Regional perspectives on Early Mesolithic land use in southwestern Germany

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 204–212 www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Regional perspectives on Early Mesolithic land use in southwestern Germany Michael Jochim Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA Received 4 July 2005; revision received 24 October 2005 Available online 25 January 2006

Abstract Long-term, regional surface survey in southwestern Germany has generated a large body of data on the Early Mesolithic (ca. 10,300–7800 BP). Problems in using such surface data are discussed and excavated Early Mesolithic assemblages are used to suggest methods of mitigating some of these problems. To investigate patterns of land use, a site typology is developed based on assemblage size, and patterned diVerences in site location, assemblage contents, and raw material use are explored. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Mesolithic; Southwestern Germany; Surface collection; Assemblage composition; Site function; Survey; Germany; Land use

Introduction Regional survey is an indispensable tool for investigating prehistoric hunter–gatherer land use and mobility, but surface surveys pose serious problems to interpretation, particularly when combined with excavation data. Since 1992, colleagues and I have been carrying out such surveys in southwestern Germany, focused on the entire time range from the Palaeolithic through the Neolithic, supplemented by site testing, and small excavations (Jochim et al., 1998). Our study area now covers approximately 3000 km2 ranging from the limestone plateau of the Swabian Alb south across the Danube into the morainic landscape of Oberschwaben (Fig. 1). Using these data, some of the problems of surface materi-

E-mail address: [email protected]. 0278-4165/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2005.11.011

als will be highlighted, attempts to mitigate their eVects will be discussed, and aspects of settlement organization during the Early Mesolithic will be explored. Background The Early Mesolithic, or Beuronien, lasted for t2500 years, from 10,300 to 7800 BP. The diagnostic tools of this period are a variety of microliths, including obliquely blunted points, triangles, crescents, and more rarely, irregular trapezoids, which were apparently largely inserts for arrows. These are regularly accompanied in assemblages by various scrapers, burins, and other tools manufactured on Xakes and irregular blades. A hallmark of the Early Mesolithic, diVerentiating it from both earlier and later periods, is the frequent evidence for intentional heating of stone, visible in a pink or red color and

M. Jochim / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 204–212

ube Dan

ia ab Sw

nA

lb

Federsee Pfrunger SURVEY Ried REGION

N

205

a peninsula in the northern end of the Federsee, produced levels from the Early Mesolithic and the Late Neolithic (Jochim, 1998b). The site of Lindenhof, situated on an island in another former lake, the Pfrunger Ried, contained buried deposits from the Early Mesolithic. On a peninsula in this same lake, the site of WD-25 contained levels of materials from the Late Palaeolithic, Early Mesolithic, and Bronze Age. Problems in using surface data We have encountered three problems in dealing with the surface data collected from our study region.

20 km

Fig. 1. Map of the study area.

the appearance of a glossy sheen on subsequent breaks, done presumably to facilitate its reduction. Sites are abundant and include rockshelters, caves, and open-air sites. Jägerhaus Cave, located in the narrow valley of the upper Danube, contains a deep stratigraphy with a number of levels of both Early and Late Mesolithic (Taute, 1967). Felsställe is a rockshelter in the central Swabian Alb with a rich Early Mesolithic level overlying earlier Magdalenian deposits (Kind, 1987). Several rich open-air sites with organic preservation have been excavated in the peat of the Federsee Lake, including Henauhof Nordwest, Henauhof West, and Henauhof Nord II (Jochim, 1998a; Kind, 1997). Overview of the survey The survey was carried out in plowed Welds, with collectors spaced 10 m apart. Artifacts were Xagged, mapped, and collected for laboratory analysis. Although the sample of Welds depended on their availability rather than on random sampling, attempts were made to insure coverage of all soils and geological formations and to obtain a dispersed coverage across the study area. Subsequent analyses indicated that a relatively good representation of geology and landforms proportional to their occurrence in the region was obtained (Harris, 1997). The vast majority of sites contain only a few artifacts and lack diagnostics. Nevertheless, we have been able to document at least 7 Palaeolithic sites, over 50 Mesolithic sites, and t25 Neolithic sites. Several sites located in the survey were selected for testing with trenches and, in some cases, additional excavation. The site of Moosburg, located on

