Journal of Archaeology in the Low Countries 2-2 (November 2010)Bart Vanmontfort; Marijn Van Gils; Etienne Paulissen; Jan Bastiaens; Marc De Bie; Els Meirsman: Human occupation of the Late and Early Post-Glacial environments in the Liereman Landscape (Campine, Belgium)

5.1 Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic artefact scatters

Artefacts have been preserved in two distinct stratigraphic positions associated with the Usselo horizon and with the podzol. The buried Usselo horizon was only sampled systematically over a surface of 0.5 ha in zone 4, but at least four augerings most likely yielded artefacts connected with the Usselo horizon (fig. 5b: red circles). Many more flint scatters associated with the Usselo horizon can be expected beyond this area. The association with the Usselo horizon was confirmed in a 2x2 m test pit (pit A; fig. 5b: A) in which 1080 artefacts were excavated.

The vertical distribution of the artefacts is very restricted. The majority originate from within the 5-10 cm thick more silty top of the Usselo horizon (fig. 6: 1). The few artefacts found in the first centimetres of the yellowish sands above the silty top and in the bleached sands below seem to be associated with the traces of bioturbation visible at the transitions between these layers. The artefacts are extremely sharp and ‘fresh’ and often have a sediment capping of consolidated sands on the upper surface. These characteristics exclude an artefact concentration due to deflation and suggest exceptional preservation conditions of a nearly intact site. During the YD sand deposition most bioturbation seems to have halted and thus provided an excellent protection of the scatters. This is confirmed by the horizontal distribution of the artefacts, showing a discrete concentration rather than an ephemeral scatter (fig. 10).

The assemblage’s range of tools mainly consists of rather small burins, including a Lacan burin, three backed bladelet fragments, a borer and a truncated piece (table 2). Tool waste is dominated by burin spalls. The typology of the finds allows an attribution to one of the Final Palaeolithic traditions. The backed bladelet fragments and the small dimensions of most burins fit better with the Federmessergruppen rather than with Ahrensburgian assemblages. Unfortunately points, the most diagnostic artefacts to distinguish between both lithic traditions, are absent.

Also in zone 2, two test pits of 1 m² yielded 3 and 96 finds respectively associated with the Usselo horizon. The artefacts of this assemblage, including four burins, two scrapers and one fragment of a backed bladelet (table 2), can also be attributed to the Federmesser tradition and are thus connected with the large surface assemblage recovered from the neighbouring field (see above).

The attribution of these assemblages to the Federmesser concurs with the observation in the coversand area that to date only Federmesser assemblages are associated with the Usselo horizon itself, while Ahrensburgian artefacts have only been found above the Usselo horizon (Arts 1988; Deeben & Arts 2005, 142).

type	zone 2	zone 4
debitage
Core	1
Crest		1
tablet	1	1
crested blade	1	3
crested blade fragment	1
Blade	1	2
Blade fragment	2	19
bladelet	2	8
bladelet fragment		8
Flake	26	110
fragment	15	115
Chip	37	769
debris	3	7
Total debitage	90	1043
Tools
Burin on truncation	1	4
double burin on truncation	1	3
dihedral burin	2	5
double dihedral burin		1
scraper	2
backed bladelet fragment	1
Borer		1
truncated piece		1
retouched blade fragment		2
retouched flake		2
retouched fragment		1
Total tools	7	20
tool waste
Burin spall		16
Burin spall fagment	2	1
Total tool waste	2	17
Total	99	1080

Table 2 Artefacts associated with the Usselo horizon from the test pits in zones 2 and 4.

Due to the absence of reliably associated datable material, absolute dating of the assemblage has not yet been possible. It can therefore only be dated relative to the stratigraphy. As the top of the Usselo horizon surfaced at least locally during both the Allerød and the early Younger Dryas, this is the time frame in which the artefacts were deposited. The vertical position of the artefacts, within the silty top of the Usselo, could be explained by its deposition after the most intense soil formation and bioturbation of the Allerød soil, which would date the occupation at the end of the Allerød interstadial or during the early Younger Dryas. In order to confirm this hypothesis, more information is needed on the soil formation and bioturbation during and after the Allerød interstadial and its impact to lithic scatters. Additionally, a radiocarbon date well associated with the lithic scatter is needed and it should be tested even if other sites where artefacts were found in relation to the Usselo horizon display the same vertical distribution.

Federmesser groups are assumed to have largely disappeared at the abrupt start of the Younger Dryas stadial (De Bie & Vermeersch 1998; Vermeersch 2010). Absolute dating of Federmesser sites is, however, often problematic. The Usselo horizon often contains charcoal fragments that can be the result of natural fires and as Federmesser sites are generally found within or on top of this horizon, the association of charcoal dates with the lithic assemblages is rarely entirely secured (Vermeersch 2010). One reliable sample of resin attached to a backed point at Rekem is dated to the Allerød interstadial: 11,350 ± 150 BP (OxA-942, De Bie & Caspar 2000), or 13,571-12,872 (95.4%) cal yr BP according to IntCal09 (Reimer et al. 2009).

The podzol horizons yielded most auger finds across the entire ridge. A 2x2 m large test pit in zone 4 (Pit C, only 25 m from pit A; fig. 5b: C) yielded 139 artefacts from the podzol, mainly from the E and B horizons. The assemblage mostly consists of undiagnostic debitage waste, but a point with unretouched base and a notched bladelet suggest an attribution to the Mesolithic (table 3). It is unlikely that the Holocene soil would contain Final Palaeolithic artefacts at this place as the Usselo horizon was well preserved at a minimum of 0.5 m below the B horizon of the podzol (Van Gils et al. 2009).

type	n
debitage
core	1
blade (fragment)	1
bladelet (fragment)	15
flake (fragment)	54
chip	58
debris	8
total debitage	137
tools
point with unretouched base	1
notched bladelet fragment	1
total tools	2
total	139

Table 3 Artefacts associated with the podzol soil in zone 4 (Pit C).

In the Dutch Campine and Peel regions, some other Federmesser sites have also been associated with a buried Usselo horizon and/or stratigraphically distinguished from Mesolithic occupation (e.g. Milheeze Hutseberg (Arts 1988), Westelbeers Zuidwest (Snijders 2000), and Geldrop III 4 (Deeben 1988)). At Verrebroek Dok 2, in Sandy Flanders, a Federmesser assemblage was associated with a buried Late Glacial paleosol (Crombé 2005). In the Belgian Campine region several artefacts were associated with the Usselo horizon at Opgrimbie (Vermeersch 1971; Paulissen & Vermeersch 1978), and large site complexes with stratigraphically separated Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic assemblages have been surveyed and partly excavated at Lommel Maatheide (De Bie et al. 2009) and at Lommel Molse Nete (Van Neste et al. 2009). Elsewhere, Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic remains were found intermixed, which hampers the characterisation of both industries. This is for instance the case at Meer Meirberg (Van Noten 1978) and other locations at Lommel Maatheide (De Bie et al. 2009), where remains of both periods were mixed within the Holocene podzol soil, or at Weelde Eindegoorheide (De Wilde et al. 2007) and at Zundert De Matjes (Van Heymbeeck et al. in press), two examples of plough zone assemblages.

• Created by the Amsterdam University Press i.c.w. Digitaal Productiecentrum