DOI chapter:
Changing Worlds – The Spread of the Neolithic Way of Life in the North
DOI chapter:Dörfler, Walter: A biological view on neolithisation
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0345
344
A biological view on neolithisation
Fig. 1 Model for the temporal development of the horizon of possibilities, which determines the range of possible subsistence strategies
(variance).
their reproductive fitness. The term ‘survival of the
fittest’ is not understood here as a fight for survival
as interpreted by Social Darwinism. In modern so-
ciobiology it is understood as the selection advan-
tage for the best adapted (Voland 2009). Fitness
is not physical fitness in this sense, but describes
the reproductive success of one’s own and closely
related genes. This implies that population growth is
a natural process that is also a driving force behind
economic, social and cultural decisions. God’s call
‘Be fruitful and multiply’ was not only meant for sea
animals and birds, but also for humans (Gen 1:28).
All biological systems follow this premise, mostly
until population growth is ended by resource scarcity
or ‘repression by the end product’. The diagram in
Figure 1 shows such a model, which displays the wide
range of possible subsistence strategies (variance),
but which have been ‘checked’ and ‘put in the limits’
in the course of history by external or internal fac-
tors (selection). Survival is based on the fulfillment
of elementary basic needs, which can be outlined
by the terms nutrition, clothing, housing and social
interaction. The fulfillment of these basic needs sets
the biological-physical frame of human existence,
they form the so-called biological imperative. Within
this framework, which Harari (2013) calls ‘Horizon
of Opportunities’, there is a multitude of economic,
social and mystical-religious manifestations, which
together form the culture of a population or group.
As long as these forms do not go beyond the biologi-
cal-physical framework, they can develop further, i. e.
develop variance in the Darwinian sense. Internal
and external processes can shift this frame. For ex-
ample, climate change can force a change in economy
or migration. The framework can be expanded by
climate improvements (usually warmer and drier
conditions in northern Germany) or narrowed by
climate deterioration (usually cooler and wetter).
Extreme events, such as large volcanic eruptions,
earthquakes, storms or heavy rain and high tides can
lead to bottleneck situations. These have a direct im-
pact on the population in the form of crop failures,
famines or epidemics, but they also have a selective ef-
fect on economic, social or cultural strategies that are
adaptive or maladaptive for this situation. Accordingly,
populations or groups as carriers of such strategies
are more or less resilient or vulnerable to changes
in the external framework. Innovative strategies may
have been particularly successful but also risky. On the
other side of the pendulum, conservative behaviour
may have prevented adaptation and thus increased
vulnerability. Through contacts between groups, com-
binations and hybridisations of different subsistence
strategies will always have occurred.
The exciting question of which factors have li-
mited the growth of the species Homo sapiens in the
A biological view on neolithisation
Fig. 1 Model for the temporal development of the horizon of possibilities, which determines the range of possible subsistence strategies
(variance).
their reproductive fitness. The term ‘survival of the
fittest’ is not understood here as a fight for survival
as interpreted by Social Darwinism. In modern so-
ciobiology it is understood as the selection advan-
tage for the best adapted (Voland 2009). Fitness
is not physical fitness in this sense, but describes
the reproductive success of one’s own and closely
related genes. This implies that population growth is
a natural process that is also a driving force behind
economic, social and cultural decisions. God’s call
‘Be fruitful and multiply’ was not only meant for sea
animals and birds, but also for humans (Gen 1:28).
All biological systems follow this premise, mostly
until population growth is ended by resource scarcity
or ‘repression by the end product’. The diagram in
Figure 1 shows such a model, which displays the wide
range of possible subsistence strategies (variance),
but which have been ‘checked’ and ‘put in the limits’
in the course of history by external or internal fac-
tors (selection). Survival is based on the fulfillment
of elementary basic needs, which can be outlined
by the terms nutrition, clothing, housing and social
interaction. The fulfillment of these basic needs sets
the biological-physical frame of human existence,
they form the so-called biological imperative. Within
this framework, which Harari (2013) calls ‘Horizon
of Opportunities’, there is a multitude of economic,
social and mystical-religious manifestations, which
together form the culture of a population or group.
As long as these forms do not go beyond the biologi-
cal-physical framework, they can develop further, i. e.
develop variance in the Darwinian sense. Internal
and external processes can shift this frame. For ex-
ample, climate change can force a change in economy
or migration. The framework can be expanded by
climate improvements (usually warmer and drier
conditions in northern Germany) or narrowed by
climate deterioration (usually cooler and wetter).
Extreme events, such as large volcanic eruptions,
earthquakes, storms or heavy rain and high tides can
lead to bottleneck situations. These have a direct im-
pact on the population in the form of crop failures,
famines or epidemics, but they also have a selective ef-
fect on economic, social or cultural strategies that are
adaptive or maladaptive for this situation. Accordingly,
populations or groups as carriers of such strategies
are more or less resilient or vulnerable to changes
in the external framework. Innovative strategies may
have been particularly successful but also risky. On the
other side of the pendulum, conservative behaviour
may have prevented adaptation and thus increased
vulnerability. Through contacts between groups, com-
binations and hybridisations of different subsistence
strategies will always have occurred.
The exciting question of which factors have li-
mited the growth of the species Homo sapiens in the