Surface assemblages are clearly diVerent from excavated ones Aspects of artifact visibility, Weld condition and weather, and plowing all contribute to biases in the sample of materials retrieved from the surface as compared to those obtained by excavation and screening. A comparison of surface and excavated materials from the same sites has been useful in clarifying the nature of these biases, and will be discussed below (Jochim, 1999). Dating of sites is often diYcult and dependent upon sample size SpeciWc retouched tool types, such as triangular microliths for the Early Mesolithic, are the primary means of dating assemblages, but such diagnostics are often lacking in the many small surface collections of lithic artifacts. Technological characteristics, such as the nature of blade production and especially the incidence of purposeful heat-alteration, have proven useful in identifying Early Mesolithic materials. Nevertheless, the majority of surface assemblages cannot be dated with certainty. This problem is not unique to this area, however. In his study of 746 surface sites located in the Franconian Alb of Bavaria, for example, Naber (1970) was forced to disregard 362 sites (49%) because they lacked clear temporal diagnostics. Many surface sites are palimpsests of materials from diVerent occupations This is particularly evident in the larger assemblages that contain diagnostics from diVerent

206

M. Jochim / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 204–212

periods, but may be true of smaller assemblages as well. In a study of 17 Early Mesolithic surface sites on the Federsee, for example, Taute (personal communication) found that 10 also contained Late Palaeolithic materials and 6 also contained Neolithic artifacts. Clearly, this aVects the degree to which any interpretations of assemblage characteristics may be made. By Wrst concentrating on apparently singlecomponent sites, we hope to establish patterns that may then be examined with the assemblages more likely to be mixed occupations. Site types and characteristics Based upon the presence of diagnostic microliths, the number of artifacts collected during the initial visit (some have been collected several times), and the percentage of thermal-alteration, it is possible to deWne three Early Mesolithic site types, which account for 50 sites; all other Wndspots are ignored here (Fig. 2). Large sites contain microliths characteristic of this period and had initial assemblages of 50 or more artifacts (ranging from 52 to 381 in our sample). Fifteen of these sites can be identiWed. Medium sites also contain diagnostic Early Mesolithic microliths, but had much smaller initial assemblages, here ranging up to 28 artifacts. These comprise 18 sites. Small sites lack diagnostic microliths, but, based on comparisons with excavated sites, those assemblages with at least 35% of the artifacts showing purposeful thermal-alteration are highly likely to represent largely Early Mesolithic occupations. Initial assemblages range between 2 and 14 artifacts. There are 17 of these sites identiWed. These site classes diVer from one another in several other characteristics. Proximity to water has often been suggested as an important criterion for Mesolithic site location, although an analysis of sites in the hills east of Stuttgart, Germany, failed to conWrm this; in that region, sites tended to be farther from water than one might expect by chance alone, perhaps reXecting ease of site discovery on hilltops or a prehistoric proclivity for locations with a view (Kvamme and Jochim, 1990). In our study area, water does appear to have inXuenced site location. Large sites are the closest, with a mean of 34 m and a median of 25 m. Medium sites have a mean of 121 m and a median of 75 m. Small sites are the farthest from water, with a mean of 319 m and a median of 150 m. For large versus medium sites, t D 2.72, .02 > p > .01; for medium versus small sites, t D 2.58, .02 > p > .01.

