DOI chapter:
Changing Worlds – The Spread of the Neolithic Way of Life in the North
DOI chapter:Klimscha, Florian; Neumann, Daniel: A longue durée perspective on technical innovations in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the North European Plain
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0379
378
A longue duree perspective on technical innovations in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the North European Plain
others. Furthermore, power sources were limited to
the muscles of humans and domesticated animals.
The combination of these factors resulted in
the development of technology in a way that does
not conform to modern expectations. It is actually
barely known how innovations emerged under these
circumstances. This means that models developed
from fully-industrialised, capitalist societies cannot
simply be applied to fill the empty spots in the ar-
chaeological records, but innovation-processes rather
have to be reconstructed in large parts from the finds
themselves.
The neolithisation may have been the most
important socioeconomic shift in human history.
Without the Neolithic technology package our
modern subsistence and urban lifestyle would not
have become possible, but also key technologies
like metallurgy or animal traction would not exist.
After its lengthy development into a working ‘pack-
age’ in the Fertile Crescent,1 Neolithic ways of life
spread to Western Anatolia, and from there were
brought to the European subcontinent. Within the
Carpathian Basin the Linear Pottery culture (Lin-
earbandkeramik, LBK) was formed as the oldest
Neolithic group of Central Europe (Banffy 2019
[with recent reevaluation]; cf. also Banffy 2013).
In a rather short period of time the LBK spread to
the northwestern fringes of the Loess sediments.2
The indigenous population did apparently not
welcome the initial arrival of LBK settlers in the
European northwest,3 and, apart from stone adzes
(‘Schuhleistenkeile’) and very few clear imports
found in Mesolithic layers or in the surroundings
of Mesolithic sites, there is not much evidence of
regular interaction.4 With the following Rbssen and
Stroke-ornamented Pottery (Stichbandkeramik)
cultures in the 5th millennium calBC the number
of Neolithic objects, primarily adzes and heavy
perforated shaft-hole axes, acquired by Mesolithic
1 Recently discussed again by Qilingiroglu 2015; cf. also the
papers in Klimscha et al. forthcoming.
2 With the exception of small outposts like the recently
discovered settlement at Niedernstbcken: cf. Gerken et al., this
volume.
3 According to palaeogenetic sampling this diffusion was the
result of the movement of larger groups of settlers, and Meso-
lithic foragers apparently did not regularly intermarry with the
LBK newcomers (Haak et al. 2015).
4 Hulsebusch / Jockenhovel this volume, refer to one such
instance: the assumed destruction of the LBK well at Erkelenz-
Kiickhoven by Mesolithic raiders.
communities rose significantly.5 The regular appear-
ance of such stone tools in sites of the Swifterbant
and Ertebolle cultures demonstrates their use by
Mesolithic communities, even though it is unclear
how they were brought there. Apart from mutual
exchange, expeditions of Rbssen descendants into
the north, Mesolithic groups raiding Neolithic farm-
steads, or ‘Grenzgangers’ living between both worlds
seem possible. In any way, it seems plausible that the
axes were accompanied by information about the
new way of life. However, even though Mesolithic
communities did know about agriculture, animal
husbandry, polished stone tools, and long houses,
they were apparently not motivated to adopt them.
For c. 1,200-1,500 years societies of farmers and
complex hunter-gatherer-fishers existed next to each
other in the North European Plain.6
The successive introduction of Neolithic cul-
tural elements started only during the last centuries
of the 5th millennium calBC and culminated in the
Funnelbeaker culture (Trichterbecherkultur, TRB)
around 4,200/4,000 calBC. The shift from Late Meso-
lithic subsistence to the TRB was not as drastic as it
seems at first glance. Especially during the early part
of the TRB food was still acquired in large parts by
hunting (Steffens 2005; cf. also Skaarup 1973). It
was considerably later that the TRB system, consist-
ing of a very elaborate ideology, visible in massive
megalithic graves, ritual causewayed enclosures, and
a huge number of hoards, and also a bundle of tech-
nological innovations, came into full effect.
Ploughing and wagons
The plough and the wheel are strongly connected
with each other.7 The northwest European finds are
among the earliest in Eurasia (Burmeister 2004a
[with further references and a detailed record];
2017). The earliest finds belong to the TRB culture
5 Although we can see some evidence, possibly in the adapta-
tion of pottery in the La Hoguette group, (cf. Cziesla this volu-
me), and during the later phase of the LBK in the adaptation of
pottery in the Swifterbant culture.
6 Details of the shift to agriculture are presented in several
other papers in this volume and will therefore not be further
discussed here (cf. Muller this volume; Amkreutz this volume;
recently also Terberger et al. 2018).
7 Andrew Sherratt’s model of a Secondary Products Revoluti-
on (Sherratt 1981; 2004) was tremendously influential even
though it has been criticised by a variety of authors, for instance
Vosteen 1996; Bakker 2004. Cf. most recently: Burmeister
2017; Klimscha 2017a.
