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#0322
Luc Amkreutz
321
rather experimental or haphazard even (Amkreutz
2013a, 431), much in line with the flexible disposition
that occupants of a dynamic wetland environment
benefit from.
Seasonality, mobility and investment
The flexibility indicated by the subsistence mode
is mirrored in site-use, mobility and the settlement
system in general for this period and region. It is
argued (Amkreutz 2013a, 428) that while activities
were seasonally specific, the freshwater wetlands
were also always residentially inhabited (Fig. 7). This
domestic occupation continues into the Vlaardingen
culture as demonstrated by sites such as Hekelin-
gen, Vlaardingen, Hellevoetsluis and Hazerswoude.
Here there is a substantially wild component in the
economy, combined with sites that may not have
been occupied permanently, but at least seasonally
as residential sites (Amkreutz 2013a, 428). Both
these locations, but also sites such as Schipluiden
in the coastal area, are moreover characterised by
an architecture of often rebuilt houses or huts, often
constructed of alder posts with a small diameter and
short use life (Amkreutz 2013a).
It may be argued that from the Hazendonk peri-
od onwards there is increasing evidence that a signifi-
cant contribution of agriculture also changed aspects
of the settlement systems. Overall there appears to
be a trend from seasonal residential moves, com-
bined with logistical mobility in the Late Mesolithic
and Early Swiferbant period, towards permanent
settlement combined with logistical mobility from
the Hazendonk period onwards. Although in this
perspective permanent agricultural settlements such
as Schipluiden may take on a ‘fixed’ position they
do not determine the system. There remains a range
of viable options in which seasonal occupation of
semi-agrarian to non-agrarian residential settlements
can be determined until well into the Vlaardingen
culture. For instance the freshwater wetland site of
Hazendonk during the Vlaardingen phase lb forms
a good example (Louwe Kooijmans / Verbruggen
2011): there the presence of a palisade and evidence
of (semi-)permanent occupation is combined with
much terrestrial hunting (cf. Amkreutz 2013a, 400).
Mobility and seasonality remained important, per-
manent occupation was part of a range of options
and probably co-existed alongside and interacted
with other systems. There appears to be a distinct
sense of group agency that allows for the operation
of different types of settlement systems and even dif-
ferent choices within the same ecological zone (cf.
Louwe Kooijmans 2009). Even until the Vlaardingen
culture occupation there is evidence for year-round
permanency and an agricultural subsistence base,
predominantly in the coastal areas, while the fresh-
water tidal and peat marsh areas continue to offer op-
portunities for logistical mobility and non-permanent
residential sites (Amkreutz 2013a, 431). How all
these sites function in relation to one another will
be a task for future research, but to group them in a
subordinate system when the first permanent settle-
ments develop is too easy a scenario that does not sit
well with the diversity of data available.
Human-environment interaction and
integrative strategies
Our perspectives on the long process of neolithisation
may benefit from new ideas on human-environment
interaction. This demands that we overcome seeing
the landscape as an economic backdrop and instead
perceive it as an important agent in the structuring
of its inhabitants. There is a profuse amount of eth-
nographic and archaeological literature on the way
in which landscape shapes its occupants over time2 -
and it is likely that, much in line with the Doggerland
example above, the dynamics of the LRA wetland
environment will have shaped the inhabitation and
therewith the character of the communities occupy-
ing it. Reasoning from Ingold’s dwelling perspective
(Ingold 2000), there is a distinct interwoveness be-
tween people, places, and environment. Landscape
and environment have certain structural conditions,
but also have a distinct structuring agency (Barrett
2000). For the LRA wetlands the internal dynamics
of this environment would have been an important
factor and people will have dealt with these. Pro-
cesses of flooding, peat growth, waterlogging and
changing compositions of resources, routes, networks
and inhabitable places would have been part of these
dynamics. As most of these were gradual, they were
the stuff of generations, much like the drowning of
Doggerland, but at times changes were also swift,
unexpected and dramatic. Instead of perceiving these
as misfortunes or even catastrophes (Leary 2009),
it is more likely that the long-term relationship of
these communities with their wetland environment
made them something natural and expected. The
fluidity of the environment over time again promoted
2 E. g. De Coppet 1985; Ingold 2000; Harrison 2004; Van
de Noort/O’Sullivan 2006; Leary 2009.
