Aspects of Neolithisation in the Weser-Harz Region

439The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe

ThomaS SailE

Aspects of NeolithisAtioN iN the Weser-hArz regioN

in order to evaluate the »great expansion of the Danubians […] the results of contact with possible epipalaeo­lithic tribes in Central and South Germany must be taken into account« (Childe 1929, 46 p.). according to Buttler (1938, 60) »one should approach the question of the degree to which contact developed between the sedentary Neolithic farmers and the indigenous Mesolithic hunting and fishing cultures«. These state­ments provided the frame for future research with respect to neolithisation in general and the character of contacts between the Mesolithic hunter-fisher-gatherer population and Neolithic farmers in particular.

the region

The Weser­harz region during the period of the Bandkeramik (or Linienbandkeramik [lBK] = linear Pottery Culture) represents a part of the densely settled greater Mid-Elbe area (Pavlů 1998). However, large-scale excavations and satisfactory evaluations have only taken place on a very limited number of sites. There are only a few Early Neolithic settlements located within this area. Consequently, the establishment of a regional periodic system is an important desideratum. on account of this, only a generalised chronological scheme can be applied here by dividing the Bandkeramik into early, middle, and late phases (Price et al. 2001). The early lBK corresponds with Phase i (earliest lBK) of meier­arendt (1966), the middle stage with Phase II (Flomborn, Ačkový, Zofipole), and the late LBK comprises Phases III-V. The early LBK lasted from approximately 5500 until 5300 cal BC, the middle lBK until about 5150/5125, and the late phase until c. 4975/4950.Figures 1-2 show the distribution of early as well as middle to late phases of lBK settlements in the Weser­harz region. When interpreting this information, consideration should be given to the fact that not all former settlements are known today and that not all of the settlements presently known existed simulta­neously. in this respect the maps demonstrate a merely incomplete picture of the dynamics of the former settling process. Furthermore, on a regional scale it cannot be decided whether Early Neolithic settlements were founded primarily by migrants or mainly by mesolithic groups which had already accepted the Neo­lithic cultural package. The Weser­harz region could be reached by the Bandkeramik from two directions: access to the western part of the northern harz Foreland from the east across the fertile loess landscapes of Central Germany, and access to the Leine Graben from the south across the traffic-leading passage of the Hessian Depression. The expansion into the mid­Elbe region may have occurred across moravia and Bohemia (Quitta 1962) or across the Lower Bavarian loess landscapes (Pavlů 1998). Settlement of the Hessian Depression might have been stimulated by lBK units at the Danube, Neckar, and Rhine. The group of lBK settlers farthest advanced to the north­west into the hildesheimer Börde should have come from the leine Graben or the region around Brunswick; possibly both cultural flows came into contact in this area (Buttler 1931; 1938; Thielemann 1965; Cosack 1996). The distribution maps mentioned show conspicuous differences between settlements of the early Band-keramik and later ones. The borderline of the early lBK in the hessian Depression, leine Graben, and northern harz Foreland was distinctly extended once more during middle lBK times by c. 50 km in a north­

440 saile · aspects of neolithisation in the Weser­harz region

western direction. This extended occupation area was part of an internal colonisation of regionally different intensity, to be noted on the map as a concentration within the network of settlements. it was supported by the early lBK pioneer settlements, functioning as secondary centres of neolithisation. While in the north­ern harz Foreland a comparison between early and middle to late lBK settlements shows a ratio of c. 1:7, there are only isolated early lBK settlements to be found in the northern hessian Depression and the leine Graben, while the number of middle and late sites is rather large (tab. 1). Besides the predominant uniformity apparent in the Bandkeramik (Cladders 2001), it is in particular the conformity of ceramics between sites within the northern harz Foreland (Eilsleben: Kaufmann 1981; 1984;

fig. 1 Settlements of early Bandkeramik in the Weser­harz region (excluding Thuringia). – map after: BÜK 1000 and DTK 500. Settle­ments after: Cosack 1996; Kneipp 1998; Saile / Lorz 2003; Steinmetz 2003, and Kaufmann’s »Index of findspots of the Neolithic cultures in Central Germany«.

