Mobility in Prehistoric Sedentary Societies – an Introduction. In: S. Scharl/B. Gehlen (eds.), Mobility in Prehistoric Sedentary Societies. Papers of the CRC 806 Workshop in Cologne, 26-27 June 2015 (Rahden/Westf. 2017) 9-18.

PDF file as offprint This extract of data files from “Silviane Scharl and Birgit Gehlen (Eds.) Mobility in Prehistoric Sedentary Societies Kölner Studien zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 8 (Köln 2017)” is not allowed to be reproduced neither in printed form nor in digital form. This offprint is meant exclusively for your personal use. Orders: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH Dr. Bert Wiegel Stellerloh 65 D – 32369 Rahden/Westf. Germany Silviane Scharl and Birgit Gehlen (Eds.) Mobility in Prehistoric Sedentary Societies Kölner Studien zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 8 (Rahden/Westf. 2017) 304 pages, 155 figures, 15 tables incl. 7 plates. Text in English. Hardcover: 21,0 x 29,7 cm ISBN 978-3-86757-368-9 Prize: 59,80 Euro We hereby order ......... copies Date, Signature KölnEr StUdiEn ZUr prähiStoriSchEn archäoloGiE Band 8 herausgegeben von heinz-Werner dämmer, Jürgen richter und andreas Zimmermann für das institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität zu Köln Silviane Scharl and Birgit Gehlen (Eds.) MoBility in prEhiStoric SEdEntary SociEtiES papers of the crc 806 Workshop in cologne 26–27 June 2015 a crc 806 MonoGraph Verlag Marie leidorf Gmbh • rahden/Westf. 2017 304 Seiten mit 155 abbildungen, 15 tabellen inkl. 7 tafeln Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des SFB 806 “our Way to Europe”, Universität zu Köln Bibliografische information der deutschennationalbibliothek Scharl, Silviane / Gehlen, Birgit (Eds.): Mobility in prehistoric Sedentary Societies. papers of the crc 806 Workshop in cologne 26–27 June 2015. rahden/Westf. : leidorf, 2017 (Kölner Studien zur prähistorischen archäologie ; Band 8) iSBn 978-3-86757-368-9 die deutsche nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese publikation in der deutschen nationalbibliografie. detaillierte bibliografische daten sind im internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem papier alle rechte vorbehalten © 2017 Verlag Marie leidorf Gmbh Geschäftsführer: dr. Bert Wiegel Stellerloh 65 d-32369 rahden/Westf. tel: +49/(0)5771/9510-74 Fax: +49/(0)5771/9510-75 e-mail: info@vml.de internet: http://www.vml.de iSBn 978-3-86757-368-9 iSSn 1868-2286 Kein teil des Buches darf in irgendeiner Form (druck, Fotokopie, cd-roM, dVd, internet oder einem anderen Verfahren) ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des VMl Verlag Marie leidorf Gmbh reproduziert werden oder unter Verwendung elektronischer Systeme verarbeitet, vervielfältigt oder verbreitet werden. Universität Köln, institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Weyertal 125, d-50923 Köln E-mail: secretary.prehistory@uni-koeln.de - homepage: http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/praehist Umschlagentwurf und -gestaltung: hartwig h. Schluse, Köln Satz, layout und Bildbearbeitung: lutz hermsdorf-Knauth, Köln Ganzseitige Fotos: Silviane Scharl, Köln redaktion: Ursula tegtmeier, Köln druck und produktion: druckhaus köthen Gmbh & co. KG, Köthen contEntS prEFacE (Jürgen richter) ............................................................................................................................................ 7 MoBility in prEhiStoric SEdEntary SociEtiES – an introdUction (Silviane Scharl) ............................................................................................................................................ 9 SoME thoUGhtS on MoBility and innoVation tranSFEr in prEhiStoric SEdEntary SociEtiES (Silviane Scharl) .......................................................................................................................................... 19 ForaGErS and FarMErS dUrinG thE nEolithic tranSition in WEStErn cEntral EUropE: SEarchinG For EVidEncE oF MoBility and intErcUltUral nEtWorKS (Birgit Gehlen in cooperation with anna-leena Fischer, ingrid Koch, omas richter, nele Schneid, Werner Schön, Kai Vogl and Mirijam Zickel) .................................................................................................... 39 ... 100 KM FroM thE nExt SEttlEMEnt ... MoBility oF linEar pottEry GroUpS in BrandEnBUrG, north-EaStErn GErMany (Maha ismail-Weber) .................................................................................................................................. 75 FroM MErZBachtal to thE GraEthEidE ? MoBility at thE End oF thE linEar pottEry cUltUrE (nadia Balkowski) ..................................................................................................................................... 119 occUpation and SEttlEMEnt oF land in thE linEar pottEry cUltUrE: rEFlEctionS on thE orGaniSation and loGiSticS (hans-christoph Strien) ........................................................................................................................... 129 GroUp aFFiliation and MoBility in thE linEar pottEry cUltUrE (hans-christoph Strien) ........................................................................................................................... 135 EVidEncE For MoBility in thE SEttlEMEnt SyStEM oF thE MichElSBErG cUltUrE in SoUth GErMany (Ute Seidel) ............................................................................................................................................... 145 hiGh rESolUtion hUSBandry: thE application oF 87Sr / 86Sr MEaSUrEMEntS By la-Mc-icp-MS aS an approach to tracKinG prEhiStoric FaUnal MoBility (claudia Gerling and Jamie lewis) ............................................................................................................ 163 MoBility and Social dynaMicS in BaVaria and north tyrol in thE UrnFiEld cUltUrE (Simone reuß and carola Metzner-nebelsick with a contribution by dominika Wycisk) ............................... 181 BEtWEEn thE BlacK ForESt and thE MEditErranEan SEa. indiVidUal MoBility in thE Early iron aGE (Julia Katharina Koch) .............................................................................................................................. 215 on thE Validation oF archaEoloGical and phySical-anthropoloGical MoBility indicatorS. thE MiGration hiStory oF an Early MEdiEVal SEttlEMEnt coMMUnity (Eva Stauch) ............................................................................................................................................. 229 accESSinG hard-to-analySE pEoplE in archaEoloGy (Elke Kaiser) ............................................................................................................................................. 