Human diet and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Central Europe - an isotopic view (original) (raw)
Related papers
Estimations of population density, which consider regional variability, are an important key variable in archaeology as they have consequences not only for the environmental but also for the economical and social domains. In this paper, a ten-step procedure of a consistent group of methods is described which deals with the data required for estimations of population density at different scale levels (from excavation to large-scale distribution maps). For distribution maps, a method is presented by which densities of sites are displayed using optimal isolines. These demarcate so called 'settlement areas' at scales of between 1:25,000 and 1:2.5 million. Our knowledge of the density of households from key areas with the most complete archaeological records is upscaled for the regions within these isolines. The results of this procedure are estimations of population density for the early Neolithic (Bandkeramik, 51st century BC) and the Roman period (2nd century AD) for regions with some 10,000 km². A simple statistical/graphical method is developed to analyse the relationship between settlement areas, soils, and precipitation. Taking into account the aspects of preservation of sites and the intensity of archaeological observations, an analysis of patterns of land use shows that in prehistory not all areas suitable for use were in fact incorporated into settlement areas. For prehistory, the idea of a most optimised use of land up to its carrying capacity (as it has been proposed for at least 50 years) can be falsified for specific areas. A large number of empty regions with good ecological conditions but lacking in settlement activity can be discussed as resulting from culture historical processes. As an example, the separation of areas inhabited by groups of different identities is discussed. The amount of used space (in terms of 'settlement area') however, increases from the early Neolithic to the 4th century BC from 5% to more than 40% . The increase between the Neolithic and the Iron Age is understood in terms of technological developments in farming systems. The percentage of areas with suitable conditions actually utilised between the Bandkeramik and Iron Age increases from 31.1% to 67.5% in the area covered by the Geschichtlicher Atlas der Rheinlande, and is much higher still in the Roman period (84.3%). State societies seem to use the land more efficiently compared to non-state systems. This is becoming even clearer on consideration of the intensity of human impact.
Der archäobotanische Forschungsstand zur Michelsberger und zur Bischheimer Kultur (5./4. Jahrtausend BC) wurde zusammengetragen und in Zusammenhang mit archäologischen, klimatologischen und biologischen Daten diskutiert. Verglichen mit Bischheim und dem Mittelneolithikum hat die Michelsberger Kultur ein reduziertes Kulturpflanzenspektrum genutzt, mit einem Schwerpunkt bei Getreideanbau. Die Herkunft des tetraploiden Nacktweizens konnte dabei noch nicht abschließend geklärt werden. Möglicherweise wurde der Anbau von Öl-/ Faserpflanzen aufgegeben. Dieses reduzierte Michelsberger Spektrum findet sich interessanterweise etwas später analog im Verbreitungsgebiet der Trichterbecherkultur und bei den neolithischen Fundstellen auf den britischen Inseln. Klimatische Ursachen sind dafür wohl nicht als ursächlich anzusehen. Stattdessen könnte es sich nach den vegetationsgeschichtlichen und archäozoologischen Ergebnissen um eine kulturelle Entscheidung zu einem Landwirtschaftssystem mit Schwerpunkt bei der Viehzucht handeln.
A. Zimmermann/ K.P. Wendt/ Th. Frank/ J. Hilpert, Landscape Archaeology.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75, London u.a. 2009, 1-53
Estimations of population density, which consider regional variability, are an important key variable in archaeology as they have consequences not only for the environmental but also for the economical and social domains. In this paper, a ten-step procedure of a consistent group of methods is described which deals with the data required for estimations of population density at different scale levels (from excavation to large-scale distribution maps). For distribution maps, a method is presented by which densities of sites are displayed using optimal isolines. These demarcate so called 'settlement areas' at scales of between 1:25,000 and 1:2.5 million. Our knowledge of the density of households from key areas with the most complete archaeological records is upscaled for the regions within these isolines. The results of this procedure are estimations of population density for the early Neolithic (Bandkeramik, 51st century BC) and the Roman period (2nd century AD) for regions with some 10,000 km². A simple statistical/graphical method is developed to analyse the relationship between settlement areas, soils, and precipitation. Taking into account the aspects of preservation of sites and the intensity of archaeological observations, an analysis of patterns of land use shows that in prehistory not all areas suitable for use were in fact incorporated into settlement areas. For prehistory, the idea of a most optimised use of land up to its carrying capacity (as it has been proposed for at least 50 years) can be falsified for specific areas. A large number of empty regions with good ecological conditions but lacking in settlement activity can be discussed as resulting from culture historical processes. As an example, the separation of areas inhabited by groups of different identities is discussed. The amount of used space (in terms of 'settlement area') however, increases from the early Neolithic to the 4th century BC from 5% to more than 40% . The increase between the Neolithic and the Iron Age is understood in terms of technological developments in farming systems. The percentage of areas with suitable conditions actually utilised between the Bandkeramik and Iron Age increases from 31.1% to 67.5% in the area covered by the Geschichtlicher Atlas der Rheinlande, and is much higher still in the Roman period (84.3%). State societies seem to use the land more efficiently compared to non-state systems. This is becoming even clearer on consideration of the intensity of human impact.