441The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe

1991; Eitzum: Schwarz­mackensen 1985) and the Wetterau (Nieder­mörlen: lindig / Schwitalla 1999; Schade­lindig 2003) as well as early Transdanubian assemblages which indicates a rapid process of occupa­tion and the continuation of close relations. The relatively dense early lBK occupation in Central Germany (Kaufmann 1981; 1989) might be an indication of an early start and a long duration of this phase. This applies particularly to the northern harz Foreland where the early lBK assemblages appear to be especially old, while the majority of ceramic finds in Thuringia apparently belong to a later stage (Kaufmann 1981). At least in the vicinity of Eilsleben in the northern harz Foreland there is obviously only a very weak representa­tion of the middle phase of the lBK (Jäger / Kaufmann 1989).

fig. 2 Settlements of middle and late Bandkeramik in the Weser­harz region (excluding Thuringia). – map after: BÜK 1000 and DTK 500. Settlements after: Cosack 1996; Kneipp 1998; Saile / Lorz 2003; Steinmetz 2003, and Kaufmann’s »Index of findspots of the Neolithic cultures in Central Germany«.

442 saile · aspects of neolithisation in the Weser­harz region

only three settlements datable to the early lBK have become known so far within the hessian Depression and the connecting leine Graben. Presumably, the development of the Bandkeramik had a later start in this area than in Central Germany. at the same time radiocarbon datings from Rosdorf (District of Göttingen) indicate an early start of the middle lBK (Stäuble 2005). Up to this day there are no satisfactory results available concerning absolute chronology about the transition from the early to the middle lBK in the leine Graben. Therefore, one might expect within the overall conformity of sequence a regionally differentiated lack of simultaneousness. at least en détail isochronal development patterns are becoming questionable.The close relation between settled areas of the Bandkeramik and loess is a generally accepted regularity of Early Neolithic settlement patterns since the study by Schliz (1906). an investigation on the basis of con­siderably improved and extended geological and archaeological data provides information about regional particularities (Saile / lorz 2003). also in the Weser­harz region, the further expansion of the agricultural way of life came to an initial standstill at the agro­ecological barrier of the loess boundary. it is note worthy, however, that not all available loess areas at the northern periphery of the lBK territory have delivered Early Neolithic finds. There is, for instance, a gap of about 30 km within the LBK network of settlements in the loess­covered northern harz Foreland between the rivers oker near Brunswick and innerste near hildesheim. Within the region of lower Saxony located west of the leine (Calenberger land) not one Band keramik settle­ment has been found up to this day. Taking into account that the whole area has been covered in a satisfac­tory way by the state office for the protection of archaeological monuments, these observations appear to have a cultural­historical basis. The inhabitants of lBK settlements will most certainly have had a concrete conception regarding the location of neighbouring sites and still unoccupied potential living areas. Zones without settlements within large, coherent loess areas might find an explanation in the collapse of LBK expansion power. Possibly the level of population was too low, the communication between groups was disturbed, the mesolithic refusal to accept the cultural farming package within the region was too strong, or the combination of characteristics determining the parameters of natural surroundings in the unoccupied loess areas was too unfavourable. Furthermore, small loess islands did not offer an economic basis sufficient for the survival of LBK settlement groups. it is only within groups of approximately 500 people that the number of marriage partners is large enough to enable the survival of the community (de Grooth / van de Velde 2005).Provided one does not wish to reconstruct forested areas in Central Europe without human inhabitants, early farming communities must have come into contact with late mesolithic groups at the extreme boundaries of the lBK territory, but also at the borderlines of areas characterised by agricultural activities. This precon­ceived proximity in largely different biotopes is hard to verify because finds possibly demonstrating contact are being debated controversially, and the distribution of mesolithic sites and lBK settlements shows that they largely exclude one another. mesolithic places are located in hill country encircling the early settlement

region early lBK Middle to late lBK ratio

Northern harz Foreland (hF) 29 268 1 : 9hessian Depression (hD) 2 63 1 : 32Leine Valley (LV) 1 140 1 : 140hildesheimer Börde (hB) 27Warburger Börde (WB) 29Total Number 32 527 1 : 16

tab. 1 Early and middle to late Bandkeramik sites in different areas of the Weser­harz region.

