Towards a social geography of cultivation and plant use in an early farming community: Vaihingen an der Enz, south-west Germany.

Bogaard, Amy ; Krause, Rudiger ; Strien, Hans-Christoph 等

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Introduction

In this paper we consider how early farming practice and plant use articulated with social relationships--within an individual longhouse, a household group or neighbourhood, local community or wider regional network. Although the material culture of the early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) is remarkably uniform over its enormous geographical range, from Ukraine to the Paris basin, close artefactual analysis suggests a complex web of identities that variously bound communities together and threatened to break them apart. A large archaeobotanical dataset resulting from extensive sampling of a virtually complete LBK settlement at Vaihingen an der Enz, south-west Germany (Krause 1995, 2000, 2003) provides the opportunity to consider how these social links and 'fault-lines' enabled and constrained central aspects of daily life such as farming practice and plant use.

The LBK (c. 5600-5000 cal BC) is one of the best studied material culture complexes in European prehistory, and hundreds of sites have been investigated archaeobotanically (Willerding 1980; Kreuz 1990, 2007; Knorzer 1997). As a result, the spectra of crops and wild plants typically associated with the LBK are well known, particularly in the central and western part of its distribution. The bulk of the evidence represents crop material; amongst the crops, the chaff and grain of einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and emmer wheat (T. dicoccum) are ubiquitous, and a third recently defined new type' of hulled wheat (Jones etal. 2000b) has been recognised at some sites, including Vaihingen. Two pulses, pea (Pisum sativum) and lentil (Lens culinaris), are commonly found, plus oil-seed plants--flax (Linum usitatissimum, potentially also used for fibre) and, in the later LBK, opium poppy (Papaver somniferum). The wild plants accompanying these crops are mostly arable weeds that grew and were harvested with them; some of these species were also used in their own right, such as fat hen (Chenopodium album), caches of which have been found at multiple LBK sites. Nuts such as hazelnut [Corylus avellana) and fruits such as strawberry (Fragaria vesca) are also common. Parts of other plants may have been used as adornment, such as the bristles or awns of feathergrass (Stipa). All of this material is preserved through charring, which biases assemblages towards certain types of plants (e.g. stored and frequently processed plant foods that routinely came into contact with domestic fires) and also towards certain plant parts with dense tissues.

There is now widespread discussion of the ways in which the material culture and distinctive practices of the LBK perpetuated social identities at different scales, from individuals to households, house clusters and wider social networks (e.g. Modderman 1988; Whittle 1996, 2003; Gronenborn 1999; Liming et al. 2005; Hofmann & Bickle 2009). In order to assess the sociality of routine practices surrounding food production and consumption, archaeobotanical data, alongside other bioarchaeological datasets, need to be integrated with these artefactual analyses.

Agency of farming

One way in which plants were caught up in the expression of social roles and identities is through the agency of farming practice. Did different work groups (households or other groupings) manage cultivation more or less identically, or were there distinctive ways of doing things (tillage, sowing, use of midden/manure material, weeding during the growing season etc.)? And how did the social geography of the settlement space map onto the wider landscape?

While the spatial configuration and social contours of farming areas are difficult to access directly through archaeological evidence, considerable work has been done on LBK settlement space. Study of longhouse distribution and chronology suggests a principle of proximal replacement within circumscribed areas (the so-called Hofplatz model; Boelicke et al. 1988). The implication is that there was a notion of use-rights' to areas of settlement space based on membership in households and perhaps also broader groupings.

Based on archaeobotanical assemblages of arable weeds, it has previously been argued that LBK cultivation plots were long-lived and intensively managed (Bogaard 2004). Both permanence and high intensity suggest that cultivation areas were 'owned' or used by specific households or broader groupings in a similar way to settlement space. It is plausible that such a principle of use-rights or ownership developed in early LBK (alteste or aLBK) communities, such as at Schwanfeld in Franconia (Liming 2005a: figs. 2, 4). These early settlements appear to have consisted of small longhouse clusters; at Schwanfeld, three to four households co-existed at any one time. In such small-scale settlements, each household could easily access its own plots.

