Added September 18, 1999. Updated April 25, 2006, 11:46 hours.

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. Baldia 1993, 1995, 1999-April 25, 2006©
All rights reserved

Note (August 28, 2001): Many characters will appear incorrectly, since the system for representing foreign characters has been changed again by the software manufacturer. Only a few, unsystematic and primitive corrections have been made thus far.

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 Anatolia, the Neolithic cultures and their temporal and spatial relationships, were graphically represented in overlapping spheres by D. L. Clarke (1968, Baldia 1981a:842 Fig. 4), starting about 6000 b.c. For the next 3000 (uncalibrated) years this expansive culture complex evolved into the Linienbandkeramik culture (LBK) and its younger local variants, spreading the Neolithic way of life by invading the Mesolithic territories of Central Europe and much of the North European Plain (e.g. Gramsch 1971, Murray 1970, Tringham 1971). Traditionally many subscribed to the argument that the Danubians simply took over the territory of the indigenous population[2] and, after some obscure period of coexistence, the Mesolithic population simply disappeared. At least their fait was never fully accounted for.

This Invasion Principle is rooted in the historical assumption noted in Chapter 2, that all innovation occurred in the Mediterranean as expressed in the motto Ex Oriente Lux (cf. Midgley 1992:33). It has been perpetuated by diffusionist ideology and is a latent mindset of even those archaeologists, who have long since challenged most diffusionist assumptions. This neo-diffusionist's paradigm, still finds expression in the term Neolithization and Renfrew’s 1987 attempt to seek the Indo-European homeland in Anatolia. Its mathematical and biological principles are expressed in the studies of Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1971, 1973, 1984) and Dolukhanov (1973). It is suggest that the increased productivity of Anatolian agriculture at 7000 B.C., caused a population explosion, spreading farmers into the less populated regions of Mesolithic Europe, with its low density population of roaming hunter-gatherers, reaching northern Europe by ca. 4000 B.C.

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 Danube) gradually embraced a Neolithic economy, are largely buried below meters of riverine deposits(e.g. Taute 1977, Menke 1978). New DNA studies may support such a view, suggesting that only a small portion of Europe’s population can be derived from Anatolia between 8000 and 4000 B.C., the rest having been autochtonous since before the last Ice Age (cf. Powledge and Rose 1996 with references).

Certainly, in Poland it is argued that agriculture was only gradually and perhaps reluctantly adopted by the Late Mesolithic populations (Jankowska and Wiílański 1991, Zvelebil et al 1998), possibly without wholesale population movements. Different groups, located in different ecological niches at various distances from the agriculturists appear to have reacted differently to the Neolithic social, economic and ideological complex near the Baltic (Jankowska 1994a; 1998, Tilley 1996:73, Zvelebil et al 1998). This would account for the uneven Neolithic development.

The Late Mesolithic Ertebølle of southern Scandinavia may have been a partly sedentary society with some relatively large settlements and cemeteries (e.g. Tilley 1996:9-69). As discussed below, there is evidence of grain pollen and grain impressions in the Ertebølle pottery of Schleswig-Holstein. Certainly the Dutch Late Mesolithic Swifterband culture at P14-Shocklund, Noordostpolder, had grain and domestic cattle before it was replaced by the Early Neolithic TRB (Bakker 1992:92, ten Asher et al. 1991). Also, a tooth from a possibly domesticated ox stems from Late Ertebølle double interment, which included decorated bone dagger for the woman, at Dragsholm, Denmark (e.g. Tilley 1996:41-42, 44, 46, Fig. 1.22). However, the graves late date (3200 b.c./3980 B.C.) falls into a time when the TRB begins to appear in the archaeological record in some places. For Schleswig-Holstein Schwabedissen (1994) argues that the Ellerbeck culture starts about 300 uncelebrated years earlier than its Danish Ertebølle counterpart. He also notes evidence of a gradual incorporation of plant and animal domesticates. It seems, therefore, that the Late Mesolithic population was acquainted with domesticates, before the TRB becomes archaeologically visible.

