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#0429
428
Some remarks on the expansion of the Younger Neolithic causewayed enclosure phenomenon towards northern Germany
causewayed enclosure is detectable at all for the
first half of the 4th millenium calBC. Exceptions
are only the causewayed enclosures along the
Weser river itself, which can be detected further
north, apparently as evidence of an expansion
along traditional communication and traffic cor-
ridors. It remains to be clarified whether there
are still undiscovered causewayed enclosures
immediately west and east of the Weser.
(2) The regionally different preparedness for the
integration of causewayed enclosures indicates (4)
different attitudes to this ritual phenomenon,
probably in the sense of different social or cul-
tural groups. In western Lower Saxony, this
would be Swifterbant-Hiide I, in the eastern
part some sort of Swifterbant as well or another
early ceramic tradition roughly north of the area
Hannover-Braunschweig. In the latter case, it
can only be assumed that they represent deriva-
tions of an early Funnel Beaker tradition.
(3) Michelsberg ceramics in the north German
lowlands are sporadically known since the
end of the 5th millenium calBC, but there were
still no causewayed enclosures until the 39th to
37th century calBC. So in this region Michels-
berg ceramics do not necessarily have to go to-
gether with causewayed enclosures. The Early
Neolithic populations in northern central and
northern Europe tended not to be causewayed
enclosure builders. According to Muller (2014,
187) the ‘emergence of causewayed enclosures
represents social transformations’, and if this is
true, it can be assumed in the reverse conclu-
sion that an appropriate social infiltration of
these parts of northern Germany was not strong
enough at the beginning of the 4th millenium
calBC. Apparently there was initially no broad
demographic basis for such a social transfor-
mation in form of the lifestyle of the enclosure
builders. In this regard, causewayed enclosures
indeed are veritable markers of the existence
(and acceptance) of a full Neolithic lifestyle in
northern Germany and the western Baltic re-
gion. This delayed start of enclosure building
is not an isolated case: According to J.-P. Boc-
quet-Appels and J. Dubouloz, the demographic
changes (higher birth rate, increase in popula-
tion density) in the course of the neolithisation
in large parts of Europe also led to an increased
construction of causewayed enclosures. While
the so-called Neolithic Demographic Transi-
tion (NDT) reached its peak demographically
and anthropologically about 500 years after the
beginning of each regionally based neolithisa-
tion, archaeologically detectable reactions to
it in the form of an intensified construction of
enclosures (or maybe other monumental build-
ings) did not become noticeable until 600-900
years later (Bocquet-Appel / Dubouloz 2004).
The observations for northwest and northern
Germany fit well into this pattern and emphasise
above all the demographic dimension within this
process (cf. in general also Knoche 2013, 149).
The neolithisation (early Funnel Beaker com-
plex) north of the river Elbe starting on an Erte-
bolle basis (up to approximately 4,100 / 4 ,000
calBC) led to the establishment of a monumental
architecture in the western Baltic Sea area from
the 38/37th century calBC, to which - besides
causewayed enclosures - also non-megalithic
long mounds belong (Muller 2017). These early
(Younger Neolithic) causewayed enclosure phe-
nomena are not yet documented in the western
part of Lower Saxony north of the Westpha-
lian Bay or the Wiehengebirge. Swifterbant
thus proves to be a largely enclosure-resistant
socio-economic and cultural phenomenon. Here
an already long-existing cultural disposition, in
form of a habitual distinction between Michels-
berg to the south and Swifterbant to the north,
seems obvious. This also applies to the distinc-
tion between Swifterbant south of the river Elbe
and Ertebolle north of it, where causewayed en-
closures definitely appeared later on during the
EN I (prior to those in northwest Germany). The
construction of the first causewayed enclosures
in the western Baltic Sea region can already be
expected in the 39th century calBC (Klassen
2014; Muller 2017). If this is true, it will put
the causewayed enclosures at the Weser river,
such as the early dated Stolzenau-Musleringen
example, even more into focus as links for the
causewayed enclosures north of the river Elbe.
The early construction phases of causewayed
enclosures are generally problematic to deter-
mine. However, the starting ‘perceptibility’ of
causewayed enclosures in southern Lower Sax-
ony (in the Braunschweig and Hanover region)
and the area north of the river Elbe until the
38th century calBC may be no coincidence. Most
likely there is a convergence of the underlying
socio-economic dynamics of this time period,
which also affected the traditional Neolithic
regions of southern central Europe and west-
ern (France) as well as northwestern Europe
(Britain). Strong impulses for these dynamics
Some remarks on the expansion of the Younger Neolithic causewayed enclosure phenomenon towards northern Germany
causewayed enclosure is detectable at all for the
first half of the 4th millenium calBC. Exceptions
are only the causewayed enclosures along the
Weser river itself, which can be detected further
north, apparently as evidence of an expansion
along traditional communication and traffic cor-
ridors. It remains to be clarified whether there
are still undiscovered causewayed enclosures
immediately west and east of the Weser.
