dp van montfort

8/13/2019 Dp Van Montfort

1/14

105

UDK 903'12\'15(415)''633\634''

Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007)

Bridging the gap.The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone

Bart VanmontfortFaculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands

[email protected]

Introduction

The past decade of research on the Mesolithic/Neo-lithic transition in Europe has shown this transitionto have been a mosaic of processes and interactionsrather than a single and clear-cut transition process(e.g. Tringham 2000). It varies greatly in differentparts of Europe with regard to its timing, contact si-tuations and the transition processes at work. A lea-

ding thread is the local impact of the Neolithic andthe archaeological result entailing the end of tradi-tional hunter-gatherer communities. This is the caseall over Europe, including Scandinavia, the BritishIsles and Ireland (Fig. 1). Apparently, the advent ofthe Neolithic signified the start of a new way of life,no matter what transitional processes or temporaldelays involved.

The loess belt of the Low Countries forms a remar-kable exception. It is the westernmost region settledby Linearbandkeramik (LBK) communities and their

cousins of the Groupe de Blicquy (BQY) during thelate 6th and early 5th millennium calBC. With the sud-den disappearance of these communities, however,

the Neolithic as a whole seems to have vanished aswell. The region was not occupied by Hinkelstein/Grossgartach and Roessen, the post-LBK Danubiancultures that can be found to the east and south, norby a local Neolithic similar to the Cerny in NorthernFrance. Only during the last centuries of the 5th mil-lennium calBC, at the beginning of the Michelsberg

Culture phase, does the Neolithic take up its thread(Fig. 1).

The existence of such hiatus is of importance for un-derstanding the regional transition process, and im-plicitly also for understanding the relationship be-tween local hunter-gatherers and the incoming Neo-lithic in general. This paper focuses on the gap andthe explanation of its existence. After presenting thearchaeological cultural sequence in the region, therelationship of the Neolithic with local non-Neolithiccommunities is explored. This is done by analysing

the indications of contact on the one hand and thenature of the Neolithic compared to the local Meso-lithic on the other.

ABSTRACT This paper deals with the chronological hiatus in the Neolithic sequence of the southernpart of the Low Countries. It can at present only be bridged indirectly, by a detailed analysis of the

situation prior to and after the gap. The focus in this paper is on the nature of the Neolithic and itsrelationship with possible native non-Neolithic populations. The results of this analysis show the tran-sition process to have been more than a simple and unidirectional Neolithisation.

IZVLEEK lanek obravnava kronoloki hiatus v neolitski sekvenci junega dela na niinskem puh-linem podroju severozahodne Evrope. Tega trenutno lahko premostimo le s podrobno analizo si-tuacije pred in po vrzeli. V lanku se ukvarjamo z neolitikom in razmerjem med neolitskimi in mo-rebitnim avtohtonim, ne-neolitskim prebivalstvom. Rezultati analize kaejo, da je bil proces tranzici-je vekot preprosta in enosmerna neolitizacija.

KEY WORDS Mesolithic-Neolithic transition; Linearbandkeramik; Chassen and Michelsberg Cul-ture; Contact finds; Settlement patterns


2/14

Bart Vanmontfort

106

The Neolithisation process in the southern partof the Low Countries

The local Mesolithic during the late 6th millennium

calBC remains poorly understood. This is due to ageneral decrease in the number of sites and to prob-lems with the taphonomy and post-depositional for-mation of the archaeological record. In the LowCountries, many Mesolithic sites are known as sur-face sites from the coversand region in NorthernBelgium and the Netherlands. These sites are oftenpalimpsests and even if they are excavated, theirabsolute dating is confronted with major problems.Bad or doubtful spatial associations between datedsamples and archaeological assemblages, dislocationof artefacts and samples caused by bioturbation, and

problems related to the nature of samples are fre-quently mentioned obstructing factors (see Crom-b 1999; Schild 1998; Vermeersch 2006). Crombet al. (1999) claim that dates obtained on hazelnut

shells are more reliable than those on charcoal sam-ples, but even short-lived samples do not escape thepalimpsest and bioturbation problems. As a conse-quence and in contrast to the Rhine/Meuse river del-

ta (Louwe Kooijmans 2003), there are no well cha-racterised and well dated sites that can be used asa reference to relatively date the later Mesolithic.

The most diagnostic elements of the Late Mesolithiclithic industry, i.e. from the mid 7th millennium cal-BC onwards, are the production of regular blades inso-called Montbani style and the appearance of tra-pezes. Due to the problematic dating of the assem-blages, a detailed and reliable regional typochrono-logy is not available. Rhombic and wide, rectangu-lar trapezes are generally regarded as late (e.g. Ver-

meersch et al. 1992) and are followed by asymme-tric points with flat inverse retouch and LBK-likepoints. The Late Mesolithic in the wetland area andits successors of the Swifterbant from the early 5th

Fig. 1. The Neolithic sequence in the Lower Rhine Area and adjacent areas (Louwe Kooijmans 2006.Fig.27.15).


3/14

Bridging the gap. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone

107

millennium onwards, on the other hand, have a li-thic industry characterised by more flake-based pro-duction and the presence of small and irregular sym-metric trapezes (e.g. Cromb et al. 2005; Peeters et

al. 2001; Van Gijn et al. 2001b).A growing number of observations are claimed to in-dicate the introduction in Northwest Europe of ele-ments conventionally linked with the Neolithic, likecereal cultivation, cattle herding and the productionof pottery, prior to the arrival of the first archaeolo-gically visible Neolithic culture (e.g. Jeunesse 2003;Richard 2004). These indications should not be ig-nored and need to be integrated in the debate as aworking hypothesis. To date, however, the indicesprcoces remain extremely contentious (seeBehre

2007) and cannot yet change the traditional idea thatthe Neolithic started with the arrival of Linearband-keramik (LBK) communities.