The type of nearest water also varies somewhat among the site types (Fig. 3). Large sites are the most uniform, with 14 out of 15 situated near the shore of one of the large lakes in Oberschwaben. The one exception is next to a spring just over 1 km from the Federsee lakeshore. Both medium and small sites are more diverse in their location, being adjacent to large and small lakes, rivers, streams, and springs in varying numbers. The diVerent water sources would presumably have oVered diVerent advantages. All would obviously have been sources of freshwater and possibly would have attracted game. In addition, Wsh would have been available in the lakes and larger rivers. The lakes would have had the additional attraction of marsh and lake-edge plants and waterfowl, the variety and abundance increasing with the size of the lake. Finally, the large lakes may have provided defensive advantages, especially on islands and peninsulas, and, with dugouts, easy travel opportunities to a variety of resource concentrations. These locational diVerences suggest the possibility that the site classes represent diVerent functional categories of occupation, a suggestion that may be pursued by evaluating the assemblage contents, particularly of the two larger site classes. One clear diVerence is the percentage of microliths. In the large sites this averages 23%; in the medium sites the average is 41%. If, as is likely, the microliths represent inserts for arrows, then the higher proportions of these at the medium sites suggest that arrow repair and maintenance played a relatively greater role at these sites than at the large sites. Raw material use and distribution Among the major stone raw materials used in the study area, the most important is Jurassic chert from the limestone of the Swabian Alb north of the Danube. Nodules of this material also occur in the gravels of the Danube itself. The morainic gravels to the south contain a variety of materials of Alpine origin, especially red and green radiolarite. Distinctive brown chert occurs both on the southern edge of the Alb and at outcrops south of the Danube. A banded chert from the region of Kelheim, Bavaria, which is 200 km east of the study area, occurs rarely at sites in the region. In general, raw material distributions show a distance-decay pattern, with relative amounts decreasing with distance from the source. Sites near

M. Jochim / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 204–212

207

Large sites Medium sites Small sites Unknown sites

FEDERSEE Danube

WURZACHER RIED PFRUNGER RIED

10 km

N

LAKE CONSTANCE Fig. 2. Distribution of Early Mesolithic sites.

the Danube and Swabian Alb are strongly dominated by Jurassic chert, whereas along the Aitrach River in the far southeastern portion of the study area the majority of artifacts are of red radiolarite, derived from the Alps and present in the local gravels. These patterns accord with previous observations of Early Mesolithic emphasis on local materials. Two deviations from this pattern, however, are evident.

First of all, Jurassic chert from the northern limestone plateau was transported in substantial amounts into the morainic lowlands to the south, even though Alpine radiolarite and a brown chert were more locally available. A number of sites on the Federsee and Pfrunger Ried, for example, have assemblages containing well over 80% Jurassic chert, although the sources are more distant (10– 15 km) than those of other utilized materials. This

208

M. Jochim / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 204–212

sic chert than do sites around another large lake, the Federsee, although the distance of the two lakes from the sources is similar. The larger assemblages from the Pfrunger Ried contain between 80 and 94% Jurassic chert, whereas those from the Federsee range between 19 and 90%. This may indicate that the lakes were integrated into diVerent patterns of seasonal movement that linked them in diVerent ways to the limestone hills to the north. Regardless of the regional diVerences in the use of stone raw materials, each Early Mesolithic site tends to show the same proportions of diVerent materials in both the assemblage as a whole and the cores alone. That is, when Jurassic chert dominates the assemblage, so too does it dominate the cores, in roughly the same proportion (Table 1). This suggests that lithic reduction and core discard were ongoing activities, with little anticipatory tool manufacture and transport solely of Wnished tools. This pattern is very diVerent from that seen at some Late Mesolithic sites, where the proportions of various materials among the cores are quite diVerent from those in the assemblage as a whole (Table 2). In the case of the Late Mesolithic site of Henauhof Nord II, for example, much of the assemblage consisted of blades of Jurassic chert, although no cores of this material were found (Kind, 1997). Apparently, these blades were manufactured elsewhere and brought to the site, reXecting a more logistic organization of lithic reduction. In the Early Mesolithic, such “gearing up” appears to have been unimportant, indicating a greater degree of residential mobility and ongoing lithic reduction.

LARGE SITES

LARGE LAKE

SMALL LAKE RIVER

STREAM

SPRING

MEDIUM SITES

LARGE LAKE

SMALL LAKE RIVER

STREAM

SPRING

SMALL SITES

LARGE LAKE

SMALL LAKE RIVER

STREAM

SPRING

Assemblage organization

Fig. 3. Type of nearest water source for diVerent site types.

