Added
Figures are still being added, but
if no figures are visible, it is a browser problem)
The
dissertation has a copyright. Please give proper credit when quoting its
content.
A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS
3. FUNNEL BEAKER CULTURE ORIGINS
By
Maximilian O.
All rights reserved
Note
(
Some
corrections have been made and some new literature was added after the completion
of the original dissertation. Gatersleben has been replaced with the correct
term Großgartach where necessary and Footnote 9 has been updated. However, many
of the early calibrated radiocarbon dates are in need of revision. For more
current information on radiocarbon dates and cultural relationships see Central and North European
Neolithic Chronology with summaries of individual cultures.
3.1 Introduction
The origin of the TRB and the reasons for the development of
agriculture in the research area are open to debate. Alternative opinions have
been summarized by Midgley (1992:7-321) and Tilley (1996:70-73). Here the aim
is simply to point out that the TRB interaction sphere[1] seems to have emerged in a
broad, culturally diverse region. Its wide southern periphery afforded
centuries of contact between Late Mesolithic, Ertebølle-related
hunter-fisher-gatherers and Danubian derived agriculturists.
Emanating from
This Invasion Principle is rooted in the historical assumption
noted in Chapter 2, that all innovation occurred in the
In connection with the Danubians the Invasion Principle is based
largely on the distribution of pottery styles, the use of long-houses and, to
some extent, economic activity, but not on population genetics. Only a few
early studies contradict it. These suggested that the transitional phases, in which
the indigenous population (near the upper
Certainly, in
The Late Mesolithic Ertebølle of southern
But why the Late Mesolithic population, well adapted to its forest and
wetland environment, probably full of natural resources, should be interested
in domesticates derived from the Near East, is still a topic of discussion
(e.g. P. O. Nielsen 1993a:84, Tilley 1996:71-73). One explanation, not
discussed by Nielsen or Tilley, is Sherratt’s (1981, 1983) secondary products revolution
(3500-2500 B.C.), believed to have introduced the plow, horse and wool
(cf. Bakker 1992:91-92), possibly improving productivity and thus making
agricultural life more attractive in the north. Indeed, at Bronocice horses are
only known from the
The increasing evidence of domesticates in the Ertebølle related
cultures may call for a more complex model of culture change from the Ertebølle
to the early TRB. One useful model for may be the indigenous
hunter-fisher-gatherer population of the North American west coast. The huge
stretch of coast harbored numerous different groups, participating in an
elaborate interaction sphere. Most had a complex social organization developed
without cultigens (except a rare and small planting of Tobacco and the
occasional reseeding of wild plants). Some even kept slaves. The indigenous
people often had an abundance of resources, which led to traditional access
rights and clan based ownership. Such rights extended to specific trade routes
for the complex exchange system. The Tilingits functioned as middlemen in
trading dried fish, fish oil and sea shells for copper, jadeite, furs, quilled
goods etc. with the socially less complex inland Athabascans. The Heida made
seagoing dugout war and other canoes in great demand by other groups. The
Tilingits spun goats wool on simple looms into widely traded ceremonial
blankets. Wooden, bone and antler spindle whorls were used. Houses were made
from wooden planks. Some groups even engaged in whaling. Even if perishable
items are rare and the social organization of the Ertebølle and early TRB can
only be guessed at, there is ample evidence in the archaeological record of
Figure 3.1. Early TRB sites in relation to Late
Mesolithic, Early Neolithic Danubian LBK, and Post-Danubian LBK cultures, i.e.
STK, Rössen, Großgartach, Lengyel (after Midgley 1992 Fig. 2, 6, 67).
One may thus conclude that, even if it is difficult to establish the
precise changes that occurred during the transition from the
Late Mesolithic cultures to the early TRB, and there is not always much
agreement as to what continues and what changes among diverse researchers,[3] it is indisputable that the TRB developed in
the contact zone between the long established southern farming area with
Danubian traditions and the long-lasting northern Mesolithic realm
(Fig. 3.1). In the North European Plain centuries of contact between
the Mesolithic hunters and gatherers and farmers, who likewise hunted, fished
and gathered, may have resulted in a cultural synthesis that gave rise to the
TRB. Indeed, such a dual origin may have found expression in continued
sub-cultural differences within the TRB (e.g. Beier 1991a, Häusler 1992, Hoika
1990a). It is, therefore, likely that the TRB was largely, although perhaps not
exclusively, an autochthonous development. This can be demonstrated by
considering the Danubian derived cultures, i.e. the LBK and its regional
successors, i.e. the STK, Lengyel, Rössen, Bischheim, as well as the
Michelsberg (MBK) cultures of central
Figure 3.2. Distribution of LBK (Schwabedissen 1979b).