Conventional accounts of settlement form suggest that loose clustering of households, occasionally on a large scale as at later LBK Langweiler 8 in the Rhineland (Luning 2005a: fig. 16), was broadly characteristic; this form of dispersed settlement is referred to as the so-called Streusiedlung model. While this dispersed form of settlement is also apparent in other regions settled relatively late in the LBK period--the Paris basin (Hachem et al, 1998: fig. 2) and perhaps in Alsace (Lefranc & Denaire 2000: fig. 2)--a review of available evidence from regions with occupation dating from the aLBK onwards suggests that it was not generally typical. Relatively small Hofplatz zones are apparent at Schwanfeld (Luning 2005a: fig. 3), though here coincident with small-scale household clustering. Dense clustering of longhouses on a larger scale is evident at later LBK sites in Bohemia (Bylany A: Pavlu & Zapotocka 1983; Pavlu et al. 1985), Bavaria (Stephansposching: Pechtl 2009: 495-505) and particularly in Baden-Wurttemberg, where multiple examples are now known. To Ulm-Eggingen (Kind 1989: 148) and Gerlingen (Neth 1999) in Baden-Wurttemberg can be added the site of particular concern here, Vaihingen an der Enz, where up to 40-50 longhouses co-existed across the c. 6ha settlement area (Figure 1). From an agricultural perspective, this relatively nucleated form of settlement raises the question of how these numerous households negotiated cultivation in the surrounding landscape. Previous multivariate analysis of LBK weed assemblages from different regions showed that the dispersed settlements of the Rhineland--with Hofplatz zones up to 1ha or more in size--were associated with particularly intensive cultivation practices, consistent with cultivation plots in the immediate vicinity of each dwelling (Bogaard 2004: 145-6).

Plant use

A second aspect of social identity potentially accessible through archaeobotanical evidence involves the use of distinctive plants, or distinctive uses of common plants, within the settlement. (Dis)continuities in plant use can reveal aspects and scales of social identity. The bulk of plant remains recovered from LBK sites appears to reflect the routine processing of plants for food or, much more rarely, accidental charring of plants in store prior to consumption. It is well known that food and food-related practices are both central to the expression and communication of social roles and identities and relatively accessible archaeologically (e.g. Goody 1982; Counihan & van Esterik 1997; Dietler & Hayden 2000; Twiss 2007). Preparation of similar foods by different households conveys powerful messages about belonging and communal identity, even where processing, cooking and consumption take place in private/household spaces. At the same time, subtle differences in preparation, ingredients and flavourings may distinguish the dishes of a particular household or group. LBK artefactual data suggest that serving and consumption of food formed an important context in which identities were articulated (e.g. Luning 2005b).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Background to the case study: Vaihingen an der Enz

Addressing these social dimensions of plant use and husbandry requires extensive excavation and systematic sampling of well-preserved settlements for two reasons. First, samples sufficiently rich in arable weed seeds to be interpreted as evidence of crop growing methods are relatively rare in LBK assemblages and extensive sampling programmes are needed to intercept them. Second, extensive sampling makes it possible to map spatial distributions of botanical remains. The LBK settlement at Vaihingen an der Enz fulfils both of these requirements and is therefore particularly suitable for exploring the social role of plants in an early farming community in central Europe.

The site is located between the deeply incised Enz river (a tributary of the Neckar) to the south and the Stromberg mountains of Triassic Keuper sandstone to the north (Figure 2). Local sediments consist of loess and loess-loam over Triassic limestones, sandstones and marls. The settlement features were excavated across their full extent of c. 6ha from 1994 to 2003 and, together with organic remains including animal and human bone, were remarkably well preserved due to the topography of the site and clay-rich nature of the sediments (Krause 1995, 2000, 2003). In terms of absolute chronology, Vaihingen, like other LBK sites, is affected by wiggles' in the calibration curve for the mid-later sixth millennium cal BC. Stylistic links with dendrochronologically dated sequences elsewhere suggests that the occupation dates from the early fifty-fifth century to the fifty-first century BC (Figure 3). In terms of relative chronology, a regional variant of the alteste LBK (phase 2A) developed directly into the Flomborn complex (phases 2B1-4); phases 5-8B represent the later LBK.

The settlement's continuous development, from the alteste to the late LBK, is so far unique. This long history of around 450 years can be divided into several distinct episodes. During an initial phase of expansion through the Flomborn period, a central area was demarcated by a partial enclosure consisting of an interrupted ditch, with inner palisades in its northern part (Figure 1). The ditch was subsequently filled in the later Flomborn and used for burial; spatial clustering of burials suggests that this cemetery area was used by around six households. At its maximum extent the site consisted of 40-50 longhouses within its c. 6ha area, with an estimated population of around 300-400 people (Strien 2005, in prep).

