Diverging Trajectories? Forager-Farmer Interaction In the Southern Part of the Lower Rhine Area and the Applicability of Contact Models more

new advances in Central European Neolithic research Creating communities Edited by Daniela Hofmann and Penny Bickle Published by Oxbow Books, Oxford © Oxbow Books and the individual authors, 2008 ISBN 978- A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available direct from Oxbow Books and The David Brown Book Company PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA Phone:860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468 or from our website www.oxbowbooks.com Cover image: Printed in Great Britain by Contents Introduction: researching across borders Penny Bickle and Daniela Hofmann Diverging trajectories? Forager-farmer interaction in the southern part of the Lower Rhine area and the applicability of contact models Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart Frontier settlements of the LBK in central Belgium Marc Lodewijckx, with Corrie Bakels The extreme eastern periphery of the Linearbandkeramik: the landscape and geographical contexts Olga Larina Settlement history of the Linear Band Pottery culture in Kuyavia Joanna Pyzel The exchange of LBK adze blades in central Europe: an example for economic investigations in archaeology Britta Ramminger Settlement history, land use and social networks of early Neolithic communities in western Germany Erich Claßen First reflections on the exploitation of animals in Villeneuve-Saint-Germain society at the end of the early Neolithic in the Paris Basin (France) Lisandre Bedault Scene by the brook: early Neolithic landscape perspectives in the Paris Basin Penny Bickle Mobility in a sedentary society: insights from isotope analysis of LBK human and animal teeth Corina Knipper New aspects and models for Bandkeramik settlement research Oliver Rück 1 11 32 49 70 79 94 110 131 141 158 4 Contents A monumental prestige patchwork Joachim Pechtl The LBK settlement with pit enclosure at Herxheim near Landau (Palatinate) Andrea Zeeb-Lanz, Rose-Marie Arbogast, Fabian Haack, Miriam Haidle, Christian Jeunesse, Jörg Orschiedt, Dirk Schimmelpfennig and Samuel van Willigen Cemetery and settlement burial in the Lower Bavarian LBK Daniela Hofmann Bone temper in early Neolithic vessels from southern Poland. Examinations using Scanning Microscopy Anna Rauba-Bukowska The people who lived in longhouses: what’s the big idea? Alasdair Whittle 185 199 216 231 245 Contributors Luc Amkreutz National Museum of Antiquities (Rijksmuseum van Oudheden) Rapenburg 28 NL – 2311 EW Leiden Rose-Marie Arbogast Institut für Prähistorische und Naturwissenschaftliche Archäologie (IPNA) University of Basel Spalenring 145 CH – 4055 Basel Corrie Bakels Faculty of Archaeology, University of Leiden Postbus 9515 NL – 2300 RA Leiden Lisandre Bedault Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne CNRS UMR 7041, ArScAn, Protohistoire Européenne Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21, allée de l’Université FR – 92023 Nanterre Cedex Penny Bickle School of History and Archaeology Cardiff University Humanities Building, Colum Road UK – Cardiff CF 10 3EU Erich Claßen Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Referat B1 Oberbayern/München Dienststelle Ingolstadt Unterer Graben 37 DE – 85049 Ingolstadt Corina Knipper Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen Institut für Ur-und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters Naturwissenschaftliche Archäologie Rümelinstr. 23 DE – 72070 Tübingen Olga Larina Institutul Patrimoniului Cultural Str. Banulescu Bodoni 35 MD-2012 Chisinau Marc Lodewijckx Dept. of Archaeology, University of Leuven Postbus 33 BE – 3000 Leuven Fabian Haack Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe Rheinland-Pfalz Direktion Archäologie – Speyer Kleine Pfaffengasse 10 DE – 67346 Speyer Miriam Haidle Intitut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters Abt. Ältere Urgeschichte – Quartärökologie Schloss, Burgsteige 11 DE – 72072 Tübingen Daniela Hofmann School of History and Archaeology Cardiff University Humanities Building, Colum Road UK – Cardiff CF 10 3EU Christian Jeunesse Institut d’Antiquités Nationales Université Marc Bloch – Strasbourg II 9, place de l’Université FR – 67084 Strasbourg Cedex Jörg Orschiedt Archäologisches Institut Universität Hamburg Edmund-Siemers-Allee 1, Flügel West DE – 20146 Hamburg Joachim Pechtl Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg Marstallhof 4 DE – 69117 Heidelberg 6 Joanna Pyzel Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences PL – Poznan Britta Ramminger Archäologisches Institut Universität Hamburg Edmund-Siemers-Allee 1, Flügel West DE – 20146 Hamburg Anna Rauba-Bukowska AGH University of Sciences and Technology PL – 30-059 Krakow al. Mickiewicza 30 Oliver Rück Lahnstr. 31 DE – 51105 Köln Dirk Schimmelpfennig Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Universität zu Köln DE – 50923 Köln Contributors Bart Vanmontfort Faculty of Archaeology University of Leiden Reuvensplaats 3–4 NL – 2311 BE Leiden Samuel van Willigen Swiss National Museum Department of Archaeology Museumstraße 2 CH – 8023 Zürich Leo Verhart Faculty of Archaeology University of Leiden Reuvensplaats 3–4 NL – 2311 BE Leiden Andrea Zeeb-Lanz Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe Rheinland-Pfalz Direktion Archäologie – Speyer Kleine Pfaffengasse 10 DE – 67346 Speyer Diverging trajectories? Forager-farmer interaction in the southern part of the Lower Rhine Area and the applicability of contact models Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart Introduction In the study of the Neolithisation process, the archaeological correlates for the actual transition to agriculture often contrast with the independently conceived and ethnographically inspired models explaining it. Rather than forming the basis for a contextual analysis of the transition within a certain region, archaeological data has increasingly been moulded to fit these models and the different stages or variations within them. Recently, however, there has been an increasing awareness that matters are more complicated. Various taphonomic issues were addressed by Rowley-Conwy (2004), while others (Thomas 1996; Tringham 2000) argued that the process of Neolithisation was characterised by different temporalities of its constituent elements and by local narratives of change (Barrett 2000; Dobres and Robb 2000; Sommer 2001; Whittle 2003). It formed a true ‘mosaic’ of spatio-temporally unique and independent developments. While this certainly does not deem the existing models outdated, it does argue that they should be used in a contextual perspective and be based on actual archaeology. This paper sets out to contrast models and archaeological data. Several models are presented and followed by an analysis of typical distorting factors with respect to their use. The archaeological evidence in the form of contact finds and distribution patterns is presented for two separate regions, the Dutch Limburg and the Hainault area. The focus lies on the initial phase of the Neolithisation process and the interaction between the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) and late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Finally, the models are contrasted with the archaeological information available. Modelling contact – endless variability? Over the past decades, the interaction between foragers and farmers has given rise to many publications concerning its nature and development and its eventual outcome for both groups involved. The models presented in these publications are often rooted in archaeological patterning (e.g. Keeley and Cahen 1989; Verhart 2000; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1984), ecological theory (Gregg 1988) or ethnographic accounts of contact between foragers and farmers (e.g. Dennell 1985; Verhart 2000). Although these constructions often provide interesting frameworks for what might have happened during and evolved out of forager-farmer interaction, they often do not offer tools or perspectives on how to interpret the scanty evidence available. For the study of primary and evolved contact situations in the northwestern areas of the LBK, such an inferential frame of reference for interpreting the material derivates of interaction would be very useful. Below, the models proposed by Zvelebil and RowleyConwy (1984), Dennell (1985), Gregg (1988) and Verhart (2000) are briefly discussed in order to provide some insight into their scope, depth and background. These models converge on many different aspects, but are in general informative on a different level (Table 1). The ‘availability model’ was first presented by Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy in 1984 and was elaborated upon in numerous later publications by various authors (e.g. Zvelebil 1986; 1998; Louwe Kooijmans 1998; Price 2000). The model is more descriptive than explanatory and its merits lie primarily in that it offers a heuristic device to consider the factor of time in a regional approach to the transition to agriculture (Zvelebil 2000). It distinguishes an availability phase, when 12 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart Table 1. Models of Neolithisation referred to in the text. Model time/character space/frontier mobile to static static/mobile mobile mobile mobile static static mobile mobile second contact direct competition indirect competition direct mutualism indirect mutualism facultative mutualism obligatory mutualism static/mobile static static mobile mobile static static/mobile mobile contact/frontier 0-5% independent 5-50% incorporation 50% frontier move open closed open closed open open open closed closed open/closed open closed open/closed open interaction beneficial, exchange competition, acquisition consolidation beneficial, exchange violence/assimilation beneficial animosity social, exchange option 1: dependence option 2: symbiotic option 3: independence territoriality/aggression negative/alteration exchange/cooperation beneficial conditions optional necessary for survival availability Zvelebil and Rowley substitution Conwy 1984 consolidation (availability/substitution) Dennell 1985 (availability) first contact Verhart 2000 Gregg 1988 foragers and farmers developed contacts but remained culturally and economically independent; a substitution phase, with incorporation of 5 to 50% of domesticates into the hunter-gatherer economy (Zvelebil 1986) or the immigration of farmers into hunter-gatherer territory; and a consolidation phase as the first phase of a predominantly Neolithic economy in which hunting and gathering are no longer important for food supply and the organisation of labour. At a general level, the availability model emphasises the phased character of the transition to agriculture but does not explicitly spell out the nature of the relationship between foragers and farming communities. It is this relationship that forms the focus of Dennell’s frontier model (Dennell 1985; Zvelebil 1986). Here, a distinction is made between mobile and static frontiers. In the case of a mobile frontier, agriculture expands across a certain region through various mechanisms (Dennell 1985, 121–32): hunter-gatherer immigration into farmer settlements; hunter-gatherer acquisition of farming knowledge, skill and techniques; natural resource migration; and colonization without hunter-gatherer participation. Mobile frontiers in fact correspond to the sequence from availability to consolidation within a particular region, as detailed above. Dennell (1985) also defines static frontiers. Open static frontiers contrast with closed static frontiers in that they involve the exchange of