BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access November 23, 2021

The Phenomena La Hoguette and Limburg – Technological Aspects

Erich Kirschneck
From the journal Open Archaeology

Abstract

La Hoguette and Limburg pottery and the role their producers played in the Neolithization of western Central Europe are still a matter of debate. These styles exist in parallel to Linearbandkeramik (LBK) but are different from LBK pottery and here called Non-LBK wares. The various Non-LBK styles are mainly defined based on decoration, but this does not coincide with important technological features. Therefore, an technological approach including the parameters of temper, vessel morphology, and firing methods was used for an alternative classification and to trace knowledge transmission networks. It is suggested that several technologically distinguishable Non-LBK pottery traditions of different geographical origins existed contemporaneously in western Central Europe. While the early mineral- and organic-tempered ware shows some similarities with the Earliest and Early LBK, the widespread early bone-tempered pottery with its uniform design cannot be traced back to either Cardial or LBK pottery. This is probably the oldest pottery in western Central Europe. This means that here pottery emerged first as a tradition outside both the LBK and Cardial cultures. Increasing interaction between producers of various Non-LBK wares and LBK pottery makers can then be traced over several centuries. All styles are shown to be diverse and dynamic and to be undergoing substantial internal development. The persistent mutual influencing is a key for understanding the development of Non-LBK pottery, as well as for innovations within LBK ceramic production. Here, a hypothesis is proposed that the makers of Non-LBK wares may be hunter-gatherers, although this cannot currently be proven.

1 Introduction

The Linearbandkeramik (LBK) has been named after its characteristic pottery, which in spite of regional differences in decoration shares basic similarities of manufacturing technology and decorative principles (based on banded patterns of dots and lines) across its area of distribution. However, for the first time in 1936 (Buttler & Haberey, 1936) and increasingly since the 1970s, pottery contemporary to the LBK, but significantly different in decoration and technology, was identified in western Central Europe, mainly within and sometimes outside the distribution area of the LBK (Constantin, Coudart, & Boureux, 1981; Constantin & Demarez, 1981; Jeunesse, 1986, 1987; Modderman, 1970, 1981).

This came as a surprise because at that time pottery in Central Europe was considered an integral part of the so-called Neolithic package and LBK was the only known Neolithic culture. Several questions arose: Who were the producers of this pottery, could they have been hunter-gatherers? What was their relation to the Neolithic cultures, and which role did their producers play in the process of establishing pottery production in western Central Europe?

Based on differences in decoration, the early Non-LBK pottery traditions were divided into La Hoguette and Limburg styles (Constantin, 1985; Jeunesse, 1986; Modderman, 1970). But regarding technical features, this categorization proved unsatisfactory. In this article, therefore, an alternative approach is used to categorize early Non-LBK pottery according to technical parameters, in addition to decoration. The aim is to identify technological traditions that may inform us on networks of communication.

It is suggested that several technologically distinguishable pottery traditions with different geographical distributions were developed contemporaneously to the Earliest LBK (ca. 5400–5250 calBC) and existed for centuries in western Central Europe side by side with the LBK and even later in Villeneuve-St. Germain (VSG) contexts after the transition from Rubané (the French LBK) to VSG around 4900 calBC. The different aspects of pottery production may indicate different modalities and networks of transmission, with their own historical trajectories. On this basis, it will be discussed to which extent hunter-gatherers could have participated in the production of early pottery.

2 History of Research

2.1 Definition of La Hoguette and Limburg Pottery

La Hoguette pottery was defined by Christian Jeunesse in 1986 (Jeunesse, 1986, 1987). Limburg pottery was defined even earlier by Pieter Modderman and described by Claude Constantin (Constantin, 1985; Modderman, 1970). The defining features for both were oxidizing firing, bone temper, and pointed-based vessels; all these properties differ from the LBK of early periods. The double-dotted decoration of La Hoguette compared to the stroke decorations of Limburg was considered as the main difference between the two styles. The main distribution area of La Hoguette was thought to be located east of the Rhine where it existed already at the same time as the Earliest LBK (ca. 5400–5250 calBC) and in Alsace where it occurred predominantly during the Rubané récent (ca. 5050–4950 calBC). The only exception was the eponymous site in La Hoguette (Normandy, France). Limburg pottery was considered to start later during the Flomborn phase (ca. 5250–5150 calBC) in the Maas valley west of the Rhine and was found until the end of the Rubané in the Paris basin around 4900 calBC (see chronology Table 1) (Lüning, Kloos, & Albert, 1989; Manen & Mazurié de Keroualin, 2003).

Table 1

Chronology of LBK and synchronization between German, Dutch, and French chronology (simplified based on Gomart, 2014, p. 41)

German chronology Dutch chronology French chronology
Rubané terminal
Latest LBK Modderman IId Rubané final
4950 calBC
Late LBK Modderman IIb/c/d Rubané récent
5050 calBC
Middle LBK Modderman Id/IIa Rubané moyen
5150 calBC
Early LBK (Flomborn) Modderman Ib/c Rubané ancien
5250 calBC
Earliest LBK Modderman Ia

Soon the attribution to La Hoguette and Limburg decoration patterns had to be readjusted because of inconsistencies, and Limburg pottery was split into a northern Rheno-Mosan and a southern Sequano-Scaldic branch (van Berg, 1990). Additional categories of Non-LBK ware were defined and designated “Begleitkeramik” (Jeunesse & Sainty, 1991, p. 20) and “Cannelured Begleitkeramik” (Brounen & Hauzeur, 2010). Some scholars considered these as part of La Hoguette (Cziesla, 2015), others as part of Limburg (Gomart & Burnez-Lanotte, 2012, p. 241), and still others as separate categories (Petitdidier et al., 2013). Constantin and colleagues consider them as a development out of La Hoguette (Constantin, Allard, & Demarez, 2010b, p. 17). But there still existed other sherds which did not fit into these extended categories (Amkreutz, Vanmontfort, De Bie, & Verbeek, 2010; Crombé, Sergant, Perdaen, Meylemans, & Deforce, 2015, p. 34; Jeunesse, 1987, p. 9; van de Velde, 2010, p. 73). The original technological definition was also expanded because pottery with mineral or organic temper was attributed to La Hoguette or Limburg (Constantin, 1985, p. 88; Maletschek, 2010). The distribution areas of all these potteries also overlapped. La Hoguette pottery was found as far as the Atlantic coast, far west of the Limburg distribution area (Ghesquière & Aubry, 2013, p. 517; Rousseau, Forré, Hamon, & Querré, 2015), whereas newly found sherds in Alsace were attributed to Limburg pottery (Lefranc & Michler, 2015, Figure 19). Other examples were classed by their authors as La Hoguette, although neither the decoration pattern nor the temper fulfilled the original definition (Altorfer & Hartmann, 2018). But although the definitions became more and more inclusive, the designations were used as if they represented pottery groups with a defined territory, suggesting the existence of cultural units (see discussion in Manen & Mazurié de Keroualin, 2003, p. 135f; as an example see the map in Jeunesse & van Willigen, 2010, Figure 10). In 2010, Constantin, Ilett, and Burnez-Lanotte (2010a) expressed fundamental doubts about the established opinions. Therefore, it might be worthwhile to investigate these potteries from a different angle, from a technological aspect using selected elements of the production process. As technological traditions depend on deeper sorts of learning networks than, for example, the imitation of decorative techniques (Gosselain, 2002, p. 11), this can provide a fruitful alternative way of categorization.

2.2 Corpus of Sites with La Hoguette and Limburg Pottery and Begleitkeramik

2.2.1 La Hoguette Pottery

At least 79 sites of La Hoguette pottery are mentioned in the literature (see list 1.1 in the Appendix). Compared to the map in the pioneering summary by Manen and Mazurié de Keroualin (2003, p. 118), this is an increase of 29 sites. Most sites have only one or two sherds and can only contribute a dot on the distribution map. On 21 sites, more than 10 sherds were found or even the reconstruction of a vessel was possible. About 48 sites (61%) are LBK settlements, 27 sites (34%) have no connection to any LBK context. In all LBK settlements, the number of La Hoguette sherds is always very small when compared to the LBK sherds.

Beside the site La Hoguette itself, until 2003, the sites of Bruchenbrücken, Dautenheim, Filderstadt-Bernhausen, Hailfingen (Lüning et al., 1989), Bad Cannstatt-Wilhelma (Strien & Tillmann, 2001), Bischoffsheim-Village, and Bavans (Jeunesse, 1987) were most often cited in discussions. The two vessels from Dautenheim became the prime example of a La Hoguette vessel. After 2003, three French sites substantially expanded the corpus: Choisey (Pétrequin, Martineau, Nowicki, Gauthier, & Schaal, 2009), Alizay (Ghesquière & Aubry, 2013), and Machecoul (Rousseau et al., 2015). All these are situated outside the distribution area of LBK pottery and moved the center of the La Hoguette distribution area to the west. The publications on the pottery from Choisey and Machecoul provided very detailed information about the production process. Sehndorf (Fritsch, 2000a), Liestal (Sedlmeier, 2003), Ittervorth (Brounen, Drenth, & Schreurs, 2010a), and Soest-Burgtheaterplatz (Knoche, 2010), all outside LBK contexts, provided additional insights into the technological variety of La Hoguette pottery. The detailed monograph on Rottenburg-Fröbelweg (Bofinger, 2005) demonstrated the association of La Hoguette pottery with the Earliest LBK. Gächlingen-Goldäcker (Altorfer & Hartmann, 2018) yielded La Hoguette pottery from a later period. The site Rosheim-St. Odile was included in a technological investigation by Gomart (2014, p. 237ff).

2.2.2 Limburg Pottery

At least 119 sites of Limburg pottery are known (see list 1.2). About 17 of them have more than 10 sherds. About 93 sites (79%) are LBK settlements, 21 sites (18%) are outside any LBK context, and two sites are dated to the VSG. Eight sites also have La Hoguette pottery. The number of Limburg sherds is always much smaller than the number of LBK sherds.

In comparison with the map in Manen and Mazurié de Keroualin (2003, p. 121), the number of sites nearly doubled. In the early discussions, the vessels from Kesseleyk-Keuperheide (Modderman, 1974), Köln-Lindenthal (Buttler & Haberey, 1936), Geleen-Station, Elsloo-Koolweg, Stein-Heideveldveg, Rosmeer (Modderman, 1981), Liege-St. Lambert (Rouselle, 1984), Aubechies, and Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Constantin, 1985) were the most cited examples. The increase of knowledge since 2003 is nearly exclusively the side-effect of LBK excavations west of the Rhine, as in the Moselle-Lorraine area (Hauzeur, 2006; Petitdidier et al., 2013) and Alsace (Lefranc & Michler, 2015, p. 41), in the Seine-Yonne area (Dupont, Irribaria, & Liagre, 2010; Meunier, 2012), the Aisne valley (Ilett & Constantin, 2010, p. 247), the late LBK settlement cluster in Normandy (Billard, Bostyn, Hamon, & Meunier, 2014; Ghesquière, Le Maux, Lepaumier, & Marcigny, 2018), and in Hainaut (Constantin et al., 2010b, pp. 16–20; Constantin et al., 2018; Deramaix, Zeebroek, Jadin, & Denis, 2018). The publication of Aubechies (Constantin et al., 2010b) provided additional technological knowledge about Limburg pottery. In the Graetheide LBK settlement cluster, Geleen-Janskamperveld is of particular interest as an early site west of the Rhine, mainly occupied in the Flomborn period (van de Velde, 2007), the neighboring site of Maastricht-Klinkers proves the diversity of Limburg pottery during all periods (Van Wijk, Amkreutz, & van de Velde, 2014). A technological investigation about the origin of clay materials was carried out for the Hesbaye site of Fexhe-le-Haute-Clocher (Bosquet & Golitko, 2012). Five important sites with Limburg sherds were included in the technological studies of Gomart (2014) about the LBK west of the Rhine.

2.2.3 Begleitkeramik

The list of Begleitkeramik is based on the information given in Brounen and Hauzeur (2010) and Petitdidier et al. (2013) with some additions. It lists 43 sites (see list 1.3). About 25 sites (58%) are LBK settlements, 18 sites (42%) are outside a LBK context. On 23 sites, there were additional sherds of La Hoguette or Limburg pottery or even both. Nearly all of the Begleitkeramik sites have only very few sherds. Only Haelen-Broekweg (Bats et al., 2002), outside an LBK context, had many sherds, even in connection with late Mesolithic lithic material. But a reconstruction of the vessel was not possible, as was the case for all the other Begleitkeramik sherds.

2.2.4 Other Non-LBK Potteries

There exist other potteries contemporary to the LBK which are not attributed to any defined category. The first one is a ware with fossil shell temper and little decoration. It is mentioned by Jeunesse (1987, p. 9) and is found in LBK contexts but also to the south outside the LBK distribution area (see list 1.4.1). This pottery has technological similarities with fossil shell-tempered La Hoguette pottery as in Bischoffsheim-Le Village, pit 68 (Jeunesse & Sainty, 1991), Rosheim-St. Odile (Jeunesse & Lefranc, 1999), and Orconte-Les Noues (Tappret & Villes, 1996).

Another pottery without any attribution is described by Amkreutz and colleagues in the lower Maas valley (Amkreutz et al., 2010). For this pottery, the connection with Mesolithic sites is stressed (see list 1.4.2). Similar sites are mentioned by Crombé and colleagues for the lower Scheldt valley (Crombé et al., 2015, p. 34). The sherds are often bone tempered and were even found in early Swifterbant sites (see list 1.4.2).

All these potteries are technologically different from LBK sherds in one way or the other. Therefore, all these potteries (La Hoguette and Limburg pottery, Begleitkeramik, and other potteries) will be subsumed under the designation “Non-LBK.” This has to be understood as a technological designation to suggest new analytical approaches and does not exclude possible LBK influences or the partial attribution to the sphere of LBK culture.

3 Technological Approach

Roux (2011) describes four main stages in the production of ceramics. The first stage is the selection and preparation of the clay material including the choice of temper. The second stage is the fashioning of the vessel. The third stage is the finishing of the vessel’s outer layers. The last stage is the firing. Of course, the selection of technical processes can be influenced by cultural traditions, but at first, they are the technological know-how of the producer group.

Temper is necessary. It serves as the structure of bigger particles that bind the small clay particles (Rice, 1987, p. 74). Temper can be a component of the selected clay matrix or can be added intentionally. Because the technological effect is the same, this difference is not of importance for our study. With mineral tempers such as quartz, calcite, or fossil shells, it is not always recognizable whether the tempers are inclusions in the clay matrix. But for other temper materials such as bone, grog, or plants, it is obvious that they have been added intentionally. Under the conditions of early pottery production with firing temperatures of only 750°C at most, the production of high-quality pottery requires specific know-how. Some tempering agents indicate that dealing with thermal stress during firing was the issue, as which quartz, grog, and organic temper (Rice, 1987, p. 229). The use of grog was an efficient technological innovation to minimize the problems of thermal expansion (Rice, 1987, p. 229). On the other hand, tempers, such as calcite, bone, or hematite, act as a flux and support the development of stable high-temperature modifications already at rather low temperatures (Rice, 1987, p. 94). The use of a specific temper can, therefore, indicate a technological tradition.

The different techniques and methods of fashioning can be dependent on the form and size of the vessel, but they can also be characteristic of distinct social groups (Roux, 2011, p. 81). Using the coiling technique, the fashioning of the wall is a characterizing element even if the coiling method of the rim or the bottom could differ (Gomart, 2014, p. 280).

The decoration can be applied prior to or after firing. Decoration is a means of communication, often interpreted as expressing identity or reflecting social change, whereas technological parameters allow to identify the transfer of technological traditions (Lemonnier, 1993).

The technological choices are normally not visible on the outside of the vessel and cannot be easily copied, so that the transfer of this know-how requires direct contact. In contrast to decoration, which can be imitated and adopted relatively readily even after cursory contact, a technological change would require lengthier learning opportunities (Gosselain, 2002, p. 11). An approach that explicitly compares these two possible routes of transmission as separate phenomena can thus shed new light on how pottery traditions may have been communicated between communities, and what was transmitted at which point in time.

3.1 Technological Traditions in the LBK

Based on this approach, one can identify different technological traditions in the LBK. The Earliest LBK is characterized by organic plant temper and a firing process in a reductive atmosphere (Cladders, 2001, p. 39; Strien & Schön, 2018).

At the transition from Earliest LBK to Flomborn, there is a marked technological change (Cladders & Stäuble, 2003). The organic temper of the Earliest LBK is replaced by a quartz-based mineral temper, but the firing process remains reductive.

In the Flomborn period, the LBK expands west across the Rhine river, moving both north (Rubané du Nord-Ouest) along the Maas river and south (Rubané du Sud-Ouest) into Alsace (Jeunesse, 1995). It finally reaches the Paris basin forming the Rubané récent du Bassin parisien (RRBP) at about 5000 calBC (Blouet et al., 2013; Constantin & Ilett, 1997; Lefranc, 2013; Meunier, 2012). The pottery of the northern branch is characterized by a mineral temper with a share of grog in the coarse ware. The use of grog as temper commences already in the Earliest LBK, where it, for example, reaches a share of 13% at Rottenburg-Fröbelweg (Bofinger, 2005, p. 77, Figure 41). In the LBK coarse ware at Aubechies, this rises to 60% (Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 14). In the late period in the Hainaut and the western Hesbaye, bone temper in LBK coarse ware can reach 10% or even more, but this remains a regional trend (Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 16). In contrast, the pottery of the southern branch has quartz temper without grog in Rosheim-St.Odile in the east (Gomart, 2014, p. 248) and a temper of fossil shells or calcite in the final phase in the west, e.g. at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Gomart, 2014, pp. 84, 89, 94).

By investigating the chaîne opératoire on eight LBK sites, Gomart tried to shed light on how these innovations spread. The eight sites were carefully selected to cover the whole period and area of the LBK west of the Rhine (Gomart, 2014, pp. 40, 41). Gomart used fashioning techniques as the leading parameter and distinguished three main categories, namely O-configuration (where the coils are just set one above the other), S-configuration (where elongated coils overlap alternatively), and oblique external configuration (where elongated coils are overlapping only outside) each with minor variants (Gomart, 2014, p. 61ff, Gomart & Burnez-Lanotte, 2012).

Gomart states that the westward expansion of the Rubané du Nord-Ouest and du Sud-Ouest is characterized by the S-configuration with minor, but consistent differences in the northern and southern branch (Gomart, 2014, p. 289).

Later in the Rubané récent, the O-configuration is adopted. For example, at Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher in the Western Hesbaye the S-configuration dominates by 70:20% during the pioneer settlements, whereas later in the Rubané final, the O-configuration dominates by 70:20% (Gomart, 2014, p. 180, Tables 39 and 40). In the RRBP in Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes, this change can be traced throughout the different phases of occupation and is here interpreted as the arrival of new LBK settlers (Gomart, Hachem, Hamon, Giligny, & Ilett, 2015). It is interesting to note that in LBK the O-configuration is not correlated with temper and that the change from S-configuration to O-configuration in LBK sites is not connected with a change of temper.

The oblique external configuration plays only a minor role and only in the final period of the LBK with a share of 3% in the examples investigated by Gomart (2014, p. 280).

3.2 Categorizing Non-LBK Pottery According to Technological Parameters

So far early Non-LBK pottery has mainly been categorized according to decoration patterns. They are the main distinguishing features between La Hoguette, Limburg, and other styles (see Section 2). From a technological aspect, temper, the coiling technique, and the firing process will now be placed center stage.

The literature was searched for information about technical parameters of Non-LBK pottery from more than 200 sites (see list 3). It is a study exclusively based on literature and has to deal with all the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and missing information involved, but the results should nevertheless give indications for future research priorities.

Overall, 79 sites with La Hoguette pottery, 119 sites with Limburg pottery, and 43 sites with Begleitkeramik were included (see lists 1.1–1.3). Compared to the LBK, this is still a very small basis of information.