The same is true for the Low Countries where, more-over, no initial indications have yet been claimed.The LBK arrived in this region around 5300 calBCand has predominantly been regarded as intrusiveand the result of demic migration to the region (e.g.Bogucki and Grygiel 1993; Louwe Kooijmans inpress). Their relationship with possible local hun-ter-gatherer communities remains unclear. After an

occupation of some centuries, the LBK communitiessuddenly disappeared from the stage. The reason fortheir disappearance is unknown. Possibly, the wes-ternmost territories in Hainaut and Hesbaye had be-come a marginal area for the LBK communities incrisis (Jadin 2003.71415 referring to unpublishedhypotheses of Zimmerman and Stehli;Modderman1988). In any case, in their western settlement terri-tories they are replaced by the Groupe de Blicquy/Vil-leneuve-Saint-Germain (BQY/VSG). Differences withthe LBK as a whole can be noted mainly in stylistic

issues. Archaeological remains relating to the settle-ment system, material culture and palaeo-economyare remarkably similar. Although its chronologicalposition with respect to LBK is still debated (cf. Con-stantin 2000; Jeunesse 1998b), BQY/VSG can be seenas related to LBK in many ways. Current views implyit to have developed from the recent and final LBKin the Paris basin (RRBP and RFBP), probably contem-porary with the final LBK in the Hesbaye region (Ja-din 2003.715). Like the LBK, the BQY/VSG commu-nities suddenly disappear, this time leaving the re-gion more or less empty.

Whether hunter-gatherers continued to be active inthe sandy lowlands during and after the LBK/BQY

occupation is uncertain, due to the above-mentioneddating problems. Very few Late Mesolithic sites havebeen dated beyond the 5300 calBC LBK arrival date,and the few dates that are available are often contes-

ted (see Cromb et al. 2005). Arts (1989) stressesthe absence of radiocarbon or typological evidencefor the prolongation of the Mesolithic after the LBKoccupation. He suggests that the region was virtuallyuninhabited during most of the 5th millennium cal-BC. In a recent paper, Shennan and Edinborough(2007) claim more or less the same thing for Ger-many and Poland. These authors use summed pro-bability distributions of radiocarbon dates as a proxyfor population density. Both the German and Polishdatasets are characterised by a severe drop in thenumber of radiocarbon dates after the LBK occupa-

tion and prior to the end of the 5th millennium oreven the middle of the 4th millennium calBC. Thesame exercise for the dates of the Low Countrieswould clearly result in a similar image. From theirassumption of probability distributions as a proxyfor population densities, this leads to the conclusionof a dramatic population crash after the LBK occupa-tion. The reason for this population crash is unclear;conflict and climatic changes are invoked as possibleintervening factors (ibid.).

For the southern part of the Low Countries, at least,

the lack of dates from the middle 5th millennium cal-BC does, however, not prove the absence of occupa-tion or even a much lower population density. Shen-nan and Edinborough (ibid.) rightly mention theproblem of comparability between Mesolithic andNeolithic dates. They minimise this critique by clai-ming that the differences in estimated populationdensities are too great to be explained by an under-representation of Mesolithic dates, and that Mesoli-thic sites are not smaller or more difficult to disco-ver than early Neolithic ones. The latter fact is dedu-

ced from the existence of, for instance, often largeand extremely visible Mesolithic shell middens, andthe assumption that the more mobile Mesolithic set-tlement system will have resulted in actually moreoccupation sites (ibid.). These arguments are, how-ever, not apt to lead to a safety in numbers. It is clearthat there is a fundamental problem of identifying,excavating and reliably radiocarbon dating late hun-ter-gatherer sites in general and in a coversand land-scape in particular (e.g. Cromb et al. 1999; Schild1998; Vermeersch 2006). At the same time, LBK set-tlement sites are generally scattered with features

such as pits and postholes, often containing datablematerial. They are therefore particularly suitable forobtaining large numbers of radiocarbon dates. More-


4/14

Bart Vanmontfort

108

over, in comparison to Late and Final Mesolithic sitesor even those dating from the Michelsberg/Chassenhorizon, LBK site phases can be more easily distin-guished on the basis of pottery seriations. LBK sites

are thus more liable to be the object of specific ra-diocarbon dating programs (e.g. Jadin and Cahen2003a), resulting in a clear over-representation ofthese sites. It may be doubted that taking into ac-count only a single date per site phase (Shennanand Edinborough ibid.) solves the problem.

The existence of a yet archaeologically invisible localcomponent should therefore still be considered. Theexact position of La Hoguette and Limburg Potteryin this story is not yet clear, despite the fact that inthe literature both elements are progressively regar-

ded as pottery produced by hunter-gatherer groupsthat adopted certain agro-pastoral elements in theireconomy (e.g. Gronenborn 2003; Jeunesse 2002;Zvelebil 2004).

The Neolithic seems to have taken up its thread onlyseveral centuries later, by the end of the 5th millen-nium calBC. This second Neolithic, belonging to theChassen/Michelsberg Culture phase clearly differsfrom that of the Danubian cultures. Several hypothe-ses have been raised on its origin: coming from theWest (Jeunesse 1998a; Jeunesse et al. 2002/2003;

Scollar 1959), from the East/Rhineland (Lning1967), from the North, i.e. rooted in the TRB culture(Lichardus 1976) or having a polycentric origin (Du-bouloz 1998; Schier 1993; Vanmontfort 2004).1Ideas have been raised on the possibility of hunting-gathering communities having been active in the re-gion during this phase (Verhart 2000.115, 231; Ver-meersch 1990). Nevertheless, this phase is traditio-nally assumed to represent the ultimate Neolithisa-tion of the loess belt and the adjacent coversand re-gion.

The chronological hiatus in the sequence of the Neo-lithic in the Southern Low Countries between appro-ximately 4850 and 4300 calBC, together with thefundamental difference between the late 6th and late5th millennium calBC Neolithic makes this regionparticularly interesting. The question of where thepeople wearing the Michelsberg Culture outfit camefrom is more topical than elsewhere. Was the regionindeed practically void of human occupation duringthe 1/2 millennium hiatus, or was it occupied by apopulation not visible archaeologically? If the latter

was the case, the question arises as to what the re-

lationship was between this native population andthe local variant of the Chassen and MichelsbergCultures. Two keys are needed to answer these que-stions: hunter-gatherer activity in and beyond the

loess region prior to, during and possibly after LBKarrival, and evidence for interaction between nativehunter-gatherers on the one hand and farmers of thedifferent Neolithic traditions on the other.

