KONRAD THEISS VERLAG · STUTTGART

Materialhefte zur Archäologie

78

Aft

er th

e Ic

e A

ge

ISBN 3-8062-2056-5ISSN 1430-3442

LANDESAMT FÜRDENKMALPFLEGE

After the Ice Age

Settlements, subsistence and social development in the Mesolithic of Central Europe

135

Contributions of the Bone and Antler Industry for Characterizing the Early Mesolithic in Europe

By Eva David

1. Introduction

The bone collections studied form the basis of dis-cussions about the characterization of the Maglem-ose culture (Sarauw et al. 1903; Childe 1931; Clark 1936; Becker 1953; Brinch Petersen 1973; Kozłowski/Kozłowski 1977; Larsson 1978). Representing about 4,500 artefacts, they are also suitable for the techno-logical approach, since they include bone tools as well as waste, from secure archaeological contexts. Chrono-logical correspondences between the sites have been made possible with either radiocarbon, environmental or relative dating (David 2004). All together, the Early Mesolithic sites studied correspond to 35 archaeologi-cal horizons, dated from the Preboreal to the Boreal/Atlantic transition, i.e. from 9780 BP to 8000 BP (c. 9000–7000 BC calibrated), with a Preboreal/Boreal transition stage around 9100 BP (c. 8200 BC), repre-sented by the Friesack 4-II and Noyen-sur-Seine1 sites (see appendix).

2. Large set of implements for specifi c game

To enable comparisons between assemblages, it must fi rst be established if worked bone artefacts were manu-factured under the same conditions and in comparable proportions. During the Early Mesolithic principally hunted animals were used. In general, around 90% of the items were made from remains of ungulates, rep-resented by roe deer, red deer, elk and aurochs. Ant-lers of red deer and elk provided the largest range of tool types, but bones (limb bones and ribs) and labials were respectively reserved for weapons and pendants. Thus, bone and tooth represent some 70% of the hard organic materials used for the industry. Determina-tion of worked teeth revealed exploitation of wild boar, beaver and numerous carnivorous animals (brown bear, badger, pine marten, wolf, red fox and dog). Depending on site function and given the close relation between

specifi c tools and their anatomical blanks, a single spe-cies can largely predominate the mammals in a single layer (for example beaver, David 1996). These animals, of big game and fur game, were used to manufacture 60 types of items. Beside the objects, six categories of tools (i. e. object with an active part) compose the bone and antler equipment of the Early Mesolithic hunters: pointed pieces, bevelled edge tools, cutting tools, tools with sleeves, fl at surface tools and rounded tip tools with a soft or a scratched aspect. The latter include punches on antler, used for full debitage with indirect percussion (David/Biard, unpublished experimental work), and hammers on aurochs metapodials which have been identifi ed recently (David 2002). Whatever the frequency of these categories are, most horizons produced, amongst all used pieces, more than 50% of projectile points with a fi xed hafting (unlike a harpoon), represented by the straight, notched, barbed and slot-ted points. Beside the proper hunting gear, the “heavy” tools (i. e. tools used for direct percussion weighing roughly 40–400 g), mainly represented by the bevelled edge tools, constitute about 20% of the industry of a given settlement site. While a few adzes were made of bone, and then engraved like many other types of objects, heavy tools were mostly on antler. Finally, other pointed elements, objects (mainly represented by the pendants) and indeterminate used pieces represent the other manufactured items. In comparison with other northern regions, where, for example, contemporary assemblages provided evidence of manufacturing fossil ivory, the collections studied – coming from regions between 47th to 62nd of latitude North – yielded other interesting blanks. In fact, there is no corresponding direct evidence for consumption of the species from which these blanks were made. On the richest sites indeed, some waste and objects were manufactured of human tooth, metapodials and tooth of horse, limb bones of wild cat or lynx and of some water birds (swan, grebe sp.), as well as shells of European tortoise, fossils and sea shells (Bayania, collumbellas).