Temper is used as the leading criterion to categorize Non-LBK pottery, as it is frequently reported upon and as the choice of different tempers has different outcomes for firing and use (see earlier). On a first level, bone temper, organic temper, and mineral temper can be identified. Grog temper is a subgroup of all three; it is important because it indicates a later technological development and is intentionally added (see Table 2).

Table 2

Sites with Non-LBK pottery, categorized according to temper

Temper La Hoguette Limburg Begleitkeramik
Known sites 79 119 43
Sites with temper known 59 94 38
Bone (bone + grog) 30 (9) 49 (18) 4
Organic (organic + grog) 13 (3) 19 9 (1)
Mineral (mineral + grog) 28 (11) 40 (13) 24 (7)

For La Hoguette pottery, information about temper is available for 59 of 79 sites (see list 1.1). Bone-tempered pottery occurs on 30 sites, pottery with an organic temper on 13 sites. These include four sites where both tempers were used in the same vessel. Mineral temper occurs on 28 sites and is mostly quartz, only sometimes calcite. On four sites, there are sherds with the temper of fossil shells. Grog temper can be found on 19 sites. In nine cases, it is paired with bone temper, in 11 cases with quartz temper and in three cases with organic temper.

For Limburg pottery, the temper is known for 94 of the 119 sites (see list 1.2). Bone-tempered sherds are on 49 sites, and organic-tempered ones are on 18 sites. On six sites, there is bone and organic temper within one sherd. Forty sites yielded sherds with an intentionally or not intentionally added mineral temper. On 19 sites, bone temper occurs alongside grog, whereas on 13 sites, there is a combination of mineral and grog temper.

For Begleitkeramik, the temper is known for 38 out of 43 sites (see list 1.3). The majority is mineral tempered (24 sites) mainly on a quartz basis, in seven cases combined with grog. There are nine sites with organic-tempered sherds. Bone temper is rather rarely represented. This confirms an observation already made by Brounen and Hauzeur (2010, p. 50f).

In sum, alongside the expected bone temper (see list 2.1), there exists a certain amount of organic (see list 2.2) and a considerable amount of mineral-tempered ware (see list 2.3). Grog temper is to a certain extent present in all three groups (see list 2.4).

Sites were then mapped according to prevalent temper. The mapping of Non-LBK pottery reflects the distribution of LBK settlements clusters because due to better preservation conditions offered by cut features, finds in LBK pits are overrepresented (Jeunesse, 1987, p. 14; Modderman, 1970, p. 118). However, ca. 25% of the sites of La Hoguette pottery, Limburg pottery, and Begleitkeramik are outside an LBK context.

The regional distribution of the different categories of temper is rather uneven. The distribution area of bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery has a clear boundary in the east (Figure 1a), that of the organic-tempered pottery in the west (Figure 1b). This can be interpreted as several technological pottery traditions, potentially with different origins (Kirschneck, 2020). The distribution of the mineral-tempered pottery is divided into an area with mostly quartz-based temper in the northeast and an area with also limestone-based mineral ware in the south (Figure 1c). The distribution area of grog-tempered Non-LBK pottery is mainly concentrated in the northeast (Figure 1d). A special mineral temper with fossil shells is mainly restricted to the south (Figure 1c).

Figure 1 
                  Distribution maps of bone-tempered (a) (red), organic-tempered (b) (green), and mineral-tempered (c) (blue) Non-LBK pottery. The light blue circles in (c) denote fossil shell-tempered Non-LBK pottery. The circles denote LBK settlement clusters. The distribution of grog-tempered Non-LBK pottery is shown in (d).
Figure 1 
                  Distribution maps of bone-tempered (a) (red), organic-tempered (b) (green), and mineral-tempered (c) (blue) Non-LBK pottery. The light blue circles in (c) denote fossil shell-tempered Non-LBK pottery. The circles denote LBK settlement clusters. The distribution of grog-tempered Non-LBK pottery is shown in (d).

Figure 1

Distribution maps of bone-tempered (a) (red), organic-tempered (b) (green), and mineral-tempered (c) (blue) Non-LBK pottery. The light blue circles in (c) denote fossil shell-tempered Non-LBK pottery. The circles denote LBK settlement clusters. The distribution of grog-tempered Non-LBK pottery is shown in (d).

Non-LBK pottery can generally only be dated by association with LBK pottery. These dates are termini ante quos, as they prove the existence of the pottery at that time, but do not rule out an earlier beginning. Based on their associations with LBK assemblages, one can conclude that all three technologically different Non-LBK wares existed already at the time of the Earliest LBK in western Central Europe (Figure 2). The two more easterly wares, the organic- and the mineral-tempered Non-LBK wares, share their temper choices with the Earliest and Early LBK. In contrast, the bone-tempered pottery shows no similarity with the LBK of the early periods at all.

Figure 2 
                  Distribution areas of early bone-, organic-, and mineral-tempered Non-LBK pottery. Examples from Machecoul (red, left), Goddelau (green, top right), and Anröchte (blue, bottom right). (Drawing: Author with figures from Lüning et al., 1989, p. 398, Figure 12.10, p. 414, Figure 28.1; Rousseau et al., 2015, p. 24).

Figure 2

Distribution areas of early bone-, organic-, and mineral-tempered Non-LBK pottery. Examples from Machecoul (red, left), Goddelau (green, top right), and Anröchte (blue, bottom right). (Drawing: Author with figures from Lüning et al., 1989, p. 398, Figure 12.10, p. 414, Figure 28.1; Rousseau et al., 2015, p. 24).

The coiling technique of the vessel wall was used as the second parameter for categorizing Non-LBK pottery, and, adopting Louise Gomart’s definitions (2014, p. 61ff), three main categories were distinguished, namely O-configuration, S-configuration, and oblique external configuration. Information is only inconsistently reported. Detailed information is available for two La Hoguette vessels from Choisey and Machecoul, both outside the LBK context. On these two vessels, an oblique external configuration was used for the coiling, the vessels were bone tempered (Pétrequin et al., 2009; Rousseau et al., 2015).

In her study on LBK pottery technology, Gomart (2014) analyzed the coiling technique of 86 Non-LBK vessels from five sites with Limburg pottery (one including Begleitkeramik) and one with La Hoguette pottery (Gomart, 2014; Gomart & Burnez-Lanotte, 2012). Of these Non-LBK vessels 52 have oblique external configuration, 27 have S-configuration, otherwise characteristic of the advancing LBK, and 7 O-configuration, which came to dominate in later LBK pottery (see Table 3).

Table 3

Non-LBK pottery sherds studied in Gomart (2014) and categorized according to coiling method and temper (in brackets)

Site Oblique external S-conf O-conf
Rosmeer 12 (9b + 3 min) 17 (12 min + 5b) 29
Fexhe-le-Haut 1 (b) 1 (b + g) 2
Metz 1 (ind) 1
Rosheim 1 (fs) 1
Aubechies 8 (7b + 1 oM) 8
Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes phase 1 2 (b) 2
Phase 2 23 (b) 8 (b) 2 (b) 33
Phase 3 6 (b) 4 (b) 10
Sum 52 27 7 86

Among the Non-LBK vessels included in Gomart’s study, the oblique external configuration has a share of more than 60%, compared to only 3% in the LBK studied by Gomart (2014, p. 280). The correlation of oblique external configuration and bone temper is strong (48 of the 52). This combination was also attested to the two La Hoguette vessels from Choisey and Machecoul.

In the Rubané moyen phase at Rosmeer, the Limburg vessels with S-configuration and the Begleitkeramik sherds have mainly mineral temper (Gomart & Burnez-Lanotte, 2012). This combination of temper and coiling techniques is the same as within the LBK, which was expanding westwards.

S-configuration in Non-LBK vessels with bone or with bone and grog temper was identified in Rosmeer, in the pioneering settlement of Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher, and in Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. O-configuration in Non-LBK vessels with bone temper occurs only in the final occupation phases of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. These combinations were not found in LBK vessels.

One La Hoguette vessel from the Rubané récent site Rosheim-St. Odile has O-configuration and fossil shell temper. This combination also occurs in LBK, but only in the final occupation phases of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (see later).

Oxidizing or reducing firing is a further important technological parameter. It is not relevant for the internal categorization of Non-LBK wares, because all are fired with an oxidizing phase. For most LBK periods, this separates Non-LBK from LBK pottery, fired in reducing conditions. However, in the final phase of the Paris basin, LBK pottery is fired with an oxidizing phase as well (Meunier, 2013a, p. 492).

4 Technology Traditions

The technological areas cross-cut the ceramic groups defined based on decoration. In this study, we try to identify technological traditions using temper, coiling technique, and firing as parameters and attempt to add a temporal dimension.

4.1 Technology Tradition of Bone-Tempered Non-LBK Pottery

Early bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery is exclusively decorated in the La Hoguette style. Its distribution extends from the Atlantic ocean to the east of the Rhine river (Figure 2). This area is mostly outside the distribution area of both the Earliest LBK and the Cardial. The only available two radiocarbon dates from Alizay – Le Postel and Bad Cannstatt-Wilhelma, both not in LBK context, point to the third-quarter of the sixth Millennium calBC (Ghesquière & Aubry, 2013, p. 519; Kalis et al., 2001, p. 652). Outside the area of the Earliest LBK at least, this is the oldest pottery in western Central Europe. Although east of the Rhine, it comes into contact with the Earliest LBK (ca. 5400–5250 calBC) (Bofinger, 2005), in both shape and temper, it is significantly different to any early ware of either LBK or Cardial. Therefore, in western Central Europe, the first pottery emerged as a tradition outside both LBK and Cardial cultures.

Typical for the early bone-tempered La Hoguette pottery are large, thin-walled vessels coiled in oblique external configuration. According to Pétrequin and colleagues, this technique is very well suited for producing large vessels efficiently (Pétrequin et al., 2009, p. 505). A uniform double-dotted garland decoration can be seen at many sites (see examples in Figure 3). This uniformity suggests social control for the production of pottery. The vessels are locally produced but are similar over a large area (Pétrequin et al., 2009, p. 503; Rousseau et al., 2015, p. 31f). This hints at a large-scale network. In its first occurrence in western Central Europe, this pottery already shows a high level of craftsmanship (Pétrequin et al., 2009, p. 499). The origin of this pottery is uncertain. There are similarities to potteries in the Neolithique ancien de la côte atlantique (NACA), as at La Lède-du-Gurp or on the Iberian peninsula (van Berg, 1987, p. 268), but establishing a definite origin point would require a more comprehensive technological re-examination of the original material.

Figure 3 
                  Early bone-tempered Non-LBK vessels (Drawing: Author with figures from Caillaud & Lagnet, 1972, p. 151; Lüning et al., 1989, p. 400, Figure 14, p. 412, Figure 26.3, p. 414, Figure 28.2; Pétrequin et al., 2009, p. 495; Ghesquière & Aubry, 2013, p. 518; Rousseau et al., 2015, p. 24).

Figure 3

Early bone-tempered Non-LBK vessels (Drawing: Author with figures from Caillaud & Lagnet, 1972, p. 151; Lüning et al., 1989, p. 400, Figure 14, p. 412, Figure 26.3, p. 414, Figure 28.2; Pétrequin et al., 2009, p. 495; Ghesquière & Aubry, 2013, p. 518; Rousseau et al., 2015, p. 24).

This early bone-tempered La Hoguette pottery establishes a technological tradition characterized by bone temper, oxidizing firing process, pointed-based vessels, and a coiling technique using oblique external configuration. This technological tradition also dominates the bone-tempered Limburg sherds throughout the whole period of Limburg pottery use. In Rosmeer in the Maas valley in the middle LBK period (ca. 5150 calBC), nine out of 16 bone-tempered Limburg sherds belong to that tradition (Gomart & Burnez-Lanotte, 2012, p. 239). In Aubechies in Hainaut in the late LBK (ca. 5050 calBC), the “Classical” Limburg pottery is exclusively part of that tradition (Constantin et al., 2010b; Gomart, 2014, p. 229, Table 58). In Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes in the Aisne valley, this Limburg pottery occurs in all periods of occupation and is still dominant with a share of above 50% in the middle and final period (ca. 5000 calBC) (Gomart, 2014, pp. 88, 93). Therefore, in this area, the technological tradition of the bone-tempered La Hoguette pottery is present throughout the whole period of the LBK and even beyond. The technology is still in use in the Blicquy pottery in Vaux-et-Borset in the Hesbaye (ca. 4900 calBC) (van Doosselaere, Burnez-Lanotte, Gomart, & Livingstone-Smith, 2013). Maybe the influence of this technological tradition can even be felt in the bone-tempered sherds in the Scheldt lowlands (Crombé et al., 2015, p. 34). It was Claude Constantin who already in 1976 directed the attention to this bone-tempered pottery tradition (Constantin, 1986). It is remarkable how long this technological tradition existed – more than five centuries – and that it cross-cuts several decoration styles and even cultural boundaries.

4.2 Organic-Tempered Non-LBK Pottery

The distribution area of the organic-tempered Non-LBK pottery extends the furthest east. Its western boundaries are the lower Moselle and the lower Maas. This technology includes examples of La Hoguette and Limburg pottery and Begleitkeramik (see list 2.2). East of the Rhine, organic-tempered Non-LBK pottery is mostly found in association with pottery of the Earliest LBK, with Bruchenbrücken and Goddelau the most prominent examples (Cladders, 2001; Lüning et al., 1989). But it also exists outside the area of the Earliest LBK as in Soest-Burgtheaterplatz, in association with flint artifacts (Knoche, 2010), and west of the Rhine, as in Liege-St. Lambert (Van der Sloot et al., 2003) and Ittervorth (Brounen et al., 2010a). It can be evidenced until the end of the LBK. Important examples of this technology are the Begleitkeramik sherds of Haelen-Broekweg, where this technology is associated with late Mesolithic-style lithic material (Bats et al., 2002). This ware is the dominant Non-LBK pottery in the Moselle valley, with examples from Weiler-la-Tour Holzdreisch (Jadin, 1996), and well represented in the Maas area. The pottery from Welde and Brecht (Amkreutz et al., 2010) could be included as late examples into this tradition.

Organic-tempered Non-LBK vessels have some technological features in common with the Earliest LBK, particularly temper, although there are differences, too – notably the oxidizing firing and the pointed bottoms (Cladders, 2001, p. 58). Therefore, it could be postulated that this pottery emerges in the sphere of the Earliest LBK. Maybe several other atypical Earliest LBK sherds could also be placed in the context of this technological tradition (Strien & Schön, 2018, p. 46; Kloos, 1997, Footnote 63). This tradition is also spread westwards outside the area of the Earliest LBK, where it survives even after LBK pottery undergoes a technological change from organic to mineral temper with the transition to Flomborn around 5250 calBC.

4.3 Mineral-Tempered Non-LBK Pottery along the Rhine and Maas

A third Non-LBK pottery tradition can be defined for an area between Ede-Frankeneng, the Netherlands, and Hiddenhausen-Bermbek (North Rhine Westphalia) in the north and Puttelange, Moselle, and Wallmersbach (Bavaria) in the south. This tradition can be identified by a mineral temper on quartz base, often with additions of grog. This technology includes examples of La Hoguette and Limburg pottery and Begleitkeramik (see list 2.3). This technological tradition exists from the Earliest LBK to the end of the LBK.

Early examples are the La Hoguette vessels in Steinfurth (Langenbrink & Kneipp, 1990) and Nackenheim (Lüning et al., 1989) in an Earliest LBK context and Anröchte (Lüning et al., 1989), Ede-Frankeneng (Schut, 1988), Sehndorf (Fritsch, 2000a), and Puttelange (Petitdidier et al., 2013) outside an LBK context. On some early examples, a characteristic barbed wire decoration can be seen, different from the garland decoration of bone-tempered La Hoguette vessels. In Geleen-Janskamperveld, the majority of the Limburg sherds is mineral tempered (van de Velde, 2007). Grog is added to 15% of the sherds in Geleen-Janskamperveld and to 55% in the later site Liege-St. Lambert (Rouselle, 1984). In Rosmeer, the S-configuration coiling technique is used for Begleitkeramik as well as for Limburg sherds similar in decoration to those from Geleen-Janskamperveld (Gomart & Burnez-Lanotte, 2012, p. 239).

The origin of this technology is uncertain. Quartz-based mineral temper with additions of grog and S-configuration as coiling technique are also features of Flomborn pottery, which expands westwards (Gomart, 2014, p. 197, Table 45). However, differences remain in shape, oxidizing firing, and decoration. In contrast, the bone-tempered pottery with its oblique external configuration is different from both LBK and mineral-tempered Non-LBK, but shares oxidizing firing and vessel form with the mineral-tempered Non-LBK. This mixed pattern of similarity and difference suggests that the producers of the mineral-tempered Non-LBK wares integrate technological influences of the LBK and other Non-LBK wares. One should note, however, that the mineral-tempered Non-LBK overlaps chronologically with organic-tempered Earliest LBK.

4.4 Non-LBK Pottery with Fossil Shell Temper

Beginning in the Rubané récent, a particular mineral temper of fossil shells can be found in Non-LBK potteries in Alsace. Rather often the sherds are undecorated or only very sparsely decorated. Mostly, they are not attributed to any pottery style (see list 2.3 and Figure 1c). In Bischoffsheim (Jeunesse & Sainty, 1991) and in Rosheim-St. Odile (Jeunesse & Lefranc, 1999), the pottery is attributed to La Hoguette. The site Rosheim-St. Odile was examined by Gomart (2014, p. 237f). Here, one La Hoguette sherd is the only example with this temper, but it shares the O-configuration coiling technique with the majority of LBK sherds (Gomart, 2014, p. 245, Table 61, p. 248, Table 64).

Later, similar pottery with fossil temper was found west of Alsace in Ay-sur-Moselle and Vitry-sur-Orne in Lorraine (Petitdidier et al., 2013), in Orconte-Les Noues and Juvigny along the Marne (Meunier, 2013b; Tappret & Villes, 1996) and Presles-et-Boves in the Paris basin (Ilett & Allard, 2008), mostly attributed to Limburg pottery. Fossil shell temper is also found south of the LBK distribution in the Doubs valley in Bavans and Bart (Aimé, Jaccottey, & Thévenin, 1995, p. 84; Jeunesse, 1987), and in the Saône valley in layer 58 of the Grotte du Gardon (Manen & Convertini, 2009). The sherds from the Grotte du Gardon probably date to ca. 5200 calBC (Perrin, 2013, p. 369) and therefore earlier than those from Alsace, suggesting a southern influence. However, this temper is used very rarely in Cardial and Epicardial (Binder, Clop, Convertini, Manen, & Sénépart, 2010; van Willigen, 2004). In LBK, it is also rare: only in the Aisne valley in Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes, it is one of the two tempers used (Gomart, 2014). The origin of fossil shell temper technology is currently unknown.

The O-configuration of the Rosheim Non-LBK sherd is otherwise rare in Non-LBK pottery but dominates in the Rubané récent (see Section 3.1). It is also used for Epicardial pottery at Grotte de Camprafaud and Roucadour (Niederlender, Lacam, & Arnal, 1966; van Willigen, 2004) with different mineral tempers. Much more detailed technological study is needed to ascertain whether this shows a mutual influence between LBK and Epicardial and how the transfer could have taken place.

5 Who Made Non-LBK Pottery?

The identity of the makers of Non-LBK pottery is hotly debated. In what follows, I will present a brief history of this debate, paying particular attention to new developments that once again make a hunter-gatherer origin of these wares possible.

5.1 Research History of Hunter-Gatherer Potteries

In the 1980s, the general opinion was that pottery entered Western and Central Europe in two independent expansions as part of the so-called Neolithic package. Bearers of the Impressa and later the Cardial culture progressed west along the Mediterranean coast, whereas the LBK advanced along the Danube river (Guilaine, 2001; Lüning, 1988). It was at least implicitly assumed that the transfer of pottery production into hunting and gathering economies would be possible – if at all – only through neighboring Neolithic cultures. One influential explanation for the origin of La Hoguette and Limburg pottery was that it developed under the influence of Cardial among hunter-gatherers (Jeunesse, 1987, p. 16; Manen, 1997).

