Patterns of Socio-economic Cultural Transformations in Neolithic and Bronze Age Societies in the Central Northern European Plain

Abstract

Does history repeat itself? What causes and mechanisms of action are at work in prehistoric societies? These are two questions we want to tackle in a longue durée perspective. In order to do so we bring together two main epochs in human history in the central northern European Plain: the Neolithic and the Bronze Age of northern Germany. In this timeframe we want to identify patterns of socio-economic cultural transformations.

Consequently, the reconstruction of the causes and mechanisms of action in prehistoric societies are essential. In order to increase our knowledge of potential triggers and drivers of transformations, different economic, demographic, and socio-cultural data as well as climate data will be combined for a timeline of about 3500 years. As a new approach the concept of capitals by Bourdieu will be applied to construct comparable diachronic measurements for our different data sets of Material Culture. This allows for the first-time statistical analyses and quantitatively tested combinations of driving factors and socio-environmental responses. This will allow the identification of comparable patterns of transformation and how differently organised societies in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age reacted to comparable changes.

1 Introduction

There are distinct advantages in writing and researching as an ensemble of scholars in the field of archaeology, especially when they include people of distinct genders, age-groups, and cultural backgrounds, who tend to engage with different chronological phases and different geographical areas. Furthermore, as an ensemble group, our background incorporates different sets of skills developed in archaeology, such as those furnished by the natural scientific disciplines and the humanities, allowing us to address material culture, social theory and the palaeoenvironment. When observing an object, each researcher will have a different train of thought, because each one observes the object according to their unique frames of reference. The observations on the object, its qualities and characteristics, can be quite varied because they depend on the researcher’s community of practice. Nevertheless, despite the variety of viewpoints, all this knowledge remains complementary and can be brought together meaningfully.

The CRC 1266 is a research group that unites many scholars under a constellation of practices, where contexts such as the one described above are directed towards understanding different transformation processes, which are researched at different scales of interaction, and which reveal meaningful patterns relevant to our understanding of the past. Ultimately, the aim of the CRC 1266 is to compare, test, and analyse transformation processes within a special time frame in Europe and beyond (Müller & Kirleis, 2019). In order to enable a differentiated analysis, an intensive exchange between the involved CRC 1266 subprojects researching Northern Germany and the creation of a comparable data basis was required. However, this uniform recording of the material basis did not exist before and was compiled in course of the framework of the CRC 1266.

In this pilot study we will present an approach that enables a long durée diachronic comparison of the sociocultural development in a given geographical area, based on the differing basic data sources of the epochs of the Nordic Neolithic and the Bronze Age between 4100/4000 and 500 BCE. Our working area covers the Southern Cimbrian Peninsula or today’s Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, an area of approximately 15,500 km², and is part of the major geographical region of the North European Plain (Fig. 5.1). The research involves quantifying material culture and converting it to time-series, which will serve as representations of long-term economic, cultural, and socio-economic developments. This will be presented in conjunction with palaeoenvironmental and archaeodemographic proxies, thus enabling us to identify possible antithetical or co-evolutionary developments. Within this scope we focus on identifying phases of transformation and explain the restructuring process of societal or economic arrangements by means of changes in our proxies and available qualitative data. As we provide an approach in which the comparability of proxies over time is given, we are able to identify patterns driven by possible structurally similar triggers or emerging from similar origins.

Fig. 5.1

Map of the research area: 1 Location of the Southern Cimbrian Peninsula, Germany, 2 TRB megalithic tombs, 3 SGC tumuli, 4 Dagger groups tumuli, 5 Bronze age tumuli, 6 Location of Lake Belau. (TRB Funnel Beaker – SGC Single Grave groups). (Figure by the authors)

The practice of discerning patterns that emerge from the inductive analysis of data is usually restricted to a single period (Allentoft et al., 2022; Bunting et al., 2022), or even just a short sub-phase; it is rare to see cross-cultural comparisons of patterns that extend beyond a single chronological phase (Kohler & Smith, 2018). This is because the material culture, the architecture, the environment, etc. of past societies could have had very different meanings depending on the period and location (Brozio et al., 2019; Kneisel et al., 2019). What might have been a fairly cheap commodity for one social group might have also been a very luxurious and rare commodity for another group. To address the issue, we compare diachronic data by adapting Bourdieu’s (1986) forms of capital (economic, symbolic, social, cultural) and applying them to our Neolithic and Bronze Age data. Regardless of the material, the four forms of Bourdieu’s capital allow for an attribution of discrete artefact groups to a socio-economic sphere, or in other words, the data we use serve as a proxy to determining what type of capital it could have represented to our past informants. In addition to our material culture, we also include proxies for demographic development for a period of c. 3500 years.

2 Theoretical Approach

When comparing proxies derived from material culture, which represent societal and economic characteristics of a society over a time-span of 3500 years and over an area of approximately 15,500 m² the question arises: is it possible to compare things that might have had different meanings, significances, and/or different purposes?

This issue was discussed in Igor Kopytoff’s (1986) concept of the cultural biography of things. In the social analysis of objects Kopytoff followed the Marxian perspective, which viewed objects as imbued with use-value and exchange-value (Kopytoff, 1986, pp. 70, 83), whereas Arjun Appadurai distinguished things as products and non-products, thus defining things as exchangeable (Appadurai, 1986, pp. 12–17). This perspective helped Kopytoff in understanding the life-story of objects. According to him, every product has a general character, because the product has a certain value and is comparable with other products, as exchange value for other products or money. In contrast, there are things that are not exchangeable with others because of their singular character. As he argued, both categories – products/non-products – are ideal forms that do not exist, because every product has a potential for singularisation and exchange; their evaluation depends entirely on the social context (Kopytoff, 1986, p. 73). A product can be a product or a non-product both diachronically and synchronically. The order of transformation and also the synchronous meaning as product and non-product accumulate to an object biography. For an example, Kopytoff describes the biography of a Suku hut in Zaire, which during its lifespan of circa 10 years underwent a transformation from a house for a couple or a woman with children to a guest house or a house for a widow. After that, the hut was used as a meeting place for teenagers, then as a kitchen and then as stable for goats or chickens. Finally, termites took over the hut and the building collapsed (Kopytoff, 1986, p. 67). An object can thus undergo a unique biographic process that transforms it from general commodity to a singular object.

The concept of object biography has been used to some degree in archaeology (cf. Gerritsen, 2009; Gosden & Marshall, 1999; Joy, 2009; Jung, 2015) although not always according to the framework designed by Kopytoff. The challenge raised by Kopytoff’s biography concerns whether it is possible to compare different values of things from vastly different times and places.

According to Polanyi (1944), such a comparison only works if one takes the emic perspective. Due to the lack of contemporary witnesses from the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, we decided to turn to the epistemological process to assess value and relevance of material culture in societal context as established by Bourdieu (1986). A clear and brief summary of this process is provided by Bernbeck (2009), who explains Bourdieu’s process in three steps as follows: A first approach, he says, is to engage intensively with the emic view and the basic non-dialogical structures of the research subject, which – as mentioned – is of course problematic for prehistoric studies. A second step, according to his description, was to break away from the paradigm of understanding and to analyse it from the objective etic perspective – “[…] the traditional cold-blooded scientific analysis […]” (our translation: Bernbeck, 2009, p. 2) – thirdly and finally, the subjectivity of this objectivist perspective had to be reflexively related to the “object” of investigation.