Assemblages from excavated Early Mesolithic sites allow a further evaluation of lithic organization and settlement patterns. In a sample of Wve excavated sites, some clear patterns exist (Table 3). First

pattern apparently reXects the higher quality of the Jurassic material. Second, the sites around one large lake, the Pfrunger Ried, contain relatively more of the Juras-

Table 1 Correlations among lithic components of excavated sites (Pearson’s r)

% Tools Avg. weight % Cores % Cortex Xakes % With cortex % Microliths % Flakes

% Tools

Avg. weight

% Cores

% Cortex Xakes

% With cortex

% Microliths

0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 ¡0.67 ¡0.98

0.98 1.00 0.94 ¡0.77 ¡0.93

0.99 0.91 ¡0.86 ¡0.97

0.97 ¡0.60 ¡0.98

¡0.62 ¡0.91

0.75

% Flakes

M. Jochim / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 204–212

209

Table 2 Correlations among lithic components of surface sites (Pearson’s r) % Tools

Avg.weight

% Cores

% With cortex

% Microliths

0.77 0.17 ¡0.06 ¡0.07 ¡0.96

0.71 0 ¡0.37 ¡0.50

0.49 0.10 ¡0.42

0.11 0

0.03

% Tools Avg. weight % Cores % With cortex % Microliths % Flakes

Table 3 Raw material percentages in Early Mesolithic assemblages and cores Site

Jurassic chert

Brown chert

Radiolarite

Other

Fe 3 Fe 3 cores SO 5 SO 5 cores SO 52 SO 52 cores SO 80 SO 80 cores Pfr 2 Pfr 2 cores Pfr 4 Pfr 4 cores OS 7 OS 7 cores WD 1 WD 1 cores IL 1 IL 1 cores SO 14 SO 14 cores SO 28 SO 28 cores

67 60 66 63 84 81 48 39 82 80 80 83 94 87 84 72 65 67 64 76 83 67

9 0 18 22 4 2 46 50 13 9 16 12 2 7 8 29 18 33 9 13 6 0

7 0 7 4 9 14 4 4 4 3 3 4 1 0 5 0 16 0 21 13 12 33

17 40 9 11 4 2 2 8 1 2 1 1 3 7 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0

of all the percentages in the assemblage of cores, of core rejuvenation Xakes, and of artifacts with cortex, together with average artifact weight are all highly intercorrelated, reXecting the relative importance of primary lithic reduction in the assemblage. The percentage of retouched tools in the assemblage is positively correlated with the above measures, suggesting that tool replacement, and discard tends to co-vary with primary reduction. Another group

% Flakes

of assemblage characteristics, the percentage of microliths among the retouched tools and percentage of Xakes in the assemblage, are positively correlated with one another but negatively correlated with the Wrst groups. These patterns suggest that there are two major dimensions of lithic variability in these Early Mesolithic assemblages. One reXects primary reduction and the discard of most retouched tools except microliths, especially so-called maintenance tools that include scrapers, burins, borers, and notches. The other dimension reXects projectile replacement and secondary reduction. These two sets of activities appear to be diVerentially distributed among the sites. In examining the more numerous surface sites for similar patterns, the biased nature of the surface materials must be confronted (Jochim, 1999). A comparison of excavated and surface assemblages from four sites in our study area reveals some consistent biases (Table 4). In general, surface assemblages tend to have (a) larger artifacts (reXecting greater visibility); (b) more heated artifacts (with more visible red and pink colors); (c) more retouched tools (perhaps due to their larger size and more regular, recognizable shape); and (d) more materials other than Jurassic chert, especially Alpine radiolarite (with more visible red and green colors). Because of these biases, only some of the patterns of intercorrelation observed in the excavated assemblages are visible in the surface sites (Table 5). The percentage of cores, the average artifact weight, and the percentage of retouched tools are positively cor-