The Neolithic settlement and land use history in northwestern Germany is subject to detailed archaeological and palynological investigations that are carried out within the framework of the DFG priority program “Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation –the Emergence of Neolithic Monuments and Early Complex Societies in Northern Central Europe”. Up to now, only little is known about the settlement structure and the environmental conditions and changes in northwestern Germany during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC, although various megalithic monuments, grave mounds as well as surface finds indicate that the area was settled by the West Group of the Funnel Beaker and the subsequent Single Grave Cultures. Therefore, five local research areas were selected that bear high potential for interdisciplinary investigations into the structural context between graves and settlements, the temporal and spatial patterns of the Neolithic occupation period, and on the human impact on the landscape. The research areas are located in the Elbe/Weser Triangle (Flögeln / Sievern, Wanna and Lavenstedt), in the Emsland (Hümmling) and the Wildeshauser Geest on sandy geest islands, all in the federal state of Lower Saxony. At least one pollen profile from each local research area was recovered from bogs and fens to work on the landscape reconstruction of Northwestern Germany. First results imply differences in the chronological development and intensity of the human impact on the vegetation possibly depending on regional differences or on the profile’s vicinity to different find categories like settlements or graves. The archaeological investigations will focus on three of the local research areas where promising sites were identified. At Holzhausen in the Wildeshauser Geest, geomagnetic surveys generated a structure that might be evoked by remains of a causewayed enclosure. In addition, two promising TRB settlements were discovered at Sievern and Lavenstedt. The close connection of the settlement at Lavenstedt to various Neolithic tombs provides the opportunity for working on questions concerning TRB settlement structures. At Sievern, the site was yet dated to the oldest Neolithic settlement in Northwestern Germany which is supported by results from pollen analysis and radiocarbon dating of the profile from the neighbouring bog “Dorumer Moor”. Therefore, we expect gain of knowledge about the Neolithic transition in the area.
A Hunter-Gatherer Landscape: Southwest Germany in the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic
American Antiquity, 1999
In the study of prehistoric hunter-gatherers it is much easier to propose models of settlement and subsistence than it is to document them. Such documentation requires a long-term commitment to a research area and the collection, analysis, and interpretation of basic data: a commitment that is, unfortunately, all too uncommon. In this volume Michael Jochim presents the results of a long-term commitment to the study of the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Southwest Germany. Jochim (1976) presented and tested a model of hunter-gatherer settlement and subsistence for this region. In the intervening 20 years, Jochim has continued research in the same region, and the results are presented in this volume. While these new data are weighed against Jochim's earlier work, this book cannot solely be considered a test of his earlier work. This volume also addresses a number of the new questions that have appeared over the last 20 years. The appeal of this book is varied. In terms of the strictly geoarchaeological, the relevance of this book is limited, as geological concerns or methodology, other than a review of paleolclimates, are not addressed in this work. For those interested in the study of prehistoric hunter-gatherers, this book is of interest from theoretical, methodological, and cultural historical standpoints. This book is obviously of interest to those specifically interested in the Mesolithic, but the brevity of the presentations of the primary data somewhat limits its utility. The chapters in this book can be divided into three sections. The first group of chapters (1-6) provide summaries of the background data, the second (Chapters 7-11) document the results of Jochim's research in Southwest Germany, and the third group (Chapters 12-16) presents new syntheses of the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Southwest Germany. The introductory chapters all provide concise summaries of the data that are relevant to topics addressed in this volume, as well as its relationship to Jochim's earlier work. In these sections Jochim has chosen clear, concise presentations, rather than detailed descriptions and analysis of research traditions. This is most clearly seen in the extremely brief descriptions of the history of Mesolithic research in Southwestern Germany. German Mesolithic research has long traditions in the development of chronological systematics. The chronological scheme more often reflects the history of research, rather than an objective description of prehistory. As these chronological divisions define the periods and transitions that are the object of study, a more critical analysis of research traditions is necessary in order to evaluate the validity of the chronological divisions. Jochim's choice of brevity of presentation is clearly evident in Chapter 2, which provides the theoretical background for the study. The stated goal of this section is to discuss what Jochim sees as the "dominant themes" in the study of prehistoric hunter-gatherers. While the themes that are discussed are grouped under the heading of evolutionary ecology, the focus is upon the discussion of the variables used in his original study, but the relationship of these considerations to evolutionary ecology is not explicitly described. As one of the most eloquent of the ecological archaeologists Jochim's assessment of the status of evolutionary ecology would have been a major asset in this section. In the final sections of this chapter Jochim shifts focus away from human-environment relationships and instead attempts to discuss relationships between humans. While it is a positive sign that Jochim acknowledges that there is something "Beyond Ecology," the importance of ideology and social relationships are only cursorily discussed and presented as currently untestable. Concise presentations of background material are again the order of the day in Chapter 3, which
"Landscape, Histories and Societies in the Northern European Neolithic" presents papers from two sessions of the conference of the European Association of Archaeologists held in 2011 in Olso. The papers of this volume describe new research on the relationships between landscape, history and society in the northern European Neolithic. They focus on the Funnel Beaker complex and related Neolithic contexts, with case studies extending from Poland and the Czech Republic to Norway and Scotland. Several case studies examine the significance of enclosures – from early causewayed enclosures in the north associated with the very beginnings of the Neolithic to the significance of palisade enclosures constructed towards the end of the Neolithic in Scotland and Sweden. The volume also includes new studies on the origin, significance and interpretation of Neolithic burial and megalithic architecture found in a range of landscapes across northern Europe. Importantly, the volume also outlines the significance of other kinds of places that were not monumentalised in the same way, such as fens, the seashore and the wider environment, in the construction of Neolithic worldview. Finally, it concludes with a series of articles that consider the significance of particular forms of material culture – axes, grinding stones, pottery and food – in social reproduction in the Neolithic of northern Europe. Overall, the volume presents an important body of new data and international perspectives concerning Neolithic societies, histories and landscapes in northern Europe.
