Forager-farmer connections in an ‘unoccupied’ land: First contact on the western edge of LBK territory

12 Pages·1.308 MB·English

by  Vanmontfort B.

JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa
Forager–farmer connections in an ‘unoccupied’ land: First contact
on the western edge of LBK territory
Bart Vanmontfort*
FacultyofArchaeology(LeidenUniversity),c/oPrehistoricArchaeologyUnit(K.U.Leuven),Geo-Institute,Celestijnenlaan200E–pb2409,B-3001Leuven(Heverlee),Belgium
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: TheinteractionbetweenlocalforagersandincomingfarmersisoneofthehottopicsinthestudyofEur-
Received12September2006 ope’srecentprehistory.InCentralandWesternEurope’sloamregion,occupiedbythefirstfarmersofthe
Revisionreceived 18March2008 Linearbandkeramik(LBK),hunter–gathererremainsarescarceandconsistmostlyofsurfacefinds.Hence,
thehunter–gathereroccupationandactivityontheloesshasneverbeenstudiedindetail.Thispaper
tacklestheproblemofthevisibilityofhunter–gathereractivityontheloessbelt.Aninterregionalcom-
Keywords: parison of microlith datasets allows identifying behavioural changes and differences in exploitation
Neolithisationprocess
intensity.Withregardtoforager–farmerinteraction,amutualinfluenceinthespatialpatterningofactiv-
Mesolithic
ityorsettlementisdemonstrated.
Hunter–gatherer
(cid:2)2008ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
Neolithic
Linearbandkeramik
Sitelocationchoice
TheloessbeltduringtheEarlyHolocene:unoccupiedland? problemsassociatedwiththedatingofthosesites.Thefewavail-
abledatesforLateMesolithicsitesbeyondthe5300calBCLBKar-
Theinteractionbetweenlocalforagersandincomingfarmersis rival date havebeen contested(see Crombéet al.,2005). Despite
oneofthehottopicsinthestudyofEurope’srecentprehistory.Itis some indications of contact and exchange (Amkreutz et al., in
closelyrelatedtothedebateontheNeolithicspreadoverthecon- press;Verhart,2000, 2003; Zvelebil,2000), itremains difficultto
tinent.Traditionalmodelsofdemicdiffusion,inwhichagriculture identify the nature of the forager–farmer relationship and even
was introduced in large parts of Europe by rapid movement of moredifficulttoassociatechangesinthebehaviourofthelasthun-
farmercommunities,havebeenputinperspectivebytheacknowl- ter–gatherersonthePleistocenecoversandswiththearrivalofthe
edgementofthecomplexityoftheMesolithic–Neolithictransition. Neolithic.
Ratherthanasingleprocess,thistransitioncanbeviewedasamo- In order to understand the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition a
saicofregionallyvaryingandcomplexinteractionsbetweenhun- better knowledge of forager–farmer contacts is necessary. These
ter–gatherers and immigrant farmers (e.g. Dennell, 1985; Price, contactsarelikelytohaveaffectedthenatureandrateofthetran-
2000;Tringham,2000;Zvelebil,2004;ZvelebilandLillie,2000). sition(e.g.ZvelebilandLillie,2000).Theloessbelt,asthefirstre-
In the mid 6th Millennium cal BC, the loess region of Central gion in Central and Western Europe to be occupied by Neolithic
andWesternEuropewascolonisedbythefirstfarmersoftheLin- settlers,couldhavebeenthesceneofsuchcontacts.Evidencefor
earbandkeramik(LBK).ThelimitsofLBKdistributioncorrespondto hunter–gatherer activity on the loess is, however, scarce. A few
one of the majoragricultural frontierzones indicatedby Zvelebil sites are known in the floodplains of the rivers cutting through
and Lillie (2000). The strict synchronism and contact between the loess belt (Kind, 2003; Mees et al., 1994; Parent et al., 1987;
the last hunter–gatherers and first farmers within this frontier vanderSlootetal.,2003),butmostremainsconsistonlyofMeso-
zone and thus the existence of a long availability phase (sensu lithicpointsthatwerefoundisolatedorwithinNeolithicflintscat-
Zvelebil, 1996; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy, 1986) is often as- ters.ThiscaseholdstrueformostoftheNorthwestEuropeanloess
sumed (Kind, 1997, pp. 129–133; Louwe Kooijmans, 2007; Van region(e.g.Koch,1998;Streetetal.,2001,p.428).NoAtlantichun-
GijnandLouweKooijmans,2005;Verhart,2000).Itremains,how- ter–gatherercampsiteshavebeenexcavatedontheloessplateaus
ever,difficulttodemonstrateinthearchaeologicalrecord.Thisis andthequestionarisesastowhatextenttheseplateauswereactu-
duetothescarcityofknownsitesfromtheLateorFinalMesolithic allyoccupied.
(Gronenborn, 1999; Jochim, 1990; Kind, 1997, pp. 19–20) and to The scarcity of data from the loess region has often been re-
gardedasaconfirmationoftheloessplateaus’unappealingnature
forlatehunter–gatherersduetoitsdenseAtlanticforestcoverand
* Fax:[phone].
E-mailaddress:[email protected] presumed low general biodiversity (e.g. Garnett, 1945; Gronen-
0278-4165/$-seefrontmatter(cid:2)2008ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2008.03.002
150 B.Vanmontfort/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160
born, 1999, p. 137; Modderman, 1988; Verhart, 2003; see also dependsonthecorrectidentificationofparticularmicroliths.Prob-
Gregg,1988). Thegeneraldecreasein numberofsitesduringthe lems can be encountered, for instance, with the distinction be-
later Mesolithic phase would thus represent a shift in the settle- tween late Mesolithic trapezes and Neolithic transverse
ment pattern (Gronenborn, 1999). Other scholars are convinced arrowheads or between LBK arrowheads and ‘developed’ late
that hunter–gatherers did frequent the loess plateaus, but that Mesolithicpointswithinverse,flatbasalretouch.Anongoingscru-
their remains were destroyed or obscured by post-depositional tinyoffinalMesolithicandLBKpoints(Robinson,inpreparation)
processes: soil erosion affects plateau slopes and their edges, shouldshedalightonthelatteraspect.Awaitingtheresultsofthis
whereas the eroded sediment is deposited at the footslopes and study,theavailablemicrolithdeterminationsareregardedassuffi-
infloodplains(e.g.BoguckiandGrygiel,1993;CrombéandCauwe, cientfortheelaborationofthemethodology.Anotherfactorbias-
2001; Gob, 1990; Kind, 2003; Modderman, 1988; Vermeersch, ingthedatasetisthepossibilitythatmicrolithsfoundincontexts
1990; Zvelebil, 2000). Mesolithic camp remains can therefore be otherthansurveysfocusingontheprehistoricorMesolithicoccu-
washed away or covered by sediment. Sites as Rebecq-Le Spinoi pationoftheareaswerenotidentifiedorreportedassuchandare
(Bosquet and Jadin, 1996) and Bedburg-Köningshoven (Street, thusnotincludedintheexistingdatasets.Differencesinresearch
1995)aretwoclear,EarlyMesolithicexamplesofsuchsituations. or surveyactivitiesare another,evident,biasing factor.However,
The hunter–gatherer camp of Rebecq was covered by colluvium rather than an obstacle to the correct interpretation of results,
and did not leave a single trace at the present-day surface. The these factors are only complicating elements to be kept in mind.
