Fitz Jenő (szerk.): Die aktuellen Fragen der Bandkeramik - István Király Múzeum közelményei. A. sorozat 18. A Pannon konferenciák aktái 1. (Székesfehérvár, 1972)

R. R. Newell: A hollandiai vonaldíszes kerámia korakő-eszközeinek rokonsága a közéső kőkori kőeszköziparral

industry of the contemporaneous and propinquitous western Younger Oldesloe culture. Of the 65 types, only four do not appear to have closely related Mesolithic equivalents: the Heart-Shaped Point, the Large Asymmetrical Triangle, the Long Blade Borer, and perhaps the Blade Knives. The close agreement between the two industries is further indicated by an analysis of the range of Mesolithic types which are lacking in the Bandkeramik industry. Firstly a number of points are missing: feuille de gui, lanceolates, long narrow scalene triangles, Svaerdborg points, and, strangely enough, transverse points. Real backed blades are not to be found and neither are the Mesolithic saw blades. Finally, some heavy tools are absent : core axes, chisels Linsenformen, and perhaps a special type of plane. The remainder of the Mesolithic industry is clearly represented. This degree of industrial affinity is far too great to be interpreted as accidental but must be seen as the result of a functional culture contact and subsequent acculturation. In addition to providing the original stimulus for the formation of the industry, this strong Mesolithic affinity may also offer a possible explanation of the Period I/II discontinuity, described earlier.

When one analyzes the industrial traits which decrease at the Period I/II transition and compares these with the increased traits, a clear cultural differentiation becomes apparent. It is the most characteristically Mesolithic elements which diminish or disappear and the diagnostically Neolithic traits which expand. In the first instance, Points decline by half. The „Tardenois” Point, represented by 12.511„ in Period I, is present in II to the extent of one example, 2%. Microliths are completely absent and Handpoints are halved. The Disc Borer is reduced by 50% and the Short Blade Borer by 20%. Miniature Round Scrapers appear to decline together with Double Scrapers. Discoid Scrapers are more than halved while the Pics display a slight reduction. Finally, the Axe Insets all but disappear in Period II. In conclusion, almost all the most typically Mesolithic types found in the industry of Period I display a significant reduction in the succeeding period. Only the Isosceles Triangle, Trapeze, and the Disc Burin are exceptions to this rule. The increased value for Blade Knives is a function of the developed blade industry. It will be demonstrated below that this is a Neolithic trait.

Contrasting with the decline of Mesolithic types, Period II is also characterised by a number of typological and industrial developments which can be considered to be fully Neolithic. That is to say, these elements may have had their origins in the Mesolithic but they were subsequently developed by the Bandkeramik flint workers in a direction which did not run parallel with that of the contemporaneous and possibly later Mesolithic. Moreover, it is precisely these internally developed traits which are carried over into later Neolithic contexts, where their subsequent development became, at the same time, more divergent and more characteristically Neolithic.

Firstly, the Heart-Shaped Point appears at the same time that the Bandkeramik Point climbs from 12.5% to 30%. The Borers increase as a group due to the 300 % expansion of the Long Blade Borer. This last type is the best single example of the divergent Neolithic development. Furthermore, it runs parallel with the greatly emphasised blade industry of Period II. The 100% increase of Miniature Borers also reflects that technological change. Miniature Flake Scrapers increase in number while side retouch on the Short and Long End Scrapers increases in frequency. The 10% growth of Long End Scrapers reflects the developed blade industry and at the same time begins the Neolithic trend toward greater numbers and varieties of long end scrapers. The last typological alteration which indicates an internal Neolithic divergence is the increase in the number of Knives. This is, in part, a function of the improved blade technology. However, as Blade Knives play an increasingly important role in later Neolithic assemblages, this expansion cannot be seen merely as a technological improvement. In fact, the established preference for longer, wider blades in Period II can itself be interpreted as an internally developed Neolithic trait. Nearly all of the types which increase significantly in Period II and are characteristic of later Neolithic cultures are based upon these improved blades. Finally, the increased use of surface retouch on points is best interpreted as a development in the fully Neolithic direction. Such an interpretation is based upon qualitative as well as quantitative grounds. As already noted, the retouch in the second period is generally spread over a greater area of the obverse and/or reverse surfaces. Secondly, the technique itself diverges from that of the original Mesolithic in that the pressure flakes are longer, wider, and deeper. Therefore, the technological alterations which typify the second period of the Dutch Bandkeramik are to be explained as internal developments toward an individual, fully Neolithic industry.

In addition to the quantitative and technological indications, the quantitative aspects of the two periods display a clear divergence from the Mesolithic origin and display a development toward the Neolithic. This quantitative comparison was carried out in the same way in which the internal variation was analyzed. The respective type-group percentages of six Mesolithic sites were subtracted from the corresponding percentages of periods I and II. The sums of these differences were then divided by two, giving the cumulative percentage of dissimilarity, and finally subtracted from 100, giving the percentage of similarity. Six sites with ca. 100 artifacts were selected. However, as the completeness and purity of the site material, our sample, is unequal and not always reliable, the resulting values must be considered to be relative and NOT absolute. For the purpose of this test, however, the varying reliability of the Mesolithic sample plays no functional role for sample errors are the same whether they are applied to Period I or II. Of course, one would prefer to have

36