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#0278
Daniela Hofmann, Hans Peeters and Ann-Katrin Meyer
277
Fig. 10 Flint artefacts from the early
Swifterbant context of the site Hoge
Vaart-A27. These artefacts stand out
from the flint assemblage counting
over 30,000 pieces >1 cm.
(a, b) Large flakes of banded Falster
flint. Falster flint is otherwise lacking in
the assemblage, and the cortex shows
weathering which is untypical for oc-
currences in Saalian till deposits in the
Netherlands.
(c) Medial part of an exceptionally reg-
ular and long blade (remaining length
48 mm) made out of fine-grained Scan-
dinavian flint. The blade derives from a
highly controlled process focussed on
the production of long, regular blades
and use is made of high-quality flint. In
the Netherlands there exists no evi-
dence for the production of such long
blades, and this is the only one found in
the entire assemblage.
(d) Broken blade (remaining length
50 mm) of banded Scandinavian flint.
Although this type of flint occurs more
often in the assemblage, no further
pieces have been found showing the
distict transparent band.
Typically, the occurrence of isolated ‘Neolithic
artefacts’ at ‘Mesolithic sites’ - notably at Hardinxveld-
Giessendam De Bruin, Swifterbant, and a range of
Mesolithic sites with containing incidental ‘Michels-
berg items’ - is easily interpreted in terms of contact
between Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers (Ver-
hart 2000; Louwe Kooijmans 2001). Isolated ‘Meso-
lithic artefacts’ at ‘Neolithic sites’, however, are mostly
interpreted as background noise, merely representing
scraps of earlier occupations. Why could such finds,
both on Mesolithic and Neolithic sites (Fig. 10), not
echo established social relationships, which might
very well have developed variable forms of cultural
coexistence?
Obviously, contacts between foragers and farmers
did exist in the Low Countries, as elsewhere, but just
how this led to new socio-cultural structures is an issue
that needs to be approached from a social perspective.
Hunter-gatherers and early farmers were part of a
world more integrated than we (still) tend to assume.
People with (partly) different lifeways knew each oth-
er, and maintained social relationships in one way or
another. The nature of these relationships, and the
attitudes and interactions involved, will have gradually
changed, potentially leading to ‘social flow’ and per-
mitted experimenting with, and acceptance or rejec-
tion of novelties in both directions. Amkreutz (2013)
has expressed this process in a model of ‘attunement’,
277
Fig. 10 Flint artefacts from the early
Swifterbant context of the site Hoge
Vaart-A27. These artefacts stand out
from the flint assemblage counting
over 30,000 pieces >1 cm.
(a, b) Large flakes of banded Falster
flint. Falster flint is otherwise lacking in
the assemblage, and the cortex shows
weathering which is untypical for oc-
currences in Saalian till deposits in the
Netherlands.
(c) Medial part of an exceptionally reg-
ular and long blade (remaining length
48 mm) made out of fine-grained Scan-
dinavian flint. The blade derives from a
highly controlled process focussed on
the production of long, regular blades
and use is made of high-quality flint. In
the Netherlands there exists no evi-
dence for the production of such long
blades, and this is the only one found in
the entire assemblage.
(d) Broken blade (remaining length
50 mm) of banded Scandinavian flint.
Although this type of flint occurs more
often in the assemblage, no further
pieces have been found showing the
distict transparent band.
Typically, the occurrence of isolated ‘Neolithic
artefacts’ at ‘Mesolithic sites’ - notably at Hardinxveld-
Giessendam De Bruin, Swifterbant, and a range of
Mesolithic sites with containing incidental ‘Michels-
berg items’ - is easily interpreted in terms of contact
between Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers (Ver-
hart 2000; Louwe Kooijmans 2001). Isolated ‘Meso-
lithic artefacts’ at ‘Neolithic sites’, however, are mostly
interpreted as background noise, merely representing
scraps of earlier occupations. Why could such finds,
both on Mesolithic and Neolithic sites (Fig. 10), not
echo established social relationships, which might
very well have developed variable forms of cultural
coexistence?
Obviously, contacts between foragers and farmers
did exist in the Low Countries, as elsewhere, but just
how this led to new socio-cultural structures is an issue
that needs to be approached from a social perspective.
Hunter-gatherers and early farmers were part of a
world more integrated than we (still) tend to assume.
People with (partly) different lifeways knew each oth-
er, and maintained social relationships in one way or
another. The nature of these relationships, and the
attitudes and interactions involved, will have gradually
changed, potentially leading to ‘social flow’ and per-
mitted experimenting with, and acceptance or rejec-
tion of novelties in both directions. Amkreutz (2013)
has expressed this process in a model of ‘attunement’,