263 MoBility in anciEnt EGypt – roadS and traVEl in thE nilE VallEy and adJacEnt dESErtS (heidi Köpp-Junk, heiko riemer and Frank Förster) ................................................................................ 277 MOBILITY IN PREHISTORIC SEDENTARY SOCIETIES – AN INTRODUCTION Silviane Scharl Mobility constitutes a crucial element of human history. Initially, our world was populated by mobile foragers. And even in the context of prehistoric sedentary societies, its role may not be underestimated. However, the latter is a quite recent insight, since for a long time mobility was considered to be only of marginal significance in so-called sedentary societies whose emergence was associated with the beginnings of food production. Instead, the importance of sedentism was emphasised since this step was considered fundamental for the evolution of human societies. As Barnard and Wendrich point out in their short history of research on mobility and sedentism, settled living was often understood as “the highest rung on the evolutionary ladder where permanent housing goes hand in hand with agriculture, landownership, social stratification and industrialization” (BARNARD & WENDRICH 2008, 10f.; see also RAFFERTY 1985, 141). Things are more complex, though. This is due to the mere fact that in the archaeological and ethno-historic record, sedentary foragers as well as mobile agriculturalists have repeatedly been documented (e.g., EBERSBACH 2010; HARD & MERRILL 1992; SEIDEL 2008; 2010; TURCK et al. 2014; ZVELEBIL & ROWLEY-CONWY 1984). Nonetheless, our conception of prehistoric societies is still characterised by an often unconscious association of foragers with a mobile way of life and agriculturalists with a sedentary way of life (see also KELLY 1992, 43 on foragers). As a result, the conception of sedentism in the later part of prehistory has not been questioned until lately. Rather, an idealised notion prevailed that was influenced by our notions of modern societies, which assumed prehistoric man endeavoured to stay in one place for generations. Consequently, research on mobility in these societies has been scarce. However, in the meanwhile, awareness has been growing that various forms of mobility were part of the everyday life of prehistoric sedentary societies – even mobility in the sense of changing residence repeatedly, i.e., every few years, which is reflected in ephemeral settlements (e.g., SEIDEL 2010; Seidel in this volume). This change in awareness has been facilitated by various methodical approaches, as e.g., the analysis of demographic develop- ments, isotope analysis or settlement archaeology, which are all represented in the present volume. As a systematic consideration of various case studies shows, mobility has many different dimensions. Therefore, as Kelly already stated in 1992, mobility has to be considered as a multidimensional phenomenon that can be traced on different scales (cf. KELLY 1992, 50). This is also reflected in the archaeological record since many different forms of mobility – concerning e.g. distances, spatial and chronological patterns, actors or motives – have been documented so far (for approaches to categorise these various forms, see, e.g., BEIER 2009; SCHIER 2013; TÜTKEN et al. 2008, 14). Isotope analysis facilitated the analysis of individual mobility, adding further crucial aspects to research on this phenomenon in prehistoric sedentary societies. Based on these developments, a complex picture of mobility emerged that is reflected in various contributions in the present volume. Likewise, it provides an insight into current research projects in this field in Central Europe and beyond. Taken as a whole, the results of all projects show, that prehistoric sedentary societies were far more mobile than previously assumed. This even extends to residential mobility. 1 For example, a well-documented case from modern times is the Raramuri, who live in agricultural communities in Northern Mexico and change their place of residence several times a year (HARD & MERRILL 1992; for a 1 In the present paper “residential mobility” in the most general sense refers to the relocation of single households but also of whole settlements. In the context of forager communities it is understood as the relocation of a camp. The term does not refer to Binford’s and Kelly’s more specific definition of subsistence strategies of hunters and gatherers describing residential “movements of all members of a camp from one location to another” as opposed to logistical mobility describing “movements of individuals or small groups from a residential location” (BINFORD 1980, 5–12; KELLY 1983, 248). The term “migration” is not used in the context of this paper following a suggestion by HAHN (2015). According to him the term is biased, describing human spatial movement and mobility as a kind of exception that has to be explained. This is why the term should be abandoned. Instead he suggests to use the term “mobility”, as a more neutral description of a basic category of human beings (HAHN 2015, 104). 10 Silviane Scharl collection of further examples see KELLY 1992, 51). Moreover, many prehistoric agrarian societies did not stay in one place for generations. While the term “sedentary” first and foremost describes societies that stay in one place all year round (sedentary economies are practiced by human groups that stay in one place all year round, HIGGS & VITA-FINZI 1972, 29), it does not imply that people stayed in one place for decades or even centuries. Implicitly, we often assume, though, that it was exactly like this, since in our everydaylife we are used to buildings that have lasted for centuries and to towns and villages that are rooted in the Middle Ages or even in the Roman Period. As residential mobility is the form of mobility we expect to play the least possible role in these societies, I will treat this aspect in more detail below in order to illustrate how we often project concepts of mobility and sedentism back into prehistory. RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY IN PREHISTORIC SEDENTARY SOCIETIES As a look at our history of research makes clear, sedentism was often associated with agriculture. For a long time, a veritable dichotomy was constructed, seeing mobile foragers on the one side and sedentary agriculturalists on the other. 2 Concretely, in prehistoric archaeology the notion prevailed that during the Pleistocene, Europe and the Near East were settled by mobile hunter-gatherers who relocated their camps several times a year (see also KELLY 1992, 43). In contrast, the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene saw the development of sedentary societies, i.e., groups that partly or as a whole stayed in one place all year round. 