DOI Kapitel:
Changing Worlds – The Spread of the Neolithic Way of Life in the North
DOI Kapitel:Amkreutz, Luc: A view from Doggerland – interpreting the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the wetlands of the Rhine-Meuse delta (5,500 – 2,500 calBC)
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0313
312
A view from Doggerland - interpreting the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the wetlands of the Rhine-Meuse delta
Fig. 1 Abstract geological map of the Lower Rhine Area. Indicated are LBK settlement areas (open rectangles) and some of the sites that
feature in the text, notably 10 Hardinxveld, 11 Hazendonk, 13 Hekelingen, 14 Vlaardingen, 15 Schipluiden, 16 Ypenburg, 21 Swifterbant
(adapted from Raemaekers 1999; Dusseldorp / Amkreutz 2015, fig. 1).
longer chronologies (cf. Raemaekers 2003, 744-745;
Amkreutz 2013a). At the core of the debate is the
question when agriculture came to dominate the sub-
sistence economy, but also to what extent this way of
life became part of the worldview of these communi-
ties (Dusseldorp / Amkreutz 2020). Clearly this is
a dicussion where both quantitative and qualitative
arguments are involved that to some extent appear
irreconcilable. This contribution hopes to demon-
strate that a different perspective and a wider scope
altogether may be more fruitful.
Some aspects of the theoretical debate
on agriculture and the Neolithic
The scientific debate regarding the process of neolithisa-
tion has for a long time been coloured by a search for
a defining turning point. At what moments are enough
elements of the ‘Neolithic package’ (e. g. Thomas 1999)
present to define communities as Neolithic? Already
in 1984 Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy (Zvelebil / Row-
ley-Conwy 1984; see also Zvelebil / Lillie 2000) in
their ‘availability model’ placed the emphasis distinctly
A view from Doggerland - interpreting the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the wetlands of the Rhine-Meuse delta
Fig. 1 Abstract geological map of the Lower Rhine Area. Indicated are LBK settlement areas (open rectangles) and some of the sites that
feature in the text, notably 10 Hardinxveld, 11 Hazendonk, 13 Hekelingen, 14 Vlaardingen, 15 Schipluiden, 16 Ypenburg, 21 Swifterbant
(adapted from Raemaekers 1999; Dusseldorp / Amkreutz 2015, fig. 1).
longer chronologies (cf. Raemaekers 2003, 744-745;
Amkreutz 2013a). At the core of the debate is the
question when agriculture came to dominate the sub-
sistence economy, but also to what extent this way of
life became part of the worldview of these communi-
ties (Dusseldorp / Amkreutz 2020). Clearly this is
a dicussion where both quantitative and qualitative
arguments are involved that to some extent appear
irreconcilable. This contribution hopes to demon-
strate that a different perspective and a wider scope
altogether may be more fruitful.
Some aspects of the theoretical debate
on agriculture and the Neolithic
The scientific debate regarding the process of neolithisa-
tion has for a long time been coloured by a search for
a defining turning point. At what moments are enough
elements of the ‘Neolithic package’ (e. g. Thomas 1999)
present to define communities as Neolithic? Already
in 1984 Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy (Zvelebil / Row-
ley-Conwy 1984; see also Zvelebil / Lillie 2000) in
their ‘availability model’ placed the emphasis distinctly