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#0392
Florian Klimscha and Daniel Neumann
391
time that new types of alloys also arrive in the form
of shaft-hole axes.
Technical innovations and the
neolithisation of the north
While the Mesolithic societies in the North Euro-
pean Plain remained economically conservative for
most of the 5th millennium calBC (with exception
of the Swifterbant culture; cf. Raemaekers 1999;
Ten Anscher 2012), products from their southern
neighbours nevertheless fascinated them. Danubian
stone tools were imported in high numbers, and
some of them might even have been brought to the
north by expeditions of farmers searching for new
land (cf. Muller / Schirren, this volume). Small
axes and adzes were known in the North European
Plain during the Mesolithic, but these were of sig-
nificantly smaller size and weight. Their functions
must have differed from the Danubian stone tools,
which not only show a different morphology, but also
far greater size-ranges. In addition, the possession
of such exotica would have been very prestigious
in itself and thus might have been a way to distin-
guish oneself from others. The same conclusions fit
to the earliest copper items. These, however, were
not made by neighbouring Neolithic communities,
but originated in the Carpathian Basin and the Bal-
kans. The distribution of copper items during the 5th
millennium calBC suggests that Mesolithic groups
had access to exchange networks that connected
them with southeastern Europe, but bypassed the
Danube. Yet, the frequency of contacts with groups
sustained on Neolithic economies dramatically con-
trasts with the hesitation to adopt this way of life
in the North European Plain. The great appeal of
axes is still existent during the neolithisation of the
north, but now it was sated by local production. The
axe hoards of the TRB culture continued a tradition
which began in the Mesolithic. Copper axes were still
prized among the early TRB communities, but they
seem to have declined in numbers. It is not possible
to draw a direct line from import to imitation to lo-
cal production. The re-melting of imported copper
items was only possible in the very long run, after
having been ‘translated’ into Neolithic technical and
organisational capabilities.
In a certain way, the axe paved the way for metal-
lurgy. The symbolical dimensions of stone axes were
essential for the TRB ideology. Hoards of polished
flint axes as well as the later types of flint axes them-
selves connect the TRB with the Black Sea area at the
same time as the copper shaft-hole axes. The Majkop
culture and the late Tripolye culture currently provide
the earliest evidence of wagons (Hansen et al. 2017;
Klimscha 2017a; 2018). The early use of wagons in
the North European Plain is therefore more than mere
coincidence. Long distance communication lines be-
tween the north and the Carpathian Basin and Black
Sea area have been known since the 5th millennium
calBC (Czekaj-Zastawny et al. 2011; Klassen 2000).43
During the TRB this was perpetuated into networks
transmitting regular information, artefacts, and know-
how. The time span 3,600-3,300 calBC seems to be a
plausible window for the diffusion of the wagon tech-
nology. The wagon tracks from Flintbek are placed
into the late Fuchsberg phase of the TRB, and it is
definitely possible that future research might push
back the emergence of the wagon to the beginning
of Fuchsberg, arguing that the beginning of the TRB
proper is the result of the application of a bundle
of innovations coming from the Black Sea area. The
grave inventory from Oldendorf IV with its cups with
looped handles also points into exactly the same direc-
tion (Korner / Laux 1980).44 From the available data
it is currently impossible to argue for a chronological
priority of the plough over the wagon, or vice versa.
The similarity between the chaine operatoires of both
technologies and their reliance on trained cattle teams,
for which there is no earlier evidence in the north,
make it very plausible that both were adopted together
as a package.
The wheel might have reached the north in the
same way as the copper axe-adzes did five hundred
years earlier. We suggest that the record of metal
finds in Lower Saxony and the Netherlands reflects
the communication network spanning the Baltic
region. The copper finds originated in the Black Sea
area. The very early appearance of both arsenic cop-
per artefacts and evidence for the use of wheeled ve-
hicles is important in this regard. While the imported
goods might also have been transported via several
overlapping, smaller exchange networks, the adop-
tion of wagons suggests that people actually at least
saw these vehicles and were able to describe them
precisely enough to have them replicated.
43 At this stage of the argument, we need to stress that this
narrow dating of the copper finds is supported by the finds from
Dqbki as well as typology. Some finds, if taken by themselves,
might even be older.
44 Any further discussion on the interrelation of Brindly 1/2
and Fuchsberg on the one hand and the southeastern TRB,
Bernburg, Cucuteni-Tripol’e and Baden on the other hand
would at this point severely overburden this paper.