A longue duree perspective on technical innovations in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the North European Plain
others. Furthermore, power sources were limited to
the muscles of humans and domesticated animals.
The combination of these factors resulted in
the development of technology in a way that does
not conform to modern expectations. It is actually
barely known how innovations emerged under these
circumstances. This means that models developed
from fully-industrialised, capitalist societies cannot
simply be applied to fill the empty spots in the ar-
chaeological records, but innovation-processes rather
have to be reconstructed in large parts from the finds
themselves.
The neolithisation may have been the most
important socioeconomic shift in human history.
Without the Neolithic technology package our
modern subsistence and urban lifestyle would not
have become possible, but also key technologies
like metallurgy or animal traction would not exist.
After its lengthy development into a working ‘pack-
age’ in the Fertile Crescent,1 Neolithic ways of life
spread to Western Anatolia, and from there were
brought to the European subcontinent. Within the
Carpathian Basin the Linear Pottery culture (Lin-
earbandkeramik, LBK) was formed as the oldest
Neolithic group of Central Europe (Banffy 2019
[with recent reevaluation]; cf. also Banffy 2013).
In a rather short period of time the LBK spread to
the northwestern fringes of the Loess sediments.2
The indigenous population did apparently not
welcome the initial arrival of LBK settlers in the
European northwest,3 and, apart from stone adzes
(‘Schuhleistenkeile’) and very few clear imports
found in Mesolithic layers or in the surroundings
of Mesolithic sites, there is not much evidence of
regular interaction.4 With the following Rbssen and
Stroke-ornamented Pottery (Stichbandkeramik)
cultures in the 5th millennium calBC the number
of Neolithic objects, primarily adzes and heavy
perforated shaft-hole axes, acquired by Mesolithic
1 Recently discussed again by Qilingiroglu 2015; cf. also the
papers in Klimscha et al. forthcoming.
2 With the exception of small outposts like the recently
discovered settlement at Niedernstbcken: cf. Gerken et al., this
volume.
3 According to palaeogenetic sampling this diffusion was the
result of the movement of larger groups of settlers, and Meso-
lithic foragers apparently did not regularly intermarry with the
LBK newcomers (Haak et al. 2015).
4 Hulsebusch / Jockenhovel this volume, refer to one such
instance: the assumed destruction of the LBK well at Erkelenz-
Kiickhoven by Mesolithic raiders.
communities rose significantly.5 The regular appear-
ance of such stone tools in sites of the Swifterbant
and Ertebolle cultures demonstrates their use by
Mesolithic communities, even though it is unclear
how they were brought there. Apart from mutual
exchange, expeditions of Rbssen descendants into
the north, Mesolithic groups raiding Neolithic farm-
steads, or ‘Grenzgangers’ living between both worlds
seem possible. In any way, it seems plausible that the
axes were accompanied by information about the
new way of life. However, even though Mesolithic
communities did know about agriculture, animal
husbandry, polished stone tools, and long houses,
they were apparently not motivated to adopt them.
For c. 1,200-1,500 years societies of farmers and
complex hunter-gatherer-fishers existed next to each
other in the North European Plain.6
The successive introduction of Neolithic cul-
tural elements started only during the last centuries
of the 5th millennium calBC and culminated in the
Funnelbeaker culture (Trichterbecherkultur, TRB)
around 4,200/4,000 calBC. The shift from Late Meso-
lithic subsistence to the TRB was not as drastic as it
seems at first glance. Especially during the early part
of the TRB food was still acquired in large parts by
hunting (Steffens 2005; cf. also Skaarup 1973). It
was considerably later that the TRB system, consist-
ing of a very elaborate ideology, visible in massive
megalithic graves, ritual causewayed enclosures, and
a huge number of hoards, and also a bundle of tech-
nological innovations, came into full effect.
Ploughing and wagons
The plough and the wheel are strongly connected
with each other.7 The northwest European finds are
among the earliest in Eurasia (Burmeister 2004a
[with further references and a detailed record];
2017). The earliest finds belong to the TRB culture
5 Although we can see some evidence, possibly in the adapta-
tion of pottery in the La Hoguette group, (cf. Cziesla this volu-
me), and during the later phase of the LBK in the adaptation of
pottery in the Swifterbant culture.
6 Details of the shift to agriculture are presented in several
other papers in this volume and will therefore not be further
discussed here (cf. Muller this volume; Amkreutz this volume;
recently also Terberger et al. 2018).
7 Andrew Sherratt’s model of a Secondary Products Revoluti-
on (Sherratt 1981; 2004) was tremendously influential even
though it has been criticised by a variety of authors, for instance
Vosteen 1996; Bakker 2004. Cf. most recently: Burmeister
2017; Klimscha 2017a.