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#0277
276
Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
of spatial behaviour are linked to beliefs about how
the world of the living is influenced by spirits in the
underworld, associated with death, and the upper
world, associated with birth (see e. g. various papers
in Jordan 2011).
The connection between people and land will
have been strong and decisive for what socially was
done and not done. The question, then, is what hap-
pens when such a connection is under stress, per-
turbed or disrupted? Climate-driven change, which
is often referred to as a major drive behind behav-
ioural change during the postglacial period, did have
an influence on the composition and distribution of
food and other resources, and this affected exploita-
tion strategies and technology. Yet one can wonder
whether this also impacted the relationships between
people and the land. Great importance may particu-
larly have pertained to those changes which occurred
rapidly, within an individual’s lifespan or within two
to three generations. For the Mesolithic of the Low
Countries, the drowning of Doggerland is a factor
to bear in mind, although much of it involves slow
long-term change (Sturt et al. 2013). However, the ar-
chaeological record from the Netherlands shows some
patterns which might relate to more abrupt environ-
mental impact in the 8.4-8.1 ka cal BP window, during
which several events occurred within a short time.
The Storegga landslide triggered a tsunami, which
had some impact on the Dutch Mesolithic coast, but
a rather restricted one compared to eastern Scotland
and England (Weninger et al. 2008). More or less
around the same time, a sea-level jump, related to the
drainage of Lake Agassiz in the Hudson Bay region,
led to a sudden - possibly even within a couple of
months - increase of the mean sea-level in the order
of 1.5 m to 2 m, on top of the structural sea-level rise
of about 2 m taking place in this time window of about
two centuries (Hijma/Cohen 2019). At exactly this
point, a hiatus seems to be present (Peeters et al.
2015) in the body of radiocarbon dates available for
the Rhine-Meuse estuary. Several sites (Dronten-N23;
Kampen-Reevediep; Hanzelijn-Hattemerbroek) further
inland also appear to show a corresponding ‘break’
in just that time window. Whether this is related to
temporary migration of forager groups is not clear,
but it is possible that these patterns echo some sort of
disruption, e.g. with regard to historical ties between
people and the land due to changing geographies,
thus affecting what hunter-gatherer groups considered
to be their ‘home’ (compare e.g. Leary 2015). After
this phase, flint technology is typically dominated by
large punched blades - a novelty - and broad trapeze-
shaped points. Something seems to have changed in
the socio-cultural sphere, possibly due to newly estab-
lished relationships with the landscape and altering
mobility patterns as well as interaction with other
groups. Changes in interaction might have involved
contacts between groups who did not have any previ-
ous relationships, or altering relationships between
groups who already were in contact.
Dwellings, mobility and contacts
The drowning of Doggerland is also said to have
caused a decrease in mobility and social change
(Waddington 2007). This hypothesis is largely ba-
sed on the absence of punched-blade technology and
the occurrence of heavily built dwelling structures
discovered on the British side of the North Sea,
e.g. at Howick, East Barns and Mount Sandel, all
pre-dating the 8.4-8.1 ka cal BP time window. In
the Netherlands three comparable structures are
known to date from Baarn-Drie Eiken, Soest-Sta-
ringlaan and Kampen-Reevediep, also pre-dating
the 8.4-8.1 ka cal BP time window (Peeters 2007;
Geerts et al. 2019). This suggests that at least for
some time before the major impacts in the North
Sea basin, sturdy dwelling structures were built by
foragers. But whether this corresponds to a more se-
dentary life remains the question, also because such
structures may have been common in earlier phases
of the Mesolithic as well, but may be victims of the
data gap in the southern North Sea area, which is
hiding large swathes of the Early and Middle Meso-
lithic landscape (Peeters /Momber 2014).
The idea that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were
exclusively living in lightly built dwelling structures
may thus be nothing more than a conceptual fal-
lacy. Heavily built dwelling structures may well also
have been common in the forager landscape, and
integrated in a mobility system covering vast regions.
Similar structures dating to the Neolithic are in con-
trast easily equated with permanency and sedentary
lifeways. However, in later Neolithic times ‘houses’
are often quite flimsy, most certainly in the Dutch
wetlands (Nobles 2016). But what do we actually
know about mobility among Neolithic groups? Why
do we find scattered distributions of artefacts we as-
sociate with the Neolithic without evidence for dwell-
ing structures? Without dismissing the possibility of
differential preservation, could it be that Neolithic
groups were in fact more mobile than we assume?
Movement, after all, is essential for the establishment
and maintenance of contacts between individuals
and groups.
Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
of spatial behaviour are linked to beliefs about how
the world of the living is influenced by spirits in the
underworld, associated with death, and the upper
world, associated with birth (see e. g. various papers
in Jordan 2011).
The connection between people and land will
have been strong and decisive for what socially was
done and not done. The question, then, is what hap-
pens when such a connection is under stress, per-
turbed or disrupted? Climate-driven change, which
is often referred to as a major drive behind behav-
ioural change during the postglacial period, did have
an influence on the composition and distribution of
food and other resources, and this affected exploita-
tion strategies and technology. Yet one can wonder
whether this also impacted the relationships between
people and the land. Great importance may particu-
larly have pertained to those changes which occurred
rapidly, within an individual’s lifespan or within two
to three generations. For the Mesolithic of the Low
Countries, the drowning of Doggerland is a factor
to bear in mind, although much of it involves slow
long-term change (Sturt et al. 2013). However, the ar-
chaeological record from the Netherlands shows some
patterns which might relate to more abrupt environ-
mental impact in the 8.4-8.1 ka cal BP window, during
which several events occurred within a short time.
The Storegga landslide triggered a tsunami, which
had some impact on the Dutch Mesolithic coast, but
a rather restricted one compared to eastern Scotland
and England (Weninger et al. 2008). More or less
around the same time, a sea-level jump, related to the
drainage of Lake Agassiz in the Hudson Bay region,
led to a sudden - possibly even within a couple of
months - increase of the mean sea-level in the order
of 1.5 m to 2 m, on top of the structural sea-level rise
of about 2 m taking place in this time window of about
two centuries (Hijma/Cohen 2019). At exactly this
point, a hiatus seems to be present (Peeters et al.
2015) in the body of radiocarbon dates available for
the Rhine-Meuse estuary. Several sites (Dronten-N23;
Kampen-Reevediep; Hanzelijn-Hattemerbroek) further
inland also appear to show a corresponding ‘break’
in just that time window. Whether this is related to
temporary migration of forager groups is not clear,
but it is possible that these patterns echo some sort of
disruption, e.g. with regard to historical ties between
people and the land due to changing geographies,
thus affecting what hunter-gatherer groups considered
to be their ‘home’ (compare e.g. Leary 2015). After
this phase, flint technology is typically dominated by
large punched blades - a novelty - and broad trapeze-
shaped points. Something seems to have changed in
the socio-cultural sphere, possibly due to newly estab-
lished relationships with the landscape and altering
mobility patterns as well as interaction with other
groups. Changes in interaction might have involved
contacts between groups who did not have any previ-
ous relationships, or altering relationships between
groups who already were in contact.
Dwellings, mobility and contacts
The drowning of Doggerland is also said to have
caused a decrease in mobility and social change
(Waddington 2007). This hypothesis is largely ba-
sed on the absence of punched-blade technology and
the occurrence of heavily built dwelling structures
discovered on the British side of the North Sea,
e.g. at Howick, East Barns and Mount Sandel, all
pre-dating the 8.4-8.1 ka cal BP time window. In
the Netherlands three comparable structures are
known to date from Baarn-Drie Eiken, Soest-Sta-
ringlaan and Kampen-Reevediep, also pre-dating
the 8.4-8.1 ka cal BP time window (Peeters 2007;
Geerts et al. 2019). This suggests that at least for
some time before the major impacts in the North
Sea basin, sturdy dwelling structures were built by
foragers. But whether this corresponds to a more se-
dentary life remains the question, also because such
structures may have been common in earlier phases
of the Mesolithic as well, but may be victims of the
data gap in the southern North Sea area, which is
hiding large swathes of the Early and Middle Meso-
lithic landscape (Peeters /Momber 2014).
The idea that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were
exclusively living in lightly built dwelling structures
may thus be nothing more than a conceptual fal-
lacy. Heavily built dwelling structures may well also
have been common in the forager landscape, and
integrated in a mobility system covering vast regions.
Similar structures dating to the Neolithic are in con-
trast easily equated with permanency and sedentary
lifeways. However, in later Neolithic times ‘houses’
are often quite flimsy, most certainly in the Dutch
wetlands (Nobles 2016). But what do we actually
know about mobility among Neolithic groups? Why
do we find scattered distributions of artefacts we as-
sociate with the Neolithic without evidence for dwell-
ing structures? Without dismissing the possibility of
differential preservation, could it be that Neolithic
groups were in fact more mobile than we assume?
Movement, after all, is essential for the establishment
and maintenance of contacts between individuals
and groups.