Analysis of the ceramics and lithics of the Flomborn period occupation suggests the existence of five clans' or lineage groups within the settlement (Strien 2005, in press, in prep). These groups are distinguished by distinctive elements of ceramic decoration and artefact types, including chipped stone tools as well as lithic sources (Table 1). Moreover, the spatial distribution of these artefact groups ties in with differences in house architecture and variation in the construction and elaboration of earthwork segments, suggesting that sections of the enclosure were built by different groups (Figure 4). The coherence of these intra-settlement groupings of households, combined with the surrounding ditch-turned-cemetery, vividly illustrates active negotiation between household, neighbourhood and community.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Artefact types and ceramic decorative motifs characteristic of these groups suggest that they identified themselves with contrasting origins and/or regional traditions (Table 1). Leaving aside the issue of the genetic identity of these groups (only resolvable through aDNA--e.g. Haak et al. 2005), group B is associated with a 'Mesolithic arrowhead type, for example, while group A used ceramic decorative motifs of Transdanubian origin. The groups all have affiliations with regional LBK groups of the Neckar Valley: groups A and D are associated with the Middle Neckar tradition, groups B, C and E with the northerly Unterland-Kraichgau group (Figure 5). Although grave goods are sparse, all ditch burials appear to belong to the 'local' Middle Neckar tradition.

The Flomborn to middle LBK transition was marked by a reduction in the settlement area (down to c. 15-18 households) and changes in material culture, including the departure of clan groups with links to the Unterland-Kraichgau tradition. The range and quality of lithic sources used in later LBK are poorer than in the Flomborn, and the general impression is of a decrease in external contacts. In the latest phases, the ditch area cemetery was abandoned and large burial pits in the north-west and east part of the site were used.

A systematic archaeobotanical sampling programme was established from the start of excavations (Krause 1995; Rosch 1995; Bogaard in press). The fills in each negative feature were sampled in section, often at multiple locations if the feature was extensive. Of 3700 archaeobotanical samples (averaging c. 5 litres) processed by wet sieving (to 0.5mm), a subset was selected for full analysis using two criteria: richness in botanical remains and relative dating to phase by seriation. Around 700 samples (c. 20 per cent of the assemblage) met one and/or the other criterion (Bogaard in press). On the whole, negative features appear to have been filled rapidly with botanically homogeneous material. Similar samples from adjacent arbitrary spits within a feature were amalgamated to form analytical units approximating behavioural events.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Variation in farming 'agency' at Vaihingen and its social significance

The critical evidence for farming practice is provided by the arable weed seeds accompanying crop material, especially cereal chaff. The arable weed assemblage derives from the flora growing with crops, and the ecology of the constituent species sheds light on growing conditions and hence the farming methods used (e.g. Knorzer 1971; Wasylikowa 1981; Willerding 1986; van der Veen 1992; Jones 2002).

Correspondence analysis was used to investigate variation amongst weed-rich samples that derive from the same stage of hulled wheat processing (and are thus affected by similar taphonomic filters). The analysis was based on counts of potential weed species (excluding Chenopodium album, which was also collected in its own right: Bogaard in press) in units containing at least c. 30 items. In Figure 6a, each unit is represented as a pie chart containing varying proportions of weed species with different ecological characteristics, here relating to species' ability to recover rapidly from soil disturbance through tillage and weeding (Jones et al. 2000a; Bogaard 2004: tabs 4.5, 82-4). Units in the upper part of the plot are associated with conditions of low disturbance (white fill), those towards the bottom with higher levels, especially lower left (black fill, indicating long-flowering annuals, and red fill, indicating perennials that regenerate from fragments); units reflecting medium levels occur around the origin and diverge towards the lower right. The implication of these trends is that variation in the thoroughness of soil disturbance through tillage and weeding constitutes a major cause of variability amongst the samples. Cultivation plots may also have varied in soil pH, the most disturbed plots (especially lower left) containing the highest frequencies of basic soil indicators (values of 8-9) and the least disturbed plots (towards the top) being dominated by indifferent species (Figure 6b).

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

If sample points in the same analysis are coded according to the Flomborn clans', a significant degree of clustering is evident (Figure 6c). Group A (red, concentrated lower left) is characterised by relatively high disturbance and soil pH levels, while group C (blue, concentrated towards the top) is associated with relatively low levels of disturbance and more ambiguous pH. Group D (yellow) forms its own distinct cluster intermediate between these two groups. Group B (green) is perhaps a fourth variant, but only a couple of samples from this group could be included in the analysis. Group E is represented by a single sample. In relative chronological terms, clustering of groups A, D and C involves samples spread across multiple phases and estimated to represent two centuries or more.

