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#0346
Walter Dorfler
345
various phases of human history remains unanswe-
red. On the one hand, there are health aspects, such
as child mortality or childbed fever, the occurrence
of epidemics or the high risk of infection from simple
injuries that limit the growth of population. On the
other hand, it is limited by the carrying capacity of a
landscape and by technological aspects, such as those
relating to food production, storage, food prepara-
tion, or tools and devices that make it more efficient
to meet basic needs (factor ‘time’, see Kerig 2010).
But social aspects such as specific marriage rules or
the uneven distribution of resources can also have a
regulating effect on population growth. In addition,
the reliability of the climate comes into play as an
external factor: Extreme weather or climate change
pose threats, but can also offer opportunities. Soil
depletion or the consequences of other natural haz-
ards can also have a negative impact. Most of the
time, these different factors cannot be completely
separated, e.g. the impact of epidemics or famines
very much depends on the general state of health and
the distribution of resources within a population.
Extreme weather events can also trigger famines
and in turn lead to epidemics. The following model
calculations will focus on the role of food supply in
the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic.
Game density as an aspect of
Mesolithic subsistence
Mesolithic life was very well adapted to the environ-
ment. However, the resources available to hunting,
gathering and fishing communities were not unlimited.
The greatest variety of these resources existed at the
transition areas between different ecotopes. At the
coast, at river banks and lakesides, access to both
aquatic and terrestrial sources was provided. Accord-
ingly, Mesolithic sites are found mostly in river valleys
and at lake and sea shores (Hinz 2018). In addition
to mineral raw materials (e.g. flint, amber or pyrite),
resources are primarily understood as biogenic raw
materials in the form of wood, leaves or fruits as well
as meat, fat, feathers, fur, etc. Quantitatively, most of
the biomass in the inland is bound in the wood, the
roots and the leaves of the trees. These are difficult to
use for many terrestrial animals and are also difficult
to reach. Since the sunlight is filtered by the tree cover,
the herb and shrub layer does not form high amounts
of biomass. However, this varies considerably depend-
ing on the plant society (see below). Inland, clearings
and river and lake shores were attractive locations for
game and thus also for hunters (Gross et al. 2019).
In such environments there is a better overview and
more understorey as well. For hunters there are cor-
respondingly better chances of encountering game.
The limited amount of plant biomass available
in a closed forest implies a low carrying capacity for
wild animals and a low game population density ac-
cordingly, as Iversen stated already in 1949 (Iversen
1949). This applies particularly to large herbivores,
such as red deer, roe deer, aurochs, bison or elk, and
the omnivorous wild boar. Realistic estimates for natu-
ral or near-natural values for the population density
of those animals still living in our modern forests are
almost impossible to get. Today’s game density values
are artificially regulated and are based on a balance
of interests between forestry, agriculture and hunting.
Game is fed in winter, salt licks are offered to ensure
mineral supply, and it can provide itself with addi-
tional food on fields, meadows and pastures during
the growing season. The forestry and hunting literature
differentiate between economically viable and bioti-
cally viable game density (Ueckermann 1960; 1986).
The biotically viable game density is not exceeded as
long as the body and antler quality of the game does
not deteriorate and as long as no epidemic diseases
occur - regardless of the condition of the forest. In
terms of economic viability, it must be possible to ‘eco-
nomically ward off game damage that occurs with the
tools currently available’ (Ueckermann 1960, transla-
tion by W D.). The recommended values can also be
seen as a compromise between hunting and forestry.
The available aids include, for example, fencing as a
protection for the rejuvenation of the tree population.
The values for the economically viable game density
vary, depending on the quality of the soil and the
amount of undergrowth in the forest.
Shrub and grass phase (30 a) Pioneer phase I (50 a)
Pioneer phase II (150 a) ■ Thickening phase (30 a)
■ Final-forest phase (300 a)
Fig. 2 Regeneration cycle (Mosaic-cycle) of a central European
woodland (after Remmert 1991).
