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#0316
Luc Amkreutz
315
Kooijmans 2007). Such a site is considered to
be an endpoint in the process of neolithisation.
Culturally (Figs. 2-3) the transition to an agricultural
existence can be envisaged as follows according to
the availability scheme, with an availability phase
that covers the Late Mesolithic and early part of the
Swifterbant culture, a long substitution phase within
the Swifterbant culture and a distinct consolidation
around the time of the Hazendonk group or subse-
quent Vlaardingen culture.
An earlier consolidation?
Although it is clear that dividing the process of
neolithisation into different phases may help our
understanding, it also creates a simplified version of
what happened. On the one hand there are distinct
chronological problems due to radiocarbon calibra-
tion plateaus and taphonomic biases. Raemaekers
(2003; 2019) indeed argued that the transgression
of the coastal area in the 5th millennium may have
obscured a whole group of Swifterbant sites that
might have been much more agricultural in nature
than the sites further inland would indicate. A con-
solidation phase with sites where domesticates and
cultigens would make up more than 50 % would then
have arrived even sooner. The main point of this
argument, however, is the fact that for the coastal
area the domestic faunal attribution and the evidence
for sedentism and cultivation during the Hazendonk
period indicate that the consolidation phase may
have to be placed in or even before that period. This
would imply that previous research has missed fin-
ding a preceding stage, which, in turn, could be well
imagined to have been in the coastal area. The fact
that faunal assemblages differ more with respect to
landscape (coastal, freshwater wetland, salt marsh)
than over time is seen as substantiating this perspec-
tive (Raemaekers 2003, 744-746).
Recently Raemaekers (2019, 99-100) also
added another, more social dimension to this dis-
cussion with the anthropological notion of taboo.
Arguing that the transition to farming is in essence
a subsistence change, it is reasoned that there are
indications for avoidance and incorporation. For
instance bone tools were made both from wild and
domesticated animal bones at the S3 Swifterbant
site, while depositions of cattle horns from 4,000
calBC onwards further indicate a change in percep-
tion towards livestock contrasting with the period
before. Also around this time a new type of pottery
with different temper, wall thickness and and quality
was developed that appears to be connected to the
growing and consumption of cereals. This correlat-
ing set of changes would then make the centuries
around 4,000 calBC a crucial time during which
domesticates and cultigens had taken centre stage.
It is argued that this more social perspective centred
on notions of taboo provides a different and perhaps
more suitable perspective on neolithisation compared
to the mechanical availability model (Raemaekers
2019, 100). Also it would align the developments in
the ‘Swifterbant-world’ more with the transition in
Great Britain and southern Scandinavia (Raemae-
kers 2019, 100).
Criticism of the availability model
It is interesting that it is difficult to pinpoint the
‘arrival of the Neolithic’ for the LRA-wetlands. The
question is whether the specific situation here, both
regarding landscape and indigenous communities, is
suited for the application of something as abstract as
an availability model (Fig. 3). Clearly, the model was
intended as such, as a means of mapping a period
of transition, but there are some serious flaws that
question whether its variables are suitable for this
task. I have discussed these earlier (cf. Amkreutz
2013a, 355-357; see also Dusseldorp / Amkreutz
2020) and briefly summarise them here again.
— The original model argues there can only be a
short substitution phase due to man power and
scheduling issues. The situation in the LRA in-
dicates that this phase may have been distinctly
longer.
— The model is distinctly economic and quantita-
tive, focusing only on faunal composition. Al-
though it is clear that that this has been done
because it is one of the few comparable vari-
ables, it does not do justice to the potential set of
changes the neolithisation encompasses. Similar
to how hunter-gatherers have been framed in
ecological terms this demeans the first farmers
to operatives in an essentially economic and ho-
mogenous framework. Change or lack of change
in other areas is not included.
— The model lacks the resolution to deal with spa-
tio-temporal variability, whereas the process of
neolithisation has correctly been described as a
mosaic (e.g. Tringham 2000, 21). It is therefore
only suited to study the process across large
regions and timeframes, which begs the ques-
tion whether that is the level at which it should
315
Kooijmans 2007). Such a site is considered to
be an endpoint in the process of neolithisation.