Bourdieu’s (1986, pp. 241–258) division into economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital, which places people in social space, i.e. describes the relationships between people or their positions. With this division of the concept capital into different representations, he provides a suitable theoretical model which can be used to categorise archaeological material accordingly (Kadrow & Müller, 2019). Economic capital represents all forms of material wealth (e.g. income, movable assets, land ownership; Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 17–21). Archaeologically, we could recognise economic capital in the form of accumulation of finds, grave goods, and/or surplus production. Social capital comprises social networks (Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 21–24). Here, the relationships between people or groups of people can, for example, order the common possession of resources. This requires a willingness to cooperate, which we find reflected in the archaeological evidence, for example, in the form of communal house and grave building activities. Bourdieu divides cultural capital into three forms: incorporated, objectified and institutionalised. Incorporated cultural capital is – as the name already suggests – body-bound and is learned or instilled as people grow up, and modified in the course of their education (Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 17–19). It is, for example, taste, knowledge or personal behaviour. Objectified cultural capital consists of cultural goods (Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 19–20). Transferred to archaeology, these can be artefacts, especially everyday objects, made of pottery or flint. Institutionalised cultural capital comprises the titles one acquires during one’s life (Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 20–21). For prehistory, we could speak of social functions that included, for example, decision-making processes or the regulation of resource distribution. Symbolic capital refers to one’s rank in a society, which may not necessarily have been hierarchical in prehistory. This can show itself, for example, in the form of prestige goods or given symbology, but also in who received a special grave and who did not.

3 Material and Methods

The process of assigning artefact groups to the forms of capital proved to be difficult, as they are interpreted and attributed differently for the Neolithic and Bronze Age because of different traditions of research. The challenge was to find common ground where different artefacts or different materials allow the same statement about the society in question.

3.1 Defining Socio-cultural Spheres

According to Bourdieu (1986), all the mentioned forms of capital are interdependent and can therefore allow a series of different scenarios. Thus, no standard scheme exists that could explain processes and reactions according to capital forms and societal behaviour. For the comparison of the Neolithic and Bronze Age material, we determined from our expert perspectives which artefacts and features can be assigned to each form of capital. We have used this classification as a basis for our comparisons. For example, not all periods within our time perspective have axes or swords. Another example is that the materials used for artefacts are different (e.g. stone, bronze). However, in the case of swords and axes we see both of them as an expression of a certain social role and thus conceptualise them as traces of such across the epochs.

3.1.1 Material – Monumentality, Artefact Studies and Domestic Sites

The reconstruction of the intensity of monument-building activity through the Neolithic is based on available data from primary burials in single mounds and the oldest assemblages in megaliths or non-megalithic long barrows. An interpolated relative index of the construction of new monuments is derived through the described aoristic evaluation according to the detailed chronology. Values from the relative index obtained in this way can be extrapolated to the number of monuments known from the Archäologische Landesaufnahme Schleswig-Holstein (Archaeological State Survey) that, in contrast to other areas of Germany, covered nearly the whole southern Cimbrian Peninsula with fieldwalking and other types of surveys (Ahrens, 1966; Hingst, 1959; Kersten, 1951, 1981; Kersten & Schwantes, 1939). Known undated burial mounds are differentiated according to the known (through excavations) relative temporal distribution of mounds to the different phases in periods between the Neolithic and the Middle Ages, a procedure that Holst (2013) also successfully used for Denmark. Thus, these monuments with more general dating categories were redistributed to the main periods according to the relative frequency of dated records within the main periods (Brozio et al., 2019; Holst, 2013, pp. 42–44). The distribution of megalithic tombs in their temporal dimension is reported for the southern Cimbrian Peninsula (Hoika, 1999; Lorenz, 2012).

Complementary evidence of economic, as well as social, aspects of the Neolithic societies is provided by the character of artefact types and categories, which are linked to specific purposes. These objects of material culture are associated via their contexts and functions to utilitarian uses within economic production and/or with non-utilitarian meaning within the social and ritual sphere of the societies. Thus, the different quantity and sequences of artefact categories provide information about economic and social aspects of societies. Stone axes (Schultrich, 2018; Zápotocký, 1992), stone adzes (Breske, 2017), metal objects (Klassen, 2004; Schultrich, 2019), flint daggers (Kühn, 1979; Willroth, 2002) and jewellery (Woltermann, 2016) in different find contexts like burials, hoards (Rech, 1979) or single finds (Rassmann, 1993) are available as data sets for such an analysis (Brozio et al., 2019). Information on settlements was compiled from different sources (Brozio, 2016; Hage, 2016; Schultrich, 2019; Steffens, 2009). In the Bronze Age, new categories are added (swords, daggers), in other categories the material changes from stone to copper and bronze (axes). Stone tools become fewer and eventually disappear altogether. The catalogues “Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit des nordischen Kreises” contain extensive find material for the Older Bronze Age (Aner & Kersten, 1978, 1979, 1991, 1993; Aner et al., 2005, 2011, 2017). For the younger Bronze Age, a complete record of all finds up to 1993 is available (Schmidt, 1993). New excavated settlement sites were also added (Donat, 2018; Meier, 2013).

3.1.2 Methods – Aoristic Method/PCR and Diversity Index

‘One way to engage more effectively with temporal uncertainty is for us to make the best of all our available temporal information, however fuzzy’ (Bevan et al., 2013). The ‘aoristic’ statistical method is used for a better comparison between quantitative data, for example from pollen diagrams or sum-calibrations, and typochronological classification of archaeological data. The aoristic method creates a relative frequency graph based on different dating accuracies – such as ‘Bronze Age’, ‘Older Bronze Age’, ‘Period I-II’, ‘Period Ib’ and ¹⁴C dates (Mischka, 2004; Ratcliffe, 2000). In order to grant comparability of the data, the different dating ranges are divided and uniformly plotted in 100-year steps on the time scale. A dating such as Late Bronze Age (1100–500 BCE) is divided by n/6, a dating to Period IV early (1100–1000) is divided by n/1 and plotted on the timeline per 100 years. The sum of all artefact frequencies provides the aoristically calculated frequency curve. While this reflects the different timespans and dating accuracies, it allows for a substantial comparison with other data (Brozio et al., 2019; Kneisel et al., 2019). A comparison between Bronze Age and Neolithic pottery makes little sense, as the result would only show the differences between the periods. For this reason, we decided to use the diversity of shapes and decorations for a comparison. Diversity indices are known from biology and can, for example, describe the species diversity of a region or area. The Shannon–Wiener index is a mathematical quantity used in biology to describe diversity or biodiversity (Spellerberg & Fedor, 2003). The index describes the diversity in the data under consideration, taking into account both the number of different data categories (types) and the abundance (number of pots/sherds per type). Since, for example, the decoration of vessels – such as knobs, handles or vessel roughness – is a free decision of the potters that does not contribute to the functionality of the vessels, it can be used as a measure of creativity, individuality or simply diversity in the material. The same applies to the shape. Shape follows style, taste and fashion, but also functionality. A high diversity of forms indicates a specialised function (bowl, dish, plate, jug) or the absence of any norm. However, the latter is not possible within a society, as shapes are adopted unconsciously.