136

3. Seven original techniques for the Early Mesolithic

Although a few techniques were known for the sites studied (Clark et al. 1954, 117; Sarauw et al. 1903, 114), archaeologists have not shown great interest in bone manufacturing methods. This is probably due to the specifi c morphology of the matrix which could ini-tially suggest utilization of a few basic techniques to create a tool. Thus, one can ask questions about the number of methods required for making the whole industry, on a broad geographical scale, focusing espe-cially on their relationship to raw material. On bone, as for other archaeological material, recurrent technical patterning refl ects specifi c techniques. Together with eleven technical processes, I have identifi ed twenty manufacturing techniques validated, for most of them, by experiments. They can be divided into three cat-egories: the wear, nick and fracture techniques. These depend on the modality of detachment of the raw material during action which, respectively, produces powder, chips and fl akes.Amongst them, seven techniques are newly identifi ed (Fig. 1). The fi ling technique deepened notches into barbs, using a fl int saw as a fi le, i.e. sawing the initial notch with a soft and rapid multi-directional and pluri-tangential movement during action. Although it has been used for engraving, the drilling technique con-cerned debitage, for taking off distal ends of metapodi-als (perforating all around the bone), and shaping, for creating suspension systems on labial roots (perforating from both sides in line). A small bow is used to run a central axis, with a retouched fl int element on its end, acting as a drill (3,6 mm, average width of the perfora-tions according to the observed diameter on items). The dotted perforation technique quickly removes the upper articular surface of the metapodials, using a fl int pick-axe with direct percussion. During action, the foramen guides the successive percussions that remove chips. The wedge-splinter technique removes axial fl akes from all around the upper articular surface of the metapo-dials, using an intermediate bevelled edge element, in fl int or bone, struck with a heavy soft hammer. The wedge-splitter technique splits lengthwise by inserting elements into prepared bone. A pre-split occurs inside cortical parts when inserting small bone elements into grooves. Here, a thicker fl int element, struck axially with a soft hammer, removes splinters by sheer strength of an arm. The shaft-wedge-splinter technique splits lengthwise and uses an intermediate bevelled edge fl int element placed on a negative of removal resulting from a previous use of the wedge-splinter technique. Struck transversally with a soft hammer, percussion makes a split that runs into the bone, following natural axial

fracture planes. This operation is repeated along the bone and on the other side, replacing the element each time at the end of the split. The splintered edge blanks thus obtained are straightened by using the counterblow retouch technique. The blank is placed fi rst on a hard stone convexity and then one of its sides is struck with a stone hammer, detaching a transverse removal from the opposite side. This is repeated for each side of the blank until it becomes rectilinear.

4. Standardized hunting equipment made by three original methods

Forming the basis of ten manufacturing methods rec-ognized for the whole Early Mesolithic bone industry, techniques are usually constrained by the natural shape and/or the physical properties of the raw material, meaning that there is only one way to get a specifi c product from a given matrix. It is the case, for example, of the main-antler heavy tools that the bevelled edge is made by groove and truncated breakage. This proc-ess consists of making a groove on a side of a beam and fracturing crosswise from it. By using the elastic properties of the antler cortical part, the split follows an oblique plane. The working part of tools can thus be quickly preformed. In addition to this, negatives of those preforms remain visible on other parts of antlers. They are often wrongly interpreted as proper tools even though the same principle occurring on fl int, for mak-ing microliths, is well known; the coup de microburin technique (Tixier 1963, 40).Some techniques are not so constrained by the proper-ties of bone raw material, such as thouse used on the upper extremity of cervid metapodials. This is the case of the wedge-splinter which composes the Danish (D) Method, as well as the Zamostje (Z) Method (Fig. 2). In the Ogens (O) Method, the wedge-splinter is replaced by scraping. In each of these methods, a calibration occurs before starting the operations that really split the bone. Together with dotted perforation, these cali-bration techniques change the natural “V” shape of the upper part of the matrix into a cylindrical (Sequence 1) or even tubular morphology (Sequence 1, 2). Rectilin-ear blanks of maximum length are then removed after grooving and/or fracturing. The three methods give similar products and those representing ¼ (or less) of the bone in cross-section were used to manufacture the majority of the production, i. e. the projectile points. As a result, metapodials of big ungulates are the bones on which techniques vary most, either applied differ-ently or combined in different ways, forming manufac-turing methods which can thus be compared in time and space.