A useful starting point for interpretation of these differences between clans' is to consider the ecological effects of high household nucleation, which must have had an impact on the radius of cultivation (distance to furthest plots) and consequently on management intensity. In a simple model (Figure 7) the intensity of management (e.g. tillage and weeding) falls off with distance, as indicated by ethnographic study of recent small-scale cultivators (e.g. Jones et al. 1999); the most intensively maintained, garden-like plots (dark grey shading) lie closest to the settlement and benefit from high levels of soil disturbance and middening/manuring. These plots would be particularly valued due to their relatively high area yields. An equitable' distribution amongst house groups could be achieved by a radial arrangement of plots, in which each group was allocated part of the closest infield land (Figure 7a). The results of the correspondence analysis, however, suggest that the actual distribution of plots was quite different: group A in particular used the infield land, while houses of group C cultivated more distant plots (Figure 7b).

A combined interpretation of these results, therefore, is that different house groups cultivated areas at differing distances from the settlement, the most intensively cultivated plots being those located closest to the village, on loess-based sediments with a high soil pH. Apparently group A made primary use of these plots. Group C, by contrast, is linked with more distant plots, perhaps in areas of thinner loess cover to the north of the site (Figure 2), though the spatial configuration of local soil pH levels has been altered through erosion since the LBK. Group D's plots appear to have occupied an intermediate zone.

Regardless of precise field location, the implication is that different house groups maintained different cultivation areas over multiple generations, just as they did sectors of the settlement area. This differential distribution of cultivation areas was not ecologically neutral' and likely had an appreciable impact on relative production. Perhaps conservative traditions of land ownership, according to which specific households and lineage groups cultivated different blocks of land, ultimately undermined the relatively high degree of household nucleation at Vaihingen. These traditions arguably emerged in the context of small-scale household clustering (as at aLBK Schwanfeld). Apparently some households/groups had an advantage over others at Vaihingen. This asymmetry does not appear to be explained by the chronology of group arrival, since groups A, D and probably C were present from the beginning of the occupation. A remaining possibility is that group A gained privileged access to infield areas due to the putative antiquity of its lineage, linked to the origins of the LBK in Transdanubia (Table 1). The departure of group C at the end of the Flomborn, along with the other groups belonging to the Unterland-Kraichgau tradition, may relate in part at least to the disadvantageous location of their cultivation plots.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

The internal organisation of cultivation plots within 'clans' can be considered in the case of group A, which contains three internal subdivisions ('lineages') on the basis of slight variation in secondary ceramic motifs (e.g. U- versus V-shaped motifs); the distribution of these motifs suggests that the houses of a lineage stood together in rows within the area of group A (Strien in prep). If all possible feature attributions to group A are included in order to explore internal variation within it (Figure 6d), there are hints of potential differences between these subgroups, consistent with the inference that this level of spatial clustering within the settlement was also projected onto the arable landscape.

In the later LBK, the artefactual data suggest that two house groups co-existed, both belonging to the local Middle Neckar tradition. The post-Flomborn groups (I-II) are shown along with the Flomborn 'clans' in Figure 6e. These samples resemble the earlier group A in their weed composition, suggesting that the later LBK inhabitants cultivated the infield plots of their Middle Neckar predecessors. This situation also reflects the smaller size of the community (and radius of cultivation) during these later phases.

Plant use at Vaihingen and its social significance

In order to assess the contribution of plant use to social identity, we consider the spatial distribution of botanical remains within the settlement. Planning of features during excavation was carried out using ArchaoCAD (Schaich 1995; see Krause 2000) and included the coordinates of all botanical sampling points. The ditch, palisade trenches and other features were used as a base layer in MapInfo Professional against which the distributions of botanical taxa were mapped. For the sake of simplicity, the plots shown here combine all phases, since the results for well-attested phases resembled the overall pattern.

Mapping of the densities of identifiable botanical items per litre of soil shows that concentrations varied across the site; no overriding taphonomic factors emerge that affect spatial distribution (Figure 8a). The most common category of plant remains, chaff (glume bases) of the hulled wheats, was found everywhere (Figure 8b) and in remarkably consistent proportions, dominated by einkorn, followed by emmer and the new type'. It appears likely that these different forms were grown together as a mixed or maslin crop and that households across the settlement regularly dehusked the same hulled wheat mixture. A storage deposit of the late Flomborn or middle LBK date suggests that the hulled wheats were stored as spikelets--that is, as grains enclosed by their surrounding chaff--and dehusked on a regular basis (Bogaard in press). High-density deposits from particular episodes of dehusking and charring suggest further that processing took place on a small scale, probably by individual households. Here, then, is evidence for plant food practices that simultaneously bound the community together, while at the same time defining social groupings within it. In fact, all of the major crop types attested at Vaihingen (peas, lentils and flax/linseed alongside the hulled wheats) exhibit a generalised distribution, suggesting that they were tied into community-wide identity (Figure 8c). Moreover, this botanical aspect of community-wide identity was not confined to cultivated plants; hazelnut shell (Figure 8d), strawberry and other collected wild plants were also ubiquitous through space and time (Bogaard in press).