items and knowledge. Static frontiers correspond to a long and unchanging availability phase within particular regions. Building upon the open and closed aspects of the frontier model proposed by Dennell (1985), one of the authors introduced a two-staged model for the introduction of an agrarian economy in the Netherlands, based on a variety of ethnographic sources and developed from a social perspective (Verhart 2000). The two stages can blend into each other and sometimes only the first or second stage is present. The first often short stage of contact is characterized as a period of intense amazement and confusion, mainly affecting the social subsystem. Exchange in this stage involves hunter-gatherer acquisition of items that can be used in their prestige system, in particular artefacts, which are exchanged for food, sexual favours and useful raw materials. The second stage involves three possible developments that may blend to some degree: dependence, with the integration and (partial) acculturation of native hunter-gatherers; symbiosis; or Diverging trajectories? independence, with an attitude of avoidance towards continued interaction. From an ecological perspective, Gregg (1988) arrives at similar options, which can be correlated with Verhart’s second stage or Dennell’s open and closed frontiers. Her model distinguishes between antagonistic competition and cooperative mutualism. Competition exists when two or more populations use a limited resource. The nature of competition can be direct, entailing aggression, or indirect, if one population uses or alters a resource thereby reducing its availability to another. Mutualism occurs when two populations exchange goods or services to cooperatively exploit a range of resources (Gregg 1988, 42). It comprises many relationships depending on the degree to which people interact, whether or not it is a prerequisite for continued existence, the periodicity of interaction and the extent of reciprocal specialization. Direct mutualism involves contact, while indirect mutualism only implies the creation of beneficial conditions. The interaction can furthermore be obligatory or facultative. The former is necessary for survival, while the latter does not hinder it. Each model stresses a different reality of foragerfarmer interaction, but there is also convergence on some critical points, accentuating a certain similarity in the development of contact and exchange and indicating a similar array of options (Table 1). 13 Problems of pluriformity The models discussed above cover a broad range of contact situations and interaction. Some situations incorporate antagonistic aspects, while others stress cooperation and mutual benefits. Their common denominator is that all, to a certain extent, study the interaction between the LBK and indigenous foragers. In the context of contact finds and spatial patterning, many different scenarios could underlie the documented archaeological correlates. Gronenborn (2004) aptly expresses this in his comparison of the advent of the LBK and the Bantu expansion in southern Africa many millennia later. The southward expansion of Bantu-speaking migrants involved the migration of domesticated sheep, cattle and pottery. The local population subsequently adopted elements of this package, which resulted in a rich diversity of groups: indigenous hunter-gatherers in the west and central arid regions, some of which produced their own pottery; as well as pastoralists herding cattle, sheep and goat further south and southwest. All of these groups were in direct contact with Bantu farmers. From a classificatory point of view, full-scale farmers thus interacted with pottery-using herders, hunter-gatherers and so-called chasseurs ceramisées (Gronenborn 2004, 234, 247). Various interaction processes were documented, including full- and smallscale migration, diffusion, interaction, acculturation and assimilation (Gronenborn 2004). Such a rich constellation of groups and processes might, to a certain extent, also be assumed for the early Neolithic of northwestern Europe, although we lack the convenience of a rich ethnohistoric background. The much-debated advent and origin of the LBK (see Zvelebil 2004) already presupposes the presence of multiple actors. This aside, the presence of various groups of late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, some of which evolve into chasseurs ceramisées (e.g. Swifterbant; see Raemaekers 1999; Louwe Kooijmans 2001), forms the background for a still hardly understood period of interaction and transition. Possibly related to this interaction are the phenomena of La Hoguette (LH) and Limburg (LB) pottery. We are potentially dealing with fully-fledged farmers, hunter-gatherers with and without pottery, as well as, hypothetically in the case of La Hoguette, pastoralists with pottery (Kalis et al. 2001). This could involve the processes of migration, interaction, acculturation, assimilation and diffusion. The problem with this situation is that it involves many different possible scenarios for interaction, which are unfortunately only informative when they result in preserved material remains and/or patterning. Furthermore, archaeological correlates may not be unique to one type of interaction. Three factors are of special importance and deserve to be taken into serious consideration in any study of early Neolithic foragerfarmer interaction: taphonomy; multiple possible interpretations for archaeological patterns; and spatiotemporal considerations. Taphonomy One of the most important factors distorting our perspective on Mesolithic-Neolithic interaction is taphonomy. This issue has recently been addressed for the British Isles by Rowley-Conwy (2004). Only a small part of contact and exchange will materialise archaeologically and forager-farmer interaction is often characterised by a general disparity in the kinds of items exchanged (Dennell 1985; Gregg 1988; Verhart 2000). The hypothetical model of forager-farmer exchange in the Baltic (see Zvelebil 1998, fig. 1.5) is a good example. Many of the items or objects hunter-gatherers brought 14 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart a stratum dating to c. 5300 cal BC (Louwe Kooijmans 2003). These do form examples of interaction, but where do expeditions end? What is the influence of down-the-line contact? How can we define raids or scavenging? The situation becomes even less clearcut when, for example, projectile points or ceramics are involved, since there is a distinct possibility these might have been produced or imitated locally as a result of acculturation. At the late Mesolithic site of Weelde-Paardsdrank for example, several points of LBK affinity were found amidst concentrations of Mesolithic settlement debris (Huyge and Vermeersch 1982). Limburg ware, found both within and beyond LBK settlements, has for example rather different decorative schemes and temper compared to LBK fine ware and, similarly, the existence of non-conformist LBK ware on LBK settlements might be the result of forager women marrying into farmer society (Van de Velde 2008). We are thus faced with several scenarios, most of which cannot be completely excluded based on the nature of the evidence available. into the interaction, such as forest products, fur, skins, seal fat, amber, raw materials or honey, stand either no chance of survival or cannot be identified as of ‘Mesolithic origin’ (see also Verhart 2000). This is exacerbated by the idea that objects of indigenous groups were often regarded as inferior (see Verhart 2000; 2003). Similarly, other evidence for interaction, for instance in the form of DNA (Richards 2003) or stable isotopes (cf. Price et al. 2001), only stands a chance of survival under extremely good circumstances. The loess and sandy upland environment of the study area is often characterised by decalcified and acidic conditions that reduce evidence for contact to a purely lithic endeavour with occasional finds of pottery. It should therefore be stressed that the available evidence for interaction is merely the taphonomic residue of behaviourally variable contact that in some cases will have led to, mostly unintentional, deposition of objects. The deposits will often even lack an informative spatiotemporal context. Objects, people, ideas The next factor is schematically depicted in figure 1 and involves the possibility for multiple interpretations of the archaeological correlates of exchange. This especially involves objects, often LBK artefacts that have been found beyond LBK areas. Regular finds of LBK adzes on the upland coversand landscape, north of the loessbased settlement clusters, are an example. These finds can be interpreted according to very divergent scenarios. One explanation is to assume the object moved away from the LBK settlement cluster as the consequence of interaction and exchange (see Verhart 2000; in prep. a). Ideally, this could involve some form of Mesolithic context, for instance in the form of associated microliths. Another option would be to assume that the object was carried by LBK farmers until its deposition. It might have been taken along on an expedition or herding trek. For the LBK settlement cluster of the Graetheide, it is often assumed that LBK objects found up to 20 km north of the loess zone can be associated with LBK forays, expeditions and other off-site activities (e.g. Amkreutz forthcoming; Bakels 1978; 1982; Louwe Kooijmans 1998; Verhart 2000; in prep. a). In this case, it would not be an archaeological correlate for contact. It is difficult, however, to know where to draw the line. Adzes have been found up to more than 100 km from the nearest known settlement site, and at the late Mesolithic site of Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg in the Rhine-Meuse delta, an LBK point was found in Spatio-temporal considerations A final issue influencing our understanding of foragerfarmer interaction is of a spatio-temporal nature. Often, from a neo-evolutionary perspective contact between foragers and farmers is described as unilinear. Foragers are clearly involved in a process of change. This is aptly expressed by the different stages defined by some of the authors above. While this might be useful in large-scale modelling of the transition to agriculture, it does not do justice to the actual historicity of the Neolithisation process and the role of forager-farmer interaction therein. As was argued above, the transition to agriculture can be considered a true mosaic (cf. Tringham 2000), consisting of a multitude of unique interand intraregional developments. Furthermore, there are quite a number of ethnographically documented cases that indicate a considerable flexibility in the adoption of agriculture. There was the option of reversibility and falling back upon a hunter-gatherer existence, of trial phases and abandoning of the new (e.g. Habu 2002; Layton 1999; Layton et al. 1991; Rowley-Conwy 2001). This stresses the many-sidedness of contact situations. As demonstrated ethnographically, hostile, friendly and neutral relations exist with different neighbours and frequently change in character (Godelier 1986; Kelly 1993; Chagnon 1997). Many of the aforementioned models pragmatically neglect this variability in absence of the resolution to Diverging trajectories? 