137

It is interesting here to consider the reasons for the use of these different methods. Experimental work shows that no confi rmed technical skill is necessary and that, as far as fl int tools are available, all the methods are equally time consuming (David/Johansen 1996 and 1997). Types and length of the debitage and shaping techniques are strongly interdependent as well as the kind of fl int tools to implement them. However, stand-ard fl int tools used for experimentally manufactured bone items are, as far as one can tell from publications, available in similar types on the sites studied. Knowing that only a systematic sequence of techniques renders a visible method of manufacturing, it appears that some techniques may be used in an isolated manner on sites. Their utilization for various tasks indicates that most techniques were used from time to time by Mesolithic toolmakers whenever suitable. When con-sidered as such, techniques show variability in some manufacturing sequences (David 2003a, 652). When not observed on all the sites, does this mean that some

of the techniques are deliberately not used or com-pletely unknown? A recent study shows that, on one site, the techniques for making ornaments observed in settlement features differ from those seen in grave con-texts, although they are contemporary (David 2003b). With the hypothesis that we are dealing here with a single population, it is suggested that all techniques are known by everyone but their systematic application depends indeed on cultural choices. Thus, the three original methods may refl ect different styles in debitage in the Early Mesolithic for making hunting gear.

5. Evolution of hunting equipment related to geographical regions of manufacture

In northern Europe, one can observe an evolution in the bone and antler equipment from Late Preboreal to Late Boreal, characterized by a strong increase in big cervid barbed and straight bone points, and antler

Figure 1: Amongst the twenty manufacturing techniques recently identifi ed for the Early Mesolithic in the bone and antler industry of northern Europe, seven original techniques have been newly characterized: fi ling, drilling (wear techniques), dotted perforation (nick technique) and, wedge-splinter, wedge-splitter, shaft-wedge-splinter and counterblow retouch (fracture techniques).

138

heavy tools, related to both big cervid notched points and roe deer straight and notched points. This occurs between horizons II and III of the Friesack 4 site, dated at about 8000 BC calibrated, soon after the Prebo-real/Boreal transition (Fig. 3, top). On big cervids, these points are principally manufactured using the D Method. The sites involved are represented by the Star Carr, Bedburg-Königshoven, Hohen Viecheln, Duven-

see and all Friesack assemblages, to which the Barmose I and the Skottemarke sites can be added. Comparisons between contemporary horizons show a rapid drop in the frequency of notched points, moving from 80% (Hohen Viecheln-c) to only 6% (Friesack 4-III) of the projectile points. They are gradually replaced by barbed points made on limb bones, with an inverse frequency. However, each site, whatever the given horizon, can be

Figure 2: Three original methods were used from the 9th to the 8th millennium BC (calibrated) for debitage of ungulate metapodials (red deer, elk, aurochs): the D Method identifi ed fi rst on the Mullerup site and on other Danish settlements (top), the Z Method identi-fi ed fi rst on the Zamostje site, Russia (centre), and the O Method identifi ed fi rst on the Ogens site, Switzerland (bottom). In each of these methods, a calibration occurs on the upper extremity of the bone using either wedge-splinter (Sequ. 1) together with dotted perfo-ration (Sequ. 2, D Method), wedge-splinter only (Sequ. 1, Z Method ), or scraping (Sequ. 1, O Method ). Splitting lengthwise is done by shaft-wedge-splinter (Z Method), or parallel or bilateral convergent grooves for the other methods. Distal ends are removed using wear or fracture techniques. The three methods give similar products and those representing ¼ (or less) of the bone in cross-section were used to manufacture the majority of the production, i. e. the projectile points. Broader splinters were used as blanks of most chisels.

139

identifi ed thanks to specifi c aspects, notably the style of shaping the hunting gear. The evolution of weapons corresponds with an observation about tools. In fact, bone narrow lissoirs and large chisels, both represented together with antler mattocks in Late Preboreal hori-zons, are replaced, in the Late Boreal, by antler heavy tools, best illustrated by hammer-axes. Obtained with a combined and interactive analysis, these results on

the typological composition of the assemblages and on the frequency of the projectile points, whatever their shape, within relevant chaîne opératoire of manufac-ture, point out a common evolutive tendency in weap-ons and tools between the sites. Although, the reasons for this evolution of the industry are not yet clearly understood, these sites have been grouped together forming a Northern Technocomplex (Clarke 1968).

Figure 3: In the Early Mesolithic, from the Late Preboreal to the Boreal-Atlantic transition (dates are calibrated BC), three different and distinct manufacturing „traditions“ in the most signifi cant bone industry have been identifi ed, in the form of technocomplexes: a Northern technocomplex around the North Sea, a North-Eastern technocomplex around the Baltic Sea and a Western technocomplex, West of the Alps. The Northern is characterized by an equipment, mainly manufactured with the Danish (D) Method, that evolves from mattocks, narrow lissoirs, antler barbed points, large bone chisels, bone notched points and worked red deer stag frontlets (top left) to an industry mainly composed by barbed, straight bone points and antler heavy tools, such as blade-axes, hammer-axes, sleeves and hammer-sleeves (top right). This latter composes the characteristic industry of the Maglemose group in the Late Boreal, only on Zealand (David 2003a). At the same time, contemporary Eastern and Western technocomplexes, respectively using the Zamostje (Z) or the Ogens (O) Methods, are in the course of characterization (David 2003b).