Against this set of community-wide practices, the distributions of several plant taxa suggest more discrete contexts of deposition. Opium poppy is a crop of central/western Mediterranean origin (Bakels 1982); archaeobotanical evidence dating to the earlier sixth millennium cal BC is now known from sites in central Spain (Stika 2005; Pena-Chocarro 2007) and central Italy (Rottoli & Pessina 2007), prior to its occurrence at western LBK sites in association with Cardial influence during Flomborn and later phases (e.g. Liming et al 1989; Kreuz 2007). Vaihingen provides a unique opportunity to track this uptake spatially and the results suggest that, over a succession of phases from the Flomborn into the middle and later LBK, only households in the south-eastern part of the site adopted the use of this plant (Figure 9a). While taphonomic bias against these oil-rich seeds probably explains their small numbers, it does not account for their restricted spatial distribution.

As though to counter-balance the usage of opium poppy to the south and east of the site, the remains of another distinctive plant--feathergrass, a steppic taxon rare in the region today--were deposited in features concentrated in the north-western part (Figure 9a). Opium poppy was probably used for its oil-rich seeds and possibly also for its narcotic properties (e.g. Bakels et al. 1992). Use of feathergrass is uncertain; it is only represented here as awns, which are robust and can be used for ornamentation or craft purposes (Kreuz 1990: 184; Bakels 1992; Bieniek 2002). Stores of feathergrass seeds and attached awns are known from later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age contexts in central Europe (Korber-Grohne 1987; Bieniek & Pokorny 2005). Whatever their exact uses, it appears that opium poppy and feathergrass were bound up in practices particular to households in different parts of the site, perhaps in the context of distinctive sets of social links with other settlements and regions. This possibility is further supported by the restricted distribution of a weed taxon, barren/drooping brome grass (Bromus sterilis/tectorurri), which, like opium poppy, derives from the central/western Mediterranean (Figure 9a). The similar spatial distributions of these two Mediterranean taxa within the settlement may reflect external contacts involving the transfer of useful' plants as well as weeds.

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

While the distributions of opium poppy and feathergrass transcend the clan' groupings of the Flomborn period, they align remarkably well with the patterning of the two post-Flomborn groups (Figure 9b). Later LBK samples that contain opium poppy belong to group I only, while samples that contain feathergrass awn belong to group II. In sum, it appears that restricted use of these plants contributed to differentiation of the two later LBK social groupings within the community.

Conclusions

We conclude that plant husbandry and use played central roles in the construction of social identities in this early farming community. The archaeobotanical evidence suggests that these roles changed through time, reflecting shifting social configurations within the settlement and the wider region. It appears that the social geography of the crowded Flomborn-period community did map onto' the wider cultivated landscape, reflecting similar principles of use-rights to land within and beyond the settlement. The configuration of cultivation areas appears to have favoured some house groups over others, perhaps contributing to the departure of the Unterland-Kraichgau groups at the end of the Flomborn period. In the post-Flomborn phases, use of opium poppy and feathergrass contributed to differentiation of two groups belonging to the Middle Neckar tradition and sharing use of infield cultivation areas.

Extensive archaeobotanical sampling at Vaihingen has enabled fine-grained analysis of how the defining agency of the Neolithic--farming practice itself--was woven into social identities operating at different scales. The major cereal crop, a hulled wheat mixture dominated by einkorn, was widely processed and consumed; preparation and consumption thus simultaneously reinforced communal identity while articulating with its modular household composition. Crop production in the wider landscape was configured to reinforce links between 'related' households clustered together within the settlement. Given the inherent potential for productive inequalities to develop between households cultivating fixed inherited plots (Halstead 1989), the role of broader house group identities may be crucial for understanding long-term suppression of social stratification in early farming societies (cf. Bogucki 1999: 205-259). Tooling the risks and rewards of household farming at the level of the house group would tend to neutralise asymmetries between households. Where house groups did not have equal access to the most valuable 'infield' land, as at Vaihingen, disadvantaged families had the option of abandoning the nucleated village to establish a new community elsewhere and/or to join another settlement, in accordance with links to wider social groupings and networks.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and logistical support or the Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Wurttemberg and funding for extended sabbatical leave (by Bogaard) from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK. We are also grateful to John Pouncett, GIS officer at the School of Archaeology, Oxford, for his help and advice and to Daniella Hofmann and two reviewers for comments on the text. We thank Alison Wilkins for drawing Figure 2.