345
various phases of human history remains unanswe-
red. On the one hand, there are health aspects, such
as child mortality or childbed fever, the occurrence
of epidemics or the high risk of infection from simple
injuries that limit the growth of population. On the
other hand, it is limited by the carrying capacity of a
landscape and by technological aspects, such as those
relating to food production, storage, food prepara-
tion, or tools and devices that make it more efficient
to meet basic needs (factor ‘time’, see Kerig 2010).
But social aspects such as specific marriage rules or
the uneven distribution of resources can also have a
regulating effect on population growth. In addition,
the reliability of the climate comes into play as an
external factor: Extreme weather or climate change
pose threats, but can also offer opportunities. Soil
depletion or the consequences of other natural haz-
ards can also have a negative impact. Most of the
time, these different factors cannot be completely
separated, e.g. the impact of epidemics or famines
very much depends on the general state of health and
the distribution of resources within a population.
Extreme weather events can also trigger famines
and in turn lead to epidemics. The following model
calculations will focus on the role of food supply in
the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic.
Game density as an aspect of
Mesolithic subsistence
Mesolithic life was very well adapted to the environ-
ment. However, the resources available to hunting,
gathering and fishing communities were not unlimited.
The greatest variety of these resources existed at the
transition areas between different ecotopes. At the
coast, at river banks and lakesides, access to both
aquatic and terrestrial sources was provided. Accord-
ingly, Mesolithic sites are found mostly in river valleys
and at lake and sea shores (Hinz 2018). In addition
to mineral raw materials (e.g. flint, amber or pyrite),
resources are primarily understood as biogenic raw
materials in the form of wood, leaves or fruits as well
as meat, fat, feathers, fur, etc. Quantitatively, most of
the biomass in the inland is bound in the wood, the
roots and the leaves of the trees. These are difficult to
use for many terrestrial animals and are also difficult
to reach. Since the sunlight is filtered by the tree cover,
the herb and shrub layer does not form high amounts
of biomass. However, this varies considerably depend-
ing on the plant society (see below). Inland, clearings
and river and lake shores were attractive locations for
game and thus also for hunters (Gross et al. 2019).
In such environments there is a better overview and
more understorey as well. For hunters there are cor-
respondingly better chances of encountering game.
The limited amount of plant biomass available
in a closed forest implies a low carrying capacity for
wild animals and a low game population density ac-
cordingly, as Iversen stated already in 1949 (Iversen
1949). This applies particularly to large herbivores,
such as red deer, roe deer, aurochs, bison or elk, and
the omnivorous wild boar. Realistic estimates for natu-
ral or near-natural values for the population density
of those animals still living in our modern forests are
almost impossible to get. Today’s game density values
are artificially regulated and are based on a balance
of interests between forestry, agriculture and hunting.
Game is fed in winter, salt licks are offered to ensure
mineral supply, and it can provide itself with addi-
tional food on fields, meadows and pastures during
the growing season. The forestry and hunting literature
differentiate between economically viable and bioti-
cally viable game density (Ueckermann 1960; 1986).
The biotically viable game density is not exceeded as
long as the body and antler quality of the game does
not deteriorate and as long as no epidemic diseases
occur - regardless of the condition of the forest. In
terms of economic viability, it must be possible to ‘eco-
nomically ward off game damage that occurs with the
tools currently available’ (Ueckermann 1960, transla-
tion by W D.). The recommended values can also be
seen as a compromise between hunting and forestry.
The available aids include, for example, fencing as a
protection for the rejuvenation of the tree population.
The values for the economically viable game density
vary, depending on the quality of the soil and the
amount of undergrowth in the forest.
Shrub and grass phase (30 a) Pioneer phase I (50 a)
Pioneer phase II (150 a) ■ Thickening phase (30 a)
■ Final-forest phase (300 a)
Fig. 2 Regeneration cycle (Mosaic-cycle) of a central European
woodland (after Remmert 1991).