CHAPTER SEVEN

TOWARDS A REFINEMENT OF THE EARLY MESOLITHIC CHRONOLOGY IN SANDY

FLANDERS: A TECHNOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTION

GUNTHER NOENS, YVES PERDAEN, CAROLINE RYSSAERT

Abstract

Microliths form a major source of information in the construction of a regional Mesolithic typo-chronology. Out of all tool types these artefacts display the largest spatio-temporal variation and are therefore used repeatedly as chrono-cultural markers. Occasionally, due to their small numbers or even complete absence, a chrono-cultural attribution of a site cannot be made. Sites like these clearly show the need for an additional technological characterisation of lithic assemblages. Using high-resolution chronological, typological and spatial information, a number of Early Mesolithic sites (Verrebroek-Dok 1; Doel-Deurganckdok sector J/L, C3) – each representative for the range of Early Mesolithic assemblage types currently recognized – were selected and subjected to a technological analysis (morpho-technological analysis, attribute analysis and refitting) in an attempt to establish a diagnostic technological characterization of these assemblages. As a result of these analyses, a number of chrono-cultural characteristics have been identified which will enable us in the future to date lithic assemblages without the aid of microliths. It will also help to get a better grip on the land-use and settlement system, the socio-economic organisation, and the functional and cultural variability within Early Mesolithic society.

Résumé

Les microlithes ont toujours joué un rôle important dans la construction d’une typochronologie mésolithique régionale. Par comparaison avec d’autres catégories d’outils, ils présentent une grande variation spatio-temporelle, et c’est pourquoi ce type d’artefact est souvent employé comme marqueur chronoculturel. Du fait de leur nombre restreint, ou même de leur absence complète, une attribution chronoculturelle du site est parfois impossible. Dans ces cas, une caractérisation technologique supplémentaire des ensembles lithiques peut nous offrir une solution. En utilisant l’information chronologique, typologique et spatiale disponibles, quelques sites représentatifs de la variabilité attestée dans le Mesolithique ancien (Verrebroek-Dok 1; Doel-Deurganckdok sector J/L, C3), ont été sélectionnés et soumis à une analyse technologique (entre autres analyse morpho-technologique, analyse des attributs et remontages) en essayant de reconnaître des critères technologiques diagnostiques. Les résultats nous donnent un nombre de caractéristiques chronoculturelles qui nous permettent de dater des ensembles lithiques sans faire appel aux microlithes. En plus, cette approche offre une compréhension plus profonde du système d’occupation et d’exploitation des terroirs, de l’organisation socio-économique et de la variabilité fonctionnelle et culturelle du Mésolithique ancien.

Keywords: Early Mesolithic, lithic technology, methodology, variability, Sandy Flanders Mots-clés: Mésolithique ancien, technologie lithique, méthodologie, variabilité, Flandre sablonneuse

1. Introduction

Most of the Early Mesolithic sites in many parts of north-western Europe are dryland sites situated in acid sandy deposits, thus making the preservation of unburnt organic residues unlikely. Therefore, the research in these areas focuses on lithics. Most present-day intrasite studies of lithic scatters consist of an integrated approach, combining typological, technological, and functional studies with radiometric analysis of associated burnt/carbonized organic materials. Intensive Mesolithic salvage excavations in north-western Belgium (Sandy Flanders) during the past 15 years have provided us with a large number of sealed, well-dated Early Mesolithic sites. Despite the presence of high-resolution data, the technological component of this research strategy has so far remained rather limited in this area.

 

This paper aims at reviewing our current state of knowledge of the Early Mesolithic lithic technology within Sandy Flanders, and its contribution to the evaluation of the existing typo-chronologies.