Table 4 Comparison of surface and excavated assemblages Moosburg

Mean artifact weight (g) % Heated % Retouched % Non-chert

Henauhof NW

WD 1

Lindenhof

Surface

Excavated

Surface

Excavated

Surface

Excavated

Surface

Excavated

2.27 > 46 > 14 > 24 >

0.94 29 8 6

3.39 > 25 > 15 > 28 >

2.70 9 6 20

2.00 > 53 > 8 9>

1.52 45 8 8

2.90 > 39 > 7> 5<

0.59 31 5 10

210

M. Jochim / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 204–212

Table 5 Raw material percentages in late Mesolithic assemblages and cores Site

Jurassic chert Brown chert Radiolarite Other

HN II HN II cores HW HW cores HNW 2 HNW 2 cores

84 0 64 0 66 50

3 0 0 0 0 0

11 100 18 100 23 0

2 0 18 0 11 50

related with one another and in turn, are negatively correlated with the proportion of Xakes. Hence, despite the biases, some of the general patterns of variation are still preserved. Implications of problems with surface sites Due to the problems of dating, many sites of a particular time period will surely be missed and, as a result, a portion of the settlement system may be ignored in reconstructions. The degree of this bias may vary among time periods, depending especially on the role of small, and open-air sites in the settlement system of each period. Moreover, depending on many factors, including changes through time in artifact technology and typology and the distribution of manufacturing and discard across the landscape, the relative abundance and distribution of temporally diagnostic artifacts of diVerent periods may vary. This, in turn, will diVerentially aVect the relative visibility of sites of the various periods in regional surveys. Sites occupied in several periods may mistakenly be assigned to only the most visible. As a result of the biases of recovered surface collections, categories of tools such as small microliths, and of debitage such as resharpening Xakes, will be underrepresented. By contrast, cores, raw nodules, large primary decortication Xakes, and large scrapers will be overrepresented. Consequently, inferences about the location and distribution of various stages of reduction and of tool use and discard will be similarly biased. Because of these biases, only some of the patterns of intercorrelation observed in the excavated assemblages are visible in the surface sites (Table 5). The percentage of cores, the average artifact weight, and the percentage of retouched tools are positively correlated with one another and in turn, are negatively correlated with the proportion of Xakes. Hence, despite the biases, some of the general patterns of variation are still preserved.

Early Mesolithic land use and mobility In summary, a number of lines of evidence from survey and excavations converge to suggest the patterns of Early Mesolithic land use and mobility in this area: 1. The morainic area of Oberschwaben was integrated with the limestone hills to the north in regular patterns of seasonal movement, as indicated by the large amounts of Jurassic chert occurring in sites to the south. 2. The most intensive occupations, reXecting larger groups, longer stays, and/or more frequent use, occurred primarily on the shores of the large lakes of Oberschwaben. 3. Other, smaller and less intense occupations occurred in a great variety of locations, including near large and small lakes, rivers, streams, and springs, and on hilltops, slopes, and valley bottoms. 4. The large sites were dominated by “maintenance activities,” those that involved the working of skins, wood, bone, and antler in the manufacture of other implements, as witnessed by their relatively high average of 35% scrapers, burins, borers, and notched pieces among the retouched tools. 5. The smaller sites had fewer such tools (19%), but relatively more abundant microliths (41% compared to 23%) among the retouched tools, suggesting a greater emphasis on projectile repair. 6. Despite these diVerent activity emphases, most sites, regardless of size and location, showed suYcient diversity of artifacts to suggest some degree of residential function. That is, unlike other areas of southern Germany, where some sites contain 70–90% microliths among the tools (Stoll, 1932), this study region contains no substantial assemblages dominated by one class of tools indicating an extremely specialized function. 7. This inference of high residential mobility is supported by the lack of evidence for anticipatory manufacture of tools, or “gearing up.” 8. Jurassic chert was the preferred stone raw material, but its importance generally declines with distance from the limestone source areas, its place taken by more locally available brown chert and radiolarite. 9. Two of the large lakes, the Federsee and the Pfrunger Ried, may have been part of diVerent

