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#0387
386
A longue duree perspective on technical innovations in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the North European Plain
difficult to date. The impact of metal artefacts in Late
Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies in the north
is usually downplayed.27 Many misconceptions of
the role of metal artefacts are the result of a flawed
chronology. New 14C-datings as well as excavations
in the core areas of early metallurgy are difficult to
correlate with the local Mesolithic and Neolithic se-
quences of northern Europe. Still, the rather precise
chronology of the North European Plain (Muller
et al. 2012) can be linked loosely with the record of
copper finds: As there are no indications for a local
metal production during the Neolithic so far, all finds
are assumed to be imports (but see Klassen 2000;
Gebauer / Sorensen this volume), and can thus
be dated by analogies in their areas of origin. Since
most copper artefacts do not come from contexts
that can be dated otherwise, typological dating and,
to a lesser degree, the chronological assessment of
the copper type used are the only ways to establish
their ages. This is especially the case for the earliest
finds, i.e., generally speaking, anything before 3,500
calBC. Nevertheless, the time lag between the use of
such objects in their areas of origin and their final
deposition remains unclear.28
Finds with a typological age earlier than
4,300/4,000 calBC can be regarded as poten-
tially used by Mesolithic (but possibly also
Early Neolithic) communities. Within the Neo-
lithic sequence two horizons can be differenti-
ated, namely 4,300/4,000-3,600/3,500 calBC and
3,600/3,500-3,300 calBC.29 The earlier horizon
represents the EN I, including the phases Oxie and
Siggeneben-Stid, the later horizon represents the
Fuchsberg phase or EN II, and therefore also the
typologically related phases Brindley 1/2.
27 Recent studies have, for example, advocated autochtho-
nous models to explain the introduction of stone battle axes
without connections to archetypes from southeast Europe, or
went so far as to deny any practical use for all pre-Bronze Age
metal finds: Vandkilde 2007. Cf. also Vandkilde 1996; Klas-
sen 2000; 2004; Turck 2010.
28 Two arguments, however, speak strongly against this ca-
veat. Firstly, we do have good evidence of many finds after
3,500 calBC, and there are no associations with significantly
earlier material. Therefore, we simply have no indications from
the archaeological record that metal indeed circulated long
enough to significantly blur our conclusions. Secondly, we can
identify influences on stone artefacts, and these in turn can be
dated much better. Thus, even if we cannot rule out that metal
finds were handed down within a social group, we assume that
the inherent fuzziness - which is typical for prehistoric chrono-
logies - allows us to disregard errors of one or two generations.
29 These two horizons were not defined beforehand, but sim-
ply reflect the dating precision of metal objects.
Potential Late Mesolithic copper finds
The earliest copper artefacts in the north are imports
from the southeast European Copper Age. Hammer
axes of Plocnik type and axe-adzes of Jaszladany type
have been found in small numbers. Govedarica (2016)
recently re-analysed the stratigraphy of the epony-
mous site Vinca-Plocnik and concluded very plausibly
that type Plocnik axes were in use between 4,650 and
4,250/4,200 calBC (cf. also Govedarica 2001; 2010).
This is supported by a radiocarbon date from a settle-
ment pit from the periphery of the distribution of these
axes in Weitendorf, Styria (Wilding 2011, 39-41). Ba-
sed on this chronological framework, all finds which
are known in the north should be considered as ha-
ving been imported by Late Mesolithic groups. The
dating of the axe-adzes is more challenging as some
of them might have been in use as late as during the
transition into the Baden culture around the middle of
the 4th millennium calBC (Zapotoky 1996, 189-190;
Klimscha 2016, 114 fig. 144, 115, with further refe-
rences). However, their production started around
4,500 calBC, and with the recent re-dating of the later
stage of the Bodrogkeresztur culture to the end of the
5th millennium, the evidence to date axe-adzes before
4,000 calBC becomes very strong.
How did these objects reach the North Euro-
pean Plain? Klassen (2000; 2004) is responsible for
major advancements on the topic of early metal in
this area, and his studies on the western Baltic area
have become a handy source to access the material
(cf. also Klassen / Pernicka 1998). But Klassen did
not process the finds from the North Sea region, and
the apparent emptiness of his maps in this regard has
to be seen as a lack of research rather than prehis-
toric reality. Klassen had originally proposed down-
the-line trade, and his distribution maps do indeed
suggest thin lines spreading out of the Carpathian
Basin and into the north (e.g. Klassen 2004, 269
fig. 145). The finds are very scarce, but have received
some attention following the realisation that it must
have been Mesolithic and Early Neolithic communi-
ties, i. e. groups without metallurgical proficiency,
who acquired these goods.30
Such finds are known not only from the North
European Plain, but prominent examples were found
as far to the west as in the princely tomb of Pauil-
hac, dep. Gars, France (in the historical Gascogne
30 Inter alia Klassen 2004; Turck 2010; Frieman 2012;
Govedarica 2016.