The longhouses of Bandkeramik. Do we know all about them? ________________________ 95 The TRB culture settlement in the middle Tążyna Valley: a case study __________________ 105 Die neolithische Besiedlungsgeschichte im Raum Flintbek und die Bedeutung der Wagenspuren vor dem Hintergrund neuer Datierungen ___________________________ 121 Investigations in 2012 of the southern part of the Funnel Beaker culture temenos at Słonowice near the Małoszówka river. Fourth report ______________________________ 139 Settlement of the Globular Amphora Culture at Site 6 in Lekarzewice near Osłonki in Kuyavia (Poland) _____________________________________________________________ 163 The lost settlements -one from the visible problems in the research on the Final Neolithic in southern Poland ______________________________________________________________ 173 Stable settlements of the Trzciniec Cultural Circle in the Polish uplands and lowlands ____ 185 Pueblo culture settlement structure in the central Mesa Verde Region, Utah-Colorado in the Thirteenth Century A.D. ___________________________________________________ 193 Man and mountains. Settlement and economy of Neolithic communities in the Eastern part of the Polish Carpathians ____________________________________________________ 225 Settlement and economy of the TRB in Lesser Poland: transformation or continuity? _____ 245 Open-Range Cattle Grazing and the Spread of Farming In Neolithic Central Europe _____ 261 The flint raw materials economy in Lesser Poland during the Eneolithic Period: the Lublin-Volhynian culture and the Funnel Beaker culture __________________________ 275 The importance of leguminous plants in the diet of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age inhabitants of Little Poland ______________________________________________________ 295 Mechanics of the semi-nomadic economy __________________________________________ 303 On the Holocene vegetation history of Brandenburg and Berlin _______________________ 311
Neolithic Seminar at the University of Bern
Network in Eastern European Neolithic and Wetland Archaeology. Scientific Cooperation between Eastern Europe and Switzerland. Working Papers on Prehistoric Archaeology. , 2020
The general aims of the IP were to build up a scientific network in Neolithic and wetland archaeology and the transfer of knowledge from Switzerland, as one of the worldwide leading countries in this field, to the participating Eastern European (EE) countries. Further aims were to concentrate on an improvement of archaeological field techniques (mainly underwater archaeology/ documentation under water/diving security) and dating methods. The combined application of locally developed dendrochronological calendars and radiocarbon dating is most promising. All EE-sites have the potential to give new insights on the process of the Neolithisation of Europe. In order to achieve these goals, joint activities, such as workshops, seminars, public lectures, field trips, diving courses and study weeks, were organised in the individual countries within framework of the NEENAWA project.
Which agricultural practices were used in the Late Neolithic period is still a matter of debate. In order to test the slash-and-burn hypothesis, an experimental archaeological approach is followed near Forchtenberg in SW-Germany. There, a mixed deciduous forest area was dedicated to an interdisciplinary working group for a period of 20 years by the state authorities. Experiments include felling the stems with stone axes, burning by a fire roll, winter wheat as major crop and an animal component. Emphasis in this paper is on the soil related topics. The results revealed pests (mice) as major constraint in the first cropping period after burning and weeds become dominant in the second. Only if these problems can be solved nutrients, especially N and P, limit yield from the second cropping period onwards. Burning has a strong influence on the site properties. It changes morphological, physical, chemical and biological properties of the topsoil. Extreme is the change in the top centimetres. Overall, the experiments support the hypothesis of slash-and-burn agriculture in the Late Neolithic for the Pre-alpine lowlands. The experiments will be continued with emphasis on nutrient cycling and ergonomic aspects.