We review palaeoenvironmental proxies and combinations of these relevant for understanding hunter-gatherer niche construction activities in pre-agricultural Europe. Our approach consists of two... Show moreWe review palaeoenvironmental proxies and combinations of these relevant for understanding hunter-gatherer niche construction activities in pre-agricultural Europe. Our approach consists of two steps: (1) identify the possible range of hunter-gatherer impacts on landscapes based on ethnographic studies; (2) evaluate proxies possibly reflecting these impacts for both the Eemian (Last Interglacial, Middle Palaeolithic) and the Early–Middle Holocene (Mesolithic). We found these paleoenvironmental proxies were not able to unequivocally establish clear-cut differences between specific anthropogenic, climatic and megafaunal impacts for either time period in this area. We discuss case studies for both periods and show that published evidence for Mesolithic manipulation of landscapes is based on the interpretation of comparable data as available for the Last Interglacial. If one applies the ‘Mesolithic’ interpretation schemes to the Neanderthal record, three common niche construction activities can be hypothesised: vegetation burning, plant manipulation and impact on animal species presence and abundance. Our review suggests that as strong a case can be made for a Neanderthal impact on landscapes as for anthropogenic landscape changes during the Mesolithic, even though the Neanderthal evidence comes from only one high-resolution site complex. Further research should include attempts (e.g. by means of modelling studies) to establish whether hunter-gatherer impact on landscapes played out at a local level only versus at a larger scale during both time periods, while we also need to obtain comparative data on the population sizes of Last Interglacial and Holocene hunter-gatherers, as these are usually inferred to have differed significantly. Show less
In response to the comment by Crombé and Langohr (2020) on our micromorphological study of Mesolithic pit hearths, we argue that these features are most likely anthropogenic in origin, and that it... Show moreIn response to the comment by Crombé and Langohr (2020) on our micromorphological study of Mesolithic pit hearths, we argue that these features are most likely anthropogenic in origin, and that it is therefore unlikely that they are the remains of burned ant nests. Arguments for an anthropogenic origin centre around (1) their regional and temporal distribution, (2) their spatial distribution within archaeological sites, (3) their charcoal spectrum and (4) the presence of cultural remains in the pits. We argue that the absence of fire-related features and apparent discrepancies in dating can be attributed to site-formation and taphonomic processes. Finally, we indicate that, due to a lack of actual observations of the subsurface morphology of burned ant nests, it is impossible to make a valid comparison. Based on the existing literature on ant nests fires, we come to a different model of this morphology than do Crombé and Langohr (2020). We conclude that these pit hearths form an important component of the Mesolithic archaeological record and that new research into their formation and their use may shed more light on their origin and purpose. Show less
Recent studies emphasise the mosaic character of the process of neolithisation in north-western Europe. However, some overarching motives influencing the uptake of farming can be identified across... Show moreRecent studies emphasise the mosaic character of the process of neolithisation in north-western Europe. However, some overarching motives influencing the uptake of farming can be identified across regions. We model the importance of evolutionary processes underlying neolithisation. We focus on the southern part of the Low Countries, where the uptake of agriculture follows distinct trajectories in different biomes. We analyse the transition in terms of fitness benefits that foraging and agriculture bestow on the actors involved. We suggest that different substrates offer different fitness benefits with regard to the uptake of farming and that these benefits differed between the sexes, leading to differing “optimal” strategies for males and females regarding whether and how to adopt Neolithic innovations. Show less
The adoption of agriculture is one of the major developments in human history. Archaeological studies have demonstrated that the trajectories of Neolithisation in Northwest Europe were diverse.... Show moreThe adoption of agriculture is one of the major developments in human history. Archaeological studies have demonstrated that the trajectories of Neolithisation in Northwest Europe were diverse. This book presents a study into the archaeology of the indigenous communities involved in the process of Neolithisation in the Lower Rhine Area (5500-2500 cal BC). It elucidates the role played by these in relation to their environmental context. This work brings together a comprehensive array of excavated archaeological sites in the Lower Rhine Area and indicates that the successive Late Mesolithic, Swifterbant culture, Hazendonk group and Vlaardingen culture societies represent a continuous long-term tradition of inhabitation of the wetlands and their margins. After demonstrating the existence of a diverse Mesolithic background to Neolithisation, the subsequent developments are studied by foregrounding the relationship between local communities and the dynamic wetland landscape. This points to long-term flexible behaviour and pragmatic choices in livelihood, food economy and mobility. For the interpretation of Neolithisation this study emphasises the persistent traditions of the communities involved. New elements are shown to be attuned to existing hunter-gatherer practices. By documenting indications of the mentalité of the wetland inhabitants, it is demonstrated that their mindset remains essentially ‘Mesolithic' for millennia. Show less
Sowing the seed? Human impact and plant subsistence in Dutch wetlands during the Late Mesolithic and Early and Middle Neolithic (5500-3400 cal BC). The understanding of the neolithisation process... Show moreSowing the seed? Human impact and plant subsistence in Dutch wetlands during the Late Mesolithic and Early and Middle Neolithic (5500-3400 cal BC). The understanding of the neolithisation process in the Netherlands has increased considerably during the last decades. A coherent overview of the archaeobotanical research on the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture was, however, lacking until now. This thesis aims to provide a better understanding of the neolithisation process in the Dutch wetlands by means of the reconstruction of the natural vegetation, human impact, plant use and cultivation practises at the time of the Late Mesolithic, the Swifterbant culture and the Hazendonk group. The study is a literature study based on the analysis of published and unpublished data on pollen, seeds and fruits, wood, charcoal and tubers from four wetland regions. The extensive botanical data sets of recently excavated sites have been combined and compared with evidence of earlier investigations, resulting in a coherent overview and new interpretations. The evidence from the Dutch wetlands has furthermore been compared with that of comparable cultural groups in Northwestern Europe. Show less