443The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe

areas (Rost 1992; Grote 1998). it remains uncertain, however, whether this picture demonstrates the need for a different natural habitat due to different economic structures or whether it is the result of differential preservation. in loess areas that have been put to use agriculturally for seven millennia there is hardly any possibility for the preservation of mesolithic sites. Furthermore, proof of the simultaneous existence of late mesolithic sites and Bandkeramik settlements is not yet available. Rather, the concrete dating of meso­lithic surface sites is generally considered controversially in this area (Rost 1992). in this respect it appears problematic to attribute a protective function against mesolithic groups to the network of lBK earthworks

fig. 3 Bandkeramik settlements in the surroundings of the pollen profile Lutteranger. 1 Gieboldehausen 42. – 2 Bodensee 12. – 3 Gieboldehausen 76. – 4 Gieboldehausen 1. – 5 Gieboldehausen 4. – 6 Wollbrandshausen 6. – 7 Rollshausen 27. – 8 Seeburg 45. – 9 Ebergötzen 12. – 10 Ebergötzen 1. – 11 Rollshausen. – 12 Seulingen 14. – 13 Seulingen 34. – 14 mingerode 2. – map after: TK 50, sheets l 4326 and l 4526.

444 saile · aspects of neolithisation in the Weser­harz region

(Cahen et al. 1990; Christensen 2004; Schmidt 2004). The Early Neolithic enclosures probably served as places for self­assurance of lBK communities, thus representing an important function in the process of neolithisation.

changing landscapes

The progress of a neolithisation procedure and the reaction of a plant ecology that had not yet been touched by human activity can be exemplified in the Goldene Mark (Lower Eichsfeld), a loess region east of Göttingen. located in the centre of this area are three subrosive depressions where limnic deposits have developed (Seeburger See, luttersee [today: lutteranger], Westersee [today: Seeanger]). a pollen profile with high chronological resolution and high pollen counts per sample from the Lutteranger provides detailed evidence for tracing the process of settling (Beug 1992). The distribution patterns of lBK settle­ments – whose number has greatly increased during recent years due to systematic field prospection (Grote 1999) – demonstrate that the zones of lBK settlement activities are partly located at a distance of only several hundred metres from the pollen profile exposure (fig. 3). however, radiocarbon dates of material from the lutteranger are generally too old due to the reservoir effect. Therefore, »14C data of peat from the bogs of the Upper harz regarded as correlatable were used and evaluated together with the cumulative data of pollen concentrations of the profile from the Luttersee« (Beug 1992, 278). On this basis the accu­racy of reading reached 5-10 years (Beug 1992, 284). The duration of settlement phases in pollen zone IV can be combined very well with the anticipated duration of lBK settlement periods:

– Settlement occupation in the region began during the middle Bandkeramik (Flomborn). after approxi­mately one century the data indicating settlement activities within settlement period 1c show a culmina­tion point (duration of settlement phases 1a-1c c. 150-180 years). Values decline during the late LBK but continue to adhere to a relatively high level (settlement phase 1d, duration c. 160­165 years). The period of transition to the middle Neolithic shows a distinct break.– Cereal pollen reach maximum amounts of up to 4 % during the middle lBK Phase. The immediate surroundings of the luttersee show dense occupation, and the cleared areas indicate intense agricultural activities. The portion of non­arboreal pollen increases accordingly from 3­5 % to more than 20 % before anthropogenic action began to have an effect on the vegetation.– During lBK times mostly wheat and barley were cultivated. The frequent change in the quantity of these two cereals is conspicuous. in the beginning emmer and einkorn predominate, about four genera­tions later barley appears – while einkorn disappears to a large extent. accordingly, the region under investigation, characterised by emmer, einkorn, and barley, belongs to Cultivation Zone 2 as defined by lüning (2000).