Contact and interaction during the Early Neo-lithic LBK/BQY phase (53003850 calBC)

It is currently assumed that the spread of the LBKfrom Central Europe was a combination of demicmovement and acculturation processes (see Gronen-born 1999; Gronenborn 2003; Price et al. 2001;

Zvelebil 2000; Zvelebil 2004). For the Low Coun-tries, however, all available evidence still suggeststhat their introduction was principally the result ofa demic movement perhaps, with a progressive inte-gration of native populations. Arguments in favourof this hypothesis focus on the large contrast be-tween LBK and the late Mesolithic as currently un-derstood (e.g. Louwe Kooijmans in press): transi-tional complexes are inexistent; material culture, sub-sistence and mobility are quite different from thoseof the native Late Mesolithic populations, and rawmaterial procurement strategies differ considerably

(seeAllard 2005; Van Assche 2006).

It can be assumed that native populations were pre-sent in the area at the time of LBK arrival. Accordingto several authors, these may even have known apre-LBK first Neolithisation stage (Gronenborn 2003;Jeunesse 2000; Zvelebil 2000) but, unfortunately,they remain largely invisible (see above). Awaitingnew sites and dates proving the presence of othergroups during the late 6th and 5th millennium cal-BC, they can best be identified indirectly. Contacts

and exchanges between LBK and native populationsshould indeed be reflected in the archaeological re-cord, both on Neolithic sites and beyond.

Patterns and contact findsIn a forthcoming paper, a new method is elaboratedto map the hunter-gatherer activity on the loess beltand beyond (Vanmontfort forthcoming). Rather thanfocusing on well dated and excavated sites, whichare absent anyhow, individual microliths were plot-ted and used as a proxy for changes in the humanpresence during the entire Mesolithic period. This

analysis confirmed that hunter-gatherers ventured

1 For a discussion on the origins of the Michelsberg Culture seeJeunesse et al. 2002/2003.


5/14


109

on the loamy soils from the Pre-boreal phase on-wards and that changes in exploitation could be iden-tified by plotting the individual microliths. Severalremarkable patterns resulted from the analysis. The

LBK apparently settled in areas only marginally ex-ploited by hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer activitywas not at all attracted to the regions where LBKcommunities had settled (Fig. 2). If anything, theyseem to have retracted their activity to areas furtheraway from the LBK settlement clusters. These pat-terns confirm the important differences between theLBK people and the local hunter-gatherers and assuch can be regarded as an extra argument for thedemic influx hypothesis of LBK dispersal.

Contact finds can bring us on the track of possible

interactions between immigrating LBK and nativepopulations. Assuming that native populations dur-ing this phase resemble their Mesolithic ancestors,this would be visible in Mesolithic type artefacts inNeolithic contexts or vice versa. Mesolithic artefactsin LBK context are, however, very scarce. Some mi-croliths have been found in LBK pits, but it is unli-

kely that they actually represent contact and ex-change. Only few of them are known and they alsoinclude Middle Mesolithic microlith types that are as-sumed to have been out of use since the middle of

the 7th

millennium calBC. They are more likely to beresidual (e.g. Allard 2005.237; Jadin and Cahen2003b; Van Assche 2005). Another element on LBKsites that relates to Mesolithic traditions is the use ofWommersom quartzite and Phtanite. Both were fa-voured raw materials during the Mesolithic (Caspar1984b). However, Wommersom has only rarely beenfound in LBK contexts, for instance close by itssource location on the LBK sites of theKleine Getecluster (Lodewijckx and Bakels 2000) and in someof the Hesbaye sites (Jadin and Cahen 2003b.237).In the latter case, the Wommersom artefacts are

either undiagnostic or typically Mesolithic. Like theMesolithic microliths, the most likely hypothesis isthat they are residual remains of previous Mesolithicoccupations (ibid.). None of the Wommersom arte-facts from theKleine Gete sites can with certaintybe attributed to the Mesolithic or LBK (Lodewijckxand Bakels 2000). It therefore remains questionable

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of microliths and LBK settlement territory. The loess belt region is shaded.Tents represent microlith find spots, circles show the number of trapezes (1/ 2/>3). Hatched regions cor-respond to LBK settlement territories (afterVanmontfort forthcoming).


6/14

Bart Vanmontfort

110

if they are actually part of the LBK stone tool pro-duction. Even if they are, however, the role of indi-genous populations in their acquisition and use re-mains purely hypothetical. Phtanite was frequently

used for the production of LBK adzes, and unfinishedfragments are known from several LBK sites in Hes-baye and the Kleine Gete region, all over 30 kmfrom its source (Caspar 1984a). No additional infor-mation is known on how the LBK people acquiredthe raw material for their adzes. The involvement ofMesolithic communities in the LBK acquisition alsoremains purely hypothetical.

Evidence for contact in a Mesolithic context is alsogenerally contentious. LBK arrowheads, pottery frag-ments and adzes are frequently found beyond LBK

settlement territory, including on Mesolithic sites.Their association with Mesolithic artefacts is, how-ever, always uncertain. Most Late Mesolithic sites areknown only by surface scatters, while none of the ex-cavated sites yielded Mesolithic features containingreliably associated Neolithic artefacts. The Neolithicartefacts found together with the Mesolithic onescan also be explained by assuming the sites to be pa-limpsests and including both a Mesolithic and Neoli-thic occupation phase. This reasoning is confirmedby the presence of LBK artefacts on Early and Mid-dle, as well as on Late Mesolithic sites (Van Assche

2006). Spatially, LBK artefacts beyond LBK settlementterritory concentrate on the loess belt and a north-ern frontier zone of approximately 30 km. These ar-tefacts may also have been remains of LBK expedi-tions in search for raw materials or pasture lands toherd their cattle (e.g. Bakels 1978; Jeunesse 2000;Verhart 2000.37). The flint procurement site at Ban-holt (Brounen and Peeters 2001) and the epheme-ral site at Echt-Annendaal (Brounen 1985) are exam-ples of such LBK excursions. On the other hand,there are at least some indications for contact and

exchange. As Verhart (2000.37; 2003) rightly stres-ses, the LBK artefacts found further from LBK settle-ment territory are unlikely to be the result of excur-sions of LBK communities. In this case, more epheme-ral LBK or Roessen sites would be expected in the in-termediate region. Rather, they would represent theftor the exchange of LBK objects by native populati-ons. A similar exchange system is in place during thesubsequent Rssen phase (ibid.). The presence of anLBK arrowhead and BQY pottery in the Swifterbantcontexts of Hardinxveld-Giessendam (Raemaekers2001; Van Gijn et al. 2001a) are other indications of

contact and the movement of objects during the late6th and early 5th millennium calBC. The precise ex-change systems, however, remain unidentified.