Since the 1990s, it has been acknowledged that hunter-gatherers could also play a vital role in the development of pottery. It has also become generally accepted that on a global scale, pottery was first invented in hunter-gatherer societies (Jordan & Zvelebil, 2009; Rice, 1999; van Berg, 1997). For Eastern Europe, it is firmly established that pottery existed in hunter-gatherer societies over a long period without them adopting a productive economy (Mazurkevich & Dolbunova, 2015; Piezonka, 2015).

According to Mazurkevich and Dolbunova (2015), pottery became established in hunter-gatherer societies of the steppe and forest zones of Eastern and Northern Europe in one of two ways. One is the distribution of the knowledge of pottery purely within hunter-gatherer communities over great distances and within short time spans. The reason for this could be the importance of pottery as a prestige or cult object. The other way is that pottery expanded from Neolithic centers into hunter-gatherer communities (Mazurkevich & Dolbunova, 2015, p. 31). One can hence begin from the premise that similar mechanisms could also have existed in the case of Western and Central Europe (Constantin, 1985; van Berg, 1990) and that these could be recognized archaeologically.

For France, there are two different opinions about the existence of hunter-gatherers during the Neolithic period. One states that there is a gap of some centuries between the last hunter-gatherers and the expansion of Neolithic cultures across France. Only in the Grotte du Gardon could hunter-gatherers and Neolithic people have met (Perrin, 2013; Perrin, Manen, Valdeyron, & Guilaine, 2018). Therefore, hunter-gatherer pottery cannot exist in France, because hunter-gatherers had left the area before the innovation was introduced. In contrast, the other research tradition states that hunter-gatherer pottery also exists in France and survives in some areas until well after the establishment of Neolithic cultures (Jeunesse, Arbogast, Mauvilly, & Denaire, 2019). In this context, Epicardial is seen as a pottery tradition that possibly develops through contacts of Cardial culture communities with hunter-gatherers (van Willigen, 2018).

Similarly, different opinions exist concerning the makers of La Hoguette and Limburg pottery. One group of scholars consider the producers as hunter-gatherers with Mesolithic economies (among others Cziesla, 2015, p. 273ff; van Berg, 1997). Others accept that the producers are hunter-gatherers but imply that they have already adopted some elements of the Neolithic economic package (Gronenborn, 2009, p. 534; Jeunesse & van Willigen, 2010; Pétrequin et al., 2009, p. 512; Strien & Schön, 2018, p. 37). Some researchers attribute this pottery to hunter-gatherers who live in a close, nearly symbiotic relationship with LBK people (Crombé, 2009, p. 484f). Finally, there is also the position that this pottery is produced by LBK people for a particular reason or purpose (Blouet et al., 2013, p. 165; Gomart, 2014, p. 320f; Verhart, 2000, p. 229).

There is hence a broad spectrum of opinions regarding the relationship of different pottery styles to different economic regimes and/or identity groups. It is also possible that different scenarios could be applied depending on the area and period.

5.2 Who are the Producers of the Different Technology Traditions?

We are now going to discuss the question of who the people behind the different postulated technology traditions may have been. Could they have been LBK people or is production by other social groups, for example, hunter-gatherers, also possible?

A high-quality Non-LBK pottery with unknown origin exists in a wide area from the Atlantic ocean to the Rhine already in the period of the Earliest LBK. The available two radiocarbon dates point to the third-quarter of the 6th-millennium calBC. Technologically, this pottery is significantly different from any early ware of either LBK or Cardial. Because some examples are locally produced far outside the distribution area of the Earliest LBK (Pétrequin et al., 2009; Rousseau et al., 2015), it is unlikely that LBK settlers made them. For the same reasons, the Cardial people can be ruled out. In Bad Cannstatt – Wilhelma, the pollen profile shows an undisturbed environment with no signs of agriculture (Meurers-Balke & Kalis, 2001, p. 645). This is consistent with the first scenario of Mazurkevich and Dolbunova (2015), i.e. these pots could have been produced by hunter-gatherers communicating over long distances. While direct proof, e.g., an association with Mesolithic artifacts, is still lacking, we must seriously entertain the possibility that this pottery emerged in a hunter-gatherer context.

A second technological tradition with organic temper is attested, comprising La Hoguette and Limburg pottery alongside Begleitkeramik. Some technological features are shared with the Earliest LBK. It existed already during the Earliest LBK and overlaps its area of distribution. Cladders interprets the finds in Bruchenbrücken and Goddelau as the product of hunter-gatherer descendants integrated into LBK society for example by marriage, or as produced by LBK women trying to copy Non-LBK decoration patterns in a clumsy way (Cladders, 2001, p. 59). However, organic-tempered Non-LBK ware can also be found far outside the area of the Earliest LBK and at later dates. These facts, as well as the comparatively small number of Non-LBK sherds and their internal technological variety, speak against production by LBK people. Sites with this tradition are also found outside the distribution area of bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery. Therefore, it is probable that these two Non-LBK pottery traditions were made by different societies. At Haelen-Broekweg, this pottery was found together with Mesolithic lithic artifacts. This is consistent with the second scenario of Mazurkevich and Dolbunova (2015), in that the producers could be hunter-gatherers who are influenced by the Earliest LBK. Again, collecting further direct proof is now a priority. An alternative suggestion, specific to the Central European situation, is that the westward movement of the Earliest LBK was accompanied by ceramic hunter-gatherers.

A third technical pottery tradition with a mineral temper on a quartz base, often with the addition of grog could be identified in the lower Rhine area. The distribution area of this pottery extends far north of the LBK distribution area, and north of the distribution area of the bone-tempered Non-LBK ware. The producers of this pottery could hence be different from both LBK settlers and the producers of bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery. One central site is Geleen-Janskamperveld with its different kinds of mineral temper. The variety of decoration here can be interpreted as acculturation between LBK people and a group with different traditions, for example by marriage (van de Velde, 2007, p. 110). Given the technological similarities with the LBK, one could, following the second scenario of Mazurkevich and Dolbunova (2015), consider the producers as hunter-gatherers who learned pottery making from neighboring LBK people. But again there is no direct evidence for the economic system of the producers, and the situation is complex, as further south that pottery already exists in parallel the Earliest LBK and its organic temper.

Finally, a pottery tradition with fossil shell temper exists in Alsace and adjacent areas. Such sherds occur in small quantities on LBK sites from Alsace to the Aisne valley and are also found outside the LBK area in the Doubs and Saône valley to the south. The sherds are variously attributed to La Hoguette, to Limburg or to neither. In Alsace, they can be distinguished from LBK sherds by their temper and the firing process and could therefore have been produced by a group of potters who did not share LBK traditions. While there is a gap between the distribution areas of LBK and the Cardial and Epicardial, it is well known that there were contacts between both spheres, whether direct or indirect (van Willigen, 2018). Possibly, the producers of this Non-LBK pottery technology were neither LBK nor Cardial people and could have acted as conduits, who transferred technological know-how between these spheres.

In sum, a second tradition of pottery production seems to exist outside the LBK culture in western Central Europe. It is present during the whole period of the LBK within and outside the LBK area, and so is at least partly independent of LBK pottery production, as also shown by the divergent technological choices. We do not know very much about the economic system of its producers, but for those groups living outside already Neolithic zones, a hunter-gatherer lifestyle seems likely. Taphonomic factors are probably skewing the distribution area of Non-LBK pottery toward areas with cut features, i.e. LBK pits. Yet, the already documented sherds from outside LBK contexts suggest that more sites are yet to be found in such areas. The Non-LBK pottery in LBK pits shows that there was continuous interaction between these societies and the LBK, which we are going to discuss next.

5.3 Contacts and Acculturation

People producing LBK and Non-LBK wares existed side by side during the whole period of the LBK. The westward expansion of the LBK leads to recurrent contacts between these diverse groups. Their interaction is mirrored in the development of pottery.

The first contact of producers of a bone-tempered pottery with the Earliest LBK communities occurs east of the Rhine river (Lüning et al., 1989). Both pottery traditions are subject to a strict social control at this time, and therefore, both sides are not in a position to adopt foreign influences. As adaption is impossible, bone-tempered La Hoguette pots quickly disappear east of the Rhine (Hofmann, 2016). Bone temper is accepted into LBK tradition only much later and in geographically restricted areas as in Hainaut (Constantin et al., 2010b) or Southern Poland (Rauba-Bukowska, 2009).

In contrast, in the early settlement (Modderman period Ib/c) in Geleen-Janskamperveld in the Maas valley, Flomborn LBK pottery and mainly mineral-tempered Non-LBK pottery coexist. The multiplying of decorations in the Non-LBK pottery is interpreted as the assimilation of Non-LBK pottery producers into LBK society, maybe by marriage (van de Velde, 2007).

In Rosmeer, in the middle period of the LBK (Modderman period Id/IIa), a mutual technological exchange between mineral- and bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery is visible in the coiling technique (Gomart & Burnez-Lanotte, 2012, p. 239). Adopting grog as an additional temper could be seen as LBK influence. Here, the technological exchange only affects Non-LBK pottery, while the LBK does not yet adopt any other technology (Gomart, 2014, p. 197, Table 45).

In the Hainaut, LBK settlements are established in the Rubané récent and final (Modderman period IIb/d). LBK people now enter an area where the tradition of bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery is extremely strong. Here, this bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery is little influenced by foreign LBK pottery traditions. Its makers do not change their fashioning method (Gomart, 2014, p. 228) and the share of grog temper is only 5%, significantly smaller than in the LBK on that site or in the Non-LBK pottery further east (e.g. at Rosmeer).

In Aubechies, the producers of Non-LBK pottery are present during the whole LBK occupation from Modderman IIb to IId. But were the producers of Non-LBK pottery already present before the arrival of LBK? There are a few indications, such as – one LBK sherd of period Modderman I in pit 128 in association with Non-LBK sherds (Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 21), indicating a contact between Non-LBK and LBK people already prior to the latter’s occupation of the site, the stratigraphy of pit 7 with Non-LBK sherds below LBK sherds (Constantin, 1985, p. 106), and – the cluster of nearly complete Non-LBK vessels with almost no LBK sherds in pit 10 (Constantin, 1985, p. 106; Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 20).

Later, close contacts between LBK settlers and the producers of bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery can be identified. In pit 150, large Non-LBK vessels were found packed together with coarse LBK ware (Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 20).

In the late LBK in the Hainaut and the western Hesbaye, a bone-tempered thin-walled Non-LBK pottery with vessel forms atypical for Limburg pottery exists. This pottery shows a characteristic dotted decoration. It has among others been identified in Aubechies, Darion, Waremme, and Overhespen and combines technological elements of bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery and LBK ware. In the Kleine Gete, the plant spectrum and lithic artifacts were described as influenced by Non-LBK societies (Lodewijckx, 2010, p. 80). This could be interpreted as an acculturation process between LBK people and the producers of bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery. This could be the reason why LBK coarse ware at several Hainaut sites has 10% or more bone temper (Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 17).

The Aisne valley is settled by LBK people in the final period of the LBK. Here, they again enter an area where the tradition of bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery is strong. This technology is present throughout the whole period of occupation. Outside an LBK context, it exists at Berry-au-Bac-La Renardière (Ilett & Plateaux, 1995, p. 96) and Pontavert (Constantin et al., 1981), demonstrating the partial independence of its producers. In addition, the influence of the producers of fossil shell-tempered Non-LBK pottery can be seen in Presles-et-Boves (Ilett & Allard, 2008). The Aisne valley becomes a melting pot of different Non-LBK pottery traditions, with consecutive waves of LBK migrants (as envisaged by Gomart et al., 2015). Their mutual acculturation can be traced in the consecutive occupation phases of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. The know-how of technological features such as temper, fashioning methods, and firing are exchanged between the producers of LBK and Non-LBK pottery (see as an example the two vessels in Gomart, 2014, p. 156, Figure 51).

In sum, in the early periods, the producers of Non-LBK pottery seem to have no technological influence on the LBK. Over time, technological changes appear in LBK pottery which could have originated in the contact with Non-LBK pottery groups. In the final LBK phases of the Hainaut and the Aisne valley, acculturation processes between the different pottery groups unfold, providing the basis for the bone-tempered Blicquy pottery of the Hainaut and Hesbaye and the bone- and mineral-tempered VSG pottery of the Aisne valley.

5.4 The Information Contained in Decoration Patterns

La Hoguette and Limburg pottery are usually defined based on decoration, but decorative styles do not correlate with the technological traditions of Non-LBK pottery. In any case, there was always a broad spectrum of decorations subsumed by these two terms, leading some authors to define Begleitkeramik (Jeunesse & Sainty, 1991, p. 20), to split up Limburg pottery into many subgroups (van Berg, 1990) or to instead define a Limburg “classique” (Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 17). The question arises whether the different origins of Non-LBK pottery and the dynamic relationship between its producers and the LBK, traced above based on technology, are also reflected in the decoration patterns.

The earliest La Hoguette vessels are characterized by different dotted decoration patterns (Figure 2). The bone-tempered ware has a double dotted garland decoration (see examples in Figure 3), the mineral-tempered ware a barbed wire-like dotted decoration, as in Anröchte and Steinfurth (Knoche, 2010; Langenbrink & Kneipp, 1990; Lüning et al., 1989), and the organic-tempered ware often a stab-and-drag decoration, as in Goddelau, Bruchenbrücken, and Ittervoorth (Brounen et al., 2010a; Lüning et al., 1989).

In the first Flomborn settlements in the Maas valley, as in Elsloo, we see the emergence of a unified stroke decoration in mineral-tempered Non-LBK pottery (Modderman, 1981). This then expands across all Non-LBK pottery traditions, even across technological borders, and is distributed from Hainaut to the Rhine, for example in Rosmeer, Aubechies, Weiler-la-Tour Holzdreisch, and Ay-sur-Moselle (Figure 4). In the literature, it is called the “Christmas tree decoration” and constitutes up to 40% of Limburg pottery (Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 18). It perhaps expresses an identity explicitly opposed to the LBK.

Figure 4 
                  Distribution area of different technology groups showing stroke decoration pattern. Bone-tempered examples (red) from Aubechies (left) and Rosmeer (top center), organic-tempered ones (green) from Weiler-la-Tour Holzdreisch (bottom right), and mineral-tempered ones (blue) from Elsloo (top right), and Ay-sur-Moselle (bottom center). (Drawing: Author with figures from Blouet et al., 2013, p. 164, Figure 67.1; Constantin & Demarez, 1981, p. 213, Figure 2.1; Gomart, 2014, p. 188, Figure 63c; Hauzeur, 2006, p. 646, pl. 192b2; Jadin, 1996, p. 108, Figure 5.2; Modderman, 1981, p. 142, Figure 1.8).

Figure 4

Distribution area of different technology groups showing stroke decoration pattern. Bone-tempered examples (red) from Aubechies (left) and Rosmeer (top center), organic-tempered ones (green) from Weiler-la-Tour Holzdreisch (bottom right), and mineral-tempered ones (blue) from Elsloo (top right), and Ay-sur-Moselle (bottom center). (Drawing: Author with figures from Blouet et al., 2013, p. 164, Figure 67.1; Constantin & Demarez, 1981, p. 213, Figure 2.1; Gomart, 2014, p. 188, Figure 63c; Hauzeur, 2006, p. 646, pl. 192b2; Jadin, 1996, p. 108, Figure 5.2; Modderman, 1981, p. 142, Figure 1.8).

At a regional scale, other decoration patterns exist (Figure 5). In the Maas and Moselle valley, a dotted angled band decoration occurs mainly on mineral and organic-tempered pottery (Brounen & Hauzeur, 2010). Its distribution extends north to Ede-Frankeneng and Gassel, west to Thines, and Aubechies, and south to Sehndorf, and it is relatively often found outside LBK contexts. In Haelen-Broekweg (Bats et al., 2002) and in Brüggen-Bracht (Loewe, 1971), this pottery is connected with late Mesolithic-style artifacts. This Begleitkeramik decoration could represent a Non-LBK society that considers itself explicitly outside the LBK culture.

Figure 5 
                  Distribution areas of regional decoration patterns. Examples from Gassel and Sehndorf (right) with organic and mineral temper (blue and green), Auchechies (top left) with bone temper (red), and Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (bottom left) with mineral and bone temper (blue and red). (Drawing: Author with figures from Brounen & de Jong, 1988, p. 185, Figure 3a; Constantin & Demarez, 1981, p. 219, Figure 7; Constantin, 1985, pl. 76 378.1,2; Fritsch, 2000b, p. 232, pl. 1.1).

Figure 5

Distribution areas of regional decoration patterns. Examples from Gassel and Sehndorf (right) with organic and mineral temper (blue and green), Auchechies (top left) with bone temper (red), and Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (bottom left) with mineral and bone temper (blue and red). (Drawing: Author with figures from Brounen & de Jong, 1988, p. 185, Figure 3a; Constantin & Demarez, 1981, p. 219, Figure 7; Constantin, 1985, pl. 76 378.1,2; Fritsch, 2000b, p. 232, pl. 1.1).

In the Hainaut and in the western Hesbaye, a specific dotted decoration appears on thin-walled bone-tempered Limburg pottery which also shares technological features with LBK ceramics (Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 17). Van Berg (1990) considered them as group 6 of Rheno-Mosan Limburg pottery. Probably, the La Hoguette sherds of Blicquy Couture du Couvent (Deramaix & Demarez, 1989) should also be included in this category. It seems to be the expression of a community with very intense relationships with the LBK.

In the late LBK of the Paris basin, particularly in Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes and in Juvigny, there is a characteristic perpendicular stroke decoration on mineral- and bone-tempered Non-LBK pottery. van Berg (1990) called it the Sequano-Scaldic branch of Limburg pottery. Its share of Limburg pottery is 15% (Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 18). This decoration pattern may be connected with southern influences (Lichardus-Itten, 1986, p. 156).

Overall, the decoration patterns of Non-LBK potteries are responsive to the social interaction of their producers with each other and the LBK, reflecting the dynamics and diversity of these communities. Although we need a better dating framework, on current evidence the technological parameters reflect the slower exchange of know-how based on shared learning. The two aspects of pottery production, clay preparation, and surface decoration, thus inform us of different dynamics.

5.5 La Hoguette and Limburg

The results of this investigation cast doubt on some long-held and widespread opinions about La Hoguette and Limburg. They fundamentally question the uniformity of La Hoguette over a wide area and a long period of time. Early La Hoguette pottery consists of a bone-tempered variety with unknown origin and two organic- and mineral-tempered wares which could have developed partly due to contact with the LBK. For the early La Hoguette, there is no evident connection to Cardial, as already stated by Constantin and colleagues (Constantin et al., 2010a). Limburg pottery along the Maas and Moselle and in the Hainaut stands in the direct technological tradition of the various early La Hoguette pottery traditions and is not uniform either. In particular, the Begleitkeramik in the Maas and the Moselle valley with its mineral or organic temper (Brounen & Hauzeur, 2010) is part of the eastern technological traditions and therefore may originate in the sphere of early LBK pottery and not in the bone-tempered Non-LBK of the west.

The mineral-tempered late La Hoguette pottery and Begleitkeramik in Alsace have no technological connection with early bone-tempered La Hoguette pots, either. These wares could be traced back to Epicardial influences. The Limburg pottery of the Paris basin also shows inspirations of Cardial and Epicardial.

6 Conclusion

The integrated approach with its categorization according to technological parameters is a useful tool to identify technological traditions. Applied to the Non-LBK pottery of western Central Europe, one can suggest that this pottery comprises several traditions with different origins, although more work is necessary to pinpoint them precisely. The early eastern wares may have connections with LBK pottery. The southern traditions could transfer influences from the Cardial and Epicardial. Only the bone-tempered western tradition has no relationship with any Neolithic pottery. The technological traditions are not correlated with decoration patterns in a straightforward manner and do not coincide with “La Hoguette” and “Limburg” pottery as traditionally defined.

