence for sustained contact with LBK communi-
ties is very low. Gronenborn (2009) lists artefacts of
possible hunter-gatherer origin found on LBK sites,
including amber beads, harpoon heads and hunting
bows. Even bearing in mind that much interaction may
have involved organic ‘forest products’, the number
of items is surprisingly low. Similarly, there is some
evidence for LBK objects travelling beyond the loess
into the north European Plain (e.g. Klassen 2004,
100-102,105-108; Verhart 2012), but this increases
substantially only after the LBK. Also, it is still being
debated whether at least some such items may not
actually represent forays by LBK people beyond the
loess, rather than farmer-forager contact.
Studies of stone tool production sequences, in
contrast, show that hunter-gatherer flint knapping tra-
ditions persist into the LBK in some areas (e.g. Lohr
1994; Mateiciucova 2008; Cziesla 2015, 237-260),
where the lateralisation and degree of symmetry of
arrowheads show consistent preferences between Late
Mesolithic and Early Neolithic (although there are
otherwise large changes in the toolkit, see e. g. Allard
2005,237-239). Yet, even here it has been pointed out
that the various ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ indica-
tors (lateralisation, knapping technique, raw material
preferences, etc.) do not co-vary in such a way as to
create two clearly defined, mutually distinct traditions
(Crombe 2010; Robinson et al. 2010; 2013). Because
the signal is essentially ‘mixed’, it has been difficult to
find a coherent interpretation.
The persistence of hunting as an economic strat-
egy, most extensively documented in the Paris Basin,
269
Phase V
Phase VIII
®®
®
= maximum
extent of site
500 m
Phase XII
® = yard
= maximum
extent of site
®
®
® ®
®
500 m
Fig. 5 Merzbach valley: Number of yards on sites in the middle Merzbach valley in phases V, VIII and XII. Location of houses is sche-
matic. LW = Langweiler; LB = Laurenzberg; NM = Niedermerz (after data and base map in Stehli 1994, with corrections by Munch 2009).
for bone preservation, so that no genetic data are
available. Identifying potential hunter-gatherer survi-
val must thus rely on either the persistence of forager
sites, or on artefactual evidence for contact.
Beginning with possible persistence, interesting
data have come to light. While the isotopic indicators
for a hunter-gatherer-fisher lifestyle reported for the
Blatterhbhle in western Germany (Bollongino et al.
2013) post-date the LBK, and thus need not refer
to the continuous presence of people of Mesolithic
descent in the area, these findings lend new impetus
to an on-going discussion centred on artefactual evi-
dence. In the Rhineland, for instance, Mesolithic-style
lithic and bone artefacts associated with ‘Neolithic’
absolute dates show that hunter-gatherers did per-
sist for several generations after initial neolithisation
(Banghard/ Gehlen 2014). Similarly, burials in a
Mesolithic tradition, but with Neolithic 14C dates are
known from Saxony (Stauble/ Wolfram 2013), while
in the Czech Republic there are environmental indica-
tors for continuities in landscape exploitation from
Mesolithic into Neolithic times (Pokorny et al. 2010).
Mesolithic societies also continued to coexist beyond
the southern margins of the LBK for several centuries,
and their networks were considerably impacted by the
spread of the LBK (Jeunesse et al. 2019, 93-99). Yet
evidence for sustained contact with LBK communi-
ties is very low. Gronenborn (2009) lists artefacts of
possible hunter-gatherer origin found on LBK sites,
including amber beads, harpoon heads and hunting
bows. Even bearing in mind that much interaction may
have involved organic ‘forest products’, the number
of items is surprisingly low. Similarly, there is some
evidence for LBK objects travelling beyond the loess
into the north European Plain (e.g. Klassen 2004,
100-102,105-108; Verhart 2012), but this increases
substantially only after the LBK. Also, it is still being
debated whether at least some such items may not
actually represent forays by LBK people beyond the
loess, rather than farmer-forager contact.
Studies of stone tool production sequences, in
contrast, show that hunter-gatherer flint knapping tra-
ditions persist into the LBK in some areas (e.g. Lohr
1994; Mateiciucova 2008; Cziesla 2015, 237-260),
where the lateralisation and degree of symmetry of
arrowheads show consistent preferences between Late
Mesolithic and Early Neolithic (although there are
otherwise large changes in the toolkit, see e. g. Allard
2005,237-239). Yet, even here it has been pointed out
that the various ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ indica-
tors (lateralisation, knapping technique, raw material
preferences, etc.) do not co-vary in such a way as to
create two clearly defined, mutually distinct traditions
(Crombe 2010; Robinson et al. 2010; 2013). Because
the signal is essentially ‘mixed’, it has been difficult to
find a coherent interpretation.
The persistence of hunting as an economic strat-
egy, most extensively documented in the Paris Basin,