DiscussionSumming things up, there are at least some indica-tions for interaction and exchange between nativehunter-gatherer groups and LBK/BQY communities.

Nevertheless, the identification of particular objectsas the result of exchange remains difficult. Most Me-solithic sites are simply not suitable for identifyingsuch contacts. The absence of evidence thereforeshould not surprise us and certainly does not equalthe evidence of absence. This leaves two explana-tions for the nature of the data: either the archaeo-logical hiatus actually corresponds to an absence ofnative populations from 5500 calBC onwards be-yond the wetland Swifterbant territory, or those po-pulations were present, but are not archaeological-ly visible. The first hypothesis implies a subsistence

change that triggered the retraction of hunter-gathe-rer occupation into the wetland regions during theearly 6th millennium calBC. From that moment on-wards, the sandy and loamy uplands are at mostmarginally exploited in a wider exploitation systemfrom the wetlands. This hypothesis seems hard tomatch with the numerous LBK adzes and RoessenerBreitkeile scattered over the coversand region tomore than 200 km from the nearest known LBK orRoessen settlement. Moreover, it does not fit withthe mutual exclusion of LBK settlement territory andnative exploitation of the loess belt as shown on the

basis of microlith distribution. This exclusion actu-ally implies the active presence of native groups atthe time of LBK arrival. The second hypothesis ismore likely. It assumes that native populations arenearly invisible archaeologically due to their undia-gnostic toolkit or taphonomical reasons. They are vi-sible indirectly, through the LBK adzes and Roesse-ner Breitkeile in the western part of the North Euro-pean Plain, acquired by these populations and per-haps exchanged among them. The invisibility oftheir proper sites is related to dating problems (see

above). Some of the already identified and/or ex-cavated sites could have been contemporaneouswith or even posterior to the LBK/BQY occupation,but they can hardly be, or not be separated at allfrom older Late Mesolithic sites. The only possiblediagnostic element is the evolved arrowhead withflat inverse basal retouch (RIP). Unfortunately, itsappearance is not exactly dated and could also pre-date the LBK arrival. Alternatively, the invisibilitycould be the result of a shift in material culture andsite location choice, hampering the identification ofthe local Mesolithics successors. The contemporane-

ous Swifterbant culture toolkit (e.g. Peeters et al.2001; Raemaekers 1999; Van Gijn et al. 2001a;Van Gijn et al. 2001b), for example, is also hardly


7/14


8/14

Bart Vanmontfort

112

part of a different settlement system(Vanmontfort 2004.329332). Thehierarchised settlement pattern, withenclosure sites, flint extraction and

exploitation sites, as well as the scar-city or even absence of dwelling stru-ctures and other constructions, fitswell with the wider Northwest Euro-pean Neolithic of the late 5th andearly 4th millennium calBC.

Fundamental differences from thepreceding Neolithic phase can alsobe noted in the material culture, i.e.the lithic and pottery industry. Theflint industry is no longer dominated

by blade production. Instead, a gene-rally dominant, expedient, flake-ba-sed common tool production can bedistinguished from the specialisedproduction of standardised tools. Thelatter tools include the flint axes andlarge blades, produced in and impor-ted from the flint exploitation sites.This fits with the contemporaneousNeolithic lithic tool production tradi-tions in the rest of Northwest Europe.The toolkit in the Scheldt basin oc-

cupies an intermediate position be-tween the Chassen and MichelsbergCulture traditions. Arrowheads aredominated by leaf-shaped examples as in the Rhine-landMichelsberger Kultur. Flake axes, on the otherhand, are a typical element and rather link it withthe Northern French traditions of Cerny and Chas-sen septentrional.

The pottery is basically undecorated and characteri-sed by a more varied range of shapes than the LBK/

BQY pottery traditions. Instead of bone and grog, gritbecomes the most frequently used tempering mate-rial. On a more detailed level, the lack of correspon-dence with Rhineland Michelsberg Culture pottery isapparent. Technical characteristics as well as mor-phology and the rare decoration (Fig. 4) fit much bet-ter with the Northern French Bischheim (Epi-Roes-sen) and Chassen traditions (Vanmontfort 2004;Vanmontfort et al. 2001/2002). It may even be que-stioned to what extent the label Michelsberg Cul-ture is appropriate for the Scheldt basin sites. Rather,these different pottery traditions probably even in-

cluding the Rhineland Michelsberg Culture seemrooted in the Northern French post-Roessen (Van-montfort 2001; 2006).

As for absolute dating, the origin of Chassen septen-trional, Bischheim occidental, Michelsberger Kultur,as well as the Scheldt basin sites can be placed afteraround 4300 calBC (Vanmontfort 2004). Unfortu-nately, due to a plateau in the calibration curve, be-tween approximately 4300 and 4050 calBC, it cannot be specified.

The Northwest European archaeological cultures ofthe late 5th and early 4th millennium in their poly-thetic meaning (cf. Clarke 1968) thus seem polycen-trically formed and developed. The Belgian Michels-berg Culture, as it is still frequently labelled, is inthis view a local version of similar developments inneighbouring regions.

Evidence for forager-farmer contactIdeas have been raised about the existence of pure,Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers during this Neolithicphase (Verhart 2000.115 & 231; Vermeersch 1990).

No uncontested radiocarbon dates confirm this (seeabove), however, and examples for exchange are ex-tremely scarce and contentious. The few Mesolithic

Fig. 4. Selection of pottery from SpiereDe Hel (afterVanmontfortet al. 2001/2002).