It is suggested that the producers of these pottery traditions could have been various hunter-gatherer groups, although direct evidence is lacking. Yet, it is clear that for a long time, Non-LBK pottery was produced outside LBK contexts and thus not (or not exclusively) by LBK people. Instead, different groups of producers coexisted, potentially sometimes on the same settlement. The details of these social dynamics are a fascinating field for further inquiry.

The development of pottery production in Central Europe is the result of a complex interaction of Neolithic wares and a second stream comprising various other pottery traditions. This process lasts for several centuries. The producers of Non-LBK pottery with their diversity and dynamics play a vital role throughout. In western Central Europe, pottery is not exclusively linked to the expansion of a few large-scale Neolithic cultures but is to a great extent influenced by other groups.


Special Issue: THE EARLY NEOLITHIC OF EUROPE, edited by F. Borrell, I. Clemente, M. Cubas, J. J. Ibáñez, N. Mazzucco, A. Nieto-Espinet, M. Portillo, S. Valenzuela-Lamas, & X. Terradas


Acknowledgment

I am indebted to Daniela Hofmann without her continuous support and motivation this article would never have come into existence. I have to thank Christian Jeunesse, Hans-Christoph Strien, and Samuel van Willigen for fruitful discussions and valuable hints. I thank the four anonymous reviewers for their input which improved the quality of the paper considerably.

  1. Funding information: Author states no funding involved.

  2. Conflict of interest: Author states no conflict of interest.

  3. Data availability statement: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Appendix

1.1. Sites with La Hoguette Pottery

The first column is the site name, the second column is the association with LBK or VSG, the third column gives the number of the site used in the distribution maps, and the last column specifies the temper (b = bone, min = mineral, q = quartz, sa = sand, ca = calcite, o = organic, g = grog, fs = fossil shell, sil = silex, hem = hematite, ch = charcoal, oM = without intentional temper, nv = not visible).

Fontenay-Le-Marmion, La Hoguette, Calvados, F (8) 1 b + sa
Fontenay-Le-Marmion, Le Grande Champ, Calvados, F 2 No info
Alizay, Le Postel, Eure, F 3 b
Machecoul-Guibrelou I, Loire-Atlantique, F 4 b + q
Mésanger, Loire-Atlantique, F 5 No info
Orconte-Les Noues, Marne, F LBK 194 fs
Ede, Frankeneng, Gueldre, NL (3) 72 sa + g, o + g
Ittervoort, Damszand, Limburg, NL 57 o
Wickrath, Fundplatz 105, Mönchen-Gladbach (NW) LBK 75 No info
Geleen-Nijssenstraat, Limburg, NL (4) LBK 46 b + g
Sweikhuizen, De Hei, Limburg, NL (5) 52 b, sa + g
Langweiler 8, Düren (NW) (6) LBK 79 q + sa + g
Liege-Saint-Lambert, B LBK 37 o
Mons-Crotteux, Liège, B ? 36 No info
Blicquy, Couture du Couvent, Hainaut, B (7) LBK 18 b
Hiddenhausen-Bermbek, Herford (NW) (1) 84 sa
Bad Sassendorf, Auf der Breite, Soest (NW) LBK 86 No info
Soest-Burgtheaterparkplatz, Soest (NW) 85 o + sa
Anröchte, Soest (NW) (2) 87 q
Gambach, Altstädter Rossfeld (HE) LBK 90 b + sa, o
Steinfurth-Auf der Mauer, Bad Nauheim (HE)(9) LBK 91 q + g
Bruchenbrücken, Friedberg (HE)(10) LBK 93 b + sa(g), b + o + sa(g), o + sa(g)
Nackenheim-Lehrbrünnchen, Mainz-Bingen (RP)(13) LBK 96 sa,ca + sa + g, sa + o?
Goddelau, Riedstadt, Groß-Gerau (HE) (12) LBK 95 o + sa
Dautenheim-Unterm Leckmantel, Alzey (RP) (14) 97 b + o + q, b + q + o + g
Speyer, Brunckstraße (RP) ? 99 No info
Herxheim, Südliche Weinstraße (RP) (17) LBK 100 b
Banz-Zilgendorf, Lichtenfels (BY) (11) LBK 101 o + sa
Nördlingen-Steinerner Mann, Donau-Ries (BY) (25) LBK 102 o + sa
Wallmersbach, Uffenheim, Neustadt, a.d. Aisch (BY) LBK 104 sa + sil
Estenfeld-Mühlhausen, Würzburg (BY) LBK 103 o
Schwarzenbach, St. Wendel (SL) ? 204 No info
Mamer-Juckelsboesch, L 163 No info
Weiler-la-Tour, Mechel, L (15) 165 b + q
Altwies, Op dem Boesch, L LBK 169 b + o + q
Puttelange-lès-Thionville, Himeling, Moselle, F (16) 168 q, q + g
Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch, Merzig-Wadern (SL) 172 b + q + sa, b + o + sa, q + sa + g
Mannheim-Vogelsang, -Wallstadt und -Seckenheim (BW) LBK 106 No info
Leingarten-Großgartach-Kappmannsgrund (BW)(18) LBK 105 q + (b or ca)
Bad Friedrichshall-Kochendorf-Butzäcker (BW) LBK 107 q
Freiberg-Heutingsheim-Incher (BW) (19) LBK 108 ca
Enzweihingen, Vaihingen a.d.Enz (BW) 111 b + sil + g
Korntal-Münchingen-Heupfad (BW) (20) LBK 113 q + g, b + q
Ditzingen-Zechlesmühle- und Stütze, Leonberg (BW) LBK 114 b, b + g
Gerlingen-Rossbaum, Ludwigsburg (BW) (21) LBK 115 b
Stuttgart-Weilimdorf-Grubenäcker (BW) (24) LBK 116 b + ca, b + q + g
Stuttgart-Mühlhausen-Viesenhäuser Hof (BW) 23) LBK 117 b
Bad Cannstatt-Wilhelma (BW) (22) 118 b
Baden-Baden-Oos (BW) 109 No info
Filderstadt-Bernhausen-Stegäcker (BW)(26) LBK 119 b
Rottenburg-Fröbelweg, Tübingen (BW) (27) LBK 120 b(57%), b + q(27%), q(13%), b + g(1%), q + g(1%), hem(1%)
Hailfingen-Tübinger Weg (BW) (28) LBK 121 b, b + q, ca, b + ca, b + g, q, q + g, g
Herrenberg-Gültstein-Kampfhans, Tübingen (BW) LBK 112 No info
Ammerbuch-Pfäffingen-Lüsse, Tübingen (BW) (29) LBK 122 b, b + q
Ammerbuch-Reusten-Stützbrunnen (BW) (30) LBK 123 b, b + q, q
Griesen-Mauäcker, Klettgau (BW) LBK 110 No info
Goldacker, Gächlingen, CH (32) LBK 143 sa, q
Singen, Torkelweg (BW) (33) LBK 144 b
Liestal-Hurlistraße, CH 145 No info
Ittenheim, Kocherberg, Bas-Rhin, F LBK 124 q, b + q
Niedernai, Foegel, Bas-Rhin, F (34) LBK 128 q, q + g + ca
Bischoffsheim, Le Village, Bas-Rhin, F (35) LBK 129 b, b + ca + g, q, fs
Rosheim, Gachot, Bas-Rhin, F (36) LBK 131 q, nv
Rosheim, Mittelfeld, Bas-Rhin, F (37) LBK 132 q
Rosheim-St. Odile, Bas-Rhin, F (38) LBK 133 fs
Colmar, Rufacher Huben, Haut-Rhin, F (39) LBK 137 q
Wettolsheim, Ricoh, Haut-Rhin, F (40) LBK 138 No info
Merxheim, Zapfenloch, Haut-Rhin, F (41) LBK 139 min
Ensisheim, Ratfeld, Haut-Rhin, F (42) LBK 140 q, sa
Ensisheim, Les Octrois, Haut-Rhin, F (43) LBK 141 No info
Sierentz, Sandgrube, Haut-Rhin, F (44) LBK 142 No info
Oberlarg, Mannlefelsen I, Haut-Rhin, F (45) 146 b
Bavans, abri sud/sud-ouest, Doubs, F (46) 147 q, ca, fs
Quitteur, Quitteur, Haute-Saone, F (47) ? 148 No info
Choisey, les Champins, Jura, F 149 b + q
Bretonvilliers, Abri de Gigot I, Doubs, F (48) 150 No info
Le Locle, Col des Roches, Neuchatel, CH (49) 151 No info
Baulmes, Abri de la Cure, Vaud, CH (50) 152 No info
Neuville, Abri du Roseau, Ain, F (51) 154 b or ca

The number in brackets behind the site name is the number assigned in the map of Manen and Mazurié de Keroualin (2003, p. 118). The site Inzigkofen-Vilsingen-Burghöhle Dietfurt (BW)(31) was omitted because of doubts about its existence (Cziesla, 2015, p. 188).

1.2. Sites with Limburg Pottery

The first column is the site name, the second column is the association with LBK or VSG, the third column gives the number of the site used in the distribution maps, and the last column specifies the temper (b = bone, min = mineral, q = quartz, sa = sand, ca = calcite, o = organic, g = grog, fs = fossil shell, sil = silex, hem = hematite, ch = charcoal, oM = without intentional temper, nv = not visible).

Gassel Over de Voort, NL (2) 71 g + sa
Veen-Kaninenberg, NL (3) LBK 74 No info
Xanten, NW (4) 73 b + q + g, o + q + g, o + b + q + g
Kesseleyk-Keuperheide, NL (6) 68 o, b + sa
Neer-Boshei, NL (7) 58 g
Haelen-Helenberg, NL (8) ? 67 No info
Horn-Lateraalkanaal, NL (9) 59 g
Melick-Herkenbosch-Vogelkooi, NL (10) 62 b + g
Sint Odilienberg-Zwarteberg, NL (11) 60 b + g
Echt-Annendaal, NL (17) 63 b + g + o, sa + g
Bochum-Hiltrop, NW (1) LBK 76 b
Köln-Lindenthal, NW (12) LBK 83 b, o
Köln-Worringen, NW (13) LBK 82 b
Langweiler 2, NW LBK 77 No info
Langweiler 5–10,12, NW (14) LBK 80 b
Langweiler 8, NW (15) LBK 79 ca
Königshoven 1, NW LBK 81 b
Kückhofen, NW LBK 94 No info
Wölfersheim-Geisenheim, HE LBK 89 b
Ober-Widdersheim, HE LBK 88 b
Geleen-de Kluis, NL (25) LBK 49 sa
Geleen- Janskamperveld, NL LBK 50 b(5%), o(10%), oM(17,5%), sa(40%), g(15%), clay(10%), indet (2,5%)
Geleen-Urmonderbaan, NL LBK 39 o + b
Geleen-Haesselderveld, NL (26) LBK 47 b + g, g, sa + g
Geleen-Station oder-Bergstraat, NL (27) LBK 48 b + g, b + g + ch
Beek-Kerkeveld, NL (28) LBK 51 sa
Elsloo-Koolweg, NL (29) LBK 43 b, b + g, g
Stein-Heideveldweg, NL(30) LBK 44 b, b + g
Stein-Keerenderkerkweg, NL (31) LBK 45 b, b + g, b + g + sa
Maastricht-Klinkers, NL LBK 42 b + sa + g, b + o + sa + g, b + o + sa, o + sa + g, o + g, ch + sa + g, oM, sa + g, g
Rosmeer-Staberg, B (18) LBK 38 b(3%), b + g(20%), b + hem(18%), g(18%), g + hem(15%), hem(3%), b + g + hem(9%), oM(6%),indet(9%)
Vlijtingen-Kayberg, B (19) LBK 41 b + q + g, b + g
Bassenge, B (20) LBK 31 No info
Caberg-Belvedère, NL (24) LBK 40 b + g, g + q
Liege-Saint Lambert, B (37) LBK 37 g(55%), b(14%), b + g, fs(9%), q(22%)
Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher, B LBK 32 b, b + g, ch + g + q
Oleye-Al Zèpe, B (32) LBK 28 b
Darion-Colia, B (33) LBK 27 b + g + sa, b + sa, q
Omal-Vicinal-Les Tombes, B (34) LBK 30 No info
Waremme- Longchamps, B (35) LBK 26 b, b + g
Berloz, B (36) LBK 25 g(b + o)[1]
Horion-Hozémont-Noir Fontaine, B (38) LBK 29 q
Overhespen-Sint Annaveld, B (22) LBK 24 b + o + g
Wange-Damekot, B (23) LBK 23 b
Thines-Vieille Cour, B (39) 21 min
Saint-Denis, B (40) ? 20 No info
Ath–Les Haleurs, B LBK 220 No info
Ormeignies-le Pilori, B LBK 19 b
Ormeignies-Bois de la Bonne Fortune, B LBK 221 b
Ormeignies-la Petite Rosière, B LBK 222 b
Aubéchies-Coron Maton, B (41) LBK 17 b(85%), b + g(5%), oM(10%)
Maring-Noviand Siebenborn, RP (65) LBK 155 o + q, b(1)
Bitburg-Prüm-Peffingen, RP (63) 157 o
Trier-Euren Schloss Monaise, RP LBK 156 o
Homburg-Kirberg, SL 183 No info
Diekirch-Dechensgaart, L (62) LBK 159 o
Hesperange-Teschebuchels, L (67) 164 o + b
Medernach Reineschhaff, L 161 o
Weiler-la-Tour Holzdréisch, L LBK 166 o
Altwies Op dem Boesch, L LBK 169 o
Remerschen Schengerwies, L LBK 170 o
Remerschen Raederbierg, L 171 q
Sehndorf-Hinter’m Dellchen, SL 172 q + sa + o
Malling-derrière le Village, Moselle LBK 175 Indet
Malling-Schlammlengt, Moselle LBK 176 ca
Koenigsmacker-Le Village, Moselle LBK 177 Indet
Oudrenne Breistroff, Moselle LBK 178 q
Cattenom-Acheren, Moselle LBK 179 Indet
Florange-Daspiche, Moselle LBK 180 ca?
Rurange-lès-Thionville-sur Bruche, Guénange, Moselle LBK 181 No info
Vitry-sur-Orne-ZAC de la Plaine, Moselle LBK 182 q + ca, fs, ca
Trémery-Zones 3–4–36, Moselle LBK 185 ca
Ay-sur-Moselle-La Tournaille, Moselle LBK 186 q, fs, q + fs, ca, b + q
Ay-sur-Moselle-Les Velers Jacques, Moselle LBK 187 oM
Ennery RD52C, Moselle LBK 188 No info
La Maxe-Station d’epuration, Moselle LBK 189 ca?
Metz-Nord Ban-de-Devant les Ponts, Moselle (69) LBK 190 Indet
Farébersville, Moselle 192 Indet
Filstroff-Avensberg, Moselle (68) LBK 191 ca + q
Rosheim, Gachot Bas-Rhin (70) LBK 131 q
Rosheim, Mittelfeld, Bas-Rhin LBK 132 q + (ca or b)
Rosheim, Lotissement, Saint-Odile, Bas-Rhin LBK 133 q + g
Schwindratzheim-Les Terrasses de la Zorn, Bas-Rhin LBK 125 No info
Bischoffsheim-Afua du Stade, Bas-Rhin LBK 130 No info
Rosheim-Rittergass, Bas-Rhin LBK 134 q
Entzheim-Les Terres de la Chapelle, Bas-Rhin LBK 135 No info
Mittelhausen-Kellen, Bas-Rhin LBK 136 No info
Wettolsheim, Ricoh, Haut-Rhin (71) LBK 138 No info
Colombelles-le-Lazzaro, Calvados LBK 210 o + g
Démouville, Calvados LBK 211 No info
Moult–Le Relais de Poste, Calvados LBK 212 min
Longpre-les-Corps-Saints, Somme (42) ? 7 b
Bucy-le-Long-la Fosselle, Aisne LBK 8 No info
Bucy-le-Long-la Fosse Tounise/la Héronnière, Aisne LBK 9 No info
Presles-et-Boves-les Bois Plantés, Aisne LBK 10 b, fs
Chassemy-les Grand Horles, Aisne (55) LBK 6 No info
Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes-les Fontinettes, Aisne (56) LBK 14 b
Pontavert-Le Marteau, Aisne (57) 13 b
Berry-au-Bac-La Renardière, Aisne (58) 11 b
Berry-au-Bac-le Chemin de la Pecherie, Aisne (59) LBK 201 b
Berry-au-Bac-le Vieux Tordoir, Aisne LBK 202 b
Berry-au-Bac-la Croix Maigret, Aisne LBK 12 b, b + q
Menneville-Derrière-le-Village, Aisne (61) LBK 16 No info
Pont-Sainte-Maxence, Oise LBK 219 No info
Chambly le Clos de la Riviere, Oise LBK 218 b
Balloy, les Réaudins, Saint-et-Marne LBK 213 q + b, q, b
Barbey, le Buisson Rond, Seine-et-Marne LBK 214 q
Aufferville, Seine-et-Marne (49) 199 No info
Juvigny-les Grands Traquières, Marne (60) LBK 15 b + fs, fs + q + ca
Villeneuve-Saint-Georges, Val-de-Marne (48) 200 No info
Sours–les Ouches, Eure-et-Loir VSG 217 min
Marcilly-en-Beauce, Loir-et-Cher (45) LBK 203 fs
Gumery-les-Hauts de Trainel, Aube (51) LBK 197 min
Saint-Léger-près-Troyes, Aube (53) 195 b?
Bréviandes, Aube LBK 193 No info
Villeneuve-La-Guyard, Yonne (50) VSG 198 q
Étigny, le Brassot Est, Yonne LBK 215 q + b, q + b + fs, q + fs
Passy, les Graviers, Yonne LBK 216 q
Champlay-les Carpes, Yonne (52) LBK 196 min

The number in brackets behind the name of the site is the number assigned in the map of Manen and Mazurié de Keroualin (2003, p. 121). The sites Kessel-Sjoppenaas, NL (5), Laurenzberg, NW, D (16), Crisnée-La Mai, B (21), Medernach-Savelborn-Baachbierg, L (64), Alzingen-Grossfeld, L (66), and Grotte du Gardon, Amberieux-en-Bugey, Ain, F (72) are listed in the BK list (1.3). The sites Blangy-sur-Bresle, Seine-Maritime (43), Breuilpont, Eure (44), Cormeilles-en-Parisis, Val-d’Oise (46), Champigny-sur-Marne, Val-de-Marne (47), and Cys-la-Commune-les Longues Raies, Aisne (54) are considered VSG sites.

1.3. Sites with Begleitkeramik

The first column is the site name, the second column is the association with LBK or VSG, the third column gives the number of the site used in the distribution maps, and the last column specifies the temper (b = bone, min = mineral, q = quartz, sa = sand, ca = calcite, o = organic, g = grog, fs = fossil shell, sil = silex, hem = hematite, ch = charcoal, oM = without intentional temper, nv = not visible, not attr = temper cannot attributed to the BK sherd).

