DOI chapter:
Changing Worlds – The Spread of the Neolithic Way of Life in the North
DOI chapter: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 Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0315
314
A view from Doggerland - interpreting the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the wetlands of the Rhine-Meuse delta
colonisation played an important part in the early stages
of neolithisation, particularly with respect to the LBK, it
may be assumed that the ensuing process also involved
the local Mesolithic communities (e. g. Verhart 2000).
Unfortunately the sites on the loess and acidic sandy
soils hamper analysis of their actual contribition.
For the wetlands it may be stated that the produc-
tivity of the environment perhaps limited the inclina-
tion to adopt farming. Also, in tandem with the broad
spectrum of resources a large part of this area is at
or near the groundwater table and formed a dynamic
wetland that in places was also flooded. It is question-
able to what extent early farming strategies and crops
characteristic to the valley-water-loess niche, would
have worked and thrived here, whereas the higher and
dryer places such as the dunes and ‘donken’ (elevated
pleistocene dunes in the marshlands) may have pro-
vided insufficient space for any large-scale agriculture
(Bakels 1986; Out 2008; 2009). Furthermore the loca-
tion of the LRA wetlands and their margins at least
in the early 5th millennium was situated far from the
‘agricultural frontier’. In any case the developments
that took place are based on a few datapoints that
demonstrate an overall gradual and diverse take-up
(see also Fig. 2 for a spatio-chronological background).
In general the following scenario may be sketched:
— Evidence of contacts is present from the arrival
of LBK farmers on the southern loess soils, most
likely even predating the first LBK settlements
in the Netherlands. At Hardinxveld-Polderweg
a LBK-arrowhead and southern flint was found
dating to phase 1 (5,500-5,300 calBC; cf. Lou-
we Kooijmans 2007). Rituals such as deposition
practices may have been further inspired by these
contacts, and in any case there is clear evidence
of the acquisition of what could be perceived as
prestige items or ritual objects, such as the adzes
and ‘Breitkeile’.1
— A second stage may be the indigenous production
of pottery from around 5,000 calBC. This Swift-
erbant pottery predates Ertebolle ware, and the
inspiration or incentive for its development may
have been the southern contacts with LBK farm-
ers. The brittle and fragile, low-fired vessels were
used for cooking (among others, meat, fish and
starch-rich plants: cf. Raemaekers et al. 2013) and
probably storage, and their execution is similar
to that of local basketry indicating a distinctive
indigenous style (Louwe Kooijmans 2007, 297).
1 Verhart 2000; Louwe Kooijmans 2003; 2007; Peeters
2007; Amkreutz 2013a.
It should be noted that the style and execution fit
well in the wider boreal zone of pottery producing
hunter-gatherer groups, so that this connection
should be included in its appearance as well.
— Domesticated animals first appear at Swifter-
bant sites between 4,700 and 4,500 calBC at the
sites of Brandwijk and Hardinxveld-De Bruin
(Raemaekers 1999; Louwe Kooijmans 2007; cf.
also Dusseldorp / Amkreutz 2016). As argued
by Raemaekers (2019, 94, and references) this
early date is to be questioned as it interferes
with the more widely known dates around 4,000
calBC for the British Isles and Scandinavia. The
numbers of bones from domestic cattle, sheep/
goat and pig are small, so it is difficult to es-
timate whether this early livestock represents
herded or individual animals, or perhaps meat
either as import from farming communities or as
part of (taphonomically invisible) seasonal herd-
ing activities practiced by these communities in
the coversand area (Dusseldorp / Amkreutz
2015). Over time the contribution of domestic
animals will have become more substantial, in
general it ranges in between 3 and 39% (Dussel-
dorp /Amkreutz 2015). Game continues to be
well represented also and it appears that live-
stock was added to an already existing way of
life, rather than replacing that. Herding may
have increased the reliability of food supply.
— Between 4,300 and 4,100 calBC the area wit-
nesses the introduction of cereals (Out 2009),
including grains, small-scale clearings visible in
pollen diagrams, quern stones and horticultural
fields at levee sites (Huisman / Raemaekers
2014; Raemaekers 2019). At the same time com-
munities appear to have remained residentially
mobile (Amkreutz 2013a). Previously it was
thought that the area was too wet for farming
and the locations too small (Bakels 1986), but
this appears not to have been the case, and
ethnographic data demonstrate that residen-
tial mobility can be combined with agriculture
(e. g. Gregg 1988; Politis 1996; Barlow 2006).
Again there appears to be no wholesale conver-
sion. Gathered plant foods and wild game, as
well as sites functioning in a system of residen-
tial mobility, remain important.