M. Jochim / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 204–212

patterns of seasonal movement, with the latter more closely integrated to the hills to the north. This last point may be explored through one additional line of evidence—aspects of microlith style. The entire region of southern Germany shares similar microlith types through space and time, as part of the Beuronien Culture province as deWned by Taute (1967). If, however, the two lakes were, indeed, parts of diVerent seasonal rounds of movement, this might be reXected by slight diVerences in the manufacture of tools, particularly microliths, which have been shown elsewhere in Europe to carry stylistic information (Gendel, 1984). Comparison of the microliths from sites around the two lakes shows no signiWcant diVerences in size or angles. One trait, however, does seem to vary signiWcantly between the two regions: the lateralization of microlithic points and triangles. Among microliths from Pfrunger Ried sites, 72% are right-handed, compared to only 41% for those from Federsee sites. This apparently stylistic diVerence, combined with the diVerence in raw material proportions for the two lakes, suggests that each lake may have been part of a diVerent “social territory.” Discussion There are other lines of evidence that must be considered to augment this picture of Early Mesolithic land use. In the hills north of the study area, for example, are a number of caves and rockshelters occupied during the Early Mesolithic (Taute, 1967). Some, such as Jägerhaus Cave, have assemblages dominated by microliths and may represent more specialized hunting camps, while others apparently served a more diverse, residential function. In addition, two other large lakes exist in the region and need further research. Lake Constance is known to have a large number of Early Mesolithic surface sites discovered in the last century, but these are poorly known. Four published sites on this large lake, however, do show relatively low percentages of microliths (4–12% of the retouched tools), similar to the pattern found on the large lakes to the north (Reinerth, 1953). The other large lake, the Wurzacher Ried, has few known sites, but the lack of plowed Welds makes survey diYcult. Finally, some materials have clearly been transported in small amounts into this region from more distant areas, suggesting contacts over a large region. Fossil shells have been traced to a source 200 km to the north-

211

west (Rähle, 1978). Banded chert derives from a source 200 km to the east; this material is not represented by cores, but does tend to show higher percentages of retouched tools than the more local materials, suggesting exchange of blanks or Wnished tools. It is clear that the investigation of Early Mesolithic land use requires examination of the distribution of these various materials and site classes at diVerent scales. In general, the larger lakes—the Federsee, the Pfrunger Ried, and Lake Constance— were “central places” in the Early Mesolithic landscape. They witnessed larger aggregations and/or longer stays or more frequent reoccupation than sites in the surrounding countryside. These may have been a seasonal focus of occupation, but to date only one Early Mesolithic site in the region provides information on seasonality of use: Henauhof Nordwest, apparently occupied largely in the summer months (Jochim, 1998a). These were sites where manufacturing in stone and other materials occurred frequently, with a particular emphasis on reduction of Jurassic chert obtained from the north, presumably in seasonal moves. The basic pattern is one of largely residential moves, with only a few sites, such as Jägerhaus Cave, potentially representing special-purpose, logistical camps. Each large lake may have served as a central focus for a diVerent pattern of movement and aYliation, but it seems clear in light of the broad similarities in stone implements across the region that interaction was frequent and social aYliation probably Xuid. These lakes were, in turn, part of a larger nexus of interaction represented by the Beuronien style zone and by the movement of materials over several 100 km. This nested hierarchy of interaction is mirrored by a study of ornaments that distinguishes the upper Danube region and situates it within larger areas of central Europe (Newell et al., 1990). Our survey has been able to expand knowledge of this area by augmenting the old record dominated by caves and rockshelters with the patterned distribution of open-air sites in a wide variety of locations. Impact of survey on reconstructions of settlement and land use Prior to the regional survey, knowledge of Early Mesolithic settlement and land use in the area was based largely on a few concentrations of excavated sites. One set of such sites is a series of caves and

