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#0426
Benedikt Knoche
425
For all these models, arguments and counterarguments
can be cited, just as gradual modifications and ad-
ditions are conceivable. It may even be possible to
combine different models over time. At first glance,
model 1 appears to be most likely, i. e. a ‘broad front’
extension beyond the existing causewayed enclosure
landscapes into the north German plain, which had
apparently been occupied by Mesolithic to Early Neo-
lithic groups so far. This also implies the possibility
that this process might have taken the form of small-
scale intrusions. However, there is still a lack of con-
necting finds north of the Hannover-Braunschweig
area. Model 2 initially contains only an exclave-like
establishment of ‘avant-garde’ populations with sub-
sequent spatial and habitual effects. A comparable
process might have manifested itself in causewayed
enclosures such as Walmstorf (Ldkr. Uelzen; Rich-
ter 1998) in Lower Saxony, or Nottuln-Uphoven (Kr.
Coesfeld) in Westphalia (cf. Knoche 2008a; but rather
sceptical: Geschwinde / Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 192).
In both cases, Neolithic populations might have occu-
pied distinct fertile loess areas outside the traditional
Neolithic settlement areas. Observations by L. Klassen
on the construction elements of various causewayed
enclosures distributed over large parts of Europe also
argue for the possibility of long-range migrations of at
least smaller groups of people. Thus Klassen assumes
a derivation of early Neolithic causewayed enclosures
such as Biidelsdorf (Kr. Rendsburg-Eckernforde; cf.
Hassmann 2000; Hage 2016; Muller 2017, 88) from
the Neckar region. He considers migrating groups of
people as ‘founder populations’ in the north to be
the most plausible scenario (Klassen 2014, 150; cf.
Klassen / Knoche 2019, 95). This is accompanied
by a spread of north Alpine pottery and probably
also copper axes far to the north and west of conti-
nental Europe, soon to be followed by tetrapioid free
threshing wheat and copper daggers.8 Further specific
elements (or variants) of the causewayed enclosure
phenomenon, such as the linear earthworks or linear
ditch systems (which are strictly speaking no cause-
wayed enclosures!) only found in the Miinsterland
(Nottuln-Uphoven, probably also Rosendahl-Oster-
wick) and in one case in Denmark (Vilsund; Klassen
2014, 185-186, 189 fig. 107), suggest such a punctual
and disjointed character. A recently identified linear
arrangement of pits and ditch segments connecting
two Funnel Beaker culture causewayed enclosures on
Djursland in Denmark (‘ritual superstructure’ between
8 Klassen 2004; 2014; Knoche 2008a; Muller 2013; 2017;
Kirleis / Fischer 2014.
Skaervad, Kainsbakke IV) also falls within the range
of ‘ritual linearity’ (Klassen et al. 2020, 468 fig.7).
In terms of linearity of ditch and parallel rows of
wooden post settings Nottuln-Uphoven in fact resem-
bles linear stone rows, as they appear slightly earlier
or simultaneously next to the megalthic grave ‘Table
des Marchand’ (Dep. Morbihan) in Brittany, with the
‘Grand Menhir Brise’ as its relocated main compo-
nent (cf. Klassen / Knoche 2019, 87; for the stone
row at the side of the ‘Table des Marchand’ see e. g.
Cunliffe 2001, 146; Bonniol / Cassen 2009). In this
case an ideological interaction between the materials
wood and stone can be assumed. However, rows of
wooden posts accompanying trenches are a common
feature of Younger Neolithic causewayed enclosures
in central Europe (cf. Raetzel-Fabian 1999; 2000),
although not in the specifically linear arrangement
present in Nottuln-Uphoven. Furthermore, not every
section of an causewayed enclosure must have been in
use at the same time. In addition, there are so-called
recuttings, i. e. re-openings of filled ditches. Taking this
into account, the post settings can even have been the
primary constituent and most constant element of a
causewayed enclosure in terms of time as a (magical)
membrane (‘Bannkreis’) of a certain place.
A variant of this dynamic would be model 3 with
its linear extensions along infrastructural vectors as
‘main routes of intrusion’. The newly discovered cause-
wayed enclosures of Stolzenau-Musleringen and Stey-
erberg-Wellie (both Ldkr. Nienburg/Weser; cf. Freese
2010; Knoche 2019) show the essential importance
of the Weser corridor as a Younger Neolithic vector.
About eight kilometres further north from Miisleringen,
Steyerberg-Wellie also gives reason to suspect that fur-
ther earthworks might be found along the Weser to the
north, possibly at intervals of five to ten kilometres. The
specific significance of the river Weser as a transmission
axis of Younger Neolithic impulses to the north has al-
ready been discussed (Klassen 2004; Knoche 2008a).
In addition to a targeted spatial dynamic along the
Weser and Elbe rivers, this model also assumes a kind
of avant-garde-population, which brought the north into
contact with the causewayed enclosure phenomenon
and the underlying ideology. In contrast to the exclave
model, this linear expansion then led to the establish-
ment of a coherent corridor of causewayed enclosures.
In this linear model, direct spatial contact with the
traditional Neolithic settlement areas on the northern
fringe of the low mountain range further south was
always maintained. The background of such mobility
might perhaps be the existence of extensive livestock
farming systems and the associated driving of stock
(Knoche 2013).