By following the hessian Depression in a southern direction, a partially deviating development of vegeta­tion becomes apparent, based on archaeopalynological investigations in the Wetterau (Schweizer 2003). Evidence is available for clearing of forests in this region already during the late mesolithic, attributed to anthropogenic causes. archaeological information about the population groups involved – maybe la hoguette – is not yet available; evidence of wild poppy (Papaver setigerum DC) indicates an association with the south­western European Neolithic. These activities come to an abrupt end with the sudden appearance of the fully developed lBK agriculture. Changes in the composition of forests indicate forest pasturage. Towards the end of the Bandkeramik the decline of settlement evidence in the Wetterau is decidedly weaker in comparison with southern lower Saxony.

445The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe

local cultural contact

in view of the rare occurrence of late mesolithic sites it is hard to obtain information about the phase of transition from the mesolithic to the Neolithic. in the Weser­harz region, several assemblages of material have been discussed as contact finds:

– The Late Mesolithic peripheral site Laubach 7 (District of Göttingen) in the Lower Werra Valley with a find of the fragment of an adze (Grote 1998).– Strata 4­6 of the abri Bettenroder Berg iX (Community of Reinhausen, District of Göttingen), datable to the middle of the 6th millenium cal BC (KN 4149 [charcoal]: 6610 ±110 bp) with evidence of emmer and barley (from pit 204) as well as sheep/goat (Grote 1993).– Structure 13 of the early LBK settlement at Eitzum (District of Wolfenbüttel), where a flake axe was found (Schwarz-Mackensen 1985); there are two atypical flake axes that can be assigned to the older phase of the settlement at Eilsleben (Börde District) (Kaczanowska 1990).

However, grave objections have to be raised concerning the historic validity of these find assemblages:– In Laubach a connection between the adze and the Late Mesolithic surface finds is not established beyond any doubt: a late Neolithic site is located at a distance of 150 m. Furthermore, polished stone artefacts already occur during mesolithic times: the adze from the double burial in the Spa Gardens of Bad Dürrenberg (Grünberg 2004) may be mentioned as an example.– The stratigraphic sequence of the abri Bettenroder Berg iX is, of course, to be considered as largely undisturbed because »the finds were found principally in a stratified position« (Grote 1993, 30). However, vertical displacements were observed repeatedly which were attributed to bioturbation or the »trampling into the occupation layer during a settlement process« (Grote 1993, 31). Taking this into consideration, a connection between indications of neolithisation, the radiocarbon dating, and the Late Mesolithic finds cannot be determined with the necessary certainty.– Regarding the flake axe from Eitzum »doubts have developed whether a definition of this artefact as a flake axe may be correct« (Schwarz-Mackensen 1985, 17). This results in the question whether »Late Mesolithic tools did find acceptance within the tool spectrum of Neolithic settlers« (Tillmann 1993, 167). Furthermore, consideration has been given to the possibility that the flake axe »might have been taken to the LBK settlement by the settlers as a picked-up find« (Rost 1992, 35 note 245). Finally, there has been principal criticism concerning the far­reaching hypotheses about relations between Bandkeramik and mesolithic populations advanced on the basis of such coarse artefacts (Wechler 1993).

The examples mentioned cannot be accepted as certain evidence for cultural contacts between mesolithic and Neolithic groups. however, the (still) missing proof of simultaneousness should not be interpreted too soon as evidence for the lack of it.

446 saile · aspects of neolithisation in the Weser­harz region

references

Beug 1992: H.-J. Beug, Vegetationsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen über die Besiedlung im Unteren Eichsfeld, landkreis Göttingen, vom frühen Neolithikum bis zum mittelalter. Neue ausgrabun­gen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 20, 1992, 261­339.

Buttler 1931: W. Buttler, Die Bandkeramik in ihrem nordwest­lichsten Verbreitungsgebiet (Marburg 1931).

1938: W. Buttler, Der donauländische und der westische Kul­turkreis der jüngeren Steinzeit. handbuch der Urgeschichte Deutschlands 2 (Berlin, leipzig 1938).

Cahen et al. 1990: D. Cahen / l. h. Keeley / i. Jadin / P.­l. van Berg, Trois villages fortifiés du Rubané récent en Hesbaye liégeoise. In: D. Cahen / M. Otte (eds.), Rubané et Cardial. Actes du Colloque de Liège, novembre 1988. Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 39 (Liège 1990) 125-146.

Childe 1929: V. G. Childe, The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford 1929).

