DOI Kapitel:
Changing Worlds – The Spread of the Neolithic Way of Life in the North
DOI Kapitel:Klimscha, Florian; Neumann, Daniel: A longue durée perspective on technical innovations in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the North European Plain
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0393
392
A longue duree perspective on technical innovations in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the North European Plain
The diffusion of the cattle traction technology
cluster was, however, not the result of people mi-
grating en masse. The wheels recorded for the TRB
culture are of a different technological tradition
than those of the Alpine (cf. summaries of finds by
Woytowitsch 1978; Schlichterle 2004; cf. also
Burmeister 2012, 84) or the Black Sea region (cf.
Fansa / Burmeister 2004; Matuschik 2006): the
wide distribution of wheel technology could also be
a case of stimulus diffusion (Kroeber 1940).
Ploughing is essential for any long-term agricul-
ture. From at least 4,000 calBC agricultural fields
in the Swifterbant culture were worked with hand-
held tools (cf. Raemaekers, this volume). The shift
to cattle-drawn ploughs must have had economic
consequences. Apart from the technical know-how
to build a plough, a cattle-team trained to pull it was
necessary. Owning a cattle-drawn plough allowed
greater efficiency in agriculture and certainly made
the work easier. This had important long-term con-
sequences. Even small amounts of surplus (resulting
from either the ability to work larger fields, or to
work faster) would have led to significant differences
in wealth in the long run (Bogucki 1993). The most
prominent positions according to the introduction
of the plough into northern Central Europe can be
summed up with Sherratt’s innovation-cluster of trac-
tion, plough, wagon, and woolly sheep (Sherratt
1981; 2004) - and its vehement rejection (inter alia
Vosteen 1996; Bakker et al. 1999; Bakker 2004)
- on the one hand, and models of successive tech-
nological improvement starting with the LBK on the
other (Luning 1979/1980; 2000; Luning et al. 2001).
The necessary skills for creating both wagon
and plough were available in the LBK with regard
to the craftsmanship displayed in longhouses and
wells.45 This shifts the focus to the availability and
training of cattle teams. Indeed, it is convincing from
a technical point of view that once a society used
cattle traction to plough its fields, the necessary step
in the development to use cattle to move vehicles
is minimal. The components ‘cattle team + yoke +
plough’ can be exchanged into ‘cattle team + yoke
+ sled / travois’. A wagon would need the additional
construction of an axle and wheels, and a way to fix
both to the chassis. While it is reasonable to assume
that ploughing is older than wagons, this cannot
45 Unless it is argued that the construction of wheels might
have been too complex for LBK craftsmen. Assessing this pro-
blem would greatly benefit from experimental data using diffe-
rent stone tools to produce disc wheels.
be demonstrated for northern Central Europe and
the North European Plain. The development of the
wagon must have happened somewhere else.46 The
plough appears more or less abruptly in the archaeo-
logical record of Central Europe around the middle
of the 4th millennium calBC, and it is associated with
wagons in Alpine rock art, in the Wartberg culture,
and at the Flintbek site. Ploughing and wagon driving
likely arrived as an innovation cluster.
Conclusion
During the 5th millennium calBC, various Late Meso-
lithic groups maintained different levels of contact net-
works: there was obviously relatively frequent exchange
with neighbouring farming groups and also sparser
interaction with Copper Age societies in the Carpath-
ian Basin and the western Black Sea area. During this
time these contacts had no measurable effect but set the
stage for an axe-ideology. When the original Mesolithic
societies were transformed into Neolithic economies,
this had a delaying effect.47 The high esteem of large
axes was raised even more by the irreplaceable role axes
now had in the routines of chopping trees and build-
ing houses.48 Hunter-gatherer-fishers did affect their
environment considerably by clearing habitation areas
and nourishing specific plants (inter alia Out 2009;
Colledge / Conolly 2014), and the primeval forest
did not disappear with the Early Neolithic.49 Neverthe-
less, the thinning out of the forest becomes visible in
pollen diagrams from around 4,100 calBC onwards.50
In other words, there was a significant change that
correlates with the shift from Mesolithic to Neolithic
economies, and, depending on the region, the changes
within the Swifterbant culture and from the Ertebolle to
46 Early evidence for cattle traction is currently limited to the
southern Levant and southeastern Europe: Hill 2001.
47 From 4,100 calBC, on the Cimbrian peninsula and in the
western Baltic (Hartz et al. 2000; Muller 2009), from 4,300
calBC onwards within the Swifterbant culture (Cappers / Rae-
maekers 2008; Raemaekers 1999).
48 The archaeological record also has good evidence that lar-
ge axes were used for the slaughtering and/or sacrifice of cattle:
Klimscha 2010.
49 Deforestation seems to have had its peak during the Single
Grave culture, or even later: Kirleis et al. 2012; Behre / Kucan
1994. For the Alps a similar picture can be drawn with dense
forestation until the Younger Neolithic: Rosch 1993; 2013;
Lechterbeck et al. 2014.
50 Inter alia Hartz et al. 2000; Dorfler 2001; Behre 2008;
Kirleis et al. 2012.
A longue duree perspective on technical innovations in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the North European Plain
The diffusion of the cattle traction technology
cluster was, however, not the result of people mi-
grating en masse. The wheels recorded for the TRB
culture are of a different technological tradition
than those of the Alpine (cf. summaries of finds by
Woytowitsch 1978; Schlichterle 2004; cf. also
Burmeister 2012, 84) or the Black Sea region (cf.
Fansa / Burmeister 2004; Matuschik 2006): the
wide distribution of wheel technology could also be
a case of stimulus diffusion (Kroeber 1940).
Ploughing is essential for any long-term agricul-
ture. From at least 4,000 calBC agricultural fields
in the Swifterbant culture were worked with hand-
held tools (cf. Raemaekers, this volume). The shift
to cattle-drawn ploughs must have had economic
consequences. Apart from the technical know-how
to build a plough, a cattle-team trained to pull it was
necessary. Owning a cattle-drawn plough allowed
greater efficiency in agriculture and certainly made
the work easier. This had important long-term con-
sequences. Even small amounts of surplus (resulting
from either the ability to work larger fields, or to
work faster) would have led to significant differences
in wealth in the long run (Bogucki 1993). The most
prominent positions according to the introduction
of the plough into northern Central Europe can be
summed up with Sherratt’s innovation-cluster of trac-
tion, plough, wagon, and woolly sheep (Sherratt
1981; 2004) - and its vehement rejection (inter alia
Vosteen 1996; Bakker et al. 1999; Bakker 2004)
- on the one hand, and models of successive tech-
nological improvement starting with the LBK on the
other (Luning 1979/1980; 2000; Luning et al. 2001).
The necessary skills for creating both wagon
and plough were available in the LBK with regard
to the craftsmanship displayed in longhouses and
wells.45 This shifts the focus to the availability and
training of cattle teams. Indeed, it is convincing from
a technical point of view that once a society used
cattle traction to plough its fields, the necessary step
in the development to use cattle to move vehicles
is minimal. The components ‘cattle team + yoke +
plough’ can be exchanged into ‘cattle team + yoke
+ sled / travois’. A wagon would need the additional
construction of an axle and wheels, and a way to fix
both to the chassis. While it is reasonable to assume
that ploughing is older than wagons, this cannot
45 Unless it is argued that the construction of wheels might
have been too complex for LBK craftsmen. Assessing this pro-
blem would greatly benefit from experimental data using diffe-
rent stone tools to produce disc wheels.
be demonstrated for northern Central Europe and
the North European Plain. The development of the
wagon must have happened somewhere else.46 The
plough appears more or less abruptly in the archaeo-
logical record of Central Europe around the middle
of the 4th millennium calBC, and it is associated with
wagons in Alpine rock art, in the Wartberg culture,
and at the Flintbek site. Ploughing and wagon driving
likely arrived as an innovation cluster.
Conclusion
During the 5th millennium calBC, various Late Meso-
lithic groups maintained different levels of contact net-
works: there was obviously relatively frequent exchange
with neighbouring farming groups and also sparser
interaction with Copper Age societies in the Carpath-
ian Basin and the western Black Sea area. During this
time these contacts had no measurable effect but set the
stage for an axe-ideology. When the original Mesolithic
societies were transformed into Neolithic economies,
this had a delaying effect.47 The high esteem of large
axes was raised even more by the irreplaceable role axes
now had in the routines of chopping trees and build-
ing houses.48 Hunter-gatherer-fishers did affect their
environment considerably by clearing habitation areas
and nourishing specific plants (inter alia Out 2009;
Colledge / Conolly 2014), and the primeval forest
did not disappear with the Early Neolithic.49 Neverthe-
less, the thinning out of the forest becomes visible in
pollen diagrams from around 4,100 calBC onwards.50
In other words, there was a significant change that
correlates with the shift from Mesolithic to Neolithic
economies, and, depending on the region, the changes
within the Swifterbant culture and from the Ertebolle to
46 Early evidence for cattle traction is currently limited to the
southern Levant and southeastern Europe: Hill 2001.
47 From 4,100 calBC, on the Cimbrian peninsula and in the
western Baltic (Hartz et al. 2000; Muller 2009), from 4,300
calBC onwards within the Swifterbant culture (Cappers / Rae-
maekers 2008; Raemaekers 1999).
48 The archaeological record also has good evidence that lar-
ge axes were used for the slaughtering and/or sacrifice of cattle:
Klimscha 2010.
49 Deforestation seems to have had its peak during the Single
Grave culture, or even later: Kirleis et al. 2012; Behre / Kucan
1994. For the Alps a similar picture can be drawn with dense
forestation until the Younger Neolithic: Rosch 1993; 2013;
Lechterbeck et al. 2014.
50 Inter alia Hartz et al. 2000; Dorfler 2001; Behre 2008;
Kirleis et al. 2012.