425
For all these models, arguments and counterarguments
can be cited, just as gradual modifications and ad-
ditions are conceivable. It may even be possible to
combine different models over time. At first glance,
model 1 appears to be most likely, i. e. a ‘broad front’
extension beyond the existing causewayed enclosure
landscapes into the north German plain, which had
apparently been occupied by Mesolithic to Early Neo-
lithic groups so far. This also implies the possibility
that this process might have taken the form of small-
scale intrusions. However, there is still a lack of con-
necting finds north of the Hannover-Braunschweig
area. Model 2 initially contains only an exclave-like
establishment of ‘avant-garde’ populations with sub-
sequent spatial and habitual effects. A comparable
process might have manifested itself in causewayed
enclosures such as Walmstorf (Ldkr. Uelzen; Rich-
ter 1998) in Lower Saxony, or Nottuln-Uphoven (Kr.
Coesfeld) in Westphalia (cf. Knoche 2008a; but rather
sceptical: Geschwinde / Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 192).
In both cases, Neolithic populations might have occu-
pied distinct fertile loess areas outside the traditional
Neolithic settlement areas. Observations by L. Klassen
on the construction elements of various causewayed
enclosures distributed over large parts of Europe also
argue for the possibility of long-range migrations of at
least smaller groups of people. Thus Klassen assumes
a derivation of early Neolithic causewayed enclosures
such as Biidelsdorf (Kr. Rendsburg-Eckernforde; cf.
Hassmann 2000; Hage 2016; Muller 2017, 88) from
the Neckar region. He considers migrating groups of
people as ‘founder populations’ in the north to be
the most plausible scenario (Klassen 2014, 150; cf.
Klassen / Knoche 2019, 95). This is accompanied
by a spread of north Alpine pottery and probably
also copper axes far to the north and west of conti-
nental Europe, soon to be followed by tetrapioid free
threshing wheat and copper daggers.8 Further specific
elements (or variants) of the causewayed enclosure
phenomenon, such as the linear earthworks or linear
ditch systems (which are strictly speaking no cause-
wayed enclosures!) only found in the Miinsterland
(Nottuln-Uphoven, probably also Rosendahl-Oster-
wick) and in one case in Denmark (Vilsund; Klassen
2014, 185-186, 189 fig. 107), suggest such a punctual
and disjointed character. A recently identified linear
arrangement of pits and ditch segments connecting
two Funnel Beaker culture causewayed enclosures on
Djursland in Denmark (‘ritual superstructure’ between
8 Klassen 2004; 2014; Knoche 2008a; Muller 2013; 2017;
Kirleis / Fischer 2014.
Skaervad, Kainsbakke IV) also falls within the range
of ‘ritual linearity’ (Klassen et al. 2020, 468 fig.7).
In terms of linearity of ditch and parallel rows of
wooden post settings Nottuln-Uphoven in fact resem-
bles linear stone rows, as they appear slightly earlier
or simultaneously next to the megalthic grave ‘Table
des Marchand’ (Dep. Morbihan) in Brittany, with the
‘Grand Menhir Brise’ as its relocated main compo-
nent (cf. Klassen / Knoche 2019, 87; for the stone
row at the side of the ‘Table des Marchand’ see e. g.
Cunliffe 2001, 146; Bonniol / Cassen 2009). In this
case an ideological interaction between the materials
wood and stone can be assumed. However, rows of
wooden posts accompanying trenches are a common
feature of Younger Neolithic causewayed enclosures
in central Europe (cf. Raetzel-Fabian 1999; 2000),
although not in the specifically linear arrangement
present in Nottuln-Uphoven. Furthermore, not every
section of an causewayed enclosure must have been in
use at the same time. In addition, there are so-called
recuttings, i. e. re-openings of filled ditches. Taking this
into account, the post settings can even have been the
primary constituent and most constant element of a
causewayed enclosure in terms of time as a (magical)
membrane (‘Bannkreis’) of a certain place.
A variant of this dynamic would be model 3 with
its linear extensions along infrastructural vectors as
‘main routes of intrusion’. The newly discovered cause-
wayed enclosures of Stolzenau-Musleringen and Stey-
erberg-Wellie (both Ldkr. Nienburg/Weser; cf. Freese
2010; Knoche 2019) show the essential importance
of the Weser corridor as a Younger Neolithic vector.
About eight kilometres further north from Miisleringen,
Steyerberg-Wellie also gives reason to suspect that fur-
ther earthworks might be found along the Weser to the
north, possibly at intervals of five to ten kilometres. The
specific significance of the river Weser as a transmission
axis of Younger Neolithic impulses to the north has al-
ready been discussed (Klassen 2004; Knoche 2008a).
In addition to a targeted spatial dynamic along the
Weser and Elbe rivers, this model also assumes a kind
of avant-garde-population, which brought the north into
contact with the causewayed enclosure phenomenon
and the underlying ideology. In contrast to the exclave
model, this linear expansion then led to the establish-
ment of a coherent corridor of causewayed enclosures.
In this linear model, direct spatial contact with the
traditional Neolithic settlement areas on the northern
fringe of the low mountain range further south was
always maintained. The background of such mobility
might perhaps be the existence of extensive livestock
farming systems and the associated driving of stock
(Knoche 2013).