3 Various indicators of sedentism are discussed in the literature, for example, architecture, i.e., the construction of substantial houses, floral and faunal remains that indicate a year-round presence of inhabitants or a high density of debris, artefacts, pottery, etc. 4 This concept also included the idea that the development of a sedentary way of life superseded residential mobility and that it was virtually paralleled by the emergence of agricultural techniques and storage of food that in a sense facilitated this process. 2 See also HARD & MERRILL 1992, 601 “A truism in anthropology is that hunters and gatherers are mobile and agriculturalists are sedentary”; KELLY 1992, 43. 3 E.g. HIGGS & VITA-FINZI 1972, 29. See also KELLY 1992, 49 and RAFFERTY 1985, 113–116 for further definitions. 4 KELLY 1992, 65; RAFFERTY 1985, 128f. listing further indicators. 5 Murdock’s results were critically discussed repeatedly (e.g. HARD & MERRILL 1992). The correlation between sedentism and food production was further underlined by research studies such as the one by Murdock or Rafferty (MURDOCK 1969; RAFFERTY 1985, Tab. 4.2). Murdock, for example, analysed the relationship between subsistence and settlement patterns in the context of 322 ethnographic groups and found a strong correlation between the dependence on agriculture and sedentism (MURDOCK 1969). 5 SEDENTISM – AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE This strong conceptual connection between agriculture and sedentism supported the rather uncritical view on mobility in sedentary societies, residential mobility in particular. This was also facilitated by an evolutionary perspective regarding the step towards sedentism as crucial for human evolution, as mentioned above (BARNARD & WENDRICH 2008, 10). Since this development was often considered as unidirectional – from mobile to sedentary – switching back to a more mobile way of life was virtually ruled out as soon as the threshold of sedentism was passed (BERNBECK 2008, 49f.; KELLY 1992, 50f.). The reasoning for these assumptions is diverse. It is argued, for example, that humans tend towards sedentism, i.e., as a kind of intrinsic human behaviour while mobility – residential mobility in particular – is regarded as an undesirable state (see also BERNBECK 2008, 44). As a consequence, humans are expected to settle down as soon as an adequate supply with resources is available (e.g., BEARDSLEY et al. 1956, 134; BRAIDWOOD 1975, 119; CALDWELL 1958; described by BINFORD [1980, 19] as the “Garden of Eden” principle). Furthermore, it is argued that a mobile way of life causes high costs, e.g., for transport (see e.g., KELLY 1992, 46–48, on mobility costs of foraging communities). This, in turn, causes or rather necessitates a low population density since transporting children, diseased or the elderly is problematic (RAFFERTY 1985; STARK 1981; quoted according to KELLY 1992, 52). Sedentism, therefore, would be of advantage as transport costs would be minimised, releasing energy for other tasks. This model is based on the assumption that humans act as ‘homo oeconomicus’ striving after optimisation or utility maximisation. In short, the evolutionary approach impeded questions on mobility in sedentary societies that would have helped to develop a more complex notion of these aspects, most notably since we know various cases of regular residential mobility in the context of agriculturalists and of sedentism in the context of forager groups illustrating that the dichotomy mentioned before is somewhat artificial, leading to a rather simple picture of prehistoric reality. Settlement Mobility in Prehistoric Sedentary Societies – An Introduction patterns and shell middens of the so-called Ertebølle culture (ca. 5500/5450–4100 BC) in Denmark for example hint at a semi-sedentary to sedentary way of life facilitated by the availability of rich marine resources. Even during the Pleistocene, cases of reduced mobility within huntergatherer communities have been documented. At Ohalo II / Israel a campsite of a forager group dating to around 23 000 BP has been preserved. More than 90,000 plant remains have been documented in the water-logged deposits, reflecting the intensive use of wild grasses as staple foods (e.g., WEISS et al. 2004, 9551). The analysis of their seasonal availability hints at year-round occupation. In both cases, the availability of dense and predictable resources, such as marine, aquatic or plant resources, formed an important basis for the reduction of residential mobility that facilitated the development of storage, an increased population density and – according to Kelly – the development of social inequality (KELLY 1995, 294f.). Nonetheless, we have to keep in mind that resource abundance may be a necessary condition for sedentism, it is, however, not a sufficient one (see also KELLY 1992, 53). Having these examples in mind, a similar picture arises when we look at allegedly sedentary agrarian communities that are present in Central Europe from the second half of the 6th millennium BC onwards. As the archaeological record shows, various agrarian communities moved their houses or whole settlements repeatedly within a short period of time – the prehistory of sedentism is rather oscillating between states of lesser and greater residential mobility. MOBILITY OF HOUSEHOLDS The mobility of households, for example, has been documented in several settlements of the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK; 5200–5000 BC) in the Belgian region Hesbaye (BOSQUET & GOLITKO 2012). In the settlements of Waremme “Longchamps”, Darion “Colia”, Remicourt and Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher, so-called pioneer houses – single houses that are typically situated outside the proper village or outside the enclosure and according to pottery typology and radiocarbon dates are older than the neighbouring village – were excavated. Anthracological analysis shows that pits associated with pioneer houses contain charcoal dominated by forest taxa (oak, elm, ash), while the charcoal from the village pits reflects open and degraded environments. Moreover, finds from these pioneer houses are characterised by exotic goods, such as imported Limburg pottery, which are missing in the other houses. Further differences are indicated by the lithic raw materials as well as by the clay used for pottery production. All of this hints at being integrated into different networks. According to Bosquet and Golitko, these chronological and economic differences reflect a pioneer stage with first households founded in a relatively intact forested environment and a second phase, when eventually newcomers arrived to construct one or several houses at a certain distance, laying the basis for the proper village (BOSQUET & GOLITKO 2012). An even