140

Sometime after this occurred, a specifi c composition appeared on Zealand. Here, a standard hunting equip-ment, mainly produced with the D Method, together with numerous types of heavy tool, including new bone adzes and hammers, allows a precise defi nition of the bone and antler industry of the Maglemose Group (David 2003a, 655 Fig. 81,8). It is represented by the MullerupI and UlkestrupI sites, at which can be added the Vinde Helsinge site, representing the stage 1 of the Maglemosian culture in fl int industry (Brinch Petersen 1973), and, for the stage 2, the Lundby-holmen and Verup-a sites. These stages observed in the fl int industry do not fi nd any direct echo in the bone industry, a part from the use of a wider range of anatomical blanks in the latest stage (Bille Henriksen 1980). Relaying on the established stratigraphy of the site, the Hohen Viecheln-a horizon yielded a mixed assemblage suggesting that there is no direct evidence of evolution between the two entities. Thus, it is not possible to demonstrate that the Maglemose group derives from the Northern Techno-complex, nor is it possible to term this technocomplex Maglemose lato sensu or “proto-Maglemosian” (Clark et al. 1954, 184). However, collections from geographi-cally close contemporary sites with these Danish occu-pations have not yet been observed, notably the hori-zon IV of the Friesack 4 site. Geographical distribution of these entities – around the North Sea, from England to the Øresund Strait, for the Northern Technocomplex and on Zealand for the Maglemose group – agree with results of Danish (Becker 1953; Brinch Petersen 1993) and German studies (Bokelmann 1971, 25) concern-ing the distribution of Early Mesolithic groups in the North of Europe (Fig. 3, bottom). Yet, as far as bone and antler industry is concerned, no particular com-plex can be identifi ed within the Northern Technocom-

plex, unless one decides that almost each site defi nes a complex.The Scanian Ageröd I : AHC site does not belong to the Maglemose Group, but is related to another tradition for manufacturing hunting equipment. In fact, it is more connected with a North-Eastern Technocomplex, identi-fi ed around the Baltic Sea (from Scania to the Russian Plain of Oka-Volga, through North-East Poland). The tools with inserts manufactured with the Z Method, as well as notched tooth pendants, the suspension system of which is made by partial sawing, already play an important role in its characterization (David 2003b). Besides, a Western Technocomplex, which possibly devel-oped from the Atlantic to the Swiss plateau, may reveal distinct facies through common use of the O Method for manufacturing straight bone points, to which the use of the bifacial groove-boring technique to manu-facture the suspension hole of tooth pendants may be added (David 2000). The geographical distribution of these latter technocomplexes seems to be confi rmed by recently published bone implements (Siemasko 1999, Svoboda et al. 1998, Kind 2003). Retrospectively, use of the boring technique to manufacture the suspen-sion hole of pendants can be added to characterize the Northern Technocomplex. Even if the inverse is not true, this technique can be associated with sites belonging to other entities.The borders shown on the map (supra) between the Northern and the North-Eastern Technocomplexes sug-gest apparently hermetic entities. Considering the relatively important environmental changes within the nordic regions, during the Preboreal/Boreal transi-tion, one can suggest that the new state of the marine and fresh water networks played a barrier role on fl u-ent mobility. It may have been the result of a diffi culty