15 objects -prestige? -roughout or finished? -waste? -usefulness archaeological correlate -local implementation -local interpretation/bricolage -similar use -acculturation isolated or pattern? -with objects? -style/acculturation -divergence ideas people Figure 1. Schematic depiction of hypothetical explanations for correlates of exchange. Related points of attention have been placed along the axes. document it. However, it is important that research takes place on the scale of detailed micro-regional studies (see Ammerman and Biagi 2003). Only these studies can potentially reach a resolution that goes beyond generalist hypotheses about the character of interaction and incorporates locally specific variables and archaeological correlates in order to document both the variability and nature of the existent contact situations. Forager-farmer interaction in two adjacent regions The Neolithisation process in the southern part of the Lower Rhine Area The process of Neolithisation in the southern part of the Lower Rhine Area (LRA), which corresponds to the study region of the Low Countries, northwest of the Ardennes plateau, starts with the arrival of LBK farmers around 5300 cal BC (e.g. Louwe Kooijmans 1998). They settle the loess soils, grouped in several settlement clusters, the westernmost and most remote of which is located in the area of the sources of the Dendre river (see Jadin and Hauzeur 2003b). Evidence for late Mesolithic settlement nearby is mainly known from the adjacent coversand landscape. The near absence of hunter-gatherer traces on the loess reflects the low intensity of exploitation in this region, but can also partially be related to the particular taphonomy (see Vanmontfort forthcoming). Finds of Limburg ware both within and outside LBK settlement contexts, as well as locations yielding sherds of La Hoguette pottery, indicate the presence of other ceramic groups. In the case of the La Hoguette group these might even have been anterior to LBK occupation (Louwe Kooijmans 1998). Around 4900 cal BC, the LBK occupation of the area ends rather abruptly. A strong increase in the number and size of settlements was documented for the last LBK phases in the Graetheide cluster (see Bakels 1982). Subsequent evidence for occupation is meagre and, apart from stray finds, involves settlements of the Groupe de Blicquy in the Dendre cluster and the Hesbaye region and, somewhat later, a single Rössen settlement near Maastricht (Crombé and Vanmontfort 2007; Louwe Kooijmans 1998). Due to lack of chronological 16 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart Figure 2. Map depicting the Limburg (2) and Hainault (1) study regions, the extent of the loess and the distribution of LBK settlements. resolution, little is known about possible huntergatherers still inhabiting the area. The appearance of the local variant of the Michelsberg culture around 4300 cal BC is interpreted as a convergence of local elements that had evolved out of the Danubian Neolithic with the local substratum of hunter-gatherers (Crombé and Vanmontfort 2007; Vanmontfort 2004). In this study, we will deal with the first part of the Neolithisation process in two regions of LBK occupation and in particular with the evidence for forager-farmer interaction. The many difficulties outlined above have left us with mainly two lines of evidence: contact finds and settlement patterns. from the southern part of Dutch Limburg along the Meuse to the central river district further north. The first zone is located south of the Graetheide plateau and consists of Cretaceous limestone outcrops. A combination of fluvial action and erosion of the loess led to a hilly and dissected landscape varying between 60 and 320 m above Dutch ordnance datum (Berendsen 1997, 10–21). North of this zone another type of landscape is encountered, characterised by a thick loess cover. The relief in this area coincides with three terraces of the Meuse. The spacious middle terrace formed the main focus for LBK habitation because of the even terrain, the loess and the presence of water. Lately, however, LBK settlements have also been discovered on the upper terrace and on the lower terrace next to the Meuse (for an overview see Amkreutz forthcoming). A dense homogeneous lime and oak forest covered both these zones. In the Meuse Valley, riparian woodland existed with open patches consisting of herbs and grasses (Bakels 1978). The third and last zone of the Limburg study Physiography of the study regions Limburg The Limburg region is located in the southernmost part of the Netherlands, bordered by Belgium to the west and Germany to the east (Figure 2). Geographically it can be subdivided into three different zones, ranging Diverging trajectories? region is the rather flat coversand landscape north of the Graetheide plateau. The micro-relief is formed by sand dunes and ridges, and many brooks and smaller streams drain the area to the Meuse. In contrast with the first two zones, vegetation in this area was of a more patchy nature relating to the presence of water in the form of streams or fens. Vegetation consisted of a forest with oak, birch, beech and alder in the wetter parts, as well as open spaces with shrubs, herbs and grasses (Berendsen 1997, 26–31) Hainault The Hainault study region is located in the western part of central Belgium (Figure 2). Based on its physiography, the region can be subdivided into two subzones. The northern part belongs to the Belgian loam region. The relief is softly undulating in the Dendre river source area and more dissected north of it. The soils developed within several meters of loess on top of a substrate of limited permeability and are predominantly typical luvisols. The vegetation on the loess plateaus during the Atlantic period mainly consisted of lime forest. The southern part of the Hainault study region is dominated by the synclinal Haine river basin depression (Goossens 1983). This basin formed during Cretaceous and Eocene times and was filled with thick Quaternary deposits. Soil development in the loess mainly took place on top of a permeable substrate and on loamy sands and alluvial deposits in the centre of the river basin. 17 Mesolithic artefacts in LBK contexts Unquestionable Mesolithic artefacts in LBK contexts are extremely rare. In the Limburg study region, only two sites with LBK pits containing Mesolithic microliths are known. A single LBK pit at the settlement of Geleen-Janskamperveld contained three Mesolithic points. One was a point with unretouched base (Van de Velde 2008). Two mistletoe points were found in a similar context at Elsloo (W. Hendrix pers. comm.). An LBK pit at Maastricht-Klinkers contained several pieces of Wommersom quartzite. This raw material was frequently used by late Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups (Caspar 1984), but not by the LBK farmers. The presence of Wommersom artefacts is thus often related to hunter-gatherer activities. In the Hainault study region, the only occurrence of Mesolithic artefacts in an LBK context is a single mistletoe point in an LBK pit at Blicquy-Couture du Couvent (Constantin et al. 1991). Mesolithic artefacts in LBK or Neolithic contexts are also rare in general, beyond the study regions discussed here. Few mistletoe points, trapezes and invasively retouched points have been found in the LBK of the neighbouring Hesbaye settlement cluster (see Destexhe 1974–1976; Eloy 1947, 112; 1963, 11; Gob 1984; Jadin and Cahen 2003; Keeley 1992 and Table 2). Other Mesolithic lithic artefacts were found in a pit at Liège-Place St.-Lambert (Gob 1984). Wommersom quartzite has been documented in the LBK sites of the small Kleine Gete settlement cluster, where it represents 9–10% of the artefacts (Lodewijckx and Bakels 2000). Finally, it should be stated that many surface sites of the LBK also yield Mesolithic artefacts. However, none of these occurrences form convincing evidence for interaction between foragers and farmers. The few microliths and other Mesolithic artefacts found in LBK pits could also be residual. As Van Assche (2005) rightly stresses, most of these microliths are typical for the earlier phases of the Mesolithic and thus pre-date LBK arrival in the area (also see Arts 1989; De Laet 1982, 207). This means that the few trapezes in these contexts also do not need to be contemporary with the LBK. The same is true for surface associations of material. The use of Wommersom quartzite on some LBK sites cannot prove forager-farmer interaction either. On most sites, the very few artefacts in this raw material are either undiagnostic or typically Mesolithic. In view of the palimpsest problem, they can thus also be residual. In the Kleine Gete LBK, more Wommersom quartzite was used for tool production, but unfortunately none of the artefacts are clearly Mesolithic or LBK (Lodewijckx and Bakels 2000). Even if they were part of the LBK tool production technology, however, they do not unequivocally imply hunter-gatherer or other autochthonous group interference (Vanmontfort 2007). LBK artefacts beyond settlement clusters LBK artefacts are often found beyond the settlement clusters identified thus far. In the Limburg area, these range from isolated occurrences of pottery, flint and adzes, over combinations of LBK artefacts to mixed assemblages combining LBK elements with, for example, Limburg pottery (Figure 3) The loess-covered hills south and east of the Graetheide plateau yielded isolated adzes, points and other tools. Small grinding stones and pieces of hematite might also date to the early Neolithic, but are of course less diagnostic. Small concentrations of LBK artefacts are also documented in this area, for instance at Gulpen and Noorbeek-Noor (Amkreutz 18 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart Table 2. Mesolithic artefacts in LBK contexts. site artefact context references Van de Velde forthcoming b Hendrix pers. comm. De Warrimont 2003 Constantin et al. 1991 Eloy 1963,111 Eloy 1947, 212 Destexhe 1974–1976 Jadin and Cahen 2003 Jadin and Cahen 2003 Gob 1984; Van Berg 1990; Keeley 1992 3 Mesolithic points, including Geleen-Janskamperveld 1 point with unretouched base LBK pit and 1 with inverse retouch Elsloo Maastricht-Klinkers Blicquy-Couture du Couvent Vaux-et-Borset Tilice-Flexhe-Slins Verlaine-Sur les forts Darion-Colia Oleye-Al Zepe Liege PSL 2 feuille de gui pieces of Wommersom quartzite 1 mistletoe point feuille de gui feuille de gui feuille de gui 2 points with invasive retouch; 2 trapezes, pieces of Wommersom quartzite 3 points with invasive retouch; 1 trapeze several Mesolithic artefacts LBK pit LBK pit LBK pit ? ? ? ? ? LBK pit forthcoming). There are no convincing Mesolithic artefacts or sites, and the occurrences of LBK artefacts should thus be interpreted as remains of off-site activities within the home range (sensu Bakels 1978) of one of the LBK clusters. The LBK flint procurement site of Banholt forms a further line of evidence for these activities (Brounen and Peeters 2000/2001). Considerably more LBK artefacts have been found in the coversand landscape north of the Graetheide cluster, including isolated finds, combinations of artefacts, multi-component sites and possible settlements. LBK artefact concentrations involve various combinations of LBK artefacts (adzes, points, pottery), sometimes in combination with Limburg pottery. Artefact quantities at these sites vary between a few objects to considerable concentrations. They are mostly found on the surface, which makes an unambiguous association of the artefacts impossible. Generally no Mesolithic elements are reliably associated, which favours an explanation of these sites as serving a specialised function in an LBK context. The quantity of remains might determine the intensity or frequency of use as well as the level of permanency or consistent frequentation of these locations (see Louwe Kooijmans 1993). A good example of one of these sites off the loess is Echt-Annendaal-HVR 183 (Brounen 1985). Located on a terrace edge several kilometres north of the loess, this site yielded sherds of four different LBK vessels as well as of Limburg pottery. Furthermore, scrapers, blades and an