Christensen 2004: J. Christensen, Warfare in the European Neo­lithic. acta archaeologica (København) 75/2, 2004, 129­156.

Cladders 2001: m. Cladders, Die Tonware der Ältesten Band­keramik. Untersuchung zur zeitlichen und räumlichen Gliede­rung. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen archäologie 72 (Bonn 2001).

Cosack 1996: E. Cosack, Ein bandkeramischer Wohnplatz bei heyersum, ldkr. hildesheim. Neue bandkeramische Siedlungen im Regierungsbezirk hannover. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 65, 1996, 3­20.

de Grooth / van de Velde 2005: M. de Grooth / P. van de Velde, Colonists on the loess? Early Neolithic a: the Bandkeramik culture. in: l. P. louwe Kooijmans / P. W. van den Broeke / h. Fokkens / a. l. van Gijn (eds.), The Prehistory of the Netherlands 1 (amsterdam 2005) 219­241.

Grote 1994: K. Grote, Die abris im südlichen leinebergland bei Göttingen. archäologische Befunde zum leben unter Fels­schutzdächern in urgeschichtlicher Zeit 1, 1. Archäologischer Teil – Text. Veröffentlichungen der Urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des landesmuseums zu hannover 43 (oldenburg 1994).

1998: K. Grote, laubach 7. Eine spätmesolithische Station im unteren Werratal (Südniedersachsen). in: N. J. Conard / C.­J. Kind (eds.), aktuelle Forschungen zum mesolithikum. Current mesolithic Research. Urgeschichtliche materialhefte 12 (Tübin­gen 1998) 203­221.

1999: K. Grote, archäologische landesaufnahme im Gebiet des Seeburger Sees, luttersees und ehemaligen Westersees im Untereichsfeld, ldkr. Göttingen. Neue ausgrabungen und For­schungen in Niedersachsen 21, 1999, 13­136.

Grünberg 2004: J. m. Grünberg, Die mesolithischen Bestattungen in mitteldeutschland. in: h. meller (ed.), Paläolithikum und me­solithikum. Kataloge zur Dauerausstellung im landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle 1 (Halle/Saale 2004) 275-290.

Jäger / Kaufmann 1989: K.-D. Jäger / D. Kaufmann, Zur frühneo­lithischen Besiedlung der naturräumlichen Einheit um Eilsleben, Kreis Wanzleben. in: J. Rulf (ed.), Bylany Seminar 1987. Collect­ed papers (Praha 1989) 305­313.

Kaczanowska 1990: m. Kaczanowska, Die Feuersteinindustrie der Kultur mit linienbandkeramik von Eilsleben, Kr. Wanzleben. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 1990, 29-40.

Kaufmann 1981: D. Kaufmann, Neue Funde der ältesten linien­bandkeramik von Eilsleben, Kreis Wanzleben. arbeits­ und For­schungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege Beiheft 16 = Beiträge zur Ur­ und Frühgeschichte 1 (Berlin 1981) 129­143.

1984: D. Kaufmann, Die ältestlinienbandkeramischen Funde von Eilsleben, Kr. Wanzleben, und der Beginn des Neolithikums im mittelelbe­Saale­Gebiet. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Ur­geschichte 52, 1983 (1984) 177­202.

1989: D. Kaufmann, Pflanzenanbau und Viehhaltung. Der Be­ginn einer neuen Epoche von Wirtschaft, Kultur und Siedlungs­geschichte. in: J. herrmann (ed.), archäologie in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Denkmale und Funde 1: archäolo­gische Kulturen, geschichtliche Perioden und Volksstämme (leipzig, Jena, Berlin 1989) 65­73.

1991: D. Kaufmann, Südöstliche Einflüsse in der Linienband-keramik des Elbe­Saale­Gebietes. Banatica 11, 1991, 275­295.

