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#0286
Daniela Hofmann, Hans Peeters and Ann-Katrin Meyer
285
spectrum Neolithic presence may have represented
more a source of innovations than an absolute and
fearsome contrast. We therefore see a situation in
which new economic practices and worldviews are
incorporated piecemeal, and not necessarily in a linear
and geographically coherent way. Scenarios of integra-
tion come closest to describing this sort of situation,
with all the social groups involved operating within
broadly similar social structures and comparable de-
grees of mobility.
Finally, in the Ertebolle case there has been a
strong tendency to stress how these ‘complex’ foragers
in essence already fulfilled most of the prerequisites
for a ‘Neolithic’ society. Yet this may not be the best
way for understanding the dynamics involved. Erte-
bolle communities were adapted rather variably to dif-
ferent landscapes, creating different preconditions for
potential new settlers. In addition, innovations such
as pottery or exotic goods had been circulating for
centuries without causing dramatic social breakdown.
The Neolithic way of life was thus not self-evidently
superior; indeed, in many ways, Ertebolle communities
seem in a stronger position than incoming farmers.
The conundrum thus is how the Neolithic came to
be introduced in the first place. Perhaps the existing
connections to the south made it easier for migrating
farmers to gain access to Ertebolle territory, and once
there the material culture seems to provide ample
evidence for technological and economic integration
between the two population groups, together creat-
ing the archaeological entity now known as Funnel
Beaker culture. Yet in spite of the potential open-
ness especially of more southern Ertebolle groups,
this society could have remained internally divided,
with mostly people of farmer ancestry being buried
in megalithic tombs.
On closer inspection, then, all of our case studies
fragment - migration events and mobility patterns are
chronologically dynamic and regionally diverse, and
in no case was there ‘the’ answer of how interaction
worked. Several of the scenarios we outlined at the
start seem possible, or succeed each other in time, in
each of our regions. The classification system in Fig-
ure 2 is primarily meant as a ‘tool’ to think differently
about socio-cultural interactions and must hence be
seen as dynamic, with communities moving between
squares in the course of their varied interactions with
each other. In all of our examples, the application of
more fine-grained vocabulary, of ‘hybridisation’, ‘mes-
tizaje’ and so on, will most likely be possible only at
a local or at most micro-regional level. In either case,
these sorts of narratives challenge the propensity to
look for answers from the top down, using coarse pat-
terns, clear dichotomous labels, unilinear trends and
confident dividing lines on maps. Scenarios of admix-
ture and integration are difficult to conceptualise with
these starting points, as is the sense of indeterminacy
that must have prevailed at the time. People did not
know how their stories would end.
The contrast between top down and bottom up
in itself has a long tradition, but with the third sci-
ence revolution now being ushered in (Kristiansen
2014) we must be wary of simply reverting to big data
narratives working at very large scales. These narra-
tives are not in themselves wrong, but they lend them-
selves very much to just one kind of story. They are
not suitable for appreciating that our confident culture
maps and chronological divisions were neither static
within, nor impermeable. There is inevitable seepage
at the edges. To address this, we will of course have to
keep accumulating more data - better chronological
resolution, better genetic coverage, better environmen-
tal evidence. But new data will only tell us new stories
if we explicitly allow for indeterminacy in our models.
REFERENCES
Allard 2005: P. Allard, L’industrie lithique des populations
rubanees du Nord-Est de la France et de la Belgique
(Rahden 2005).
Amkreutz 2013: L. W. S. W. Amkreutz, Persistent traditions.
A long-term perspective on communities in the process
of Neolithisation in the Lower Rhine Area (5500-2500
cal BC) (Leiden 2013).
Andersen 1994/1995: S. H. Andersen, Ringkloster. Ertebolle
trappers and wild boar hunters in Eastern Jutland. A
Survey. Journal of Danish Archaeology 12,1994/1995,
13-59.
Andersen 1995: S. H. Andersen, Coastal adaption and ma-
rine exploitation in Late Mesolithic Denmark - with
special emphasis on the Limfjord region. In: A. Fischer
(ed.), Man and sea in the Mesolithic. Coastal settlement
above and below present sea level. Proceedings of the
International Symposium, Kalundborg, Denmark 1993
(Exeter 1995) 41-66.
Andersen 2001: S. H. Andersen, Oldtiden i Danmark. Jseger-
stenalderen (Hojbjerg 2001).
Andersen 2010: S.H. Andersen, The first pottery in South
Scandinavia. In: B. Vanmontfort/L. Louwe Kooijmans/
L. Armkreutz/L. Verhart (eds.), Pots, farmers and for-
agers. Pottery traditions and social interactions in the
earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area. Archaeologi-
cal Studies Leiden University 20 (Leiden 2010) 167-176.
Andersen 2013: S.H. Andersen, Tybrind Vig. Submerged
Mesolithic Settlements in Denmark (Gylling 2013).