(2) The regionally different preparedness for the
integration of causewayed enclosures indicates (4)
different attitudes to this ritual phenomenon,
probably in the sense of different social or cul-
tural groups. In western Lower Saxony, this
would be Swifterbant-Hiide I, in the eastern
part some sort of Swifterbant as well or another
early ceramic tradition roughly north of the area
Hannover-Braunschweig. In the latter case, it
can only be assumed that they represent deriva-
tions of an early Funnel Beaker tradition.
(3) Michelsberg ceramics in the north German
lowlands are sporadically known since the
end of the 5th millenium calBC, but there were
still no causewayed enclosures until the 39th to
37th century calBC. So in this region Michels-
berg ceramics do not necessarily have to go to-
gether with causewayed enclosures. The Early
Neolithic populations in northern central and
northern Europe tended not to be causewayed
enclosure builders. According to Muller (2014,
187) the ‘emergence of causewayed enclosures
represents social transformations’, and if this is
true, it can be assumed in the reverse conclu-
sion that an appropriate social infiltration of
these parts of northern Germany was not strong
enough at the beginning of the 4th millenium
calBC. Apparently there was initially no broad
demographic basis for such a social transfor-
mation in form of the lifestyle of the enclosure
builders. In this regard, causewayed enclosures
indeed are veritable markers of the existence
(and acceptance) of a full Neolithic lifestyle in
northern Germany and the western Baltic re-
gion. This delayed start of enclosure building
is not an isolated case: According to J.-P. Boc-
quet-Appels and J. Dubouloz, the demographic
changes (higher birth rate, increase in popula-
tion density) in the course of the neolithisation
in large parts of Europe also led to an increased
construction of causewayed enclosures. While
the so-called Neolithic Demographic Transi-
tion (NDT) reached its peak demographically
and anthropologically about 500 years after the
beginning of each regionally based neolithisa-
tion, archaeologically detectable reactions to
it in the form of an intensified construction of
enclosures (or maybe other monumental build-
ings) did not become noticeable until 600-900
years later (Bocquet-Appel / Dubouloz 2004).
The observations for northwest and northern
Germany fit well into this pattern and emphasise
above all the demographic dimension within this
process (cf. in general also Knoche 2013, 149).
The neolithisation (early Funnel Beaker com-
plex) north of the river Elbe starting on an Erte-
bolle basis (up to approximately 4,100 / 4 ,000
calBC) led to the establishment of a monumental
architecture in the western Baltic Sea area from
the 38/37th century calBC, to which - besides
causewayed enclosures - also non-megalithic
long mounds belong (Muller 2017). These early
(Younger Neolithic) causewayed enclosure phe-
nomena are not yet documented in the western
part of Lower Saxony north of the Westpha-
lian Bay or the Wiehengebirge. Swifterbant
thus proves to be a largely enclosure-resistant
socio-economic and cultural phenomenon. Here
an already long-existing cultural disposition, in
form of a habitual distinction between Michels-
berg to the south and Swifterbant to the north,
seems obvious. This also applies to the distinc-
tion between Swifterbant south of the river Elbe
and Ertebolle north of it, where causewayed en-
closures definitely appeared later on during the
EN I (prior to those in northwest Germany). The
construction of the first causewayed enclosures
in the western Baltic Sea region can already be
expected in the 39th century calBC (Klassen
2014; Muller 2017). If this is true, it will put
the causewayed enclosures at the Weser river,
such as the early dated Stolzenau-Musleringen
example, even more into focus as links for the
causewayed enclosures north of the river Elbe.
The early construction phases of causewayed
enclosures are generally problematic to deter-
mine. However, the starting ‘perceptibility’ of
causewayed enclosures in southern Lower Sax-
ony (in the Braunschweig and Hanover region)
and the area north of the river Elbe until the
38th century calBC may be no coincidence. Most
likely there is a convergence of the underlying
socio-economic dynamics of this time period,
which also affected the traditional Neolithic
regions of southern central Europe and west-
ern (France) as well as northwestern Europe
(Britain). Strong impulses for these dynamics