higher rate of relocating residence was documented in various pile-dwellings along Swiss and Southwest German lake shores during the 4th millennium BC. As dendroarchaeological analysis showed, households and even whole settlements exhibit remarkable dynamics (EBERSBACH 2010, 196). One of those settlements is Hornstaad Hörnle Ib at Lake Constance dating to 3586– 3507 BC. Within ca. 80 years of occupation, 6 settlement phases can be discerned, interrupted by gaps of up to 20 years. As the analysis of construction and reconstruction – as an indicator for the lifetime of a house – makes clear, some houses were rebuilt in every settlement phase while others were rebuilt only in certain phases reflecting a repeated coming and going. MOBILITY OF SETTLEMENTS The relocation of whole settlements was documented for example at Lake Biel/Switzerland. From 3582 till 3013 BC, six settlements were founded and abandoned within the Bay of Sutz-Lattrigen. They partly exhibit a quite short longevity covering less than 10 years (EBERSBACH 2010). This uncovers a remarkable dynamic of settlements that reflects a high residential mobility. A quite similar dynamic was documented for settlements of the Bronze and Iron Age as well as the Early Middle Ages in Northern Central Europe. Irrespective of the colonisation of hitherto unsettled areas, various villages exhibit regular relocations within their communal district. We know well-documented examples of these shifting settlements (“Wandersiedlungen”) from Denmark, the Netherlands and Northern Germany and it is also discussed in the literature for early medieval settlements in Southwest Germany (HVASS 1982; 1984; 1986; SCHMID 1982; STEUER 1988; WATERBOLK 1982). One of those well-documented examples is the region of Drenthe in the Netherlands. From the 1930s onwards, extensive settlement excavations were carried out by van Giffen, later on by Waterbolk and van Es (Groningen University). Their results facilitated a large-scale reconstruction of settlement dynamics over two millennia. Waterbolk, for example, reconstructed the mobility of settlements, cemeteries and arable land within 13 districts. His research demonstrates that all three categories were repeatedly relocated and created a quite inhomogeneous, or rather dynamic picture. In the district of Peelo, for example, the 11 Silviane Scharl 12 settlement was relocated at least eight times from the 5th century BC to the 18th century AD (WATERBOLK 1982, 108f.; fig. 10). Comparable patterns were documented in all other districts (Ibid. 109–129). In a comparative approach, Waterbolk can show that some relocations proceeded synchronously and might be ascribed to common causes, such as social change, degradation of soil quality, demographic growth, political events such as the end of the Roman occupation or the development of new agricultural techniques. However, verifying these hypotheses through archaeozoological, archaeobotanical, and pedological analysis still needs to be carried out (WATERBOLK 1982, 129f.; 132–135). Further examples come from Lower Saxony (e.g., SCHMID 1982) and Denmark. In the latter, large-scale excavations were conducted from the 1960s onwards, revealing whole settlement landscapes. Well-documented and well-known examples are the settlements of Vorbasse and Grøntoft (e.g., BECKER 1982; HVASS 1982; 1984; 1986; MÜLLER & STEUER 1999). At Grøntoft, for example, eight groups of byredwellings were documented, reflecting repeated shifts of a cohesive settlement community and fields from the 5th to the 3rd century BC. For some relocations, even the layout of the settlement remained unchanged (MÜLLER & STEUER 1999, 73–75). A similar mobility was reconstructed for the settlement of Vorbasse that was excavated by Hvass from 1974 to 1986. Hvass documented a repeated shift of the settlement within an area of ca. 1 km2 from the 1st century BC to the 12th/13th century AD. While the area of the district remained invariable, settlement size and structure changed constantly (HVASS 1982; 1984; 1986). For Alemannic settlements in Southwest Germany, Steuer assumes a comparable pattern. However, large-scale excavations of settlements that could help to clarify this question are still missing (STEUER 1988). DISCUSSION As I stated in the first section, in our everyday-life we are used to buildings that have lasted for centuries and to towns and villages that are rooted in the Middle Ages or even in the Roman Period. Large-scale excavations of prehistoric settlements uncovered what we might not have expected: Houses and settlements have been shifted remarkably often, in particular in agrarian societies. Spatial permanence that lasted for centuries or even a millennium is not documented till the High Middle Ages. Steuer even concludes that the permanence of settlements has to be considered an exception of the latter period (STEUER 1988, 43 Anm. 78). Therefore, the legitimate counter-question is as to whether there has not been a change in mobility behaviour of human beings since man left Africa a long time ago? Since my remarks are aimed at deconstructing the dichotomy described above, I do not intend to change to the contrary by vindicating the point of view that there were no differences at all between the mobility of agrarian societies and hunter-gatherers. Differences do exist, indeed. One of the most evident differences is the temporal rhythm of mobility. Foragers shift their camps repeatedly every year, i.e., on a seasonal, weekly or even daily base depending on the distribution and density of resources (e.g., KELLY 1992, 44). The mobility of agrarian societies extends to cycles of several years or decades. The case studies described above exhibit quite variable temporal patterns. With 5–10 years, the alpine lake settlements are, for example, far more short-lived and mobile than the LBK households or the Iron Age and early medieval settlements. I would assume further differences, when we consider the actors. Presumably, the residential mobility of Pleistocene and early Holocene foragers in many cases comprised the whole group while individual mobility probably played a minor part. This is at least partly due to the fact that the whole group acted much more as an economic entity than in later periods, when single households or autonomous entities that were located between house and settlement acted as an independent economic entity. I would assume that this facilitated residential mobility of individual households. Further differences become visible when we compare the spatial patterns of mobility. Looking at foragers, I expect them to be much more influenced by the spatial distribution of food resources while the mobility patterns of agrarian societies should more often be influenced by other factors, especially