arrowhead were found. Another such site was found near Koningsbosch on a patch of loamy sand. The artefacts at these locations are part of a wider distribution of LBK finds in a zone of up to 20 km north of the loess (Verhart 2000; in prep. a). Notably, this zone lacks substantial features or house plans (Van der Graaf 1987; Louwe Kooijmans 1998). With the exception of some locations (see above) most of these sites might be interpreted as belonging to LBK off-site activities such as transhumance. Sherds often date to the second phase of LBK occupation (see Brounen 1985; Van der Graaf 1987). This might be linked to a greater need for pasture to cope with the increase in settlements and population on the Graetheide plateau (Bakels 1982; Bogucki 1982). Exchange or interaction between foragers and farmers cannot be excluded, but the absence of reliable associations of Mesolithic and Neolithic remains makes this option less likely. Alongside the concentrations described above, there are also other finds and combinations of finds. These range from the coversand area into and across the central river district. Possible LBK settlements or combinations of LBK Diverging trajectories? artefacts often occur in and directly north of the loess belt region. The other combinations shown in Table 3 are also found on the coversands and occasionally in the river district. Their wide-ranging spatial occurrence and occasional association with Limburg, La Hoguette or late Mesolithic cultural remains prevents a purely functional interpretation within an LBK context. A probable explanation is contact with Mesolithic huntergatherers (see Verhart 2000). This indigenous aspect could involve various processes of exchange and interaction (see above). The valued and costly adzes (Van de Velde 1990), or points as markers of cultural identity might have played a role in these contacts. The interpretation of this interaction is mainly based on the function and the association of the artefacts found (also see Van der Graaf 1987, 15), yet at the same time hampered by the fact they are not found in context, but on the surface. Further complicating factors are the 19 interpretation of isolated and associated occurrences of Limburg pottery, La Hoguette and Begleitkeramik (BLH) and possible evidence of acculturation. Also in Hainaut, several LBK traces have been documented beyond the Dendre source settlement cluster. Isolated adzes, arrowheads and very few potsherds have been found (Jadin and Hauzeur 2003a). Most of these finds are concentrated in the Haine river basin, approximately 20 km southeast of the LBK settlement cluster. In general, however, the density of LBK finds is much lower in this area. Contrary to the Limburg area, no concentrations of LBK artefacts have been reported to date. Beyond the two study regions, similar patterns can be observed. Isolated occurrences characterise more or less the entire loess belt, with a concentration in southwestern Brabant (Jadin and Hauzeur 2003a). There is also a variety of isolated finds and combinations of Figure 3. Early Neolithic artefacts on and beyond the loess region. Key: white lozenges: La Hoguette pottery; stars: Limburg pottery; dots: LBK finds beyond LBK settlement territory; hatched areas: LBK settlement clusters. 20 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart Table 3. Overview of combinations in evidence of possible contact. Scores in brackets indicate a questionable association. LBK point isolated Limburg pottery La Hoguette Begleit-keramik LH Mesolithic + + + + + + + LBK-like point + LBK adze + LBK pottery + + LBK combi + + LBK settlement + + + (+) (+) (+) + + Mesolithic isolated finds in a zone stretching farther north of the loess belt, into and across the central river district. Apart from LBK artefacts, ceramics of Limburg, La Hoguette and Begleitkeramik of La Hoguette are also found. Table 3 gives an overview of the different combinations possible. It is apparent, however, that these finds concentrate on the eastern side of the map. LBK artefacts more than 30 km north of the Dendre source settlement cluster are rare. At least for a single LBK adze found on a Roman site near Ghent, it was concluded that it could also have travelled into this area in more recent times (Perdaen et al. 2006). To conclude, LBK remains have been found in a much larger region than that of the settlement clusters. Especially the loess belt region and a buffer zone of approximately 20km have yielded such remains (Verhart 2000; in prep. a). It is likely that they represent another aspect of LBK exploitation and occupation of the LRA. Sites such as Banholt and Echt-Annendaal show this to be the case in the Limburg area, but the Haine river basin may also have been frequented in search of flint for tool production. Isolated artefacts found beyond this 20 km buffer zone are more likely to be the result of some sort of exchange with people occupying that region during the LBK occupation phase (Verhart 2000; in prep. a). It is clear, however, that these indications for exchange and interaction concentrate in the eastern part of the LRA. Other early pottery traditions Other ceramic groups include La Hoguette (LH) and Begleitkeramik of La Hoguette (BLH). While both until now have not been found in the Hainault region, the Limburg area has yielded several sites with sherds of LH and BLH pottery (figure 3). The first site with sherds of LH pottery was discovered on the upper terrace adjacent to the LBK settlement of Geleen (Van Berg 1987; Modderman 1987). This site also yielded BLH (Van Berg 1990, 194). An LBK pit at the site of Geleen-Nijssenstraat yielded several La Hoguette sherds (Brounen and Vromen 1990, 36–8). The pit dated to phase IIc/d. Table 4 summarizes the finds so far. It is noteworthy that this type of pottery spread considerably far north. The site of Ede-Frankeneng is located in the province of Gelderland across the central river district. Furthermore, it mostly concerns isolated surface finds of several sherds. During the smallscale excavations of Ede and Sweikhuizen, however, considerable amounts of clustered sherds, but no archaeological features, were discovered. La Hoguette pottery might belong to an indigenous tradition of ceramic production contemporary with and perhaps even prior to the LBK (De Grooth 2005, 293; Gronenborn 1999, 184; Jeunesse 1994; Lüning et al. 1989). The faunal remains in several small trenches in Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt suggest that there was a pastoral element within the subsistence of this group (Kalis et al. 2001). BLH was only recently defined by Jeunesse (1994, 15). It differs from LH in the absence of doubly indented rows of spatula impressions (Jeunesse 1994; Brounen 1999). Both types were found in sealed contexts on several occasions, and most probably are related to each other. Limburg pottery has been defined by Modderman (1974) on the basis of an isolated vessel found at Kesseleik, Limburg. This type of pottery was already known for several decades from its frequent occurrence in LBK settlements, for instance as Importgruppe I (Buttler and Haberey 1936). Most typically, sherds of Limburg pottery are associated with LBK material of the younger period (phase II sensu Diverging trajectories? Table 4. Finds of La Hoguette and Begleitkeramik in the Netherlands. Site Sweikhuizen Geleen-Nijssenstraat Posterholt Ittervoort-Damszand Haelen-Broekweg Kessel-Sjoppenaas Venlo-Ossenberg Gassel Ede Frankeneng + + + + + + + LH + + + BLH + N sherds 84/3 several several several several several several several (+ LBK adze) 64+ Context reference 21 upper terrace, Modderman 1987; Van Berg loess 1987; 1990 LBK pit, loess Brounen and Vromen 1990 coversand coversand coversand coversand coversand riverdune depression, coversand dune Verhart 2000 Brounen et al. in prep. a Bats et al. 2002 Brounen 1999, 61 Brounen 1999; Verhart 2000 Brounen and de Jong 1988 Brounen et al. in prep. b; Schut 1988 Modderman 1970) and despite the isolated occurrences mentioned, this frequent association seems to occur both on and off the loess (Brounen 1986, 41; Van der Graaf 1987). This was, for example, the case at HVR183 (Brounen 1985), or, in an open context, at HornLateraalkanaal (Modderman 1981). In addition, sherds of Limburg pottery are frequently found in pits of LBK settlements on the Graetheide plateau (figure 3). In Hainaut, Limburg pottery is abundant in the assemblage of the Aubechies-Coron Matton LBK site (Constantin et al. 1980), but has not been discovered beyond the LBK settlement cluster. The problem with Limburg pottery still lies in its interpretation. Different scholars argue in favour of an indigenous development, based on divergences in technology and distribution (e.g. Louwe Kooijmans 1976; Constantin 1985; Van Berg 1990), a local development out of La Hoguette (Louwe Kooijmans 1998), or see Limburg ware as an element that should be interpreted within the LBK context (e.g. Constantin et al. forthcoming). Van de Velde (2008) argues that the hybrid character of Limburg vessels, incorporating both LBK and ‘other’ elements, might also relate to intermarriage and related derivative ‘mixed’ pottery traditions. Either way, an intrinsic and an acculturated perspective seem to point to important involvement of the LBK. It is notable that there is no closed association of Limburg pottery and Mesolithic flint as opposed to Limburg pottery and LBK artefacts (also see Van der Graaf 1987). Unfortunately, it can only be concluded that the bearers of these indigenous pottery traditions and their link with indigenous or other groups remain elusive. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that they were present and perhaps played a role in forager-farmer interaction and exchange. Acculturation There are only a few indications for acculturation in the two research areas. The pottery traditions of LB and LH might both have some formal or relational affiliation with the LBK ceramic repertoire, but whether they were the product of local successors of the Mesolithic remains highly uncertain (see above). Jeunesse (2000) even interprets the similarities in the decorative patterns of La Hoguette and later Rhineland LBK pottery as an indication for the native population’s influence on the LBK pottery repertoire. Morphological attributes of the lithic toolkit, in particular of projectile points, are another source of information on acculturation. Newell, for instance, proposed clear Mesolithic affinities for the general LBK toolkit in the Netherlands (see Newell in Modderman 1970, 144–83). However, this hypothesis was soon rejected on the basis of rather evident dissimilarities (Louwe Kooijmans 1974; Vermeersch 1990). Better indications exist for projectile points. ‘Danubian’ asymmetric arrowheads with inverse basal retouch (RIP), generally regarded as typically Bandkeramik, are currently believed to have developed from late 22 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart however, clear that the interpretation and chronological resolution of the Mesolithic settlement patterns remains difficult. Limburg LBK occupation of the Graetheide plateau can be dated between approximately 5300 and 4900 cal BC. The first settlements can be attributed to Modderman (1970) phase Ib. The early settlements of Geleen, Sittard, Elsloo and Beek were located at close distance to either the Meuse or tributaries such as the Geleenbeek. This left a relatively large terrain untouched. For the end of the LBK occupation (phase IIc/d) some 20 settlements have been documented and a maximum of 2000 LBK people might have populated the Graetheide plateau at the end of this phase (De Grooth 2005, 292). This growth placed increasing demands on the local