As the aoristic time series summarise different values, mostly counts but also floor area and the Shanon–Wiener Index, they were standardised statistically as z-scores for better comparison.

3.1.3 Characterising Social Cultural Spheres – Forms of Capital

The forms of capital describe a community/society in a given social space in prehistory. In particular, the classification of archaeological find groups from different times and spaces into capital types enables comparability. They do not serve to identify inequalities within societies, but to compare social/societal processes over time and space (Table 5.1).

Symbolic Capital

This form of capital encompasses the social rank of an individual in society and is acquired through recognition and is presented to the outside world. The battle axes of the Neolithic and daggers and swords of the Bronze Age represent a social rank and a certain prestige of the buried person. Also, house sizes, here given in m², can be understood as a sign of certain social importance of the inhabitants presented to the community and outside group. Although, house sizes could be understood as economic capital, as Bourdieu (1986) states, symbolic capital is indicated by economic capital. To assign house size to the realm of economic capital would neglect the symbolic meaning of houses, and would overemphasise economic capital within the capital structure. Houses as symbolic capital of small groups are known from various ethnographic parallels (Wunderlich, 2019). Here, we have assigned houses to symbolic capital in the sense of projection of internal socio-economic realities within a community.

Social Capital

Relationships between people and groups, access to networks and the intensity of these networks make up social capital. Archaeologically, we can identify resources that are not locally available. Bronze was omitted here because there is no comparable equivalent in the Neolithic. Instead, Neolithic copper items and Bronze Age gold finds were combined in one proxy. Both materials have to be imported from afar and hint to the embeddedness of supra-regional networks providing such objects/resources. Amber serves as an indicator of reduced network intensity when it is present. When it is absent – and occurs massively in a distant region at the same time – it is an indicator of supra-regional networks. Likewise, the number of monuments is seen as an indicator of cooperation between local groups and stronger intra-regional networks.

Cultural Capital

Cultural capital is knowledge of practices and action (Handlungswissen) in any form and is the basis of most archaeological remains, as its realisation can lead to production of material culture. However, it is difficult to grasp materially. Burial customs and changes in material culture can generally be seen as cultural capital because they either show knowledge of how to perform normative implementations of practices or the introduction of new knowledge altering/replacing old practices. In our examples, however, we have the issue that the quantification of respective proxies tends to be mutually exclusive. The transitional phases of practices burial costumes (e.g. single vs. collective burials or inhumation vs. cremation) can be used as a qualitative argument to explain transformative processes. Therefore, we relied here on a diversity measure that represents differences in the frequency of pottery forms and decoration seen as cultural phenomena.

Economic Capital

This form of capital circumscribes possessions and material values, which in our modern times are comparable to money. Our assignment of depots refers to the alienable possessions of a society that are deposited in order to be taken out of the value-cycle. The number of sickles is often equated with money (Sommerfeld, 1994), but they can also have an economic value in terms of agriculture. Likewise, hatchets (axes), made from flint or bronze, are expressions of labour in the form of tools. The construction of large monuments is also to be seen as a labour effort, for which further surplus must be available in order to sustain labourers. The larger the monument, the more food and resources must be provided.

Table 5.1 Forms of capital and assigned archaeological contexts

3.2 Demographic Proxies

Although demography is not defined as a form of capital, it is highly related to all of them. Population size, density and structure can be understood as an important scaling and influencing factor in the social, economic, symbolic and cultural realms of a society (Bettencourt et al., 2007; Feinman, 2011; Shennan et al., 2017) and vice versa.

3.2.1 Composite Kernel Density Estimation Models of Radiocarbon Dates

As a proxy to represent the demographic development of our study area we use the common approach ‘dates as data’ (Rick, 1987) employing summed radiocarbon dates from archaeological records (e.g. Crema & Bevan, 2021; Hinz et al., 2012; Shennan & Edinborough, 2007). Concerning the amount and representation of the radiocarbon data, it is not possible to operate only with dates from the Southern Cimbrian Peninsula, as especially Bronze Age contexts are highly under-represented, due to research and sampling biases. To compensate for this issue, radiocarbon dates from Southern Denmark were integrated into the data set. The geographical and cultural closeness of both regions throughout prehistory enables us to draw from the combined record conclusion for the whole aggregated region (Kneisel et al., 2019, 2022). We retrieved the radiocarbon data from the Xronos data base (https://xronos.ch/), RADON-B (Kneisel et al., 2013) and the Feeser et al. (2019) data set, further our data was completed by the compiled data set of Bunbury et al. (2023). As a proxy to represent the demographic development of our study area we use the approach ‘dates as data’ and employ composite kernel density estimation (cKDE) models of the radiocarbon dates. cKDE models or kernel density models in general provide a more robust alternative to summed probability distributions to assess radiocarbon dates as a demographic proxy (Crema, 2022; Parkinson et al., 2021). For computing the cKDE models we used the R package rcarbon (Bevan et al., 2022) on our site-level binned data (h = 100 years), with the kernel bandwith of 75 years and 500 simulations. Radicarbon dates with high measurement errors (>150 ¹⁴C years) are excluded from the analysis. The refined data set contains 1384 radiocarbon dates from 186 sites.

3.2.2 Palynological Human Impact Proxy

As a further regional demographic proxy, we use the palynological human impact proxy from Feeser et al. (2019) for Lake Belau (Fig. 5.1(6)). This is based on a multivariate ordination (principal component analysis) using a selection of terrestrial pollen taxa from two well-dated, high-resolution pollen records from northern Germany. Human impact or landscape openness, respectively, as reflected in the pollen data, can be used as a demographic indicator based on the assumption that an increasing population density leads to increasing woodland clearance due to an increasing demand for resources including wood, agricultural land and settlement areas (Feeser et al., 2019; Heitz et al., 2021; Lechterbeck et al., 2014). Each sample from the pollen record used in the principal component analysis is absolutely dated and therefore the openness score (PC 1.) can be plotted as a time series, expressing human induced land clearance.

4 Analysis

The two main analyses are a time series of the forms of capital and the performance of a principal component analysis on the 100-year binned time series. With both of these data representations, we can explore the temporal development more comprehensively. However, as the amount of data is too vast to present in detail, the following description of the results only includes the general trends, extreme deviations, important correlations, as well as possible underlying structural behaviour. Detailed and exhaustive data analysis can be accessed and comprehended in the supplementary material.

4.1 Timeseries

Symbolic Capital

Shaft-hole axes made of stone have occurred since the Mesolithic (Fig. 5.2). High-quality and socially significant battle axes (hatchets, hammer axes) occur from the early 4th millennium onwards (Zápotocký, 1992). At the end of the 4th millennium BCE, they become quantitatively more frequent (Brozio, 2019, 2020) and are now also regularly found in burial contexts (Schultrich, 2022). Quantitatively they reach their highest frequencies at the beginning and the end of the Single Grave Culture Groups (SGC), a northern phenomenon of the Corded Ware groups, of the 3rd millennium BCE (Schultrich, 2018). Around 2300/2200 BCE, the number of retouched daggers began to increase in importance and overtake the social function of the battle axe (Kühn, 1979; Schultrich, 2022).