Appendix (right side): Graphic presentation of the calibrated radiocarbone dates from the studied Early Mesolithic sites in Europe (after David 2004). Research into original data have been undertaken when dates were published modifi ed by the authors, and the dates have been converted using a calibration program (OxCal 4.1). For any archaeological layers, a maximum of two dates have been considered here, joined together to get a single interval showing minimum to maximum ages (with 95,4% confi dence): Ageröd I, A–H-C BL, UT and VL (8320 ± 85 [Lu1005], 7970 ± 80 [Lu875] and 7910 ± 80 [Lu753], Nils-son 1967, 77 and Larsson 1978, 30), Antrea Korpilahti (9230 ± 210 [Hel269], Carpelan 1999, 158), Bedburg-Königshoven (9780 ± 100 [Kn3999] and 9600 ± 100 [Kn3998], Street 1991, 259), Duvensee 1 and 2 (9200 ± 300 [H23] and 8755 ± 70 [Y161], Bokelmann 1971, 17), Friesack 4 (Gramsch et al. 1990, 316) -I (9680 ± 70 [Bln3036] and 9450 ± 65 [Bln1914]), -II (9340 ± 70 [Bln3025] and 9180 ± 70 [Bln3024]) and -III (9040 ± 70 [Bln3008] and 8810 ± 70 [Bln3010]), La Baume d’Ogens (8530 ± 100 [B764], Le Tensorer 1986, 126; Crotti et al. 1993, 205), Mullerup 1 (8330 ± 110 [K1612] and 8660 ± 120 [K1609], Andersen et al. 1990, 29), Noyen-sur-Seine (Marinval-Vigne et al. 1992, 23) -1 (9130 ± 100 [Gif7286]) and

-2 (8000 ± 100 [Gif6633] and 7040 ± 80 [Gif6989]), Pulli 1968–76 (9600 ± 120 [Ta245] and 9290 ± 120 [Hel2206b], Jaanits et al. 1975, 65; 9385 ± 105 [Ua13351] and 9095 ± 90 [Ua13353], Poska et al. 1999, 604), Star Carr (9500 ± 75 [Oxa4799] and 9385 ± 80 [Oxa4797], Clark et al. 1954, 55; Mellars et al. 1998, 142), Ulkestrup Lyng Øst (Andersen et al. 1982, 101) -I (8140 ± 10 [K2174]) and -II (8180 ± 100 [K2176]), Zamostje (Lozovski 1996, 25) -I (8640 ± 100) and -II (7000 ± 70 [laboratory code?]), Zvejnieki graves 305 and 170 (8240 ± 70 [Ua3634] and 8150 ± 80 [Oxa5969], Zagorska 1992, 100 and 1997, 43). No radiocarbone dates are available for Barmose (Johansson 1990, 103), Birsmatten-Basisgrotte (Bandi et al. 1963, 224; Crotti et al. 1993, 221), Hohen Viecheln (Schuldt et al. 1961, 14–38), Lundby-Holmen (Bille Henriksen 1980, 125), Mørke Enge (Brinch Petersen 1973), Skottemarke (Friis Johansen et al. 1919, 324), Stellmoor Ahrensburg (Rust 1958, 19), Verup (Andersen 1960, 123) and Vinde-Helsinge (Mathiassen et al. 1943, 207).

141

Boreal

Preboreal

in crossing over fast-changing surroundings through the seasons. One can recall that expected settlement sites in the ridges of the Øresund Strait before the Late Boreal were not observed, for example (Larsson 1999). Although a few bone types like the aurochs adzes made on metapodials manufactured with the C Method have

been found in Zealand as well as in Scania, associated with a different bone industry, the waste products of these tools only occur in Denmark (David 2003a, 654). Given their low frequency in the archaeological hori-zons (3 at Mullerup I, 1 at Lundby-Holmen II, 1 at Ulkestrup II, 2 at Hohen Viecheln a, 1 at Ageröd UT),

142

it is diffi cult to decide to what extent these tools alone could refl ect a movement from Denmark into foreign territories or other forms of contact. A possibility is that the Hohen Viecheln and Ageröd sites represent, in the Late Boreal, a maximum extension of the Maglem-ose territory, where specifi c activities or search for par-ticular resources were conducted, thus enlarging the distribution of the Maglemose group outside of only Zealand. In the future, the function of these bone adzes may provide new parameters of analysis (David et al., ongoing research). One may recall that the horizons of these peripherical sites correspond to groups of archae-ological layers on distant areas. Consequently, they could have produced an overlap of successive human occupations of various (exogenous and/or endogenous) groups, not so far visible during excavations as the layers yielded typologically very close bone industry. Instead of representing precise zones of contact, the horizons could refl ect more variability due to group mobility in the Early Mesolithic: in the form of oscilla-tions of the limits of the considered geographical areas (this does not mean that these different entities were unaware of each other). When a warmer climate sets in, evidence of contact becomes more obvious (Brinch Petersen, this volume). Further investigations, notably by studying the interaction between lithic and bone sys-tèmes techniques (Perlès 1987) are required. Obviously, the understanding on such a large geographical scale of the distribution of specifi c fl int-knapping techniques and methods, as well as the use of specifi c products or resources, may fi nd a real echo in data on bone produc-tion. In the presence of tools with inserts principally recorded in the North-Eastern Technocomplex together with that of punches, one may indeed suggest a strong interaction between different technical systems. This should contribute to the general debate about under-standing prehistoric behaviour, through expected socio-economic modalities.A very large and homogeneous contemporary distribu-tion of particular behaviour for similar material pro-

