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#0275
274
Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
This possibly reflects a rather late change in techno-
logical choices, where the tradition of trapping fish by
means of funnels and weirs remained dominant. In-
deed, several strategies may have been in place simul-
taneously. For the exploitation of staple food resourc-
es, confirmed (‘Cartesian’; cf. McGlade/McGlade
1989) strategies were applied to ensure a reliable
supply, whereas the exploitation of uncertain or new
resources - marine? - may have required more risk-
taking (‘stochastic’; cf. McGlade/McGlade 1989)
strategies. In sum, the sea did not play an important
role in the adoption of farming here, and the contrast
between lifeways is much reduced compared to the
LBK. This diminished gap combined with important
degrees of mobility likely had a big influence on his-
torical trajectories here.
Mobility as a social factor
The gathering of information about food resources
can be considered crucial for foragers. To achieve
this, movement (mobility) is of great importance. De-
spite the fact that mobility is a central and traditional
aspect in hunter-gatherer studies, archaeologically
we know very little about this as yet. Ethnographic
insights demonstrate that the spatial scale of mo-
vement and hence knowledge about the environment
can be vast. Indigenous people in southern Labrador,
for instance, have knowledge about terrain as big as
southeastern England, the southern North Sea, the
Low Countries, and northwestern Germany taken
together (Fig. 9; Lovis/Donahue 2011). In northern
Quebec, equally large swathes of land are viewed
as their ‘home’ by the indigenous Cree (Carlson
2008). In fact, movement or travelling is essential to
collect information and to ‘be home’ (Aporta 2009;
2016). Mobility forms the basis for knowledge, while
at the same time it creates and maintains historical
ties with the land, ties which are anchored within a
community through the sharing of knowledge and
story-telling (Minc 1986).
Indications for long-lasting spatial structures in
the Dutch part of the Mesolithic landscape are found
in the centennial to millennial time-depth of hunter-
gatherer visits to particular places (Peeters 2007). At
vast sites like Dronten-N23, Hanzelijn-Hattemerbroek,
Kampen-Reevediep, Epse-Olthof and Hoge Vaart-A27,
chronological evidence based on hundreds of AMS-
dates points to hunter-gatherer activity covering time-
spans of several hundred to three thousand radiocar-
bon years.7 Clearly, this does not involve continuous
occupation, but rather a repetitive, short-term use of
such locations for various activities over many genera-
tions. The AMS record actually represents a sequence
of ‘events’. What is important here is that the record
always shows continuity and discontinuity of activi-
ties over this long-term scale (Peeters 2009). There
will be time windows when activities associated with
flint knapping are ‘synchronous’ with the use of pit
hearths - a phenomenon particularly known from
the northern Netherlands and adjacent parts of Ger-
many (Niekus 2006; Peeters/Niekus 2017; Peeters
et al. 2017) - followed by a time window in which
only the use of pit hearths seems to occur. There are
indications that some geographical differentiation is
present. In the eastern Netherlands, activity of Early
and Middle Mesolithic foragers is well represented in
the archaeological record, both in radiocarbon dates
and flint technology. However, the Late Mesolithic and
Early Neolithic in this region is only sporadically rep-
resented by flint artefacts (isolated trapeze points and
punched blades), whilst radiocarbon dates of anthro-
pogenic phenomena (pit hearths; worked wood and
antler; small pits which might result from the extrac-
tion of aquatic tubers/plant roots) suggest continued
presence of hunter-gatherers (Peeters et al. 2017).
Elsewhere, in the Swifterbant region for instance, Late
Mesolithic and Early Neolithic flint technology is far
better represented. Apparently, some shifts in where
in the landscape certain behaviours were carried out
may have occurred at a regional and long-term scale
(Peeters 2007; 2009), which may have implications
for mobility patterns.
The patterning in the archaeological evidence
indicates highly structured forager landscapes, in
which places and landscape zones were connected
through networks of trails. Their distribution was not
random, although initially the emergence of spatial
structures may have been driven by random self-or-
ganising processes (Mlekuz 2014). The choices made
by individuals and groups of hunter-gatherers were
driven by experience and shared knowledge. Hunter-
gatherers did not assess landscapes from a ‘helicopter’
perspective, sorting out the optimal conditions for
the exploitation of those landscapes. But also and
maybe more importantly, mobility occurred within
a particular socio-cultural setting. This does not just
include the co-presence of people and animals, but
also deep, mythological ties to the land. Many rules
7 Peeters 2007; Lohof etal. 2011; Hamburg et al. 2012;
Hermsen et al. 2015; Geerts et al. 2019.
Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
This possibly reflects a rather late change in techno-
logical choices, where the tradition of trapping fish by
means of funnels and weirs remained dominant. In-
deed, several strategies may have been in place simul-
taneously. For the exploitation of staple food resourc-
es, confirmed (‘Cartesian’; cf. McGlade/McGlade
1989) strategies were applied to ensure a reliable
supply, whereas the exploitation of uncertain or new
resources - marine? - may have required more risk-
taking (‘stochastic’; cf. McGlade/McGlade 1989)
strategies. In sum, the sea did not play an important
role in the adoption of farming here, and the contrast
between lifeways is much reduced compared to the
LBK. This diminished gap combined with important
degrees of mobility likely had a big influence on his-
torical trajectories here.
Mobility as a social factor
The gathering of information about food resources
can be considered crucial for foragers. To achieve
this, movement (mobility) is of great importance. De-
spite the fact that mobility is a central and traditional
aspect in hunter-gatherer studies, archaeologically
we know very little about this as yet. Ethnographic
insights demonstrate that the spatial scale of mo-
vement and hence knowledge about the environment
can be vast. Indigenous people in southern Labrador,
for instance, have knowledge about terrain as big as
southeastern England, the southern North Sea, the
Low Countries, and northwestern Germany taken
together (Fig. 9; Lovis/Donahue 2011). In northern
Quebec, equally large swathes of land are viewed
as their ‘home’ by the indigenous Cree (Carlson
2008). In fact, movement or travelling is essential to
collect information and to ‘be home’ (Aporta 2009;
2016). Mobility forms the basis for knowledge, while
at the same time it creates and maintains historical
ties with the land, ties which are anchored within a
community through the sharing of knowledge and
story-telling (Minc 1986).
Indications for long-lasting spatial structures in
the Dutch part of the Mesolithic landscape are found
in the centennial to millennial time-depth of hunter-
gatherer visits to particular places (Peeters 2007). At
vast sites like Dronten-N23, Hanzelijn-Hattemerbroek,
Kampen-Reevediep, Epse-Olthof and Hoge Vaart-A27,
chronological evidence based on hundreds of AMS-
dates points to hunter-gatherer activity covering time-
spans of several hundred to three thousand radiocar-
bon years.7 Clearly, this does not involve continuous
occupation, but rather a repetitive, short-term use of
such locations for various activities over many genera-
tions. The AMS record actually represents a sequence
of ‘events’. What is important here is that the record
always shows continuity and discontinuity of activi-
ties over this long-term scale (Peeters 2009). There
will be time windows when activities associated with
flint knapping are ‘synchronous’ with the use of pit
hearths - a phenomenon particularly known from
the northern Netherlands and adjacent parts of Ger-
many (Niekus 2006; Peeters/Niekus 2017; Peeters
et al. 2017) - followed by a time window in which
only the use of pit hearths seems to occur. There are
indications that some geographical differentiation is
present. In the eastern Netherlands, activity of Early
and Middle Mesolithic foragers is well represented in
the archaeological record, both in radiocarbon dates
and flint technology. However, the Late Mesolithic and
Early Neolithic in this region is only sporadically rep-
resented by flint artefacts (isolated trapeze points and
punched blades), whilst radiocarbon dates of anthro-
pogenic phenomena (pit hearths; worked wood and
antler; small pits which might result from the extrac-
tion of aquatic tubers/plant roots) suggest continued
presence of hunter-gatherers (Peeters et al. 2017).
Elsewhere, in the Swifterbant region for instance, Late
Mesolithic and Early Neolithic flint technology is far
better represented. Apparently, some shifts in where
in the landscape certain behaviours were carried out
may have occurred at a regional and long-term scale
(Peeters 2007; 2009), which may have implications
for mobility patterns.
The patterning in the archaeological evidence
indicates highly structured forager landscapes, in
which places and landscape zones were connected
through networks of trails. Their distribution was not
random, although initially the emergence of spatial
structures may have been driven by random self-or-
ganising processes (Mlekuz 2014). The choices made
by individuals and groups of hunter-gatherers were
driven by experience and shared knowledge. Hunter-
gatherers did not assess landscapes from a ‘helicopter’
perspective, sorting out the optimal conditions for
the exploitation of those landscapes. But also and
maybe more importantly, mobility occurred within
a particular socio-cultural setting. This does not just
include the co-presence of people and animals, but
also deep, mythological ties to the land. Many rules
7 Peeters 2007; Lohof etal. 2011; Hamburg et al. 2012;
Hermsen et al. 2015; Geerts et al. 2019.