research

The Mesolithic – Neolithic transition of northern pre-Alpine Central Europe; use-wear analysis of chipped stone tools and evolutionary chaîne opératoire

Traditionally, the spread and not the origins of the domestication of plants and animals was the focus of research in central Europe. It was thought that `neolithic lifeways´ reached central Europe through a process of colonisation from the southeast. In 2003 Jochim writes: `The fate of the local Late Mesolithic inhabitants of the area was unknown, but seemed inconsequential to cultural developments, given the small numbers of sites dating to the critical period of transition´ (2003, pp. 186). This scenario seems to be outdated and, above all, simplified. It is more likely that we should expect complex scenarios of multiple and multi-directional exchange of ideas, people and goods, combined with instances of local developments (e. g. Barker 2006, Gehlen 2006).

Pre-Neolithic agriculture and palynology

Recently, various researchers have put forwards evidence for pre-Neolithic agriculture. However, this evidence is not undisputed. This evidence comes in various forms. There is, for example, evidence for contact of the Mesolithic populations of central Europe and their farming contemporaries in the Mediterranean and southeastern Europe. There also instances of `neolithic finds´ in `mesolithic sites´ such as stone axes in Jägershöhle and grindingstones in Late Mesolithic layers of Henauhof NW, both in Germany (Jochim 1993 & 2000). However, grindingstones are, of course, known from much earlier sites as well (e. g. Aranguren etal 2008). There is also the `clay-seal´ from Arconciel La Souche (see below).

Finds of macro-botanical remains of Cerealia are not known yet. This is probably due to excavation methods at some of the less recently dug sites and to preservational circumstances.

The most discussed data come from palynological research. Across central Europe singular occurrences of Cerealia T. pollen, sometimes accompanied by apophytes like Plantago lanceolata, are found in cores which can be dated to `pre-Neolithic´ times. However, only from 5400-5000 cal BC do we find unambiguous evidence for agriculture (Behre 2007, Erny-Rotmann etal 1997, Tinner etal (2007) have summarised the evidence. Here follow a few examples:

· Soppensee: very well and finely dated with varves & AMS. 1 Triticum t. pollen 7775 cal BC, 5 levels with Triticum t. & Avena t. between 6470 – 5660 cal BC. In the Late Mesolithic these are accompanied by P. lanceolata.

· Abri de la Cure: La Hoguette-layer: ≤ 5% Cerealia t. pollen, late Mesolithic >1%. Not absolutely, but typologically well dated.

· Wallisellen Langacherrmoos: 32 AMS-dates, 28 from aquatic plants (but only 1-2 C. reservoir-effect). Triticum t., Linum usitatissimum, P. lanceolata, Rumex acetosa. No archaeological findspots nearby.

· Zürich-Mozartstrasse: Dating, as secure as Wallisellen. Some Cerealia t. pollen dated to 6400 – 6100 cal BC, P. lanceolata to 6100 – 5800 cal BC. No Mesolithic findspots nearby.

· Lac du mont d’Orge: (after new analyses) first 2 Cerealia t. Pollen dated to ~6000 cal BC, P. lanceolata only from 5450 cal BC. No Mesolithic findspots nearby.

· Lago di Origlio: well dated. P. Lanceolata from 6860 cal BC, first collection of Cerealia t. Pollen 6700 – 6150 cal BC. Regular occurrence of P. lanceolata from 4900 cal BC and of Cerealia t. Pollen from 5400 cal BC.

Similar finds are known from, for example, Austria, northern Italy, southern and western France. It must be said, though, that one has to be very careful with these dates, as there can be severe problems with this palynological evidence:

· the dating of the samples is not always straightforward;

· the recognition of Cerealia t. pollen can be problematic, as the differentiation of wild and domesticated grasses is not always possible;

· sedimentological intrusion of pollen in older layers;

· pollen transport over long distances from regions with earlier agricultural practiced;

· sample contamination.

Behre (2007), for example, even disregards all evidence for `pre-Neolithic´ agriculture outright. But Tinner etal (2007) disagree and are able to counter at least a few Behre’s arguments.

Use-wear analysis of chipped stone tools and evolutionary chaîne opératoire

Not only do the above data need to be tested, the social, economic and cognitive developments that took place between 7000 – 5000 cal BC in central Europe are not well understood yet. It is the aim of this study to increase this knowledge by doing use-wear analysis on the chipped stone assemblage of the site Arconciel La Souche, Ct. Fribourg, Switzerland and probably a number of other sites.

The use-wear work will follow what Sam Smith (2007) calls a `pragmatic approach´ (see also Finlayson 1990, Grace 1989, Grace 1996, Hardy 2004). By this is meant a cautious approach whereby less emphasis is laid on trying to find the exact use of the artefact and on which material it was used. The emphasis will lay more on whether the artefact was used, and, if possible, how – that is its use-movement – and the area of contact of the artefacts, and on when in the artefact’s ontogeny this use might have taken place.