cultural or social ones. This is due to the mere fact that more and more unsettled areas became colonised during later prehistory, i.a., because of a growing population density and the progression of agricultural techniques. Consequently, people had to deal with neighbours to a more significant extent than, e.g., Pleistocene foragers. This leads on to the question of possible motives and reasons for residential mobility. Here, too we would expect differences between foragers and farmers. Basically, economic factors, food supply in particular, are of crucial importance for both groups. Nonetheless, farmer mobility was probably much more influenced by other factors, e.g., demographic or social, than forager mobility. Generally speaking, motives for residential mobility are multi-faceted. While reasons for mobility in prehistoric context are in most cases a matter of debate since it is not possible to identify one single trigger, a whole range of reasons and motives for the mobility of households or settlements are known from medieval contexts due to written Mobility in Prehistoric Sedentary Societies – An Introduction tradition (e.g., STEUER 1988, 43 Anm. 78). Nonetheless various factors are discussed for all periods and in some cases can be narrowed down to one or few decisive factors. Roughly speaking, they can be grouped to environmental factors and reasons that are culturally determined. Environmental factors that facilitate residential mobility are, e.g., climatic change, degradation of soil quality, formation of dunes in coastal areas or landscape change after the ice age in the area of the Baltic Sea, just to name a few. Culturally determined factors can be further categorised. Social and juridical factors, such as common land (“Allmende”), probably facilitated the relocation of whole settlements in medieval times. The development of manorialism and individual property probably impeded it. Conflicts with neighbours, in turn, might have encouraged mobility. Specific kinds of inheritance law might have influenced relocation of households as well. Divided inheritance of land, for example, can lead to a severe reduction of arable land per household. This might threaten the existence of a household finally leading to emigration. Single heir rule also forced parts of the descendants to move their households. These aspects are connected to demographic factors that influenced mobility behaviour as well. Other culturally determined factors can be assigned to economic motives and reasons, as, e.g., the development of specific agricultural techniques. The plough, for example, facilitated the exploitation of poor soils; therefore enabling the colonisation of hitherto unsettled areas. Fertilisation or the emergence of three-field crop rotation probably facilitated the permanence of settlements. Slash and burn cultivation or a focus on animal husbandry, in turn, might have encouraged residential mobility. Moreover, ritual or religious motives have to be taken into account. From ethnographic contexts we know of societies, where the death of the landlord required moving out a house. Again, the strong spatial relatedness to a church, after Christianisation, impeded residential mobility (STEUER 1988, 43 Anm. 78). Next to all these reasons and motives, there is a whole range of causes that according to Steuer can be described as pragmatic factors, such as hygienic reasons, a growing distance between arable land and farmyard or the decision to rebuild a house instead of fixing it (Steuer 1988, 43). In general, the influence of architecture on residential mobility is discussed in the literature (e.g. STEUER 1988, 26; 43). The lifetime of constructions with posts, for example, is far shorter than that of houses with a stone foundation. Therefore, the latter facilitated permanent settlements while the former had to be rebuilt on a regular basis and thus facilitated residential movement. Taken as a whole, reasons are diverse and the decisions that finally led to the relocation of a house or a settlement are multifactorial. This is also true for the phenomenon of human mobility per se. Based on the preceding remarks, we are nonetheless able to formulate several core statements that are valid at a more general level: 1. We have to note that the dichotomy between mobile foragers and sedentary farmers does not exist. Sedentism is not a synonym for agriculture. We also have to abandon evolutionary concepts that consider sedentism as a superior, more economical and a more desirable way of life. 2. Moreover, sedentarisation is not a unidirectional evolution. Life forms are – first and foremost – diverse. Not only do we know of sedentary foragers and mobile farmers, there are also many kinds of intermediate forms as well as extreme forms. For example, the tell settlements in Southeast Europe and the Near East, which show settlement permanence of several centuries or even millennia. 3. As Kelly already stated in 1992, mobility has to be considered as a multidimensional phenomenon that “need to be disentangled and studied independently, so that we can understand how factors altering one component affect other areas of behavior and culture” (KELLY 1992, 60). To this I would like to add what Hahn has suggested recently: We have to regard mobility as an integral component of most human societies (HAHN 2015, 107). FINAL REMARKS This is what we do with the present volume that comprises papers given at a workshop on “Mobility in Sedentary Societies” held in Cologne in 2015. By assembling a broad range (spatial as well as chronological) of projects on various aspects of mobility in prehistoric sedentary societies, we want to overcome concepts of sedentism and mobility, of “either/or”. Rather, we want to illustrate the broad spectrum of mobility in sedentary societies and beyond. By considering the context of the various forms of movement a complex picture arises that will help to gain new insights into this topic. The contributions in this book cover a broad spatial and chronological range: from the Netherlands to Egypt and to the steppe zone north of the Black Sea as well as from the Mesolithic to the Early Middle Ages. Moreover, they encompass a wide array of methodological approaches – i.a., isotope analysis, the analysis of demographic patterns, settlement patterns or pottery analysis to name but a few. My own paper focuses on a more theoretical aspect. It aims at understanding the role mobility played for innovation transfer in order to develop a clearer understanding of the interrelationship between the two. By compiling case studies of long-distance transport (i.e., data on 13 14 Silviane Scharl distance, the nature of contacts and underlying mobility patterns), I analysed what kind of mobility patterns in sedentary