ductions, in time and space and in the form of tech-nocomplexes, would suggest different social entities interacting in a dynamic evolution. Our hypothesis is that these entities express human paleogeography more than territories. Indeed, each particular method identi-fi ed for the Early Mesolithic in northern Europe can be seen as refl ecting different styles adopted by the last prehistoric hunters for production on metapodial and on teeth. One of these entities could represent one or several cultural groups that can be identifi ed, localized by a specifi c style of production – notably the hunt-ing gear – while sharing a same technical background. From the earliest prehistoric period (Late Glacial) to this time (from Late Preboreal to Boreal-Atlantic tran-sition), these large entities may have either gradually evolved in parallel from a common knot, or were ini-tially different and remained so. In this perspective, research of the original techniques used on big cervid metapodials, while forming the basis of the three meth-ods whose cultural value has been demonstrated here, will be undertaken on other prehistoric collections in Europe. Moreover, a technological study of the hunt-ing and gathering equipment of modern populations using bone, if carried out in exactly the same way as the archaeological study described here, should provide new present-day comparative data for further interpre-tation of prehistoric productions.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Erik Brinch Petersen who has provided unfailing sup-port since the very beginning of my research and to all prehistorians for allowing me to study their mate-rial in excellent conditions, especially Klaus Bokel-mann, Pierre Crotti, Bernhard Gramsch, Lars Larsson, Vladimir Lozovski, Daniel and Claude Mordant and Martin Street. I am extremely grateful to Hélène Roche for her critical remarks on the text. My English was improved by Michael Ilett.

143

References

Andersen 1960 K. Andersen, Verupbopladsen, en Maglemoseboplads i Aamosen. Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1960, 118–151.

Andersen et al. 1982 K. Andersen/S. Jørgensen/J. Richter, Maglemose Hytterne ved Ulkestrup Lyng. Nor-diske Fortidsminder B-7 (Copenhague 1982).

Andersen et al. 1990 S. H. Andersen/A. Bietti/C. Bonsall/N. D. Broadbent/G. A. Clark/B. Gramsch/R. M. Jacobi/L. Larsson/ A. Morrisson/R. Newell/J.-G. Rozoy/L. G. Strauss/ P. C. Woodman, Making cultural ecology relevant to a Mesolithic research: a data base of 413 Mesolithic assemblages. In: P. M. Vermeersch et al., Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe (Leuven 1990) 23-51.

Bandi et al. 1963 H.-G. Bandi/R. Bay/Ch. Gfeller/Ch. V. Graffenried/C. Lüdin/E. Müller/H. Mül-ler-Beck/K. P. Oakley/E. Schmid, Birsmatten-Basisgrotte, eine Mittelsteinzeitliche Fundstelle im Unteren Birstal (Bern 1963).

Becker 1953 C. J. Becker, Die Maglemosekultur in Dänemark, neue Funde und Ergebnisse. In: E. Vogt, Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Actes de la IIIème session, 1950 (Zürich 1953) 180–183.

Bille Henriksen 1980 B. Bille Henriksen, Lundby-Holmen, Pladser of Maglemose type 1, Sydjealland (Copenhague 1980).

Bokelmann 1971 K. Bokelmann, Duvensee, ein Wohnplatz des Mesolithikums in Schleswig-Holstein, und die Duvenseegruppe. OFFA 28, 1971, 5–26.

Brinch Petersen 1973 E. Brinch Petersen, A survey of the Late Paleolithic and the Mesolithic of Denmark. In: S. K. Kozlowski (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe (Warszawa 1973) 77–127.

Brinch Petersen 1993 E. Brinch Petersen, The Late Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. In: S. Hvass et al., Dig-ging into the Past. 25 years of Archaeology in Denmark (Aarhus 1993) 46–49.

Carpelan 1999 Ch. Carpelan, On the Postglacial Colonisation of Eastern Fennoscandia. In: M. Hvurre, Dig it all. Papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen (Helsinki 1999) 151–171.