285
spectrum Neolithic presence may have represented
more a source of innovations than an absolute and
fearsome contrast. We therefore see a situation in
which new economic practices and worldviews are
incorporated piecemeal, and not necessarily in a linear
and geographically coherent way. Scenarios of integra-
tion come closest to describing this sort of situation,
with all the social groups involved operating within
broadly similar social structures and comparable de-
grees of mobility.
Finally, in the Ertebolle case there has been a
strong tendency to stress how these ‘complex’ foragers
in essence already fulfilled most of the prerequisites
for a ‘Neolithic’ society. Yet this may not be the best
way for understanding the dynamics involved. Erte-
bolle communities were adapted rather variably to dif-
ferent landscapes, creating different preconditions for
potential new settlers. In addition, innovations such
as pottery or exotic goods had been circulating for
centuries without causing dramatic social breakdown.
The Neolithic way of life was thus not self-evidently
superior; indeed, in many ways, Ertebolle communities
seem in a stronger position than incoming farmers.
The conundrum thus is how the Neolithic came to
be introduced in the first place. Perhaps the existing
connections to the south made it easier for migrating
farmers to gain access to Ertebolle territory, and once
there the material culture seems to provide ample
evidence for technological and economic integration
between the two population groups, together creat-
ing the archaeological entity now known as Funnel
Beaker culture. Yet in spite of the potential open-
ness especially of more southern Ertebolle groups,
this society could have remained internally divided,
with mostly people of farmer ancestry being buried
in megalithic tombs.
On closer inspection, then, all of our case studies
fragment - migration events and mobility patterns are
chronologically dynamic and regionally diverse, and
in no case was there ‘the’ answer of how interaction
worked. Several of the scenarios we outlined at the
start seem possible, or succeed each other in time, in
each of our regions. The classification system in Fig-
ure 2 is primarily meant as a ‘tool’ to think differently
about socio-cultural interactions and must hence be
seen as dynamic, with communities moving between
squares in the course of their varied interactions with
each other. In all of our examples, the application of
more fine-grained vocabulary, of ‘hybridisation’, ‘mes-
tizaje’ and so on, will most likely be possible only at
a local or at most micro-regional level. In either case,
these sorts of narratives challenge the propensity to
look for answers from the top down, using coarse pat-
terns, clear dichotomous labels, unilinear trends and
confident dividing lines on maps. Scenarios of admix-
ture and integration are difficult to conceptualise with
these starting points, as is the sense of indeterminacy
that must have prevailed at the time. People did not
know how their stories would end.
The contrast between top down and bottom up
in itself has a long tradition, but with the third sci-
ence revolution now being ushered in (Kristiansen
2014) we must be wary of simply reverting to big data
narratives working at very large scales. These narra-
tives are not in themselves wrong, but they lend them-
selves very much to just one kind of story. They are
not suitable for appreciating that our confident culture
maps and chronological divisions were neither static
within, nor impermeable. There is inevitable seepage
at the edges. To address this, we will of course have to
keep accumulating more data - better chronological
resolution, better genetic coverage, better environmen-
tal evidence. But new data will only tell us new stories
if we explicitly allow for indeterminacy in our models.
REFERENCES
Allard 2005: P. Allard, L’industrie lithique des populations
rubanees du Nord-Est de la France et de la Belgique
(Rahden 2005).
Amkreutz 2013: L. W. S. W. Amkreutz, Persistent traditions.
A long-term perspective on communities in the process
of Neolithisation in the Lower Rhine Area (5500-2500
cal BC) (Leiden 2013).
Andersen 1994/1995: S. H. Andersen, Ringkloster. Ertebolle
trappers and wild boar hunters in Eastern Jutland. A
Survey. Journal of Danish Archaeology 12,1994/1995,
13-59.
Andersen 1995: S. H. Andersen, Coastal adaption and ma-
rine exploitation in Late Mesolithic Denmark - with
special emphasis on the Limfjord region. In: A. Fischer
(ed.), Man and sea in the Mesolithic. Coastal settlement
above and below present sea level. Proceedings of the
International Symposium, Kalundborg, Denmark 1993
(Exeter 1995) 41-66.
Andersen 2001: S. H. Andersen, Oldtiden i Danmark. Jseger-
stenalderen (Hojbjerg 2001).
Andersen 2010: S.H. Andersen, The first pottery in South
Scandinavia. In: B. Vanmontfort/L. Louwe Kooijmans/
L. Armkreutz/L. Verhart (eds.), Pots, farmers and for-
agers. Pottery traditions and social interactions in the
earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area. Archaeologi-
cal Studies Leiden University 20 (Leiden 2010) 167-176.
Andersen 2013: S.H. Andersen, Tybrind Vig. Submerged
Mesolithic Settlements in Denmark (Gylling 2013).