societies led to intensified contacts and as such produced contexts, in which the “application” of a specific innovation can be observed and learned while at the same time a certain spatial distance is covered. B. Gehlen compiles indicators for networks and mobility between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and early Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Indicators for both come from the analysis of burial rites, raw material supply or pottery production, reflecting the diversity of interconnectedness. This is facilitated by everyday mobility as well as irregular, but long-distance mobility. Although the current state of research on the Late and Finale Mesolithic is still fragmentary, which makes statements on contact events sometimes rather speculative, Gehlen makes clear how complex the interconnectedness between both groups was. M. Ismail-Weber also addresses mobility and networks, but focuses on LBK contexts in Brandenburg. She mainly uses pottery as an indicator for mobility and networks. Within three core regions in Brandenburg, she analyses the distribution of exotic pottery decoration that allows for further conclusions on networks and mobility. Based on the assumption that the relationships reflected by imported pottery also reflect direct contacts the Fläming region, for example, demonstrates a considerable degree of mobility. Hereby distances of up to 200 km were bridged during the first colonisation of this region (Weber Fig. 6). During the late to latest LBK phases, an expansion of contacts into eastern regions (Šárka area) is indicated by several finds that reflect networks and mobility over more than 400 km. This also applies to the other regions: During the pioneer phase distances of 2–300 km were covered while in the late phases of the LBK, connections expanded over distances of up to 500 km. Though working mainly with surface finds, the diversity of contacts based on various types of mobility becomes visible. In her paper, N. Balkowski focuses on the mobility of larger groups during the LBK. By analysing demographic developments on the Aldenhovener Platte and the Graetheide area (Netherlands), she addresses the question whether it is possible to demonstrate the emigration of a group from one area into another. Among others, her approach is based on the analysis of spatial and chronological patterns of settlements and burial sites. The archaeological record of the LBK also forms the basis for Ch. Strien’s paper on mobility in the context of LBK colonisation. In this context, he develops theoretical estimations on organisation and logistics. Although the colonisation of LBK settlers is still highly debated, his ideas on the potential course of colonisation are valid and add to a more informed discussion on this process. In a second paper, Ch. Strien takes into account group affiliation and mobility in LBK contexts. Based on the archaeological record and results from isotope analysis from various case studies, he reconstructs mobility on different scales (small-scale, regional and supra-regional mobility). The analysis of lithic raw materials of LBK settlements in the Rhine-Meuse area or at Vaihingen (Southwest Germany), for example, enables statements on small-scale and regional mobility. Differences in raw material supply, weed taxa and house size within a settlement form the basis for developing notions on group affiliation. With the aid of pottery analysis, large-scale contacts and mobility patterns become visible, which – as in Brandenburg (Ismail-Weber) – can reach distances of up to 500 km. The residential mobility of people during the later Neolithic Michelsberg Culture (MK) is in the focus of U. Seidel’s contribution. Her analysis is based on the open settlements and ditched enclosures of the MK in Southwest Germany. Additionally, she refers to results of isotope analysis of skeletons of the MK in Southwest Germany. As the archaeological record indicates, settlements during the MK were only of short duration, lasting no longer than 5– 7 years. This hints at a high residential mobility, which is also reflected in the short but repeated use of ditched enclosures and a periodical mobility that is substantiated in the isotope values of the burials at Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim. In the last decade or so, isotope analysis has become a crucial method for investigating mobility in archaeological contexts. Therefore, projects using this method formed an important part of our workshop, which is also reflected in this book. The aim of Gerling’s and Lewis’ contribution is twofold. On the one hand, they focus on faunal mobility based on isotope analysis. On the other hand, they address important methodological aspects concerning isotope analysis in general and different sampling methods in particular, i.e., laser-ablation-MC-ICPMS (Multi-Collector Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry), which is about to take on greater significance in this field as it has recently become more reliable. As a case study, they present the analysis of a triple cattle deposition from Zauschwitz (Central Germany) associated with the Globular Amphora Culture. The isotope analysis of selected teeth of all three cattle gives a first insight into animal management strategies, which reflects different types of mobility patterns. S. Reuß and C. Metzner-Nebelsick investigate mobility and social dynamics in Bavaria and North Tyrol during the Urnfield Culture. As the archaeological record shows, both regions were closely connected in this period. For a long time, changes in funeral rites, documented in North Tyrol at the onset of the late Bronze Age, have been explained as a result of immigration from the northern Alpine foothills Mobility in Prehistoric Sedentary Societies – An Introduction or the Alpine Rhine Valley. However, as Reuß and Metzner-Nebelsick state, alternative explanatory models have to be taken into account as well, as e.g. cultural contact via various modes of mobility, including exchange of goods on a regular basis via mobile specialists such as metal smiths and traders, gift exchange between different groups and the corresponding exchange of customs and ideas or even the temporary activities of north Alpine miners working in summer camps in the Inn Valley. Therefore, their project aims at revealing the nature of this interrelatedness, by making use of archaeological as well as isotope analysis. Based on first results, the picture that emerges is much more complex and dynamic as the archaeological record indicated, since graves with local burial goods exhibit local but also non-local signatures and the same goes for graves with non-local burial goods. J. Koch presents first results of the project “Life course