mainsettlementareaofBedburgwasdestroyedbylignitequarry- Very much like the aforementioned trapeze problem, they play
ing,whichatthesametimecausedthediscoveryofitsdisplaced the same role for all periods or phases in a given region. Ratios
remains in the calcareous gyttja top fill of a silted-up meander and differences in spatial distribution of the various microlith
(Street,1995).Anabsenceofhunter–gathereractivityintheloess typesshouldstillyieldsignificantresultswithregardtotheiden-
regioncanthusnotbeclaimedapriori,buttracesaremoredifficult tification of behavioural changes, either within the region under
toidentifythenelsewhere. studyorbetweendifferentstudyareas.
In this paper, a method is developed to map hunter–gatherer Thedistributionofaparticularartefacttypeoffersdifferentand
activityinregionsliketheloessregion,wheredataontheMeso- complementaryinformationascomparedtodataobtainedbythe
lithicoccupationismeagre.Availabledataare,onamicroregional excavation of sites (e.g. Ebert, 1992; Leopold and Vita-Finzi,
scale, translated into chronological sequences. The interregional 2005).Asecondassumptionthereforepertainstowhatmicroliths
comparison of these sequences allows identifying changes in represent.Generallythereisnoinformationavailableonthespe-
exploitation intensity on a regional scale. Mapping hunter–gath- cific context of the microliths; it is rarely possible to determine
erer activity this way could also shed a light on forager–farmer whethertheyrepresenttoolslostduringtheiruseorwereremains
interactionsandtheMesolithic–Neolithictransition.Existentmod- of implement production or retooling within residential sites.
elsofNeolithisationcanbeverified,forinstancewithregardtothe Microlithsrepresent,however,inallcasestheexploitationofthe
questionofwhetherthefirstforager–farmercontactsinthisregion regioninwhichtheywerefound.
were of a cooperative (Bogucki, 1988; Gregg, 1988; Zvelebil and Third,weassumethatthemicrolithvariationmainlyreflectsa
Lillie,2000)oranantagonistic(Keeley,1992)nature.Inthispaper, chronologicalvariability.Thisallowsustoplacethedifferenttypes
themethodisappliedtotheloessbeltregionofpresent-dayBel- within fairly reliable relative and absolute chronological frame-
giumandtheNetherlands,i.e.thenorthwesternextensionofLin- works. Even though the presence/absence of particular microlith
earbandkeramikcolonisation. typeshaslongbeenanimportantwaytorelativelydateMesolithic
assemblages(Gob,1981;Rozoy,1978;Vermeersch,1984),Lanting
Methods andvanderPlicht(1997/1998,pp.135–136)questiontheresolu-
tion of such framework (see also Crombé, 2002). The appearing
The low number of diagnostic artefacts and the frequent anddisappearingofmicrolithtypesisintheiropinionimpossible
palimpsestsseverelyhamperthechronologicalseparationofoccu- todate securely.Lacking well-stratified and reliably dated Meso-
pationremainsfromdifferentMesolithicphasesandthustheclas- lithic complexes, the existing typologies and seriations have in-
sification of Mesolithic surface scatters or isolated finds. It may deed often been based on the association of microlith types and
even prove difficult to distinguish them from Neolithic material. theirabundanceinsurfaceassemblagecompositions.Forthestudy
OnlyMesolithicpointscanbeattributedtoaparticularphasewith regionofthispaper,werefertotheexamplesoftheOurtheRiver
areasonabledegreeofcertainty,butduetothepalimpsestprob- Basin (Gob, 1981), the Belgian Campine area (Vermeersch, 1984)
lem they cannot be used to date an entire surface assemblage. andSandyFlanders(Crombé,1998).1Nowadaysithasbecomeclear
Therefore, instead of working with full Mesolithic assemblages thatmostofthesesitesarepalimpsests(e.g.DeBieandVanGils,in
and camp remains, the analysis of the spatial and chronological press;LantingandvanderPlicht,1997/1998)andthatneitherthe
distribution of individual microliths has been considered as an particularassociationoftypesnorrelatedradiocarbondatescanbe
alternativemethodtogaugeregionalhunter–gathererexploitation used to construct seriations. The Mesolithic of the Somme Valley
patternsandbehaviouralchangesthatmayberelatedtoanalter- (Ducrocq,2001),ontheotherhand,situatedtothesouthwestofthis
ingnaturalorsocio-economicenvironment.Anadvantageofsuch studyregion,canberegardedasareliablereference.Basedonstrat-
an approach is that microliths found isolated as well as in larger ifiedandreliablydatedsites,thestudyofDucrocq(2001)definesto
surface scatters or excavations can be taken into account, which what extent particular point types are specific to a certain time
considerably enlarges the dataset. Moreover, it avoids problems range.Even thoughtheSomme Valleyassemblagesare notalways
associated with the homogeneity and/or site function of artefact uncontaminated,itappearspossibletoidentifythemostdominant
scatters. periods in which particular types were in use. These data in no
way allow identifying the age of any single point, but they reveal
Assumptions
In the interpretation of microlith inventories several assump- 1 In his typology of the Campine Mesolithic, Vermeersch (1984) restricted the
tions play a part. First, the available microlith datasets are taken chronologicalimplicationsofhisdistinguishedgroupstothe8000BPboundaryof
trapezepresence/absence. Thelatter distinctionisalsowhat Lantingandvander
asrepresentative,randomsamplesforthearchaeologicallyknow-
Plicht(1997/1998,p.136)regardastheonlyreliabledistinctionbetweenanEarlyand
able data in the regions under consideration. This representation LateMesolithic.