9/14


113

artefacts in late 5th or early 4th millennium featurescould also be residual of an earlier occupation. ForMiddle Neolithic artefacts in Mesolithic context, simi-lar reasoning can be followed, quite like most Danu-

bian artefacts in such contexts (see above). A fre-quently cited association is that of the Late Mesolithicsite at Dilsen-Dilserheide III (Luypaert et al. 1993),where sherds of a Neolithic vessel were found bothvertically and horizontally interstratified within theLate Mesolithic artefact scatter. No other diagnosticNeolithic artefacts were found in the same context.The two arrowheads and three flakes of polishedflint axes that were found within the plough layercannot be dated securely enough. Still, this site is theonly such example. Until more finds confirm the pos-sibility of such associations, this situation should be

regarded as a palimpsest of a Late Mesolithic site anda still unspecified Neolithic passage.

DiscussionA local development or transcription implies the in-put of a local component. Such a local component is,unfortunately, invisible archaeologically. The onlycandidates are successors of the local Mesolithic.Their archaeological invisibility should not surpriseus. The number of excavated and dated contexts is,anyhow, small, and if we accept the presence of a lo-cal component to have been nearly invisible during

LBK/BQY occupation (see above), then their conti-nuation into the 48504300 phase can also be expec-ted. Moreover, there are other arguments in favourof a Mesolithic-Middle Neolithic connection. In itscontrast with the Danubian culture traditions, thesettlement pattern and certain aspects of materialculture during this phase in the Scheldt basin indeedlink up with the Late and Final Mesolithic traditions.

The more mobile settlement pattern and the distribu-tion of settlement sites all over the loamy but also

sandy uplands are examples of such connection. Theuse of the same site locations is another. The combi-ned presence on sites of Mesolithic and Middle Neo-lithic artefacts have in the past led to hypotheses ofsecondary Neolithic cultures (De Laet 1958.89 ff)and Neolithising Mesolithic (Vermeersch 1976.237ff). These interpretations fully or partially ignoredthe possibility of palimpsests, but they are sympto-matic of the continued use of locations.

Continuity has also been claimed for the Mesolithicand Middle Neolithic burial practices in Southern

Belgium (Cauwe 1998). A recent radiocarbon datingprogram confirmed the existence of both Mesolithicand Neolithic burials (Cauwe et al. 2000; Toussaint

2002). A major counter argument against continuityis the existence of a chronological hiatus in the radio-carbon date sequence between the Early Mesolithicand Middle Neolithic period. Despite the presence of

Mesolithic camps in the region between 8000/7600and 6000/5700 calBC, there is only a single burialcontext known for the period between the early 8thmillennium calBC and approximately 4300/4050 cal-BC (see Toussaint 2002). On the other hand, thedisappearing of dated burial contexts nicely corre-sponds to a change in the exploitation of the region.From 8000/7800 calBC onwards, at least the OurtheBasin no longer functioned as a residential centre,but only as a logistically exploited region (seeHen-rard 2003; Vanmontfort forthcoming). In this sense,the disappearance of burial contexts is a result of a

change in the exploitation rather than a change inburial practices, as has been claimed by Toussaint(2002).

Lastly, Verhart (2000.231) identified a number ofMesolithic traits in the Chassen/Michelsberg flintindustry. Besides the similar use and processing tech-niques of the flint tools and similarities in certaintool types, both industries are characterised by a dis-tinction between good quality imports and an expe-dient production on locally available flint of ofteninferior quality (ibid.).

Modelling the transition

The data presented in this paper show that the Me-solithic-Neolithic transition in the southern part ofthe Low Countries took a long time to complete andthere appears to have been a mosaic of processes in-volved. Making abstraction of the contentious initialindications for a pre-LBK introduction of Neolithicelements, it all seems to have started around 5300calBC when the first LBK communities came leap-

frogging into the area. Possibly these colonists inte-grated native people in their settlements, but in ge-neral the data suggest the at least short-term survi-val of native hunter-gatherer populations in a mu-tual conflict-avoiding atmosphere. At least for thisregion, this challenges the interaction models basedon mutual benefit (Bogucki 1988; Gregg 1988).These models assume the attraction of hunter-gathe-rer activity to the farmer settlements. It also challen-ges the idea of a complete assimilation or expulsionof native populations and the actively hostile con-flict model as proposed by Keeley (1992) for this re-

gion. In the latter model, more direct indications forconflict would be expected, for instance by a concen-tration of Mesolithic arrowheads near LBK settle-


10/14

Bart Vanmontfort

114

ment clusters. Nevertheless, there are some indica-tions for exchange of at least prestigious items, andit is possible that these interactions also resulted inthe movement of people across the frontier. All this

fits best with the open stationary frontier zone asdefined by Dennell (1985) and Zvelebil (1998). Theentire period corresponds to the availability phase(sensu Zvelebil 1986; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy1984).

The sudden disappearance of LBK and BQY cannotbe explained, but it is clear that their relatively shortstay in the area will have left its mark. What happe-ned next is, unfortunately, still invisible archaeologi-cally, and can only be deduced from the image atthe end of the 5th millennium calBC. The region is

likely to have been the scene for, possibly severaland interacting, still unidentified populations thattake up different positions on the continuum be-tween the Mesolithic and Neolithic. In any case, theseseem to have played an important role in the forma-tion of the local Chassen/Michelsberg Culture thatis confirmed to be at least as much rooted in the Me-solithic than in the Danubian Neolithic. The proces-ses responsible for the formation of this secondNeolithic and its precise timing remain unidentified.The result of these processes only becomes archaeo-logically visible once pits and enclosures are con-

structed and operate as traps for archaeological anddatable remains. It remains impossible to determinewhat proportion of this period corresponds to thesubstitution phase and whether the consolidationphase only began around 4300 calBC.

Conclusion

A chronological gap between the early and late 5thmillennium calBC is present in the Neolithic se-

quence in the southern part of the Low Countries.This gap can at present only be bridged indirectly,by a detailed analysis of the situation prior to andafter the gap. A start to such analysis has been madein this paper. The first results show the transitionprocess in this region to be more than a simple andunidirectional Neolithisation. Several of the manyMesolithic-Neolithic transition models that have beenput forward in the past can explain parts of the en-tire process. The working hypothesis proposed hereencompasses the leapfrogging arrival of LBK, con-tacts and exchanges with native populations and

their gradual transition to a Neolithic way of lifequite different from that of the Danubian settlers.Future discoveries should be able to show the exis-tence of transitional phases but, unfortunately, thetaphonomy of both loamy and sandy uplands willalways make it hard to obtain good quality data. Themost informative data can be expected from thewetlands in the region.

