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#0274
Daniela Hofmann, Hans Peeters and Ann-Katrin Meyer
273
Fig. 8 A: Plane view of the tilled
horizon at Swifterbant-S4. The pat-
terning of dark- and light-grey pat-
ches is interpreted as tillage marks
made with some sort of hand tool.
B: Photograph showing a more or
less regular pattern of tillage marks
that become increasingly vague
towards the left of photograph. The
dark layer on top is the lower part
of a midden deposit. Square indica-
tes image C. C: Detail of B, with tool
marks indicated by triangles (after
Huisman/Raemaekers
2014).
regional scale.5 But even when ‘swapping’ from one
place to another, the repetitive occurrence of burning
events suggests that hunter-gatherers did influence
the environment on a structural basis. In fact, the
small scale at which this appears to have occurred
is not that different from what we see for wetland
horticultural practices in the Neolithic Swifterbant
culture. Palynological evidence for cereal cultivation
is sparse (Bakker 2003; Out 2009; Talebi et al. 2019),
despite the fact that emmer and naked barley appear
to have been cultivated on a regular basis on clayey
levees in the Netherlands, as shown by the presence
of charred grains at the majority of Swifterbant sites
(Cappers/Raemaekers 2008), and indeed the fields
themselves (Fig. 8; cf. Huisman/Raemaekers 2014).6
Apparently, the palynological signal is diffuse and lo-
calised, suggesting repetitive, but rather short-lived
cultivation on small plots - ‘events’ on the archaeologi-
5 Bos/Janssen 1996; Bos/Urz 2003; Peeters etal. 2017;
Sevink et al. 2018.
6 There is, however, growing evidence from micromorpholo-
gical research that crop cultivation in the Swifterbant culture
was common in various parts of the Dutch wetlands. Just how
this should exactly be understood, also in the light of palynolo-
gical evidence, is a topic of current research (pers. comm. Prof.
H. J. Huisman, 13.12.2019).
cal timescale, if you like. It is therefore perfectly imag-
inable that firing practices by foragers, and clearing
of plots by farming groups occurred simultaneously
within given parts of the landscape. It might involve
a context of integration, not necessarily assimilation.
As a whole, the representation of subsistence
strategies among Mesolithic foragers - and early
farmers - in northwestern Europe is arguably over-
simplistic, and based on coarse-grained ethnographic
models and assumptions with respect to the determin-
ing role of the environment. Stable isotope data from
Mesolithic and Neolithic human remains from the
southern North Sea and the Netherlands, for instance,
demonstrate that fresh water resources (notably fish)
provided a major part of the diet, and this remained
the case even when dwelling sites were on or very
close to the sea shore (Smits/Van der Plight 2009;
Van der Plight et al. 2016). Indeed, zooarchaeologi-
cal evidence for the exploitation and consumption of
fully marine resources is sparse at best, and only really
shows up in the archaeological record in the region’s
Late Neolithic (3rd millennium cal. BC) - agricultural
practices were firmly in place by then, but paired with
hunting and gathering - with evidence for the fishing
of cod longer than 1 m and other large marine fish
species such as haddock (Zeiler/Brinkhuizen 2013).
273
Fig. 8 A: Plane view of the tilled
horizon at Swifterbant-S4. The pat-
terning of dark- and light-grey pat-
ches is interpreted as tillage marks
made with some sort of hand tool.
B: Photograph showing a more or
less regular pattern of tillage marks
that become increasingly vague
towards the left of photograph. The
dark layer on top is the lower part
of a midden deposit. Square indica-
tes image C. C: Detail of B, with tool
marks indicated by triangles (after
Huisman/Raemaekers
2014).
regional scale.5 But even when ‘swapping’ from one
place to another, the repetitive occurrence of burning
events suggests that hunter-gatherers did influence
the environment on a structural basis. In fact, the
small scale at which this appears to have occurred
is not that different from what we see for wetland
horticultural practices in the Neolithic Swifterbant
culture. Palynological evidence for cereal cultivation
is sparse (Bakker 2003; Out 2009; Talebi et al. 2019),
despite the fact that emmer and naked barley appear
to have been cultivated on a regular basis on clayey
levees in the Netherlands, as shown by the presence
of charred grains at the majority of Swifterbant sites
(Cappers/Raemaekers 2008), and indeed the fields
themselves (Fig. 8; cf. Huisman/Raemaekers 2014).6
Apparently, the palynological signal is diffuse and lo-
calised, suggesting repetitive, but rather short-lived
cultivation on small plots - ‘events’ on the archaeologi-
5 Bos/Janssen 1996; Bos/Urz 2003; Peeters etal. 2017;
Sevink et al. 2018.
6 There is, however, growing evidence from micromorpholo-
gical research that crop cultivation in the Swifterbant culture
was common in various parts of the Dutch wetlands. Just how
this should exactly be understood, also in the light of palynolo-
gical evidence, is a topic of current research (pers. comm. Prof.
H. J. Huisman, 13.12.2019).
cal timescale, if you like. It is therefore perfectly imag-
inable that firing practices by foragers, and clearing
of plots by farming groups occurred simultaneously
within given parts of the landscape. It might involve
a context of integration, not necessarily assimilation.
As a whole, the representation of subsistence
strategies among Mesolithic foragers - and early
farmers - in northwestern Europe is arguably over-
simplistic, and based on coarse-grained ethnographic
models and assumptions with respect to the determin-
ing role of the environment. Stable isotope data from
Mesolithic and Neolithic human remains from the
southern North Sea and the Netherlands, for instance,
demonstrate that fresh water resources (notably fish)
provided a major part of the diet, and this remained
the case even when dwelling sites were on or very
close to the sea shore (Smits/Van der Plight 2009;
Van der Plight et al. 2016). Indeed, zooarchaeologi-
cal evidence for the exploitation and consumption of
fully marine resources is sparse at best, and only really
shows up in the archaeological record in the region’s
Late Neolithic (3rd millennium cal. BC) - agricultural
practices were firmly in place by then, but paired with
hunting and gathering - with evidence for the fishing
of cod longer than 1 m and other large marine fish
species such as haddock (Zeiler/Brinkhuizen 2013).