Culturally (Figs. 2-3) the transition to an agricultural
existence can be envisaged as follows according to
the availability scheme, with an availability phase
that covers the Late Mesolithic and early part of the
Swifterbant culture, a long substitution phase within
the Swifterbant culture and a distinct consolidation
around the time of the Hazendonk group or subse-
quent Vlaardingen culture.
An earlier consolidation?
Although it is clear that dividing the process of
neolithisation into different phases may help our
understanding, it also creates a simplified version of
what happened. On the one hand there are distinct
chronological problems due to radiocarbon calibra-
tion plateaus and taphonomic biases. Raemaekers
(2003; 2019) indeed argued that the transgression
of the coastal area in the 5th millennium may have
obscured a whole group of Swifterbant sites that
might have been much more agricultural in nature
than the sites further inland would indicate. A con-
solidation phase with sites where domesticates and
cultigens would make up more than 50 % would then
have arrived even sooner. The main point of this
argument, however, is the fact that for the coastal
area the domestic faunal attribution and the evidence
for sedentism and cultivation during the Hazendonk
period indicate that the consolidation phase may
have to be placed in or even before that period. This
would imply that previous research has missed fin-
ding a preceding stage, which, in turn, could be well
imagined to have been in the coastal area. The fact
that faunal assemblages differ more with respect to
landscape (coastal, freshwater wetland, salt marsh)
than over time is seen as substantiating this perspec-
tive (Raemaekers 2003, 744-746).
Recently Raemaekers (2019, 99-100) also
added another, more social dimension to this dis-
cussion with the anthropological notion of taboo.
Arguing that the transition to farming is in essence
a subsistence change, it is reasoned that there are
indications for avoidance and incorporation. For
instance bone tools were made both from wild and
domesticated animal bones at the S3 Swifterbant
site, while depositions of cattle horns from 4,000
calBC onwards further indicate a change in percep-
tion towards livestock contrasting with the period
before. Also around this time a new type of pottery
with different temper, wall thickness and and quality
was developed that appears to be connected to the
growing and consumption of cereals. This correlat-
ing set of changes would then make the centuries
around 4,000 calBC a crucial time during which
domesticates and cultigens had taken centre stage.
It is argued that this more social perspective centred
on notions of taboo provides a different and perhaps
more suitable perspective on neolithisation compared
to the mechanical availability model (Raemaekers
2019, 100). Also it would align the developments in
the ‘Swifterbant-world’ more with the transition in
Great Britain and southern Scandinavia (Raemae-
kers 2019, 100).
Criticism of the availability model
It is interesting that it is difficult to pinpoint the
‘arrival of the Neolithic’ for the LRA-wetlands. The
question is whether the specific situation here, both
regarding landscape and indigenous communities, is
suited for the application of something as abstract as
an availability model (Fig. 3). Clearly, the model was
intended as such, as a means of mapping a period
of transition, but there are some serious flaws that
question whether its variables are suitable for this
task. I have discussed these earlier (cf. Amkreutz
2013a, 355-357; see also Dusseldorp / Amkreutz
2020) and briefly summarise them here again.
— The original model argues there can only be a
short substitution phase due to man power and
scheduling issues. The situation in the LRA in-
dicates that this phase may have been distinctly
longer.
— The model is distinctly economic and quantita-
tive, focusing only on faunal composition. Al-
though it is clear that that this has been done
because it is one of the few comparable vari-
ables, it does not do justice to the potential set of
changes the neolithisation encompasses. Similar
to how hunter-gatherers have been framed in
ecological terms this demeans the first farmers
to operatives in an essentially economic and ho-
mogenous framework. Change or lack of change
in other areas is not included.
— The model lacks the resolution to deal with spa-
tio-temporal variability, whereas the process of
neolithisation has correctly been described as a
mosaic (e.g. Tringham 2000, 21). It is therefore
only suited to study the process across large
regions and timeframes, which begs the ques-
tion whether that is the level at which it should