Ede, Frankeneng, Gueldre (NL) (3) 72 sa
Gassel-Over de Voort, NL (2) 71 g + sa
Venlo-Ossenberg, NL 70 sa
Kessel-Sjoppenaas, NL (5) 69 No info
Brüggen-Bracht 8/West, Viersen (NW) D 65 No info
Haelen-Broekweg, NL 66 o + g
Sint Odilienberg-Mortelshof, NL 61 o + sa
Posterholt-Voorsterveld, NL 64 sa + b?
Ittervoort, Damszand, Limburg (NL) 57 g
Sweikhuizen, De Hei, Limburg (NL) 52 b + o + sa
Stein-Heideveldweg, NL (30) LBK 44 b
Maastricht-Klinkers, NL LBK 42 sa + b
Rosmeer-Staberg, B (18) LBK 38 g, oM
Langweiler 3, Düren (NW) LBK 78 No info
Langweiler 8, Düren (NW) (15) LBK 79 ca
Laurenzberg, D (16) LBK 98 No info
Köln-Lindenthal (10) LBK 83 Not att
Liege-Saint-Lambert, B (37) LBK 37 Not att
Crisnée-La Mai, B (21) LBK 34 g
Oleye-al Zépe, B (32) LBK 28 Not att
Verlaine-Jointy, B LBK 33 oM
Thines-Vieille Cour, B (39) 21 min
Trou Al’Wesse, Modave, Liège (B) LBK 35 q + fs
Aubéchies-Coron Maton, B (41) LBK 17 oM, b + o
Bréviandes, Aube, F LBK 193 No info
Maring-Noviand-Siebenborn (RP) (65) LBK 155 o + q
Medernach-Savelborn-Baachbierg, L (64) 160 q
Hersberg-Auf den Leien, L 158 g + q
Mersch-Haard, L 162 o
Mamer-Juckelsboesch, L 163 o
Alzingen-Grossfeld, L (66) LBK 167 o
Altwies, Op dem Boesch, Luxemburg LBK 169 q
Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch, Hinter’m Dellchen (SL) 172 q + sa + o, q + sa + g
Montenach-Kirschgasse, F LBK 173 oM
Kirschnaumen-Évendorff- Dolem, F LBK 174 oM
Thionville-Elange, F LBK 184 b + ca
Ay-sur-Moselle-La Tournaille, F LBK 186 q
Nieder-Mörlen-Auf dem Hempler, Bad Nauheim (HE) LBK 92 min
Bischoffsheim, Le Village, Bas-Rhin (35) LBK 129 q, q + g
Wettolsheim, Ricoh, Haut-Rhin (40) (71) LBK 138 No info
Merxheim, Zapfenloch, Haut-Rhin (41) LBK 139 min
Bavans, abri sud/sud-ouest, Doubs (46) 147 q, ca,
Grotte du Gardon, Amberieux-en-Bugey, Ain, F (72) 153 q

The number in brackets behind the name of the site is the number assigned in the map of Manen and Mazurié de Keroualin (2003, p. 121).

1.4. Sites with Not Attributed Non-LBK Potteries

The first column is the site name, the second column is the association with LBK or Swifterbant (Sw), the third column gives the number of the site used in the distribution maps, and the last column specifies the temper (b = bone, min = mineral, q = quartz, sa = sand, ca = calcite, o = organic, g = grog, fs = fossil shell, sil = silex, hem = hematite, ch = charcoal, oM = without intentional temper, nv = not visible).

1.4.1. Pottery with Fossil Shell Temper

Bavans, abri sud/sud-ouest, Doubs, F 147 fs
Onnens-Praz Berthoud, Jura-Nord (CH) 126 fs
Bart, Abri Superieur de Chȃtaillon, Doubs, F 209 fs
Lutter, Abri-sous-roche Saint-Joseph, couche 5 (CH) 127 fs
Grotte du Gardon, Amberieux-en-Bugey, Rhone, F 153 fs
Ittenheim, Am Alten Weg, Bas-Rhin, F LBK 205 fs
Mundolsheim, Bas-Rhin, F LBK 208 fs
Stützheim, Bas-Rhin, F LBK 207 fs
Romanswiller, Bas-Rhin, F LBK 206 ca, fs, g

1.4.2. Scheldt and Maas Wetland Sites

Kerkhove, B 224 b, q + hem + o
Oudenaarde–Donk (meso1), B 228 g
Hardinxveld-Polderweg, NL Sw 230 b
Doel Deurganckdok-sector B, B 229 g + o, g, o, sil, q
Schellebelle–Aard, B 225 sil, b
Wijmers 2, Wichelen, B 226 b, oM, g, q + sil, o, q + o + g
Kalken–Molenmeers, B 227 b
Melsele–Hof ten Damme, B 223 b + g + q, o + g, sil + g, sa + g
Bazel-Kruibeke, B 22 b, b + o, b + g, o, g, o + g, q, q + g, q + o
Dilsen Dilserheide III, B 53 o + q + g
Brecht Thomas Heyveld, B 56 o + q
Weelde Voorheide 3, B 55 o, ch, b + o + sa, q
Weelde Paardsdrank, B 54 o + q + g

2.1. Sites with Bone-Tempered Non-LBK

The first column is the site name, the second column is the attribution in literature (LH, Lim, BK, others), the third column is the association with LBK or VSG, the fourth column gives the number of the site used in the distribution maps, and the last column specifies the temper (b = bone, min = mineral, q = quartz, sa = sand, ca = calcite, o = organic, g = grog, fs = fossil shell, hem = hematite, ch = charcoal)

Fontenay-Le-Marmion, La Hoguette, Calvados, F LH 1 b + sa
Alizay, Le Postel, Eure, F LH 3 b
Machecoul-Guibrelou I, Loire-Atlantique, F LH 4 b + q
Longpre-les-Corps-Saints, Somme, F Lim ? 7 b
Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes-les Fontinettes, Aisne, F Lim LBK 14 b
Pontavert-Le Marteau, Aisne, F Lim 13 b
Berry-au-Bac-La Renardière, Aisne, F Lim 11 b
Berry-au-Bac-le Chemin de la Pecherie, Aisne, F Lim LBK 201 b
Presles-et-Boves-les Bois Plantés, Aisne, F Lim LBK 10 b
Berry-au-Bac-le Vieux Tordoir, Aisne, F Lim LBK 202 b
Berry-au-Bac-la Croix Maigret, Aisne, F Lim LBK 12 b, b + q
Chambly le Clos de la Riviere, Oise, F Lim LBK 218 b
Juvigny-les Grands Traquières, Marne, F Lim LBK 15 b + fs
Balloy, les Réaudins, Saint-et-Marne, F Lim LBK 213 q + b, b
Étigny, le Brassot Est, Yonne, F Lim LBK 215 q + b, q + b + fs
Ormeignies-le Pilori, B Lim LBK 19 b
Ormeignies-Bois de la Bonne Fortune, B Lim LBK 221 b
Ormeignies-la Petite Rosière, B Lim LBK 222 b
Aubéchies-Coron Maton, B Lim LBK 17 b(85%), b + g(5%),
Aubéchies-Coron Maton, B BK LBK 17 b + o
Blicquy, Couture du Couvent, Hainaut, B LH LBK 18 b
Kerkhove, B oth 224 b
Hardinxveld-Polderweg, NL oth Sw 230 b
Schellebelle–Aard, B oth 225 b
Wijmers 2, Wichelen, B oth 226 b
Kalken–Molenmeers, B oth 227 b
Melsele–Hof ten Damme, B oth 223 b + g + q
Bazel-Kruibeke, B oth 22 b, b + o, b + g
Weelde Voorheide 3, B oth 55 b + o + sa
Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher, B Lim LBK 32 b, b + g
Oleye-Al Zèpe, B Lim LBK 28 b
Darion-Colia, B Lim LBK 27 b + g + sa, b + sa
Waremme-Longchamps, B Lim LBK 26 b, b + g
Overhespen-Sint Annaveld, B Lim LBK 24 b + o + g
Wange-Damekot, B Lim LBK 23 b
Rosmeer-Staberg, B Lim LBK 38 b(3%), b + g(20%), b + hem(18%), b + g + hem(9%)
Vlijtingen-Kayberg, B Lim LBK 41 b + q + g, b + q
Caberg-Belvedère, NL Lim LBK 40 b + g
Liege-Saint Lambert, B Lim LBK 37 b(14%), b + g
Maastricht-Klinkers, NL Lim LBK 42 b + sa + g, b + o + sa + g, b + o + a
Maastricht-Klinkers, NL BK LBK 42 sa + b
Sweikhuizen, De Hei, Limburg, NL LH 52 b
Sweikhuizen, De Hei, Limburg, NL BK 52 b + o + sa
Geleen-Nijssenstraat, Limburg, NL LH LBK 46 b + g
Geleen- Janskamperveld, NL Lim LBK 50 b(5%)
Geleen-Urmonderbaan, NL Lim LBK 39 o + b
Geleen-Haesselderveld, NL Lim LBK 47 b + g
Geleen-Station oder -Bergstraat, NL Lim LBK 48 b + g, b + g + ch
Elsloo-Koolweg, NL Lim LBK 43 b, b + g
Stein-Heideveldweg, NL Lim LBK 44 b, b + g
Stein-Heideveldweg, NL BK LBK 44 b
Stein-Keerenderkerkweg, NL Lim LBK 45 b, b + g, b + g + sa
Kesseleyk-Keuperheide, NL Lim 68 b + sa
Melick-Herkenbosch-Vogelkooi, NL Lim 62 b + g
Sint Odilienberg-Zwarteberg, NL Lim 60 b + g
Echt-Annendaal, NL Lim 63 b + g + o
Xanten (NW) Lim 73 b + q + g, o + b + q + g
Bochum-Hiltrop (NW) Lim LBK 76 b
Köln-Lindenthal (NW) Lim LBK 83 b
Köln-Worringen (NW) Lim LBK 82 b
Langweiler 5-10,12 (NW) Lim LBK 80 b
Königshoven 1 (NW) Lim LBK 81 b
Wölfersheim-Geisenheim (HE) Lim LBK 89 b
Ober-Widdersheim (HE) Lim LBK 88 b
Gambach, Altstädter Rossfeld (HE) LH LBK 90 b + sa
Bruchenbrücken, Friedberg (HE) LH LBK 93 b + sa(g),b + o + sa(g)
Dautenheim-Unterm Leckmantel, Alzey (RP) LH 97 b + o + q, b + q + o + g
Herxheim, Südliche Weinstraße (RP) LH LBK 100 b
Enzweihingen, Vaihingen a.d.Enz (BW) LH 111 b + sil + g
Korntal-Münchingen-Heupfad (BW) LH LBK 113 b + q
Ditzingen-Zechlesmühle- und Stütze, Leonberg (BW) LH LBK 114 b, b + g
Gerlingen-Rossbaum, Ludwigsburg (BW) LH LBK 115 b
Stuttgart-Weilimdorf-Grubenäcker (BW) LH LBK 116 b + ca, b + q + g
Stuttgart-Mühlhausen-Viesenhäuser Hof (BW) LH LBK 117 b
Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt-Wilhelma (BW) LH 118 b
Filderstadt-Bernhausen-Stegäcker (BW) LH LBK 119 b
Rottenburg-Fröbelweg, Tübingen (BW) LH LBK 120 b(57%), b + q(27%), b + g(1%)
Rottenburg-Hailfingen-Tübinger Weg (BW) LH LBK 121 b, b + q, b + ca, b + g
Ammerbuch-Pfäffingen-Lüsse, Tübingen (BW) LH LBK 122 b, b + q
Ammerbuch-Reusten-Stützbrunnen (BW) LH LBK 123 b, b + q
Singen, Torkelweg (BW) LH LBK 144 b
Maring-Noviand Siebenborn (RP) Lim LBK 155 b
Weiler-la-Tour, Mechel, L LH 165 b + q
Altwies, Op dem Boesch, L LH LBK 169 b + o + q
Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch, Merzig-Wadern (SL) LH 172 b + q + sa, b + o + sa
Hesperange-Teschebuchels, L Lim 164 o + b
Thionville-Elange, Moselle, F BK LBK 184 b + ca
Ay-sur-Moselle-La Tournaille, Moselle, F Lim LBK 186 b + q
Ittenheim, Kocherberg, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 124 b + q
Bischoffsheim, Le Village, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 129 b, b + ca + g
Oberlarg, Mannlefelsen I, Haut-Rhin, F LH 146 b
Choisey, les Champins, Jura, F LH 149 b + q

2.2. Sites with Organic-Tempered Non-LBK

The first column is the site name, the second column is the attribution in literature (LH, Lim, BK, others), the third column is the association with LBK or VSG, the fourth column gives the number of the site used in the distribution maps, and the last column specifies the temper (b = bone, min = mineral, q = quartz, sa = sand, ca = calcite, o = organic, g = grog, fs = fossil shell, hem = hematite, ch = charcoal, oM = without intentional temper)

Banz-Zilgendorf, Lichtenfels (BY) LH LBK 101 o + sa
Nördlingen-Steinerner Mann, Donau-Ries (BY) LH LBK 102 o + sa
Estenfeld-Mühlhausen, Würzburg (BY) LH LBK 103 o
Gambach, Altstädter Rossfeld (HE) LH LBK 90 o
Bruchenbrücken, Friedberg (HE) LH LBK 93 b + o + sa(g),o + sa(g)
Goddelau, Riedstadt, Groß-Gerau (HE) LH LBK 95 o + sa
Dautenheim-Unterm Leckmantel, Alzey (RP) LH 97 b + o + q, b + q + o + g
Maring-Noviand Siebenborn (RP) Lim LBK 155 o + q
Maring-Noviand-Siebenborn (RP) BK LBK 155 o + q
Bitburg-Prüm-Peffingen (RP) Lim 157 o
Trier-Euren Schloss Monaise (RP) Lim LBK 156 o
Mersch-Haard, L BK 162 o
Mamer-Juckelsboesch, L BK 163 o
Diekirch-Dechensgaart, L Lim LBK 159 o
Hesperange-Teschebuchels, L Lim 164 o + b
Medernach Reineschhaff, L Lim 161 o
Weiler-la-Tour Holzdréisch, L Lim LBK 166 o
Altwies, Op dem Boesch, L LH LBK 169 b + o + q
Altwies Op dem Boesch, L Lim LBK 169 o
Remerschen Schengerwies, L Lim LBK 170 o
Alzingen-Grossfeld, L BK LBK 167 o
Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch, Hinter’m Dellchen (SL) BK 172 q + sa + o
Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch, Merzig-Wadern (SL) LH 172 b + o + sa
Sehndorf-Hinter’m Dellchen (SL) Lim 172 q + sa + o
Soest-Burgtheaterparkplatz, Soest (NW) LH 85 o + sa
Köln-Lindenthal (NW) Lim LBK 83 o
Xanten (NW) Lim 73 o + q + g, o + b + q + g
Ede-Frankeneng, Gueldre, NL LH 72 o + g
Kesseleyk-Keuperheide, NL Lim 68 o
Echt-Annendaal, NL Lim 63 b + g + o
Haelen-Broekweg, NL BK 66 o + g
Sint Odilienberg-Mortelshof, NL BK 61 o + sa
Ittervoort, Damszand, Limburg, NL LH 57 o
Sweikhuizen, De Hei, Limburg (NL) BK 52 b + o + sa
Geleen- Janskamperveld, NL Lim LBK 50 o(10%)
Geleen-Urmonderbaan, NL Lim LBK 39 o + b
Maastricht-Klinkers, NL Lim LBK 42 b + o + sa + g, b + o + sa, o + sa + g, o + g
Lüttich, Saint-Lambert, B LH LBK 37 o
Overhespen-Sint Annaveld, B Lim LBK 24 b + o + g
Dilsen Dilserheide III, B oth 53 o + q + s
Brecht Thomas Heyveld, B oth 56 o + q
Weelde Voorheide 3, B oth 55 o, b + o + sa
Weelde Paardsdrank, B oth 54 o + q + g
Doel Deurganckdok-sector B, B oth 229 g + o
Wijmers 2, Wichelen, B oth 226 o, q + o + g
Melsele–Hof ten Damme, B oth 223 o + q
Bazel-Kruibeke, B oth 22 b + o, o, o + g, q + o
Kerkhove, B oth 224 q + hem + o
Aubéchies-Coron Maton, B BK LBK 17 b + o
Colombelles-le-Lazzaro, Calvados, F Lim LBK 210 o + g

2.3. Sites with Mineral-Tempered Non-LBK

The first column is the site name, the second column is the attribution in literature (LH, Lim, BK, others), the third column is the association with LBK or VSG, the fourth column gives the number of the site used in the distribution maps, and the last column specifies the temper (b = bone, min = mineral, q = quartz, sa = sand, ca = calcite, o = organic, g = grog, fs = fossil shell, hem = hematite, ch = charcoal, oM = without intentional temper)