B.Vanmontfort/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160 151
coarsepatternsintheMesolithicoccupationofaparticularregion. gions in the Meuse Valley, i.e. from south to north Graetheide,
ThevalidityofDucrocq’sseriationforthemiddleScheldtandmiddle Roerstreek, Venray and Grave. The Hageland region is situated
MeuseBasinsissupportedbythefactthatthisseriationcomprises north of the loess belt region (Fig. 1). Its relief is dominated by
datafromamuchlargerregionthanonlytheSommeBasinandthat sandstonehills,i.e.theremainsofMiocenesandbanks(Goossens,
alltheseregionswerepartoftheRhine–Meuse–Scheldt(RMS)‘Cul- 1983,pp.120–121)coveredwithsandloamysediments.Fromearly
ture’ territory as defined by Gob (1985; see also Heinen, 2006). on, Hageland is characterized by a fairly high archaeological re-
Withinthatregion,theintroductionofparticularmicrolithtypeswill searchintensity.Thestoneagefindsweresubjectedtoanexhaus-
havedifferedslightlyintime,butthemajortrendswillbesimilarfor tive analysis duringthe late 1960s and early 1970s (Vermeersch,
theentireRMSMesolithic(Gob,1985;seealsoHeinen,2006andDu- 1976)thatrevealedtheimportanceofthelocalMesolithicoccupa-
crocq,2001). tion.WithintheHagelandregionVermeerschnotedashiftinloca-
Thefourthandfinalassumptionisthatofinterregionalcompa- tion choice around the Middle Mesolithic. In the later phases,
rability. Factors such as chronological variation in technique and wetterloamysoilsonleveesandinvalleylocationswereprogres-
typo-morphologyofmicrolithsareassumedtohavebeenuniform sivelyabandonedinfavourofthedriersandyhilltopsoftheregion
withincertaingeographicallimits,suchasthemiddleScheldtand (Vermeersch,1976).
middle Meuse Basins. At this scale they should not have signifi- TheanalysisoftheOurtheBasinMesolithicalsodatesfromthe
cantly biased patterns in exploitationbehaviour. The comparison 1970s (Gob, 1981; Henrard, 2003). This region is situated to the
ofthesefactorsbetweensamplesfromdifferentregionsshouldal- southeast of Liège (Fig. 1). Its dissected relief is covered by loam
lowtheidentificationofbehaviourallysignificanttrends. soilswithstonyadmixtureofpsamite,schistandlimestone.Based
onanidentificationofsitetypes,Henrard(2003)notedashiftfrom
Data anintenseresidentialoccupationtowardsamerelylogisticexploi-
tationoftheOurtheBasinaround7800calBC.Thisimplies,accord-
The microlith data from the middle Scheldt loess region were ingtoHenrard(2003),theresidentialrelocationofthepopulation
gatheredintheframeworkofaMaster’sdissertationaquarterof towardsneighbouringregionsandtotheloessbeltinparticular.It
acenturyago(vandeKonijnenburg,1980)andweresupplemented fitsperfectlywiththedisappearanceoffunerarysitesinthisregion
withmorerecentdata, assembledby VanAssche(2005). Despite (Vanmontfort,2007).
severalclustersofintensivesurveyactivity,e.g.inthesouthwest- AthirdregionofcomparisonistheDutchMeuseValley.Dataon
ernpartoftheprovinceofBrabantWallon, southwest ofBrussels the dense Mesolithic occupation of this region were gathered by
(FournyandVanAssche,1987,1993),onlylimitedadditionaldata Wansleeben and Verhart (1998) in the framework of the ‘Meuse
were collected and no recent inventories have been made. The Valley Project’. One out of four research scales of this project in-
archaeological site databases of Flanders (Central Archaeological cluded the scrutiny of all museum and private collections from
Inventory)andtheWalloonregiondonotyieldadditionaloreasily four‘coreregions’ofapproximately100km2(Roerstreek,Venray,
accessibledataeither.Ourdatasetcanberegardedasfairlycom- GraveandGraetheide;Fig.1).Thisapproachyieldedadatasetfree
plete and a representative sample (e.g. also Van Assche, 2005) ofinaccuraciesthatarecausedbythenon-identificationofmicro-
and reveals a low find density of Mesolithic sites or artefacts in lithsorbythelackofpublications.Thephysiographyofthesere-
theloamregion. gions varies from loess plateaus (Graetheide) and slightly rolling
Mostofthemicrolithsofwhichtheoriginalcontextisknown, coversand areas (Venray) to old river clay soils (Grave). Most
werefoundisolatedorinmixedassemblagesdominatedbyNeo- Mesolithicdatainthisregionwerederivedfromsmallflintsurface
lithic artefacts. Indications of larger residential hunter–gatherer scatters, suggesting small groups of hunter–fisher–gatherers
camps—using Binford’s terminology (Binford, 1982)—are absent. migratinginayearlycycle(Verhart,2000,p.48).
Thesitesmayconsequentlyhavebeenpartofasettlementsystem Inordertoarriveatcomparabledatasets,theinventorieschar-
that encompassed exploitation territories extending beyond the acterised by often differing microlith nomenclature were trans-
loess zone. The possibility of such large exploitation territories lated to a classification in six types: points with unretouched
wasalsoshownfortheMesolithicofNorthernEnglandbyDona- base, points withretouchedbase, pointswith invasiveor surface
hue and Lovis (2006), who claim it fits with the large territories retouch,2crescents,trianglesandtrapezes(Fig.2).
exploitedbythenorthernborealforesthunter–gatherersofNorth
America(seee.g.Kelly,1995;Lovisetal.,2005). Phasingofmicroliths
VandeKonijnenburgsampledmicrolithsfroma2650km2area
thatcoverslargepartsofthepresent-dayprovincesofHainaultand IntheSommeValleyMesolithic,Ducrocq(2001)distinguishes
BrabantWallon(Fig.1).TheHainaultLBKsettlementclusterislo- four Mesolithic phases, dated between 9800–9200/9100 BP,
catedinthewesternpartofthisregion.Twosub-regionshavebeen 9200/9100–8500BP,8500–7800 BPand7800–6100BP(Ducrocq,
selectedfortheaimsofthispaper,basedonacombinationoffind 2001,211ff)andinthispaperlabelledasPre-boreal,EarlyBoreal,
density, pedology and distance from the nearest LBK village. The LateBorealandAtlanticMesolithic.Thefirstphaseoftheregion-
firstregioncomprisessitesandfindslocatedwithina25kmrange ally more commonly used Early/Middle/Late Mesolithic division
aroundtheHainaultLBKsettlementcluster.Thesoilsofthisregion (CrombéandCauwe,2001),moreorlesscorrespondswiththefirst
aremainlyloamysoilsonasubstratumwithvaryingpermeability. twophasesofDucrocq.