— Some researchers argue for a final stage to be
represented by those sites where there is con-
vincing evidence for intensive husbandry and
crop cultivation. In particular the site of Schiplu-
iden, a post-Swifterbant period Hazendonk
group site, has been interpreted as such (Louwe
A view from Doggerland - interpreting the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the wetlands of the Rhine-Meuse delta
colonisation played an important part in the early stages
of neolithisation, particularly with respect to the LBK, it
may be assumed that the ensuing process also involved
the local Mesolithic communities (e. g. Verhart 2000).
Unfortunately the sites on the loess and acidic sandy
soils hamper analysis of their actual contribition.
For the wetlands it may be stated that the produc-
tivity of the environment perhaps limited the inclina-
tion to adopt farming. Also, in tandem with the broad
spectrum of resources a large part of this area is at
or near the groundwater table and formed a dynamic
wetland that in places was also flooded. It is question-
able to what extent early farming strategies and crops
characteristic to the valley-water-loess niche, would
have worked and thrived here, whereas the higher and
dryer places such as the dunes and ‘donken’ (elevated
pleistocene dunes in the marshlands) may have pro-
vided insufficient space for any large-scale agriculture
(Bakels 1986; Out 2008; 2009). Furthermore the loca-
tion of the LRA wetlands and their margins at least
in the early 5th millennium was situated far from the
‘agricultural frontier’. In any case the developments
that took place are based on a few datapoints that
demonstrate an overall gradual and diverse take-up
(see also Fig. 2 for a spatio-chronological background).
In general the following scenario may be sketched:
— Evidence of contacts is present from the arrival
of LBK farmers on the southern loess soils, most
likely even predating the first LBK settlements
in the Netherlands. At Hardinxveld-Polderweg
a LBK-arrowhead and southern flint was found
dating to phase 1 (5,500-5,300 calBC; cf. Lou-
we Kooijmans 2007). Rituals such as deposition
practices may have been further inspired by these
contacts, and in any case there is clear evidence
of the acquisition of what could be perceived as
prestige items or ritual objects, such as the adzes
and ‘Breitkeile’.1
— A second stage may be the indigenous production
of pottery from around 5,000 calBC. This Swift-
erbant pottery predates Ertebolle ware, and the
inspiration or incentive for its development may
have been the southern contacts with LBK farm-
ers. The brittle and fragile, low-fired vessels were
used for cooking (among others, meat, fish and
starch-rich plants: cf. Raemaekers et al. 2013) and
probably storage, and their execution is similar
to that of local basketry indicating a distinctive
indigenous style (Louwe Kooijmans 2007, 297).
1 Verhart 2000; Louwe Kooijmans 2003; 2007; Peeters
2007; Amkreutz 2013a.
It should be noted that the style and execution fit
well in the wider boreal zone of pottery producing
hunter-gatherer groups, so that this connection
should be included in its appearance as well.
— Domesticated animals first appear at Swifter-
bant sites between 4,700 and 4,500 calBC at the
sites of Brandwijk and Hardinxveld-De Bruin
(Raemaekers 1999; Louwe Kooijmans 2007; cf.
also Dusseldorp / Amkreutz 2016). As argued
by Raemaekers (2019, 94, and references) this
early date is to be questioned as it interferes
with the more widely known dates around 4,000
calBC for the British Isles and Scandinavia. The
numbers of bones from domestic cattle, sheep/
goat and pig are small, so it is difficult to es-
timate whether this early livestock represents
herded or individual animals, or perhaps meat
either as import from farming communities or as
part of (taphonomically invisible) seasonal herd-
ing activities practiced by these communities in
the coversand area (Dusseldorp / Amkreutz
2015). Over time the contribution of domestic
animals will have become more substantial, in
general it ranges in between 3 and 39% (Dussel-
dorp /Amkreutz 2015). Game continues to be
well represented also and it appears that live-
stock was added to an already existing way of
life, rather than replacing that. Herding may
have increased the reliability of food supply.
— Between 4,300 and 4,100 calBC the area wit-
nesses the introduction of cereals (Out 2009),
including grains, small-scale clearings visible in
pollen diagrams, quern stones and horticultural
fields at levee sites (Huisman / Raemaekers
2014; Raemaekers 2019). At the same time com-
munities appear to have remained residentially
mobile (Amkreutz 2013a). Previously it was
thought that the area was too wet for farming
and the locations too small (Bakels 1986), but
this appears not to have been the case, and
ethnographic data demonstrate that residen-
tial mobility can be combined with agriculture
(e. g. Gregg 1988; Politis 1996; Barlow 2006).
Again there appears to be no wholesale conver-
sion. Gathered plant foods and wild game, as
well as sites functioning in a system of residen-
tial mobility, remain important.
— Some researchers argue for a final stage to be
represented by those sites where there is con-
vincing evidence for intensive husbandry and
crop cultivation. In particular the site of Schiplu-
iden, a post-Swifterbant period Hazendonk
group site, has been interpreted as such (Louwe