Kneipp 1998: J. Kneipp, Bandkeramik zwischen Rhein, Weser und main. Studien zu Stil und Chronologie der Keramik. Universitäts­forschungen zur Prähistorischen archäologie 47 (Bonn 1998).

lindig / Schwitalla 1999: S. lindig / G. Schwitalla, Das Steinzeitdorf vom Hempler. Denkmalpflege & Kulturgeschichte 1999/1, 26-32.

lüning 2000: J. lüning, Steinzeitliche Bauern in Deutschland. Die landwirtschaft im Neolithikum. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen archäologie 58 (Bonn 2000).

meier­arendt 1966: W. meier­arendt, Die bandkeramische Kul­tur im Untermaingebiet. Veröffentlichungen des Amtes für Bodendenkmalpflege im Regierungsbezirk Darmstadt 3 (Bonn 1966).

Pavlů 1998: I. Pavlů, Die chronologische und geographische Verteilung der Linienbandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. In: J. Preuß (ed.), Das Neolithikum in mitteleuropa. Kulturen – Wirtschaft – Umwelt vom 6. bis 3. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. Übersichten zum Stand der Forschung 1/2. Teil B: Übersichten zum Stand und zu Problemen der archäologischen Forschung (Weissbach 1998) 274­285.

Price et al. 2001: T. D. Price / R. a. Bentley / J. lüning / D. Gronen­born / J. Wahl, Prehistoric human migration in the linearband­keramik of Central Europe. antiquity 75, 2001, 593­603.

Quitta 1962: H. Quitta, Zur ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. in: K.­h. otto (ed.), aus Ur­ und Frühgeschichte. Tagung der Fachgruppe Ur­ und Frühgeschichte der Deutschen historiker­Gesellschaft vom 30. oktober bis 1. November 1959 in Schwe­rin (Berlin 1962) 87­107.

Rost 1992: a. Rost, Siedlungsarchäologische Untersuchungen zwischen Leine und Weser. Zur Besiedlungsgeschichte einer Mit­telgebirgslandschaft. Göttinger Schriften zur Vor- und Frühge-schichte 24 (Neumünster 1992).

Saile / lorz 2003: Th. Saile / C. lorz, anthropogene Schwarzerde­genese in mitteleuropa? Ein Beitrag zur aktuellen Diskussion. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 78, 2003, 121-139.

Schade-Lindig 2003: S. Schade-Lindig, Vorbericht zur bandkera­mischen Siedlung in Bad Nauheim–Nieder­mörlen »hempler« (Wetteraukreis/hessen). Starinar 52, 2002 (2003) 117­137.

Schliz 1906: a. Schliz, Der schnurkeramische Kulturkreis und seine

447The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe

Stellung zu den anderen neolithischen Kulturformen in Süd­westdeutschland. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 38, 1906, 312-345.

Schmidt 2004: K. Schmidt, Les enceintes de la culture à céramique linéaire (Strasbourg, Würzburg 2004) [unpubl. diss., Université marc Bloch Strasbourg ii/Julius­maximilians­Universität Würz­burg 2004].

Schwarz­mackensen 1985: G. Schwarz­mackensen, Die früh­bandkeramische Siedlung bei Eitzum, landkreis Wolfenbüttel. Veröffentlichungen des Braunschweigischen Landesmuseums 45 (Braunschweig 1985).

Schweizer 2003: a. Schweizer, archäopalynologische Untersu­chungen zur Neolithisierung der Wetterau (hessen). in: J. Eck­ert / U. Eisenhauer / A. Zimmermann (eds.), Archäologische Per­spektiven. analysen und interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens lüning zum 65. Geburtstag. internationale archäologie, Studia honoraria 20 (Rahden/Westf. 2003) 243­249.

Stäuble 2005: h. Stäuble, häuser und absolute Datierung der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähisto­rischen archäologie 117 (Bonn 2005).

Steinmetz 2003: W.-D. Steinmetz, Zur Besiedlungsgeschichte des Braunschweiger Landes in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Anmerkungen zu den Pollenprofilen aus dem Bullenteich bei Braunschweig. Neue ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Nie­dersachsen 24, 2003, 325­376.

Thielemann 1965: o. Thielemann, Die bandkeramische Siedlung Wülperode, Kreis halberstadt, und die bandkeramischen Sied­lungsfunde westlich der Oker. Die Kunde. Zeitschrift für Ur- und Frühgeschichte N. F. 16, 1965, 8­31.