212

M. Jochim / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 204–212

rockshelters in the limestone of the Swabian Alb. These sites were relatively easy to locate and were targeted for excavation because of their promise of deep stratigraphies, abundant artifacts, and organic preservation. Another set was around the shores of the Federsee and Lake Constance, two large lakes singled out for focused survey in the 1920s and 1930s because they were considered to be likely occupation areas in all time periods. These surveys were followed by a series of site excavations in the peat of the formerly large Federsee due to the preservational conditions of the sediments. Such a research history is common in many other areas: focused attention to promising, easily located sites, which then are taken to represent the prehistoric patterns of behavior. The archaeological record of all of the remainder of the region was little known, except for occasional records of accidental discovery and amateur collections. Reconstructions based on such a record, including my own (Jochim, 1976), necessarily focused on these known sites and concentrations and, more importantly, inferred patterns of regular, seasonal movements among a few discrete locations. The surveys have rendered this record more diVuse and the interpretation more complex. They have veriWed the existence of areas of concentrated occupation, including not only the Upper Danube, the Federsee, and Lake Constance, but also the Pfrunger Ried and portions of the Danube farther east. In addition, however, they have revealed new categories of sites with considerable locational variation. To some extent, these sites show patterned diVerences in assemblages, suggesting that they were diVerent functional components of the settlement system. The result, however only partly understood at present, is a more complete appreciation of the extent and variability of land use during the Early Mesolithic. Acknowledgments My sincere thanks go to Lynn Fisher for making the survey project such an enjoyable and proWtable endeavor, despite the many empty Welds surveyed. Thanks also to Susan Harris and Harry Starr for their persistent dedication to the project. The countless students and volunteers, too numerous to name, who participated in the survey deserve special recognition for their willingness to slog through muddy Welds in the rain and dusty Welds in the sun. Without the assistance and encouragement of Claus-Joachim

Kind and Helmuth Schlichtherle, this project could not have been carried out, and without the friendship and aid of Alois and Toni Dangel and the people of Oggelshausen, it would not have been as much fun. For their Wnancial support over the years, I wish to acknowledge the National Science Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, UC Santa Barbara, and University Research Expeditions Program. References Gendel, P., 1984. Mesolithic Social Territories in North-western Europe. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 218, Oxford. Harris, S., 1997. The Use of GIS to Test for Bias in Non-random Surveys: A Southwest German Example. Unpublished paper, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Jochim, M., 1998a. A Hunter–Gatherer Landscape. Kluwer/Plenum, New York. Jochim, M., 1998b. Steinzeitliche Ausgrabungen bei Moosburg am Federsee, Ldkr. Biberach. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1997. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. pp. 21–23. Jochim, M., 1999. The interpretative potential of surface lithic scatters. In: Cziesla, E. (Ed.), Den Bogen Spannenƒ. Beier and Beran, Weissbach, pp. 161–168. Jochim, M., Glass, M., Fisher, L., McCartney, P., 1998. Mapping the stone age: an interim report on the South German Survey Project. In: Conard, N. (Ed.), Aktuelle Forschungen zum Mesolithikum/Current Mesolithic Research. Mo Vince Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 121–132. Kind, C.J. (Ed.), 1987. Das Felsställe: Eine JungpaläolithischFrühmesolithische Abri-Station bei Ehingen-Mühlen, AlbDonau-Kreis. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 23. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. Kind, C.J., 1997. Die Letzten Wildbeuter. Materialhefte zur Archäologie 39. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. Kvamme, K., Jochim, M., 1990. The environmental basis of Mesolithic settlement. In: Bonsall, C. (Ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. University of Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh, pp. 1–12. Naber, F., 1970. Untersuchungen an Industrien Postglazialer Jägerkulturen. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 35, 1–68. Newell, R., Kielman, D., Constandse-Westermann, T., Van der Sanden, W., Van Gign, A., 1990. An Inquiry into the Ethnic Resolution of Mesolithic Regional Groups. E.J. Brill, Leiden. Rähle, W., 1978. Schmuckschnecken aus Mesolithischen Kulturschichten Süddeutschlands und Ihre Herkunft. In: Taute, W. (Ed.), Das Mesolithikum in Süddeutschland, Teil 2: Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Tübinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte 52. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 163–168. Reinerth, H., 1953. Die Mittlere Steinzeit am Bodensee. Vorzeit am Bodensee 1, 1–32. Stoll, H., 1932. Mesolithikum aus dem Ostschwarzwald. Germania 16, 91–97. Taute, W., 1967. Grabungen zur Mittleren Steinzeit in Höhlen und unter Felsdächern der Schwäbischen Alb, 1961 bis 1965. Fundberichte aus Schwaben 18/1, 14–21.