In the past, many diverging and often conflicting typo-chronologies have been established for this area, almost exclusively based on the microlithic composition of poorly dated surface sites (i.e. Gob 1984; Newell 1973; Rozoy 1978; Vermeersch 1984). In recent large-scale typo-chronological analyses, the seriation of microliths is combined with single entity radiometric dating of carbonized hazelnut shells found in latent surface hearths associated with sealed lithic scatters. This has shown that there were at least four different microlith assemblage types in the Early (Pre-boreal/beginning of Boreal) Mesolithic in Sandy Flanders (Crombé 1999; Van Strydonck and Crombé 2005; see also Crombé,Van Strydonck and Boudin, this volume). The radiocarbon dates indicate a partial contemporaneity of three microlithic assemblage types (‘Neerharen’, ‘Verrebroek’ and ‘Ourlaine’) during the second half of the Pre-boreal and two assemblage types (‘Ourlaine’ and ‘Chinru’) during the first half of the Boreal. Although we acknowledge the usefulness of this combined microlithic-radiometric approach for typo-chronological purposes, one must keep in mind that microliths constitute only a minor part of the Mesolithic lithic assemblage (on average between 0.5 and 3%). Given the above mentioned high resolution typo-chronological information for the Early Mesolithic in Sandy Flanders, this paper therefore attempts to characterize these Early Mesolithic assemblages in a technological way, using mainly attribute analysis and systematic refitting, in order to provide another, independent line of evidence for the evaluation of the existing typo-chronology. This is based on the assumption that technological characteristics may also have a cultural value (Collins 1975; Flenniken 1984; Pélegrin 1985).

The observed typo-chronological dichotomy between Pre-boreal and Boreal assemblages is taken as a starting point for this technological research. One lithic scatter representative for each of the four assemblage types was subjected to a detailed techno-typological and morpho-technological attribute analysis, and combined with a 'mental' refitting (Perdaen 2004). This was aimed at the evaluation of a possible technological definition of the various assemblage types. As a result, the complete chaîne opératoire could be reconstructed, with special focus on the reduction sequence, knapping techniques, blank selection and tool production (Perdaen 2004; Perdaen, Crombé and Sergant 2004; 2008a; 2008b). To evaluate these results two more lithic scatters are being analysed using the same methodology, this time with a greater emphasis being laid on systematic, physical refitting (Noens, in prep; Noens et al. 2005; 2006).

After some methodological considerations, the observed technological characteristics of these Pre-boreal and Boreal lithic scatters are summarised (cf. Perdaen, Crombé and Sergant 2008a, 2008b). These results are then weighed against the preliminary outcome of the new research. The paper concludes with some possible implications of this integrated technological approach for further research in Sandy Flanders.

2. Methodology

For this analysis (i.e. an attempt to establish diagnostic technological criteria in addition to the typological and radiometric evidence) it was necessary to select small, isolated, sealed and well-dated lithic scatters, representing possible single occupation entities. The knowledge gained from these analyses could then, in turn, be used for the evaluation of less well preserved sites (i.e. surface scatters) and sites characterised by a limited number of microliths and/or the absence of radiometric datable materials. Before selection took place, a large number of scatters were therefore subjected to a detailed spatial and typological analysis (Jacops, Noens and Crombé 2007; Noens et al. 2005; Sergant 2004) with the purpose of evaluating the spatial and typological integrity of each (clearly definable activity areas, microlithic composition in agreement with the existing typo-chronology, etc.). Other factors considered in this selection process were the stratigraphical integrity (eg podzol soil completely preserved), the percentage of burnt and overheated artefacts (as low as possible), the size of the scatter (below 25m² when possible) and the number of latent surface hearths (preferably one). Extensive dating and spatial analysis has shown that scatters with a surface area of over 20/25m² are often the result of partially overlapping and intersecting smaller diachronic occupations, usually containing two or more surface hearths (Crombé, Perdaen and Sergant 2006).

As mentioned before, our technological approach essentially consisted of an integrated combination of an attribute analysis on individual artefacts and a systematic refitting of the assemblages. In theory, an infinite number of lithic attributes can be studied, and in a number of different ways. Therefore, we sought to isolate those attributes that seem to have a technological significance, i.e. attributes that are indicative for the methods and techniques used to produce the lithic artefacts. Also, these attributes needed to be macroscopically observable and their measurements replicable. The absence of a technological research tradition in the study area forced us to review the existent (and often confusing and contradicting) lithic literature in order to isolate appropriate technological lithic attributes and the ways to study them. A substantial number of attributes were selected: attributes related to raw materials; to the removals (eg. concerning the

 

Fig 7-1: Localisation of Verrebroek “Dok” and Doel “Deurganckdok”.