References

BAKELS, C.C. 1982. Der Mohn, die Linearbandkeramik und das westliche Mittelmeergebiet. Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 12: 11-13.

BAKELS, C.C., C. Constantin & A. Hauzeur. 1992. Utilisation de graines de pavot comme degraissant dans un vase du groupe de Blicquy. Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22: 473-79.

BLENIEK, A. 2002. Archaeobotanical analysis of some early Neolithic settlements in the Kujawy region, central Poland, with potential plant gathering activities emphasised. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 33-40.

BLENIEK, A. & P. POKORNY. 2005. A new find of macrofossils of feather grass (Stipa) in an Early Bronze Age storage pit at Vlineves, Czech Republic: local implications and possible interpretation in a Central European context. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14: 295-302.

BOELICKE, U., D. VON BRANDT, J. LUNING, P. STEHLI & A. ZIMMERMAN. 1988. 'Struktur und Entwicklung des Siedlungsplatzes, in U. Boelicke (ed.) Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 8: Gemeinde Aldenhoven, Kreis Diiren (Rheinische Ausgrabungen 28): 891-931. Koln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH.

BOGAARD, A. 2004. Neolithic farming in Central Europe. London: Routledge.

-- In press. Plant use and crop husbandry in an early Neolithic village: Vaihingen an der Enz, Baden-Wurttemberg. Frankfurt: Frankfurter Archaologische Schriften.

BOGUCKI, P. 1999. The origins of human society. Oxford: Blackwell.

COUNIHAN, CM. &C P. VAN ESTERIK (ed.). 1997. Food and culture: a reader. New York & London: Routledge.

DIETLER, M. & B. Hayden (ed.). 2000. Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.

ELLENBFRG, H., H.E. WEBER, R. DULL, V. WIRTH, W. WERNER & D. PAULISSEN. 1992. Zeigerwerte von Pflanxen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobotanica 18.

GOODY, J. 1982. Cooking, cuisine and class: a study in comparative sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GRONENBORN, D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme: the transition to farming in southern central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13: 123-210.

HAAK, W, P. FORSTER, B. BRAMANTI, S. MATSUMURA, G. BRAND T, M. TANZER, R. VILLEMS, C. RENFREW, D. GRONENBORN, K. W. ALT & J. BURGER. 2005. Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites. Science: 1016-1018.

HACHEM, L, P ALLARD, C. CONSTANTIN, J.-P FARRUGGIA, Y. GUICHARD & M. ILETT. 1998. LE site neolithique rubane de Bucy-le-Long 'la Fosselle' (Aisne). INTERNEO 2, Journee d'information du 14 novembre 1998, Paris: 17-28.

HALSTEAD, P. 1989. The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early farming communities of Thessaly, Greece, in P. Halstead & J. O'Shea (ed.) Bad year economics: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty: 68-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HOFMANN, D. & P. BICKLE (ed.). 2009. Creating communities: new advances in Central European Neolithic research. Oxford: Oxbow.

JONES, G. 2002. Weed ecology as a method for the archaeobotanical recognition of crop husbandry practices. Acta Palaeobotanica 42: 185-93.

JONES, G., A. BOGAARD, P. Halstead, M. CHARLES & H. SMITH 1999. Identifying the intensity of crop husbandry practices on the basis of weed floras. Annual of the British School at Athens 94: 167-89.

JONES, G., A. BOGAARD, M. CHARLES & J. G. HODGSON. 2000a. Distinguishing the effects of agricultural practices relating to fertility and disturbance: a functional ecological approach in archaeobotany. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 1073-1084.

JONES, G., S. VALAMOTI & M. CHARLES. 2000b. Early crop diversity: a 'new' glume wheat from northern Greece. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9: 133-46.

KIND, C.-J. 1989. Ulm-Eggingen: Bandkeramische Siedlung und mittelalterliche Wustung (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte in Baden-Wurttemberg 34). Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.