Childe 1931 G. V. Childe, The Forest Cultures of Northern Europe. Journal of the Royal Anthropo-logical Institution 61, 1931, 325–348.

Clark 1936 J. G. D. Clark, The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe: a Study of the Food Gathering Peoples of Northern Europe during the Early Post-Glacial Period (London 1936).

Clark et al. 1954 J. G. D. Clark/H. Godwin/F. C. Fraser/J. E. King/J. W. Moore/D. Walker, Excava-tions at Star Carr, an Early Mesolithic Site at Seamer near Scarborough, Yorkshire (Cam-bridge 1954).

Clarke 1968 D. L. Clarke, Analytical Archaeology (London 1968).

Crotti 1993 P. Crotti, L’Épipaléolithique et le Mésolithique en Suisse. In: La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-âge I (Basel 1993) 203–241.

David 1996 E. David, Étude technologique de l’industrie en matière dures animales du site méso-lithique de Zamostje 2, fouille 1991 (Russie). Archéo-Situla 26, 1996, 5–62.

David 2000 E. David, L’industrie en matières dures animales des sites mésolithiques de la Baume d’Ogens et de Birsmatten-Basisgrotte (Suisse): résultats de l’étude technologique et com-paraisons. In: P. Crotti, Méso ’97. Actes de la table ronde « Épipaléolithique et Méso-lithique », Lausanne, 21–23 Novembre 1997 (Lausanne 2000) 79–101.

David 2002 E. David, Percuteur de matières tendres sur métapodien d’aurochs. In: Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique cahier X. Os à impressions et éraillures (Paris 2002) 133–136.

David 2003a E. David, The contribution of a technological study of bone and antler industry for the Defi nition of the Early Maglemose Culture. In: L. Larsson/H. Kindgren/K. Knuts-son/D. Loefl er/A. Åkerlund (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move, Meso 2000. Papers pre-sented at “The 6th International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe”, Stockholm, 4–8 September 2000 (Exeter 2003) 649–657.

David 2003b E. David, The Mesolithic Zvejnieki Site (Latvia) in its european context: preliminary results delivered by a technological study of bone and antler industry. Journal of Estonian Archaeology 7/2, 2003, 99–122.

144

David 2004 E. David, Technologie osseuse des derniers chasseurs préhistoriques en Europe du Nord (IXe-VIIIe millénaires av. J.-C.). Le Maglemosien et les technocomplexes du Mésoli-thique. Monographie de thèse (Université Nanterre-Paris X, 1999), publication en ligne http://web.mae.u-paris10.fr/recherche/mpEvaDavid.html (Nanterre 2004).

David/Johansen 1996 E. David/L. Johansen, Maglemosian barbed points made of metapodials: reconstructing the chaîne opératoire by experiments. Scientifi c report (grant n° Haf 26/96) for the Lejre experimental Centre (1996).

David/Johansen 1997 E. David/L. Johansen, Pointes barbelées maglemosiennes sur côte de ruminants: recon-stitution et validation de la chaîne opératoire de fabrication par l’expérimentation. Scien-tifi c report (grant n° Haf 07/97) for the Lejre experimental Centre (1997).

Friis-Johansen et al. 1919 J. Friis-Johansen/K. Jessen/H. Winge, Une station du plus ancien Âge de la pierre dans la tourbière de Svaerdborg. Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie nouvelle série 1918–19 (Kobenhavn 1919).

Gramsch/Kloss 1990 B. Gramsch/K. Kloss, Excavations near Friesack: an Early Mesolithic Marshland Site in the Northern Plain of Central Europe. In: C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at „The Third International Symposium“, Edinburgh 1985 (Edinburgh 1990) 313–324.

Jaanits/Jaanits 1975 L. Jaanits/K. Jaanits, Frühmesolithische Siedlung in Pulli. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences 1, 1975, 64–70.

Johansson 1990 A. D. Johansson, Barmosegruppen. Præboreale bopladsfund i Sydsjælland (Aarhus 1990).

Kind 2003 C.-J. Kind, Das Mesolithikum in der Talaue des Neckars. Die Fundstellen von Rotten-burg Siebenlinden 1 und 3. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 88 (Stuttgart 2003).

Kozłowski/Kozłowski 1977 J. K. Kozłowski/S. K. Kozłowski, Pointes, sagaies et harpons du Paléolithique et du Mésolithique en Europe du Centre-Est. In: Colloques internationaux du CNRS 568 « Méthodologie appliquée à l’industrie de l’os préhistorique », Abbaye de Sénanque (Vau-cluse), 9–12 Juin 1976 (Paris 1977) 205–227.