Scatter Surface Assemblage Type 14C (BP) Lab. number VD, C6 ca. 16m² Verrebroek 9150±100

9165±45 UtC-3439 UtC-8961

VD, C16 ca. 16m² Chinru 8850±40 UtC-7117 VD, C23 ca. 26m² Ourlaine 9020±60 UtC-9228 VD, C70 ca. 62m² Neerharen 9080±60 UtC-9223 DDD, C2 ca. 25m² Ourlaine (?) 8830±45 KIA-20470 DDD, C3 ca. 25m² Ourlaine 8485±40

8630±60 8965±45

KIA-24454 KIA-24034 KIA-30962

Table 7-1: The lithic scatters submitted to a technological analysis and their associated radiocarbon dates.

fracture process and secondary modification of the artefact itself, initiation, propagation, termination, preparation, rejuvenation, characteristics of previous removals visible on the dorsal surface, etc.); and to the remnant cores (general morphology, number, orientation and morphology of exploitation tables and striking surfaces, indications of preparation, rejuvenation and abandonment, etc.). Contrary to the initial research more emphasis is currently being laid on actual

refitting, which provides us with a more direct and dynamic approach to lithic scatters (cf. Cziesla et al. 1990; Hofman and Enloe 1992; Schurmans and De Bie 2007). Besides the very detailed information concerning spatial and chronological integrity and the production processes, it also allows for an evaluation of the usefulness of the selected attributes, redirecting our technological research when needed.

3. The Pre-boreal and Boreal lithic scatters

So far only six different lithic scatters from two sealed dryland sites in the Antwerp harbour area, situated in a low-lying tidal flat, close to the estuary of the River Scheldt, have been selected (Table 7-1; Fig. 7-1). Our aim is to enlarge this database while maintaining the same selection criteria (cf. supra). For the initial stage of the project, the site of Verrebroek-Dok 1 (hence VD1) was selected. This site has been the subject of a large-scale and interdisciplinary research project (Crombé 1998, 2005; Crombé, Perdaen and Sergant 2003). Over 55 scatters have been excavated, showing the complete range of microlith assemblage types currently recognized, making it the ideal site for this research. Initially four scatters, representative for the four major Early Mesolithic assemblage types, were submitted to a technological study (namely C6, C16, C23 and C70, representative for respectively the ‘Verrebroek’, ‘Chinru’, ‘Ourlaine’ and ‘Neerharen’ assemblage types) (Perdaen 2004). By means of one or more single entity radiocarbon dates, three of the scatters can be dated to the Pre-boreal (C6, C23, C70), while C16 has a Boreal date. In addition, two small isolated lithic scatters were selected from the nearby site of Doel-Deurganckdok sector J/L: C2 (Jacops 2007; Jacops, Noens and Crombé 2007) and C3 (Noens et al. 2005, 2006)), both excavated in 2003 (Bats et al. 2003). Both scatters, around 5-6m in diameter and lying c. 50m apart, are Boreal in date and among the latest within the ‘Ourlaine’ assemblage type. Although these two scatters are classified within the 'Ourlaine' microlithic assemblage type, their microlithic toolkit differs slightly; they contain a higher percentage of points with a retouched base, thus resembling the ‘Groupe de Hangest-sur-Somme’ in Northern France (Ducrocq 1999; 2001; this volume). Table 2 shows a simplified version of the typological composition of the six scatters.

