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#0394
Florian Klimscha and Daniel Neumann
393
the Funnelbeaker culture between 4,300-4,100 calBC.51
Modern research has identified two major episodes
within the opening of the forest, during the erection of
megalithic graves, c. 3,400-3,100 calBC, and during the
Single Grave culture, c. 2,800-2,500 calBC (Muller
2009; Brozio et al. 2019).
Successively opening up spaces for agriculture
had two side effects in that it allowed small-scale
travel on cattle-pulled vehicles, but also allowed far
greater lines of sight within the landscape. Therefore,
it is not by accident that the erection of megalithic
tombs and the earliest evidence of wheel and wag-
on fall into the same chronological horizon around
3,400 calBC.52 Both the latter might have depended
on each other, and both also depended on the flint
axe and the opened forest. Economy, environmental
change, ritual, and technology were closely inter-
linked (cf. Brozio et al. 2019).53 The copper axes
from Miisleringen, Reiffenhausen, and Liistringen
support the idea of a diffusion of wagon technology
from the Black Sea. The opening of the landscape did
result in prehistoric communities choosing new ritual
sites (Knitter et al. 2019a; b; cf. Brozio 2016), but
was also crucial for more extensive agriculture and
thus essential for adopting the Traction innovation
cluster’ (cf. Klimscha 2017a; b).
Our paper has summed up several arguments
concerning the relationship between diffusion of
technology and socio-economic change. Networks of
hunter-gatherer-fishers established two communica-
tion channels that were crucial for the neolithisation
process in the north: contacts with the LBK suc-
cessors on the one hand, and with the world of the
Copper Age of the Carpathian Basin and the western
Black Sea area on the other.
The latter one was intensified during the late 5th
and early 4th millennium calBC, resulting in the dif-
fusion of a technological package of cattle traction,
plough, and wheeled vehicles. The network did not
end in the Baltic region, though. A preliminary ty-
pological study of the available copper axes strongly
suggests that Lower Saxony and the Netherlands, i.e.
51 If ten Anscher’s brilliant work on the typological analogies
between the later phases of Swifterbant and the earliest TRB is
accepted, this might be the same phenomenon (cf. Ten Anscher
2012).
52 It is important to note that archaeologically this might have
been as early as 3,600 calBC (see above).
53 The evidence for the wagon is linked closely to megalithic
tombs, but this is not a taphonomic relation (as suggested by
Burmeister 2011; 2012; 2017). Finds from bogs demonstrate
that earlier evidence would have been preserved.
the former area of the Swifterbant culture, were par-
ticipating in networks reaching to the Black Sea. The
chronological horizon of these finds correlates well
with the earliest evidence for wheeled vehicles, and it
is suggested to translate the early dates available from
Flintbek and the rock art also to the TRB West group.
Furthermore, this allows rethinking the neo-
lithisation process in the North European Plain. As
others have made clear, western influences and the
role of the Swifterbant culture are still underestimated
(cf. Ten Anscher / Knippenberg this volume; Rae-
maekers this volume). Currently, we have the oldest
evidence for agriculture and animal husbandry in the
late Swifterbant culture, and can also draw a plausible
typological connection from Swifterbant pots to the
typical A/B pottery of the EN I phase of the TRB
culture (cf. Demirci et al. this volume). An important
break is visible with the shift to EN II that is not only
contemporary with the appearance of the TRB West
group, but also with the aforementioned innovation
cluster, the start of megalithic burials, and the shift
from a mixed farming / hunting subsistance to a full
agrarian society. It seems therefore plausible that this
new world of the classical TRB is primarily the result
of a new economic strategy made possible by the wide
adoption and regular use of cattle traction.
Technical take-offs and new questions
Crucial changes in the neolithisation of the North
European Plain are strongly founded in different
technologies. When taking such a perspective, how-
ever, it is important to acknowledge that we can
understand it best from a modern retrospective that
was unavailable to the prehistoric communities living
through these changes.
The technologies pushing the neolithisation
could not simply be invented autochthonously. They
required specific resources, organisation, and techni-
cal know-how. None of it was available to the Late
Mesolithic communities in the north. They did es-
tablish contacts with other societies possessing such
know-how relatively early, but these contacts did not
result in drastic changes. Nevertheless, this is not due
to incompetence or ignorance, but due to the lack
of sociotechnical substructures. Metallurgy required
kilns that were able to produce temperatures of over
1,000 °C, technical ceramics that survived such heat,
access to copper ores, and an explicit idea about the
very error-prone smelting and melting processes.
Ploughing and wagon necessitated domesticated
cattle in large enough quantities to be able to remove
393
the Funnelbeaker culture between 4,300-4,100 calBC.51
Modern research has identified two major episodes
within the opening of the forest, during the erection of
megalithic graves, c. 3,400-3,100 calBC, and during the
Single Grave culture, c. 2,800-2,500 calBC (Muller
2009; Brozio et al. 2019).
Successively opening up spaces for agriculture
had two side effects in that it allowed small-scale
travel on cattle-pulled vehicles, but also allowed far
greater lines of sight within the landscape. Therefore,
it is not by accident that the erection of megalithic
tombs and the earliest evidence of wheel and wag-
on fall into the same chronological horizon around
3,400 calBC.52 Both the latter might have depended
on each other, and both also depended on the flint
axe and the opened forest. Economy, environmental
change, ritual, and technology were closely inter-
linked (cf. Brozio et al. 2019).53 The copper axes
from Miisleringen, Reiffenhausen, and Liistringen
support the idea of a diffusion of wagon technology
from the Black Sea. The opening of the landscape did
result in prehistoric communities choosing new ritual
sites (Knitter et al. 2019a; b; cf. Brozio 2016), but
was also crucial for more extensive agriculture and
thus essential for adopting the Traction innovation
cluster’ (cf. Klimscha 2017a; b).
Our paper has summed up several arguments
concerning the relationship between diffusion of
technology and socio-economic change. Networks of
hunter-gatherer-fishers established two communica-
tion channels that were crucial for the neolithisation
process in the north: contacts with the LBK suc-
cessors on the one hand, and with the world of the
Copper Age of the Carpathian Basin and the western
Black Sea area on the other.
The latter one was intensified during the late 5th
and early 4th millennium calBC, resulting in the dif-
fusion of a technological package of cattle traction,
plough, and wheeled vehicles. The network did not
end in the Baltic region, though. A preliminary ty-
pological study of the available copper axes strongly
suggests that Lower Saxony and the Netherlands, i.e.
51 If ten Anscher’s brilliant work on the typological analogies
between the later phases of Swifterbant and the earliest TRB is
accepted, this might be the same phenomenon (cf. Ten Anscher
2012).
52 It is important to note that archaeologically this might have
been as early as 3,600 calBC (see above).
53 The evidence for the wagon is linked closely to megalithic
tombs, but this is not a taphonomic relation (as suggested by
Burmeister 2011; 2012; 2017). Finds from bogs demonstrate
that earlier evidence would have been preserved.
the former area of the Swifterbant culture, were par-
ticipating in networks reaching to the Black Sea. The
chronological horizon of these finds correlates well
with the earliest evidence for wheeled vehicles, and it
is suggested to translate the early dates available from
Flintbek and the rock art also to the TRB West group.
Furthermore, this allows rethinking the neo-
lithisation process in the North European Plain. As
others have made clear, western influences and the
role of the Swifterbant culture are still underestimated
(cf. Ten Anscher / Knippenberg this volume; Rae-
maekers this volume). Currently, we have the oldest
evidence for agriculture and animal husbandry in the
late Swifterbant culture, and can also draw a plausible
typological connection from Swifterbant pots to the
typical A/B pottery of the EN I phase of the TRB
culture (cf. Demirci et al. this volume). An important
break is visible with the shift to EN II that is not only
contemporary with the appearance of the TRB West
group, but also with the aforementioned innovation
cluster, the start of megalithic burials, and the shift
from a mixed farming / hunting subsistance to a full
agrarian society. It seems therefore plausible that this
new world of the classical TRB is primarily the result
of a new economic strategy made possible by the wide
adoption and regular use of cattle traction.
Technical take-offs and new questions
Crucial changes in the neolithisation of the North
European Plain are strongly founded in different
technologies. When taking such a perspective, how-
ever, it is important to acknowledge that we can
understand it best from a modern retrospective that
was unavailable to the prehistoric communities living
through these changes.
The technologies pushing the neolithisation
could not simply be invented autochthonously. They
required specific resources, organisation, and techni-
cal know-how. None of it was available to the Late
Mesolithic communities in the north. They did es-
tablish contacts with other societies possessing such
know-how relatively early, but these contacts did not
result in drastic changes. Nevertheless, this is not due
to incompetence or ignorance, but due to the lack
of sociotechnical substructures. Metallurgy required
kilns that were able to produce temperatures of over
1,000 °C, technical ceramics that survived such heat,
access to copper ores, and an explicit idea about the
very error-prone smelting and melting processes.
Ploughing and wagon necessitated domesticated
cattle in large enough quantities to be able to remove