Thesitesandfindsinthisregiondelimitanareaofapproximately Data provided by Ducrocq demonstrate that most microlith
1000km2withafinddensityof1.5microlithper10km2.Asecond types are not exclusively connected to one of the distinguished
regionislocatedinSouthwestBrabant,inbetweenthe25kmradii phases. To arrive at a reliable estimation of the total number of
around the LBK settlements in Hainault to the west and those in microlithsperphase,themicrolithcountshavetobetransformed
Hesbaye and Kleine Gete to the east. It covers approximately statistically.Thisisdoneusingafixedratiothatwasbasedonthe
900km2, with a hilly topography and soils developed on loam importanceofthevariousmicrolithtypesineachofthephasesand
and locally Tertiary sand. The find density of 3.3 microliths per
10km2ishigherthaninHainault.
2 ‘‘Pointswithinvasiveretouch”isaparticulargroupofmicrolithtypesofwhich
Readilyavailabledatafromseveralneighbouringregionswere
thedorsaland/orventralsurfaceispartiallyorfullycoveredbyflatretouch.This
collected for purposes of interregional comparison. These neigh-
group includes ‘feuille de gui’ points as well as ‘points with rounded base’ and
bouring regions include the Hageland, Ourthe Basin and four re- ‘invasivelyretouchedtriangles’.
152 B.Vanmontfort/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160
Fig.1. Delimitationofsampledregions:1.Hainaut,2.SWBrabant,3.Hageland,4.OurtheBasin,5.Graetheide,6.Roerstreek,7.Venray,8.Grave.
theestimatedtimerangesofthesephases.TheSommeValleydata whereDt istheestimateddurationofMesolithicphasej.Thebest
j
confirmthecommonlyacceptedNorthBelgium/SouthernNether- possibleestimateofthetotalnumberofmicrolithsrepresentinga
landsrelativechronologicalsequenceofcrescentsolderthantrian- particularphaseisthesumofallindividualmicrolithtypecounts
glesolderthaninvasiveretoucholderthantrapezes,withoverlaps multipliedbytheirspecificallocationfactorA forthatphase,or:
ij
ianndpaurntirceutloaurcihnetdhebaesaerlioecrcMuredsoulriitnhgicastwagideesr.Ptiominetsrawnigthe,rbeutotuucnhreed- N0j¼Xn ðNi(cid:2)AijÞ ð3Þ
touchedbasesaremainlyassociatedwiththeearlyphasesandre- i¼1
touchedbaseswiththelaterMesolithic.Intheabsenceofprecise Therearesomeaspectsthatrequireclarification. First,differences
data,anestimation(E)isusedtorepresenttheuseofeachmicro- inhaftingorcombiningmicrolithsinthesubsequentphases,may
lithtypeineachphase(Table1). E formicrolithtypeiinMeso- result in rather different numbers of microliths produced, used
ij
lithic phase j is expressed on a 0–1 scale, ranging from the and—finally—found.Inthecaseofarrowequipment,thispredomi-
absence(0)totheexclusivepresence(1)ofthatmicrolithtypein nantlyaffectstrapezesandinvasivelyretouchedpointscomparedto
thatparticularphase(Table1).ThesumofallE ofmicrolithtype othermicroliths.Trapezesmayberegardedasacontractionofpoint
i
iis1. and barb (e.g. Thévenin, 1992) or as points without barbs. As the
Longer periods are more likely to yield particular microliths Atlantic Mesolithic is almost exclusively represented by this type
than shorter periods. Hence, the duration of each phase should (Table 1), the number of trapezes is probably an underestimation
betakenintoaccountaswell.Foramicrolithwithahomogeneous of actual activity in that period as compared to the other phases;
useinallfourphases,i.e.allE equal0.25,thismeansthattheprob- thefactorofthisunderestimationis,however,unknown.Thisprob-
j
abilityforaparticularmicrolithtodatefromaperiodwithdura- lemislessprominentforthepointswithinvasiveretouch,sincethe
tionDtequals: LateBorealperiodischaracterizedbyamorevariedsetofmicrolith
types.
Dt
Pij¼Pn jDt ð1Þ Second, there are considerable interregional differences in the
j¼1 j microlithratios(Table2).MostdifferencesrelatetotheLateBoreal
IfnotallperiodshaveanequalestimatedimportanceEforapartic- andAtlanticperiods.Thesedifferencesmayoriginatefromtheuse
ular microlith, the situation is slightly different. In this case, the ofafixedallocationfactorAij.Asaresultofthismethod,andofthe
probability Eq. (1) should be multiplied by the individual estima- factthatseveralmicrolithtypescanbeattributedtodifferentchro-
tionsE .Thisbringsustothefollowingformulaforthecalculation nologicalphases,incorrectassignmentsarepossibleandmayblur
ij
ofallocationfactorA ,refiningestimationE : fluctuationsinactivityintensities.Thisisshownbythefairlywell
ij ij
knownOurtheBasinassemblage.Earlierstudiesdemonstratedthe
Dt
Aij¼Eij(cid:2)Pnj¼1ðEijj(cid:2)DtjÞ ð2Þ cgoionntrdasutrbinegtwtheeenPtrhee-binorteeanlseanhdabEitaartliyonBoarnedalexppelroioitdastioanndoftthheislorew-
B.Vanmontfort/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160 153
are 55% points with invasive retouch in the Late Boreal and 89%
trapezesintheAtlanticMesolithic.Thetotalnumberofmicroliths
inthosephases(N)canthenbeadjustedaccordingtotheseaver-
j
agesbydividingthetotalnumberofpointswithinvasiveretouch
andtrapezesbytheaveragepercentages.Foreachoftheregions,
points with invasive retouch and trapezes thus correspond to
55%and89%fortheirrespectivephases.Ifthedifference(D)be-
j
tweenN0andN ispositive,itcorrespondsto‘oldertype’microliths
j j
erroneouslyattributedtothesephasesandtoberedistributedover
theolderMesolithicphases.Negativedifferences,conversely,cor-
respondto‘oldertype’microlithswronglyattributedtotheolder
phasesandtoberecoveredfromthosephases.FortheAtlanticper-
iod, all positive and negative differences are points with unre-
touched base of which 96% has to be allocated to or collected
from the Pre-boreal period and 4% from the Early Boreal.3 In the
Late Boreal, on the other hand, three microlith types are affected:
pointswithunretouchedbase,trianglesandpointswithretouched
base.ThecontributionofeachofthosemicrolithtypestoD
LateBoreal
is proportionally the same as their contribution in the calculated
numberofmicrolithsinthisphaseN0 .Fortriangles,forexam-
LateBoreal
ple,thisproportionisrepresentedbythefollowingformula:
N
proportion ¼ t;LB ð4Þ
t;LB ðN þN þN Þ
r t u LB
whererispointswithretouchedbase,tistriangles,uispointswith
unretouchedbaseandLBisLateBoreal.Consequently,thecontribu-
tionofthemicrolithtypestoD canbecalculatedbymultiplying
LB
theproportionsfrom(4)bythedifferenceD :
LB
r
R ¼ LB (cid:2)D ð5Þ
LB r þt þu LB
LB LB LB
t
T ¼ LB (cid:2)D ð6Þ
LB r þt þu LB
LB LB LB
u
U ¼ LB (cid:2)D ð7Þ
LB r þt þu LB
LB LB LB
wherecapitalsR,TandUcorrespondtothecontributionofpoints
with retouched base, triangles and points with unretouched base,
respectively, to the difference D; lower case r, t, u correspond to
j
thecontributionofthosetypestoN.R ,T andU areallocated
j LB LB LB
to or collected from the Pre-boreal and Early Boreal period based
onanadjustedallocationfactorA ,thistimetakingintoconsider-
ij
ationthat100%shouldbedistributedoverthesetwophasesonly.