The research for this paper is funded by NWO (Ne-therlands Organisation for Scientific Research) with-in the framework of the Leiden University FromHardinxveld to Noordhoorn: From Forager to Far-mer project.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ALLARD P. 2005.Lindustrie lithique des populations ru-banes du Nord-Est de la France et de la Belgique. Inter-nationale Archologie 86. Marie Leidorf GmbH. Rahden.

ARTS N. 1989. Archaeology, environment and the socialevolution of later band societies in a lowland area. In C.Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presentedat the third international symposium edinburgh 1985.John Donald. Edinburgh: 291312.

BAKELS C. C. 1978.Four Linearbandkeramik settlementsand their environment: A paleoecological study of Sit-

tard, Stein, Elsloo and Hienheim.Analecta PraehistoricaLeidensia 11. Leiden.

BEHRE K.-E. 2007. Evidence for Mesolithic agriculture inand around Central Europe? Vegetation History and Ar-chaeobotany 16: 203219.

BOGUCKI P. I. 1988.Forest farmers and stockherders.Early agriculture and its consequences in NorthcentralEurope. Cambridge.

BOGUCKI P. I., GRYGIEL R. 1993. The First Farmers ofCentral Europe: a Survey Article.Journal of Field Archa-eology 20: 399426.

BROUNEN F. T. S. 1985. HVR 183, vroeg-, midden- en laat-neolithische vondsten te Echt-Annendaal.Archeologie inLimburg 24: 6671.

REFERENCES


11/14


115

BROUNEN F. T. S., PEETERS H. 2001. Vroeg-neolithischevuursteenwinning en -bewerking in de Banholtergrubbe(Banholt, gem. Margraten).Archeologie 10: 133149.

CASPAR J.-P. 1984a. Fabrication et ramnagement dher-minettes rubanes en phtanite.Bulletin de la Socit ro-yale belge d'Anthropologie et de Prhistoire 95: 4758.

1984b. Matriaux lithiques de la prhistoire. In D. Ca-hen, P. Haesaerts (eds.),Peuples chasseurs de la Bel-gique prhistorique dans leur cadre naturel. Bruxel-les: 107114.

CAUWE N. 1998. Confrontation des espaces funrairesmsolithiques et nolithiques.Anthropologie et Prhisto-ire 109: 141153.

CAUWE N., POLET C., ORBAN R. 2000. Nouvelles datati-ons densembles funraires du Nolithique moyen du sudde la Belgique.Interno 3: 2935.

CLARKE D. L. 1968.Analytical Archaeology. Methuen &Co. London.

CONSTANTIN C. 2000. propos dun article de ChristianJeunesse paru dans le Bulletin de la Socit PrhistoriqueLuxembourgeoise (Jeunesse, 2001).Bulletin de la SocitPrhistorique Luxembourgeoise 22 (2002): 117126.

CROMB P. 1999. Vers une nouvelle chronologie absolue

pour le Msolithique en Belgique. In A. Thvenin (ed.),LEurope des derniers chasseurs pipalolithique et M-solithique. Peuplement et paloenvironnement de Ipi-palolithique et du Msolithique. Paris: 189199.

CROMB P., GROENENDIJK H., VAN STRYDONCK M. 1999.Dating the Mesolithic of the Low Countries: some practi-cal considerations. In J. Evin, C. Oberlin, J. P. Daugas, J. F.Salles (eds.), 14C et Archologie. Actes du 3me congresinternational (Lyon, 610/04/1998). Mmoires de la So-cit Prhistorique Franaise, Tome XXVI (Supplment dela Revue dArchomtrie): 5763.

CROMB P., PERDAEN Y., SERGANT J. 2005. La nolithisa-tion de la Belgique : quelques rflexions. In G. Marchand,A. Tresset (eds.), Unit et diversit des processus de no-lithisation sur la faade atlantique de lEurope (6e 4emillnaires avant J.-C.), Table ronde de Nantes, 2627Avril 2002. Mmoire de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise36. Paris: 4766.

DE LAET S. J. 1958. The Low Countries. Ancient Peoplesand Places 5. Thames and Hudson. London.

DENNELL R. W. 1985. The Hunter-Gatherer/Agricultural

Frontier in Prehistoric Temperate Europe. In S. W. Green,S. M. Perlman (eds.), The Archaeology of Frontiers andBoundaries. Academic Press. Orlando: 113136.

DUBOULOZ J. 1998. Rflections sur le Michelsberg ancienen Bassin parisien. In J. Biel, H. Schlichtherle, M. Strobel,A. Zeeb (eds.),Die Michelsberger Kultur und ihre Rand-gebiete. Probleme der Entstehung, Chronologie und desSiedlungswesens (Kolloquium Hemmenhofen, 2123Feb 1997). Materialhefte zur Archologie in Baden-Wrt-temberg 43. Konrad Theiss Verlag. Stuttgart: 920.

GREGG S. A. 1988.Forager and Farmers: Population In-teraction and Agricultural Expansion in PrehistoricEurope. Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology Series. TheUniversity of Chicago Press. Chicago.

GRONENBORN D. 1999. A Variation on a Basic Theme:The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe.Journal of World Prehistory 13: 123210.

2003. Migration, acculturation and culture change inwestern temperate Eurasia, 65005000 cal BC. In M.Budja (ed.), 10thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Prae-historica XXX: 7991.

HENRARD D. 2003. Le Msolithique du bassin de lOurthe(Belgique): implantation dans le paysage et nolithisation.LAnthropologie 107: 615644.

JADIN I. 2003. Trois petits tours et puis sen vont... La finde la prsence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique (avecla participation de D. Cahen, I. Deramaix, A. Hauzeur,J. Heim, A. Livingstone Smith & J. Verniers). ERAUL 109.

Universit de Lige. Lige.

JADIN I., CAHEN D. 2003a. Datations radiocarbones et Ru-ban: Pour un mariage de raison. InI. Jadin 2003: 523581.

2003b. Sites en pagaille sur le haut Geer: Darion, Oleye,Waremme-Longchamp, Hollogne-Douze Bonnier. InI.Jadin 2003: 191315.

