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#0427
426
Some remarks on the expansion of the Younger Neolithic causewayed enclosure phenomenon towards northern Germany
As an extension of this model, model 4 then takes
into account that in the aftermath of the establishment
of the causewayed enclosure phenomenon in Jutland
and Schleswig-Holstein, the neolithisation of the north
German plain then might have proceeded essentially
from north to south - and not so much from south to
north on a broad front. However, the radiocarbon dates
do not support a compelling approach in this sense.
Arguments for this model can be seen in the flat ham-
mer axes with their connection from north Germany to
Jutland, which penetrated as far as Westphalia, south-
ern Lower Saxony, and even further south (Knoche
2008a, 185 ff., fig. 5.44). The chrono-typologically some-
what ambivalent complex of Walmstorf (Geschwinde /
Raetzel-Fabian 2009,191) might also be traced back to
these reciprocally detached relationships. Overall, the
significantly higher density of causewayed enclosures
in Denmark compared to Schleswig-Holstein indicates
that Jutland may well have had a structural significance
in the expansion of these structures, i. e. as a secondary
expansion core. However, the current state of research
may have a distorting effect here (Muller 2017, 81).
The integration of the entire north German plain into
the area of the so called Trichterbecher complex (cf.
Furholt 2014, 17; Hinz 2014, 207 for a discussion
from different angles) with its megalithic construc-
tions in the subsequent Late Neolithic (‘Spatneolithi-
kum’) from approx. 3,500 calBC onwards indirectly
suggests such a north-south connection already for
the late Younger Neolithic. These temporal dynamics
of diverse material elements from the Younger to the
Late Neolithic might then be understood as a coher-
ent cultural-historical process. This model would also
best explain why vessel remains from the causewayed
enclosure of Walmstorf show stronger connections to
EN I ware than to the ceramic traditions further south.
In my opinion, model 4 fits best to the current state
of research.
The models presented here can only display theo-
retical approaches to the issue. Only a specifically
focused research strategy can contribute to further
elucidating the historical south-north dynamics during
the Younger Neolithic in Lower Saxony and beyond.
By the way, it should not be an a priori assumption that
the entire Lower Saxony area east of the Weser river
had been covered by causewayed enclosures, especially
in the area north of the traditional Neolithic settle-
ment areas. Looking at other parts of Europe, a mo-
saic pattern of regions with and without causewayed
enclosures is to be expected. In the British area there
were regions intensively filled with causewayed enclo-
sures, while at the same time neighbouring regions
did not practise this phenomenon or at least only at
a significantly lower level of intensity (Oswald 2011,
2). The reasons for these regionally different behav-
iours are still unknown. It can only be assumed that
ideological differences in ritual experience and action
were responsible for the difference, or that there were
also forms of enclosures which cannot be proven by
archaeological methods, for example by hedges, clear-
ings, superficial ground carvings, etc. But even in such
a scenario regional differences in ritual expression
would remain. In any case, the propagation of the
causewayed enclosure phenomenon is a non-linear
process, which cannot be sufficiently conceptualised
with a simple broad-front area extension.
Not only spatially, but also temporally the cause-
wayed enclosure phenomenon is represented in a
nuanced way among users of Michelsberg ceramics:
Several sites with an earlier version of Michelsberg
pottery (MK II/III) in Schleswig-Holstein and Bran-
denburg appear as isolated spots in their surroundings,
almost like isolated offshoots far beyond the closed
distribution area of this pottery (cf. e. g. Hartz et al.
2000; Beran / Wetzel 2012). The extent to which
these specific neolithisation hotspots achieved a wide-
spread effect cannot yet be estimated, but it may have
remained quite limited. In any case, during this earlier
phase of the Younger Neolithic around 4,000 calBC
they do not seem to have been associated with cause-
wayed enclosures.
At present, no conclusive statements can be made
about the exact mode of transmission of Neolithic ele-
ments from central to northern Europe. These early
ceramic ensembles probably reflect acculturative im-
pulses towards the western Baltic region, whereby the
Michelsberg ceramics apparently provided a higher
adaptability for the Ertebolle ceramics, which were also
largely undecorated and non-flat-bottomed. In addition
to the assumption of extensive livestock farming sys-
tems with transhumance, etc., a ritually / ancestor-driv-
en concept exists, which assumes migrations from the
southwest of Germany to at least Schleswig-Holstein
(Biidelsdorf) with good reasons (Klassen 2014, 167).
Ancestor worship and associated long-distance routes
may have kept the link between the region of origin
and the target region at least ideally, especially since
migrations are now assumed to be a noticeable factor
in the neolithisation of the north (Klassen / Knoche
2019, 95; on migrations to the north see Sorensen
2014). As with the economic approach (cattle driving,
transhumance), however, the route affinity of the cause-
wayed enclosures would also remain an essential factor
in this model (Fig. 8). Systematical regional research
on historical routes in the Braunschweig region and
Westphalia might provide further clarity here.