For points with retouched base, triangles and points with unre-
touched base, the adjusted allocation factors are 0.17/0.83, 0.42/
0.58 and 0.96/0.04, respectively. The resulting values N are pre-
j
sentedinTable3.
In a quantitative diachronic comparison of patterns and fre-
Fig. 2. Distinguished microlith types. 1–3: points with unretouched base, 4–5: quencies,theunequallengthofeachphasehastobecompensated.
crescents, 6–7: triangles, 8–9: points with retouched base, 10–12: points with Thisisdonebydividingthetotalnumberofmicrolithsallocatedto
invasiveretouch,13–15:trapezes.AlldrawingstakenfromvandeKonijnenburg
phasejbythedurationofthatphase.Theresultisanestimationof
(1980).
themicrolithdensitypermillenniumorN/kyr(Table3).
activityintensityduringLateBorealandAtlantictimes(Gob,1981;
Identifyingtrends
Henrard, 2003). Due to the amplitude of the difference, even a
small percentage of older type microliths attributed to the later
Aninterregionalcomparisonoftrendsinhunter–gathererexploitation
periods automatically corresponds to a relatively large number
activity
compared to the later type microliths, i.e. invasively retouched
pointsintheLateBorealandtrapezesintheAtlanticperiod.This
Theresultofthecalculationisdisplayedinatableshowingthe
explainsthesmallerproportionofthesemicrolithtypesinthetotal
estimatedandphasednumberofmicrolithspermillenniumfound
microlithnumbersinLateBorealandAtlanticphases(Table2).
in each of the studyregions. Diachronic changes in the microlith
In order to compensate for this effect in the later Mesolithic
frequenciesinaparticularregionareaproxyfortheevolutionin
phases,onecanassumeanaverageproportionofpointswithinva-
siveretouchandtrapezesandadjusttheN0valuesaccordingly.The hunter–gatherer exploitation intensity. Interregional trend differ-
j encesaremostinformativeondifferencesinexploitationintensity.
averageproportioniscalculatedbyaveragingthepercentagespro-
videdinTable2.Itwaschosentobasetheaverageonallavailable
datainspiteoftheclearoutlierstatusofOurtheBasinandthevery 3 96%and4%areadjustmentsoftheAijvalues,basedontheallocationof100%of
smallnumberofmicrolithsfromGraetheide.Theresultingvalues themicrolithstothePre-borealandEarlyBorealperiods.
154 B.Vanmontfort/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160
Table1
Allocationfactorsofmicrolithtypesovertime
Pre-boreal EarlyBoreal LateBoreal Atlantic
9300–8300calBC 8300–7600calBC 7600–6600calBC 6600–5000calBC
Eij
Unretouchedbase 0.85 0.05 0.05 0.05
Crescent 0.50 0.50 0 0
Triangle 0.30 0.60 0.10 0
Retouchedbase 0.10 0.70 0.20 0
Invasiveretouch 0 0 1 0
Trapeze 0 0 0 1
Aij
Unretouchedbase 0.84 0.03 0.05 0.08
Crescent 0.59 0.41 0 0
Triangle 0.37 0.51 0.12 0
Retouchedbase 0.13 0.62 0.25 0
Invasiveretouch 0 0 1 0
Trapeze 0 0 0 1
ForanexplanationofEijandAij,seetext.
Table2
Proportionofeachofthemicrolithtypesineachofthedistinguishedphasesandregions,afterapplicationofallocationfactorAij(formula(2))
Hainaut(%) SWBrabant(%) Hageland(%) OurtheBasin(%) Graetheide(%) Roerstreek(%) Venray(%) Grave(%) Average
Pre-boreal
Unretouchedbase 63 65 53 54 0 91 82 74 60%±28
Crescent 6 6 15 16 0 2 2 2 6%±6
Triangle 23 21 21 23 0 5 10 20 15%±9
Retouchedbase 9 8 11 6 100 3 6 5 18%±33
EarlyBoreal
Unretouchedbase 3 4 2 3 0 14 7 6 5%±4
Crescent 5 6 11 15 0 4 2 3 6%±5
Triangle 39 39 32 42 0 26 31 51 33%±15
Retouchedbase 53 51 55 40 100 55 60 41 57%±19
LateBoreal
Unretouchedbase 2 9 4 11 0 24 10 10 9%±7
Triangle 4 16 8 26 0 7 7 16 11%±8
Retouchedbase 8 36 24 44 20 26 24 22 25%±11
Invasiveretouch 87 39 64 19 80 43 58 52 55%±22
Atlantic
Unretouchedbase 6 9 5 35 0 20 7 8 11%±11
Trapeze 94 91 95 65 100 80 93 92 89%±11
Table3
Totalnumberofmicrolithsineachofthedistinguishedregions(Nj)
Pre-boreal EarlyBoreal LateBoreal Atlantic Total
N N/kyr N N/kyr N N/kyr N N/kyr N N/kyr
Hainaut 22 22 6 9 98 98 31 20 157 35
SWBrabant 109 109 87 124 28 28 69 43 293 65
Hageland 64 64 60 86 63 63 76 47 263 58
OurtheBasin 769 769 621 887 63 63 73 45 1525 339
Graetheide 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 5 1 2
Roerstreek 254 254 68 97 38 38 89 55 449 100
Venray 77 77 37 53 35 35 90 56 239 53
Grave 112 112 63 90 40 40 99 62 313 70
Thedataforthetwosub-zonesintheScheldtBasinloessregion jor trends and interregional differences are more or less main-
showdifferenttrends(Fig.3).InHainaultthereisadistinctmaxi- tained in each of the frequency graphs. The regions apparently
mumintheLateBorealandasharpdropintheAtlanticperiod.In haddifferentoccupationorexploitationhistories.