JEUNESSE C. 1998a. Pour une origine occidentale de laculture de Michelsberg? In J. Biel, H. Schlichtherle, M. Stro-

bel, A. Zeeb (eds.),Die Michelsberger Kultur und ihreRandgebiete. Probleme der Entstehung, Chronologieund des Siedlungswesens (Kolloquium Hemmenhofen,2123 Feb 1997). Materialhefte zur Archologie in Baden-Wrttemberg 43. Konrad Theiss Verlag. Stuttgart: 2945.

1998b. Villeneuve-Saint-Germain, Cerny, Grossgartach,Roessen et la synchronisation entre les squences No-lithique moyen du Rhin et du Bassin parisien.Bulletinde la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 95: 277285.

2000. Les composantes autochtone et danubienne enEurope centrale et occidentale entre 5500 et 4000 av.

J.-C.: contacts, transferts, acculturations. In A. Richard,C. Cupillard, H. Richard, A. Thvenin (eds.), Les der-niers chasseurs-ceuilleurs dEurope occidentale. Actes


12/14

Bart Vanmontfort

116

du colloque international de Besanon, octobre 1998.Annales Littraires 699, Srie Environnement, socitset archologie 1. Besanon: 361378.

2002. Armatures asymtriques, rgionalisation, accul-turation. Contribution ltude des relations entre laRuban et la composante autochtone dans louest de lasphre danubienne. In M. Otte, J. K. Kozowski (eds.),Prhistoire de la Grande Plaine du Nord de lEurope.Actes du Colloque Chaire Francqui interuniversitaireau titre tranger. ERAUL 99. Universit de Lige. Lige:147165.

JEUNESSE C. 2003. Nolithique initial, nolithique an-cien et nolithisation dans lespace centre-europen: unevision rnove.Revue dAlsace 129: 97112.

JEUNESSE C., LEFRANC P., DENAIRE A., NAZE A. C. D. R.-M. A. E. G. 2002/2003. Groupe de Bischheim, origine duMichelsberg, gense du groupe dEntzheim. La transi-tion entre le Nolithique moyen et le Nolithique r-cent dans les rgions rhnanes. Cahiers de lAssociationpour la Promotion de la Recherche Archologique en Al-sace 18/19 (2004). Zimmersheim.

KEELEY L. H. 1992. The Introduction of Agriculture to theWestern North European Plain. In A. B. Gebauer, T. D.Price (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Mo-nographs in World Archaeology 4. Prehistory Press. Ma-dison (Wisconsin): 8195.

LICHARDUS J. 1976.Rssen Gatersleben Baalberge.Ein Beitrag zur Chronologie des mitteldeutschen Neoli-thikums und zur Entstehung der Trichterbecherkultu-ren. Saarbrcker Beitrge zur Altertumskunde 17. Bonn.

LODEWIJCKX M., BAKELS C. C. 2000. The Interaction Be-tween Early Farmers (Linearbandkeramik) and Indige-nous People in Central Belgium. BAR International Se-ries 861.

LOUWE KOOIJMANS L. P. 2003. The Hardinxveld sites in

the Rhine/Meuse Delta, the Netherlands, 55004500 calBC. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler, A.Akerlund (eds.),Mesolithic on the Move. Oxbow Books.Oxford: 608624.

2006. Schipluiden: a synthetic view. In L. P. Louwe Ko-oijmans, P. F. B. Jongste (eds.),Schipluiden, A Neoli-thic settlement on the Dutch North Sea coast c. 3500cal BC.Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 37/38. Lei-den: 485516.

in press. The gradual transition to farming in the Lo-wer Rhine Basin. In A. Whittle, V. Cummings (eds.),

Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition innorth-west Europe. Cardiff.

LNING J. 1967. Die Michelsberger Kultur. Ihre Funde inzeitlicher und rumlicher Gliederung.Berichte der R-misch-Germanischen Kommission 48 (1968): 1350.

LUYPAERT I., DE BIE M., VERMEERSCH P. M. 1993. Dil-sen-Dilserheide III (prov. Limburg), Midden-Neolithischaardewerk op een Laat-Mesolithisch site.Archeologie inVlaanderen III: 735.

MODDERMAN P. J. R. 1988. The Linear Pottery Culture:diversity in uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienstvoor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63140.

PEETERS J. H. M., SCHREURS J., VERNEAU S. M. J. P. 2001.Deel 18. Vuursteen: typologie, technologische organisatieen gebruik. In J. W. H. Hogestijn, J. H. M. Peeters (eds.),De Mesolithische en Vroeg-Neolithische vindplaats Hoge

Vaart-A27 (Flevoland). Rapportage Archeologische Mo-numentenzorg 79. Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bode-monderzoek. Amersfoort.

PRICE T. D., BENTLEY R. A., LNING J., GRONENBORN D.,WAHL J. 2001. Prehistoric human migration in the Linear-bandkeramic of Central Europe.Antiquity 75: 593603.

RAEMAEKERS D. C. M. 1999. The Articulation of a newNeolithic, The meaning of the Swifterbant culture forthe process of neolithization in the Dutch-North Ger-man Plain; an anthropological perspective. Archaeologi-cal Studies Leiden University 3. Faculty of Archaeology.

Leiden.

2001. Aardewerk en verbrande klei. In L. P. LouweKooijmans (ed.),Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin.Een kampplaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het be-gin van de Swifterbant-cultuur (55004450 v.Chr.).Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88. Rijks-dienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.Amersfoort: 117152.

RICHARD H. (ed.) 2004.Nolithisation prcoce. Premi-res traces danthropisation du couvert vgtal partir

des donnes polliniques. Annales Littraires de lUniver-sit de Franche-Comt 777. Presses Universitaires deFranche-Comt. Besanon.

SCHIER W. 1993. Das westliche Mitteleuropa an der Wen-de vom 5. zum 4. Jahrtausend: Kulturwandel durch Kul-turkontakt? In A. Lang, H. Parzinger, H. Kster (eds.),Kul-turen zwischen Ost und West. Das Ost-West-Verhltnisin vor- und frhgeschichtlichter Zeit und sein Einflussauf Werden un Wandel des Kulturraums Mitteleuropa.Festschrift G. Kossack. Akademie Verlag. Berlin: 1959.