 

VD, C6

VD, C16

VD, C23

VD, C70

DDD, C2

DDD, C3

surface (m²) 16,5 16,25 26 62,5 25 30 TOTAL NUMBER OF ARTEFACTS 4710 3152 2928 26223 671 14497

artefacts ≥ 1cm 1173 49 584 3848 439 2763 chips 3537 2662 2344 22375 145 11732

TOTAL NUMBER OF TOOLS 79 26 60 247 37 99

common tools 35 2 23 93 21 23 scrapers 1 1 12 59 7 3

burins 16 0 2 2 3 0 retouched blades 15 1 5 20 7 13 retouched flakes 4 0 4 10 4 6

borers 0 0 0 2 0 0 Microliths 36 22 29 126 9 41

points with unretouched base 13 1 4 44 0 0 crescents 1 0 7 3 2 9 triangles 11 7 2 7 1 3

points with retouched base 2 4 2 4 1 5 backed bladelets 2 0 0 1 0 1

others 0 1 1 2 1 1 undeterminable microliths 7 9 13 65 4 22

undeterminable tool fragments 7 3 8 28 7 11

Table 7-2: Simplified typological composition of the different lithic scatters.

(1) The flint nodules selected in each of the four assemblage types are similar in size, morphology and quality (local, small frost-fractured flint of inferior quality). Its minimal size (of 5cm) seems to be the important determinant for its selection, while criteria concerning its overall morphology and quality were of lesser importance. This is not the case when the ‘exotic’ raw materials are considered (Perdaen 2007; Perdaen, Crombé and Sergant in press). Although both groups use a good quality quartzite, each group has its preferred variety. In the NVC-group a coarse grained, grey variety called Tienen quartzite is preferred, while in the O-group the use of this variety is much less pronounced and a fine grained, greenish variety called Wommersom quartzite seems to predominate. Both come from the same geological formation, although from different outcrops, in the vicinity of Tienen, some 75km from Verrebroek as the crow flies.

Fig. 7-2: Schematic overview of the technological distinctiveness of the NVC- group and the

O-group.

(2) The knapping method of the exotic raw material not only differs between both groups, it also differs from the one used for the flint. Although detailed technological information on Wommersom quartzite is not yet available, an optimization of the reduction method similar to the one recorded for the Tienen quartzite is visible. Here, a considerable investment in the preparation and rejuvenation of the core was observed, which resulted in the production of bladelets with a higher degree of standardisation than was used for flint bladelets.

(3) The cores of the O-group are knapped in a different fashion, due to the more obtuse angle (around 90°) between striking platform and flaking face. They are also less prepared and less rejuvenated when compared with those of the NVC-group (with platform angles between 60 and 75°). In the NVC-group rejuvenation takes place more often and consists of the partial rejuvenation of the striking platform, rejuvenation of the core edge, but also rejuvenation of the flaking face both for the removal of knapping errors and for the correction of the core curvature.

 

(4) The primary goal of knapping in both groups is aimed at the production of irregular bladelets. Specific production of flakes is limited. Although the differences in core preparation, exploitation and rejuvenation in both groups did not result in a different morphology of the blanks being produced, the morphological differences in the toolkit therefore points in the direction of a specific blank selection. For the production of microliths the four assemblage types clearly prefered bladelets, more specifically bladelets with sub-parallel edges and ribs, a straight profile and lacking cortex. For the production of the other tool types less strict criteria were in use. Here size was the major factor influencing the selection of blanks. However, in the O-group a certain preference for the use of flakes can be seen, while in the NVC-group bladelets remained the preferred type of blank, especially when they were used in an unmodified way (Beugnier and Crombé 2005).

The preliminary technological results from Doel-Deurgankdok sector J/L only partially confirm the technological observations from the O-group (Fig. 7-3). Although the information concerning blank selection, platform angle, knapping technique and the general simplicity of the reduction method is more or less confirmed, there are also a number of nodules that show a relatively high investment in core preparation and core maintenance. A marked lateral and transversal curvature of the flaking face is attested in some cases. Some cores show indications that the flaking face was shaped through the removal of a series of flakes perpendicular to the axis of the exploitation table. Also the striking platform sometimes seems to be rejuvenated repeatedly. These technological characteristics are more like those of the NVC-group and in particular the ‘Chinru’ assemblage type, showing a more elaborate and optimized technology.

4. Discussion

Contrary to the strictly linear typo-chronological model proposed in the ‘80s, the research by Crombé and Van Strydonck (Crombé, Van Strydonck and Boudin, this volume), combined with the technological information, clearly shows that chronology alone cannot account for the observed variability, but that, despite the absence of reliable faunal or environmental data, functional and cultural differences should also be taken into account (Perdaen, Crombé and Sergant 2008a, 2008b).

