On-site data cast doubts on the hypothesis of shifting cultivation in the late Neolithic (c. 4300–2400 cal. BC): Landscape management as an alternative paradigm

Abstract

This article brings together in a comprehensive way, and for the first time, on- and off-site palaeoenvironmental data from the area of the Central European lake dwellings (a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site since 2011). The types of data considered are as follows: high-resolution off-site pollen cores, including micro-charcoal counts, and on-site data, including botanical macro- and micro-remains, hand-collected animal bones, remains of microfauna, and data on woodland management (dendrotypology). The period considered is the late Neolithic (c. 4300–2400 cal. BC). For this period, especially for its earlier phases, discussions of land-use patterns are contradictory. Based on off-site data, slash-and-burn – as known from tropical regions – is thought to be the only possible way to cultivate the land. On-site data however show a completely different picture: all indications point to the permanent cultivation of cereals ( Triticum spp., Hordeum vulgare), pea ( Pisum sativum), flax ( Linum usitatissimum) and opium-poppy ( Papaver somniferum). Cycles of landscape use are traceable, including coppicing and moving around the landscape with animal herds. Archaeobiological studies further indicate also that hunting and gathering were an important component and that the landscape was manipulated accordingly. Late Neolithic land-use systems also included the use of fire as a tool for opening up the landscape. Here we argue that bringing together all the types of palaeoenvironmental proxies in an integrative way allows us to draw a more comprehensive and reliable picture of the land-use systems in the late Neolithic than had been reconstructed previously largely on the basis of off-site data.

Late Neolithic Agriculture in Temperate Europe—A Long-Term Experimental Approach

“…We agree with Jacomet, et al [46]), that experimental proof of hypotheses dealing with the past is not possible. But, experiments can rule out ideas that just do not work, they show otherwise unknown hints or problems, they provide data that are indispensable for modelling approaches (see Baum 2014 [47], Baum, et al 2016 [48]), and they provide material for further investigations, for example, isotope analysis.…”

“…Recently, these results and interpretation were emphatically contradicted (Jacomet, et al [46], Baum, et al [47]). Their ideas are mainly based on onsite data from Swiss lakeshore dwellings, thereby solely focusing on the Late Neolithic.…”

“…According to their opinion, the opening of the forest took place to create a more suitable landscape for animal browsing, gathering, and hunting. They ignore two facts: first, a successive opening of the landscape would have resulted in more NAP (non-aboreal pollen) input, which is clearly visible in the pollen profile from Mainau (Jacomet, et al [46]), as in all other pollen records from the region from the EBA onwards, but not in the Late Neolithic; second, to burn a deciduous forest in temperate Europe, the trees must first be cut down and the wood must dry. This requires a lot of time and labor input, and it is therefore possible to create small fields, but not to create huge pastures and hunting landscapes.…”

Evidence for rare crop weeds of the Caucalidion group in Southwestern Germany since the Bronze Age: palaeoecological implications

“…During the Neolithic there is no significant increase of NAP during human impact phases, but instead an increase of shrubs, which was explained by Rösch et al (2014a) as due to slash-and-burn agriculture. In contrast, Jacomet et al (2016) explain their Neolithic on-site evidence as indicating permanent fields and animal browsing in the forest, postulating a larger opening of the landscape step by step, with even the use of fire to create pastures and better hunting opportunities. However, they ignore the NAP values in pollen profiles, as well as the fact that in a broad-leafed forest the trees must first be cut down and the wood must dry before it is combustible.…”

Prehistoric land-cover and land-use history in Ireland at 6000 BP

“…Several possibilities could explain this: (i) a change in land use due to land abandonment and secondary succession by hazel into previously open areas (e.g. due to population decline), or people becoming more dispersed in the landscape or changing the location of their activities; (ii) increased hazel flower and pollen production due to coppicing for nut production, fencing and hurdle production (Waller et al 2012) and (iii) post-recovery succession of hazel following burning of woodland to facilitate woodland grazing, as suggested for Neolithic Central Europe (Jacomet et al 2016). This episode represents a change in land use that is likely associated with human behaviors.…”