SCHILD R. 1998. The Perils of Dating Open-air Sandy Sites

of the North European Plain. In M. Zvelebil, L. Doman-ska, R. Dennell (eds.),Harvesting the Sea, Farming the


13/14


117

Forest. The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Bal-tic Region. Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield: 7176.

SCOLLAR I. 1959. Regional Groups in the Michelsberg Cul-ture. A Study in the Middle Neolithic of West Central Eu-rope. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 25: 52134.

SHENNAN S., EDINBOROUGH K. 2007. Prehistoric popula-tion history: from the Late Glacial to the Late Neolithic inCentral and Northern Europe.Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 34: 13391345.

TOUSSAINT M. 2002. Problmatique chronologique desspultures du Msolithique mosan en milieu karstique.Notae Praehistoricae 22: 141166.

TRINGHAM R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transi-tion to agriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer or mosaic. InT. D. Price (ed.),Europes First Farmers. Cambridge Uni-versity Press. Cambridge: 1956.

VAN ASSCHE M. 2005. Aperu sur le msolithique des r-gions dAth et de Mons (Hainaut).Amphora 83: 4282.

2006. Substrat Msolithique et Nolithisation des r-gions dAth et de Mons (Hainaut-Belgique). Paper pre-sented at Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le No-lithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique (51004700 BC). Autour des recherches de Claude Constan-

tin. Rsums des communications, Namur.

VAN GIJN A. L., BEUGNIER V., LAMMERS-KEIJSERS Y.2001a. Vuursteen. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.), Har-dinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jacht-kamp in het rivierengebied (55005000 v. Chr.). Rap-portage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 83. Rijksdienstvoor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek. Amersfoort:119161.

VAN GIJN A. L., LAMMERS-KEIJSERS Y., HOUKES R. 2001b.Vuursteen. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.),Hardinxveld-

Giessendam De Bruin. Een kampplaats uit het Laat-Me-solithicum en het begin van de Swifterbant-cultuur(55004450 v. Chr.). Rapportage Archeologische Monu-mentenzorg 88. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bo-demonderzoek. Amersfoort: 153191.

VANMONTFORT B. 2001. The Group of Spiere as a NewStylistic Entity in the Middle Neolithic Scheldt Basin.NotaePraehistoricae 21: 139143.

2004. Converging Worlds, The Neolithisation of theScheldt basin during the late fifth and early fourthmillenium cal BC. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit

Leuven, Leuven.

2006. Can we attribute the Middle Neolithic in theScheldt and Middle Meuse basins to the MichelsbergCulture? In P. Duhamel (ed.),Impacts interculturelsau Nolithique moyen. Du terroir au territoire: so-cits et espaces. Revue Archologique de lEst. Sup-plments 25. Socit Archologique de lEst. Dijon:109116.

forthcoming. Forager-farmer connections in an unoc-cupied land: First contact on the western edge of LBKterritory.Journal of Anthroplogical Archaeology.

VANMONTFORT B., GEERTS A.-I., CASSEYAS C., BAKELS C.C., BUYDENS C., DAMBLON F., LANGOHR R., VAN NEERW., VERMEERSCH P. M. 2001/2002. De Hel in de tweedehelft van het 5de milleniumv.Chr. Een midden-Neolithi-sche enclosure te Spiere (prov. West-Vlaanderen).Arche-

ologie in Vlaanderen VIII (2004): 977.

VERHART L. B. M. 2000. Times fade away: The neolithi-zation of the southern Netherlands in an anthropologi-cal and geographical perspective. Archaeological StudiesLeiden University 66. Leiden.

2003. Mesolithic Economic and Social Changes in theSouthern Netherlands. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K.Knutsson, D. Loeffler, A. Akerlund (eds.),Mesolithic onthe Move, Papers presented at the Sixth Internatio-nal Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stock-holm 2000. Oxford: 442450.

VERMEERSCH P. M. 1976.Steentijdmateriaal uit het No-ordelijk Hageland. Oudheidkundige Repertoria. Reeks B11. Nationaal Centrum voor Oudheidkundige Navorsin-gen in Belgi. Brussel.

1990. La transition du Msolithique au Nolithique enBasse et Moyenne Belgique. In D. Cahen, M. Otte (eds.),Ruban et Cardial. Actes du Colloque de Lige. ERAUL39. Universit de Lige. Lige: 96103.

2006. Reliability of the Stratigraphy and Spatial Struc-

tures of Late Pleistocene and Holocene Sites in SandyAreas Mesolithic-Neolithic Contacts in Central Bene-lux? In C.-J. Kind (ed.),After the Ice Age: Settlements,subsistence and social development in the Mesolithicof Central Europe. Materialhefte zur Archologie inBaden-Wrttemberg 78. Konrad Theiss Verlag. Stut-tgart: 297303.

VERMEERSCH P. M., LAUWERS R., GENDEL P. 1992. TheLate Mesolithic Sites of Brecht-Moordenaarsven (Belgium).Helinium 32: 377.

ZVELEBIL M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revo-

lution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.),Hunters in transition: meso-lithic societies of temperate Europe and their transitionto farming. Cambridge: 515.


14/14

Bart Vanmontfort

118

1998. Agricultural Frontiers, Neolithic Origins, and theTransition to Farming in the Baltic Basin. In M. Zvele-bil, R. Dennell, L. Domanska (eds.), Harvesting thesea, Farmiong the Forest. Sheffiels Archaeological Mo-nographs. Sheffield: 927.

2000. Les derniers chasseurs-collecteurs dEurope tem-pre. In A. Richard, C. Cupillard, H. Richard, A. Th-venin (eds.),Les derniers chasseurs-ceuilleurs d'Eu-rope occidentale. Actes du colloque international deBesanon, octobre 1998. Annales Littraires 699, S-

rie Environnement, socits et archologie 1. Besan-on: 379406.

2004. The Many Origins of the LBK. In A. Lukes, M.Zvelebil (eds.),LBK Dialogues, Studies in the forma-tion of the Linear Pottery Culture. BAR InternationalSeries. Archaeopress. Oxford: 183205.

ZVELEBIL M., ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1984. Transition to Far-ming in Northern Europe: A Hunter-Gatherer Perspective.Norwegian Archaeology Review 17: 104127.

dp van montfort

Documents