3.2 The Linienbandkeramik
The German Linienbandkeramik,
sometimes shortened to Bandkeramik, reflects
the early pottery's band-like curvilinear design, and is frequently translated
into English as Linear Pottery. This Danubian based culture is found
throughout much of
Looking at the site locations in more detail, the LBK appears to have
had a preference for the European loess soils (Sielmann 1971). However, in
contrast to
Population density was supposedly low (e.g. Milisauskas 1978:96-105),
increasing only later, especially with the advent of the TRB. LBK sites
occurred in clusters in most regions, but in southeastern
In
The oldest phase of the LBK of Lower Saxony occurs in Kr.
Wolfenbüttel (see also Chapter 6). At Eitzum, (e.g. Schwabedissen 1979b:207)
three calibrated dates range from 5400-5250 B.C. Kr. Wolfenbüttel is the
area where some 2000 years later megalithic tombs and the
Hannover/Braunschweig gallery-graves may have coexisted. It should, therefore,
not be surprising that many of the major settlements of the later cultures
occur in precisely the same locations, while the less important sites are
occupied later and often remain socio-economically less significant.
One of the most northerly LBK finds was a single pot from the
Similarly, the oldest dated gallery-grave at Stein, Dutch Limburg
(3700BC - 3370 B.C., see Chapter 12), is within a former LBK enclave on the
east side of the
3.3 Stichbandkeramik
The Central German Stichbandkeramik
(STK, English: Stroked Pottery culture) is a later regional variant of the
Danubian LBK. It is related to the Lengyel culture. Preceding the Großgartach
and Rössen cultures of
Continuity of a long-standing interregional communication pattern with
links to the Ertebølle must have developed during the STK, further
foreshadowing the communication lines of the TRB. For instance, the
Oder STK was strongly influenced from
Boberg was the STK's northernmost outpost, located on a the dunes on
the east side of the
Figure
3.3. Distribution of Stichbandkeramik (after Schwabedissen
1979b). At Boberg STK and Ertebølle ceramics were found.
Among such continually important regions is the
Braunschweig/Wolfenbüttel area, some 170 km south of Boberg. It is the
northern most area of a large, relatively contiguous STK distribution, ranging
from the east bank of the Middle Elbe across the
Some 250 km east of Boberg, in the vicinity of the Uecker and
Randow valleys, just west of the
Some 500 km east of Boberg and ca. 200 km east of the
just mentioned Oder/Warthe STK group, is the Kujavian STK. It is located on the
The most easterly distribution of the STK is located on the west side
of the upper
3.4 Lengyel
In
Figure 3.4. Distribution of Stichbandkeramik
(Milisauskas 1978 Fig. 4.7)
The Samborzec Group of the upper
3.5 Rössen
Figure 3.5. Distribution of Rössen (after Schwabedissen
1979b).
In the German Highlands a
part of the Rössen distribution correlates with the later location of the
gallery-graves. On the lower Oder an elongated east-west Rössen concentration
of finds straddles the river. The later
TRB megalithic tombs appear to have a similar distribution pattern.
In northwest Germany Rössen
finds often occur in marshes, meadows and river valleys, such as the
Dümmer Lake region (Deichmüller 1965). This may mean that sites are
difficult to discover. For this reason Schwabedissen (1979b) believed that the
Rössen occupation was more intense than the archaeological data indicates.
Again, the northernmost outpost was Boberg.
Although many archaeologists
once believed that the TRB ceramics evolved directly out of Rössen, this
culture was temporally too far removed to exert direct influence (Knöll 1959;
Müller-Karpe 1968:160-161, 1974:320. Schwabedissen 1979 a, b).[11] Instead, the heavily ornamented Rössen pottery gave way to a much less
decorated style. At Hüde on the Dümmer Lake (Fig. 3.4), Schwabedissen
noted that the lowest layer contained Ertebølle ceramics with seemingly
appropriate C14 dating. The following layer contained
Rössen-like pottery without surface decoration, which Schwabedissen believed to
be similar to the Late Rössen Bischheim ceramics (Schwabedissen 1979b:212).