reconstruction of mobile individuals in sedentary societies” that aimed at investigating the interrelationship between transfer of cultural elements and technology and the mobility and integration of individuals in Early Bronze and Early Iron Age societies. Taking the Iron Age burial mound of Magdalenenbergle as a case study, she focuses on the question of the socio-cultural acculturation of individuals in the Magdalenenbergle population at the time of his or her burial. For this purpose, she refers to four acculturation steps defined by the sociologist John Berry, i.e., separation/segregation, marginalisation, integration, and assimilation. By comparing archaeological data (i.e., burial goods from various regions in Central Europe) with isotope data, she demonstrates for example that neither separation nor segregation can be reconstructed. Rather, even individuals with a foreign isotope signature were integrated into the local community as everyone was buried according to the rites characteristic in the region and no burials with exclusively imported, i.e., foreign objects have been documented. Taken together, a diverse picture of mobility and integration arises illustrating the complexity of this interrelationship. In her contribution, E. Stauch focuses on indicators for mobility in the early medieval cemetery of Wenigumstadt. By combining archaeological and isotope analysis she is able to reconstruct a dynamic picture showing phases of higher and lower mobility. Moreover, she demonstrates that the identification of residential mobility based on archaeological finds, such as exotic objects or imports, and exotic burial rites, etc. (see Stauch Fig. 8), can provide reliable results, since most burials that were classified as foreign by archaeological analysis also show isotope values indicating non-local origins (for an overview see Stauch Fig. 21). In that, her article also constitutes a crucial contribution to methodological aspects concerning the combination of isotope and archaeological analysis and the validity of the latter concerning inferences on residential mobility in the early medieval period. In her final part, she investigates to what extent migration events must be considered as trigger for changes in cemetery usage. As her results make clear, phases of high immigration rates correlate with changes in usage principles of the cemetery of Wenigumstadt, showing that mobility and culture change are closely connected. E. Kaiser’s paper leads us to the steppe zone north of the Black Sea. She presents the results of a project on early pastoralism (4th/3rd mill. BC) in this area. The project takes into account the concept or rather paradigm of early nomadic pastoralism that was developed by Soviet archaeologists on the basis of theoretical assumptions. So far, there has not been a reliable database to support the reconstruction of the mode of herd management for the steppe north of the Black Sea during the 3rd mill. BC, i.e., the period for which specialised animal husbandry can be confirmed. Therefore, the project aimed at testing this assumption with the aid of strontium and oxygen isotope analyses on human teeth in order to facilitate the reconstruction of mobility patterns in the context of this specific subsistence system. She shows that the results of isotope analysis do not provide straightforward answers. Rather, the way of life of early pastoralists features complex patterns. As research on this is in its early stages, the results of the project form an important basis for future research. Finally, H. Koepp-Junk, H. Riemer and F. Förster present a comprehensive insight into mobility in Pharaonic Egypt. Using written sources and pictorial representations, they add further important aspects of prehistoric mobility that are often missing in the archaeological record. These sources enable, for example, the identification of actors, distances and motives. Next to this, practical aspects are taken into account, as for example optimal travel time or means of transportation. In a second part, they focus on the development and use of desert roads which reflect a special type of mobility in the culture of Pharaonic Egypt. Taken together, they can draw a complex picture that adds to the approaches of the other papers, thus facilitating a deeper understanding of prehistoric mobility in Pharaonic Egypt and beyond. The talks held during our workshop and the papers in the present volume clearly demonstrate that mobility in prehistoric sedentary societies exhibits a broad range of characteristics and more importantly was part of the daily routine. The volume therefore can only be the starting point for future research on this topic that will help to develop a more detailed picture of types, reasons and contexts of mobility. The latter, in turn, will enable further considerations on communication networks and interrelationships between mobility and environment, economy, way of life and finally cultural transfer and change, since all of 15 Silviane Scharl 16 these aspects are somehow entangled with mobility and constitute an integral component of human societies. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the CRC 806 and the German Research Foundation for funding the workshop on “Mobility in Sedentary Societies”, held in Cologne on 25–26 June 2015. We would like to thank all participants for their talks REFERENCES BARNARD & WENDRICH 2008: H. Barnard & W. Wendrich, The archaeology of mobility: Definitions and research approaches. In: H. Barnard & W. Wendrich (eds.), The archaeology of mobility. Old World and New World nomadism. Cotsen Advanced Seminar Series 4 (Los Angeles 2008) 1–16. BEARDSLEY et al. 1956: R.K. Beardsley, P. Holder, A.D. Krieger, M.J. Meggers, J.B. Rinaldo & P. Kutsche, Functional and evolutionary implications of community patterning. Seminars in Archaeology, 1955. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 11, 1956, 129–157. BECKER 1982: C.J. Becker, Siedlungen der Bronzezeit und der vorrömischen Eisenzeit in Dänemark. Offa 39, 1982, 53–71. BERNBECK 2008: R. Bernbeck, An archaeology of multisited communities. In: H. Barnard & W. Wendrich (eds.), The archaeology of mobility. Old World and New World nomadism. Cotsen Advanced Seminar Series 4 (Los Angeles 2008) 43–77. BEIER 2009: H.-J. Beier, Überlegungen „Wandern oder nicht Wandern – das ist hier die Frage“. Einige theoretische Überlegungen zur Möglichkeit des Nachweises eines archäologischen Wunschtraumes. In: A. Krenn-Leeb, H.-J. Beier, E. Claßen, F. Falkenstein & S. Schwenzer (Hrsg.), Mobilität, Migration und Kommunikation während des Neolithikums und der Bronzezeit. Beiträge der Sitzungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaften Neolithikum und Bronzezeit während der Jahrestagung des West- und Süddeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung e.V. in Xanten, 6.