Fig. 5.2

Standardised time series of the single archaeological contexts representing the different forms of capital and the summed curved of each form of capital from the Southern Cimbrian Peninsula

With the introduction of houses and a sedentary way of life in the Neolithic, two-aisled houses are built as single farmsteads, hamlets and from 3400 BCE in the form of villages (Brozio, 2016; Hage, 2016; Müller, 2013, 2019). This is followed by a phase between 2900 and 2200 BCE, from which only a few and then only small buildings are documented. This changes around 2200 BCE, with the construction of houses with storage buildings and associated fields (Kleijne et al., 2021).

The introduction of two-aisled houses and the later agglomeration in villages (Brozio, 2016; Hage, 2016; Müller, 2019) around 3400 BCE are in the context of an economic boom phase. The buildings represent the prestige, the economic strength, and the social cohesion of the groups. Battle axes and daggers materialise the acquired recognition of individuals within the groups. This is particularly evident in the accessories, which represent individualism and expression of personal prestige (Brozio, 2020).

The Bronze Age begins with a drop in symbolic capital, as daggers, axes/swords and house size decline. However, this may also be a data gap, as there are many daggers, especially in Holstein, that are not dated (Schaefer-Di Maida, 2023). Axes and swords increase from 1700 BCE onwards and can be interpreted as badges or emblems of prestige (Bunnefeld, 2014, 2018; Kristiansen, 1984; Kristiansen & Larsson, 2005). In this context, swords significantly predominate in the data curve compared to axes, so that a transfer of the symbolic meaning of axes to swords can be assumed with the Bronze Age. Around 1500 BCE, the size of houses from the Southern Cimbrian Peninsula increases (Kneisel et al., 2019, p. 1615, Fig. 6). This is also due to the use of three-aisled buildings and the introduction of the so-called dwelling stable house, which came into widespread use around 1500 BCE (Meier, 2013). The enlargement of the house and thus also of the household requires reorganisation. The direct (overlapping) connection of houses and barrows (e.g. domestic site Handewitt, Trappendahl, etc., cf. Svanberg, 2005, p. 79) suggest that, for example, the head of the household was buried by the household community in a barrow. The household thus represents itself in the individual, who is singled out for prestige. Symbolic capital thus reaches its zenith as titles and achievements acquire a public monumental representation that cannot be unseen in the landscape. Around 1100 BCE, swords and daggers as well as house sizes decrease considerably. There seems to be an end of elites and associated household communities and associated large houses. The highlighted personalities lose importance and with them symbolic capital changes. The collective is now in the foreground and manifests itself particularly through uniformly equipped urn graves in cemeteries.

A social transformation can be observed that is repeated several times: the transformation of societies from the individual to the collective and vice versa. This phenomenon is first comprehensible between 3800 and 3200 BCE. First, individual burials in long barrows and partly in dolmens appear. Then, collective burials in passage graves become predominant. Hereafter, 3200–2700 BCE, single burials (solely, in small or larger graveyards or at passage graves) increase again (van der Velde et al., 2020) and this development reaches a peak with the ealy SGC (Brozio et al., 2019; Hübner, 2005; Schultrich, 2018). Then, in turn, secondary extensions in the burial mounds, as well as multiple burials in burial chambers and post-burials in megalithic graves, increase until 2300 BCE (Hübner, 2005; Schultrich, 2018). In the centuries between 2300 and 1150 BCE a focus on the individual is visible again, whereas from 1150 BCE, with the urn burial grounds, a levelling of the social stratigraphy dominates, where the highlighted personality is no longer directly in focus (Kneisel, 2013; Schaefer-Di Maida, 2023; Schaefer-Di Maida & Kneisel, 2023).

Social Capital

The construction of monumental tombs on one hand is characterised by the construction of dolmens and subsequently of passage tombs between 3400 and 3100 BCE (Brozio et al., 2019). Long barrows from 3800 BCE, on the other hand, are quantitatively only comprehensible in small numbers (Müller et al., 2014). With SGC there is a construction boom of burial mounds from 2800 BCE onwards (Hübner, 2005). A decline from 2600 BCE is associated with secondary extensions of the existing burial mounds and reburials (Schultrich, 2018).

The increasing import of copper since the beginning of the Neolithic period has its first peak between 3500 and 3300 BCE (Klassen, 2000). By restricting exotic imports, triggered by changing networks, a second phase of the adaptation of metallurgy only starts around 2300 BCE (Müller & Vandkilde, 2021; Schultrich, 2019).

In the 4th millennium BCE, amber as a local resource has an important function as a traditional clothing element and prestige good within the Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) groups. Amber hoards occur often in the Early Neolithic (before 3300 BCE). In the Middle Neolithic (3300–2800 BCE), however, amber beads predominantly appear in burial contexts (Ebbesen, 1995). In the SGC of the 3rd millennium BCE, amber artefacts occur in burials frequently in northern Jutland. However, they become less frequent in a southerly direction, at an increasing distance from the secondary deposits. Thus, amber increasingly loses its importance among the societies analysed (Hübner, 2005; Woltermann, 2016).

Relationships in the form of regional and supra-regional networks undergo a fundamental change around 3300 BCE (Müller, 2022). The import of copper (Brozio et al., 2023) as well as the introduction of new technologies such as the ard (Mischka, 2013), new products such as the free-threshing wheat (Kirleis & Fischer, 2014) or ideas of social action such as the enclosures (Dibbern, 2016; Klassen, 2014) reflect the high quality of the supra-regional relationship network. With the cancellation of copper imports from 3300 BCE, an increase in the importance of regional relations arises. This is accompanied by the joint construction of collective and monumental burial grounds. However, in the late Middle Neolithic (3100–2800 BCE), collective efforts decrease again while supra-regional communication increases (Müller et al., 2020). In this phase, individual signs of power and violence (the battle axe) increase in absolute numbers and in burials (Schultrich, 2022). This phase paves the way for the SGC societies. Around 2800 BCE, the extensive networks of the SGC groups express themselves in the construction of their own architecture, which not least serve the legitimation and compliance with widely applied standards (Furholt, 2021). The increase in metal imports at the end of the Neolithic, on the other hand, enables the accumulation and expression of social capital through material culture, integrated into networks between southern Scandinavia and eastern Central Europe (Vandkilde, 2017).