321
rather experimental or haphazard even (Amkreutz
2013a, 431), much in line with the flexible disposition
that occupants of a dynamic wetland environment
benefit from.
Seasonality, mobility and investment
The flexibility indicated by the subsistence mode
is mirrored in site-use, mobility and the settlement
system in general for this period and region. It is
argued (Amkreutz 2013a, 428) that while activities
were seasonally specific, the freshwater wetlands
were also always residentially inhabited (Fig. 7). This
domestic occupation continues into the Vlaardingen
culture as demonstrated by sites such as Hekelin-
gen, Vlaardingen, Hellevoetsluis and Hazerswoude.
Here there is a substantially wild component in the
economy, combined with sites that may not have
been occupied permanently, but at least seasonally
as residential sites (Amkreutz 2013a, 428). Both
these locations, but also sites such as Schipluiden
in the coastal area, are moreover characterised by
an architecture of often rebuilt houses or huts, often
constructed of alder posts with a small diameter and
short use life (Amkreutz 2013a).
It may be argued that from the Hazendonk peri-
od onwards there is increasing evidence that a signifi-
cant contribution of agriculture also changed aspects
of the settlement systems. Overall there appears to
be a trend from seasonal residential moves, com-
bined with logistical mobility in the Late Mesolithic
and Early Swiferbant period, towards permanent
settlement combined with logistical mobility from
the Hazendonk period onwards. Although in this
perspective permanent agricultural settlements such
as Schipluiden may take on a ‘fixed’ position they
do not determine the system. There remains a range
of viable options in which seasonal occupation of
semi-agrarian to non-agrarian residential settlements
can be determined until well into the Vlaardingen
culture. For instance the freshwater wetland site of
Hazendonk during the Vlaardingen phase lb forms
a good example (Louwe Kooijmans / Verbruggen
2011): there the presence of a palisade and evidence
of (semi-)permanent occupation is combined with
much terrestrial hunting (cf. Amkreutz 2013a, 400).
Mobility and seasonality remained important, per-
manent occupation was part of a range of options
and probably co-existed alongside and interacted
with other systems. There appears to be a distinct
sense of group agency that allows for the operation
of different types of settlement systems and even dif-
ferent choices within the same ecological zone (cf.
Louwe Kooijmans 2009). Even until the Vlaardingen
culture occupation there is evidence for year-round
permanency and an agricultural subsistence base,
predominantly in the coastal areas, while the fresh-
water tidal and peat marsh areas continue to offer op-
portunities for logistical mobility and non-permanent
residential sites (Amkreutz 2013a, 431). How all
these sites function in relation to one another will
be a task for future research, but to group them in a
subordinate system when the first permanent settle-
ments develop is too easy a scenario that does not sit
well with the diversity of data available.
Human-environment interaction and
integrative strategies
Our perspectives on the long process of neolithisation
may benefit from new ideas on human-environment
interaction. This demands that we overcome seeing
the landscape as an economic backdrop and instead
perceive it as an important agent in the structuring
of its inhabitants. There is a profuse amount of eth-
nographic and archaeological literature on the way
in which landscape shapes its occupants over time2 -
and it is likely that, much in line with the Doggerland
example above, the dynamics of the LRA wetland
environment will have shaped the inhabitation and
therewith the character of the communities occupy-
ing it. Reasoning from Ingold’s dwelling perspective
(Ingold 2000), there is a distinct interwoveness be-
tween people, places, and environment. Landscape
and environment have certain structural conditions,
but also have a distinct structuring agency (Barrett
2000). For the LRA wetlands the internal dynamics
of this environment would have been an important
factor and people will have dealt with these. Pro-
cesses of flooding, peat growth, waterlogging and
changing compositions of resources, routes, networks
and inhabitable places would have been part of these
dynamics. As most of these were gradual, they were
the stuff of generations, much like the drowning of
Doggerland, but at times changes were also swift,
unexpected and dramatic. Instead of perceiving these
as misfortunes or even catastrophes (Leary 2009),
it is more likely that the long-term relationship of
these communities with their wetland environment
made them something natural and expected. The
fluidity of the environment over time again promoted
2 E. g. De Coppet 1985; Ingold 2000; Harrison 2004; Van
de Noort/O’Sullivan 2006; Leary 2009.