–8. Juni 2006. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühge- and the discussions. Most talks are assembled in this volume as papers, though some are not (R. Ebersbach; J. Kalis & J. Meurers-Balke). Thank you to H. Köpp-Junk, H. Riemer and F. Förster for additionally handing in an exciting paper on “Mobility in Ancient Egypt”. Thank you to Michaela Butler, Beverley Hirschel and Karen Schneider for translation and proof-reading of many texts and thanks to Lutz Hermsdorf-Knauth for editing the figures of all papers. Last not least, special thanks go to Ursula Tegtmeier for her patience and her relentless work editing all texts. schichte Mitteleuropas 53 /Varia Neolithica V (Langenweißbach 2009) 3–5. BINFORD 1980: L.R. Binford, Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45, 1980, 4–20. BOSQUET & GOLITKO 2012: D. Bosquet & M. Golitko, Highlighting and characterizing the pioneer phase of the Hesbayen Linear Pottery Culture (Liège Province, Belgium). In: R. Smolnik (Hrsg.), Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung „Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!“ Leipzig, 23. bis 24. September 2010. Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 25 (Dresden 2012) 91–106. BRAIDWOOD 1975: R. Braidwood, Prehistoric men (Glenview, Illinois 81975). CALDWELL 1958: J.R. Caldwell, Trend and tradition in the prehistory of the eastern United States. American Anthropological Association Memoir 88 (Springfield, Illinois 1958). EBERSBACH 2010: R. Ebersbach, Seeufersiedlungen und Architektursoziologie – ein Anwendungsversuch. In: P. Trebsche, N. Müller-Scheeßel & S. Reinhold (Hrsg.), Der gebaute Raum. Bausteine einer Architektursoziologie vormoderner Gesellschaften. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 7 (Münster 2010) 193–212. HAHN 2015: H.-P. Hahn, Migration, Mobilität und kultureller Wandel als Grundlage menschlicher Gesellschaften. In: Th. Otten, J. Kunow, M.M. Rind & Mobility in Prehistoric Sedentary Societies – An Introduction M. Trier (Hrsg.), Revolution Jungsteinzeit. Archäologische Landesausstellung Nordrhein-Westfalen. Schriften zur Bodendenkmalpflege in NordrheinWestfalen 11,2 (Darmstadt 2015) 102–109. HARD & MERRILL 1992: R.J. Hard & W. Merrill, Mobile agriculturalists and the emergence of sedentism: Perspectives from Northern Mexico. American Anthropologist 94(3), 1992, 601–620. HIGGS & VITA-FINZI 1972: E.S. Higgs & C. Vita-Finzi, Prehistoric economies: A territorial approach. In: E.S. Higgs (ed.), Papers in economic prehistory (Cambridge 1972) 27–36. HVASS 1982: S. Hvass, Ländliche Siedlungen der Kaiserund Völkerwanderungszeit in Dänemark. Offa 39, 1982, 189–195. HVASS 1984: S. Hvass, Wikingerzeitliche Siedlungen in Vorbasse. Offa 41, 1984, 97–112. HVASS 1986: S. Hvass, Vorbasse – Eine Dorfsiedlung während des 1. Jahrtausends n. Chr. in Mitteljütland, Dänemark. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 67, 1986, 529–542. KELLY 1983: R.L. Kelly, Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39(3), 1983, 277–306. KELLY 1992: R.L. Kelly, Mobility/Sedentism. Concepts, archaeological measures, and effects. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 1992, 43–66. KELLY 1995: R.L. Kelly, The foraging spectrum. Diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways (Washington 1995). MÜLLER & STEUER 1999: R. Müller & H. Steuer, Grøntoft. Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (RGA) 2. Auflage, Bd. XXIII (Berlin, New York 1999) 73–75. MURDOCK 1969: G.P. Murdock, Correlations of exploitative and settlement patterns. In: D. Damas (ed.), Contributions to anthropology: Ecological essays. (Ottawa 1969) 129–150. RAFFERTY 1985: J. Rafferty, The archaeological record on sedentariness: recognition, development, and implications. In: M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8 (New York 1985) 113–156. SCHIER 2013: W. Schier, Mobilität und Wissenstransfer in prähistorischer und interdisziplinärer Perspektive. In: E. Kaiser & W. Schier (Hrsg.), Mobilität und Wissenstransfer in diachroner und interdisziplinärer Perspektive. Topoi – Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 9 (Berlin 2013) 1–10. SCHMID 1982: P. Schmid, Ländliche Siedlungen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit bis Völkerwanderungszeit im niedersächsischen Küstengebiet. Offa 39, 1982, 73–96. SEIDEL 2008: U. Seidel, Michelsberger Erdwerke im Raum Heilbronn; Bd. 1: Text; Bd. 2: Katalog, Tafeln. Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Württemberg 81(1–2) (Stuttgart 2008). SEIDEL 2010: U. Seidel, Satelliten der Erdwerke? Die unbefestigten Siedlungen der Michelsberger Kultur. In: Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (Hrsg.), Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. Die Michelsberger Kultur und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren [Ausstellungskatalog Karlsruhe] (Darmstadt 2010) 82–87. STARK 1981: B.L. Stark, The rise of sedentary life. In: J. Sabloff (ed.), Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians; 1: Archaeology (Austin 1981) 345–372. STEUER 1988: H. Steuer, Standortverschiebungen früher Siedlungen – von der vorrömischen Eisenzeit bis zum frühen Mittelalter. In: G. Althoff, D. Geuenich, O.G. Oexle & J. Wollasch (Hrsg.), Person und Gemeinschaft im Mittelalter. Karl Schmid zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag (Sigmaringen 1988) 25– 59. TURCK et al. 2014: R. Turck, B. Kober, J. Kontny, J. Wahl & R. Ludwig, Strontiumisotopenanalysen und anthropologische Untersuchungen an der Mehrfachbestattung der Michelsberger Kultur in Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim. Fundberichte aus BadenWürttemberg 34, 2014, 385–407. TÜTKEN et al. 2008: T. Tütken, C. Knipper & K.W. Alt, Mobilität und Migration im archäologischen Kontext: Informationspotential von Multi‐ElementIsotopenanalysen (Sr, Pb, O). In: J. Bemmann & M. Schmauder (Hrsg.), Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen. Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa. Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Bonn vom 25. bis 28 Februar 2008. Kolloquien zur Vor‐ und Frühgeschichte 11 (Bonn 2008) 13–42. 17 18 Silviane Scharl WATERBOLK 1982: H.T. Waterbolk, Mobilität von Dorf, Ackerflur und Gräberfeld in Drenthe seit der Latènezeit. Offa 39, 1982, 97–137. WEISS et al. 2004: E. Weiss, W. Wetterstrom, D. Nadel & O. Bar-Yosef, The broad-spectrum revisited: Evidence from plant remains. Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 101, 29, 9551–9555. ZVELEBIL & ROWLEY-CONWY 1984: M. Zvelebil & P. Rowley-Conwy, Transition to farming in Northern Europe: A hunter-gatherer perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 17(2), 1984, 104–128.