DOI Kapitel:
Changing Worlds – The Spread of the Neolithic Way of Life in the North
DOI Kapitel:Dörfler, Walter: A biological view on neolithisation
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0355
354
A biological view on neolithisation
in northern central Europe. On the other hand, the
data from Friesack 4 show that a considerable part
of the hunting prey consisted of elk. The quarry, es-
pecially large and heavy animals, was broken up at
the place of a successful hunt and therefore reached
the settlement in parts. In this way, only selected
parts of the carcass may have reached the settlement
site. So Schmolcke (2016, 83) writes (translation
by W. D.): ‘Similar to the roe deer, certain parts of
the body [of the red deer], especially the back, seem
to have been reserved for the hunters who ate them
away from the settlement site, perhaps already at
the place of the successful hunt’. He also notes a
selection of bones (originally representing certain
body parts) brought into the settlement for the elk.
Accordingly, it is difficult to compare the data from
the Mesolithic site Friesack 4 with the calculation
above. But both show the great importance of the
large ungulates elk and red deer.
Goldhammer (2008) summarised the archaeo-
zoological investigations of the Ertebolle site at Gru-
be-Rosenhof (analyses carried out by U. Schmolcke
as well). Subsequently, fish with 3,846 bones contrast
to 290 bones from mammals. This exceptionally high
number of fish residues is mainly due to the fact that
the samples from this coastal place were intensively
washed and sieved during the excavation. Red deer
dominates among mammals with a bone count of
116 (40 %). This is followed by the wild boar with
56 (19.3 °/o), aurochs with 29 (10 °/o) and roe deer
with 27 (9,3 °/o). Elk has not been reported from
this Late Mesolithic site. Since no information has
yet been given on the bone weights or minimum
individual numbers, only a rough estimate of the
importance of the individual wild animal species for
nutrition can be made. Red deer clearly dominates
in front of the aurochs, which, as a large game, will
have had a higher share in the diet than the number
of bones suggests. Wild boar is also strongly repre-
sented, while the light-weight roe deer, with a share
of 9.3 % in the number of bones, may have had only
a small share in the nutrition at the Late Mesolithic
site Grube-Rosenhof.
In comparison, one can look at the well-re-
searched Danish Erbebolle inland site of Ringk-
loster, which, however, has a different calculation
basis for the given bone numbers (Rowley-Conwy
1998). Here, wild boar dominates clearly before red
deer and aurochs. Here, too, is a comparatively low
evidence of roe deer, and elk is also found to a small
extent only. Due to the indicators of seasonality, this
place is interpreted as a winter place that had been
visited again and again over many years (Rowley-
Conwy 1998). There is therefore no uniform pattern
at the various Mesolithic sites, but rather a typical
variance in the subsistence strategy.
Nutrition of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer-
fishermen after isotope measurements
on skeletal material
Fischer et al. (2007) have examined extensive skel-
etal material from Denmark’s Mesolithic and Neo-
lithic sites. The portions of the carbon isotope 13C
and the nitrogen isotope 15N are enriched in the food
chain by isotope fractionation. As the limnic and
marine food chains are longer than the terrestrial
ones, the proportion of fish and mussels in the diet
can be estimated under favourable circumstances.
With a supply based on the terrestrial food chain,
the proportion of meat in comparison to plant com-
ponents can be estimated (Fernandez et al. 2015).
The Danish isotope measurements indicate a high
proportion of fish in the diet, both inland and on
the coast. Since both humans and dogs with high
values indicating marine nutrition occur inland, the
authors assume seasonal mobility. This contradicts
the alternative hypothesis that there would have been
separate inland and coastal populations with typical
subsistence.
Terberger et al. (2018) carried out compa-
rable isotope measurements on skeletal material
from northern Germany in order to reconstruct the
nutrition of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic
communities. Due to the small number of graves or
human bones found in other contexts, the sample
for Mesolithic individuals is relatively small. For
the late Atlantic, i. e. the Late Mesolithic, there are
two samples from the site Criewen 4, which show
a high proportion of fresh water components in the
food (Terberger et al. 2018). Older finds from the
early and middle Atlantic have similarly high 815N
values, which indicate high proportions of fish and
mussels in the diet. In contrast, the values of Neo-
lithic individuals show a wide spectrum between
predominantly terrestrial and varying limnic and
marine food proportions. In the sample, the tran-
sition from strongly marine to predominantly ter-
restrial food dates back to the first centuries of the
4th millennium, i. e. the early Neolithic la and lb of
the Funnel Beaker communities. Very limited data
is available from Late Mesolithic sites, so that little
can be said about the subsistence of these mobile
communities from this point of view. The authors
interpret the data in the way that three strategies
can generally be distinguished for Mesolithic hunt-
A biological view on neolithisation
in northern central Europe. On the other hand, the
data from Friesack 4 show that a considerable part
of the hunting prey consisted of elk. The quarry, es-
pecially large and heavy animals, was broken up at
the place of a successful hunt and therefore reached
the settlement in parts. In this way, only selected
parts of the carcass may have reached the settlement
site. So Schmolcke (2016, 83) writes (translation
by W. D.): ‘Similar to the roe deer, certain parts of
the body [of the red deer], especially the back, seem
to have been reserved for the hunters who ate them
away from the settlement site, perhaps already at
the place of the successful hunt’. He also notes a
selection of bones (originally representing certain
body parts) brought into the settlement for the elk.
