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#0282
Daniela Hofmann, Hans Peeters and Ann-Katrin Meyer
281
Fig. 12 This map depicts all known (and suspected) sites and single finds of Ertebolle character in Schleswig-Holstein (data provided by
the Archaeological Museum of Schleswig-Holstein/Schloss Gottorf). The density of find spots in eastern Schleswig-Holstein is in stark
contrast to the western regions, from which there is only little evidence for a Late Mesolithic occupation. Additionally, there are surpris-
ingly many sites in the eastern interior and hinterland where finds cluster along the (former) lake and river systems.
mainly the small and short-lived functional camps an-
ticipated by Andersen (1994/1995). Examples for a
medium-intensity and even repeated use are provided
by the sites of Schlamersdorf LA 05 (Meyer 2017),
Schlamersdorf LA 15 (Meyer in prep.), Kayhude LA
08 (Clausen 2007; Meyer in prep.) and the Hamburg-
Boberg complex (Thielen 2017). These sites do not
reach the extent of the coastal ones, but they also have
only little in common with the small flint scatters of
the Jutland coastal and interior functional camps.
The evidence in Schleswig-Holstein suggests a
settlement pattern in which small groups of people
moved frequently along the lakes, and inhabited their
shores for rather lengthy periods of time to make wide
use of the available resources. As yet, it remains un-
clear if they travelled between the coast and the lakes
(in short-distance cases this seems very likely), or re-
tained an inland settlement cycle among the eastern
lakes, or between those and the interior further south.
It has to be taken into account that, unlike the situa-
tion in Denmark, the German coast was not always
easily reached. In general, the main problem seems
to be with the term ‘permanent settlement’ in itself.
One has to ask how long even rich and stable coast-
al resources can actually support a large Mesolithic
group before they become depleted.8 If we take the
existence of possible social territories into consider-
ation as well, it is likely that groups occupying the
southern ‘borderlands’ spent most or all of their time
inland. Here, a certain ‘permanent mobility’ is implied,
rather than fixed semi-sedentary habitation areas, also
given the nature of inland resources which are usually
considered less rich or stable than coastal resources
(e.g. Bailey/Milner 2002/2003). In this respect the
extensive research on complex hunter-gatherers and
8 These considerations naturally depend on group size. Unfor-
tunately, information on this remains vague - Andersen (2001,
69-70) proposes a total number of 5,000 individuals for Denmark
during the Final Mesolithic (with no specification for either the
Early or Late Ertebolle period), while assuming increasing group
sizes in the Late Ertebolle period (Andersen 1995, 48). Kars-
ten / Knarrstrom (2003,212) propose a population density of 0.2
individuals per km2 in Final Mesolithic southern Sweden. The
correlation between population growth rates and depletion of re-
sources is an important factor when considering how long a sing-
le location can support a group of varying size.
281
Fig. 12 This map depicts all known (and suspected) sites and single finds of Ertebolle character in Schleswig-Holstein (data provided by
the Archaeological Museum of Schleswig-Holstein/Schloss Gottorf). The density of find spots in eastern Schleswig-Holstein is in stark
contrast to the western regions, from which there is only little evidence for a Late Mesolithic occupation. Additionally, there are surpris-
ingly many sites in the eastern interior and hinterland where finds cluster along the (former) lake and river systems.
mainly the small and short-lived functional camps an-
ticipated by Andersen (1994/1995). Examples for a
medium-intensity and even repeated use are provided
by the sites of Schlamersdorf LA 05 (Meyer 2017),
Schlamersdorf LA 15 (Meyer in prep.), Kayhude LA
08 (Clausen 2007; Meyer in prep.) and the Hamburg-
Boberg complex (Thielen 2017). These sites do not
reach the extent of the coastal ones, but they also have
only little in common with the small flint scatters of
the Jutland coastal and interior functional camps.
The evidence in Schleswig-Holstein suggests a
settlement pattern in which small groups of people
moved frequently along the lakes, and inhabited their
shores for rather lengthy periods of time to make wide
use of the available resources. As yet, it remains un-
clear if they travelled between the coast and the lakes
(in short-distance cases this seems very likely), or re-
tained an inland settlement cycle among the eastern
lakes, or between those and the interior further south.
It has to be taken into account that, unlike the situa-
tion in Denmark, the German coast was not always
easily reached. In general, the main problem seems
to be with the term ‘permanent settlement’ in itself.
One has to ask how long even rich and stable coast-
al resources can actually support a large Mesolithic
group before they become depleted.8 If we take the
existence of possible social territories into consider-
ation as well, it is likely that groups occupying the
southern ‘borderlands’ spent most or all of their time
inland. Here, a certain ‘permanent mobility’ is implied,
rather than fixed semi-sedentary habitation areas, also
given the nature of inland resources which are usually
considered less rich or stable than coastal resources
(e.g. Bailey/Milner 2002/2003). In this respect the
extensive research on complex hunter-gatherers and
8 These considerations naturally depend on group size. Unfor-
tunately, information on this remains vague - Andersen (2001,
69-70) proposes a total number of 5,000 individuals for Denmark
during the Final Mesolithic (with no specification for either the
Early or Late Ertebolle period), while assuming increasing group
sizes in the Late Ertebolle period (Andersen 1995, 48). Kars-
ten / Knarrstrom (2003,212) propose a population density of 0.2
individuals per km2 in Final Mesolithic southern Sweden. The
correlation between population growth rates and depletion of re-
sources is an important factor when considering how long a sing-
le location can support a group of varying size.