environment, as the central area of the Graetheide plateau was gradually brought into cultivation. According to Bakels (1978; 1982), the different communities had to work together in order to survive. Furthermore, the shortage of pasture probably necessitated a form of transhumance onto the coversand landscape to the north (Bakels 1978; 1982; Bogucki 1982). The results of this growth become very visible in the last two phases, as new locations were increasingly exploited, both on and off the loess. It could be suggested that in these two phases, the rigid LBK system witnessed a peripheral shift (Amkreutz forthcoming). This remarkable dissociation from the importance of a loess subsoil is emblematically represented by two recently discovered LBK sites on the lower terrace of the Meuse (Amkreutz 2006; Amkreutz forthcoming; Brounen and Vromen 2005). Apparently the old ‘rules’ with regard to choice of settlement location were increasingly applied in a looser manner (see also Sommer 2001). At the same time, it should be noted that this also involved a shift towards locations with a potentially much stronger Mesolithic signature. The late Mesolithic occupation of Dutch Limburg is less well known. The coversand area north of the loess-covered Graetheide plateau has yielded relatively abundant information in quantitative respects. Mesolithic sites have been documented on the sandy uplands of Limburg. A more detailed study in the Loobeek microregion near Venray (Verhart 2000, 57–67) indicated a preference for settlement in gradientrich areas, either near the Meuse or in the source area of various brooks. The sites are mostly situated on elevations such as coversand ridges and dunes (see also Arts 1994; Huyge and Vermeersch 1982). Mesolithic asymmetrical trapezes from the Loire and LRA (e.g. Jeunesse 2000). Moreover, there seems to be a congruent left- or right-winged spatial division similar for both Mesolithic trapezes and LBK points in respectively the south and the north (for a discussion of this topic, see De Grooth 2005; Jeunesse 2002; Löhr 1994; Verhart in prep. b). Another line of reasoning regards certain points in Mesolithic sites as having been derived from Bandkeramik examples. A noteworthy site in this respect is Weelde-Paardsdrank in northern Belgium (Huyge and Vermeersch 1982). Nine LBK-like points were found, two of which have evident LBK affinities. The problem is that ‘typological affinity’ is not clearly defined (Van der Graaf 1987, 19). Traits such as ventral retouch are not uncommon among microliths and the existence of atypical LBK-like points is therefore shaded in morphological obscurity. Some evidence for Mesolithic copying of LBK traits might be the fact that true LBK points are also regularly found on Mesolithic sites. These might have had an exemplary function. Examples are the LBK-like and LBK points found at HardinxveldGiessendam-Polderweg (Louwe Kooijmans 2003). The genuine LBK point was produced on Rijckholt flint. The location of the site in the central river district (more than 250 km from the Rijckholt source) and its date (c. 5300 cal BC and thus at the start of the LBK occupation of the Graetheide plateau) are emblematic for the early date and considerable distance (either direct or indirect) of forager-farmer interaction. The coversand area also has several Mesolithic sites with atypical points, notably Lommel (south of Eindhoven) and Budel (west of Weert). Both areas also yielded LBK points (see Van der Graaf 1987). In the ethnographic literature, projectile points are often shown to be used as bearers or conveyors of group identity in order to distinguish and affiliate. !Kung San projectile points were therefore considered important elements in an elaborate system of exchange (Wiessner 1983). Although a clear metrical definition of true and acculturated point types is necessary, especially in combination with raw material proveniencing, the importance of projectile points as indicators of contact and possibly acculturation seems evident. Site patterning Characteristics of LBK and Mesolithic settlement patterns in the region are another source of information. Observed changes during initial and prolonged contact are of special interest. In the light of the above it is, Diverging trajectories? In contrast, hardly any evidence is known from the loess itself. This has led some authors to believe that these areas were largely devoid of Mesolithic settlement due to their unappealing nature resulting from dense Atlantic forest and presumed low biodiversity (Gronenborn 1999; Modderman 1988; Verhart 2003). The apparent lack of occupation might also be related to the particular taphonomy of the loess region or other research biases (see above). Even in comparison to other parts of the loess belt further west, however, the ‘LBK’ Graetheide area yielded extremely few Mesolithic traces. This hence seems to be a primary pattern and signals the unattractiveness of the region for Holocene hunter-gatherers. The LBK thus apparently settled in an area that was not intensively exploited by the local last hunter-gatherers (Vanmontfort forthcoming). Huntergatherer activity beyond the Graetheide settlement cluster seems to have been more or less unchanged after LBK arrival. Hainault During the 1970s an additional LBK settlement cluster was discovered in the Dendre river source area in Hainault. To date, six settlements have been discovered within an area of less than 20 km² (see Jadin and Hauzeur 2003b). This area is located approximately 100 km from the nearest other known LBK settlements of the Kleine Gete and Hesbaye settlement clusters. It seems to be a primary pattern, although the presence of as yet undiscovered intermediate settlement clusters cannot entirely be ruled out (Jadin and Hauzeur 2003b). Differences in the physical geography or geology seem, in any case, not able to explain the absence of sites in the intermediate region between Hainaut and Hesbaye. The site of Blicquy-Couture du Couvent yielded the oldest assemblage (Constantin et al. 1991). It slightly post-dates the first LBK settlements in Limburg and the Hesbayen cluster. Unfortunately, the small number of settlements makes it difficult to estimate the occupation history of the region. All sites are located on ‘typical’ LBK spots: on well drained loess plateaus close to open water. It is not unlikely that the Hainault settlement cluster will yield additional sites in the future, but it will most probably remain a rather small settlement cluster. At present there are no indications for a dramatic expansion in the number of settlements or a shift in settlement location, as is the case in the Limburg study region. On the other hand, LBK excursions into the Haine basin in search of raw material are for instance indicated by the use of so-called Ghlin flint in the 23 Hainault LBK sites and the fairly large number of isolated LBK adzes in that region (Jadin and Hauzeur 2003a; Van Assche 2006). As for the Limburg loess region, the late Mesolithic occupation is less well known. Data is generally restricted to surface collections of concentrations or isolated artefacts. Most of these are located to the south and northwest of the LBK cluster, in regions with a more diverse soilscape, including soils developed on sands (Van Assche 2005; 2006). Mesolithic sites or artefacts from the nuclear zone of LBK occupation are extremely scarce. As for the Limburg area, we could thus conclude that the LBK settled in a region that was not intensely exploited by local hunter-gatherers (see Vanmontfort forthcoming). Moreover, the arrival of LBK communities does not at all seem to have had an attraction effect on local hunter-gatherer populations (Vanmontfort forthcoming). Indications for a huntergatherer exploitation of the loess belt are more obvious for the intermediate region between Hainault and Hesbaye (Figure 4). Based on a quantitative analysis of individual microliths, it even seems that this exploitation intensified during the later Mesolithic, quite in contrast to that of the Hainault region within a 25 km range around the LBK settlement cluster (Vanmontfort forthcoming). Diverging trajectories The Limburg and Hainault study regions display a number of similarities with regard to both LBK occupation and indications for LBK interaction with other contemporaneous groups in the area. Apart from the known settlements, both regions yielded traces that can best be interpreted as LBK excursions in search of raw material or pasture in a system of transhumance. Direct indications of contact and exchange, both in Neolithic and Mesolithic site contexts, are extremely scarce. No attraction of hunter-gatherers to LBK settlements can be demonstrated, although such an attraction does not need to have had an archaeological reflection. Nevertheless, a number of clear interregional differences can be noted. The number of LBK settlements is much larger in the Graetheide cluster than in the Dendre river source area, which is only partially due to the longer LBK occupation history. In Limburg, this large number of settlements allows us to identify changes in the occupation pattern. Towards the end of the LBK, the number of settlements increases and they are no longer confined to the typical locations. The small number of sites in Hainault does not allow us 24 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart Figure 4. Spatial distribution of microliths in the loess region and five study areas beyond. Spatial data for two of these regions is not available. Key: hatched lines: delimitation of microlith dataset regions; tepees: microlith find spots; circles: trapezes (sizes correspond to numbers 1, 2, 3 or more); hatched areas: LBK settlement clusters. to identify such a shift or settlement increase. It most probably remained a fairly small settlement cluster throughout its rather short LBK occupation history. Another striking difference between both regions is the number of remains that, albeit indirectly, indicate exchange between LBK and other populations. The most indicative items are adzes. In the eastern part of the Low Countries, many adzes are found to the north of the loess, more than 100 km from the nearest known LBK settlement. In the western part, north of the Hainault settlement cluster, hardly any adzes have been found. This difference is even more striking for the spatial distribution of Rössen Breitkeile (see Verhart 2000). Even if Rössen settlement sites are lacking west of Maastricht in Limburg, this is a remarkable pattern. It confirms the difference between the eastern and western part of the LRA (Verhart in prep. a), shown on a more regional scale above. People of the LBK thus behaved differently in the Limburg and Hainault regions. In Limburg, the LBK expands, people settle in the wider area around the ‘original’ cluster and indirect indications for contact with other communities are present. The lack of direct indications for contact and exchange is notable. It cannot be regarded as proof for the absence of contacts between the two groups, but is informative on the nature of the interaction. Moreover, farmers may have been predominantly interested in elements useful for their survival, i.e. food, raw materials and organic remains (see Verhart 2000, 32; Zvelebil 1998). Many of these exchange goods may not have been preserved archaeologically. In Hainault, on the other hand, LBK Diverging trajectories? people seem to be much more introspective. The short duration of the LBK occupation in this region allows us to identify it as the pioneer colonization phase of an LBK settlement. While hunter-gatherers might have been kept at bay during this pioneer phase, it is remarkable that no further interaction seems to have taken place. This could be regarded as a conscious decision of avoiding contact. 