With the transition to the Bronze Age, a gap in social capital seems to persist, lasting at least until 1500 BCE. It goes hand in hand with the formation of the southern periphery of the Únětice culture and the associated network breakdowns, so that transregional exchange also decreases (Kneisel, 2012; Meller et al., 2013). From 1500 BCE onwards, both burial mounds and gold finds increase markedly. Gold as a resource from outside shows the increasing connectivity of the southern Jutland peninsula and the establishment of wide-ranging contacts (Pahlow, 2006). But not everyone was entitled to a burial mound. Nevertheless, the number of Bronze Age mounds is much higher than in the Neolithic, but since only excavated mounds are included in the curve, the maxima of both time horizons are similar (cf. Holst, 2013, p. 42; Kristiansen & Larsson, 2005). Divergences in graves clearly indicate increasing social differentiation, which continued until about 1100 BCE. Both the construction of burial mounds and the addition of gold declined sharply from 1100 BCE onwards. Monumentality and networks thus lost importance again and it seems that now everyone could receive a grave in the form of an urn burial (Kneisel et al., 2019; Kristiansen, 2006). The power of the individual (chief?) as well as the sense of the group and cooperation (e.g. for the construction of burial mounds) seem to have diminished at this time. In the course of the Younger Bronze Age (1100–500 BCE), burial mounds were built only sporadically, and these were mostly so-called small mounds, which were mainly restricted to the south of Holstein (Schmidt, 1993). Large and rich burial mounds are now the absolute exception (May, 2018; Thrane, 1984). The meaning of social capital thus shows a considerable transformation around 1100 BCE.

Cultural Capital

Between 4100 and 2800 BCE, a high diversity of the shapes of vessels and decorations of ceramics can be observed within the TRB (Lorenz, 2018). High diversity is present with the Fuchsberg style around 3500 BCE and then between 3100 and 2900 BCE. From 2800 BCE there is a decline in diversity, containing the limited canon of forms of the SGC beakers, bowls and amphorae (Brozio, 2016; Müller & Peterson, 2015). From 2400 BCE, with the influence of bell beakers and the dagger groups, ceramics again become more diverse in terms of shapes and decorations (Hübner, 2005; Kleijne, 2019).

Ceramics as a means of expression of social reference is of great importance in the 4th millennium BCE. In the developing societies of the Neolithic, production and use of common forms and vessels provide opportunities to participate in regional and supra-regional sign systems. From 3100 BCE onwards, the increase is a reaction to a changing social system in which a developing shift from collective to individual consciousness can be observed, a phase in which hereditary capital transfer is obfuscated. In the following centuries, on the other hand, a strong standardisation can be observed, in which cultural capital plays an important role as knowledge of action and represents the basis for power.

Around 1800 BCE, the standardisation of pottery collapses, reflecting a loss of previously cultivated cultural capital. While there is little variation in form, individual decoration increases. A clear increase in the variance of decoration from 1200 BCE onwards may be related to the introduction of urn burial, whereby the individual design of burial vessels gained importance against the background of otherwise very standardised burial methods (Schaefer-Di Maida, 2023). However, the discontinuation of standardisation in pottery production brings with it a new cultural capital, as metal objects become more relevant and standardised.

Economic Capital

During 4100–3300 BCE, an accumulation of objects in depots can be observed. Around 3200 BCE and 2800 BCE there was a decrease followed by phases of increase. A further increase of depots begins around 1800 BCE. Axes have a special significance as tools and as objects of value in the Neolithic, a peak is reached around 3300 BCE, and in the 3rd millennium BCE axes remain of great importance (Brozio et al., 2019). The beginning of the Neolithic is marked by an increase in human impact, which decreases between 3300 and 2900 BCE. After a further increase, a new boom phase begins around 2200 BCE (Feeser et al., 2012). This phase is associated with the introduction of the surface-retouched flint sickle (Kühn, 1979).

Between 4100 and 3300 BCE we observe an increase in economic capital through land opening and increased forms of accumulation of value in depots. Economic power is reflected in the ability to remove imported objects from circulation. At the same time, this is associated with demographic growth, which manifests itself in agglomerations in villages and manifests a quantitative increase in axes. At the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE, a decline in economic capital takes place, followed by an economic boom phase from 2000 BCE (Brozio et al., 2019).

This boom continues, especially in the Early Bronze Age, and is boosted by a further increase in hoard finds around 1800 BCE, which exhausts the economic possibility of removing finds from circulation. The introduction of bronze arguably has a central role in this, in that the use of new networks possibly encouraged the requirement to give something back in order to maintain connections (Kristiansen & Earle, 2022, p. 13). The introduction of bronze also parallels the rise of monumentality. The construction of burial mounds becomes an important part of economic capital, as it requires the distribution of raw materials (Falkenstein, 2017). Sickle finds, however, decline again at this time, accompanied by a decrease in human impact. The use of hoards reaches a low point at the end of the Early Bronze Age around 1200/1100 BCE. With the introduction of cremation burials, a relevant transformation takes place, which probably also changes networks and world views (Schaefer-Di Maida, 2023). In the course of the Later Bronze Age, however, hoards became more important again and reached their peak. The composition of the hoards resembles grave furnishings, which, in contrast to the hoards, are rather sparsely furnished. It is possible that the hoard became a substitute for burial as a result, possibly because of increasing grave robbery due to a lack of bronze.

Human Impact

In respect to the human impact (Fig. 5.3) the period between 3800 and 3500 BCE can be recognised as a clear boom phase. After that, and up to 3000 BCE, a stable phase emerges in the data, which, however, rather suggests a crisis period. Between 2900 and 2800 BCE a slight increase in the pollen data is discernible, before a stable phase is again evident. After 2500 BCE there is a decline in the influence of humans on the environment and from 2100 BCE an increase, which presumably also involves a change in land use. Subsequently, a stable human impact curve is visible until 1700 BCE. Between 1600 and 1700 BCE the human influence decreases enormously, so that a crisis during this period can be assumed. For the Southern Cimbrian Peninsula this decline can probably be characterised as more moderate than for the neighbouring province Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Between 1500 and 1300 BCE a renewed phase of growth set in, bringing with it a further opening of the landscape and an increase in population. From 1300 to 1100 BCE the human impact decreases slightly again, before increasing again after 1100 BCE. Within Period VI during the latest phase of the Bronze Age, i.e. around 700 BCE, the human impact curve increases sharply again.

Fig. 5.3

Top: PCA spectra scores for the palynological record of Lake Belau, with indication of deviating positive (exceptional openness) and negative (exceptional closeness) events from the trend. Below: Growth rate of the 100-year smoothed time series of the PCA spectra scores, with indication of deviating positive (increasing openness) and negative (decreasing openness) events. For the event detection the approach of Parkinson et al. (2021) was used, where values in the 0.95 and 0.05 quartile are labelled as significant deviations

Demography

The human impact curve (cf. Fig. 5.3) correlates well with the demography proxy curve (Fig. 5.4) up until 2100 BCE (Late Neolithic). During the Neolithisation of the Southern Cimbrian Peninsula and Southern Denmark between 4100 and 3500 BCE there is an increase in population size. From 3500 BCE onwards, a decrease in population is evident, which continues until 2300 BCE. With the beginning of the Late Neolithic, c. 2300 BCE, a steady increase of the proxy is visible. From about 1600 BCE a strong increase is characteristic until about 1300 BCE. After that, high-quality data is found lacking, since cremation burials in this region have provided no ¹⁴C data. Only Mang de Bargen, which has made a large database recently available, has shown a strong increase in graves (Schaefer-Di Maida, 2023). From 700 BCE onwards, corresponding dates are missing from the ¹⁴C curve because of insufficient dating due to the cremation burial custom and the Hallstatt plateau. For population development we therefore have to refer to the human impact curve from 1300 BCE onwards, which, according to the local example of Mang de Bargen, shows good correlation with the population development in the later Bronze Age. The sudden increase in the human impact curve around 2100 BCE is not as sharply visible in the cKDE model. However, the general trend of increasing human activity is witnessed in both proxy archives. The immense peak between 1500 and 1300 BCE is not present in the human impact curve.