Bischheim, MBK, Ertebølle[12] and TRB A/B pottery are largely undecorated. One can, therefore,
stipulate a general evolutionary trend from elaborate surface decoration to
minimal surface treatment. A renewed cycle of elaborate surface treatment
followed in the TRB culture area from
the EN C through MN III. The MN V Store Valby and
Late Havelte G pottery once more exhibits little if any surface
design (Bakker 1979a:134-139, Davidsen 1978), suggesting long term cycles.
Therefore, the evolution of TRB pottery seems to be part of a larger
interregional diachronic development, involving changes in fashion, but not
necessarily ethnicity.
3.6 Ertebølle
Kossinna proposed that the TRB evolved from the Ellerbek/Ertebølle
culture. This view was largely supported by Jaüdüewski (cf. Midgley
1992:32-34, Fig. 9). Later archaeologists dismissed this idea. The Ertebølle
culture was located near the western Baltic, reaching the vicinity of Pyrzyce
and Koszalin in Poland (Jankowska and WiílaÕski 1991:54 Fig. 1,
Jankowska 1998), and possibly northern Lower Saxony and Netherland in the
west (Fig. 3.1; Bakker et al.
1980:275-276). Covering Schleswig-Holstein, all of Denmark and Skåne, the
culture is dated ca. 5400-3900 BC (4500-3200 b.c., Tilley 1996:9-11, Fig 1.2). On the Swedish
west coast the a local variation, the Lilhult phase is roughly datable to
5000-3000 b.c. For Schleswig-Holstein Schwabedissen divided the later Ertebølle
culture into Rosenhof a
(4200-3800 b.c.) and b
(3800-3520 b.c.).
According to Schwabedissen the STK influenced the development of the
Mesolithic pottery. This, he asserted, is implicit in the coexistence of
Ertebølle pottery with pointed bottoms together with differently made STK
pottery at Boberg (Schwabedissen 1979b:208, 1994:400 Plate 19). As noted above,
Schwabedissen's STK C14 dates range from 4200 to
3950 b.c. This coincides with his Ertebølle a
phase (Fig. 2.31). Tauber (1972) listed the oldest likely Danish Ertebølle
date from Salpetermosen as 4050 b.c./4900 B.C. and the earliest date
at the type site of Ertebølle is 3800 b.c./4650 B.C. This coincides
with the Central German STK calibrated C14 dates (4950 to 4700 B.C.).[13] Thus Schwabedissen's
argument that the Ertebølle culture and the STK coexisted at roughly the same
time and influenced each other is supported by C14 dates from several independent sources.[14]
At D·bki (Site 9) near Koszalin, Central Pomerania
the earliest layer contained Ertebølle lamps and STK/Rössen-like pottery, as
well as cattle and pig remains (Bakker 1992:117 Note 56, with references).
Layer II (ending at 3600/3500 b.c.) and III (ending at 3300 b.c.)
contained a somewhat greater amount of these bones, as well as ceramic lamps
and other shell tempered Ertebølle pottery. But even in Layer III fishing and
hunting were of greater importance than animal husbandry. No TRB pottery was
found.
This contradicts the traditional view that the Ertebølle culture was a
typical Mesolithic society exclusively engaged in hunting, fishing and
gathering, which was somehow replaced by agriculturists. In 1978 Schwabedissen
produced evidence of domesticates in Schleswig-Holstein sites. The most
important sites for this evidence are Satrup Moor (Förster Moor) in
Anglia and Rosenhof near Dahme on the Baltic coast (Schwabedissen 1979b:208).
The evidence includes wheat grain impressions in typical Ertebølle ceramics,
further implying a mixed subsistence pattern.