A longue duree perspective on technical innovations in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the North European Plain
difficult to date. The impact of metal artefacts in Late
Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies in the north
is usually downplayed.27 Many misconceptions of
the role of metal artefacts are the result of a flawed
chronology. New 14C-datings as well as excavations
in the core areas of early metallurgy are difficult to
correlate with the local Mesolithic and Neolithic se-
quences of northern Europe. Still, the rather precise
chronology of the North European Plain (Muller
et al. 2012) can be linked loosely with the record of
copper finds: As there are no indications for a local
metal production during the Neolithic so far, all finds
are assumed to be imports (but see Klassen 2000;
Gebauer / Sorensen this volume), and can thus
be dated by analogies in their areas of origin. Since
most copper artefacts do not come from contexts
that can be dated otherwise, typological dating and,
to a lesser degree, the chronological assessment of
the copper type used are the only ways to establish
their ages. This is especially the case for the earliest
finds, i.e., generally speaking, anything before 3,500
calBC. Nevertheless, the time lag between the use of
such objects in their areas of origin and their final
deposition remains unclear.28
Finds with a typological age earlier than
4,300/4,000 calBC can be regarded as poten-
tially used by Mesolithic (but possibly also
Early Neolithic) communities. Within the Neo-
lithic sequence two horizons can be differenti-
ated, namely 4,300/4,000-3,600/3,500 calBC and
3,600/3,500-3,300 calBC.29 The earlier horizon
represents the EN I, including the phases Oxie and
Siggeneben-Stid, the later horizon represents the
Fuchsberg phase or EN II, and therefore also the
typologically related phases Brindley 1/2.
27 Recent studies have, for example, advocated autochtho-
nous models to explain the introduction of stone battle axes
without connections to archetypes from southeast Europe, or
went so far as to deny any practical use for all pre-Bronze Age
metal finds: Vandkilde 2007. Cf. also Vandkilde 1996; Klas-
sen 2000; 2004; Turck 2010.
28 Two arguments, however, speak strongly against this ca-
veat. Firstly, we do have good evidence of many finds after
3,500 calBC, and there are no associations with significantly
earlier material. Therefore, we simply have no indications from
the archaeological record that metal indeed circulated long
enough to significantly blur our conclusions. Secondly, we can
identify influences on stone artefacts, and these in turn can be
dated much better. Thus, even if we cannot rule out that metal
finds were handed down within a social group, we assume that
the inherent fuzziness - which is typical for prehistoric chrono-
logies - allows us to disregard errors of one or two generations.
29 These two horizons were not defined beforehand, but sim-
ply reflect the dating precision of metal objects.
Potential Late Mesolithic copper finds
The earliest copper artefacts in the north are imports
from the southeast European Copper Age. Hammer
axes of Plocnik type and axe-adzes of Jaszladany type
have been found in small numbers. Govedarica (2016)
recently re-analysed the stratigraphy of the epony-
mous site Vinca-Plocnik and concluded very plausibly
that type Plocnik axes were in use between 4,650 and
4,250/4,200 calBC (cf. also Govedarica 2001; 2010).
This is supported by a radiocarbon date from a settle-
ment pit from the periphery of the distribution of these
axes in Weitendorf, Styria (Wilding 2011, 39-41). Ba-
sed on this chronological framework, all finds which
are known in the north should be considered as ha-
ving been imported by Late Mesolithic groups. The
dating of the axe-adzes is more challenging as some
of them might have been in use as late as during the
transition into the Baden culture around the middle of
the 4th millennium calBC (Zapotoky 1996, 189-190;
Klimscha 2016, 114 fig. 144, 115, with further refe-
rences). However, their production started around
4,500 calBC, and with the recent re-dating of the later
stage of the Bodrogkeresztur culture to the end of the
5th millennium, the evidence to date axe-adzes before
4,000 calBC becomes very strong.
How did these objects reach the North Euro-
pean Plain? Klassen (2000; 2004) is responsible for
major advancements on the topic of early metal in
this area, and his studies on the western Baltic area
have become a handy source to access the material
(cf. also Klassen / Pernicka 1998). But Klassen did
not process the finds from the North Sea region, and
the apparent emptiness of his maps in this regard has
to be seen as a lack of research rather than prehis-
toric reality. Klassen had originally proposed down-
the-line trade, and his distribution maps do indeed
suggest thin lines spreading out of the Carpathian
Basin and into the north (e.g. Klassen 2004, 269
fig. 145). The finds are very scarce, but have received
some attention following the realisation that it must
have been Mesolithic and Early Neolithic communi-
ties, i. e. groups without metallurgical proficiency,
who acquired these goods.30
Such finds are known not only from the North
European Plain, but prominent examples were found
as far to the west as in the princely tomb of Pauil-
hac, dep. Gars, France (in the historical Gascogne
30 Inter alia Klassen 2004; Turck 2010; Frieman 2012;
Govedarica 2016.