Some remarks on the expansion of the Younger Neolithic causewayed enclosure phenomenon towards northern Germany
As an extension of this model, model 4 then takes
into account that in the aftermath of the establishment
of the causewayed enclosure phenomenon in Jutland
and Schleswig-Holstein, the neolithisation of the north
German plain then might have proceeded essentially
from north to south - and not so much from south to
north on a broad front. However, the radiocarbon dates
do not support a compelling approach in this sense.
Arguments for this model can be seen in the flat ham-
mer axes with their connection from north Germany to
Jutland, which penetrated as far as Westphalia, south-
ern Lower Saxony, and even further south (Knoche
2008a, 185 ff., fig. 5.44). The chrono-typologically some-
what ambivalent complex of Walmstorf (Geschwinde /
Raetzel-Fabian 2009,191) might also be traced back to
these reciprocally detached relationships. Overall, the
significantly higher density of causewayed enclosures
in Denmark compared to Schleswig-Holstein indicates
that Jutland may well have had a structural significance
in the expansion of these structures, i. e. as a secondary
expansion core. However, the current state of research
may have a distorting effect here (Muller 2017, 81).
The integration of the entire north German plain into
the area of the so called Trichterbecher complex (cf.
Furholt 2014, 17; Hinz 2014, 207 for a discussion
from different angles) with its megalithic construc-
tions in the subsequent Late Neolithic (‘Spatneolithi-
kum’) from approx. 3,500 calBC onwards indirectly
suggests such a north-south connection already for
the late Younger Neolithic. These temporal dynamics
of diverse material elements from the Younger to the
Late Neolithic might then be understood as a coher-
ent cultural-historical process. This model would also
best explain why vessel remains from the causewayed
enclosure of Walmstorf show stronger connections to
EN I ware than to the ceramic traditions further south.
In my opinion, model 4 fits best to the current state
of research.
The models presented here can only display theo-
retical approaches to the issue. Only a specifically
focused research strategy can contribute to further
elucidating the historical south-north dynamics during
the Younger Neolithic in Lower Saxony and beyond.
By the way, it should not be an a priori assumption that
the entire Lower Saxony area east of the Weser river
had been covered by causewayed enclosures, especially
in the area north of the traditional Neolithic settle-
ment areas. Looking at other parts of Europe, a mo-
saic pattern of regions with and without causewayed
enclosures is to be expected. In the British area there
were regions intensively filled with causewayed enclo-
sures, while at the same time neighbouring regions
did not practise this phenomenon or at least only at
a significantly lower level of intensity (Oswald 2011,
2). The reasons for these regionally different behav-
iours are still unknown. It can only be assumed that
ideological differences in ritual experience and action
were responsible for the difference, or that there were
also forms of enclosures which cannot be proven by
archaeological methods, for example by hedges, clear-
ings, superficial ground carvings, etc. But even in such
a scenario regional differences in ritual expression
would remain. In any case, the propagation of the
causewayed enclosure phenomenon is a non-linear
process, which cannot be sufficiently conceptualised
with a simple broad-front area extension.
Not only spatially, but also temporally the cause-
wayed enclosure phenomenon is represented in a
nuanced way among users of Michelsberg ceramics:
Several sites with an earlier version of Michelsberg
pottery (MK II/III) in Schleswig-Holstein and Bran-
denburg appear as isolated spots in their surroundings,
almost like isolated offshoots far beyond the closed
distribution area of this pottery (cf. e. g. Hartz et al.
2000; Beran / Wetzel 2012). The extent to which
these specific neolithisation hotspots achieved a wide-
spread effect cannot yet be estimated, but it may have
remained quite limited. In any case, during this earlier
phase of the Younger Neolithic around 4,000 calBC
they do not seem to have been associated with cause-
wayed enclosures.
At present, no conclusive statements can be made
about the exact mode of transmission of Neolithic ele-
ments from central to northern Europe. These early
ceramic ensembles probably reflect acculturative im-
pulses towards the western Baltic region, whereby the
Michelsberg ceramics apparently provided a higher
adaptability for the Ertebolle ceramics, which were also
largely undecorated and non-flat-bottomed. In addition
to the assumption of extensive livestock farming sys-
tems with transhumance, etc., a ritually / ancestor-driv-
en concept exists, which assumes migrations from the
southwest of Germany to at least Schleswig-Holstein
(Biidelsdorf) with good reasons (Klassen 2014, 167).
Ancestor worship and associated long-distance routes
may have kept the link between the region of origin
and the target region at least ideally, especially since
migrations are now assumed to be a noticeable factor
in the neolithisation of the north (Klassen / Knoche
2019, 95; on migrations to the north see Sorensen
2014). As with the economic approach (cattle driving,
transhumance), however, the route affinity of the cause-
wayed enclosures would also remain an essential factor
in this model (Fig. 8). Systematical regional research
on historical routes in the Braunschweig region and
Westphalia might provide further clarity here.