Hiddenhausen-Bermbek, Herford (NW) LH 84 sa
Anröchte, Soest (NW) LH 87 q
Ede-Frankeneng, Gueldre, NL LH 72 sa + g
Ede-Frankeneng, Gueldre, NL BK 72 sa
Gassel Over de Voort, NL Lim 71 g + sa
Gassel-Over de Voort, NL BK 71 g + sa
Venlo-Ossenberg, NL BK 70 sa
Posterholt-Voorsterveld, NL BK 64 sa + b?
Ittervoort, Damszand, Limburg, NL BK 57 g
Neer-Boshei, NL Lim 58 g
Horn-Lateraalkanaal, NL Lim 59 g
Echt-Annendaal, NL Lim 63 sa + g
Langweiler, Fundplatz 8, Düren (NW) LH LBK 79 q + sa + g
Langweiler 8, NW Lim LBK 79 ca
Geleen-de Kluis, NL Lim LBK 49 sa
Geleen-Janskamperveld, NL Lim LBK 50 oM(17,5%), sa(40%), g(15%), clay(10%)
Geleen-Haesselderveld, NL Lim LBK 47 g, sa + g
Beek-Kerkeveld, NL Lim LBK 51 sa
Elsloo-Koolweg, NL Lim LBK 43 g
Maastricht-Klinkers, NL Lim LBK 42 g, oM, sa + g, ch + sa + g
Rosmeer-Staberg, B Lim LBK 38 g(18%), g + hem(15%), hem(3%), oM(6%)
Rosmeer-Staberg, B BK LBK 38 g, oM
Caberg-Belvedère, NL Lim LBK 40 g + q
Liege-Saint Lambert, B Lim LBK 37 g(55%), fs(9%), q(22%)
Trou Al’Wesse, Modave, Liège, B BK LBK 35 q + fs
Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher, B Lim LBK 32 ch + g + q
Darion-Colia, B Lim LBK 27 q
Berloz, B Lim LBK 25 g(b + o)
Horion-Hozémont-Noir Fontaine, B Lim LBK 29 q
Crisnée-La Mai, B BK LBK 34 g
Verlaine-Jointy, B BK LBK 33 oM
Thines-Vieille Cour, B Lim 21 min
Thines-Vieille Cour, B BK 21 min
Oudenaarde–Donk (meso1), B oth 228 g
Doel Deurganckdok-sector B, B oth 229 g, sil, q
Schellebelle–Aard, B oth 225 sil
Wijmers 2, Wichelen, B oth 226 oM, g, q + sil
Melsele–Hof ten Damme, B oth 223 sil + g, sa + g
Bazel-Kruibeke, B oth 22 g, q, q + g
Aubéchies-Coron Maton, B BK LBK 17 oM
Steinfurth-Auf der Mauer, Bad Nauheim (HE) LH LBK 91 q + g
Nieder-Mörlen-Auf dem Hempler, Bad Nauheim (HE) BK LBK 92 min
Nackenheim-Lehrbrünnchen, Mainz-Bingen (RP) LH LBK 96 sa, ca + sa + g
Wallmersbach, Uffenheim, Neustadt, a.d. Aisch (BY) LH LBK 104 sa + sil
Leingarten-Großgartach-Kappmannsgrund (BW) LH LBK 105 q + (b or ca)
Bad Friedrichshall-Kochendorf-Butzäcker (BW) LH LBK 107 q
Freiberg-Heutingsheim-Incher (BW) LH LBK 108 ca
Korntal-Münchingen-Heupfad (BW) LH LBK 113 q + g
Rottenburg-Fröbelweg, Tübingen (BW) LH LBK 120 q(13%), q + g(1%), hem(1%)
Rottenburg-Hailfingen-Tübinger Weg (BW) LH LBK 121 ca, q, q + g, g
Ammerbuch-Reusten-Stützbrunnen (BW) LH LBK 123 q
Ittenheim, Kocherberg, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 124 q
Ittenheim, Am Alten Weg, Bas-Rhin, F oth LBK 205 fs
Mundolsheim, Bas-Rhin, F oth LBK 208 fs
Stützheim, Bas-Rhin, F oth LBK 207 fs
Romanswiller, Bas-Rhin, F oth LBK 206 ca, fs, g
Niedernai, Foegel, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 128 q, q + g + ca
Bischoffsheim, Le Village, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 129 q, fs
Bischoffsheim, Le Village, Bas-Rhin, F BK LBK 129 q, q + g,
Rosheim, Gachot Bas-Rhin, F Lim LBK 131 q
Rosheim, Gachot, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 131 q
Rosheim, Mittelfeld, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 132 q
Rosheim, Mittelfeld, Bas-Rhin, F Lim LBK 132 q + (b od ca)
Rosheim-St. Odile, Bas-Rhin, F Lim LBK 133 q + g
Rosheim-St. Odile, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 133 fs
Rosheim-Rittergass, Bas-Rhin, F Lim LBK 134 q
Colmar, Rufacher Huben, Haut-Rhin, F LH LBK 137 q
Merxheim, Zapfenloch, Haut-Rhin, F LH LBK 139 min
Merxheim, Zapfenloch, Haut-Rhin, F BK LBK 139 min
Ensisheim, Ratfeld, Haut-Rhin, F LH LBK 140 q, sa
Goldacker, Gächlingen (CH) LH LBK 143 sa,q
Bavans, abri sud/sud-ouest, Doubs, F LH 147 q, ca, fs
Bavans, abri sud/sud-ouest, Doubs, F BK 147 q, ca,
Bavans, abri sud/sud-ouest, Doubs, F oth 147 fs
Onnens-Praz Berthoud, Jura-Nord (CH) oth 126 fs
Bart, Abri Superieur de Chȃtaillon, Doubs, F oth 209 fs
Lutter, Abri-sous-roche Saint-Joseph, couche 5 (CH) oth 127 fs
Grotte du Gardon, Amberieux-en-Bugey, Rhone, F oth 153 fs
Grotte du Gardon, Amberieux-en-Bugey, Ain, F BK 153 q
Medernach-Savelborn-Baachbierg, L BK 160 q
Hersberg-Auf den Leien, L BK 158 g + q
Puttelange-lès-Thionville, Himeling, Moselle, F LH 168 q, q + g
Remerschen Raederbierg, L Lim 171 q
Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch, Merzig-Wadern (SL) LH 172 q + sa + g
Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch, Hinter’m Dellchen (SL) BK 172 q + sa + g
Montenach-Kirschgasse, Moselle, F BK LBK 173 oM
Kirschnaumen-Évendorff- Dolem, Moselle, F BK LBK 174 oM
Ay-sur-Moselle-La Tournaille, F BK LBK 186 q
Malling-Schlammlengt, Moselle, F Lim LBK 176 ca
Oudrenne Breistroff, Moselle, F Lim LBK 178 q
Florange-Daspiche, Moselle, F Lim LBK 180 ca?
Vitry-sur-Orne-ZAC de la Plaine, Moselle, F Lim LBK 182 q + ca, fs, ca
Trémery-Zones 3-4-36, Moselle, F Lim LBK 185 ca
Ay-sur-Moselle-La Tournaille, Moselle, F Lim LBK 186 q, fs, q + fs, ca
Ay-sur-Moselle-Les Velers Jacques, Moselle, F Lim LBK 187 oM
La Maxe-Station d’epuration, Moselle, F Lim LBK 189 ca?
Filstroff-Avensberg, Moselle, F Lim LBK 191 ca + q
Presles-et-Boves-les Bois Plantés, Aisne, F Lim LBK 10 fs
Orconte-Les Noues, Marne, F LH LBK 194 fs
Juvigny-les Grands Traquières, Marne, F Lim LBK 15 fs + q + ca
Gumery-les-Hauts de Trainel, Aube, F Lim LBK 197 min
Villeneuve-La-Guyard, Yonne, F Lim VSG 198 q
Balloy, les Réaudins, Saint-et-Marne, F Lim LBK 213 q
Barbey, le Buisson Rond, Seine-et-Marne, F Lim LBK 214 q
Étigny, le Brassot Est, Yonne, F Lim LBK 215 q + fs
Passy, les Graviers, Yonne, F Lim LBK 216 q
Champlay-les Carpes, Yonne, F Lim LBK 196 min
Sours–les Ouches, Eure-et-Loir, F Lim LBK 217 min
Marcilly-en-Beauce, Loir-et-Cher, F Lim LBK 203 fs
Moult–Le Relais de Poste, Calvados, F Lim LBK 212 min

2.4. Sites with Grog-Tempered Non-LBK Pottery

The first column is the site name, the second column is the attribution in literature (LH, Lim, BK, others), the third column is the association with LBK or VSG, the fourth column gives the number of the site used in the distribution maps, and the last column specifies the temper (b = bone, min = mineral, q = quartz, sa = sand, ca = calcite, o = organic, g = grog, fs = fossil shell, hem = hematite, ch = charcoal, oM = without intentional temper)

Ede, Frankeneng, Gueldre, NL LH 72 sa + g, o + g
Gassel Over de Voort, NL Lim 71 g + sa
Gassel-Over de Voort, NL BK 71 g + sa
Haelen-Broekweg, NL BK 66 o + g
Xanten, NW Lim 73 b + q + g, o + q + g, o + b + q + g
Neer-Boshei, NL Lim 58 g
Horn-Lateraalkanaal, NL Lim 59 g
Melick-Herkenbosch-Vogelkooi, NL Lim 62 b + g
Sint Odilienberg-Zwarteberg, NL Lim 60 b + g
Echt-Annendaal, NL Lim 63 b + g + o, sa + g
Ittervoort, Damszand, Limburg, NL BK 57 g
Sweikhuizen, De Hei, Limburg, NL LH 52 sa + g
Geleen-Nijssenstraat, Limburg, NL LH LBK 46 b + g
Geleen- Janskamperveld, NL Lim LBK 50 g(15%)
Geleen-Haesselderveld, NL Lim LBK 47 b + g, g, sa + g
Geleen-Station oder -Bergstraat, NL Lim LBK 48 b + g, b + g + ch
Elsloo-Koolweg, NL Lim LBK 43 b + g, g
Stein-Heideveldweg, NL Lim LBK 44 b + g
Stein-Keerenderkerkweg, NL Lim LBK 45 b + g, b + g + sa
Maastricht-Klinkers, NL Lim LBK 42 b + sa + g, b + o + sa + g, o + sa + g, o + g, ch + sa + g, sa + g, g
Rosmeer-Staberg, B Lim LBK 38 b + g(20%), g(18%), g + hem(15%), b + g + hem(9%)
Rosmeer-Staberg, B BK LBK 38 g
Vlijtingen-Kayberg, B Lim LBK 41 b + q + g, b + g
Caberg-Belvedère, NL Lim LBK 40 b + g, g + q
Langweiler, Fundplatz 8, Düren (NW) LH LBK 79 q + sa + g
Liege-Saint Lambert, B Lim LBK 37 g(55%), b + g
Crisnée-La Mai, B BK LBK 34 g
Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher, B Lim LBK 32 b + g, ch + g + q
Darion-Colia, B Lim LBK 27 b + g + sa
Waremme- Longchamps, B Lim LBK 26 b + g
Berloz, B Lim LBK 25 g(b + o)[2]
Overhespen-Sint Annaveld, B Lim LBK 24 b + o + g
Aubéchies-Coron Maton, B Lim LBK 17 b + g(5%)
Doel Deurganckdok-sector B, B oth 229 g + o, g
Wijmers 2, Wichelen, B oth 226 g, q + o + g
Melsele–Hof ten Damme, B oth 223 b + g + q, o + g, sil + g, sa + g
Bazel-Kruibeke, B oth 22 b + g, g, o + g, q + g
Dilsen Dilserheide III, B oth 53 o + q + g
Weelde Paardsdrank, B oth 54 o + q + g
Colombelles-le-Lazzaro, Calvados Lim LBK 210 o + g
Steinfurth-Auf der Mauer, Bad Nauheim (HE) LH LBK 91 q + g
Bruchenbrücken, Friedberg (HE) LH LBK 93 b + sa(g),b + o + sa(g), o + sa(g)
Nackenheim-Lehrbrünnchen, Mainz-Bingen (RP) LH LBK 96 ca + sa + g
Dautenheim-Unterm Leckmantel, Alzey (RP) LH 97 b + q + o + g
Enzweihingen, Vaihingen a.d.Enz (BW) LH 111 b + sil + g
Korntal-Münchingen-Heupfad (BW) LH LBK 113 q + g
Ditzingen-Zechlesmühle- und Stütze, Leonberg (BW) LH LBK 114 b + g
Stuttgart-Weilimdorf-Grubenäcker (BW) LH LBK 116 b + q + g
Rottenburg-Fröbelweg, Tübingen (BW) LH LBK 120 b + g(1%), q + g(1%)
Rottenburg-Hailfingen-Tübinger Weg (BW) LH LBK 121 b + g, q + g, g
Puttelange-lès-Thionville, Himeling, Moselle, F LH 168 q + g
Hersberg-Auf den Leien, L BK 158 g + q
Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch, Hinter’m Dellchen (SL) BK 172 q + sa + g
Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch, Merzig-Wadern (SL) LH 172 q + sa + g
Romanswiller, Bas-Rhin, F oth LBK 206 g
Niedernai, Foegel, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 128 q + g + ca
Bischoffsheim, Le Village, Bas-Rhin, F LH LBK 129 b + ca + g
Bischoffsheim, Le Village, Bas-Rhin BK LBK 129 q + g
Rosheim-Saint-Odile, Bas-Rhin Lim LBK 133 q + g

3. List of Sites with Non-LBK Pottery

The first column shows the number assigned to every site. This number is used throughout. This numbering is also used in Kirschneck, 2020. The second column is the name of the site. The third column gives the attribution in literature of the Non-LBK pottery to La Hoguette (LH), Limburg pottery (Lim), Begleitkeramik (BK) or other attributions. This correspondents to the lists 1.1. to 1.4. The fourth column gives important citations in literature.

1 Fontenay-Le-Marmion, La Hoguette, Calvados LH Caillaud & Lagnet, 1972; Ghesquière & Aubry, 2013, p. 512
2 Fontenay-Le-Marmion, Le Grande Champ, Calvados LH Ghesquière & Aubry, 2013
3 Alizay, Le Postel, Eure LH Marcigny et al., 2013
4 Machecoul-Guibrelou I, Loire-Atlantique LH Rousseau et al., 2015
5 Mésanger, Loire-Atlantique LH Rousseau et al., 2015, p. 33
6 Chassemy-les Grand Horles, Aisne Lim Constantin, 1985
7 Longpre-les-Corps-Saints, Somme Lim Constantin, 1985
8 Bucy-le-Long-la Fosselle, Aisne Lim Ilett & Constantin, 2010, p. 247
9 Bucy-le-Long-la Fosse Tounise/la Héronnière, Aisne Lim Ilett & Constantin, 2010, p. 247
10 Presles-et-Boves-les Bois Plantés, Aisne Lim Ilett & Allard, 2008
11 Berry-au-Bac-La Renardière, Aisne Lim Ilett & Plateaux, 1995, p. 96
12 Berry-au-Bac-la Croix Maigret, Aisne Lim Constantin et al., 1981
13 Pontavert-Le Marteau, Aisne Lim Constantin et al., 1981
14 Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes-les Fontinettes, Aisne Lim Constantin et al., 1981
15 Juvigny-les Grands Traquières, Marne Lim Meunier, 2013b
16 Menneville-Derrière-le-Village, Aisne Lim Constantin, 1985
17 Aubéchies-Coron Maton, B Lim, BK Constantin et al., 2010b, Constantin & Demarez, 1981
18 Blicquy, Couture du Couvent, Hainaut, B LH Deramaix & Demarez, 1989
19 Ormeignies-le Pilori, B Lim Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 17
20 Saint-Denis, B Lim Van Berg, 1990
21 Thines-Vieille Cour, B Lim, BK Hubert, 1981; Petitdidier et al., 2013
22 Bazel-Kruibeke, B oth Crombé et al., 2015
23 Wange-Damekot, B Lim Lodewijckx, 2009
24 Overhespen-Sint Annaveld, B Lim Lodewijckx, 2009
25 Berloz, B Lim Constantin & Haeck, 1979
26 Waremme- Longchamps, B Lim van Berg, 1990
27 Darion-Colia, B Lim van Berg, 1990
28 Oleye-Al Zèpe, B Lim, BK van Berg, 1990
29 Horion-Hozémont-Noir Fontaine, B Lim Tromme & Haeck, 1974–1976
30 Omal-Vicinal-Les Tombes, B Lim van Berg, 1990
31 Bassenge, B Lim Modderman, 1981
32 Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher, B Lim Bosquet et al., 1998
33 Verlaine-Jointy, B BK Destexhe-Jamotte, 1962
34 Crisnée-La Mai, B BK van Berg & Tromme, 1982
35 Trou Al’Wesse, Modave, Liège, B BK Miller et al., 2009
36 Mons-Crotteux, Liège, B LH van Berg, 1990
37 Liège-Saint-Lambert, B Lim, BK, LH Rouselle, 1984; Van der Sloot et al., 2003
38 Rosmeer-Staberg, B Lim, BK Modderman, 1981
39 Geleen-Urmonderbaan, NL Lim Van Wijk et al., 2014
40 Caberg-Belvedère, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
41 Vlijtingen-Kayberg, B Lim Marichal, 1987
42 Maastricht-Klinkers, NL Lim, BK Van Wijk et al., 2014
43 Elsloo-Koolweg, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
44 Stein-Heideveldweg, NL Lim, BK Modderman, 1981; Petitdidier et al., 2013
45 Stein-Keerenderkerkweg, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
46 Geleen-Nijssenstraat, Limburg, NL LH Brounen & Vromen, 1990
47 Geleen-Haesselderveld, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
48 Geleen-Station oder -Bergstraat, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
49 Geleen-de Kluis, NL Lim Waterbolk, 1959, p. 159
50 Geleen- Janskamperveld, NL Lim van de Velde, 2007
51 Beek-Kerkeveld, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
52 Sweikhuizen, De Hei, Limburg, NL LH, BK van Berg, 1987; Brounen et al., 2010a
53 Dilsen Dilserheide III, B oth Amkreutz et al., 2010
54 Weelde Paardsdrank, B oth Amkreutz et al., 2010
55 Weelde Voorheide 3, B oth Amkreutz et al., 2010
56 Brecht Thomas Heyveld, B oth Amkreutz et al., 2010
57 Ittervoort, Damszand, Limburg, NL LH,BK Brounen et al., 2010a; Brounen & Hauzeur, 2010
58 Neer-Boshei, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
59 Horn-Lateraalkanaal, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
60 Sint Odilienberg-Zwarteberg, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
61 Sint Odilienberg-Mortelshof, NL BK Brounen & Hauzeur, 2010
62 Melick-Herkenbosch-Vogelkooi, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
63 Echt-Annendaal, NL Lim Brounen, 1985; Van Wijk et al., 2014
64 Posterholt-Voorsterveld, NL BK Brounen, 1999
65 Brüggen-Bracht 8/West, Viersen (NW) BK Loewe, 1971, p. 135
66 Haelen-Broekweg, NL BK Bats et al., 2002
67 Haelen-Helenberg, NL Lim Constantin, 1985
68 Kesseleyk-Keuperheide, NL Lim Modderman, 1974
69 Kessel-Sjoppenaas, NL BK Brounen & de Jong, 1988
70 Venlo-Ossenberg, NL BK Brounen, 1999
71 Gassel Over de Voort, NL Lim, BK Brounen & de Jong, 1988
72 Ede, Frankeneng, Gueldre, NL LH, BK Schut, 1988; Brounen et al., 2010b
73 Xanten (NW) Lim Bridger & Siegmund, 1985
74 Veen-Kaninenberg, NL Lim Modderman, 1981
75 Wickrath, Fundplatz 105 (NW) LH Cziesla, 2015, p. 178
76 Bochum-Hiltrop (NW) Lim Modderman, 1981
77 Langweiler 2 (NW) Lim Farruggia et al., 1973, p. 84
78 Langweiler 3, Düren (NW), D BK Petitdidier et al., 2013
79 Langweiler 8, Düren (NW) LH, Lim, BK Lüning et al., 1989; Lüning & Stehli, 1994, pp. 163–165; Brounen & Hauzeur, 2010
80 Langweiler 5-10,12 (NW) Lim Spatz, 1991
81 Königshoven 1 (NW) Lim Claßen, 2011
82 Köln-Worringen(NW) Lim Meier-Arendt, 1972
83 Köln-Lindenthal (NW) Lim, BK Buttler & Haberey, 1936; Meier-Arendt, 1969
84 Hiddenhausen-Bermbek, Herford (NW) LH Günther, 1991
85 Soest-Burgtheaterparkplatz, Soest (NW) LH Knoche, 2010
86 Bad Sassendorf, Auf der Breite, Soest (NW) LH Kneipp, 1998
87 Anröchte, Soest (NW) LH Lüning et al., 1989
88 Ober-Widdersheim (HE) Lim Kneipp, 1998
89 Wölfersheim-Geisenheim (HE) Lim Kneipp, 1998
90 Gambach, Altstädter Rossfeld (HE) LH Cladders, 2001
91 Steinfurth-Auf der Mauer, Bad Nauheim (HE) LH Langenbrink & Kneipp, 1990
92 Nieder-Mörlen-Auf dem Hempler, Bad Nauheim (HE) BK Schade-Lindig & Schade, 2010
93 Bruchenbrücken, Friedberg (HE) LH Lüning et al., 1989
94 Kückhofen (NW) Lim Lehmann, 2004, p. 61
95 Goddelau, Riedstadt, Groß-Gerau (HE) LH Lüning et al., 1989
96 Nackenheim-Lehrbrünnchen, Mainz-Bingen (RP) LH Lüning et al., 1989
97 Dautenheim-Unterm Leckmantel, Alzey (RP) LH Lüning et al., 1989
98 Laurenzberg (NW) BK Petitdidier et al., 2013
99 Speyer, Brunckstraße (RP) LH Sperber, 1995, p. 34
100 Herxheim, Südliche Weinstraße (RP) LH Stöckl, 2001
101 Banz-Zilgendorf, Lichtenfels (BY) LH Lüning et al., 1989
102 Nördlingen-Steinerner Mann, Donau-Ries (BY) LH Lüning et al., 1989
103 Estenfeld-Mühlhausen, Würzburg (BY) LH Strien & Schön, 2018
104 Wallmersbach, Uffenheim, Neustadt, a.d. Aisch (BY) LH Nadler, 2010
105 Leingarten-Großgartach-Kappmannsgrund (BW) LH Lüning et al., 1989
106 Mannheim-Vogelsang, -Wallstadt und -Seckenheim LH Kraft, 2007
107 Bad Friedrichshall-Kochendorf-Butzäcker (BW) LH Friederich, 2011
108 Freiberg-Heutingsheim-Incher (BW) LH Lüning et al., 1989
109 Baden-Baden-Oos (BW) LH Strien & Tillmann, 2001, p. 680
110 Griesen-Mauäcker, Klettgau (BW) LH Altorfer & Hartmann, 2018, p. 78
111 Enzweihingen, Vaihingen a.d.Enz (BW) LH Fb BaWü 26, 2002, p. 106
112 Herrenberg-Gültstein-Kampfhans, Tübingen (BW) LH Bofinger, 2005
113 Korntal-Münchingen-Heupfad (BW) LH Lüning et al., 1989
114 Ditzingen-Zechlesmühle- und Stütze, Leonberg (BW) LH Strien & Tillmann, 2001, p. 678
115 Gerlingen-Rossbaum, Ludwigsburg (BW) LH Neth, 1999
116 Stuttgart-Weilimdorf-Grubenäcker (BW) LH Lüning et al., 1989
117 Stuttgart-Mühlhausen-Viesenhäuser Hof (BW) LH Kurz, 1992
118 Bad Cannstatt-Wilhelma (BW) LH Strien & Tillmann, 2001
119 Filderstadt-Bernhausen-Stegäcker (BW) LH Lüning et al., 1989
120 Rottenburg-Fröbelweg, Tübingen (BW) LH Bofinger, 2005
121 Hailfingen-Tübinger Weg (BW) LH Bofinger, 2005
122 Ammerbuch-Pfäffingen-Lüsse, Tübingen (BW) LH Bofinger, 2005
123 Ammerbuch-Reusten-Stützbrunnen (BW) LH Bofinger, 2005
124 Ittenheim, Kocherberg, Bas-Rhin LH Lefranc, 2008
125 Schwindratzheim-Les Terrasses de la Zorn, Bas-Rhin Lim Lefranc & Michler, 2015, p. 41
126 Onnens-Praz Berthoud, Jura-Nord, CH oth Jacob & Falquet, 2015
127 Lutter, Abri-sous-roche Saint-Joseph, couche 5, CH oth Jeunesse et al., 2019
128 Niedernai, Foegel, Bas-Rhin LH Jeunesse, 1987
129 Bischoffsheim, Le Village, Bas-Rhin LH, BK Jeunesse, 1987; Jeunesse & Sainty, 1991
130 Bischoffsheim-Afua du Stade, Bas-Rhin Lim Lefranc & Michler, 2015, p. 41
131 Rosheim, Gachot Bas-Rhin Lim, LH Jeunesse & Constantin, 1982; Jeunesse & Sainty, 1987
132 Rosheim, Mittelfeld, Bas-Rhin LH, Lim Jeunesse et al., 2001
133 Rosheim, Saint-Odile, Bas-Rhin LH, Lim Jeunesse & Lefranc, 1999; Lefranc & Michler, 2015, p. 41
134 Rosheim-Rittergass, Bas-Rhin Lim Lefranc & Michler, 2015
135 Entzheim-Les Terres de la Chapelle, Bas-Rhin Lim Lefranc & Michler, 2015, p. 41
136 Mittelhausen-Kellen, Bas-Rhin Lim Lefranc & Michler, 2015, p. 41
137 Colmar, Rufacher Huben, Haut-Rhin LH Jeunesse, 1987
138 Wettolsheim, Ricoh, Haut-Rhin Lim, BK, LH Jeunesse et al., 1991
139 Merxheim, Zapfenloch, Haut-Rhin LH, BK Jeunesse, 1987
140 Ensisheim, Ratfeld, Haut-Rhin LH Jeunesse & Sainty, 1992
141 Ensisheim, Les Octrois, Haut-Rhin LH Jeunesse, 1993
142 Sierentz, Sandgrube, Haut-Rhin LH Wolf et al., 1993
143 Goldacker, Gächlingen, CH LH Altorfer & Hartmann, 2018
144 Singen, Torkelweg (BW) LH Hald, 2005
145 Liestal-Hurlistraße, CH LH Sedlmeier, 2003
146 Oberlarg, Mannlefelsen I, Haut-Rhin LH Jeunesse, 1987
147 Bavans, abri sud/sud-ouest, Doubs LH, BK, oth Jeunesse, 1987
148 Quitteur, Quitteur, Haute-Saone LH Jeunesse, 1993
149 Choisey, les Champins, Jura LH Pétrequin et al., 2009
150 Bretonvilliers, Abri de Gigot I, Doubs LH Cupillard et al., 1991
151 Le Locle, Col des Roches, Neuchatel, CH LH Cupillard et al., 1991
152 Baulmes, Abri de la Cure, Vaud, CH LH Jeunesse et al., 1991
153 Grotte du Gardon, Amberieux-en-Bugey, Ain BK, oth Manen & Convertini, 2009
154 Neuville, Abri du Roseau, Ain LH Guillet, 1995
155 Maring-Noviand Siebenborn, RP Lim, BK Schmidgen-Hager, 1993
156 Trier-Euren Schloss Monaise, RP Lim Schmidgen-Hager, 2003
157 Bitburg-Prüm-Peffingen, RP Lim Löhr, 1984
158 Hersberg-Auf den Leien, L BK Valotteau et al., 2009
159 Diekirch-Dechensgaart, L Lim Le Brun-Ricalens, 1995
160 Medernach-Savelborn-Baachbierg, L BK Löhr & Ewers-Bartimes, 1985
161 Medernach Reineschhaff, L Lim Spier et al., 2001–2002
162 Mersch-Haard, L BK Hauzeur & Löhr, 2008
163 Mamer-Juckelsboesch, L BK, LH Cziesla, 2015, p. 188; Hauzeur & Löhr, 2008
164 Hesperange-Teschebuchels, L Lim Löhr & Spier, 1982
165 Weiler-la-Tour, Mechel, L LH Le Brun-Ricalens & Grisse, 1993
166 Weiler-la-Tour Holzdréisch, L Lim Jadin, 1996
167 Alzingen-Grossfeld, L BK Hauzeur, 2006
168 Puttelange-lès-Thionville, Himeling, Moselle LH Belland et al., 1985; Petitdidier et al., 2013
169 Altwies, Op dem Boesch, L LH, Lim, BK Hauzeur, 2006
170 Remerschen Schengerwies, L Lim Hauzeur, 2006
171 Remerschen Raederbierg, L Lim Hauzeur & Löhr, 2008
172 Sehndorf-Vor dem Büsch und Hinter’m Dellchen (SL) LH, Lim, BK Fritsch, 2000a,b
173 Montenach-Kirschgasse, F BK Petitdidier et al., 2013
174 Kirschnaumen-Évendorff- Dolem, F BK Petitdidier et al., 2013
175 Malling-derrière le Village, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
176 Malling-Schlammlengt, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
177 Koenigsmacker-Le Village, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
178 Oudrenne Breistroff, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
179 Cattenom-Acheren, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
180 Florange-Daspiche, Moselle Lim Denaire & Robert, 2009
181 Rurange-lès-Thionville-sur Bruche, Guénange, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
182 Vitry-sur-Orne-ZAC de la Plaine, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
183 Homburg-Kirberg, SL Lim Fritsch, 2009
184 Thionville-Elange, F BK Petitdidier et al., 2013
185 Trémery-Zones 3-4-36, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
186 Ay-sur-Moselle-La Tournaille, Moselle Lim, BK Petitdidier et al., 2013
187 Ay-sur-Moselle-Les Velers Jacques, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
188 Ennery RD52C, Moselle Lim Hauzeur & Löhr, 2008
189 La Maxe-Station d’epuration, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
190 Metz-Nord Ban-de-Devant les Ponts, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
191 Filstroff-Avensberg, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
192 Farébersville, Moselle Lim Petitdidier et al., 2013
193 Bréviandes, Aube Lim, BK Laurelut, 2010
194 Orconte-Les Noues, Marne LH Tappret & Villes, 1996
195 Saint-Léger-près-Troyes, Aube Lim Tappret & Villes, 1996
196 Champlay-les Carpes, Yonne Lim Constantin, 1985
197 Gumery-les-Hauts de Trainel, Aube Lim Tappret & Villes, 1996
198 Villeneuve-La-Guyard, Yonne Lim Prestreau, 1992
199 Aufferville, Seine-et-Marne Lim Ilett & Plateaux, 1995, p. 98
200 Villeneuve-Saint-Georges, Val-de-Marne Lim Constantin, 1985
201 Berry-au-Bac-le Chemin de la Pecherie, Aisne Lim Ilett & Plateaux, 1995
202 Berry-au-Bac-le Vieux Tordoir, Aisne Lim Allard et al., 1995
203 Marcilly-en-Beauce, Loir-et-Cher Lim Bailloud et al., 1987
204 Schwarzenbach, St. Wendel (SL) LH Fritsch, 1998
205 Ittenheim, Am Alten Weg, Bas-Rhin oth Jeunesse, 1987, p. 9
206 Romanswiller, Bas-Rhin oth Jeunesse, 1987, p. 9
207 Stützheim, Bas-Rhin oth Jeunesse, 1987, p. 9
208 Mundolsheim, Bas-Rhin oth Jeunesse, 1987, p. 9
209 Bart, Abri Superieur de Chȃtaillon, Doubs oth Aimé et al., 1995, p. 84
210 Colombelles-le-Lazzaro, Calvados Lim Billard et al., 2014
211 Démouville, Calvados Lim Billard et al., 2014
212 Moult–Le Relais de Poste, Calvados Lim Ghesquière et al., 2018
213 Balloy, les Réaudins, Saint-et-Marne Lim Meunier, 2012
214 Barbey, le Buisson Rond, Seine-et-Marne Lim Meunier, 2012
215 Étigny, le Brassot Est, Yonne Lim Meunier, 2012
216 Passy, les Graviers, Yonne Lim Meunier, 2012
217 Sours–les Ouches, Eure-et-Loir Lim Dupont et al., 2010
218 Chambly le Clos de la Riviere, Oise Lim Boucneau et al., 1996
219 Pont-Sainte-Maxence, Oise Lim Alix et al., 1997
220 Ath–Les Haleurs, B Lim Deramaix et al., 2018
221 Ormeignies-Bois de la Bonne Fortune, B Lim Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 17
222 Ormeignies-la Petite Rosière, B Lim Constantin et al., 2010b, p. 17
223 Melsele–Hof ten Damme, B oth van Berg et al., 1992
224 Kerkhove, B oth Crombé, 1986
225 Schellebelle–Aard, B oth Bats & de Reu, 2006
226 Wijmers 2, Wichelen, B oth Perdaen et al., 2011
227 Kalken–Molenmeers, B oth Crombé et al., 2015, p. 34
228 Oudenaarde–Donk (meso1), B oth Crombé & Vanmontfort, 2007
229 Doel Deurganckdok-sector B, B oth Crombé, 2010
230 Hardinxveld-Polderweg, NL oth Louwe Kooijmans, 2003, p. 617