Fig. 7-3: Doel “Deurganckdock”, sector J/L, C3.

 

Based on the comparison between technological insights and typo-chronological data the following working hypothesis concerning the interpretation of the different assemblage types is worth considering: the fact that the differences in some assemblage types are not limited to the microlithic composition but are also visible in the raw materials used, knapping method and in the overall technological organisation (Perdaen 2007), makes the presence of two groups in the Early Mesolithic of Sandy Flanders highly probable. In this hypothesis one group in the second half of the Pre-boreal is represented by the ‘Ourlaine’ assemblage type (O-group), the other by both the ‘Neerharen’ and ‘Verrebroek’ assemblage types (NVC-group). The microlithic differences between the ‘Neerharen’ and ‘Verrebroek’ assemblage types probably need to be seen as functionally complementary. Later on, in the first half of the Boreal, the group consisting of the ‘Neerharen’ and ‘Verrebroek’ assemblage types evolved into the ‘Chinru’ assemblage type. Based on the technological data and its raw material use, this assemblage type is best interpreted as a further evolution of the NVC-group. The O-group represented by the ‘Ourlaine’ assemblage type seems to last longer and coexists with the ‘Chinru’ assemblage type in the first half of the Boreal. Thus, integrating the results of the technological analysis of Doel-Deurganckdok, a similar technological evolution towards a more elaborated reduction method can be postulated for the ‘Ourlaine’ assemblage type. Both scatters from Doel-Deurgankdok are Boreal in age and are among the latest within the ‘Ourlaine’ assemblage type. On the other hand, the three radiocarbon dates available for scatter C3 (Table 7-1) seem to indicate that the formation of this small scatter was not a single event and therefore that mixing between two occupation phases cannot be fully excluded (Noens et al. 2006). It is possible that this mixing was with occupation belonging to the ‘Chinru’ assemblage type. As well as points with a retouched base scatter, C3 also contains a relatively large number of triangles; both microlith types are typical of the ‘Chinru’ assemblage type. This mixing might also explain the technological similarities. A technological convergence due to an increased interaction between the contemporaneous ‘Chinru’ and ‘Ourlaine’ assemblage types is also possible. Based on the analysis of the use of Wommersom quartzite we have indications that there was a rise in the production of triangles at the end of the Early Mesolithic (Perdaen 2007). Triangles are a microlith type characteristic for the NVC-group, while Wommersom quartzite is the preferred raw material for the O-group. This increased interaction might also explain the relatively large number of triangles attested in scatter C3. And scatter C3 is not unique. In Verrebroek-Dok 1 a scatter (C49) with a comparable microlithic composition was found (Messiaen 2005). This scatter is also dated to the first half of the Boreal (NZA-11249: 8675±55BP). In the latter scenario, the high percentage of points with a retouched base attested at both sites does not need to be further explained. In northern France a similar evolution from

points with a natural base (so-called ‘Groupe de Hailles’) towards points with a retouched base (‘Groupe de Hangest-sur-Somme’) has been documented (Ducrocq 1991; 2001; this volume).

From a methodological point of view it is necessary to constantly evaluate the usefulness of the selected technological attributes by confronting these with the detailed information gained from refitting, for example, the recognition of rejuvenation products or burin spalls. Is the present definition of artefact types suitable or does it need further adjustments based on our refitting insights? Refitting also enables us to look for the possible serial production of certain tool types. This has been mentioned in the archaeological literature for the Early Mesolithic (e.g. Conneller 2001), but it remains very difficult to prove on the basis of an attribute analysis alone. Even when conducting a detailed raw material analysis it is not always possible to attribute the individual tools to a specific raw material unit. Also the fragmentation of nodules before knapping is almost impossible to prove without the aid of refitting. Doel Deurganckdok zone J/L scatter C3 can be used as an example. Based on a simple metrical analysis of the flint artefacts it might be expected that only small nodules were selected. The refitting program clearly shows that larger nodules (up to 10-15cm) were also selected, but these were first fragmented into smaller chunks before core preparation and core reduction took place.