Fig. 5.4

Top: Demography proxy of a cKDE model of radiocarbon dates, with indication of deviating positive (exceptional high population) and negative (exceptional low population) events from the trend. Below: Growth rate (100-year smoothed), with indication of deviating positive (increasing population) and negative (decreasing population) events (right). For the event detection, the approach of Parkinson et al. (2021) was used, where values in the 0.95 and 0.05 quartile are labelled as significant deviations

4.2 Relations

The Z-transformation as data basis of the forms of capital were used for a principal component analysis (PCA). The objects are grouped as time slices in hundred-year bins, and the values of the individual elements of the forms of capital form the attributes. The goal was to visualise relations between time slices and the forms of capital differently than as a time series (Fig. 5.5) to uncover structuring latent factors. A mapping of the first against the second eigenvector shows a largely chronological distribution along the first eigenvector (cf. supplementary material), this is an expected result. For this reason, the second and third eigenvectors were examined. Together they describe c. 55% of the variability of our data and based on this, they are still well-suited to explore the results for meaningful patterns.

Fig. 5.5

Principal component analysis ordination plot of the 100-year bins (points). EN – Early Neolithic, MN – Middle Neolithic, SG – Single Grave groups, LN – Late Neolithic, OBA – Older Bronze age, YBA – Younger Bronze age

The PCA diagram (cf. Fig. 5.5) shows that the chronological phases cluster only partially, in many cases one time slice of the chronological phase separates along the x-axis (2. PC). These are in each case transitional periods from one chronological phase to another, which are briefly listed here:

• Early Neolithic (4000–3500 BCE): The time slices of this phase are mainly located in the positive area of the x-axis, only the time slice 3500 BCE is in the negative area.

• Middle Neolithic (3400–3000 BCE) and Younger Neolithic (2900–2300 BCE): Both chronological phases form a loose cluster in the negative area of the x-axis and show no outlying time slice.

• Late Neolithic (2200–1700 BCE): It is the only chronological phase that exhibits high positive position on the y-axis. On the x-axis it is situated in the negative area of the graph. The time slice of 1700 BCE, however, separates itself from this pattern and lies in the positive area of the x-axis and negative on the y-axis.

• Older Bronze Age (1600–1200 BCE): The early phase of the Older Bronze Age (1600–1500 BCE) is in the positive area of the x-axis, while the younger phase (1400–1200 BCE) of the Older Bronze Age is in the negative area.

• Younger Bronze Age (1100–500 BCE): The beginning of the Younger Bronze Age (1100 BCE) lies in the negative area of the x-axis, while the majority of time horizons (1000–500 BCE) cluster in the positive area.

Turning the view to the attributes – the forms of capital – we see them arranged on the graph as distinguishable loose clusters demarcating spheres of attraction.

• Social capital: Number of monuments, copper/gold and amber, are in the double negative area of the graph.

• Symbolic capital: House size, number of daggers and hatchets/swords are in the negative range of the x-axis and scattered along the y-axis.

• Economic capital: Number of sickles and of hoards, as well as monument size, are mainly located in the positive area of the x-axis. Different from this are the number of axes, which are placed in the double negative part of the graph.

• Cultural capital: The diversity of ceramic decoration and ceramic form lie between economic and symbolic capital, diametrically opposed to each other.

What is striking is the shift of initial or final time slices of a chronological phase to an opposite part of the graph. These time slices are in each case initial or final phases of transformation processes and describe clear transition and change in importance of the forms of capital. It could be discussed in detail whether these time slices do not already belong to the next chronological phase, but we rely on the phase division of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, which has developed in research history and saw good reasons to propose given breaks (Kneisel, 2021; Müller et al., 2012; Müller & Vandkilde, 2021; Vandkilde, 1996, 2017). The PCA shows just as clearly as the time series representation that we are dealing with a change in the composition and significance of the forms of capital at the beginning and the end of our chronological phases. However, while this might appear to be nothing new, we provide the possibility of an in-depth multi-causal and inter-relational discussion of transformation processes.

In summary, a change along the y-axis can be seen in the Neolithic, with the Late Neolithic period in the positive area of the axis, while the rest are largely in the negative area. A change along the x-axis can be seen for the Bronze Age sections. Thus, the change within the Bronze Age stages is always between social and economic, while the change in the Neolithic is between three forms of capital: social, symbolic and economic.

4.3 Correlations

The PCA (cf. Fig. 5.5) has shown that we must understand the chronological phases as a period in which the foundations for the transformation processes are probably laid through changes, which are then reflected in the recognisable demarcations of the transitional time slices.

In order to assess the concurrency of our chosen archaeological and demographic proxies apart from ‘eyeballing’ we use a pairwise Pearson’s correlation of the time series in 100-year bins, within time windows of 500 years, 1000 years and in archaeologically meaningful phases thereafter (Palmisano et al., 2021). The bin size is set by the temporal resolution of the archaeological proxies. Admittedly, the 100-year binning of the proxies leads to a small sample size for the correlation test and therefore the results need to be treated with caution. The results of all possible correlations in the given time windows and the corresponding code can be accessed via the supplementary material.

Beginning with the Early Neolithic (4000–3500 BCE), and thus with the Neolithisation process, economic capital plays a major role. Towards the end of this chronological phase, a shift from economic to symbolic capital can be observed (cf. Fig. 5.2). This period is the beginning of our observations, and many of the capital forms have a rather uniform course here, which is partly due to the low dating diversity. During the Early Neolithic, we are dealing with a population growth that goes hand in hand with the opening up of vegetation and the cultivation of the landscape. The investment in the creation of a cultural landscape is expressed in economic capital. Especially during the initial phase of the Early Neolithic, economic capital is not to be seen as purely economic but is translated into a type of symbolic capital (Fig. 5.6).

Fig. 5.6

Correlation matrix of the 100-year binned summed forms of capital, human impact (DemoVeg) and demography (Demo14C) proxy for the time slice from 4100 to 3500 BCE

From 3500 BCE onwards, the number of monuments and axes increases and with it the importance of symbolic capital within society (cf. Fig. 5.2). In the Middle Neolithic (developed TRB: 3400–3000 BCE), a change from symbolic capital to a mixture of social, symbolic, cultural and, to a certain extent, economic capital can be observed from 3300 BCE onwards. Based on this, we assume that inter- and intra-societal interactions – visible in social capital –, and political negotiations – tangible in symbolic capital – become more complex (Fig. 5.7; see supplementary material: Correlation 3400–3000).