Accordingly, it is difficult to compare the data from
the Mesolithic site Friesack 4 with the calculation
above. But both show the great importance of the
large ungulates elk and red deer.
Goldhammer (2008) summarised the archaeo-
zoological investigations of the Ertebolle site at Gru-
be-Rosenhof (analyses carried out by U. Schmolcke
as well). Subsequently, fish with 3,846 bones contrast
to 290 bones from mammals. This exceptionally high
number of fish residues is mainly due to the fact that
the samples from this coastal place were intensively
washed and sieved during the excavation. Red deer
dominates among mammals with a bone count of
116 (40 %). This is followed by the wild boar with
56 (19.3 °/o), aurochs with 29 (10 °/o) and roe deer
with 27 (9,3 °/o). Elk has not been reported from
this Late Mesolithic site. Since no information has
yet been given on the bone weights or minimum
individual numbers, only a rough estimate of the
importance of the individual wild animal species for
nutrition can be made. Red deer clearly dominates
in front of the aurochs, which, as a large game, will
have had a higher share in the diet than the number
of bones suggests. Wild boar is also strongly repre-
sented, while the light-weight roe deer, with a share
of 9.3 % in the number of bones, may have had only
a small share in the nutrition at the Late Mesolithic
site Grube-Rosenhof.
In comparison, one can look at the well-re-
searched Danish Erbebolle inland site of Ringk-
loster, which, however, has a different calculation
basis for the given bone numbers (Rowley-Conwy
1998). Here, wild boar dominates clearly before red
deer and aurochs. Here, too, is a comparatively low
evidence of roe deer, and elk is also found to a small
extent only. Due to the indicators of seasonality, this
place is interpreted as a winter place that had been
visited again and again over many years (Rowley-
Conwy 1998). There is therefore no uniform pattern
at the various Mesolithic sites, but rather a typical
variance in the subsistence strategy.
Nutrition of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer-
fishermen after isotope measurements
on skeletal material
Fischer et al. (2007) have examined extensive skel-
etal material from Denmark’s Mesolithic and Neo-
lithic sites. The portions of the carbon isotope 13C
and the nitrogen isotope 15N are enriched in the food
chain by isotope fractionation. As the limnic and
marine food chains are longer than the terrestrial
ones, the proportion of fish and mussels in the diet
can be estimated under favourable circumstances.
With a supply based on the terrestrial food chain,
the proportion of meat in comparison to plant com-
ponents can be estimated (Fernandez et al. 2015).
The Danish isotope measurements indicate a high
proportion of fish in the diet, both inland and on
the coast. Since both humans and dogs with high
values indicating marine nutrition occur inland, the
authors assume seasonal mobility. This contradicts
the alternative hypothesis that there would have been
separate inland and coastal populations with typical
subsistence.
Terberger et al. (2018) carried out compa-
rable isotope measurements on skeletal material
from northern Germany in order to reconstruct the
nutrition of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic
communities. Due to the small number of graves or
human bones found in other contexts, the sample
for Mesolithic individuals is relatively small. For
the late Atlantic, i. e. the Late Mesolithic, there are
two samples from the site Criewen 4, which show
a high proportion of fresh water components in the
food (Terberger et al. 2018). Older finds from the
early and middle Atlantic have similarly high 815N
values, which indicate high proportions of fish and
mussels in the diet. In contrast, the values of Neo-
lithic individuals show a wide spectrum between
predominantly terrestrial and varying limnic and
marine food proportions. In the sample, the tran-
sition from strongly marine to predominantly ter-
restrial food dates back to the first centuries of the
4th millennium, i. e. the early Neolithic la and lb of
the Funnel Beaker communities. Very limited data
is available from Late Mesolithic sites, so that little
can be said about the subsistence of these mobile
communities from this point of view. The authors
interpret the data in the way that three strategies
can generally be distinguished for Mesolithic hunt-