SWBrabant,ontheotherhand,amarkeddropoccursasearlyas Nearlyallotherregionsroughlyfollowthegeneral decreasing
theEarly/LateBorealtransitionandisfollowedbyaslightincrease trend of the SW Brabant sample. The Hageland sample (Fig. 3),
in the Late Boreal/Atlantic transition. No external factors can ex- forinstance,alsohasanEarlyBorealmaximumofmicroliths.The
plainthedifferencesbetweenthesetworegions.Theyarespatially slight drop at the Late Boreal/Atlantic Mesolithic, on the other
connectedandcharacterizedbyasimilarphysiography.Thesam- hand,isincontrasttoSWBrabant.This25%dropismuchsmaller
ple sizes are sufficiently large and not biased by larger assem- thanthatinHainault(80%)andsimilartothatoftheOurtheBasin
blages.Thisisadequately shownby thedifferentdistributionsin (28%,seebelow).InHageland,itisuncertainwhethertheAtlantic
Fig.4,inwhichtheweightattributedtoeachsiteisvaried.Thema- dropcorrespondstoadecreasein exploitationactivity,giventhe
B.Vanmontfort/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160 155
Fig.3. Diachronictrendsbasedonthenumberofmicrolithspermillennium(N/kyr)ineachofthemicroregions.(a)Numberofattributedmicrolithsperregion;(b)
percentages.
156 B.Vanmontfort/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160
otherregions(L.Verhart,pers.comm.)andasthetotalnumberof
findlocationsissimilartoVenrayandGrave.Apparentlytheentire
Graetheideregionwaspracticallyvoidofhunter–gathereractivity.
Discussion
Trenddifferenceauthenticity
Several interacting uncertainties bias the calculated patterns:
theallocationfactorA isbasedonestimatedfigures,thechrono-
ij
logicalresolutioniscoarsewithphasesof1–1.5millennia,sample
sizesandresearchactivitydifferbetweenthereferenceregionsand
theparticulartaphonomyobscuresadirectlinkbetweenmicrolith
distributionsandtheactivityofwhichtheyaretheremains.Afine-
grained resolution can therefore not be obtained. Larger trends,
however, areimmunetomanyofthesebiasingfactorsandother
factorsarethesameforeachoftheregionsandthereforenotbias-
inginterregionaldifferences.Thisissubstantiatedbythefollowing
arguments.
First,majordiachronicchangesarepreservedifallocationfactor
A is modified. Interregional differences are even independent of
ij
thesevariations:temperingadroporriseinnumberofmicroliths
Fig.4. TrendsintheHainautandSWBrabantregions(%ofnumberofmicroliths inoneregionenforcescontrastingchangesinothers.Theobserved
overtime).(a)N/kyrperphase;(b)Nproportionatelyrecalculatedpersitebasedon contrastingpatternsarethereforeauthentic.
anequalisationofthetotalnumberofmicrolithspersite;(c)N,atsiteswithintotal Second,thecoarseresolutionobscuresthepossiblecomplexity
morethan5microlithsproportionatelyreducedto5;(d)presence/absenceofmi-
in exploitation changes,but ismore likelytohave blurredactual
croliths,ateachsitethefrequencyofpresentmicrolithtypesisreducedto1.
trendsthantohavecreatedfalseones.Thisisespeciallythecase
ifmajorchangesdonotcoincideintimewiththecommonMeso-
arguments for a differential representation of trapezes and non- lithicphaseboundaries.
trapezes mentioned above. The spatial distribution of individual Third,andrelatingtopossibledifferencesinsamplesizeandre-
microliths supports the pattern identified by Vermeersch (1976 searchactivity,eachofthesamplesshouldberegardedas aran-
andseeabove):Whereasoldermicrolithtypesmainlyoccurinval- domone.Thereliabilityoftheproportionalcompositionofthese
leylocations,pointswithinvasiveretouchandtrapezesaremore samples is demonstrated by that of Hainault. In a recent study,
oftenfoundonhilltoplocations(Table4). VanAssche(2005)addedtothecatalogue15locationswithintotal
IntheOurtheBasin,theEarly/LateBorealdropismorepromi- 63microlithsor40%oftheentireHainaultsample.Excludingthese
nentthanelsewhere(Fig.3).Thisdatacorrespondstothepattern data,however,doesnotsignificantlyaffecttheobservedpatterns.
identifiedbyHenrard(2003,seeabove).Itshowsamarkedchange Major interregional differences are thus the result of different
in theexploitationintensityofthe region.At thesame time,this changesinexploitationintensityduringtheEarlyHolocene.
correspondence corroborates the idea that behavioural changes Theseargumentsconfirmthattheimpactofthebiasingfactors
onaregionalscalecanbetracedonthebasisofindividualmicro- onthemajorregionaltrendsandinterregionaldifferenceswaslim-
lithcounts. ited.Thevalueandauthenticityofthesetrendsanddifferencescan
Thetrendofmicrolithfrequenciesisremarkablyhomogeneous thusbeclaimed.
in the three Meuse Valley regions that are situated north of the
loess zone: Roerstreek, Venray and Grave (Fig. 3). Pre-boreal Interpretingobserveddifferences
microliths dominate. After a drop towards the Late Boreal, the
numberofmicrolithsriseagainintheAtlantic. Diachronicchangesinthenumberofmicrolithscanrepresenta
The Graetheide ‘core region’, located in the loess zone, is en- changeinhuntingorhaftingtechniques,achangeinexploitation
tirelydifferent.Itischaracterisedbyanoverallscarcityofmicro- systems, a population change either with or without migration,
liths, apart from two exceptions all to be dated in the Atlantic or a combination of these. Interregional trend differences should
Mesolithic(Fig.3).Thisscarcityisaprimarypatternasthecollec- thenberelatedtothesechangesandtheirimpactintherespective
tionsofthisregionwerecataloguedinexactlythesamewayasthe regions.Eachoftheshiftsmayhavebeentriggeredbyenvironmen-
tal or social change. It should be kept in mind that the graphs
(Fig.3)merelyrepresenttrendsandpatternsinmicrolithnumbers
Table4 and are in se no population curves. The calibration of the graphs
PhysiographiccontextofthemicrolithsinHageland
into populationcurves depends on unknown factors such as dia-
Location chronicdifferencesinmicrolithuseandhuntingstrategies.