25 Models put to the test Several models providing a framework for the transition to agriculture and the most important distorting factors have been presented in the first sections of this paper. The question is if and how these models stand up to a correlation with the archaeological evidence. It should be stressed here that the single most important premise of this paper is the assumption that native populations were present at the end of the 6th millennium cal BC and that native hunter-gatherer populations at a certain point did come into contact with the Neolithic way of life. As indicated above, the availability model (Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1984) mainly focuses on the temporal aspect of the transition to agriculture in a particular region. It is a descriptive device and can easily be matched to our own scenario, constructed on the basis of archaeological data. The availability phase probably starts before the establishment of the first LBK settlements in the LRA, hypothetically even with the älteste LBK around 5500 cal BC. The consolidation phase, on the other hand, seems to correspond to the middle Neolithic in the second half of the 5th millennium cal BC (see Vanmontfort 2004; 2007; Verhart 2000). Outside the Swifterbant context, which is not included in the scope of this paper, there are no sites with a faunal spectrum consistent with the substitution phase. Although there are major problems related to the archaeological visibility of the last hunter-gatherers and their early successors (e.g. Vanmontfort 2007), the consolidation phase is most probably restricted to a very short transition phase around the middle of the 5th millennium cal BC. In restricting our scope to the relationship between the LBK and indigenous hunter-gatherers, we are thus confined in this paper to the availability and perhaps part of the substitution phase. The models of Dennell, Verhart and Gregg deal with the nature of the interaction. The available evidence shows the influx of agriculture with LBK communities. This spread corresponds to a mobile frontier in Dennell’s terminology. Natural resource migration can be excluded, since no indications exist for the presence of domesticates in the LRA prior to LBK arrival. Another unlikely explanation is that of huntergatherer acquisition. In the past it has been suggested that the LBK corresponds to a local acculturation of native hunter-gatherer groups (Whittle 1996). The large contrast between the LBK and the local late Mesolithic as currently understood makes this a very unlikely option: transitional complexes are non-existent and material culture, subsistence, mobility and raw material procurement strategies are quite different (see Allard 2005; Louwe Kooijmans 2007; Van Assche 2006). Only two of Dennell’s mobile frontier options therefore remain in the running: hunter-gatherer immigration into farmer villages; and colonisation by farmers without hunter-gatherer interference. Although the processes and contact situations involved are highly different, these options are likely to have resulted in a similar archaeological dataset: one of a Neolithic culture within which it is difficult to observe any trace of hunter-gatherer influence. From the moment of LBK colonisation onwards, no indications exist for a subsequent spread of agriculture or for a Neolithic way of life in the region before the middle of the 5th millennium cal BC, which is beyond the scope of this paper. This implies that after the first influx of the LBK into the region, the archaeological data should be compared with the static frontier options. The two possible options are open and closed static frontiers. The altogether scarce indications of exchange and the absence of indications for conflict rather suggest the first option. Both contact phases of Verhart’s model potentially occurred within the spatio-temporal framework of this paper. In the first phase, contact would have resulted in hunter-gatherers exchanging food and raw materials for what could be labelled as prestige items. The native economic subsystem and consequently also the related settlement patterns would be largely unaffected. The only indications for exchange are the LBK adzes in the eastern part of the study region, found far beyond LBK settlement territory. Given the presumed status of adzes in LBK society, however, their exchange with native populations in this first contact phase is rather unlikely in Verhart’s model. They are more likely to be the result of an exchange during the second stage of contact (see below). Raw material exchange cannot be identified with certainty, since the presumed huntergatherer raw materials used by LBK communities can be found within reasonable distance from LBK 26 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart case of competition, territoriality and aggression will lead to spatially separate settlement patterns or drastic changes after contact. This might explain the general scarcity of contact finds; their paucity would reflect hostilities and raids. The presence of earthworks on the edge of LBK-occupied territory has in the past also been interpreted in this light (e.g. Keeley and Cahen 1989). This is substantiated by the fact that one of the houses at Darion and five of the eight houses of Oleye had burnt down (Keeley and Cahen 1989). Other indications for conflict are, however, lacking and even burnt down houses can of course be explained differently. In the case of mutualism many different situations might exist. It is nevertheless likely that most changes in settlement patterning would exist in an asymmetrical situation, where one of both parties is dependent on the other for survival. These changes are especially expected in the hunter-gatherer settlement pattern, since they might have depended more and more on agriculture for survival. Such attraction to LBK settlements is, however, entirely absent in the available data in both the eastern and western part of the LRA (Vanmontfort 2007; forthcoming). Neither of the two options suggested by Gregg thus seems apt to explain the archaeological data. When working through the archaeological data using the models described above, it appears difficult to distinguish between different phases (sensu Verhart 2000; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1984), different frontiers (Dennell 1985), or different forms of contact (Gregg 1988). The main issues responsible for this are taphonomy and time. The former restricts evidence for interaction to a predominantly lithic affair for which confirmation of actual association is extremely difficult, while temporal resolution is often much too coarse. It is for example virtually impossible to further characterize evidence of interaction or contact beyond LBK settlements within the 400 years of Bandkeramik presence. Furthermore it remains difficult to distinguish whether the mobility of persons, objects or ideas was responsible for the character of the archaeological record at a certain site. The archaeological evidence for phases, frontiers and the variability in contact is therefore reduced to a palimpsest of processes and interaction. This is aptly illustrated in figure 5, showing the multitude of actors and developments that might have influenced forager-farmer interaction and that shaped the transition to agriculture in the southern part of the LRA. It will often be difficult to single out or identify one of the options. From this, it can be concluded that the identification settlement clusters. In the western part of the LRA there is a complete lack of indications for exchange. Within the first contact phase of Verhart’s model, it can be explained by the absence of hunter-gatherer communities in this region north of the loess belt; by the absence of a first contact exchange; or by the exchange of items that are not preserved archaeologically. Given the similar absence of first contact exchange items in the eastern LRA, the latter option is reasonable. In the second contact phase, exchange of objects continues in two out of three options listed by Verhart: that of total dependence and of a symbiotic relationship. Again, taphonomic factors will have their influence on the archaeological visibility of that exchange and again, the LBK adzes in the eastern part of the LRA are the only archaeologically observed indications. These adzes are likely to be the result of exchange during this second contact phase (see above). Another element of these two options is the expected hybridisation in material culture. Elements that can be invoked at this point are the evolved asymmetric arrowheads with RIP of the late or final Mesolithic. Even if the chronological framework does not allow us to identify the direction of influence, these types are unquestionably related to the so-called Danubian arrowheads typical for the LBK in the region. Both second phase options will additionally have had an important impact on the hunter-gatherer settlement system due to demographic and economic changes. From an archaeological perspective, however, such changes are neither observed for the eastern nor for the western part of the LRA. The overall scarcity of data on late vs. final Mesolithic settlement patterns and systems, however, hampers an evaluation of this aspect. A third option of the Verhart model results in a complete independence of both groups. This assumes a minimal occurrence of contact finds and a shift away from farmer settlements by hunter-gatherers. However, the presence of a second contact phase exchange of adzes in the eastern part of the region and the close relationship between evolved Mesolithic and LBK arrowheads do not fit this option. An apparent absence of hunter-gatherer attraction to LBK settlements is observed, but it remains highly uncertain whether this equals a shift away from the LBK clusters. A different situation exists in the western part of the LRA, where no second phase exchange is observed. This can be explained by the absence of indigenous groups in this area (see above), but also by considering Verhart’s third second phase option of independence. Gregg’s model also provides different options for the relationship between foragers and farmers. In the Diverging trajectories? 27 A B C D E Figure 5. Schematic depiction of the multitude of actors and processes that might be involved in ‘a palimpsest of forager-farmer interaction.’ A: indigenous development of La Hoguette. B: indigenous development of Limburg. Note the connection between scenario A and B, indicating the possibility of a chronological and evolutionary development from La Hoguette to Limburg. C: Limburg as a result of LBK interaction with local hunter-gatherers. D: Limburg as a perhaps functionally specific ware within the LBK. E: indications for acculturation between LBK farmers and local hunter-gatherers as e.g. shown by LBK-like points, or pointes evoluées (Limburg ware adapted from Modderman 1974; La Hoguette vessel adapted from Lüning et al. 1989; LBK sherd: adapted from Van de Velde forthcoming). 