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
absolute values but this is not possible. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this test, the relative values are most significant. The percentages of correlation are expressed in Graph III. As the graph indicates, Period I consistently displays a higher percentage of correlation site for site, than does the industry of Period II. Furthermore, the range of similarity begins higher in the Period I series. Thirdly, the average mean is higher in Period I than later. In fact, the Period I series gives an average mean only very slightly lower than the Period II maximum. Finally the Period I maximum is almost 13% higher than that of Period II. These assessments were proven to be statistically significant by the Difference of Means test .Therefore, as the sample and statistical errors connected with the comparative Mesolithic material remains constent in both instances, this relative calculation of similarity clearly demonstrates that the Bandkeramik industry of Period I is more closely related to the original Mesolithic than is the industry of Period II. The relative dissimilarity of Period II can be taken to indicate an internal development which is independent and divergent from that of the local Mesolithic. Thus, we see at the Period I/II transition the original divergence from the Mesolithic background and the beginning of a new departure toward a more fully „Neolithic” flint industry. Ideally, one would like to test this proposition against a local Younger Oldesloe or Ellerbec collection which has been dated to 3,800 B.C. Also, in order to corraborate the corollary proposition that Period II begins the development toward a fully Neolithic industry, one would like to compare Period II with a Rössen or Stichbandkeramik assemblage. From such a comparison, one would expect the industry of Period II to display a higher degree of similarity than that calculated for Period I. Unfortunately such comparative material is not available in our area of study. Nevertheless, a combination of the fact that Period II technologically, typologically, and quantitatively diverges from the local Mesolithic development and is at the same time characterised by the marked expansion of Neolithic elements, strongly indicates that that divergence is in the direction of a fully Neolithic flint industry. Groningen R. R. Newell