Fig. 5.7

Correlation matrix of the 100-year binned summed forms of capital, human impact (DemoVeg) and demography (Demo14C) proxy for the time slice from 3400 to 3000 BCE

Not least the copper boom, as well as the import stop of the same, between 3500 and 3400 BCE can be seen as a turning point in the North, which probably had a lasting impact on the importance of the different forms of capital in society. The high number of amber finds and the large number of monuments from 3300 BCE onwards are evidence of elaborate local and small-scale regional networks. In another respect, this development is simultaneously expressed in the decrease in house sizes, which suggests smaller reference groups, among other things. Power relations are now more likely to be negotiated through the sizes and number of monuments. This indicates small, eventually complexly structured, groups that cooperate intensively with each other, but at the same time also compete with each other and have fewer supra-regional networks (Brozio et al., 2023; Wunderlich, 2019). These developments partly go hand in hand with the agglomeration process of the settlement structure, which could lead to the described reorientation of capital forms. In more dense areas, communication and interaction behaviour for the negotiation of power relations must develop differently than between dispersed groups that create their space in a landscape that is hardly shaped at all. Our demographic proxies show a population decline during the Middle Neolithic, whereby the agglomeration of settlement communities could play a role here.

In the SGC (2900–2300 BCE) this mixed situation remains, consisting of social, symbolic and, to a certain extent, economic capital (Fig. 5.8), even though we can archaeologically recognise a different social system for this phase. During the period of the SGC groups, the communal negotiation of symbolic power shifted more towards the emphasis on the individual, evident in the construction of burial mounds with a clear individual grave character – visible in the decreasing size of monuments – and the use of battle axes as grave goods (cf. Fig. 5.2; see supplementary material: Correlation 2900–2300).

Fig. 5.8

Correlation matrix of the 100-year binned summed forms of capital, human impact (DemoVeg) and demography (Demo14C) proxy for the time slice from 2900 to 2300 BCE

After the Middle Neolithic, the decrease in monument size suggests a reduction in the size of the reference groups, and evidence of increased mobility. We assume that the basic organisation in complexly structured small groups with their local networks is nevertheless preserved. Superregional networks are present at this time with the connections to the Corded Ware but are not recorded due to our selection of material culture for the capital forms. Vegetation opening and human activity records a slight increase during the beginning of the SGC (2900–2600 BCE) and decreases towards the end (2500–2200 BCE). At the same time, an abrupt cooling event took place around 2900 BCE (Chap. 6).

The dagger period (2200–1700 BCE) is mainly characterised by symbolic capital. In addition to the flint dagger as a new symbol of social rank, the crescent flint sickle appears as a novelty in agriculture, and houses become larger again (Fig. 5.9). During this time, spelt appears for the first time, hulled barley began to increase steadily in 2000 BCE and became the predominant type of barley around 1600 BCE and from 2500 to 1800 BCE highest and stable air temperatures are recorded (Chap. 6). The embedding in the supra-regional networks of the beginning Central European Bronze Age can be recognised in the increasing availability of copper objects. The rapid opening of the land at the beginning of the Late Neolithic from 2200 BCE, but low demographic increase (cf. Figs. 5.3 and 5.4), is very contrasting and can only be explained by a research-related deficit of radiocarbon data from the Late Neolithic or agricultural technological innovations that decouple population size and vegetation opening. The introduction of spelt and the crescent flint sickle may be expressions of such a turn in agriculture.

Fig. 5.9

Correlation matrix of the 100-year binned summed forms of capital, human impact (DemoVeg) and demography (Demo14C) proxy for the time slice from 2200 to 1700 BCE

Towards the end of the Late Neolithic (1700 BCE), the change from symbolic capital to a phase clearly marked by economic capital can be observed, which then continues until the beginning of the Older Bronze Age (1600–1500 BCE). This very concise period from 1700 to 1500 BCE is defined above all by the increasing availability of bronze. We assume that the meanings of the forms of capital are renegotiated, which is very visibly foreseeable in the deposit custom, which increases from 1700 BCE. Economic capital is now re-emphasised as it is brought to another level with a countable exchange value such as bronze (Brinkmann, 2019). Fixed units of exchange (e.g. ‘sickle money’, standardised artefact types like ring ingots) can be established (Jahn, 2013; Krause, 2003; Sommerfeld, 1994) and the deliberate destruction of bronze goods in hoards serve negotiation and communication (Fontijn, 2002). As with the opening of the land in the early Neolithic, economic capital – in this case in the form of depositions – is once again a simultaneous way for the community to demonstrate its capabilities. This time, however, not in the development of new landscapes, but in the agglomeration of a new and valuable form of resource. This interconnectedness of capital forms is also evident in the expressive correlation of capital forms in the period from 1800 to 1400 BCE (Fig. 5.10; see supplementary material: Correlation 1800–1400). From 1400/1300 BCE onwards, this correlation pattern again declines sharply (cf. Fig. 5.2; see supplementary material: Correlation 1300–900, 1100–700 and 1000–600).

Fig. 5.10

Correlation matrix of the 100-year binned summed forms of capital, human impact (DemoVeg) and demography (Demo14C) proxy for the time slice from 1600 to 1200 BCE

In the course of the Older Bronze Age (1500–1200 BCE), a change from economic to symbolic capital can again be detected from 1400 BCE onwards. A decrease in economic capital is indicated by fewer hoards and sickles. The rise in symbolic capital is clearly evidenced by the increasing house sizes and the high number of swords. The ambivalence of how social capital manifests is interesting, since it shows a very good integration of these societies into supra-regional networks as evidenced by gold imports; but at the same time, the increased number of monuments indicates the strengthening of local networks, proving an internal cooperation between the different communities. The social status of highlighted personalities is shaped by local power and supra-regional relations. After a drop in land opening around 1500 BCE, there is a renewed increase in human impact, but after 1400 BCE, the radiocarbon data show a trend of decreasing population density. Nevertheless, the demographic proxy shows the highest values between c. 1500 and 1200 BCE, even if the preceeding and succeeding chronological phases may be subject to research bias, we have to assume a relatively large population. The question is whether this increase in population coincides with an increase in social inequality and the desire to accumulate symbolic capital. We know that the time horizon between 1600 and 1500 BCE is a very important one across Europe, in which transformation processes take place in many regions, which in turn have an impact on the existing pan-European Bronze Age network (Kneisel, 2012; Meller et al., 2013). A migration to the north cannot be ruled out, but it is certain that the north consumed large quantities of high-quality bronzes in graves and hoarding behaviour during this period. A demographic peak around 1400 BCE can be explained by various effects, including the migration of people to the north after the collapse of social structures in the south (Kneisel, 2013; Vandkilde, 2017). If the growth rate of the demographic proxy is taken into account, however, a positive trend can already be seen in the Late Neolithic, which reaches its peak around 1600 BCE and declines again from here on. Assuming that there is a wave of migration, there would also have to be a sharp increase, especially around 1600–1500 BCE, but that is not the case. It seems that the demographic trend is an internal one, the magnitude of which will have to be debated in the future. It is interesting to note that a negative growth rate correlates with a decrease in sickles, which may be due to changes in agricultural practices and intensification of animal husbandry. The Older Bronze Age is a period of high prosperity, which seems to have been characterised by a high degree of concurrence between communities and spheres of influence. The strong externalisation of symbolic capital in combination with the individual manifestations of the other forms of capital (e.g. high number of hoards and low number of sickles) and possible population pressure makes this reading of the data likely.