KNORZER, K.-H. 1971. Urgeschichtliche Unkrauter im Rheinland: ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Segetalgesellschaften. Vegetatio 23: 89-111.

-- 1997. Botanische Untersuchung von 16 neolithischen Siedlungsplatzen im Bereich der Aldenhovener Platte, Kr. Duren und Aachen, in J. Luning (ed.) Studien zur neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte und ihrer Umgebung 647-84. Koln: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH.

KORBER-GROHNE, U. 1987. Federgras-Grannen (Stipa pennata L. s. strj als Vorrat in einer mittelneolithischen Grube in Schoningen, Landkreis Helmstedt. Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 17: 463-66.

KRAUSE, R. 1995. Ein bandkeramisches Dorf mit Dorfgraben und Friedhof bei Vaihingen a. d. Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg. Archaologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Wurttemberg 1994: 37-43.

-- 2000. Die bandkeramische Siedlung bei Vaihingen. Bericht der Romisch-Germanischen Kommission 79: 7-32.

-- 2003. Zum Abschluss der Grabungen 1994-2002 in der bandkeramischen Siedlung bei Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg. Archaologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Wiirttemberg 2002: 34-39.

KREUZ, A. 1990. Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas--eine archaobotanische Untersuchung zur Umwelt und Landwirtschafi der Altesten Bandkeramik (Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 23). Leiden: University of Leiden.

-- 2007. Archaeobotanical perspectives on the beginning of agriculture north of the Alps, in S. Colledge & J. Conolly (ed.) The origins and spread of domestic plant in Southwest Asia and Europe: 259-94. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.

LEFRANC, PH. & A. DENAIRE. 2000. Deux nouvelles maisons du Neolithique ancien rubane et une fosse de la culture de Grossgartach a Sierentz 'Tiergarten (Haut-Rhin). Cahiers de VAssociation pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archeologique en Alsace 16: 17-36.

LUNING, J. 2005a. Bandkeramische Hofplatze und absolute Chronologie der Bandkeramik, in J. Luning, C. Fridrich & A. Zimmerman (ed.) Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert: Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Koln vom 16.9.-19.9.2002: 49-74. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

-- (ed.) 2005b. Die Bandkeramiker. Erste Steinzeitbauern in Deutschland. Bilder einer Ausstellung beim Hessentag in HeppenheimlBergstrafe im Juni 2004. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

LUNING, J., U. KLOOS & S. ALBERT. 1989. Westliche Nachbarn der bandkeramischen Kultur: La Hoguette und Limburg. Germania 67: 355-420.

LUNING, J., C. FRIDRICH & A. ZIMMERMAN (ed.). 2005. Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert: Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Koln vom 16.9.-19.9.2002. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

MODDERMAN, P.J.R. 1988. The Linear Pottery Culture: diversity in uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63-139.

NETH, A. 1999. Eine Siedlung der fruhen Bandkeramik in Gerlingen, Kreis Ludwigsburg. Stuttgart: Theiss.

PAVLU, I. & M. ZAPOTOCKA. 1983. Bylany: katalog. Sekce A-1. Praha: Archeologicky ustav SAV.

PAVLU, L, M. ZAPOTOCKA & O. SOUDSKY. 1985. Bylany: katalog. Sekce A-2. Praha: Archeologicky ustav CSAV.

PECHTL, J. 2009. Stephansposching und sein Umfeld. Studien zum Altneolithikum im bayerischen Donauraum. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universitat Heidelberg.

PENA-CHOCARRO, L. 2007. Early agriculture in central and southern Spain, in S. Colledge & J. Conolly (ed.) The origins and spread of domestic plant in Southwest Asia and Europe: 173-87. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.

ROSCH, M. 1995. Botanische Untersuchungen in der linearbandkeramischen Siedlung von Vaihingen-Ensingen. Archaologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Wurttemberg 1994: 43-49.

ROTTOLI, M. & A. PESSINA. 2007. Neolithic agriculture in Italy: an update of archaeobotanical data with particular emphasis on northern settlements, in S. Colledge & J. Conolly (ed.) The origins and spread of domestic plant in Southwest Asia and Europe: 141-53. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.

SCHAICH, M. 1995. ArchaoCad. Neuentwickeltes archaologisches Informationssystem fur prahistorische Siedlungsgrabungen, in K. Schmotz (ed.) Vortrage des Niederbayerischen Archaologentages 13: 241-56.

STIKA, H.-P. 2005. Early Neolithic agriculture in Ambrona, Provincia Soria, central Spain. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14: 189-97.