Larsson 1978 L. Larsson, Mesolithic Antler and Bone Artefacts from Central Scania. In: Meddelander fran Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum 1977-78, 2. Papers of the Archaeological Institute University of Lund 1977–1978 (Lund 1978) 28–67.

Larsson 1999 L. Larsson, Les vestiges sous-marins des occupations du détroit d’Öresund, sud de la Scandinavie. In: A. Thevenin/P. Bintz (ed.), L’Europe des derniers chasseurs. Actes de 5e Colloque international « Épipaléolithique et Mésolithique ». UISPP Commission XII, Grenoble, 18–23 Septembre 1995 (Paris 1999) 327–334.

Le Tensorer 1986 J.-M. Le Tensorer, Paléolithique et Mésolithique. In: Chronologie, datations archéologiques en Suisse. Antiqua 15, 1986, 25–33.

Lozovski 1996 V. Lozovski, Zamostje 2. Catalogue de l’exposition (Treignes 1996).

Marinval-Vigne et al. 1992 M.-Ch. Marinval-Vigne/D. Mordant/V. Krier/Ch. Leroyer/P. Rodriguez/J.-D. Vigne, Archéologie et Paléo-environnement: Noyen-sur-Seine (Seine-et-Marne). Mé-moire du Groupement Archéologique de Seine-et-Marne, 1, 1992, 21–31.

Mathiassen et al. 1943 T. Mathiassen/J. Troels-Smith/M. Degerbøl, Stenalderbopladser i Aamosen (Køben-havn 1943).

Mellars/Dark 1998 P. Mellars/P. Dark, Star Carr in context: New archaeological and palaeoecological investigations at the Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire (Exeter 1998).

Nilsson 1967 T. Nilsson, Pollenanalytische Datierung Mesolithischer Siedlungen im Randgebiet des Ageröds Mosse im Mittleren Schonen. Acta Universitatis Lundensis II, 16, 1967, 5–80.

Perlès 1987 C. Perlès, Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce) (Bloomington 1987).

Poska/Veski 1999 A. Poska/S. Veski, Man and Environment at 9500 BP. A Palynological Study of an Early Mesolithic Settlement Site in South-West Estonia. In: Proceedings of the Polish Academy of Sciences “5th EPPC”, Krakov. Acta Palaeobotanica Supplementum 2, 1999, 603–607.

Rust 1958 A. Rust, Die Jungpaläolithischen Zeltanlagen von Ahrensburg (Neumünster 1958).

145

Sarauw et al. 1903 G. J. L. Sarauw/K. Jessen/H. Winge, En Stenalders Boplads, Maglemose ved Mullerup. Études sur le premier Âge de la pierre du nord de l’Europe. Aarboger for Nordisk Old-kyndighed og Historie 1904 (Copenhagen 1903).

Schuldt et al. 1961 E. Schuldt/O. Gehl/H. Schmitz/E. Soergel/H. H. Wundsch, Hohen-Viecheln, ein Mittelsteinzeitlicher Wohnplatz in Mecklenburg. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Berlin Schriften der Sektion für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 10 (Berlin 1961).

Siemaszko 1999 J. Siemaszko, Stone Age Settlement in the Lega Valley microregion of North-East Poland. European Journal of Archaeology 2/3, 1999, 293–312.

Street 1991 M. Street, Bedburg-Königshoven: A Pre-Boreal Mesolithic Site in the Lower Rhein-land, Germany. In: N. Barton et al., The Late Glacial in North-West Europe: Human Adaptation and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene (München 1991) 256–270.

Svoboda et al. 1998 J. Svoboda/V. Cílek/L. Jarošova, Zum Mesolithikum in den Sandsteingebieten Nord-böhmens. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 28, 1998, 357–372.

Tixier 1963 J. Tixier, Typologie de l’Épipaléolithique du Maghreb (Paris 1963).

Zagorska 1992 I. Zagorska, The Mesolithic in Latvia. Acta Archaeologica 63, 1992, 97–117.

Zagorska 1997 I. Zagorska, The fi rst radiocarbon datings from Zvejnieki Stone Age burial ground, Latvia. In: Proceedings of “The 7th Nordic Conference on the Application of Scientifi c Methods in Archaeology”, Savonlinna, 7–11 September 1996, Iskos II (Helsinki 1997) 42–46.