In the Younger Bronze Age (1100–500 BCE), there was a renewed change between symbolic and partly social capital to economic capital and partly also cultural capital with the diversity of ceramic ornaments. The increase in economic capital is also reflected in a strong increase in land opening from 1100 BCE onwards. At the same time, there is an increase in burials (Schaefer-Di Maida, 2023), which suggests a rise in population (Kneisel et al., 2019, p. 1613, Fig. 4). We see in our data how symbolic capital almost disappears, and is ‘replaced’ by economic capital, as can also be seen in the correlation calculation (Fig. 5.11; see supplementary material: Correlation 1000–600).

Fig. 5.11

Correlation matrix of the 100-year binned summed forms of capital, human impact (DemoVeg) and demography (Demo14C) proxy for the time slice from 1100 to 500 BCE

House sizes shrink significantly and objects indicating rank and prestige are present in significantly smaller numbers than in the previous chronological phase. The reduction of the number of houses has a great significance for the social structure of the Younger Bronze Age communities. Not only does the symbolism of the large house lose its significance, but it seems to indicate that the social units that previously inhabited the large houses emancipated themselves from each other and formed their own households (Mikkelsen, 2020). A probably similar process of emancipation and individualisation can be traced in the negotiation of ownership of farmland. During the Younger Bronze Age, so-called celtic fields are established, which demarcate agricultural land and can probably be understood as a sign of ownership. Over time, these fields become smaller, which is usually explained by the adoption of inheritance rights (Arnold, 2011; Løvschal & Holst, 2014). The change in the increased importance of economic capital is also evident in the huge rise in depositions of artefacts, testifying to the importance of negotiating and presenting exchange values and economic capabilities between and within communities. The renewed abundance of sickles fits well with the innovations in agriculture. The local networks of the Older Bronze Age seem to have been less pronounced, as the capital forms indicating collaboration and small-scale regional exchange (e.g. number of monuments and amber) are hardly developed. This is not the case for the supra-regional networks, which again seem to be less intensive than in the Older Bronze Age but can be proved by the presence of gold finds. In addition, we know connections to communities in Central Europe were present (iron, face/house urns, foreign forms in hoards), but due to our selection of material culture they are not recorded in the capital forms. The diversity of ceramic decorations also supports the idea of extensive contacts. As already mentioned, the transition from the Older to the Younger Bronze Age is a transformation phase in which many things happen and change (Kneisel, 2021). We see this clearly in our capital forms and the proxy for land opening. What we do not show with these proxies, however, is the change in burial customs from inhumations to cremations, which can be seen as a strong marker for changes in the social and ideological-religious system (Fokkens, 1997; Hofmann, 2008; Rebay-Salisbury, 2012; Schaefer-Di Maida, 2023). The change in burial rites is most likely to be linked to the abandonment of monument construction; from 1100 BCE onwards, burials as urn graves are mainly deposited in existing mounds of the Older Bronze Age. Within the subsistence economy, the introduction of millet is certainly significant during the Younger Bronze Age (Filipović et al., 2020), and the increasing use of horses as mounts, possibly as work animals, is likely to have had an influence on social relations.

With regard to the selection of capital forms, recurring patterns can be identified in the section from the Early Neolithic to the end of the Bronze Age. The development of the SGC and the Younger Bronze Age shows parallels in the relationship of the forms of capital, just as there seems to be no change in the forms of capital between the developed TRB and SGC.

5 Conclusion

The structures of social space are subject to dynamic processes that characteristically change in certain periods of time: until 3500 BCE, an increase in the importance of symbolic, cultural and social capital can be observed. This is associated with a phase of economic growth. In this period, which is connected with Neolithisation, the forms of capital emerge within the new economic forms. This includes the ability to accumulate land for agriculture, the membership of networks expressed through material culture, as well as the transmission of knowledge and the representations through monuments. A prerequisite to being able to accumulate surplus and produce symbolic capital – prestige and power – is economic security by colonising the landscape and establishing a reliable agricultural system. Around 3000 BCE we observe a boom phase of cultural and symbolic capital. In contrast, there was a decline in social and economic capital. With the transition from the 4th to the 3rd millennium BCE, cultural capital is of major importance. It enables individuals or groups in society to distinguish themselves. At the same time, symbolic capital increases in societies, making it possible to acquire and consolidate power. After a boom in social capital, cultural capital declined around 2500 BCE, while economic and social capital remained stable. New cultural phenomena also lead to changes in social space. For example, cultural competences change due to the influence of the Bell Beakers phenomena, which had previously been determined for generations by belonging to pan-European networks of the social groups associated to Corded Ware Pottery. However, these new influences do not change the economy. With the transition from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE, the importance of social and economic capital decreases in some areas. Cultural and symbolic capital, on the other hand, increase. The increasing adaptation of metal in societies enables new forms of display and the transmission of new emerging knowledge of action. The basis is formed by economic intensification, as a result of which the landscape is increasingly opened up to agriculture. From 1500 BCE, there is a shift in the importance of the forms of capital; symbolic capital rises first, followed by social capital and economic capital. Cultural capital in form of a wider variation of ornaments gains in importance. Around 1300 BCE, social capital and symbolic capital become more important. Cultural capital remains stable, while economic capital declines. The change in burial rites and associated transformations can be seen here as the engine of the shifts in the meaning of the forms of capital. This changes again around 1100 BCE, when the symbolic and social capital decrease sharply. The importance of cultural capital continues to grow with regard to ceramic ornamentation. At the same time, the economic capital increases drastically (the hoard finds in particular play a decisive role here) and does not decrease again until around 700 BCE. A slight change of increase and decrease in the social capital between 900 and 600 BCE is shown by the changes in networks known for the end of the Bronze Age and the transition to the Iron Age.

Overall, it is noticeable in a pattern-like manner that the curve of social capital corresponds with demographic development (Fig. 5.12), so that it can be assumed that the maintenance of networks and cooperative communities correlates most strongly with population development, i.e. it influences it and was influenced by it. Population development thus depended heavily on network expansion. Shifts in the network can be seen, for example, in the decline of social capital with the collapse of the Únětice culture. Furthermore, social capital increases together with demographic development when new networks, which can be traced back to bronze exchange in particular, are established and expanded. We can therefore state that demographic developments are decisive for the formation of different forms of capital: firstly, this includes symbolic capital, which is used to show social positions within society. Secondly, social capital in relation to membership of social groups. In addition, economic capital and cultural capital also show a strong correlation. In contrast, cultural capital and symbolic capital show only a low correlation. In this pattern, demographic developments are the trigger for changes in social structures that can be represented by different forms of capital.

Fig. 5.12

Correlation matrix of the 100-year binned summed forms of capital, human impact (DemoVeg) and demography (Demo14C) proxy for the time slice from 4100 to 500 BCE