STRIEN, H.-C. 2005. Familientraditionen in der bandkeramischen Siedlung bei Vaihingen/Enz, in J. Luning, C. Fridrich & A. Zimmerman (ed.) Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert: Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Koln vom 16.9.-19.9.2002: 189-97. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

STRIEN, H.-C. In press. Chronological and social interpretation of the artefactual assemblage, in A. Bogaard (ed.) Plant use and crop husbandry in an early Neolithic village: Vaihingen an der Enz, Baden-Wurttemberg. Frankfurt: Frankfurter Archaologische Schriften.

- In prep. Die bandkeramische Siedlung von Vaihingen a. d. Enz: Keramik und Steinartefakte. Frankfurt: Frankfurter Archaologische Schriften.

TWISS, K.C. (ed.) 2007. The archaeology of food and identity (Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Centre for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional paper 34). Carbondale (II.): Centre for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

VEEN, M. VAN DER 1992. Crop husbandry regimes: an archaeobotanical study of farming in northern England. Sheffield: J.R. Collis.

WASYLIKOWA, K. 1981. The role of fossil weeds for the study of former agriculture. Zeitschrift fur Archaologie 15: 11-23.

WHITTLE, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-- 2003. The archaeology of people: dimensions of Neolithic life. London: Routledge.

WILLERDING, U. 1980. Zum Ackerbau der Bandkeramiker. Materialhefte zur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte Niedersachsens 16: 421-56.

-- 1986. Zur Geschichte der Unkrauter Europas. Neumunster: Wachholtz.

Amy Bogaard (1), Rudiger Krause (2) & Hans-Christoph Strien (3)

(1) School of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont Street, Oxford, 0X1 2PG, UK (Email: amy.bogaard@arch.ox.ac.uk)

(2) Instituifur Archaologische Wissenscbafien, Vor- und Fruhgeschichte, Gruneburgplatz 1, 60323 Frankfurt (Main), Germany

(3) Altbachstr. 30, 53501 Grafschaft, Germany

Received: 28 May 2010; Accepted: 9 August 2010; Revised 20 August 2010

Table 1. Summary of the 'clan' groups at Vaihingen.

Clan Ceramics Architecture

Middle Neckar regional group

A Single line V or No earthwork
 U-shaped secondary enclosure
 motifs

D Inverse V-shaped
 secondary motifs
 Relations with Alsatian
 LBK and western
 non-LBK groups
 implied by ceramic
 imports/imitations

Unterland-Kraichgau regional group

B Single points or Earthwork built with
 incisions between two rows of
 incised parallel palisades
 horizontal lines Houses without NW
 ('bands') foundation trench

C Special type of vertical Earthwork built with
 axis as secondary three rows of
 motif palisades

E No specific elements

Later LBK

I Incised 'bands'
 (parallel horizontal
 lines) consisting of
 1-3 lines

II Incised 'bands'
 (parallel horizontal
 lines) consisting of
 3-5 lines

Clan Ceramics Stone industry

Middle Neckar regional group

A Single line V or
 U-shaped secondary
 motifs

D Inverse V-shaped High proportion of
 secondary motifs brown chert
 Relations with Alsatian
 LBK and western
 non-LBK groups
 implied by ceramic
 imports/imitations

Unterland-Kraichgau regional group

B Single points or Mesolithic type
 incisions between arrowheads, in high
 incised parallel numbers
 horizontal lines
 ('bands')

C Special type of vertical Triangular arrowheads
 axis as secondary Imported Rijckholt
 motif flint

E No specific elements No arrowheads

Later LBK

I Incised 'bands'
 (parallel horizontal
 lines) consisting of
 1-3 lines

II Incised 'bands'
 (parallel horizontal
 lines) consisting of
 3-5 lines

 Currently known
Clan Ceramics distribution

Middle Neckar regional group

A Single line V or Transdanubia to
 U-shaped secondary Rhenania
 motifs

D Inverse V-shaped S Germany, E France
 secondary motifs
 Relations with Alsatian
 LBK and western
 non-LBK groups
 implied by ceramic
 imports/imitations

Unterland-Kraichgau regional group

B Single points or Vaihingen
 incisions between
 incised parallel
 horizontal lines
 ('bands')

C Special type of vertical Vaihingen
 axis as secondary
 motif

E No specific elements Vaihingen

Later LBK

I Incised 'bands' Vaihingen
 (parallel horizontal
 lines) consisting of
 1-3 lines

II Incised 'bands' Vaihingen
 (parallel horizontal
 lines) consisting of
 3-5 lines