Hilltop Riverfloodplain Total A first major change occurred in several regions around the
middle of the Boreal period. The number of microliths decreases
Findlocations 63 15 78
inSWBrabantandtheOurtheBasin,whileinHainaultaprominent
Unretouchedbase 14 28 42
Crescent 1 16 17 riseisvisible.AswasalreadyproposedbyHenrard(2003)forthe
Triangle 12 26 38 Ourthe Basin, this pattern represents an exploitation change and
Retouchedbase 16 36 52 relocation of activity spheres. The patterns in SW Brabant and
Invasiveretouch 19 15 34
Hainaultarelikelytoberelatedsincetheseregionsarecloselycon-
Trapeze 40 23 63
nectedspatially.IftheresidentialshiftfromtheOurtheBasinalso
Total 102 144 246
wasdirectedintotheloessregion,asisclaimedbyHenrard(2003),
Of17microlithsnoexactfindlocationisknown. isdifficulttodetermine.DataontheMesolithicoccupationofthe
B.Vanmontfort/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160 157
Hesbaye region located near the Ourthe Basin, are unfortunately andwater,doesnotsignificantlydifferfromthatofbothLBKareas.
lacking.Asimilarshiftinsiteoractivitylocationchoiceisalsovis- Ontheotherhand,recentsurveysandarchaeologicalinvestigation
ible,albeit onasmallerspatialscale,within theHagelandregion ofmajortransectsthroughthemiddleBelgianloessregionforthe
(see above). In the Meuse valley regions, with a continuous drop constructionofhigh-speedrailroadsandgaspipelinesdidnotyield
from Pre-boreal to Late Boreal, no particular middle Boreal shift newLBKsettlementtracesbeyondtheknownclusters(seealsoJa-
canbenoted. din,2003,p.75).
A shift in occupation patterns from the Final Palaeolithic and The large spatial gap can thus not be explained by research
Early Mesolithic to the Middle and Late Mesolithic has been ob- activityorbythetraditionalviewonthepreferredsettlementloca-
servedelsewhereaswell.InSandyFlandersandtheBelgianCam- tion.Itmayhavebeensociallyinduced,connectedtotheregion’s
pinearea,thisshiftisassociatedwithenvironmentalchanges:as social geography. Microlith distribution patterns in the region
Late Glacial lakes disappeared, the occupations shifted towards canbeusedasaproxyforthehunter–gathereroccupation.Fig.5
therivervalleysandtheexploitedhinterlandwasreduceddueto presents a map combining all Mesolithic microliths presented in
an increasing vegetation cover and the associated reduction of thefirstpartofthispaperandtheLBKsettlementclusters.Thespa-
undergrowth and change in fauna (Crombé and Verbruggen, tial separation of both is remarkable: the LBK cluster regions are
2002; Vanacker et al., 2001). The increasing vegetation cover strikinglyemptyinmicroliths.Asthoseregionshavebeeninten-
may also be responsible for the shift in SW Brabant, Hageland selysurveyedinthepast,Mesolithicmicrolithswouldsurelyhave
andOurtheBasinorforthedecreasingtrendintheotherregions. beenrecognised.OnlyfortheHesbayeregiononecanrightlystress
Interpretedthisway,thesetrendsfitwellwiththeshiftinsettle- thatnodataareincludedinthispaper,buttheabsenceofreadily
ment pattern noted for most of Central and Western Europe’s availabledatacanalsoberegardedasanindicationofthelimited
Mesolithicandrelatedtotheincreasingvegetationcover(e.g.Gro- number of finds. The scrutiny of all available public and private
nenborn,1999,p.137).TheriseofactivityinHainaultisremark- archaeologicalcollectionsoftheGraetheideplateaubyM. Wans-
able; especially since this region will have experienced a similar leebenandL. VerhartensurestheabsenceofMesolithicartefacts
vegetationchangeasinSWBrabant. there. The same is true for the area around both Kleine Gete and
IntheOurtheBasin,SWBrabantandHageland,theBorealshift HezerwaterLBKclusters, for whichnot a singleMesolithicsiteor
is maintained in the later Mesolithic. In Hainault, on the other artefactisknown.Apartfromtheresidualpointwithinvasivere-
hand,itisreversedandagainmuchlowernumbersofmicroliths touch from a pit in Blicquy-Couture du Couvent (Constantin
arefound.Noneoftheotherregionscompensateforthisdropwith etal.,1991),onlytwoMiddleMesolithicsiteshavebeenidentified
aclearriseintheAtlanticperiod,unlesstheunknownfactorwith in the area of the Hainault LBK cluster (Pleuger et al., 2005; Van
which non-trapeze microliths should be divided for comparison AsscheandDemarez,2005).
withtrapezes(seeabove)istakenintoaccount.Everylikelyfactor, Themicrolithdeficiencyinpreciselythosepartsoftheloessbelt
i.e.largerthan1,impliesanotableactivityriseinSWBrabantand whereLBKsettledfrom5300calBConwardsisaprimarypattern.
intheMeuseValley‘coreregions’.Environmentalchangescanbe Hunter–gatherersapparentlyavoidedtheseregionsintheirexploi-
invoked as an explanation for the shift in Hainault. The region is tationoftheloesszone.Thisholdsforwidestretches,includingthe
deserted due to a continuing increase of the vegetation cover. GermanRhineland,whiletheScheldtBasinmicrolithsareastrik-
The microlith number increase in the Late Boreal period and the ingexception.Itisunlikelythattheunattractivenessofparticular
LateBorealtoAtlanticmoderateriseinSWBrabant,however,do zonesforforagersisonlyduetotheparticularphysiographyand
not fit with this explanation. If the patterns are related, it seems relatedvegetationcover;thescarcityofhunter–gathererremains
thattherewasatleastapartial‘retreat’ofactivityfromHainault isaconstantthroughouttheentireEarlyHolocene,notwithstand-
intoSWBrabant. ingthemajorenvironmentalchangestakingplaceduringthatper-
iodandthesimilarsoilconditionsinandbeyondthoseparticular
Afarmer–foragerconnection? zones.TheavoidanceofthesezonesisindependentoftheLBKar-
rival as well, since sites or microliths from the entire Mesolithic
ThearrivaloftheLBK periodarelacking.
