by Chris Fowler
In central Hungary, Kertész’s (1996) intensive fieldwork enabled him to fill some of the gaps in the sparse distribution map of the late Mesolithic in the Carpathian Basin. Consequently, scenarios of Mesolithic acculturation were discussed, both for the formation of the early Neolithic Körös culture (Chapman 2003) and the genesis of the earliest LBK in north-west Hungary half a millennium later (Mateiciucová 2004). The ‘rediscovery’ of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers thus characterizes the Neolithization debate of the past decade. This shifting paradigm gave rise to a variety of new models attempting to mediate between the migrationist and diffusionist positions:
•Gronenborn (1999, 2003) develops a three-stage model of LBK expansion involving contact and exchange of raw materials between the earliest farmers and late forager groups and the migration of earliest LBK groups into densely forested areas unattractive to hunter-gatherers. The established exchange relations would have been maintained throughout the earliest LBK phases.
•Bánffy (2004) and Frirdich (2005) emphasize the acculturation of indigenous foragers in north-west Hungary, where they interacted with neighbouring late Starčevo communities, creating the LBK. Its subsequent expansion towards western central Europe, however, is seen as migration. Frirdich (2005, 92) even suggests a continuation of Mesolithic mobility patterns, where the agrarian pioneer settlement replaced the Mesolithic base camp.
•Lüning (2007, 178–182) recently proposed a ‘missionary’ model with only limited immigration and the small-scale acculturation of late hunter-gatherers around the pioneer settlements. This might explain the striking increase of site density in the subsequent Flomborn phase of the LBK (5300–5100 BC).
The multitude and dialectic sequence of Neolithization hypotheses frequently reflects schools and fashions of archaeological thought rather than genuine improvements in archaeological insights (Scharl 2004, 163–167). The shifting emphasis on the active participation of hunter-gatherers reflects to some extent new data on the Mesolithic in and around the loess belt, but also a post-processual concern for social competition, prestige, and ideology as prime movers.
The Neolithization debate, however, continues. At present, migrationist positions receive fresh support from molecular archaeology. Recent palaeogenetic research on cattle mtDNA (Bollongino 2006) excludes any European domestication of (female) aurochs (as assumed by Gamble and Barker 1985) and suggests a descent of Neolithic (and later) cattle from a rather small group of Near Eastern haplotype. Human aDNA extracted from LBK inhumation burials shows very low genetic similarity with modern Europeans, but at the same time also great genetic distance to upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic aDNA. Bramanti et al. (2009) interpret these new results as strong arguments for the predominant immigration of an early Neolithic population into central Europe.
Another challenge to the traditional view of Neolithic colonization associated with LBK material culture was the notion of pre-LBK small-scale agriculture. Pre-Neolithic cereal cultivation in the Alpine foreland was postulated as early as 1975 (Kossack and Schmeidl 1974/75) and received additional support in the 1990s (Erny-Rodmann et al. 1997; Nielsen 2003). Based exclusively on pollen evidence, Gehlen and Schön (2003, 266–269) assumed experimental cereal cultivation in the early sixth and even seventh millennium BC. However, most of this alleged evidence for Mesolithic cereal cultivation comes from sub-alpine or other mountainous environments beyond the loess belt and outside the core area of early Neolithic settlement, regions for which a genuine Neolithic economy is unknown before the end of the fifth millennium. They thus antedate regional Neolithic sites by two millennia.
In a recent critical survey and re-evaluation of supposed pioneering Mesolithic agriculture, Behre (2007) refutes the concept in its entirety. Underlining the methodological difficulties in unambiguously identifying cereal pollen, he criticizes those archaeologists who misinterpret the archaeobotanical term ‘cerealia type’ as putative evidence for cultigens, and points out that only dated cereal macrofossils should be taken as clear evidence for early agriculture.
Thus at present, absolute dating, new palaeogenetic results, and the critical examination of archaeobotanical data tend to support the introduction of a Neolithic economy into central Europe by demic diffusion at around 5600 BC. Nevertheless, the debate of the 1990s sensitized present-day archaeology to interaction between hunter-gatherers and early farmers and prepared the way for more complex models of Neolithization which integrate migration (of farmers) and acculturation (of foragers).