Tillmann 1993: A. Tillmann, Kontinuität oder Diskontinuität? Zur Frage einer bandkeramischen landnahme im südlichen mittel­europa. archäologische informationen. mitteilungen zur Ur­ und Frühgeschichte 16, 1993, 157­187.

Wechler 1993: K.­P. Wechler, mesolithikum – Bandkeramik – Trich­terbecherkultur. Zur Neolithisierung Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands aufgrund vergleichender Untersuchungen zum Silexinventar. Bei­träge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns 27 (lübstorf 1993).

Zusammenfassung / Abstract / Résumé

Aspekte der Neolithisierung in der Weser-harz-regionDer kulturelle Wandlungsprozess der Neolithisierung erfolgte auch im Weser­harz­Raum nicht in revolutionärem Tempo, sondern erstreckte sich über einen langen Zeitraum. Er kann auf unterschiedlichen Skalenebenen untersucht werden. an der nordwestlichen Peripherie der bandkeramischen Ökumene lässt sich die regional differenzierte landwirtschaft­liche Kolonisation exemplarisch verfolgen. auffällig ist, dass nicht alle verfügbaren lösslandschaften aufgesiedelt wur­den. Bei günstigen Beobachtungsbedingungen – wie sie beispielsweise in der Goldenen mark gegeben sind – ist der ablauf der Neolithisierung detailliert nachzuzeichnen. Die interpretation verschiedener materialkomplexe als vermeint­lich meso­neolithische Kontaktfunde hält einer kritischen Prüfung nicht stand.

Aspects of neolithisation in the Weser-harz regionThe cultural change during the process of neolithisation in the Weser­harz region did not take place in revolutionary rapidity but, as elsewhere, extended over a long period of time. This can be investigated on the basis of different scale levels. at the north­western periphery of the lBK territory the regionally differentiated agricultural colonisation can be traced in an exemplary manner. it is noteworthy that not all available loess areas were settled. Under conditions favourable for observation – as they are for instance found in the Goldene mark – the process of neolithisation can be followed in detail. The interpretation of several assemblages of material as alleged Meso-Neolithic contact finds does not withstand close examination.

Aspects de la néolithisation de la région Weser-harzLe processus de transformation culturelle lors de la néolithisation ne s’est pas produit à une vitesse révolutionnaire mais tout comme dans les autres régions, il s’est étalé sur une période très longue. Il peut être analysé à différents niveaux. A la périphérie nord-ouest de l’œkoumène rubanée, la colonisation agropastorale, différenciée sur le plan régional, peut être retracée de façon exemplaire. A ce propos, force est de constater que ce n’est pas la totalité des zones lœssiques disponibles qui est occupée. Lorsque les conditions d’observation sont favorables – comme cela est le cas dans la région de la Goldene Mark – il est possible de retracer le déroulement de la néolithisation dans le détail. L’interprétation des différents assemblages matériels en tant que trouvailles de contact méso-néolithique ne résiste cependant pas à l’exa­men critique. (traduit de l’allemand par Karoline Mazurié de Keroualin)

Sonderdruck aus / Offprint from

Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas

The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe

Die Tagung wurde gefördert durch:

Satz: Andrea Fleckenstein, Frankfurt; Claudia Nickel (RGZM)Gesamtredaktion: Stefanie Wefers (RGZM)Endredaktion: Stefanie Wefers, Claudia Nickel (RGZM)Umschlagbild: Michael Ober (RGZM)

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen NationalbibliothekDie Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation inder Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografischeDaten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

Das Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründe-ten Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks,der Entnahme von Abbildungen, der Funk- und Fernsehsendung,der Wiedergabe auf fotomechanischem (Fotokopie, Mikrokopie)oder ähnlichem Wege und der Speicherung in Datenverarbei-tungsanlagen, Ton- und Bildträgern bleiben, auch bei nur aus-zugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Die Vergütungsansprüchedes §54, Abs. 2, UrhG. werden durch die Verwertungsgesell-schaft Wort wahrgenommen.

Herstellung: Druck- und Verlagsservice Volz, BudenheimPrinted in Germany

RGZM – TAGUNGENBand 4

ISBN 978-3-88467-159-7ISNN 1862-4812

© 2010 Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz

€ 78,–

Bestellungen / orders:[email protected]