The Ertebølle's first evidence of pottery supposedly occurs abruptly
after 3700 b.c. (e.g. Tilley 1996:30, 44). The typically thick-walled pottery
sometimes has a fingertip or fingernail impressions on the rim, a
funnel beaker-like neck and a pointed bottom (Midgley 1992:14-15, 35-38
Fig. 4, Tilley 1996:31 Fig 1.4).[15] This is somewhat
reminiscent of MBK pottery (Fig. 3.5), although it was probably made by an
autochthonous population, which used transverse arrow heads. This population
passed its traditions on to the TRB, which used used transverse arrowheads and
rather similar flint working techniques, while hunting and fishing the same
places (P.O. Nielsen 1993a:84, 1994). Ax sacrifices also indicate an unbroken
perpetuity from the late Ertebølle to the Bronze Age (Ebbesen 1993:123-124). In
Poland flint tools are said to derive from the local Mesolithic (Jankowska
1980:183). For southeast Skåne, the EN TRB's oxidized pottery shows a
relationship with that of the Ertebølle. The early TRB used the Ertebølle's
more advanced coiling technique and partly the same temper, while continental
influences on the pottery shape and decoration are stipulated (Blomqvist
1989:305-306 Fig. 8.61-8.62, Hulthén 1977:211).
T. Madsen stressed that the cultural transformation from the
Ertebølle culture to the TRB was gradual process, occurring around
3200-3100 b.c./ ca. 4000-3900 B.C. in Denmark. He maintained that this culture change was not the result of the immigration of new
people (T. Madsen 1982:302), but rather the natural progression of a
society, that was very open to a variety of far flung influences.[16] Thus the transition from
the Mesolithic hunting and gathering to the more settled Neolithic agricultural
economy, including the use of ceramics, was not at all a Neolithic revolution, but rather gradual process engendered
through centuries of interaction - a conclusion also reached by Tilley (1996).
3.7 Michelsberg
Schumacher recognized parallels between the MBK and the Kjøkkenmødinger (Ertebølle) culture as
early as 1908 and 1911.[17] The Michelsberg type site is located by
Untergrombach, Kr. Bruchsaal, Baden-Württemberg. It was discovered by
Schumacher in 1884. Lüning (1968) divided the MBK into five successive phases.
Pape (1979) compiled the existing radiocarbon dates for the MBK, TRB, etc.,
finding a slight overlap between the MBK and TRB dates. Schwabedissen
(1979b:212) dated Bischheim to 3700-3500 b.c. and the MBK from 3500 to
2800 b.c. (Schwabedissen 1979b:204, 220, Fig.1). Ottaway dated the MBK
from ca. 3600 to 2900 b.c. with a mean around 3200 b.c. (Ottaway 1986
Fig.5). J. Müller (1987:74) listed the MBK at
ca. 3700-3000 b.c., so that a temporal overlap with the TRB existed
during the EN.
Figure 3.6. Distribution of Michelsberg
(Schwabedissen 1979b).
The relationship between the MBK[18] and the TRB is difficult to
ascertain (Fig. 3.5). Scollar (1959, 1961) stressed the MBK's western
roots. Schwabedissen, elaborating on Lüning's (1968) views, pointed out that an
ill defined pottery, found between Netherland and the Elbe, is neither truly a
part of the Late Rössen Bischheim Group nor exactly MBK. Thus he suggests
that Bischheim, developed into the MBK only in the south, but took a different
path in the north, especially in sites
such as Hüde. Therefore, the development of the German TRB pottery would
have been similar to that of the MBK ceramics (Schwabedissen 1979b:216),
producing pottery akin to the MBK, but not identical. A similar process may
have been at work in Netherland.[19]
Basing his analysis on Deichmüller's excavation of Hüde, Schwabedissen
argued that the Dümmerkeramik gradually
evolved into the Tiefstichkeramik.
Stratigraphically, the latter increases at the expense of the former towards
the upper layers of the supposedly continuous occupation in this site. The top
layer at Hüde even contained a typical Baalberge funnel beaker.
Schwabedissen saw a similar development in Schleswig-Holstein. At
Rosenhof,[20] layer C contained a flat
pottery bottom with grain impressions (3420±50 b.c./4235±70 B.C.),[21] a MBK-like Ösenbecher fragment - dated through
partially burned wood to 3430±40 b.c./4248±58 B.C. - (ibid. 1979c
Fig. 2, 8) a rim sherd with incisions under the rim, and a Baalberge-like
amphora (3390±55 b.c./4196±82 B.C.; ibid. 1979c:168, Fig. 3, 1).
Zápoteky_' (1991, 1992) not only saw a relationship between the MBK and
Baalberge in the Southeast Group, he stipulated a wide ranging generalized
early phase, including all relevant groups under the wider TRB.