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 Baden occupation (Br V) dated 2880-2590/2510 B.C., (Kruk et al 1996: 19-26, Tables 2). Yet from the start (Br I = 3800-3710 B.C. / 3100-3000 b.c) the TRB in the Nidzica basin held domesticated cattle and sheep/goat, probably for milk rather than meat (Milisauskas et al. 1991, Milisauskas and Kruk 1989b).

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 Northern Europe to warrant the comparison.

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 Europe and the Ertebølle culture of the north.

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 Europe (Fig. 3.2).[4] Using characteristic long-houses (e.g. Kuper et al. 1975, 1977), it apparently introduced agriculture and ceramics to the Mesolithic people of Central and parts of Northern Europe.

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 Hesse, the extensive loess plains of Westphalia really did not allow any choice in soil type or elevation on which settlements could be located (U. Fischer 1980, Linke 1976). It was discovered that, although loess was an important factor for the location of settlements, a mildly sloping relief of 4° or less within 500 m of the settlement and a distance of less than 250 m to the nearest freshwater source were also significant. The tendency to pick such locations became more refined through time, presumably because the LBK agriculturists became more efficient in their adaptation to the local environment. Empty areas of 30-40 km between settlements may be due to a preference for level land, the desire for fertile soil, and the need for water, but could also be connected with the greater archaeological Cultural Resource Management (CRM) activity centered in Bochum, Werl and Soest vis-à-vis other regions (Fischer 1980b:372).

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 Poland the sites were strung out along secondary streams emptying into the Vistula (ibid. Fig. 5.7). This linear distribution translates into one site every 1.25 km on the Dłublana. The choice of site location remained similar through time in southeastern Poland, but the number of sites increased. In the research area of 2300 km2 there were 72 LBK sites and 99 TRB sites, i.e. there were 27 more sites for roughly the same years of occupation (Milisauskas 1978:124-125). This change in settlement pattern was mathematically scrutinized by Hodder and Orton (1976:89-97, Orton 1980:192-194), who concluded that, according to quadrant analysis, the successive LBK, Lengyel and TRB occupations constituted an aggregated settlement pattern (e.g. Orton 1980:193-94, Fig. 7.8 - 7.10) that was strongly clustered. Supposedly, initial colonizers founded settlements from which additional villages "budded off" during the LBK and Lengyel periods. The statistical analysis showed that this pattern fit the true contagion model for the LBK and Lengyel. But for the TRB settlement pattern the results were ambiguous. The true contagion model and the spurious contagion model ... fit the settlement pattern fairly well (ibid. p. 194). Thus continuity and change are difficult to quantify. Nonetheless, diachronic continuity in the communication pattern is evident.

In Germany the southern fringes of the later megalithic tomb distribution were first occupied by the LBK.[5] The LBK must have developed an intricate communication system by clearing the dense forests of the Atlantic period and in the process would have established the paths and tracks that necessarily connected the villages. One may assume the apparent ways, along which the later gallery-graves sometimes seem to have been erected, were first established during the LBK, if not by the Mesolithic population, as has been argued for Schleswig-Holstein (Bakker 1976, 1991 referencing Hinz 1950, 1953).

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 Weser marsh near Verden on the Aller in Germany (Schwabedissen 1979b:207). This implies that the area must always have been part of a major line of communication, since several later megalithic tombs are also nearby.

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 Maas (Modderman 1964:11 Fig. 12, 1985:90 Fig. 29). Here the LBK lasted for 250 to 400 years (5250/5200-ca. 4900 B.C.; ibid. 1985:31-36.). The LBK, which seems to appear in this area suddenly, nevertheless occupied an area that seems to have been settled by another population creating Limburg Ware (Fig. 2.22). The Limburg Group, which may have been familiar with agriculture, coexisted, interacted and outlasted the LBK (ibid. p. 117-118). This may point to a more complicated cultural development than the traditional Danubian Neolithization Model suggests (cf. Gabriel 1977). The region was a major center of flint mining during the Neolithic.

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 Central Germany (Fig. 3.3; Behrens 1959a-1962b, 1965b), the STK was also a society relying on domesticated plants and animals. Schwabedissen (1979b) dates it to 4200-3950 b.c. and Behrens provide calibrated C14 dates ranging from 5400 B.C. to 4850 B.C.[6]

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 Bohemia (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1970:63), indicating a communication network that crossed the mountains north of Bohemia and Moravia and followed the Oder to the Vistula and the Baltic coast. A similar network must have followed the Elbe north from Bohemia into the Elbe-Saale region, the Harz Mountain Piedmont, Braunschweig and the vicinity of both the North Sea and the Baltic at Boberg.

Boberg was the STK's northernmost outpost, located on a the dunes on the east side of the Elbe estuary near Bergdorf, some 20 km southeast of Hamburg. Excavated by Schindler (1953, 1961) in the 1950's, the site contained Ertebølle, STK/Rössen-like and TRB pottery. It was less than a dozen kilometers southwest from the "unchambered" long-mounds of the Sachsenwald, highlighting the continued importance of this area in the TRB.

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 Saale and the fertile Magdeburg Plain, almost to the Werra (a tributary of the Weser). This large Central German STK distribution, which surrounds the eastern half of the Harz Mountains, again contains the area of the later Hannover/Braunschweig gallery-grave/TRB megalithic tomb overlap.

Some 250 km east of Boberg, in the vicinity of the Uecker and Randow valleys, just west of the Oder, were two small STK distributions. This region was later characterized by an eastern concentrations of TRB urdolmen (Schuldt 1972, Map 3 and Table A945-60) and a large number of TRB stone cists (ibid. Map 8). In the same general vicinity is a north/south oriented concentration of TRB trapezoidal mounds with an average 7 m wide proximal end. Forty miles further east, across the Oder and just north of the Warthe in Poland is an even larger STK distribution known from the graves in Karsko, Pyrzyce (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1970:62 and Fig. 19). The distribution of this Oder/Warthe (Polish: Odra/Warta) STK group also coincides with a large number of trapezoidal mounds whose proximal end averages 8 m and whose distal end is 3 m or less.

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 Vistula bend which must have been a very important region throughout prehistory. The group exhibits a marked north/south distribution and covers much of the same area famous for the trapezoidal Kujavian long-mounds. These substantial mounds may be up to 170 m long, have a proximal end ranging from 8 to 10 m, and a distal end of less than 3 m.

The most easterly distribution of the STK is located on the west side of the upper Vistula between Sandomierz and Szczecin. This region is about 290 km southeast of the Kujavian STK and 850 km southeast of Boberg. It contains the easternmost TRB long-mounds (Midgley 1985 Fig. 4).

3.4  Lengyel

In Poland, the STK mixes with the Lengyel culture (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1970:62), which also developed from the LBK. Its type site is located in Hungary, but is also found in Czech and Slovak Republic, Austria,[7] and some parts of Yugoslavia. The Lengyel has a more southeasterly distribution than the STK.[8] It is dated from 4000/3900 b.c. to 2800/2700 b.c. (Milisauskas 1978:127), although dates vary according to region in southeastern Poland (Kruk and Milisauskas 1981 Fig. 3). This may be explained by the fact that, “in agreement with the general trends of those times, there were considerable differences between groups” (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1970:62) and the natural variability in C¹⁴ dates.

Figure 3.4. Distribution of Stichbandkeramik (Milisauskas 1978 Fig. 4.7)

The Samborzec Group of the upper Vistula, which has strong LBK roots, gradually abandoned the STK ornaments in favor of the shapes and ornamentation of the Lengyel and Tisza types (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1970:71). Lengyel settlements of the Upper Oder passed on their cultural heritage to the local groups that emerged here - the Ocice group and ... the Jordanów group.[9] On the middle and upper Oder, the Góra group developed. In Kujavia and PaÓuki the Brzes’c’-Kujawski groups developed from LBK and Lengyel roots. The four dates listed by Midgley (1992:501)[10] as suggesting contact between Brzes’c’ Kujawski group and the TRB sum to 4300-3750 B.C. The TRB ultimately occupied the same economically strategic regions.

3.5 Rössen

In Germany, 500-600 calendar years after the STK and Großgartach a copper-using culture arose, whose type site is Rössen, Kr. Merseburg, in Central Germany (A. Götze 1900). Its trapezoidal houses were derived from LBK long-houses, reaching 50 m in length. Villages were sometimes fortified by a stockade.

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 f