28 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart of the character of contact and exchange within one region is fraught with difficulties and problems of multi-interpretability. Moreover, we should assume that the archaeological data actually is the result of a more complex reality, speckled with noise, than is suggested by the polarized options presented in the transition models. This is why this paper has focused on the differences and similarities between two regions. The advantage of a comparative study of two adjacent regions lies in contrasting one archaeological situation with another in a manner not based on ethnography or other interpretative frameworks. While this does not exclude the necessity to incorporate and assess the presence of divergent or distorting factors (such as differences in taphonomy etc.), observed differences and similarities could truly reflect past variability. This is why it was concluded above that the processes governing interaction in the Limburg region compared to the Hainault region were divergent and might represent different processes of interaction. Constructing a more elaborate dataset of similar situations and assessing their correspondence will provide a better, bottom-up approach for understanding the variability present in interaction during the process of Neolithisation. Analogously, it should be concluded that many of the other models are useful in constructing a grand narrative, but fail to offer an appropriate perspective for the actual study of interaction as it might have taken place. Conclusion Despite the scarcity of information, the reactions to the advent of the LBK and the subsequent development of interaction between foragers and farmers are considerably different in the Limburg and Hainault areas. The subtle evidence for this dissimilarity is not accounted for at the scale of most models of Neolithisation. It is therefore important that we regularly move beyond this top down approach and start again at the base, dealing with the possibilities and impossibilities provided by the archaeological evidence. The increasing awareness of the mosaic character of the process of Neolithisation and the current academic interest in individual and local narratives of change require the information provided by intensive regional research. It is the ability to contextualize and compare the similarities and dissimilarities between the habitus of groups and the conservative or progressive character of their social structure that will increase insight into the workings of the Neolithisation process. Acknowledgements The research for this paper is financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) within the Malta Harvest programme ‘From Hardinxveld to Noordhoorn. From Forager to Farmer’. Bibliography Allard, P. 2005. L’industrie lithique des populations rubanées du nord-est de la France et de la Belgique. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Amkreutz, L. 2006. LBK on the Meuse. An analysis and interpretation of Bandkeramik sites on the lower terrace of the Meuse in southern Limburg. In M. Kerkhof, R. van Oosten, F. Tomas and C. van Woerdekom (eds), SOJA Bundel 2005, 13–14. Leiden: Stichting Onderzoek Jonge Archeologen. Amkreutz, L. forthcoming. All quiet on the northwestern front? An overview and preliminary analysis of the past decade of LBK-research in the Netherlands. In D. Gronenborn and J. Petrasch (eds), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. – 26. Juni 2005. Mainz. Ammerman, A. J. and Biagi, P. (eds). 2003. The widening harvest. The Neolithic transition in Europe: looking back, looking forward. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America. Arts, N. 1989. Archaeology, environment and the social evolution of later band societies in a lowland area. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at the third international symposium Edinburgh 1985, 291–312. Edinburgh: John Donald. Arts, N. 1994. Laat-Mesolithische Nederzettingssporen en een Rössener Breitkeil in het Stiphouts Broek te Helmond, Nederland. Notae Praehistoricae 13, 79–94. Bakels, C. C. 1978. Four Linearbandkeramik settlements and their environment: a paleoecological study of Sittard, Stein, Elsloo and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 11. Bakels, C. C. 1982. The settlement system of the Dutch Linearbandkeramik. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 15, 31–45. Barrett, J. C. 2000. A thesis on agency. In M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb (eds), Agency in Archaeology, 61–68. London: Routledge. Bats, M., Crombé, P., de Vriendt, I., Langohr, R., Mikkelsen, J., Ryssaert, C., Schreurs, J., van de Water, A. and van Strydonck, M. 2002. Onderzoek langs de omleiding N273 te Haelen (Prov. Limburg, Nederland): VroegMesolithicum en Vroeg-Neolithicum. Notae Praehistoricae 22, 87–102. Berendsen, H. J. A. 1997. Landschappelijk Nederland. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum. Diverging trajectories? Bogucki, P. 1982. Early Neolithic subsistence and settlement in the Polish lowlands. Oxford: BAR. Brounen, F. T. S. 1985. HVR 183, vroeg-, midden- en laatneolithische vondsten te Echt-Annendaal. Archeologie in Limburg 24, 66–71. Brounen, F. T. S. 1986. HVR 183: Mesolithische, Neolithische en IJzertijdvondsten te Echt-Annendaal en het belang van de vindplaats in het licht van de relatie tussen Limburg en LBK aardewerk. Leiden: Kleine scriptie IPL. Brounen, F.T.S. 1999. Vroegneolithische Begleitkeramiek uit Limburg en Noord-Brabant. Archeologie in Limburg 82, 59–64. Brounen, F. T. S. and de Jong, J. P. M. 1988. Opmerkelijke vroegneolithische vondsten bij Gassel, gem. Beers. Westerheem 37, 183–92. Brounen, F. T. S. and Peeters, H. 2000/2001. Vroeg-neolithische vuursteenwinning en -bewerking in de Banholtergrubbe (Banholt, gem. Margraten). Archeologie 10, 133–49. Brounen, F. T. S. and Vromen, H. 1990. A find of La Hoguette pottery at Geleen (south Limburg, the Netherlands). Helinium 30, 36–43. Brounen, F. T. S. and Vromen, H. 2005. Een bandkeramische vindplaats bij Spaubeek. Archeologie in Limburg 99, 16– 23. Brounen, F. T. S., Drenth, E. and Schreurs, J. forthcoming a. Ittervoort-Damszand: a find of La Hoguette pottery and Begleitkeramik in the Dutch province of Limburg. In B. Vanmontfort, L. Amkreutz, L. P. Louwe Kooijmans and L. Verhart (eds), Early pottery traditions in the Lower Rhine Area, ASLU. Leiden: Faculty of archaeology, Leiden University. Brounen, F. T. S., Drenth, E. and P. Schut, forthcoming b. La Hoguette north of the Rhine. The Ede-Frankeneng site revisited. In B. Vanmontfort, L. Amkreutz, L. P. Louwe Kooijmans and L. Verhart (eds), Early pottery traditions in the Lower Rhine Area, ASLU. Leiden: Faculty of archaeology, Leiden University. Buttler, W. and Haberey, W. 1936. Die bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei Köln-Lindenthal. Leipzig: de Gruyter. Caspar, J.-P. 1984. Matériaux lithiques de la préhistoire. In D. Cahen and P. Haesaerts (eds), Peuples chasseurs de la Belgique préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel, 107–14. Bruxelles: Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Chagnon, N. A. 1997. Yanomamö. Case studies in cultural Anthropology (5th edition). Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Constantin, C. 1985. Fin du Rubané, céramique du Limbourg et post-Rubané. Le néolithique le plus ancien en Bassin Parisien et en Hainaut. Oxford: BAR. Constantin, C., Farruggia, J.-P. and Demarez, L. 1980. Aubechies: site de la Céramique Linéaire en Hainaut occidental. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 77, 367–82. Constantin, C., Farruggia, J.-P. and Demarez, L. 1991. Le site rubané de Blicquy — la Couture du Couvent (Hainaut). Fouilles 1983–85–88. Les Chercheurs de la Wallonie 31, 51–78. Constantin, C., Ilett, M. and Burnez-Lanotte, L. forthcoming. La Hoguette, Limburg and the Mesolithic: some questions. In B. Vanmontfort, L. Amkreutz, L. P. Louwe Kooijmans 29 and L. Verhart (eds), Early pottery traditions in the Lower Rhine Area, ASLU. Leiden: Faculty of archaeology, Leiden University. Crombé, P. and Vanmontfort, B. 2007. The neolithisation of the Scheldt basin in western Belgium. In A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds), Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in north-west Europe, 263–85. Oxford: British Academy. De Grooth, M. E. T. 2005. Het Vroeg-Neolithicum in ZuidNederland. In J. Deeben, E. Drenth, M.-F. van Oorsouw and L. Verhart (eds), De steentijd van Nederland, 283–99. Meppel: Stichting Archeologie. De Laet, S. J. 1982. La Belgique d’avant les Romains. Wetteren: Editions Universa. Dennell, R. W. 1985. The hunter-gatherer/agricultural frontier in prehistoric temperate Europe. In S. W. Green and S. M. Perlman (eds), The Archaeology of frontiers and boundaries, 113–36. Orlando: Academic Press. Destexhe, G. 1974–1976. Fosse omalienne au lieu-dit “Sur les Forts” à Verlaine. Les Chercheurs de la Wallonie 23, 169–79. De Warrimont, J.-P. 2003. De rituele inhoud van een bandkeramische kuil op de Caberg te Maastricht-Klinkers. Archeologie in Limburg 94, 3–11. Dobres, M. A. and Robb, J. E. 2000. Agency in archaeology: paradigm or platitude? In M. A. Dobres and J. E. Robb (eds), Agency in archaeology, 3–18. London: Routledge. Eloy, L. 1947. Les pointes en forme de feuille et à retouche bifaciale découvertes dans la province de Namur. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 44, 209–13. Eloy, L. 1963. Découverte importante dans le Danubien belge: Le microburin et sa signification. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 60, 101–11. Gob, A. 1984. Les industries microlithiques dans la partie sud de la Belgique. In D. Cahen and P. Haesaerts (eds), Peuples chasseurs de la Belgique préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel, 195–210. Bruxelles: Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Godelier, M. 1986. The making of Great Men. Male domination and power among the New Guinea Baruya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goossens, D. 1983. Inleiding tot de geologie en geomorfologie van België. Enschede: Uitgeverij van den Berg. Gregg, S. A. 1988. Foragers and farmers: population interaction and agricultural expansion in prehistoric Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gronenborn, D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme: the transition to farming in southern central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 123–210. Gronenborn, D. 2004. Comparing contact-period archaeologies: the expansion of farming and pastoralist societies to continental temperate Europe and to southern Africa. Before Farming [online version] 4, 1–35. Habu, J. 2002. Jomon collectors and foragers. Regional interactions and long-term changes in settlement systems among prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Japan. In B. Fitzhugh and J. Habu (eds), Beyond foraging and collecting. Evolutionary change in hunter-gatherer settlement systems, 53–72. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Huyge, D. and Vermeersch, P. M. 1982. Late Mesolithic 30 Luc Amkreutz, Bart Vanmontfort and Leo Verhart Current Anthropology 32, 255–74. Lodewijckx, M. and Bakels, C. C. 2000. The interaction between early farmers (Linearbandkeramik) and indigenous people in central Belgium. In J. C. Henderson (ed.), The prehistory and early history of Atlantic Europe, 33–46. Oxford: BAR. Löhr, H. 1994. Linksflügler und Rechtsflügler in Mittel- und Westeuropa. Der Fortbestand der Verbreitungsgebiete asymmetrischer Pfeilspitzenformen als Kontinuitätsbeleg zwischen Meso- und Neolithikum. Trierer Zeitschrift 57, 9–127. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 1974. The Rhine/Meuse delta; four studies on its prehistoric occupation and Holocene geology. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 7. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 1976. Local developments in a borderland. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 57, 227–98. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 1993. Wetland exploitation and upland relations of prehistoric communities in the Netherlands. In J. Gardiner (ed.), Flatlands and wetlands: current themes in East Anglian archaeology, 71–116. Norwich: Scole Archaeological Committee. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 1998. Understanding the Mesolithic/ Neolithic frontier in the lower Rhine basin, 5300–4300 cal BC. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of northwestern Europe, 407–27. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. (ed.) 2001. Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500–5000 v.Chr.). Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 2003. The Hardinxveld sites in the Rhine/Meuse delta, the Netherlands, 5500–4500 cal BC. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler and A. Akerlund (eds), Mesolithic on the move. Papers presented at the sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, 608–24. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Louwe Kooijmans, L .P. 2007. The gradual transition to farming in the lower Rhine basin. In A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds), Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in north-west Europe, 287–309. Oxford: British Academy. Lüning, J., Kloos, U. and Albert, S. 1989. Westliche Nachbarn der bandkeramischen Kultur: die Keramikgruppen La Hoguette und Limburg. Germania 67, 350–420. Modderman, P. J. R. 1970. Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 3. Modderman, P. J. R. 1974. Die Limburger Keramik von Kesseleyk. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 4, 5–11. Modderman, P. J. R. 1981. Céramique du Limbourg: RhénanieWestphalie, Pays-Bas, Hesbaye. Helinium 21, 140–60. Modderman, P. J. R. 1987. Limburger aardewerk uit Sweikhuizen, gem. Schinnen, prov. Limburg. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 20, 87–94. Modderman, P. J. R. 1988. The Linear Pottery culture: diversity in uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38, 63–140. Perdaen, Y., Laloo, P., Crombé, P. and De Clercq, W. 2006. Een Bandkeramische dissel in Zandig Vlaanderen. Notae Praehistoricae 26, 199–202. Price, T. D. 2000. Lessons in the transition to agriculture. In settlement at Weelde-Paardsdrank. In P.M. Vermeersch (ed.), Contributions to the study of the Mesolithic of the Belgian Lowland, 115–209. Tervuren: Contactgroep prehistorie. Jadin, I. and Cahen, D. 2003. Sites en pagaille sur le haut Geer: Darion, Oleye, Waremme-Longchamp, HollogneDouze Bonnier. In I. Jadin (ed.), Trois petits tours et puis s’en vont... La fin de la présence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique, 191–315. Liège: Université de Liège. Jadin, I. and Hauzeur, A. 2003a. Des découvertes isolées qui parsèment le territoire. In I. Jadin (ed.), Trois petits tours et puis s’en vont... La fin de la présence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique, 81–113. Liège: Université de Liège. Jadin, I. and Hauzeur, A. 2003b. L’habitat danubien en Belgique. État des lieux (avec la collaboration de I. Deramaix). In I. Jadin (ed.), Trois petits tours et puis s’en vont... La fin de la présence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique, 25–80. Liège: Université de Liège. Jeunesse, C. 1994. Le Neolithique du sud de la plaine du Rhin superieur. Recherches et decouvertes recentes. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 69, 1–31. Jeunesse, C. 2000. Les composantes autochtone et danubienne en Europe centrale et occidentale entre 5500 et 4000 av. J.-C.: contacts, transferts, acculturations. In A. Richard, C. Cupillard, H. Richard and A. Thévenin (eds), Les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs d’Europe occidentale. Actes du colloque international de Besançon, octobre 1998, 361–78. Besançon: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comptoises. Jeunesse, C. 2002. Armatures asymétriques, régionalisation, acculturation. Contribution à l’étude des relations entre la Rubané et la composante autochtone dans l’ouest de la sphère danubienne. In M. Otte and J. K. Kozłowski (eds), Préhistoire de la grande plaine du nord de l’Europe. Actes du Colloque Chaire Francqui interuniversitaire au titre étranger, ERAUL, 147–65. Liège: Université de Liège. Kalis, A. J., Meurers-Balke, J., van der Borg, K., von den Driesch, A., Rähle, W., Tegtmeier, U. and Thiemeyer, H. 2001. Der La-Hoguette-Fundhorizont in der Wilhelma von Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt. Anthrakologische, archäopalynologische, bodenkundliche, malakozoologische, radiometrische und säugetier-kundliche Untersuchungen. In B. Gehlen, M. Heinen and A. Tillman (eds), Zeit-Räume. Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Taute, Band 2, 673–81. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Keeley, L. H. 1992. The introduction of agriculture to the western north European plain. In A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price (eds), Transitions to agriculture in prehistory, 81–95. Madison (Wisconsin): Prehistory Press. Keeley, L. H. and Cahen, D. 1989. Early Neolithic forts and villages in NE Belgium: a preliminary report. Journal of Field Archaeology 16, 157–76. Kelly, R. C. 1993. Constructing inequality. The fabrication of a hierarchy of virtue among the Etoro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Layton, R. 1999. The human evolutionary time-scale and the transition between hunting and gathering and farming. In J. Bintliff (ed.), Structure and contingency. Evolutionary processes in life and human society, 102–17. London: Leicester University Press. Layton, R., Foley, R. and Williams, E. 1991. The transition between hunting and gathering and the specialized husbandry of resources: a socio-ecological approach. Diverging trajectories? T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s first farmers, 301–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Price, T. D., Bentley, R. A., Lüning, J., Gronenborn, D. and Wahl, J. 2001. Prehistoric human migration in the Linearbandkeramik of central Europe. Antiquity 75, 593–603. Raemaekers, D. C. M. 1999. The articulation of a new Neolithic. The meaning of the Swifterbant culture for the process of neolithization in the Dutch-North German plain: an anthropological perspective. Leiden: Faculty of Archaeology. Richards, M. B. 2003. The Neolithic transition in Europe: archaeological models and genetic evidence. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 159–66. Rowley-Conwy, P. 2001. Time, change and the archaeology of hunter-gatherers: how original is the ‘original affluent society’? In R. H. Panther-Brick and P. Rowley-Conwy (eds), Hunter-gatherers. An interdisciplinary perspective, 39–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowley-Conwy, P. 2004. How the west was lost. A reconsideration of agricultural origins in Britain, Ireland and southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45s, 83–112. Schut, P. 1988. Poteries du Néolithique ancien à Ede (Prov. de Gueldre). Helinium 28, 223–31. Sommer, U. 2001. ‘Hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother’. Change and persistance in the European early Neolithic. Journal of Social Archaeology 1, 244–70. Thomas, J. 1996. The cultural context of the first use of domesticates in continental central and northwest Europe. In D. R. Harris (ed.), The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia, 310–22. London: University College London Press. Tringham, R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transition to agriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer or mosaic. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s first farmers, 19–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Assche, M. 2005. Aperçu sur le Mésolithique des régions d’Ath et de Mons (Hainaut). Amphora 83, 42–82. Van Assche, M. 2006. Substrat Mésolithique et Néolithisation des régions d’Ath et de Mons (Hainaut-Belgique). In L. Burnez-Lanotte, M. Ilett and P. Allard (eds), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique (5100–4700 BC). Autour des recherches de Claude Constantin. Résumés des communications, 13–22. Namur: Université de Namur. Van Berg, P .L. 1987. Céramique de La Hoguette à Sweikhuizen (Limbourg néerlandais). Helinium 27, 259–69. Van Berg, P. L. 1990. Céramique du Limbourg et néolithisation en Europe du nord-ouest. In D. Cahen and M. Otte (eds), Rubané et Cardial. Actes du Colloque de Liège, 161–208. Liège: Université de Liège. Van de Velde, P. 1990. Bandkeramik social inequality — a case study. Germania 68, 19–38. Van de Velde, P. forthcoming. Non-LBK in Dutch LBK. EpiLimburg ware at JKV. In B. Vanmontfort, L. Amkreutz, L.P. Louwe Kooijmans and L. Verhart (eds), Early pottery traditions in the Lower Rhine Area. Leiden. Van de Velde, P. 2008. Geleen-Janskamperveld. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 39/40. Van der Graaf, K. 1987. Inventarisatie en interpretatie van 31 vondsten uit de eerste fase van het vroeg-neolithicum ten Noorden van de Nederlandse löss leemgronden. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Leiden University. Vanmontfort, B. 2004. Converging worlds. The Neolithisation of the Scheldt basin during the late fifth and early fourth millenium cal BC. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Vanmontfort, B. 2007. Bridging the gap. The MesolithicNeolithic transition in a frontier zone. Documenta Praehistorica 34, 105–18. Vanmontfort, B. forthcoming. Forager-farmer connections in an ‘unoccupied’ land: first contact on the western edge of LBK territory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. Verhart, L. 2000. Times fade away: the Neolithization of the southern Netherlands in an anthropological and geographical perspective. Leiden: Leiden University. Verhart, L. 2003. Mesolithic economic and social changes in the southern Netherlands. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler and A. Akerlund (eds), Mesolithic on the move. Papers presented at the sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, 442–50. Oxford: Oxbow. Verhart, L. in prep. a. Adzes, axes and picks. A study of the use and distribution of early Neolithic artefacts and their implications for the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic in the lower Rhine basin. Verhart, L. in prep. b. Raw material exchange, communication and contact in the lower Rhine basin in the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Vermeersch, P. M. 1990. La transition du Mésolithique au Néolithique en basse et moyenne Belgique. In D. Cahen and M. Otte (eds), Rubané et Cardial. Actes du Colloque de Liège, 96–103. Liège: Université de Liège. Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whittle, A. 2003. The Archaeology of people: dimensions of Neolithic life. London: Routledge. Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48, 253–76. Zvelebil, M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revolution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: Mesolithic societies of temperate Europe and their transition to farming, 5–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zvelebil, M. 1998. Agricultural frontiers, Neolithic origins, and the transition to farming in the Baltic basin. In M. Zvelibil, R. Dennell and L. Domanska (eds), Harvesting the sea, farming the forest, 9–27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Zvelebil, M. 2000. Les derniers chasseurs-collecteurs d’Europe tempérée. In A. Richard, C. Cupillard, H. Richard and A. Thévenin (eds), Les derniers chasseurs-ceuilleurs d’Europe occidentale. Actes du colloque international de Besançon, octobre 1998, 379–406. Besançon: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comptoises. Zvelebil, M. 2004. The many origins of the LBK. In A. Lukes and M. Zvelebil (eds), LBK dialogues. Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery culture, 183–205. Oxford: BAR. Zvelebil, M. and Rowley-Conwy, P. 1984. Transition to farming in northern Europe: a hunter-gatherer perspective. Norwegian Archaeology Review 17, 104–27.