5. Conclusion

As clearly shown by Crombé, Van Strydonck and Boudin (this volume), the recent intensive Mesolithic research in Sandy Flanders provides us with a substantial amount of high-resolution data resulting in a refined typo-chronological framework for the Early (Pre-boreal/beginning of Boreal) Mesolithic. By integrating another, independent technological line of evidence in this typological-radiometric approach, we aim to contribute to the further refinement of this framework, by searching for diagnostic technological characteristics of the different assemblages.

This research, first of all, requires an adapted methodology (attribute analysis, refitting) which needs constant evaluation. Secondly, to identify these diagnostic technological characteristics we need small, isolated, sealed and well-dated lithic scatters representing short term occupations, which unequivocally can be attributed to one of the defined Early Mesolithic microlithic assemblage types. In this article some results of this technological research on several Early Mesolithic scatters from Verrebroek-Dok 1 (C6, C16, C23 and C70) and Doel-Deurganckdok sector J/L (C2 and C3) have been presented.

 

Fig. 7-4: Gent “Tweekerkenstraat”.

When both requirements (an adapted methodology and high-resolution scatters) are fulfilled, we can start turning our attention to less well preserved scatters characterized by a small number or even a complete absence of microliths and/or associated datable organic materials, in an attempt to fit these scatters in the existing typo/techno-chronological framework based on a technological

characterisation (Fig. 7-4). Although some preliminary attempts have been made in this direction, e.g. at Gent-Tweekerkenstraat (Ryssaert, Perdaen and Van den Bremt 2003), and Weelde-Eindegoorheide (De Wilde, Verbeek & De Bie 2007), we feel that our data at this moment is still too restricted and the Early Mesolithic technological variability too large to successfully tackle this problem. Thus, although the results of our technological research are at present still limited, and much more research is needed, it is clear these data enrich our knowledge of the Mesolithic (and its chronology) significantly. These results make it possible to discriminate between specific socio-cultural and functional choices. Technology also makes us less dependent of the hunting gear for chrono-cultural interpretation of the individual lithic scatters , thus making it possible to integrate all kinds of sites into the general typo-chronological picture. It presents us with a more complete and more differentiated view, a new point of departure for new questions and answers.

Bibliography

Bats, Machteld, Philippe Crombé, Yves Perdaen, Joris Sergant, Jean-Pierre Van Roeyen, and Mark Van Strydonck. 2003. Nieuwe ontdekkingen in het Deurganckdok te Doel (Beveren, Oost-Vlaanderen): Vroeg- en Finaal-Mesolithicum. Notae Praehistoricae 23: 55-59.

Beugnier, Valérie, and Philippe Crombé. 2005. Etude fonctionelle du matériel en silex du site Mésolithique ancien de Verrebroek (Flandres, Belgique): premier résultats. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 102: 527-538.

Collins, M.B. 1975. Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In Lithic Technology. Making and using stone tools, ed. E.H. Swanson Jr.,15-34. The Haque: Mouton.

Conneller, Chantal J. 2001. Hunter-gatherers in the landscape: technical economies of the Vale of Pickering. In Ethnoarchaeology and Hunter-Gatherers: Pictures at an Exhibition, ed. K.J. Frewster, and Marek Zvelebil, 1-11. Oxford: Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 955).

Crombé, Philippe. 1998. The Mesolithic in Northwestern Belgium. Recent excavations and surveys. Oxford: Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 716).

 

Crombé, Philippe. 1999. Vers une nouvelle chronologie absolue pour le Mésolithique en Belgique. In L'Europe des derniers chasseurs. Epipaléolithique et Mésolithique. Peuplement et paléoenvironnement de l'Epipaléolithique et du Mésolithique. Actes du 5e Colloque international UISPP, commisssion XII (Grenoble, 18-23 septembre 1995), ed. Pierre Bintz, and André Thévenin, 189-199. Paris: CTHS.

Crombé, Philippe, editor. 2005. The Last Hunter-Gatherer-Fishermen in Sandy Flanders. The Verrebroek and Doel Excavation Projects (Vol. I). Ghent: Academia Press (Archaeological Reports Ghent University 3).