References

Aimé, G. , Jaccottey, L. , & Thévenin, A. (1995). Les Occupations Humaines entre le Paléolithique supérieur et le Néolithique ancien dans le Secteur de Montbélliard. In A. Thévénin (Ed.), Epipaleolithique et Mésolithique entre Seine et Rhin. Table Ronde d’Ancerville 1989 (pp. 79–100). Paris: Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besancon, 567.Search in Google Scholar

Alix, P. , Arbogast, R.-M. , Pinard, E. , & Prodeo, F. (1997). Le méandre de Pont-Sainte-Maxence (Oise) au Néolithique ancien. In Jeunesse, C. (Ed.), Le Néolithique danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine, actes du 22e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Strasbourg, 27–29 octobre 1995) (pp. 359–399). Strasbourg: Supplément aux Cahiers de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace 3.Search in Google Scholar

Allard, P. , Dubouloz, J. , Hachem, L. , Ilett, M. , & Robert, B. (1995). Berry-au-Bac “le Vieux Tordoir”: le fin d’un grand sauvetage et la fouille d un nouveau site rubané. In Université de (Ed.), Les Fouilles Protohistoriques dans la Vallée de l’Aisne (FPVA) (No. 23, Rapport d’activité) (pp. 11–96). Panthéon-Sorbonne: Centre de Recherches Protohistoriques de l’université de Paris 1.Search in Google Scholar

Altorfer, K. , & Hartmann, C. (2018). Frühe Bauern im Klettgau – Der alt- und mittelneolithische Siedlungsplatz Gächlingen-Goldäcker. Schaffhausen: Schaffhauser Archäologie 10.Search in Google Scholar

Amkreutz, L. , Vanmontfort, B. , De Bie, M. , & Verbeek, C. (2010). Bowls of contention. Mesolithic sites with pottery in the Lower Rhine Area. In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , & L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, Farmers and Foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area (pp. 15–26). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 20.Search in Google Scholar

Bailloud, G. , Cordier, G. , Gruet, M. , & Poulain, T. (1987). Le Néolithique ancien et moyen de la vallée de la Brisse (Loir-et-Cher). Revue archéologique du Centre de la France, 26, 117–163.Search in Google Scholar

Bats, M. , Crombé, P. , Devriendt, I. , Langohr, R. , Mikkelsen, J. H. , Ryssaert, C. , … Van Strydonck, M. (2002). Onderzoek langs de omleiding N273 te Haelen (Provincie Limburg, Nederland): Vroeg-Mesolithicum en Vroeg-Neolithicum. Notae Praehistoricae, 22, 87–102.Search in Google Scholar

Bats, M. , & de Reu, J. (2006). Evaluerend onderzoek van boringen in de Kalkense Meersen (Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgie). Notae Praehistoricae, 26, 171–176.Search in Google Scholar

Belland, G. , Blouet, V. , & Leesch, D. (1985). Eléments mésolithiques et Néolithique moyen de la station d’Himeling (commune de Puttelange-les-Thionville, Moselle, France). Bulletin de la Sociétè Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise, 7, 91–102.Search in Google Scholar

Billard, C. , Bostyn, F. , Hamon, C. , & Meunier, K. (Eds.). (2014). L’habitat du Néolithique ancien de Colombelles “Le Lazzaro” (Calvados). Paris: Memoire LVIII de la Société Préhistorique Francaise.Search in Google Scholar

Binder, D. , Clop, X. , Convertini, F. , Manen, C. , & Sénépart, I. (2010). Les productions céramique du Néolithique ancien entre Provence et Catalogne. In Premières sociétés paysannes de Méditerranée occidentale. Structures des productions céramiques. Séance de la société préhistorique Francaise. Toulouse, 11–12 Mai 2007 (pp. 115–129). Paris: Mémoire LI de la Société préhistorique Francaise.Search in Google Scholar

Blouet, V. , Klag, T. , Petitdidier, M.-P. , Thomashausen, L. , Ilett, M. , & Constantin, C. (2013). Synchronisation des séquences du Rubané de Lorraine et du Bassin parisien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Francaise, 110, 513–537. 10.3406/bspf.2013.14294.Search in Google Scholar

Bofinger, J. (2005). Untersuchungen zur neolithischen Besiedlungsgeschichte des Oberen Gäus. Stuttgart: Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Württemberg 68.Search in Google Scholar

Bosquet, D. , Fock, H. , Goffioul, C. , & Preud’homme, D. (1998). Le site de Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher – Podri l’Cortri: Résultat du fouilles. Notae Praehistoricae, 18, 131–140.Search in Google Scholar

Bosquet, D. , & Golitko, M. (2012). Highlighting and characterising the pioneer phase od the Hesbayen Linear Pottery Culture (Liège province, Belgium). In R. Smolnik (Ed.), Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung “Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!” Leipzig, 23. bis 24. September 2010 (pp. 91–106). Dresden: Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 25.Search in Google Scholar

Boucneau, N. , Bostyn, F. , & Martinez, R. (1996). Chambly “Le Clos de la Rivière” (Oise): Un site Rubané récent très occidental. In P. Duhamel (Ed.), La Bourgogne entre les bassins rhénan, rhodanien et parisien: Carrefour ou frontière? Actes du XVIIIe colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Dijon 25–27 octobre 1991 (14e Supplement, pp. 271–294). Dijon: Revue d’archéologie de l’Est.Search in Google Scholar

Bridger, C. , & Siegmund, F. (1985). Altneolithisches aus Xanten. Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn, 185, 301–312.Search in Google Scholar

Brounen, F. T. S. (1985). HVR 183; vroeg-, midden- en laatneolithische vondsten te Echt-Annendaal. Archeologie in Limburg, 24, 66–71.Search in Google Scholar

Brounen, F. T. S. (1999). Vroegneolithische Begleitkeramiek uit Limburg en Noord Brabant. Archeologie in Limburg, 82, 59–64.Search in Google Scholar

Brounen, F. , & de Jong, J. (1988). Opmerkelijke vroegneolithische vondsten bij Gassel, ge. Beers. Westerheem, 37, 183–192.Search in Google Scholar

Brounen, F. T. S. , Drenth, E. , & Schreurs, J. (2010a). Ittervoort Damszand. A find of La Hoguette pottery and Begleitkeramik in the Dutch province of Limburg. In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , & L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, Farmers and Foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area (pp. 105–113). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 20.Search in Google Scholar

Brounen, F. T. S. , Drenth, E. , & Schut, P. A. C. (2010b). La Hoguette north of the Rhine. The Ede Frankeneng site revisited. In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , & L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, farmers and foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the lower Rhine area (pp. 95–104). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 20.Search in Google Scholar

Brounen, T. S. , & Hauzeur, A. (2010). The cannelured version of Begleitkeramik; a survey of finds and sites. In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , & L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, Farmers and Foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area (pp. 49–63). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 20.Search in Google Scholar

Brounen, F. T. S. , & Vromen, H. (1990). A find of La Hoguette pottery at Geleen (South-Limburg, the Netherlands). Helinium, 30, 36–43.Search in Google Scholar

Buttler, W. , & Haberey, W. (1936). Die bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei Köln-Lindenthal. Berlin: Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 11.Search in Google Scholar

Caillaud, P. , & Lagnet, E. (1972). Le cairn et le crématoire néolithiques de La Hoguette à Fontenay-le-Marmion (Calvados). Gallia Préhistoire, 15, 137–198.Search in Google Scholar

Cladders, M. (2001). Die Tonware der Ältesten Bandkeramik: Untersuchung zur zeitlichen und räumlichen Gliederung. Bonn: Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 72.Search in Google Scholar

Cladders, M. , & Stäuble, H. (2003). Das 53. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Aufbruch und Wandel. In J. Eckert , U. Eisenhauer , & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel (pp. 491–505). Rahden/Westf: Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65, Geburtstag.Search in Google Scholar

Claßen, E. (2011). Siedlungen der Bandkeramik bei Königshoven. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 64. Darmstadt: Philip von Zabern.Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, C. , & Haeck, J. (1979). Un tesson de la Céramique de Limbourg dans l’Omalien de Hesbaye. Bulletin de la Société Belge d’Etudes Géologiques et Archéologique Les Chercheurs de la Wallonie, 24, 51–55.Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, C. (1985). Fin du Rubané, céramique du Limbourg et post-Rubané: Le Néolithique le plus ancien en Bassin Parisien et en Hainaut (British Archeological Reports International Series 273/1,2). Oxford: BAR publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, C. (1986). La sequence des cultures à céramique dégraissée à l’os. Néolithique du Bassin parisien et du Hainaut. In J.-P. Demoule & J. Guilaine (Eds.), Le Néolithique de la France. Hommage à Gérard Bailloud (pp. 113–127). Paris: Picard.Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, C. , & Demarez, L. (1981). Élements non-rubanés du Néolithique ancien entre les Vallées du Rhin inférieur et de la Seine. III. Céramique du Limbourg: Aubechies (Hainaut). Helinium, 21, 209–226.Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, C. , & Ilett, M. (1997). Une étappe finale dans le Rubané récent du Bassin parisien. In Le Néolithique danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine. Actes du 22ème colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Strasbourg 27–29 octobre 1995 (pp. 281–300). Supplément aux Cahiers de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace 3.Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, C. , Allard, P. , Demarez, L. (2010b). Le site rubané d’Aubechies “Coron-Maton” (Hainaut). Fouilles de 1984 à 2002. In Le Néolithique ancien de Belgique: Sites du Hainaut et des Hesbaye. Bulletin du Cercle archéologique Hesbaye-Condroz, 30, 5–111.Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, C. , Coudart, A. , & Boureux, M. (1981). Élements non-rubanés du Néolithique ancien entre les Vallées du Rhin inférieur et de la Seine. II. Céramique du Limbourg: Vallée de l’Aisne. Helinium, 21, 161–175.Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, C. , Denis, S. , Allard, P. , Burnez-Larotte, L. , Farrugia, J.-P. , Hachem, L. , … Van Assche, M. (2018). Le site rubané d’Aubechies “Coron-Maton” (Hainaut). Les Fouilles de 2012. Bulletin du Cercle Archéologique Hesbaye-Condroz, 33, 7–36.Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, C. , Ilett, M. , & Burnez-Lanotte, L. (2010a). La Hoguette, Limburg and the Mesolithic: Some questions. In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , & L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, farmers and foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area (pp. 41–48). Leiden.Search in Google Scholar