Using both a pragmatic approach to use-wear analysis and an evolutionary approach to chaîne opératoire will allow a focus away from traditional typology , thus placing artefacts in “broad functional groups” (Smith 2007, p. 285) and focussing on the artefacts ontogeny (Riede 2006). As I will be working with material from a well-dated multi-period site – at least in the case of Arconciel – it should also be possible to address the phylogenetic aspect of Boreal and Early Atlantic technology, through the artefacts’ “cultural DNA” (Riede 2006, p. 63) and use-life. The changes in technology thus, and possibly also those in economy, society and cognition. And interpretation can take place on an intra- and intersite level, comparing the assemblages from Arconciel La Souche with that from other sites.

A main aim will be to see whether an increase in the working of silica-rich plant material and the patterns of use that can be expected to accompany this, can be observed. This will not necessarily provide a definite yes or no answer to the question of `pre-Neolithic´ agriculture, but might be a further step to understand the issue. An experimental program, involving the production and use of replica-artefacts, is in preparation and will a. o. be reported on here.

At a site as meticulously excavated as Arconciel La Souche, it will also be possible to combine other elements of lithic analyses with the use-wear work to look into questions concerning the production process, the spatial organisation on site (the chipped stone artefact distribution, its relationship with other artefact categories), secondary and tertiary etc. use of artefacts, post-depositional processes etc. (e.g. Grace 1989, Hardy 2004, Smith 2007). Thus it will hopefully provide further insights into the chaîne opératoire at the studied sites and get us closer to an understanding of Boreal and Early Atlantic decision making.

The combination of pragmatic use-wear and other forms of lithic analyses might allow more then just a greater understanding of the artefact’s cultural DNA (Riede 2006). This cultural DNA, and therefore the bodily actions of production and use, carries the past within them as well as a foreknowledge of the future (Conneller 2006). That is, the artefact in its present state is partly determined by its past and will also play a role in determining its future shape and use and thus also the actions of the users. Like time, landscape can be seen as “qualitative and embodied” (Conneller 2006) and like moments in time, places forming a landscape flow into one another and carry with them other places around it. The actions that take place in time necessarily must also have a spatial dimension. Through its life an object carries within it its past and the places where it was and its foreknowledge of the future and its future spatiality. It is thus hoped that the use-wear work will also shed a light on the spatial information of the site.

Through apprentice-like or praxeological passing on and gaining of skill and the embodiment of skill into people’s being and self-awareness, technology and action get an element of `historically situated ontogeny´ (Riede 2006, p. 55) which, of course, also has a social aspect (Warnier 2001, Keller and Keller 1996, Riede 2006). The tasks performed by people are always related to those of others. An example of this where use-wear could shed a light on, could be a possible multiple authorship of artefacts. As temporality, embodied action/technology, space are all enmeshed in a social framework, the application of a pragmatic use-wear approach and an evolutionary chaîne opératoire, will enhance our understanding of Boreal and Early Atlantic economy, society, cognition and technology.

Arconciel La Souche

At this time ca. 150 find-spots dating to the Mesolithic are known from the Pre-Alpine area and the plateaux of Kt. Fribourg. It seems that the Boreal and Early Atlantic populations had a preference for the banks of lakes, ponds, bogs, marshes and streams, as well as small promontories. One of the most important sites is the Abri Arconciel/La Souche. It was discovered in 1998 and is being excavated since.

The site of Arconciel / La Souche, located in the Saane/Sarine river valley, was repeatedly occupied during the Old Atlantic (6800 – 4900 BC), resulting in various cultural layers, which are separated by natural layers.

These dates can be summarised into the following phases (using the excavator’s terminology):

6780 – 6590 calBC > early Late Mesolithic

6220 – 5840 calBC > later Late Mesolithic

5790 – 5640 calBC > Final Mesolithic

5210 – 4890 cal BC > End final Mesolihtic/Earliest Neolithic (no assoc. artefacts)

From Mauvilly etal 2008

The 4 campaigns so far, have yielded >50.000 animal bones and >10.000 stone artefacts from those cultural layers. The preliminary analysis of these indicated that a variety of activities were preformed on site. The chipped stone assemblages contain especially many small scrapers and microliths (projectile points), produced on regular blades/bladelets. Many of these seem to have been produced on site, using predominantly local raw-material, often pebbles of riverine radiolarit (36%), oil-quartzite (30%) and (moraine-) flint (19%). Other raw material comes from the Swiss plateau, the Three-Lake-Region and the Jura.

Of the material studied until 2006 (411 retouched artefacts) 186 were scrapers, 48 piéces esquillées and 44 projectile points. The assemblages from Layers 2, 3 and 4 includes asymmetrical points with concave basal retouch, symmetrical microliths, retouched blades/bladelets (so called montbani blades) and microliths with RIP. Birgit Gehlen (2006) includes Arconciel La Souche in the La Hoguette Group, however, the lithic assemblage would also fit in her Late Mesolithic group.

From Mauvilly etal 2008

Hunted animals include: deer, roe deer, wild boar, but also wild cats, squirrels, badger and fox, mostly woodland animals. Antler, bone, horn and skins were used for the production of artefacts. Fishing is also expected to have played an important economical factor.

Some other finds worth mentioning are pendants made of deer teeth and an object made of burned clay. The object dates to the end of the 7^th millennium BC and is compared to similar objects – known as clay stamps or pintadera – from SE-Europe (Mauvilly, Jeunesse & Doppler, 2008.) The authors use these similarities as an indication of pre-Neolithic contacts between the inhabitants of Arconciel La Souche and SE-European farmers and to draw some conclusions on pre-Neolithic farming in the northern Alpine region.

The site is one of the few multi-period sites in the North-Alpine region, dating to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, which is also excavated using modern techniques and is dated so well. The site therefore gives us a rare opportunity to bring the study of Meso-Neo transition in the region a step further. It is therefore no wonder that the excavators have started an intensive archaeobotanical and archaeozoological program. My use-wear research will also focus on this transition.

Bibliography

Aranguren, B., Becattini, R., Mariotti Lippi, M. & Revedin, A., 2008, Grinding flour in Upper Palaeolithic Europe (25 000 years BP), in Antiquity 81, pp. 845-855

Barker, G.W.W., 2006, The Agricultural revolution in prehistory: Why did foragers become farmers?, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Behre, K. E., 2007, Evidence for Mesolithic agriculture in and around central Europe?, in Vegetation History and Archaebotany 16, pp. 203-219

Conneller, Ch., 2006, The space and Time of Chaîne Opératoire: Technological approaches to pastlandscapes, in Archaeological Review from Cambridge 21(1), pp. 38-49

Erny-Rodman, C., Gross-Klee, E., Haas, J., Jacomet, S. & Zoller, H., 1997, Früher `human impact´ und Ackerbau im Übergansbereich Spätmesolithikum-Frühneolithikum im schweizerischen Mittelland, in JbSGUF 80, pp. 27-56

Finlayson, B., 1990, The function of microliths: evidence from Smittons and Starr, SW Scotland, in Mesolithic Miscellany 11, pp. 2-6

Gehlen, B., 2006, Late Mesolithic – Proto-Neolithic – Initial Neolithic? Cultural and economic complexity in southwestern Central Europe between 7000 and 5300 calBC, in Kind, C.-J. (ed.), After the Ice Age: Settlements, Subsistence and Social Development in the Mesolithic of Central Europe, Stuttgart, Konrad Theiss, pp. 41-57

Grace, R. 1989 Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools. The Quantification and Computerization of Microwear Analysis. Oxford: BAR International Series 474.

Grace, R. 1996, Review article, Use-wear analysis: the state of the art, in Archaeometry 38, 2, pp. 209-229

Hardy, K. 2004, Microwear analysis of a sample of flaked stone tools, in Wickham-Jones, C. R. & Hardy, K., Camas Daraich: A Mesolithic site at the Point of Sleat, Skye, Sair webpage 12

Jochim, M., 1993, Henauhof-Nordwest – Ein mittelsteinzeitlicher Lagerplatz am Federsee. Materialhefte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden Württemberg. Heft 19, Stuttgart

Jochim, M., 2000, The origins of agriculture in south-central Europe, in Douglas Price, T. (ed.), 2000, Europe’s First Farmers, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 183-196

Mauvilly, M., Jeunesse & Doppler, 2008, Tonstempel aus der spätmesolithischen Fundstelle von Arconciel/La Souche (Kanton Freiburg, Schweiz), in Quartär 55, pp. 151-157

Mauvilly, M., McCullough, Dafflon, L., 2008, Arconciel/La Souche 1998-2006: Rapport préliminaire, Rapport, SAC, Fribourg

Keller & Keller, 1996, Cognition and tool use; the blacksmith at work, Cambirdge, CUP

Riede, F. 2006, Chaîne Opératoire – Chaîne Evolutionaire. Putting Technological Sequences in Evolutionary Context, in Archaeological Review from Cambridge 21(1), pp. 50-75.

Smith, S., 2007, The use wear analysis of chipped stone points, in Finlayson, B. & Mithen, S. (ed.), The early prehistory of Wad- Faynan, southern Jordan: Archaeological survey of Wadi Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF-16, Oxford, Oxbow Books, pp. 284-319

Tinner, W., Nielsen, E. & Lotter, A. F., 2007, Mesolithic agriculture in Switzerland? A critical review of the evidence, in Quaternary Science Review, Vol. 26; 9-10, pp. 1416-1431

Warnier, J.-P., 2001, A praxeological approach to subjectivation in a material world, in Journal of Material Culture 6 (1), pp 5-25