391
time that new types of alloys also arrive in the form
of shaft-hole axes.
Technical innovations and the
neolithisation of the north
While the Mesolithic societies in the North Euro-
pean Plain remained economically conservative for
most of the 5th millennium calBC (with exception
of the Swifterbant culture; cf. Raemaekers 1999;
Ten Anscher 2012), products from their southern
neighbours nevertheless fascinated them. Danubian
stone tools were imported in high numbers, and
some of them might even have been brought to the
north by expeditions of farmers searching for new
land (cf. Muller / Schirren, this volume). Small
axes and adzes were known in the North European
Plain during the Mesolithic, but these were of sig-
nificantly smaller size and weight. Their functions
must have differed from the Danubian stone tools,
which not only show a different morphology, but also
far greater size-ranges. In addition, the possession
of such exotica would have been very prestigious
in itself and thus might have been a way to distin-
guish oneself from others. The same conclusions fit
to the earliest copper items. These, however, were
not made by neighbouring Neolithic communities,
but originated in the Carpathian Basin and the Bal-
kans. The distribution of copper items during the 5th
millennium calBC suggests that Mesolithic groups
had access to exchange networks that connected
them with southeastern Europe, but bypassed the
Danube. Yet, the frequency of contacts with groups
sustained on Neolithic economies dramatically con-
trasts with the hesitation to adopt this way of life
in the North European Plain. The great appeal of
axes is still existent during the neolithisation of the
north, but now it was sated by local production. The
axe hoards of the TRB culture continued a tradition
which began in the Mesolithic. Copper axes were still
prized among the early TRB communities, but they
seem to have declined in numbers. It is not possible
to draw a direct line from import to imitation to lo-
cal production. The re-melting of imported copper
items was only possible in the very long run, after
having been ‘translated’ into Neolithic technical and
organisational capabilities.
In a certain way, the axe paved the way for metal-
lurgy. The symbolical dimensions of stone axes were
essential for the TRB ideology. Hoards of polished
flint axes as well as the later types of flint axes them-
selves connect the TRB with the Black Sea area at the
same time as the copper shaft-hole axes. The Majkop
culture and the late Tripolye culture currently provide
the earliest evidence of wagons (Hansen et al. 2017;
Klimscha 2017a; 2018). The early use of wagons in
the North European Plain is therefore more than mere
coincidence. Long distance communication lines be-
tween the north and the Carpathian Basin and Black
Sea area have been known since the 5th millennium
calBC (Czekaj-Zastawny et al. 2011; Klassen 2000).43
During the TRB this was perpetuated into networks
transmitting regular information, artefacts, and know-
how. The time span 3,600-3,300 calBC seems to be a
plausible window for the diffusion of the wagon tech-
nology. The wagon tracks from Flintbek are placed
into the late Fuchsberg phase of the TRB, and it is
definitely possible that future research might push
back the emergence of the wagon to the beginning
of Fuchsberg, arguing that the beginning of the TRB
proper is the result of the application of a bundle
of innovations coming from the Black Sea area. The
grave inventory from Oldendorf IV with its cups with
looped handles also points into exactly the same direc-
tion (Korner / Laux 1980).44 From the available data
it is currently impossible to argue for a chronological
priority of the plough over the wagon, or vice versa.
The similarity between the chaine operatoires of both
technologies and their reliance on trained cattle teams,
for which there is no earlier evidence in the north,
make it very plausible that both were adopted together
as a package.
The wheel might have reached the north in the
same way as the copper axe-adzes did five hundred
years earlier. We suggest that the record of metal
finds in Lower Saxony and the Netherlands reflects
the communication network spanning the Baltic
region. The copper finds originated in the Black Sea
area. The very early appearance of both arsenic cop-
per artefacts and evidence for the use of wheeled ve-
hicles is important in this regard. While the imported
goods might also have been transported via several
overlapping, smaller exchange networks, the adop-
tion of wagons suggests that people actually at least
saw these vehicles and were able to describe them
precisely enough to have them replicated.
43 At this stage of the argument, we need to stress that this
narrow dating of the copper finds is supported by the finds from
Dqbki as well as typology. Some finds, if taken by themselves,
might even be older.
44 Any further discussion on the interrelation of Brindly 1/2
and Fuchsberg on the one hand and the southeastern TRB,
Bernburg, Cucuteni-Tripol’e and Baden on the other hand
would at this point severely overburden this paper.