However, it is often difficult to distinguish MBK and TRB artifacts in the
North European Plain the lack of site preservation due to agricultural
activity, and a dearth of comparative finds in most areas do not permit the
construction of a concise chronological scheme. Wilhelmi (1977:20), after
investigating several sites around Coesfels and nearby Osterwick, where he also
found MBK artifacts, came to the same conclusion some time ago:
It is
not possible to place the "settlement area" in its precise cultural
and chronological context. This area is the only bridge between Swifterbant and
Hazendonk on the IJssel and the Rhein estuaries on the one side and the
Dümmer/Hunte as well as the Rosenhof/Baltic on the other.
Nonetheless, Nielsen (1985) deemed Lüning's MBK I to be roughly
equivalent to Hüde I and the Ertebølle of Ringkloster II
(Fig. 3.6). In eastern Germany and Poland, this would be approximately the
same time period during which the early Jordansmühl, Großgartach,
Brzes’c’ Kujawski and perhaps TRB A/B existed. MBK II was
equated with Boberg 15, Schwabedissen's Rosenhof b, Ringkloster III, Early Baalberge and TRB A/B in the east.
MBK III coexisted with TRB A/B, the latest part of Rosenhof, the earliest
Volling and Virum A. Nielsen's (1984) scheme is largely similar to Hoika's
(e.g. 1991a). A close relationship is also supported by the fact that the
oldest TRB pottery at Flintbek, near Kiel, has been described as MBK by Zich (1992, 1994a).
Flintbek's location to the north of Boberg may imply a line of
communication, running from the Baltic coast across the Elbe via Boberg to the
bulk of the MBK sites in the south (Fig. 3.5). The location of the TRB
tombs and post-TRB sites near Flintbek suggest a long lasting communication
pattern.
Figure 3.7.
Evolution of the Early TRB (Blomqvist 1989 after Nielsen 1985).
MBK and the TRB sites overlap in the North European Plain, but TRB
pottery follows the MBK, at the MBK earth work at Notullin near Coesfeld,
Westphalia. Farther east, in the Hildesheimer
Börde, the MBK is also followed by the TRB (Heege 1989) and in the
German Highlands the Wartberg Group's villages follow the MBK in the
same sites (Schwellnus 1979). Thus it seems, that, although there may have been
reciprocal interaction, at least in terms of pottery style, the influence may
have originally been directed from south to north. Once the TRB pottery
developed its own unique characteristics, its influence flowed for some time in
the opposite direction, along the long established lines of communication,
while reciprocal relationships with areas, such as the Central German Baalberge
and Salzmünde Groups, were maintained.
3.8 Conclusion
The LBK was the first pottery using culture in Central Europe. Its
later decedents (STK, Rössen, Großgartach, Lengyel) may have provided the
impetus for pottery production in the Ertebølle (Fig. 3.6). The TRB received
some of its inspiration from the Ertebølle related cultures of the north and
from several Danubian derived kindred cultures, including the late Lengyel in
the east and the Late Rössen Bischheim in the west. Bischheim provides a common
root for the MBK and the early TRB. Thus the earlier cultures that were
dispersed along the developing TRB's southern frontier of nearly 2000 km
influenced the advent of TRB pottery.
The TRB evolved gradually in this culturally diverse
interaction sphere, which was probably occupied by a largely indigenous, more
or less Mesolithic population. The region was rich in natural resources so
that the acquisition of cultigens, some domesticated animals and perhaps the
basic concepts of pottery making may originally have been due to the of
acquisition of status goods in strategically located areas, such as Boberg and
Sarnowo. Undoubtedly, such areas controlled trade with the long established
agricultural territories to the south. The ensuing social competition, similar
to that which led to a ranked society on the North American
Northwest Coast (e.g. Bancroft-Hunt 1992:61 ff.), may have led to increased
social complexity and a greater emphasis on agriculture, animal husbandry and
the acquisition of copper by the EN C.
3.9 Related Links
Central
and North European Neolithic Chronology with summaries of
individual cultures
Neolithic/Copper
Age Link Index: Links to News Bulletins, Articles, Site Reports, Databases, etc. about
the Neolithic/Copper Age in Europe.
Please send comments or
questions to Max Baldia.