Crombé, Philippe, Yves Perdaen, and Joris Sergant. 2003. The wetland site of Verrebroek (Flanders, Belgium): spatial organisation of an extensive Early Mesolithic settlement. In Mesolithic on the Move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, ed. Lars Larsson, Hans Kindgren, Kjel Knutsson, David Loefflern, and Agneta Åkerlund, 205-215. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Crombé, Philippe, Yves Perdaen, and Joris Sergant. 2006. Extensive Artefact Concentrations: Single Occupations or Palimpsest? The Evidence from the Early Mesolithic Site of Verrebroek “Dok” (Belgium). In After the Ice Age. Settlements, subsistence and social development in the Mesolithic of Central Europe. Rottenburg, 8-12 September 2003, ed. Claus-Joachim Kind, 237-243. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag.

Cziesla Erwin, S. Eickhoff, Nico Arts, and D. Winter, editors. 1990. The big puzzle. International symposium on refitting stone artefacts, Monrepos 1987. Bonn: Holos ( Studies in Modern Archaeology 1).

De Wilde, David, Cyriel Verbeek, and Mark De Bie. 2007. De lithische technologie van Weelde-Eindegoorheide 12 en 13 (prov. Antwerpen). Notae Praehistoricae 27: 61-64.

Ducrocq, Thierry. 1991. Le Mésolithique ancien et moyen du bassin de la Somme (Nord de la France): données typologiques et premiers éléments de chronologie. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise 12: 12-37.

Ducrocq, Thierry. 1999. Le Mésolithique de la vallée de la Somme (Nord de la France). In L'Europe des derniers chasseurs. Epipaléolithique et Mésolithique. Peuplement et paléoenvironnement de l'Epipaléolithique et du Mésolithique. Actes du 5e Colloque international UISPP, commisssion

XII (Grenoble, 18-23 septembre 1995), ed. Pierre Bintz, and André Thévenin, 247-261. Paris: CTHS.

Ducrocq, Thierry. 2001. Le Mésolithique du bassin de la Somme. Insertion dans un cadre morpho-stratigraphique, environnemental et chronoculturel. Lille: Université des Sciences et Technologie de Lille (CERP 7).

Flenniken, J.J. 1984. The Past, Present, and Future of Flintknapping. An Anthropological Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 187-203.

Gob, André. 1984. Les industries microlithiques dans le partie sud de la Belgique. In Peuples chasseurs de la Belgique préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel, ed. Daniel Cahen, and Paul Haesaerts, 195-210. Brussels: Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique.

Hofman J.L., and J.G. Enloe 1992. Piecing together the past. Application of refitting studies in archaeology. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum (British Archaeological Records, International Series 578).

Jacops, Jonathan 2007. Ruimtelijke, typologische en technologische studie van een vroegmesolithische lithische concentratie te Doel ‘Deurganckdok’ (Beveren, Oost-Vlaanderen); Zone J/L, concentratie 2. Ma diss., Ghent University.

Jacops, Jonathan, Gunther Noens, and Philippe Crombé. 2007. Onderzoek van een vroegmesolithische concentratie te Doel-Deurganckdok (zone J/L, concentratie 2). Notae Praehistoricae 27: 75-81.

Messiaen, Liesbeth. 2005. Verrebroek – Dok I: ruimtelijke en typologische analyse van concentratie C49. Notae Praehistoricae 25: 103-108.

Newell, Raymond R. 1973. The Post-Glacial Adaptations of the Indigenous Population of the Northwest European Plain. In Mesolithic in Europe, ed. Stefan K. Kozlowski, 339-440. Varsovie: Warsaw University Press.

Noens, Gunther. In prep. Intrasite analyse van enkele Boreale en Vroeg-Atlantische artefactenconcentraties in Vlaanderen (Doel-Deurganckdok) en Nederland (Leeuwarden-Hempens/N31). PhD. diss., Ghent University.