‘Wave of Advance’ or ‘Stop-and-Go’ Model?
The still popular ‘Wave of Advance’ model for the spread of a Neolithic way of life (Ammermann and Cavalli-Sforza 1973) is a misleading oversimplification for central, south-eastern, and eastern Europe (see Zvelebil and Lillie 2000, 60–64 for a substantial critique). When looking at the chronological data, its geographical distribution, and cultural attribution in greater detail, it is obvious that Neolithization consists not of steady progress, but, on the contrary, alternate episodes of very fast spread and stagnation. Guilaine (this volume) recently coined the term ‘hypothèse arythmique’ for this phenomenon. Thus, the early Neolithic Starčevo–Körös–Criş culture area for centuries maintained a northern boundary zone running from Slavonia and central Transdanubia eastwards across the Tisza region far into south-eastern Transylvania and southern Moldova. The earliest LBK expansion, starting from north-western Hungary and western Slovakia around 5600 BC, did not cross its western boundary at the river Rhine, where there was probably contact or competition with La Hoguette farmers, for two to three centuries. It was only between 5250 and 5000 BC that the LBK quickly attained its maximum distribution into northern France, eastern Romania, Moldavia, and western Ukraine.
THE FIFTH MILLENNIUM
One of the most puzzling features of the European Neolithization process is that the geographical boundaries established around 4950 BC were maintained by and large until about 4400 BC (see ‘Beyond the loess belt’). During this long period, Neolithic life was firmly established throughout the central European loess belt, with material culture and settlement topography showing a high degree of continuity at both micro and macro scales. Regional discontinuity, as in the Rhineland after the end of the LBK, is an exception rather than the rule, with other regions like central Germany, Bavaria, Lower Austria, southern Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, or Hungary having no cultural gap separating the early from the middle Neolithic.
The Spread of the Solar Calendar—Monumentalizing Astronomic Knowledge
Whilst there is no evidence for the large-scale movement of people or the introduction of new cultigens during the first half of the fifth millennium, we observe a widespread ideological innovation connected with a new type of architecture, the circular enclosure (Kreisgrabenanlage). As described in greater detail by Petrasch (this volume), this henge-like type of monument, consisting of deep V-shaped ditches, one or several circular palisades, and three to six entrances, is known from Hungary, western Slovakia, eastern Austria, the Czech Republic, and southern and central Germany. More than 120 have been documented by aerial photography and geophysical prospecting, but only a few have been excavated (Trnka 2005; Neubauer 2007; Schmotz 2007; Řidký 2011). Their dates cluster around 4900–4700 BC, indicating they were a short-lived phenomenon or ‘fashion’ with a very specific distribution. Recent archaeo-astronomical research has demonstrated the precise orientation of their entrances towards calendrical turning points in the solar year, such as the position of sunrise or sunset at the solstices or equinoxes. At the Bavarian site of Ippesheim, Neolithic observers were able to determine the precise day of the winter and summer solstice by plotting along the right entrance post towards two prominent landmarks a few kilometres away with an accuracy of a few arc minutes (Fig. 5.2; Schier and Schmidt-Kaler 2008, 50–52). Similar astronomical accuracy could be achieved at the central German site of Goseck (Bertemes and Schlosser 2004), the elliptical enclosure at Meisternthal (Bavaria; Becker and Kreiner 1993)
, or the Austrian sites of Puch, Steinabrunn, and Immendorf (Zotti 2005; Kastowski et al. 2005).
FIG. 5.2. Circular enclosure at Ippesheim, Bavaria, c. 4900–4800 BC. Graphic S. Suhrbier and W. Schier.
There is little reason to assume these circular enclosures were nothing more than ‘monumental calendars’ for timing agricultural activities, as has sometimes been proposed. Agriculture functioned well in central Europe half a millennium earlier and long after these manifestations of astronomical knowledge. Currently, multifunctional interpretations are favoured, their astronomical orientations relating to cyclical rituals (initiation? fertility?) and cosmological symbolism (Stäuble 2003, 2007; Neubauer 2007, 222–236; Bertemes and Northe 2012, 35–38).
The astronomical orientation of enclosure entrances has often been suggested, but could be verified only at a minority of sites up to now. Nevertheless, we may tentatively associate the appearance of very similar complex monuments over a large area and within a short time span with the spread of something like a solar ideology. The striking accuracy of astronomical observation and the exact location of sites in relation to landmarks visible from their entrances at turning points of the solar year suggest that the solar calendar was already known, at least to specialists. The astronomical expertise with at least some of the circular enclosures might have had symbolic and prestigious value for a small segment of Neolithic society, whose members staged and performed their knowledge in impressive and monumental architecture.
Beyond the Loess Belt—Discovering Wetlands in Western Central Europe
The forty-fourth and forty-third centuries in central Europe saw considerable change in material culture (gradual decline of pottery decoration, new lithic technology), the disappearance of longhouses, and the expansion of the Neolithic beyond the loess zone, the preferred habitat since the earliest LBK. The first bog and lakeside dwellings on the Swiss plateau (Zürich-Kleiner Hafner layer 5A-C, Gross-Klee and Eberli 1997, 22; Egolzwil 3, Stöckli 1995, 22) and in south-west Germany (Aichbühl, Strobel 1998; Schröter 2009) appear between 4425 and 4275 BC (Menotti, this volume). Their house types and settlement structure are completely different from the middle Neolithic Stichband, Großgartach, and Rössen cultures. The number of bog and lakeside settlements in the northern Alpine foreland is small until around 4000 BC, but grows rapidly in the first third of the fourth millennium. For the morainic landscapes between the Upper Danube and the Swiss plateau, this dynamic settlement process can be compared to a Neolithic landnam episode, filling the empty spaces between the few isolated regions already settled during the middle Neolithic.
The causes of the large-scale expansion of the central European Neolithic economic area are still unclear. In terms of economy and settlement, this period of change is characterized by diversification: the range of environmental parameters defining preferred settlement locations broadens dramatically, leading to a coexistence of, and interaction between, settlement systems in quite different habitats (Schier 1993). The fertile loess and alluvial soils in the basins, river valleys, and lowlands of central Europe were not abandoned, but wetlands and morainic landscapes complemented the range of agriculturally exploitable habitats. A recent study suggests that this broadening of the habitat range required new agricultural technologies, among which fire-based extensive cultivation (slash-and-burn) might have played an important role (Schier 2009). It is assumed that early Neolithic ‘intensive garden cultivation’ (Bogaard 2004), adapted to optimal soil and climatic conditions, was not suitable for cooler and moister habitats and soils less well equipped with nutrients (Schier 2009, 32–37).
At present it is unresolved if this far-reaching expansion of the Neolithic way of life was caused by demographic growth, population movement, or the spread of new agricultural techniques enabling cultivation of the wetland zone. Neither can it be ruled out that surviving hunter-gatherer communities, well adapted to wetland conditions, played an active role in the spatial expansion of the Neolithic economy in the later fifth millennium.
In eastern central Europe, there was no comparable shift towards wetlands, and there are no extensive morainic landscapes or lakes and bogs of glacial origin. But in the last third of the fifth millennium there is nonetheless change. In southern Poland, Slovakia, Moravia, north-west Hungary, and eastern Austria the extensive Lengyel culture is followed by regional Epilengyel groups, whilst settlement patterns show an increasing concern for hilltop locations. In eastern Hungary, the Eneolithic Tiszapolgár culture puts an end to the late Neolithic tell settlement tradition (Link 2006, 43–51). In contrast to its abundant burials (Bognár-Kutzian 1972), the settlement evidence is still rather scant.
Underlying these patterns of change was the innovation of copper metallurgy spreading along a geographical gradient from south-east to north-west. Since this new technology is treated elsewhere (Heyd and Walker, this volume), it suffices to note the coincidence between its spread and the evident changes in settlement and habitat exploitation. The density of copper finds in eastern central Europe, especially north of the Carpathian Basin, is many times higher than in the west, where the few copper artefacts dating to earlier than 4000 BC nevertheless indicate exchange relations with the early production centres in Hungary, Slovakia, and further east.
THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM
During the first half of the fourth millennium, bog and lakeside settlement is a widespread phenomenon between the Austrian Alpine foothills (Mondsee), the Upper Danube, and Lake Geneva. Lake Constance, Lake Zürich, and the three Swiss Jura lakes (lakes Biel, Murat, and Neuchâtel) are especially densely lined with lakeside settlements (Menotti, this volume). From east to west, these settlements can be attributed to the Mondsee, Altheim, Pfyn, and Cortaillod culture groups. Only the Altheim culture is also known from settlements and enclosures on dry mineral soils. North of this pre-Alpine zone, western central Europe is dominated by the Michelsberg culture, archaeologically most present in its monumental enclosures. Its settlement evidence is sparse and house remains almost completely lacking.
Crowded Shores and Empty Lowlands—Large-scale Settlement Heterogeneity in the Later Fourth Millennium
After an interruption of roughly two centuries, due to widespread lake transgressions, dense settlement along the pre-Alpine lakes resumed between Lake Constance and the French Jura mountains in association with the Horgen culture (3400–2800 BC). Most of southern Germany, however, appears almost empty of settlement or burial evidence during the second half of the fourth millennium (Preuß 1996, map 7). Taking this at face value, an area of more than 200,000km² would have stayed almost uninhabited for 500 years. Since neighbouring areas to the south (Horgen culture) and north (Wartberg and Bernburg cultures) are well represented in the archaeological record, and the North European Plain is full of megalithic burials mostly dating to this period, depopulation or even emigration seems unlikely. More probably, large-scale taphonomic biases are responsible for the lack of sites (e.g. a widespread preference for log building, which would leave no postholes, the absence of storage and refuse pits, and the lack of archaeologically visible burial customs).
In eastern central Europe, site density increases. The most widespread phenomenon here is the Baden culture, centred in the north-western Carpathian Basin. Together with its related groups (Jevišovice, Bošáca, Bisamberg-Oberpullendorf), its distribution encompasses Hungary, eastern Austria, Moravia, Bohemia, western Slovakia, and Little Poland. Its regional and chronological differentiation has recently been re-analysed by Furholt (2009). Settlement locations vary considerably, and in Moravia and Bohemia a certain preference for hilltop settlements can be observed. Generally, these sites consist of pits and ditches, but structural remains of houses are rare.
Wheel and Wagon—Age and Origin of a Neolithic Innovation
Probably the most momentous and debated innovation of the European Neolithic, apart from Neolithization itself, is wheeled transport. The development of ever more accurate chronologies and a number of new finds have conside
rably changed the factual evidence during the last two decades. Whilst Childe (1951) and Piggott (1983) supposed an oriental origin of both wheel and wagon, present opinions are quite diverse. The archaeological evidence for wheeled transport falls into three categories: (a) finds of full-size wheels with traces of use; (b) depictions or models of wheels, wagons, or draught animals; (c) preserved traces of wheels.
Over the last two decades, more than 20 wooden wheels dating to the late and final Neolithic have been discovered in wetland contexts in central Europe. At present, one of the oldest wheels in central Europe, and apparently worldwide, comes from a bog settlement at Stare Gmajne, near the Slovenian capital Ljubljana. It was found, together with an axle, at the base of a burnt layer belonging to the local phase Ljubljansko barje III/IV (Velušček 2009). Two AMS dates of the wheel and axle were calibrated at 3360–3090 BC. Roughly contemporary is a complete wooden wheel from Zürich Pressehaus, without clear stratigraphic context, but attributed to the Horgen culture (Höneisen 1989, 18). At the Federsee bog in south-west Germany, the oldest of several wooden wheels was found at Seekirch-Stockwiesen, dated 3000–2900 BC, also belonging to the Horgen culture (Schlichtherle 2004, 297). Much more numerous are the wheel finds of the twenty-eighth to twenty-sixth centuries associated with the Corded Ware culture and the regional Goldberg III group (Fig. 5.3).
FIG. 5.3. Wheels and wagon parts in the circumalpine region 3500–2500 BC: 1–5 Zürich; 6 Egolzwil II; 7 Vinelz; 8 Saint Blaise; 9 Auvernier; 10, 12 Seekirch; 11 Alleshausen; 13 Stare gmajne; 14 Castioni de’ Marchesi; 15 Olzreuter Ried. After Schlichtherle 2004, abb. 2.