Around 5300cal BC, in the second part of the Atlantic period, Whateverthereasonforthisspatialpatterningofhunter–gath-
thepeopleoftheLinearbandkeramikculturesettledintheScheldt ereractivity,itseemsthatitlimitedthesitelocationchoiceofthe
andMeuseBasinsloessregion(JadinandCahen,2003a,b).Aseries LBK.PeopleoftheLBKsettledinexactlythoseareasonlymargin-
ofsettlementclusterscoveredtheAldenhovenerPlatte,theGraethe- allyexploitedbyhunter–gatherersandnotintheintermediatere-
ide and Hesbaye regions, with a small western outlier along the gionswithsimilarphysiographybutmoreintensehunter–gatherer
Kleine Gete River (Fig. 5). Approximately 100km further west, a exploitation.Thisfitstheideaofaninitiallydemicdiffusionofthe
single, isolated settlement cluster was located in the region of LBKatleastinthewesternRhineland,DutchsouthernLimburgand
theupperDendreRiver,inthepresent-dayprovinceHainault(Ja- BelgianHesbaye.Otherargumentsinitsfavouraretheabsenceof
din, 2003; fig. 5). It is thought to have been a pioneer extension microlithsintegratedinearlyLBKsettlements,4theabsenceoftran-
ofthelaterLBK,asitonlyconsistsoffewsettlementsandislocated sitionalcomplexesandthelargeculturalcontrastbetweenLBKand
at a large distance to the nearest cluster in Hesbaye. Apparently the late Mesolithic as currently understood (Louwe Kooijmans, in
these pioneer communities did not colonizetheir widerenviron- press). It should be stressed, however, that this principally demic
ment,asisthecasefarthereast.RecentdatafortheDutchsouthern movementdoesnotaprioriexcludethepossibilityofforager–farmer
Limburgareapointincontrasttoagrowingflexibilityinsiteloca- interactionsincludingtheintegrationofforagersintheLBKsociety.
tionchoicesoftheLBKinthelaterphases,resultinginthecoloni-
sationofthewiderenvironmentaroundthetraditionallyoccupied Foragerreactiontoincomingfarmers
loessplateaus(Amkreutz,inpress;Amkreutzetal.,inpress). Theindividualmicrolithdistributionsallowidentifyingseveral
It has long been debated whether the isolated position of the distinctivepatterns.First,hunter–gatherersexploitedtheloessre-
Hainault cluster corresponds to an actual settlement pattern or
that intermediate LBK settlement clusters have been missed and
4 AfewexamplesexistofpointswithinvasiveretouchfoundinLBKcontextand
arestillawaitingdiscovery(seealsoJadin,2003,p.75).Thephys-
eveninMichelsbergcontext(cf.Jeunesse,2000).However,asnootherarguments
iography of the intermediate area with respect to the main LBK
existtoacceptthecontinueduseofsuchpointtypesduringtheLateMesolithic,these
location-determiningfactors,i.e.acombinationofsoil,topography shouldratherberegardedasresidual(cf.Crombéetal.,2005;VanAssche,2005).
158 B.Vanmontfort/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(2008)149–160
Fig.5. Spatialdistributionofmicrolithsontheloessandbeyond.Shadedareas=LBKsettlementclusters:1.AldenhovenerPlatte,2.Graetheide,3.Hezerwater,4.Hesbaye,5.
KleineGete,6.UpperDendre/Hainaut.Smalltentsymbolsindicatelocationsofmicrolithsotherthantrapezes.Circlesindicatethelocationoftrapezes.FortheOurtheBasin
andGraveregion,nomicrolithsareplottedduetoalackofspatialinformation.
gionrandomly,withtheexceptionofsomeareasincludingthose contextandthepresenceofLBKenclosuresatthefringeofLBKset-
latertobeoccupiedbytheLBK.Second,ashiftinexploitationor tlement territory in Hesbaye (Golitko and Keeley, 2007; Keeley,
occupationlocationsoccurredaroundthemiddleoftheBorealper- 1992).Theseargumentscan,however,berefuted.Themovement
iod.Third,thoseregionsclosetolaterLBKsettlementclustershave ofgoodsisdifficulttoidentifyinthearchaeologicalrecordofthe
experiencedadifferentoccupationorexploitationhistory. areaduetotaphonomicalreasons(e.g.Zvelebil,1998).Neverthe-
In Gregg’s ‘mutualistic interaction’ model for Southern Ger- less,manyoftheLBKadzesfoundwellbeyondtheLBKsettlement
many,lowdensity,residentiallymobilehunter–gathererswereat- zonescanbeinterpretedasprestigiousexchangegoods(e.g.Ver-
tracted to the rich environments of the first farmers’ settlements hart,2000).ThelocalLBKuseofPhtanite/LyditebutalsoofWom-
(Gregg,1988,p.234).Thispaper’sloessbeltexploitationchanges mersom quartzite, two raw materials frequently used during the
do not show such attraction and the presumed related rise in Mesolithic, is a possible but contentious indication for a transfer
microliths. From the Graetheide area more trapezes were recov- in the opposite direction (Vanmontfort, 2007). The same tapho-
ered than older type microliths, but the small absolute number nomic factors can be responsible for the absence of evidence for
doesnotallowinterpretingthemasproofforanattractiontothe ‘Mesolithic’ use of domesticates and the Neolithicexploitation of
LBK settlements. The main pattern is that of a marked drop in wildfoodresources(seee.g.Modderman,1988fortheexploitation
AtlanticpointsinHainaultandamoderateincreaseinSWBrabant ofwildfaunabytheLBK).WithrespecttotheLBKenclosures,the
andtheMeuseValleyregions.Ifanything,thisshowsthatthepos- absenceofevidenceofactualviolencemakesitdifficulttoassoci-
sible environmentalinfluence driving the hunter–gatherers away ate them with hostile local hunter–gatherers (see also Jadin and
from the loess region was complemented with a factor driving Cahen, 2003a,b). Such a relationship would even be expected to
the activity back into SW Brabant. Either the LBK communities leadtoaconcentrationofMesolithicarrowimplementsnearLBK
areresponsiblefortheretreatoftheremaininghunter–gatherers sites, which is obviously not the case (see above). A hostile rela-
exploiting Hainault or hunter–gatherer activity lasted longer far- tionshipcannotbededucedfromthespatialexclusionofLBKset-
ther away from the LBK settlements, perhaps contemporaneous tlementsandhunter–gathereractivityeither.ThechoiceoftheLBK
withthem. people to settle in regions at most marginally exploited by local
ThespatialseparationbetweenLBKandthelocalMesolithicis peoplescanevenbeinterpretedasaconflict-avoidingattitude.
oneofKeeley’sargumentsinfavourofanactivelyhostilerelation- Theobservedpatternsbestfitwithanopenstaticorstationary
shipbetweenLBKandlocalhunter–gatherers(GolitkoandKeeley, agriculturalfrontierzone(a.o.Dennell,1985;Zvelebil,1998;Zvele-
2007; Keeley, 1992). Other arguments are the scarcity of reliable bil, 2001; Zvelebil, 2004). This encompasses the bi-directional
contactfindsandsignsofacculturation,theabsenceofwildfood movementofgoods,amongwhichtheLBKadzes,andthelongevity
sources in LBK context and domestic food sources in Mesolithic ofastaticfrontier.FromthearrivaloftheLBKonwards,theagricul-