Noens, Gunther, Machteld Bats, Philippe Crombé, Yves Perdaen, and Joris Sergant. 2005. Doel-Deurganckdok: typologische en radiometrische

 

analyse van een Vroegmesolithische concentratie uit de eerste helft van het Boreaal. Notae Praehistoricae 25: 91-101.

Noens, Gunther, Yves Perdaen, Philippe Crombé, and Mark Van Strydonck. 2006. Doel Deurganckdok (O.-Vl.): technologische analyse van een vroegmesolithische lithische concentratie: de eerste resultaten. Notae Praehistoricae 26 : 141-155.

Pélegrin, Jacques. 1985. Réflexions sur le comportement technique. In La signification culturelle des industries lithiques, actes du Colloque de Liège du 3 au 7 octobre 1984, ed. Marcel Otte, 72-91. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 239/ Studia Praehistorica Belgica 4).

Perdaen, Yves. 2004. De lithische technologie in het Finaal-Paleolithicum en Vroeg-Mesolithicum. Een studie aan de hand van enkele recent opgegraven vindplaatsen in de Wase Scheldepolders. PhD diss., Ghent University.

Perdaen, Yves. In press. The cultural significance of quartzite in the Mesolithic of the Low Countries. Papers presented at the conference: Stone Artefacts as Material and Symbolic Markers in Cultural Landscapes: an international Perspective. York – September 2007.

Perdaen, Yves, Philippe Crombé, and Joris Sergant. 2004. Vroeg-mesolithische lithische technologie: Verrebroek-Dok I (Beveren, Oost-Vlaanderen) in zijn Belgische context. Notae Praehistoricae 24: 95-104.

Perdaen, Yves, Philippe Crombé, and Joris Sergant. 2008a. Lithic technology and the cultural identity of Early Mesolithic groups. Current Anthropology 49 (2): 317-327.

Perdaen, Yves, Philippe Crombé, and Joris Sergant. 2008b. Redefining the Mesolithic: Technological Research in Sandy Flanders (Belgium) and its Implication for North-western Europe. In Technology in Archaeology. Proceedings from the SILA Workshop: The study of Technology as a method for gaining insight into social and cultural aspects of Prehistory, ed. Mikkel Sørensen M., and Pierre Desrosiers, 123-145. Copenhagen: SILA-The National Museum of Denmark (Studies in Archaeology & History 14).

Perdaen, Yves, Philippe Crombé, and Joris Sergant. In press. The use of quartzite as a Mesolithic chrono-cultural marker in the Low Countries. In Non-flint raw Material Use in Prehistory. Old Prejudices and New Directions, Session C77, Acts of the XVthe U.I.S.P.P. Congress, Lisbon, Portugal, September 2006, ed. Farina Sternke, Lotte Eigeland, and L.-J. Costa. Oxford: Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports, International Series).

Rozoy, Jean-George. 1978. Les Derniers Chasseurs. L’Épipaléolithique en France et en Belgique. Essai de synthèse, Charleville (Bulletin de la Société Archéologique Champenoise, numéro spécial).

Ryssaert, Caroline, Yves Perdaen, and An van den Bremt 2003. Een verrassende steentijdvondst te Gent-Tweekerkenstraat. Notae Praehistoricae 23: 45-53.

Schurmans Utsav, and Marc De Bie, editors. 2007. Fitting rocks: lithic refitting examined. Oxford: Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1596).

Sergant, Joris. 2004. De aantrekkingskracht van een zandrug. Ruimtelijke analyse van een vroeg-mesolithische site te Verrebroek-Dok. PhD diss., Ghent University.

Van Strydonck, Mark, and Philippe Crombé. 2005. Features. Radiocarbon dating. In The Last Hunter-Gatherer-Fishermen in Sandy Flanders (NW Belgium). The Verrebroek and Doek Excavation Projects (Vol. 1), ed. Philippe Crombé, 180-212. Gent: Academia Press (Archaeological Reports Ghent University 3).

Vermeersch, Pierre M. 1984. Du Paléolithique final au Mésolithique dans le nord de la Belgique. In Peuples chasseurs de la Belgique préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel, ed. Daniel Cahen, and Paul Haesaerts, 181-193. Brussels: Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique.