105UDK 903'12\'15(4–15)''633\634'' Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007) Bridging the gap. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone Bart Vanmontfort Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands bart.vanmontfort@geo.kuleuven.be Introduction The past decade of research on the Mesolithic/Neo- lithic transition in Europe has shown this transitionto have been a ‘mosaic’ of processes and interactionsrather than a single and clear-cut transition process(e.g. Tringham 2000 ). It varies greatly in different parts of Europe with regard to its timing, contact si-tuations and the transition processes at work. A lea-ding thread is the local impact of the Neolithic andthe archaeological result entailing the end of tradi-tional hunter-gatherer communities. This is the caseall over Europe, including Scandinavia, the BritishIsles and Ireland (Fig. 1). Apparently, the advent ofthe Neolithic signified the start of a new way of life,no matter what transitional processes or temporaldelays involved. The loess belt of the Low Countries forms a remar- kable exception. It is the westernmost region settledby Linearbandkeramik (LBK) communities and theircousins of the Groupe de Blicquy (BQY) during thelate 6 thand early 5 thmillennium calBC. With the sud- den disappearance of these communities, however,the Neolithic as a whole seems to have vanished as well. The region was not occupied by Hinkelstein/Grossgartach and Roessen, the post-LBK Danubiancultures that can be found to the east and south, norby a local Neolithic similar to the Cerny in NorthernFrance. Only during the last centuries of the 5 thmil- lennium calBC, at the beginning of the ‘MichelsbergCulture phase’, does the Neolithic take up its thread(Fig. 1). The existence of such hiatus is of importance for un- derstanding the regional transition process, and im-plicitly also for understanding the relationship be-tween local hunter-gatherers and the incoming Neo-lithic in general. This paper focuses on the gap andthe explanation of its existence. After presenting thearchaeological cultural sequence in the region, therelationship of the Neolithic with local non-Neolithiccommunities is explored. This is done by analysingthe indications of contact on the one hand and thenature of the Neolithic compared to the local Meso-lithic on the other.ABSTRACT – This paper deals with the chronological hiatus in the Neolithic sequence of the southern part of the Low Countries. It can at present only be bridged indirectly, by a detailed analysis of thesituation prior to and after the gap. The focus in this paper is on the nature of the Neolithic and itsrelationship with possible native non-Neolithic populations. The results of this analysis show the tran-sition process to have been more than a simple and unidirectional ‘Neolithisation’. IZVLE∞EK – ∞lanek obravnava kronolo∏ki hiatus v neolitski sekvenci ju∫nega dela na ni∫inskem puh- li≠nem podro≠ju severozahodne Evrope. Tega trenutno lahko premostimo le s podrobno analizo si-tuacije pred in po vrzeli. V ≠lanku se ukvarjamo z neolitikom in razmerjem med neolitskimi in mo-rebitnim avtohtonim, ne-neolitskim prebivalstvom. Rezultati analize ka∫ejo, da je bil proces tranzici-je ve≠ kot preprosta in enosmerna neolitizacija. KEY WORDS – Mesolithic-Neolithic transition; Linearbandkeramik; Chasséen and Michelsberg Cul- ture; Contact finds; Settlement patterns Bart Vanmontfort 106The Neolithisation process in the southern part of the Low Countries The local Mesolithic during the late 6 thmillennium calBC remains poorly understood. This is due to ageneral decrease in the number of sites and to prob-lems with the taphonomy and post-depositional for-mation of the archaeological record. In the LowCountries, many Mesolithic sites are known as sur-face sites from the coversand region in NorthernBelgium and the Netherlands. These sites are oftenpalimpsests and even if they are excavated, theirabsolute dating is confronted with major problems.Bad or doubtful spatial associations between datedsamples and archaeological assemblages, dislocationof artefacts and samples caused by bioturbation, andproblems related to the nature of samples are fre-quently mentioned obstructing factors (see Crom- bé 1999; Schild 1998; Vermeersch 2006 ). Crombé et al. ( 1999) claim that dates obtained on hazelnutshells are more reliable than those on charcoal sam- ples, but even short-lived samples do not escape thepalimpsest and bioturbation problems. As a conse-quence and in contrast to the Rhine/Meuse river del-ta (Louwe Kooijmans 2003 ), there are no well cha- racterised and well dated sites that can be used asa reference to relatively date the later Mesolithic. The most diagnostic elements of the Late Mesolithic lithic industry, i.e.from the mid 7 thmillennium cal- BC onwards, are the production of regular blades inso-called Montbani style and the appearance of tra-pezes. Due to the problematic dating of the assem-blages, a detailed and reliable regional typochrono-logy is not available. Rhombic and wide, rectangu-lar trapezes are generally regarded as late ( e.g. Ver- meersch et al. 1992 ) and are followed by asymme- tric points with flat inverse retouch and LBK-likepoints. The Late Mesolithic in the wetland area andits successors of the Swifterbant from the early 5 th Fig. 1. The Neolithic sequence in the Lower Rhine Area and adjacent areas ( Louwe Kooijmans 2006.Fig. 27.15 ). Bridging the gap. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone 107millennium onwards, on the other hand, have a li- thic industry characterised by more flake-based pro-duction and the presence of small and irregular sym-metric trapezes ( e.g. Crombé et al. 2005; Peeters et al. 2001; Van Gijn et al. 2001b ). A growing number of observations are claimed to in- dicate the introduction in Northwest Europe of ele-ments conventionally linked with the Neolithic, likecereal cultivation, cattle herding and the productionof pottery, prior to the arrival of the first archaeolo-gically visible Neolithic culture ( e.g. Jeunesse 2003; Richard 2004 ). These indications should not be ig- nored and need to be integrated in the debate as aworking hypothesis. To date, however, the ‘ indices précoces ’ remain extremely contentious (see Behre 2007) and cannot yet change the traditional idea that the Neolithic started with the arrival of Linearband-keramik (LBK) communities. The same is true for the Low Countries where, more- over, no ‘initial indications’ have yet been claimed.The LBK arrived in this region around 5300 calBCand has predominantly been regarded as intrusiveand the result of demic migration to the region ( e.g. Bogucki and Grygiel 1993; Louwe Kooijmans inpress). Their relationship with possible local hun- ter-gatherer communities remains unclear. After anoccupation of some centuries, the LBK communitiessuddenly disappeared from the stage. The reason fortheir disappearance is unknown. Possibly, the wes-ternmost territories in Hainaut and Hesbaye had be-come a marginal area for the LBK communities incrisis ( Jadin 2003.714–15 referring to unpublished hypotheses of Zimmerman and Stehli; Modderman 1988). In any case, in their western settlement terri- tories they are replaced by the Groupe de Blicquy/Vil-leneuve-Saint-Germain (BQY/VSG). Differences withthe LBK as a whole can be noted mainly in stylisticissues. Archaeological remains relating to the settle-ment system, material culture and palaeo-economyare remarkably similar. Although its chronologicalposition with respect to LBK is still debated ( cf. Con- stantin 2000; Jeunesse 1998b ), BQY/VSG can be seen as related to LBK in many ways. Current views implyit to have developed from the recent and final LBKin the Paris basin (RRBP and RFBP), probably contem-porary with the final LBK in the Hesbaye region ( Ja- din 2003.715 ). Like the LBK, the BQY/VSG commu- nities suddenly disappear, this time leaving the re-gion more or less empty. Whether hunter-gatherers continued to be active in the sandy lowlands during and after the LBK/BQYoccupation is uncertain, due to the above-mentioned dating problems. Very few Late Mesolithic sites havebeen dated beyond the 5300 calBC LBK arrival date,and the few dates that are available are often contes-ted (see Crombé et al. 2005 ). Arts ( 1989) stresses the absence of radiocarbon or typological evidencefor the prolongation of the Mesolithic after the LBKoccupation. He suggests that the region was virtuallyuninhabited during most of the 5 thmillennium cal- BC. In a recent paper, Shennan and Edinborough(2007) claim more or less the same thing for Ger- many and Poland. These authors use summed pro-bability distributions of radiocarbon dates as a proxyfor population density. Both the German and Polishdatasets are characterised by a severe drop in thenumber of radiocarbon dates after the LBK occupa-tion and prior to the end of the 5 thmillennium or even the middle of the 4 thmillennium calBC. The same exercise for the dates of the Low Countrieswould clearly result in a similar image. From theirassumption of probability distributions as a proxyfor population densities, this leads to the conclusionof a dramatic population crash after the LBK occupa-tion. The reason for this population crash is unclear;conflict and climatic changes are invoked as possibleintervening factors ( ibid.). For the southern part of the Low Countries, at least, the lack of dates from the middle 5 thmillennium cal- BC does, however, not prove the absence of occupa-tion or even a much lower population density. Shen-nan and Edinborough ( ibid.) rightly mention the problem of comparability between Mesolithic andNeolithic dates. They minimise this critique by clai-ming that the differences in estimated populationdensities are too great to be explained by an under-representation of Mesolithic dates, and that Mesoli-thic sites are not smaller or more difficult to disco-ver than early Neolithic ones. The latter fact is dedu-ced from the existence of, for instance, often largeand extremely visible Mesolithic shell middens, andthe assumption that the more mobile Mesolithic set-tlement system will have resulted in actually moreoccupation sites ( ibid.). These arguments are, how- ever, not apt to lead to a safety in numbers. It is clearthat there is a fundamental problem of identifying,excavating and reliably radiocarbon dating late hun-ter-gatherer sites in general and in a coversand land-scape in particular ( e.g. Crombé et al. 1999; Schild 1998; Vermeersch 2006 ). At the same time, LBK set- tlement sites are generally scattered with featuressuch as pits and postholes, often containing datablematerial. They are therefore particularly suitable forobtaining large numbers of radiocarbon dates. More- Bart Vanmontfort 108over, in comparison to Late and Final Mesolithic sites or even those dating from the Michelsberg/Chasséenhorizon, LBK site phases can be more easily distin-guished on the basis of pottery seriations. LBK sitesare thus more liable to be the object of specific ra-diocarbon dating programs ( e.g. Jadin and Cahen 2003a ), resulting in a clear over-representation of these sites. It may be doubted that taking into ac-count only a single date per site phase ( Shennan and Edinborough ibid. ) solves the problem. The existence of a yet archaeologically invisible local component should therefore still be considered. Theexact position of La Hoguette and Limburg Potteryin this story is not yet clear, despite the fact that inthe literature both elements are progressively regar-ded as pottery produced by hunter-gatherer groupsthat adopted certain agro-pastoral elements in theireconomy ( e.g. Gronenborn 2003; Jeunesse 2002; Zvelebil 2004 ). The Neolithic seems to have taken up its thread only several centuries later, by the end of the 5 thmillen- nium calBC. This ‘second’ Neolithic, belonging to theChasséen/Michelsberg Culture phase clearly differsfrom that of the Danubian cultures. Several hypothe-ses have been raised on its origin: coming from theWest ( Jeunesse 1998a; Jeunesse et al. 2002/2003; Scollar 1959 ), from the East/Rhineland ( Lüning 1967), from the North, i.e.rooted in the TRB culture (Lichardus 1976 ) or having a polycentric origin ( Du- bouloz 1998; Schier 1993; Vanmontfort 2004 ). 1 Ideas have been raised on the possibility of hunting- gathering communities having been active in the re-gion during this phase ( Verhart 2000.115, 231; Ver- meersch 1990 ). Nevertheless, this phase is traditio- nally assumed to represent the ultimate Neolithisa-tion of the loess belt and the adjacent coversand re-gion. The chronological hiatus in the sequence of the Neo- lithic in the Southern Low Countries between appro-ximately 4850 and 4300 calBC, together with thefundamental difference between the late 6 thand late 5thmillennium calBC Neolithic makes this region particularly interesting. The question of where thepeople wearing the ‘Michelsberg Culture’ outfit camefrom is more topical than elsewhere. Was the regionindeed practically void of human occupation duringthe 1/2millennium hiatus, or was it occupied by a population not visible archaeologically? If the latterwas the case, the question arises as to what the re-lationship was between this native population and the local variant of the Chasséen and MichelsbergCultures. Two keys are needed to answer these que-stions: hunter-gatherer activity in and beyond theloess region prior to, during and possibly after LBKarrival, and evidence for interaction between nativehunter-gatherers on the one hand and farmers of thedifferent Neolithic traditions on the other. Contact and interaction during the ‘Early Neo- lithic’ LBK/BQY phase (5300–3850 calBC) It is currently assumed that the spread of the LBK from Central Europe was a combination of demicmovement and acculturation processes (see Gronen- born 1999; Gronenborn 2003; Price et al. 2001;Zvelebil 2000; Zvelebil 2004 ). For the Low Coun- tries, however, all available evidence still suggeststhat their introduction was principally the result ofa demic movement perhaps, with a progressive inte-gration of native populations. Arguments in favourof this hypothesis focus on the large contrast be-tween LBK and the late Mesolithic as currently un-derstood ( e.g. Louwe Kooijmans in press ): transi- tional complexes are inexistent; material culture, sub-sistence and mobility are quite different from thoseof the native Late Mesolithic populations, and rawmaterial procurement strategies differ considerably(see Allard 2005; Van Assche 2006 ). It can be assumed that native populations were pre- sent in the area at the time of LBK arrival. Accordingto several authors, these may even have known apre-LBK first Neolithisation stage ( Gronenborn 2003; Jeunesse 2000; Zvelebil 2000 ) but, unfortunately, they remain largely invisible (see above). Awaitingnew sites and dates proving the presence of othergroups during the late 6 thand 5 thmillennium cal- BC, they can best be identified indirectly. Contactsand exchanges between LBK and native populationsshould indeed be reflected in the archaeological re-cord, both on Neolithic sites and beyond. Patterns and contact finds In a forthcoming paper, a new method is elaboratedto map the hunter-gatherer activity on the loess beltand beyond ( Vanmontfort forthcoming ). Rather than focusing on well dated and excavated sites, whichare absent anyhow, individual microliths were plot-ted and used as a proxy for changes in the humanpresence during the entire Mesolithic period. Thisanalysis confirmed that hunter-gatherers ventured 1 For a discussion on the origins of the Michelsberg Culture see Jeunesse et al. 2002/2003 . Bridging the gap. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone 109on the loamy soils from the Pre-boreal phase on- wards and that changes in exploitation could be iden-tified by plotting the individual microliths. Severalremarkable patterns resulted from the analysis. TheLBK apparently settled in areas only marginally ex-ploited by hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer activitywas not at all attracted to the regions where LBKcommunities had settled (Fig. 2). If anything, theyseem to have retracted their activity to areas furtheraway from the LBK settlement clusters. These pat-terns confirm the important differences between theLBK people and the local hunter-gatherers and assuch can be regarded as an extra argument for thedemic influx hypothesis of LBK dispersal. Contact finds can bring us on the track of possible interactions between immigrating LBK and nativepopulations. Assuming that native populations dur-ing this phase resemble their Mesolithic ancestors,this would be visible in Mesolithic type artefacts inNeolithic contexts or vice versa. Mesolithic artefactsin LBK context are, however, very scarce. Some mi-croliths have been found in LBK pits, but it is unli-kely that they actually represent contact and ex- change. Only few of them are known and they alsoinclude Middle Mesolithic microlith types that are as-sumed to have been out of use since the middle ofthe 7 thmillennium calBC. They are more likely to be residual ( e.g. Allard 2005.237; Jadin and Cahen 2003b; Van Assche 2005 ). Another element on LBK sites that relates to Mesolithic traditions is the use ofWommersom quartzite and Phtanite. Both were fa-voured raw materials during the Mesolithic ( Caspar 1984b ). However, Wommersom has only rarely been found in LBK contexts, for instance close by itssource location on the LBK sites of the Kleine Gete cluster ( Lodewijckx and Bakels 2000 ) and in some of the Hesbaye sites ( Jadin and Cahen 2003b.237 ). In the latter case, the Wommersom artefacts areeither undiagnostic or typically Mesolithic. Like theMesolithic microliths, the most likely hypothesis isthat they are residual remains of previous Mesolithicoccupations ( ibid.). None of the Wommersom arte- facts from the Kleine Gete sites can with certainty be attributed to the Mesolithic or LBK ( Lodewijckx and Bakels 2000 ). It therefore remains questionable Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of microliths and LBK settlement territory. The loess belt region is shaded. Tents represent microlith find spots, circles show the number of trapezes (1/ 2/>3). Hatched regions cor- respond to LBK settlement territories (af ter Vanmontfort forthcoming ). Bart Vanmontfort 110if they are actually part of the LBK stone tool pro- duction. Even if they are, however, the role of indi-genous populations in their acquisition and use re-mains purely hypothetical. Phtanite was frequentlyused for the production of LBK adzes, and unfinishedfragments are known from several LBK sites in Hes-baye and the Kleine Gete region, all over 30 km from its source ( Caspar 1984a ). No additional infor- mation is known on how the LBK people acquiredthe raw material for their adzes. The involvement ofMesolithic communities in the LBK acquisition alsoremains purely hypothetical. Evidence for contact in a ‘Mesolithic’ context is also generally contentious. LBK arrowheads, pottery frag-ments and adzes are frequently found beyond LBKsettlement territory, including on Mesolithic sites.Their association with Mesolithic artefacts is, how-ever, always uncertain. Most Late Mesolithic sites areknown only by surface scatters, while none of the ex-cavated sites yielded Mesolithic features containingreliably associated Neolithic artefacts. The Neolithicartefacts found together with the Mesolithic onescan also be explained by assuming the sites to be pa-limpsests and including both a Mesolithic and Neoli-thic occupation phase. This reasoning is confirmedby the presence of LBK artefacts on Early and Mid-dle, as well as on Late Mesolithic sites ( Van Assche 2006). Spatially, LBK artefacts beyond LBK settlement territory concentrate on the loess belt and a north-ern frontier zone of approximately 30 km. These ar-tefacts may also have been remains of LBK expedi-tions in search for raw materials or pasture lands toherd their cattle ( e.g. Bakels 1978; Jeunesse 2000; Verhart 2000.37 ). The flint procurement site at Ban- holt ( Brounen and Peeters 2001 ) and the epheme- ral site at Echt-Annendaal ( Brounen 1985 ) are exam- ples of such LBK excursions. On the other hand,there are at least some indications for contact andexchange. As Verhart ( 2000.37; 2003 ) rightly stres- ses, the LBK artefacts found further from LBK settle-ment territory are unlikely to be the result of excur-sions of LBK communities. In this case, more epheme-ral LBK or Roessen sites would be expected in the in-termediate region. Rather, they would represent theftor the exchange of LBK objects by native populati-ons. A similar exchange system is in place during thesubsequent Rössen phase ( ibid.). The presence of an LBK arrowhead and BQY pottery in the Swifterbantcontexts of Hardinxveld-Giessendam ( Raemaekers 2001; Van Gijn et al. 2001a ) are other indications of contact and the movement of objects during the late6 thand early 5 thmillennium calBC. The precise ex- change systems, however, remain unidentified.Discussion Summing things up, there are at least some indica-tions for interaction and exchange between nativehunter-gatherer groups and LBK/BQY communities.Nevertheless, the identification of particular objectsas the result of exchange remains difficult. Most Me-solithic sites are simply not suitable for identifyingsuch contacts. The absence of evidence thereforeshould not surprise us and certainly does not equalthe evidence of absence. This leaves two explana-tions for the nature of the data: either the archaeo-logical hiatus actually corresponds to an absence ofnative populations from 5500 calBC onwards be-yond the wetland Swifterbant territory, or those po-pulations were present, but are not archaeological-ly visible. The first hypothesis implies a subsistencechange that triggered the retraction of hunter-gathe-rer occupation into the wetland regions during theearly 6 thmillennium calBC. From that moment on- wards, the sandy and loamy uplands are at mostmarginally exploited in a wider exploitation systemfrom the wetlands. This hypothesis seems hard tomatch with the numerous LBK adzes and RoessenerBreitkeile scattered over the coversand region tomore than 200 km from the nearest known LBK orRoessen settlement. Moreover, it does not fit withthe mutual exclusion of LBK settlement territory and‘native’ exploitation of the loess belt as shown on thebasis of microlith distribution. This exclusion actu-ally implies the active presence of native groups atthe time of LBK arrival. The second hypothesis ismore likely. It assumes that native populations arenearly invisible archaeologically due to their undia-gnostic toolkit or taphonomical reasons. They are vi-sible indirectly, through the LBK adzes and Roesse-ner Breitkeile in the western part of the North Euro-pean Plain, acquired by these populations and per-haps exchanged among them. The invisibility oftheir proper sites is related to dating problems (seeabove). Some of the already identified and/or ex-cavated sites could have been contemporaneouswith or even posterior to the LBK/BQY occupation,but they can hardly be, or not be separated at allfrom older Late Mesolithic sites. The only possiblediagnostic element is the evolved arrowhead withflat inverse basal retouch (RIP). Unfortunately, itsappearance is not exactly dated and could also pre-date the LBK arrival. Alternatively, the invisibilitycould be the result of a shift in material culture andsite location choice, hampering the identification ofthe local Mesolithic’s successors. The contemporane-ous Swifterbant culture toolkit ( e.g. Peeters et al. 2001; Raemaekers 1999; Van Gijn et al. 2001a;Van Gijn et al. 2001b ), for example, is also hardly Bridging the gap. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone 111diagnostic. It is unlikely that such a toolkit would be identified in open-air sites on the uplands, regard-less of the possibility for settlement location conti-nuity from the earlier Late Mesolithic onwards. Dueto the absence of data, the material culture of thesepopulations and their subsistence can only be gues-sed. The paradox of practically no unquestionableindications for contact, but nonetheless the assump-tion that native populations must have occupied atleast parts of the Low Countries’ sandy and loamyuplands during and perhaps also after LBK/BQY oc-cupation can be explained in different ways. It canbe regarded as an indication of the limited exchangebetween the two groups, suggesting that they avoi-ded contact ( Keeley 1992 ). On the other hand, clear associations of imperishable exchange objects and‘Mesolithic’ settlement debris should be presumed tobe rare, due to the value doubtlessly ascribed to thoseitems. Moreover, due to the nature of the sites, theassociation of items and dating samples will alwaysbe contentious. Despite the indications of contemporaneity and inte- raction, the data confirm the difference between hun-ter-gatherers and LBK. There is no data supporting the idea of symbiosis. Contact and interaction during the ‘Middle Neo- lithic’ Chasséen/Michelsberg Culture phase(4300–3800 calBC) Michelsberg Culture? The second Neolithic phase in the Low Countries isclearly different from the first ‘Danubian’ one in al-most all its archaeological aspects. During this phase,settlement sites are not restricted to Siedlungskam- mer, but have a much wider distribution. The entire loess belt is fairly homogeneously covered with sites,including enclosure sites and flint mines as centralfoci (Fig. 3). The lack of large dwelling structures withdeeply planted posts signals a more mobile settle-ment system. At several sites in this region thousandsof artefacts are scattered over a surface of many tensof hectares. This is in clear contrast with the cover-sand region, for which only small and often undia-gnostic surface scatters are typical, and where no en-closure sites have been identified thus far. These re-gions were thus differently exploited and perhaps Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of sites and finds from the late 5 thand early 4 thmillennium calBC. Enclosure sites are represented by squares (after Vanmontfort 2004 ). Bart Vanmontfort 112part of a different settlement system (Vanmontfort 2004.329–332 ). The hierarchised settlement pattern, withenclosure sites, flint extraction andexploitation sites, as well as the scar-city or even absence of dwelling stru-ctures and other constructions, fitswell with the wider Northwest Euro-pean Neolithic of the late 5 thand early 4 thmillennium calBC. Fundamental differences from the preceding Neolithic phase can alsobe noted in the material culture, i.e. the lithic and pottery industry. Theflint industry is no longer dominatedby blade production. Instead, a gene-rally dominant, expedient, flake-ba-sed common tool production can bedistinguished from the specialisedproduction of standardised tools. Thelatter tools include the flint axes andlarge blades, produced in and impor-ted from the flint exploitation sites.This fits with the contemporaneousNeolithic lithic tool production tradi-tions in the rest of Northwest Europe.The toolkit in the Scheldt basin oc-cupies an intermediate position be-tween the Chasséen and MichelsbergCulture traditions. Arrowheads aredominated by leaf-shaped examples as in the Rhine-land Michelsberger Kultur . Flake axes, on the other hand, are a typical element and rather link it withthe Northern French traditions of Cerny and Chas- séen septentrional . The pottery is basically undecorated and characteri- sed by a more varied range of shapes than the LBK/BQY pottery traditions. Instead of bone and grog, gritbecomes the most frequently used tempering mate-rial. On a more detailed level, the lack of correspon-dence with Rhineland Michelsberg Culture pottery isapparent. Technical characteristics as well as mor-phology and the rare decoration (Fig. 4) fit much bet-ter with the Northern French Bischheim (Epi-Roes-sen) and Chasséen traditions ( Vanmontfort 2004; Vanmontfort et al. 2001/2002 ). It may even be que- stioned to what extent the label Michelsberg Cul-ture is appropriate for the Scheldt basin sites. Rather,these different pottery traditions – probably even in-cluding the Rhineland Michelsberg Culture – seemrooted in the Northern French post-Roessen ( Van- montfort 2001; 2006 ).As for absolute dating, the origin of Chasséen septen- trional, Bischheim occidental, Michelsberger Kultur,as well as the Scheldt basin sites can be placed afteraround 4300 calBC ( Vanmontfort 2004 ). Unfortu- nately, due to a plateau in the calibration curve, be-tween approximately 4300 and 4050 calBC, it cannot be specified. The Northwest European archaeological cultures of the late 5 thand early 4 thmillennium in their poly- thetic meaning ( cf. Clarke 1968 ) thus seem polycen- trically formed and developed. The ‘Belgian Michels-berg Culture’, as it is still frequently labelled, is inthis view a local version of similar developments inneighbouring regions. Evidence for forager-farmer contact Ideas have been raised about the existence of pure,Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers during this Neolithicphase ( Verhart 2000.115 & 231; Vermeersch 1990 ). No uncontested radiocarbon dates confirm this (seeabove), however, and examples for exchange are ex-tremely scarce and contentious. The few Mesolithic Fig. 4. Selection of pottery from Spiere–De Hel (after Vanmontfort et al. 2001/2002 ). Bridging the gap. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone 113artefacts in late 5 thor early 4 thmillennium features could also be residual of an earlier occupation. ForMiddle Neolithic artefacts in Mesolithic context, simi-lar reasoning can be followed, quite like most Danu-bian artefacts in such contexts (see above). A fre-quently cited association is that of the Late Mesolithicsite at Dilsen-Dilserheide III ( Luypaert et al. 1993 ), where sherds of a Neolithic vessel were found bothvertically and horizontally interstratified within theLate Mesolithic artefact scatter. No other diagnosticNeolithic artefacts were found in the same context.The two arrowheads and three flakes of polishedflint axes that were found within the plough layercannot be dated securely enough. Still, this site is theonly such example. Until more finds confirm the pos-sibility of such associations, this situation should beregarded as a palimpsest of a Late Mesolithic site anda still unspecified Neolithic passage. Discussion A local development or transcription implies the in-put of a local component. Such a local component is,unfortunately, invisible archaeologically. The onlycandidates are successors of the local Mesolithic.Their archaeological invisibility should not surpriseus. The number of excavated and dated contexts is,anyhow, small, and if we accept the presence of a lo-cal component to have been nearly invisible duringLBK/BQY occupation (see above), then their conti-nuation into the 4850–4300 phase can also be expec-ted. Moreover, there are other arguments in favourof a Mesolithic-Middle Neolithic connection. In itscontrast with the Danubian culture traditions, thesettlement pattern and certain aspects of materialculture during this phase in the Scheldt basin indeedlink up with the Late and Final Mesolithic traditions. The more mobile settlement pattern and the distribu- tion of settlement sites all over the loamy but alsosandy uplands are examples of such connection. Theuse of the same site locations is another. The combi-ned presence on sites of Mesolithic and Middle Neo-lithic artefacts have in the past led to hypotheses of‘secondary Neolithic cultures’ ( De Laet 1958.89 ff ) and ‘Neolithising Mesolithic’ ( Vermeersch 1976.237 ff). These interpretations fully or partially ignored the possibility of palimpsests, but they are sympto-matic of the continued use of locations. Continuity has also been claimed for the Mesolithic and Middle Neolithic burial practices in SouthernBelgium ( Cauwe 1998 ). A recent radiocarbon dating program confirmed the existence of both Mesolithicand Neolithic burials ( Cauwe et al. 2000; Toussaint2002). A major counter argument against continuity is the existence of a chronological hiatus in the radio-carbon date sequence between the Early Mesolithicand Middle Neolithic period. Despite the presence ofMesolithic camps in the region between 8000/7600and 6000/5700 calBC, there is only a single burialcontext known for the period between the early 8 th millennium calBC and approximately 4300/4050 cal-BC (see Toussaint 2002 ). On the other hand, the disappearing of dated burial contexts nicely corre-sponds to a change in the exploitation of the region.From 8000/7800 calBC onwards, at least the OurtheBasin no longer functioned as a residential centre,but only as a logistically exploited region (see Hen- rard 2003; Vanmontfort forthcoming ). In this sense, the disappearance of burial contexts is a result of achange in the exploitation rather than a change inburial practices, as has been claimed by Toussaint(2002). Lastly, Verhart ( 2000.231 ) identified a number of Mesolithic traits in the Chasséen/Michelsberg flintindustry. Besides the similar use and processing tech-niques of the flint tools and similarities in certaintool types, both industries are characterised by a dis-tinction between good quality imports and an expe-dient production on locally available flint of ofteninferior quality ( ibid.). Modelling the transitionThe data presented in this paper show that the Me- solithic-Neolithic transition in the southern part ofthe Low Countries took a long time to complete andthere appears to have been a mosaic of processes in-volved. Making abstraction of the contentious initialindications for a pre-LBK introduction of Neolithicelements, it all seems to have started around 5300calBC when the first LBK communities came leap-frogging into the area. Possibly these colonists inte-grated native people in their settlements, but in ge-neral the data suggest the at least short-term survi-val of native hunter-gatherer populations in a mu-tual conflict-avoiding atmosphere. At least for thisregion, this challenges the interaction models basedon mutual benefit ( Bogucki 1988; Gregg 1988 ). These models assume the attraction of hunter-gathe-rer activity to the farmer settlements. It also challen-ges the idea of a complete assimilation or expulsionof native populations and the ‘actively hostile’ con-flict model as proposed by Keeley ( 1992) for this re- gion. In the latter model, more direct indications forconflict would be expected, for instance by a concen-tration of Mesolithic arrowheads near LBK settle- Bart Vanmontfort 114ment clusters. Nevertheless, there are some indica- tions for exchange of at least prestigious items, andit is possible that these interactions also resulted inthe movement of people across the frontier. All thisfits best with the open stationary frontier zone asdefined by Dennell ( 1985) and Zvelebil ( 1998). The entire period corresponds to the availability phase(sensu Zvelebil 1986; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1984). The sudden disappearance of LBK and BQY cannot be explained, but it is clear that their relatively shortstay in the area will have left its mark. What happe-ned next is, unfortunately, still invisible archaeologi-cally, and can only be deduced from the image atthe end of the 5 thmillennium calBC. The region is likely to have been the scene for, possibly severaland interacting, still unidentified populations thattake up different positions on the continuum be-tween the Mesolithic and Neolithic. In any case, theseseem to have played an important role in the forma-tion of the local Chasséen/Michelsberg Culture thatis confirmed to be at least as much rooted in the Me-solithic than in the Danubian Neolithic. The proces-ses responsible for the formation of this ‘second’Neolithic and its precise timing remain unidentified.The result of these processes only becomes archaeo-logically visible once pits and enclosures are con-structed and operate as traps for archaeological anddatable remains. It remains impossible to determinewhat proportion of this period corresponds to thesubstitution phase and whether the consolidationphase only began around 4300 calBC.Conclusion A chronological gap between the early and late 5 th millennium calBC is present in the Neolithic se- quence in the southern part of the Low Countries.This gap can at present only be bridged indirectly,by a detailed analysis of the situation prior to andafter the gap. A start to such analysis has been madein this paper. The first results show the transitionprocess in this region to be more than a simple andunidirectional ‘Neolithisation’. Several of the manyMesolithic-Neolithic transition models that have beenput forward in the past can explain parts of the en-tire process. The working hypothesis proposed hereencompasses the leapfrogging arrival of LBK, con-tacts and exchanges with native populations andtheir gradual transition to a Neolithic way of lifequite different from that of the Danubian settlers.Future discoveries should be able to show the exis-tence of transitional phases but, unfortunately, thetaphonomy of both loamy and sandy uplands willalways make it hard to obtain good quality data. Themost informative data can be expected from thewetlands in the region. The research for this paper is funded by NWO (Ne- therlands Organisation for Scientific Research) with-in the framework of the Leiden University ‘’FromHardinxveld to Noordhoorn: From Forager to Far-mer’ project.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ALLARD P. 2005. L’industrie lithique des populations ru- banées du Nord-Est de la France et de la Belgique . Inter- nationale Archäologie 86. Marie Leidorf GmbH. Rahden. 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 . John Donald. Edinburgh: 291–312. BAKELS C. C. 1978. Four Linearbandkeramik settlements and their environment: A paleoecological study of Sit-tard, Stein, Elsloo and Hienheim . Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 11 . Leiden.BEHRE K.-E. 2007. Evidence for Mesolithic agriculture in and around Central Europe? Vegetation History and Ar- chaeobotany 16: 203–219 . BOGUCKI P. I. 1988. Forest farmers and stockherders. Early agriculture and its consequences in NorthcentralEurope . Cambridge. BOGUCKI P. I., GRYGIEL R. 1993. The First Farmers of Central Europe: a Survey Article. Journal of Field Archa- eology 20: 399–426 . BROUNEN F. T. S. 1985. HVR 183, vroeg-, midden- en laat- neolithische vondsten te Echt-Annendaal. Archeologie in Limburg 24: 66–71 .REFERENCES∴∴ Bridging the gap. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone 115BROUNEN F. T. S., PEETERS H. 2001. Vroeg-neolithische vuursteenwinning en -bewerking in de Banholtergrubbe(Banholt, gem. Margraten). Archeologie 10: 133–149 . CASPAR J.-P. 1984a. Fabrication et réaménagement d’her- minettes rubanées en phtanite. Bulletin de la Société ro- yale belge d'Anthropologie et de Préhistoire 95: 47–58 . 1984b. Matériaux lithiques de la préhistoire. In D. Ca- hen, P. Haesaerts (eds.), Peuples chasseurs de la Bel- gique préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel . Bruxel- les: 107–114. CAUWE N. 1998. Confrontation des espaces funéraires mésolithiques et néolithiques. Anthropologie et Préhisto- ire 109: 141–153 . CAUWE N., POLET C., ORBAN R. 2000. Nouvelles datati- ons d’ensembles funéraires du Néolithique moyen du sudde la Belgique. Internéo 3: 29–35 . CLARKE D. L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology . Methuen & Co. London. CONSTANTIN C. 2000. À propos d’un article de Christian Jeunesse paru dans le Bulletin de la Société PréhistoriqueLuxembourgeoise (Jeunesse, 2001). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise 22 (2002): 117–126 . CROMBÉ P. 1999. Vers une nouvelle chronologie absolue pour le Mésolithique en Belgique. In A. Thévenin (ed.),L’Europe des derniers chasseurs Épipaléolithique et Mé-solithique. Peuplement et paléoenvironnement de I’Épi-paléolithique et du Mésolithique . Paris: 189–199. CROMBÉ P., GROENENDIJK H., VAN STRYDONCK M. 1999. Dating the Mesolithic of the Low Countries: some practi-cal considerations. In J. Evin, C. Oberlin, J. P. Daugas, J. F.Salles (eds.), 14C et Archéologie. Actes du 3ème congres international (Lyon, 6–10/04/1998) . Mémoires de la So- ciété Préhistorique Française, Tome XXVI (Supplément dela Revue d’Archéométrie): 57–63. CROMBÉ P., PERDAEN Y., SERGANT J. 2005. La néolithisa- tion de la Belgique : quelques réflexions. In G. Marchand,A. Tresset (eds.), Unité et diversité des processus de néo- lithisation sur la façade atlantique de l’Europe (6e – 4emillénaires avant J.-C.), Table ronde de Nantes, 26–27Avril 2002 . Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique Française 36. Paris: 47–66. DE LAET S. J. 1958. The Low Countries . Ancient Peoples and Places 5. Thames and Hudson. London. DENNELL R. W. 1985. The Hunter-Gatherer/Agricultural Frontier in Prehistoric Temperate Europe. In S. W. Green,S. M. Perlman (eds.), The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries . Academic Press. Orlando: 113–136.DUBOULOZ J. 1998. Réflections sur le Michelsberg ancien en Bassin parisien. In J. Biel, H. Schlichtherle, M. Strobel,A. Zeeb (eds.), Die Michelsberger Kultur und ihre Rand- gebiete. Probleme der Entstehung, Chronologie und desSiedlungswesens (Kolloquium Hemmenhofen, 21–23Feb 1997) . Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Würt- temberg 43. Konrad Theiss Verlag. Stuttgart: 9–20. GREGG S. A. 1988. Forager and Farmers: Population In- teraction and Agricultural Expansion in PrehistoricEurope . Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology Series. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. GRONENBORN D. 1999. A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe.Journal of World Prehistory 13: 123–210 . 2003. Migration, acculturation and culture change in western temperate Eurasia, 6500–5000 cal BC. In M.Budja (ed.), 10 th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Prae- historica XXX: 79–91 . HENRARD D. 2003. Le Mésolithique du bassin de l’Ourthe (Belgique): implantation dans le paysage et néolithisation.L’Anthropologie 107: 615–644 . JADIN I. 2003. Trois petits tours et puis s’en vont... La fin de la présence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique (avecla participation de D. Cahen, I. Deramaix, A. Hauzeur,J. Heim, A. Livingstone Smith & J. Verniers) . ERAUL 109. Université de Liège. Liège. JADIN I., CAHEN D. 2003a. Datations radiocarbones et Ru- bané: Pour un mariage de raison. In I. Jadin 2003: 523– 581. 2003b. Sites en pagaille sur le haut Geer: Darion, Oleye, Waremme-Longchamp, Hollogne-Douze Bonnier. In I. Jadin 2003: 191–315 . JEUNESSE C. 1998a. Pour une origine occidentale de la culture de Michelsberg? In J. Biel, H. Schlichtherle, M. Stro-bel, A. Zeeb (eds.), Die Michelsberger Kultur und ihre Randgebiete. Probleme der Entstehung, Chronologieund des Siedlungswesens (Kolloquium Hemmenhofen,21–23 Feb 1997) . Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden- Württemberg 43. Konrad Theiss Verlag. Stuttgart: 29–45. 1998b. Villeneuve-Saint-Germain, Cerny, Grossgartach, Roessen et la synchronisation entre les séquences Néo-lithique moyen du Rhin et du Bassin parisien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95: 277–285 . 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, A. Thévenin (eds.), Les der- niers chasseurs-ceuilleurs d’Europe occidentale. Actes Bart Vanmontfort 116du colloque international de Besançon, octobre 1998 . Annales Littéraires 699, Série ‘Environnement, sociétéset archéologie’ 1. Besançon: 361–378. 2002. Armatures asymétriques, régionalisation, accul- turation. Contribution à l’étude des relations entre laRubané et la composante autochtone dans l’ouest de lasphère danubienne. In M. Otte, J. K. Koz łowski (eds.), Préhistoire de la Grande Plaine du Nord de l’Europe.Actes du Colloque Chaire Francqui interuniversitaireau titre étranger . ERAUL 99. Université de Liège. Liège: 147–165. JEUNESSE C. 2003. Néolithique “initial”, néolithique an- cien et néolithisation dans l’espace centre-européen: unevision rénovée. Revue d’Alsace 129: 97–112 . JEUNESSE C., LEFRANC P., DENAIRE A., NAZE A. C. D. R.- M. A. E. G. 2002/2003. Groupe de Bischheim, origine du Michelsberg, genèse du groupe d’Entzheim. La transi-tion entre le Néolithique moyen et le Néolithique ré-cent dans les régions rhénanes . Cahiers de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Al-sace 18/19 (2004). Zimmersheim. KEELEY L. H. 1992. The Introduction of Agriculture to the Western North European Plain. In A. B. Gebauer, T. D.Price (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory . Mo- nographs in World Archaeology 4. Prehistory Press. Ma-dison (Wisconsin): 81–95. LICHARDUS J. 1976. Rössen – Gatersleben – Baalberge. Ein Beitrag zur Chronologie des mitteldeutschen Neoli-thikums und zur Entstehung der Trichterbecherkultu-ren. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 17. Bonn. LODEWIJCKX M., BAKELS C. C. 2000. The Interaction Be- tween Early Farmers (Linearbandkeramik) and Indige-nous People in Central Belgium . BAR International Se- ries 861. LOUWE KOOIJMANS L. P. 2003. The Hardinxveld sites in the Rhine/Meuse Delta, the Netherlands, 5500–4500 calBC. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler, A.Akerlund (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move . Oxbow Books. Oxford: 608–624. 2006. Schipluiden: a synthetic view. In L. P. Louwe Ko- oijmans, P. F. B. Jongste (eds.), Schipluiden, A Neoli- thic settlement on the Dutch North Sea coast c. 3500cal BC . Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 37/38 . Lei- den: 485–516. in press. The gradual transition to farming in the Lo- wer Rhine Basin. In A. Whittle, V. Cummings (eds.),Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition innorth-west Europe . Cardiff.LÜNING J. 1967. Die Michelsberger Kultur. Ihre Funde in zeitlicher und räumlicher Gliederung. Berichte der Rö- misch-Germanischen Kommission 48 (1968): 1–350 . LUYPAERT I., DE BIE M., VERMEERSCH P. M. 1993. Dil- sen-Dilserheide III (prov. Limburg), Midden-Neolithischaardewerk op een Laat-Mesolithisch site. Archeologie in Vlaanderen III: 7–35 . MODDERMAN P. J. R. 1988. The Linear Pottery Culture: diversity in uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63–140 . PEETERS J. H. M., SCHREURS J., VERNEAU S. M. J. P. 2001. Deel 18. Vuursteen: typologie, technologische organisatieen gebruik. In J. W. H. Hogestijn, J. H. M. Peeters (eds.),De Mesolithische en Vroeg-Neolithische vindplaats HogeVaart-A27 (Flevoland) . Rapportage Archeologische Mo- numentenzorg 79. Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bode-monderzoek. Amersfoort. PRICE T. D., BENTLEY R. A., LÜNING J., GRONENBORN D., WAHL J. 2001. Prehistoric human migration in the Linear-bandkeramic of Central Europe. Antiquity 75: 593–603 . RAEMAEKERS D. C. M. 1999. The Articulation of a new Neolithic, The meaning of the Swifterbant culture forthe process of neolithization in the Dutch-North Ger-man Plain; an anthropological perspective . Archaeologi- cal Studies Leiden University 3. Faculty of Archaeology.Leiden. 2001. Aardewerk en verbrande klei. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.), Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin. Een kampplaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het be-gin van de Swifterbant-cultuur (5500–4450 v.Chr.) . Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88. Rijks-dienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.Amersfoort: 117–152. RICHARD H. (ed.) 2004. Néolithisation précoce. Premiè- res traces d’anthropisation du couvert végétal à partirdes données polliniques . Annales Littéraires de l’Univer- sité de Franche-Comté 777. Presses Universitaires deFranche-Comté. Besançon. SCHIER W. 1993. Das westliche Mitteleuropa an der Wen- de vom 5. zum 4. Jahrtausend: Kulturwandel durch Kul-turkontakt? In A. Lang, H. Parzinger, H. Küster (eds.), Kul- turen zwischen Ost und West. Das Ost-West-Verhältnisin vor- und frühgeschichtlichter Zeit und sein Einflussauf Werden un Wandel des Kulturraums Mitteleuropa.Festschrift G. Kossack . Akademie Verlag. Berlin: 19–59. SCHILD R. 1998. The Perils of Dating Open-air Sandy Sites of the North European Plain. In M. Zvelebil, L. Doman-ska, R. Dennell (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Bridging the gap. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone 117Forest. The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Bal- tic Region . Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield: 71–76. SCOLLAR I. 1959. Regional Groups in the Michelsberg Cul- ture. A Study in the Middle Neolithic of West Central Eu-rope. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 25: 52– 134. SHENNAN S., EDINBOROUGH K. 2007. Prehistoric popula- tion history: from the Late Glacial to the Late Neolithic inCentral and Northern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1339–1345 . TOUSSAINT M. 2002. Problématique chronologique des sépultures du Mésolithique mosan en milieu karstique.Notae Praehistoricae 22: 141–166 . TRINGHAM R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transi- tion to agriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer or mosaic. InT. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers . Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Cambridge: 19–56. VAN ASSCHE M. 2005. Aperçu sur le mésolithique des ré- gions d’Ath et de Mons (Hainaut). Amphora 83: 42–82 . 2006. Substrat Mésolithique et Néolithisation des ré- gions d’Ath et de Mons (Hainaut-Belgique). Paper pre-sented at Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néo-lithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique (5100–4700 BC). Autour des recherches de Claude Constan-tin. Résumés des communications, Namur. VAN GIJN A. L., BEUGNIER V., LAMMERS-KEIJSERS Y. 2001a. Vuursteen. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.), Har- dinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jacht-kamp in het rivierengebied (5500–5000 v. Chr.) . Rap- portage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 83. Rijksdienstvoor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek. Amersfoort:119–161. VAN GIJN A. L., LAMMERS-KEIJSERS Y., HOUKES R. 2001b. Vuursteen. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.), Hardinxveld- Giessendam De Bruin. Een kampplaats uit het Laat-Me-solithicum en het begin van de Swifterbant-cultuur(5500–4450 v. Chr.) . Rapportage Archeologische Monu- mentenzorg 88. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bo-demonderzoek. Amersfoort: 153–191. VANMONTFORT B. 2001. The Group of Spiere as a New Stylistic Entity in the Middle Neolithic Scheldt Basin. Notae Praehistoricae 21: 139–143 . 2004. Converging Worlds, The Neolithisation of the Scheldt basin during the late fifth and early fourthmillenium cal BC . PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.2006. Can we attribute the Middle Neolithic in the Scheldt and Middle Meuse basins to the MichelsbergCulture? In P. Duhamel (ed.), Impacts interculturels au Néolithique moyen. Du terroir au territoire: so-ciétés et espaces . Revue Archéologique de l’Est. Sup- pléments 25. Société Archéologique de l’Est. Dijon:109–116. forthcoming. Forager-farmer connections in an ‘unoc- cupied’ land: First contact on the western edge of LBKterritory. Journal of Anthroplogical Archaeology . VANMONTFORT B., GEERTS A.-I., CASSEYAS C., BAKELS C. C., BUYDENS C., DAMBLON F., LANGOHR R., VAN NEERW., VERMEERSCH P. M. 2001/2002. De Hel in de tweedehelft van het 5de milleniumv.Chr. Een midden-Neolithi-sche enclosure te Spiere (prov. West-Vlaanderen). Arche- ologie in Vlaanderen VIII (2004): 9–77 . VERHART L. B. M. 2000. Times fade away: The neolithi- zation of the southern Netherlands in an anthropologi-cal and geographical perspective . Archaeological Studies Leiden University 66. Leiden. 2003. Mesolithic Economic and Social Changes in the Southern Netherlands. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K.Knutsson, D. Loeffler, A. Akerlund (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move, Papers presented at the Sixth Internatio-nal Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stock-holm 2000 . Oxford: 442–450. VERMEERSCH P. M. 1976. Steentijdmateriaal uit het No- ordelijk Hageland . Oudheidkundige Repertoria. Reeks B 11. Nationaal Centrum voor Oudheidkundige Navorsin-gen in België. Brussel. 1990. La transition du Mésolithique au Néolithique en Basse et Moyenne Belgique. In D. Cahen, M. Otte (eds.),Rubané et Cardial. Actes du Colloque de Liège . ERAUL 39. Université de Liège. Liège: 96–103. 2006. Reliability of the Stratigraphy and Spatial Struc- tures of Late Pleistocene and Holocene Sites in SandyAreas – Mesolithic-Neolithic Contacts in Central Bene-lux? In C.-J. Kind (ed.), After the Ice Age: Settlements, subsistence and social development in the Mesolithicof Central Europe . Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Württemberg 78. Konrad Theiss Verlag. Stut-tgart: 297–303. VERMEERSCH P. M., LAUWERS R., GENDEL P. 1992. The Late Mesolithic Sites of Brecht-Moordenaarsven (Belgium).Helinium 32: 3–77 . ZVELEBIL M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revo- lution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: meso- lithic societies of temperate Europe and their transitionto farming . Cambridge: 5–15. Bart Vanmontfort 1181998. Agricultural Frontiers, Neolithic Origins, and the Transition to Farming in the Baltic Basin. In M. Zvele-bil, R. Dennell, L. Domanska (eds.), Harvesting the sea, Farmiong the Forest . Sheffiels Archaeological Mo- nographs. Sheffield: 9–27. 2000. Les derniers chasseurs-collecteurs d’Europe tem- pérée. In A. Richard, C. Cupillard, H. Richard, A. Thé-venin (eds.), Les derniers chasseurs-ceuilleurs d'Eu- rope occidentale. Actes du colloque international deBesançon, octobre 1998 . Annales Littéraires 699, Sé-rie ‘Environnement, sociétés et archéologie’ 1. Besan- çon: 379–406. 2004. The Many Origins of the LBK. In A. Lukes, M. Zvelebil (eds.), LBK Dialogues, Studies in the forma- tion of the Linear Pottery Culture . BAR International Series. Archaeopress. Oxford: 183–205. ZVELEBIL M., ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1984. Transition to Far- ming in Northern Europe: A Hunter-Gatherer Perspective.Norwegian Archaeology Review 17: 104–127 .