DOI chapter:
Changing Worlds – The Spread of the Neolithic Way of Life in the North
DOI chapter:Knoche, Benedikt: Some remarks on the expansion of the Younger Neolithic causewayed enclosure phenomenon towards northern Germany
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0423
422
Some remarks on the expansion of the Younger Neolithic causewayed enclosure phenomenon towards northern Germany
German plain was basically included in the world of
the enclosures. However, since the end of the 5th mil-
lennium BC (MK II), there has been influence from
the Michelsberg and Jordansmiihler ceramic tradi-
tions further south upon Brandenburg as well as the
western Baltic area (cf. Beran / Wetzel 2014). But
this is dated to the end of the 5th and the beginning
of the 4th millenium calBC and thus not connected
with causewayed enclosures. The same is true for the
Holstein area in the far north of Germany (cf. Hartz
et al. 2000). The western part of Lower Saxony also
remains free of enclosures, even in the subsequent
Later Neolithic. As a communication route, the Weser
river must have played a major role in the transmission
of the enclosure idea during the younger Neolithic,
and probably also in a further neolithisation process.5
But how can we characterise the relationships be-
tween the enclosure builders of Miisleringen to any re-
maining Final Mesolithic populations? As Terberger
et al. (2018) pointed out on the basis of stable isotope
results (13C / 15N) of human remains from northern
central Europe, a farming economy was introduced
in all parts of the lowlands during the early 4th mil-
lennium BC. But it was not before the 3rd millennium
cal BC that it became fully established on a general
scale (Terberger et al. 2018, 66). Even if the data are
more scarce here, this was probably also the case in
northwestern Germany. The situation in the northern
forefield of the traditional Neolithic settlement areas
in Westphalia and the southern part of Lower Saxony
remains unclear. An occupation by Final Mesolithic /
Subneolithic communities similar to Swifterbant in
the Netherlands can be assumed for western Lower
Saxony at any rate (Hiide-Swifterbant), where cor-
responding pottery is found selectively (Hude I near
Diepholz).6 However, Swifterbant is only vaguely visi-
ble in western Lower Saxony. The reason is to be found
in a mainly foraging way of life, which leaves relatively
few archaeological traces. Compared to Westphalia,
for example, the lack of causewayed enclosures has a
particularly negative effect to our knowledge. Compa-
rably, relatively little would be known of Michelsberg
5 Knoche 2008a, 131; Klassen 2014,167,226,228 fig. 140; cf.
the ‘north-south communication route’ („Nord-Sud-Kommuni-
kationsroute“) of Muller 2017, 93 fig. 47, fig. 86. For Gadebehn
see http://krg.htw-berlin.de/studium/studienschwerpunkte/
grabungstechnik-feldarchaeologie-gfa/studienprojekte/
lehrgrabung-gaedebehn/, last accessed 08.12.2019.
6 Kampffmeyer 1983; 1991; Stapel 1991; Kotula 2019, 7. For
Swifterbant see Raemaekers 1999; Raemaekers / De Roever
2010. See also Nachr. Niedersachsen Urgeschichte Beiheft 2,
1999, 89 fig. 58,2.
further south without its habit of building causewayed
enclosures.
The period in question here between 4,100 and
3,500 calBC (EN I) was a transitional phase between
a foraging and an agrarian economy, between a Meso-
lithic and a Neolithic lifestyle (cf. among others and
with further literature: Knoche 2008a, 129; Klassen
2004). According to current knowledge, northwest
Germany north of the Wiehengebirge was a kind of
‘mixed cultural area’ between a Mesolithic foraging
way of life and economy, enriched with Neolithic ele-
ments (lithic heavy tools, pottery, but in its own tra-
dition). In addition, there are apparently specialised
complexes such as Hude I (Ldkr. Diepholz), which
may well have been hunting stations of indigenous
populations as well as of Neolithic groups further
south (Moller 2004, 40). M. Furholt characterises
this phase as a ‘Virtual Neolithic’, where all elements
of the ‘Neolithic Package’ are present and used, but
their limited use does not yet effectively change social
reality and human identities. This happens only after
3,500 calBC, with the ‘Realised Neolithic’ (Furholt
2010, 12 fig. 9). In the light of recent studies, the
neolithisation process in northern Europe was among
other factors the result of migrations from central Eu-
rope, and less of an acculturation of Late Mesolithic
populations (Brace etal. 2018). These populations
present at the transition from the Mesolithic to the
Neolithic apparently formed the demographic basis
for the subsequent Funnel Beaker culture / EN II, c.
3,500-3,300 calBC onwards (Ten Anscher 2015). The
situation in the north German lowlands east of the
Elbe river seems to be quite comparable (cf. Beran /
Wetzel 2014, 81), perhaps complemented by stronger
northerly oriented early Neolithic traditions (EN I),
similar to the western Baltic region.
It has been shown elsewhere by the author that
no far-reaching impulses seem to have come from the
Younger Neolithic in the Miinsterland (Michelsberg)
to the adjacent north German lowlands. This is not
only demonstrated by the absence of causewayed
enclosures in western Lower Saxony during the
Younger Neolithic, but also by the absence of Maas
flint (especially of pointed axes made of Maas flint)
as well as of leaf-shaped arrowheads (Knoche 2008a;
b). Jade axes are also present only sporadically in this
area, compared to southern central Europe.7 * * * Late
7 Klassen 2004, 83; Petrequin 2012, fig. 3; Petrequin et al.
2017, fig. 1. Only in the western Baltic region they can be found
in certain numbers; there they also provoked formal flint imita-
tions, as Klassen points out.
Some remarks on the expansion of the Younger Neolithic causewayed enclosure phenomenon towards northern Germany
German plain was basically included in the world of
the enclosures. However, since the end of the 5th mil-
lennium BC (MK II), there has been influence from
the Michelsberg and Jordansmiihler ceramic tradi-
tions further south upon Brandenburg as well as the
western Baltic area (cf. Beran / Wetzel 2014). But
this is dated to the end of the 5th and the beginning
of the 4th millenium calBC and thus not connected
with causewayed enclosures. The same is true for the
Holstein area in the far north of Germany (cf. Hartz
et al. 2000). The western part of Lower Saxony also
remains free of enclosures, even in the subsequent
Later Neolithic. As a communication route, the Weser
river must have played a major role in the transmission
of the enclosure idea during the younger Neolithic,
and probably also in a further neolithisation process.5
But how can we characterise the relationships be-
tween the enclosure builders of Miisleringen to any re-
maining Final Mesolithic populations? As Terberger
et al. (2018) pointed out on the basis of stable isotope
results (13C / 15N) of human remains from northern
central Europe, a farming economy was introduced
in all parts of the lowlands during the early 4th mil-
lennium BC. But it was not before the 3rd millennium
cal BC that it became fully established on a general
scale (Terberger et al. 2018, 66). Even if the data are
more scarce here, this was probably also the case in
northwestern Germany. The situation in the northern
forefield of the traditional Neolithic settlement areas
in Westphalia and the southern part of Lower Saxony
remains unclear. An occupation by Final Mesolithic /
Subneolithic communities similar to Swifterbant in
the Netherlands can be assumed for western Lower
Saxony at any rate (Hiide-Swifterbant), where cor-
responding pottery is found selectively (Hude I near
Diepholz).6 However, Swifterbant is only vaguely visi-
ble in western Lower Saxony. The reason is to be found
in a mainly foraging way of life, which leaves relatively
few archaeological traces. Compared to Westphalia,
for example, the lack of causewayed enclosures has a
particularly negative effect to our knowledge. Compa-
rably, relatively little would be known of Michelsberg
5 Knoche 2008a, 131; Klassen 2014,167,226,228 fig. 140; cf.
the ‘north-south communication route’ („Nord-Sud-Kommuni-
kationsroute“) of Muller 2017, 93 fig. 47, fig. 86. For Gadebehn
see http://krg.htw-berlin.de/studium/studienschwerpunkte/
grabungstechnik-feldarchaeologie-gfa/studienprojekte/
lehrgrabung-gaedebehn/, last accessed 08.12.2019.
6 Kampffmeyer 1983; 1991; Stapel 1991; Kotula 2019, 7. For
Swifterbant see Raemaekers 1999; Raemaekers / De Roever
2010. See also Nachr. Niedersachsen Urgeschichte Beiheft 2,
1999, 89 fig. 58,2.
further south without its habit of building causewayed
enclosures.
The period in question here between 4,100 and
3,500 calBC (EN I) was a transitional phase between
a foraging and an agrarian economy, between a Meso-
lithic and a Neolithic lifestyle (cf. among others and
with further literature: Knoche 2008a, 129; Klassen
2004). According to current knowledge, northwest
Germany north of the Wiehengebirge was a kind of
‘mixed cultural area’ between a Mesolithic foraging
way of life and economy, enriched with Neolithic ele-
ments (lithic heavy tools, pottery, but in its own tra-
dition). In addition, there are apparently specialised
complexes such as Hude I (Ldkr. Diepholz), which
may well have been hunting stations of indigenous
populations as well as of Neolithic groups further
south (Moller 2004, 40). M. Furholt characterises
this phase as a ‘Virtual Neolithic’, where all elements
of the ‘Neolithic Package’ are present and used, but
their limited use does not yet effectively change social
reality and human identities. This happens only after
3,500 calBC, with the ‘Realised Neolithic’ (Furholt
2010, 12 fig. 9). In the light of recent studies, the
neolithisation process in northern Europe was among
other factors the result of migrations from central Eu-
rope, and less of an acculturation of Late Mesolithic
populations (Brace etal. 2018). These populations
present at the transition from the Mesolithic to the
Neolithic apparently formed the demographic basis
for the subsequent Funnel Beaker culture / EN II, c.
3,500-3,300 calBC onwards (Ten Anscher 2015). The
situation in the north German lowlands east of the
Elbe river seems to be quite comparable (cf. Beran /
Wetzel 2014, 81), perhaps complemented by stronger
northerly oriented early Neolithic traditions (EN I),
similar to the western Baltic region.
It has been shown elsewhere by the author that
no far-reaching impulses seem to have come from the
Younger Neolithic in the Miinsterland (Michelsberg)
to the adjacent north German lowlands. This is not
only demonstrated by the absence of causewayed
enclosures in western Lower Saxony during the
Younger Neolithic, but also by the absence of Maas
flint (especially of pointed axes made of Maas flint)
as well as of leaf-shaped arrowheads (Knoche 2008a;
b). Jade axes are also present only sporadically in this
area, compared to southern central Europe.7 * * * Late
7 Klassen 2004, 83; Petrequin 2012, fig. 3; Petrequin et al.
2017, fig. 1. Only in the western Baltic region they can be found
in certain numbers; there they also provoked formal flint imita-
tions, as Klassen points out.