Crombé, P. (1986). Een prehistorische site te Kerkhove (Mesolithicum – Neolithicum). West-Vlaamse Archeologica, 2, 3–39.Search in Google Scholar

Crombé, P. (2010). Swifterbant pottery from the Lower Scheldt Basin (NW Belgium). In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , & L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, farmers and foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area (pp. 161–165). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 20.Search in Google Scholar

Crombé, P. , & Vanmontfort, B. (2007). The neolithisation of the Scheldt basin in western Belgium. In A. Whittle & V. Cumming (Eds.), Going over, the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Northwest Europe (pp. 263–285). London: Oxford University Press/British Academy.Search in Google Scholar

Crombé, P. (2009). Early pottery in hunter-gatherer societies of Western Europe. In P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil (Eds.), Ceramics before farming. The dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers (pp. 477–498). Walnut Creek: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Crombé, P. , Sergant, J. , Perdaen, Y. , Meylemans, E. , & Deforce, K. (2015). Neolithic Pottery finds at the Wetland site of Bazel-Kruibeke (Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen/B). Evidence of long-distance forager-farmer contact during the late sixth and fifth millenium calBC in the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt area. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 45, 21–39.Search in Google Scholar

Cupillard, C. , Petrequin, P. , Piningre, J.-F. , & Richard, H. (1991). La néolithisation du Jura. In Mésolithique et néolithisation en France et dans les régions limitrophes. Actes du 113e Congrès national des Sociétès savantes: Commission de préhistoire et protohistoire (5–9 avril 1988; Strasbourg) (pp. 347–387). Paris: Eds. du Comité des trav. hist. et sci. (CTHS), Commission de pré- et protohist.Search in Google Scholar

Cziesla, E. (2015). Grenzen im Wald. Stabilität und Kontinuität während des Mesolthikums in der Mitte Europas. Rahden: Berliner Archäologische Forschungen 15.Search in Google Scholar

Denaire, A. , & Robert, F. (2009). Florange “Avenue de Lorraine”. Un site d’habitat du Néolithique ancien et moyen en Moselle. RFO de fouille préventive. Metz: Service Régional de l’Archéologie Lorraine.Search in Google Scholar

Deramaix, I. , & Demarez, L. (1989). Installations néolithique à Blicquy “Couture-du-Couvent” (Hainaut). Notae Praehistoricae, 9, 41–47.Search in Google Scholar

Deramaix, I. , Zeebroek, M. , Jadin, I. , & Denis, S. (2018). Le site du Néolthique ancien des “Haleurs” à Ath (Prov. de Hainaut, BE). Premiers résultats et perspectives. Notae Praehistoricae, 38, 267–289.Search in Google Scholar

Destexhe-Jamotte, J. (1962). La céramique omalienne. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d’Etudes Géologiques et Archéologiques “Les Chércheurs de la Wallonie”, 18, 1–92.Search in Google Scholar

Dupont, F. , Irribaria, R. , & Liagre, J. (2010). Sours “Les Ouches” (Eure-et-Loir), un site original du Villeneuve-Saint-Germain ancien en région Centre. In C. Billard & M. Legris (Eds.), Premiers Néolithiques de l’Ouest. Actes du colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Le Havre 2007) (pp. 75–100). Rennes, PU Rennes (Archéologie et Culture).Search in Google Scholar

Farrugia, J.-P. , Kuper, R. , Lüning, J. , & Stehli, P. (1973). Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 2, Gemeinde Aldenhoven, Kreis Düren. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 13. Bonn: Rheinland-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Friederich, S. (2011). Bad Friedrichshall-Kochendorf und Heilbronn-Neckargartach. Studie zum mittelneolithischen Siedlungswesen im Mittleren Neckarland. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg Band 123. Stuttgart: Theiss.Search in Google Scholar

Fritsch, T. (1998). Studien zur vorurnenfelderzeitlichen Besiedlung des Saar-Mosel-Raumes. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 67. Bonn: Habelt.Search in Google Scholar

Fritsch, T. (2000a). Keramik der Gruppe La Hoguette von Sehndorf. In A. Miron (Ed.), Archäologische Untersuchungen im Trassenverlauf der Bundesautobahn A 8 im Landkreis Merzig-Wadern, Saarbrücken (Bericht der Staatlichen Denkmalpflege im Saarland) (pp. 219–225). Abteilung Bodendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 4.Search in Google Scholar

Fritsch, T. (2000b). Limburger Keramik von Sehndorf. In A. Miron (Ed.), Archäologische Untersuchungen im Trassenverlauf der Bundesautobahn A 8 im Landkreis Merzig-Wadern, Saarbrücken (Bericht der Staatlichen Denkmalpflege im Saarland) (pp. 227–234). Abteilung Bodendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 4.Search in Google Scholar

Fritsch, T. (2009). Le Néolithique de la Sarre: État de la question. In F. Lebrun-Ricalens , F. Valotteau , & A. Hauzeur (Eds.), Relations interrégionales au Néolithique entre Bassin parisien et Bassin rhénans; résumes des communications. Actes du XXVIe colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Luxembourg, 8–9 novembre 2003. Archaeologia Mosellana, 7, 39–51.Search in Google Scholar

Ghesquière, E. , & Aubry, B. (2013). Mésolithique final et néolithisation en Normandie, carrefour des groupes orientaux et méridionaux. In J. Jaubert , N. Fourment , & P. Depaepe (Eds.), Transition, ruptures et continuité durant la préhistoire. XXVIIe congrès préhistorique de France, Bordeaux – Les Eyzies, 31 may – 5 juin 2010 (Vol. 1, pp. 503–522). Paris: Société préhistorique francaise.Search in Google Scholar

Ghesquière, E. , Le Maux, N. , Lepaumier, H. , & Marcigny, C. (2018). Un Site Rubané/Limbourg en Normandie occidentale: Moult “Le Relais de Poste” (Calvados). InterNeo, 12, 18–34.Search in Google Scholar

Gomart, L. (2010). Variabilité technique des vases du Rubané récent du Bassin parisien (RRBP) et du Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (VSG). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Francaise, 107, 537–548.Search in Google Scholar

Gomart, L. (2014). Traditions techniques et production Céramique au Néolithique Ancien. Étude de huit sites rubanés du nord est de la France et de Belgique. Leiden: Sidestone.Search in Google Scholar

Gomart, L. , & Burnez-Lanotte, L. (2012). Techniques de faconnage, production céramique et identité de potiers: Une aproche technologique de la céramique de style non Rubané du site du Staberg à Rosmeer (Limbourg, Belgique). Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Francaise, 109, 231–250.Search in Google Scholar

Gomart, L. , Hachem, L. , Hamon, C. , Giligny, F. , & Ilett, M. (2015). Household integration in Neolithic villages: A new model for the linear pottery Culture in west-central Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 40, 230–249.Search in Google Scholar

Gosselain, O. (2002). Poteries du Cameroun méridional. Paris: Styles Techniques et Rapports à l’identité.Search in Google Scholar

Gronenborn, D. (2009). Transregional culture contacts and the Neolithization process in Northern Central Europe. In P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil (Eds.), Ceramics before farming. The dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers (pp. 527–550). Walnut Creek: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Guilaine, J. (2001). La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe: Une hypothèse arythmique. Zephyrus, 53–54, 267–272.Search in Google Scholar

Guillet, J.-P. (1995). Un tesson de type La Hoguette à l’abri du Roseau (Ain). In J.-L. Voruz (Ed.), Chronologies néolithiques: De 6000 à 2000 ans avant notre ère dans le bassin rhodanien: Actes du collogue d’ Ambérieu-en-Bugey, september 1992, documents du department d’anthropology et d’écologie de l’Université de Geneve, 20 (pp. 137–138). Ambérieu-en-Bugey: Editions de la Société Préhistorique Rhodanienne.Search in Google Scholar

Günther, K. (1991). Ein Gefäßrest der Gruppe La Hoguette aus dem Unteren Weserbergland. Germania, 69, 153–154.Search in Google Scholar

Hald, J. (2005). Funde der La-Hoguette-Kultur am Hohentwiel in Singen, Kreis Konstanz. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg, 2005, 25–29.Search in Google Scholar

Hauzeur, A. (2006). Le Rubané au Luxembourg. Contribution à l'étude du Rubané du Nord-Ouest Européen, Marché-auy-Poissons/Liège. Lüttich: Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art 10/Études et Recherches Archéologique de l’Université de Liège 114.Search in Google Scholar

Hauzeur, A. , & Löhr, H. (2008). Latéralisation des Armatures rubanées: Apport des donées récentes de la Moselle dans le contexte du Rubané du Nord-Ouest. In J.-M. Pétillon , M.-H. Dias-Meirinho , P. Cattelain , M. Honegger , N. Normand , & N. Valdeyron (Eds.), Recherches sur les armatures de projectiles du Paléolithique superieur au Néolithique. Actes du colloque C83. XV congrès de l’UISPP (Lisbonne 4–9 septembre 2006). Palethnologie, 1, 296–318.Search in Google Scholar

Hofmann, D. (2016). The changing role of ‘hunter-gatherer ceramics’ in an LBK context. In L. Amkreutz , F. Haack , D. Hofmann , & I. Wijk (Eds.), Something out of the ordinary? Interpreting diversity in the Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik and Beyond (pp. 191–224). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Hubert, F. (1981). Quelques traces du passage des Danubiens dans la région de Nivelles. In XLVe Congrès de la Fédération des Cercles d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de Belgique et 1er Congrès de l’Association des Cercles francophones d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de Belgique. Comines 28–31 aout 1980 (pp. 141–148). Comines: Société d’histoire de Comines-Warneton et de la région.Search in Google Scholar

Ilett, M. , & Allard, P. (2008). Habitat rubané à Presles-et-Boves (Aisne). In L. Burnez-Lanotte , M. Ilett , P. Allard (Eds.), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique (5100–4700 av. J.-C.). Autour des recherches de Claude Constantin Namur 24–25 novembre 2006 (pp. 279–299). Société Préhistorique Francaise, Memoire XLIV. Namur: Presse universitaire de Namur.Search in Google Scholar

Ilett, M. , & Constantin, C. (2010). La production céramique du Rubané de la vallée de l’Aisne: État des lieux (pp. 239–248). Memoire LI de la Société Préhistorique Francaise.Search in Google Scholar

Ilett, M. , & Plateaux, M. (1995). Le site néolithique de Berry-au-Bac “Le Chemin de la Pecherie” (Aisne), Monographie du CRA 15. Paris: CNRS Edition.Search in Google Scholar

Jacob, B. , & Falquet, Ch. (2015). Onnens-Praz Berthoud (canton de Vaud, Suisse). Contexte, environnement et occupations du Mésolithique au début du Néolithique (Fouilles de l’autoroute A5•2). Lausanne: Cahiers d’archeologie romande 152.Search in Google Scholar

Jadin, I. (1996). Le Rubané de la Moselle: Trait d’union entre la Rhénanie et la Bassin parisien? Questions et réponses après deux campagnes de fouilles au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. In P. Duhamel (Ed.), La Bourgogne entre les bassins rhénan, rhodanien et parisien. Carrefour ou frontière? Actes du XVIIIe colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Dijon 25–27 octobre 1991 (pp. 101–117). Dijon: Revue Archéologique de l’Est 14e Supplement.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch . (1993). Recherches sur le Néolithique danubien du sud de la plaine du Rhin superieur et du nord de la Franche-Comté. Strasbourg: Université des Sciences Humaines.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch ., & Constantin, C. (1982). Un tesson de la céramique du Limbourg dans une fosse du Rubané ancien d’Alsace. Helinium, 22, 170–173.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch. , & Sainty, J. (1987). L’habitat rubané de Rosheim Gachot (Bas-Rhin): Un cas d’association Céramique lineaire/Céramique du Limbourg/Céramique de la Hoguette?. Cahiers de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archeologique en Alsace, 3, 42–49.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch. , & Sainty, J. (1992). L`habitat Néolithique ancient du site d’Ensisheim “Ratfeld” (Haut-Rhin): Structures, céramique rubanée, céramique non rubanée, parure. Cahiers de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archeologique en Alsace, 8, 95–147.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch. , Kirmann, C. , & Lefranc, P. (2001). Nouveaux tessons de céramique de La Hoguette à Rosheim (Bas-Rhin). Cahiers de l’Association pour la promotion de la recherche archéologique en Alsace, 17, 61-67.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch. , Nicod, P.-Y. , van Berg, P.-L. , & Voruz, J.-L. (1991). Nouveaux témoins d’age néolithique entre Rhone et Rhin. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, 74, 43–78.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, C. , Arbogast, R.-M. , Mauvilly, M. , & Denaire, A. (2019). La couche 5 de Lutter. Le second Mésolithique et la transition avec le Néolithique dans la zone Jura – Plateau suisse (6300–4300 av. J.-C.). In R.-M. Arbogast , S. Griselin , C. Jeunesse , & F. Séara (Eds.), Le second Mésolithique des Alpes à l’Atlantique. Table ronde internationale. Strasbourg, les 3 et 4 novembre 2015 (pp. 55–108). Strasbourg: Mémoire d’Archéologie du Grand-Est.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, C. , & van Willigen, S. (2010). Westmediterranes Frühneolithikum und westliche Linearbandkeramik: Impulse, Interaktionen, Mischkulturen. In D. Gronenborn & J. Petrasch (Eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas (pp. 569–605). Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch . (1986). Rapports avec le Néolithique ancien d’Alsace de la Céramique “danubienne” de La Hoguette (a Fontenay-le-Marmion, Calvados). Revue archéol. Ouest, Supplement no. 1, 41–50.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch . (1987). La Céramique de La Hoguette. Un nouvel “élément non-rubané” du Néolithique ancien de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest. Cahiers Alsaciens d’Archéologie, d’Art et d’Histoire, 30, 5–33.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch . (1995). Cultures danubiennes, élements non rubanés et Néolithique ancien du Midi au VIème millénaire: La dimension chronologique. In J.-L. Voruz (Ed.), Chronologies néolithiques: De 6000 à 2000 avant notre ère dans le bassin rhodanien. Actes du colloque d’Ambérieu-en-Bugey, september 1992, documents du départment d’anthropologie et d’ecologie de l’Université de Genève, 20 (pp. 139–146). Ambérieu-en-Bugey: Éditions de la Société Préhistorique Rhodanienne Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch. , & Lefranc, Ph. (1999). Rosheim “St. Odile” (Bas-Rhin), un habitat rubané avec fosse d’enceinte – Première Partie: Les structures de la céramiques. Cahiers de l’Association pour la promotion de la recherche archéologique en Alsace, 15, 1–111.Search in Google Scholar

Jeunesse, Ch. , & Sainty, J. (1991). Bischoffsheim – Le village (Bas-Rhin): Un habitat rubané avec de céramique de La Hoguette. Cahiers de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archeologique en Alsace, 7, 15–58.Search in Google Scholar

Jordan, P. , & Zvelebil, M. (Eds.). (2009). Ceramics before farming. The dispersal of pottery among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers (pp. 33–89). Routledge: Walnut Creek.Search in Google Scholar

Kalis, A. J. , Meurers-Balke, J. , van der Borg, K. , von den Driesch, A. , Rähle, W. , Tegtmeier, U. , & Thiemeyer, H. (2001). Der La-Hoguette-Fundhorizont in der Wilhelma von Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt. Anthrakologische, archäopalynologische, bodenkundliche, malakozoologische, radiometrische und säugetierkundliche Untersuchungen. In B. Gehlen , M. Heinen , & A. Tillmann (Eds.), Zeit-Räume. Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Taute (pp. 649–672). Bonn, Habelt: Archäologische Berichte 14.Search in Google Scholar

Kirschneck, E. (2020). Neue Überlegungen zu La Hoguette. In V. Becker , J.-H. Bunnefeld , A. O’Neil , G. Woltermann , H.-J. Beier , R. Einicke , (Eds.), Go West! Kontakte zwischen Zentral-und Westeuropa. Varia Neolithica X (pp. 15–24). Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran.Search in Google Scholar

Kloos, U. (1997). Die Tonware. In J. Lüning (Ed.), Ein Siedlungsplatz der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Bruchenbrücken, Stadt Friedberg/Hessen (pp. 151–255). Bonn: Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 39.Search in Google Scholar

Kneipp, J. (1998). Bandkeramik zwischen Rhein, Weser und Main. Studien zu Stil und Chronologie der Keramik. Bonn: Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 47.Search in Google Scholar

Knoche, B. (2010). La Hoguette in the town centre of Soest (Westphalia)? In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, Farmers and Foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area (pp. 125–129). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 20.Search in Google Scholar

Kraft, H.-P. (2007). Jungsteinzeit. In W. Probst (Ed.), Mannheim vor der Stadtgründung; Teil 1, Band 1; der Naturraum Rhein-Neckar: Ur- und Frühgeschichte bis zur Spätantike (pp. 106–133). Regensburg: Pustet.Search in Google Scholar

Kurz, G. (1992). Vorgeschichtliche Siedlungen und Gräber beim Viesenhäuser Hof, Stuttgart-Mühlhausen. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg, 1992, 61–64.Search in Google Scholar

Langenbrink, B. , & Kneipp, J. (1990). Keramik vom Typ La Hoguette aus einer ältestbandkeramischen Siedlung bei Steinfurth im Wetteraukreis. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 20, 149–160.Search in Google Scholar

Laurelut, Ch. (2010). Bréviandes (Aube), un site danubien à forte composante “non rubané” dans la région de Troyes. In C. Billard & L. Legris (Eds.), Premiers Néolithiques de l’Ouest. Actes du colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Le Havre 2007 (pp. 291–304). Rennes: PU Rennes.Search in Google Scholar

Le Brun-Ricalens, F . (1995). Le Néolithique du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Essai de Synthese. Bulletin de la Sociétè Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise, 16, 99–124.Search in Google Scholar

Le Brun-Ricalens, F. , & Grisse, A. (1993). Contribution à l’étude du néolithique ancient non rubané du territoire luxembourgeois: Un tesson de céramique de „type Hoguette“ decouvert à Weiler-la-Tour-“Mechel”. Bulletin de la Sociétè Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise, 14, 107–115.Search in Google Scholar

Lefranc, P . (2008). Nouveaux elements pour une périodisation de la céramique de la Hoguette sur le site rubané d’Ittenheim (Bas-Rhin). Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Francaise, 105, 299–308.Search in Google Scholar

Lefranc, P. , & Michler, M. (2015). Une nouvelle maison du Rubané récent sur le “Site Central” de Rosheim “Rittergass”/“Sainte-Odile” (Bas-Rhin). Revue Archéologique de l’Est, 64, 27–48.Search in Google Scholar

Lefranc, P. (2013). Les relations entre les groupes rubanés d’ Alsace et du bassin de la Seine: L’apport des styles céramiques. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Francaise, 110, 495–512.Search in Google Scholar

Lehmann, J. (2004). Kückelenz, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 54. Darmstadt: Philip von Zabern.Search in Google Scholar

Lemonnier, P. (Ed.). (1993). Technological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Lichardus-Itten, M. (1986). Premières influences méditerranéennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien. In J.-P. Demoule & J. Guilaine (Eds.), Le Néolithique de la France. Hommage à Gérard Bailloud (pp. 147–160). Paris: Picard.Search in Google Scholar

Lodewijckx, M. (2009). Frontier settlements of the LBK in central Belgium. In P. Bickle & D. Hofmann (Eds.), Creating communities: New advances in Central Eurpean Neolithic research (pp. 32–49). Oxford: Oxbow books.Search in Google Scholar

Lodewijckx, M. (2010). Non-LBK pottery from Wange and Overhespen. In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, Farmers and Foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area (pp. 79–82). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 20.Search in Google Scholar

Loewe, G. (1971). Archäologische Funde und Denkmäler des Rheinlandes 3. Kreis Kempen-Krefeld. Gemeinde Bracht 8 West (pp. 134–135). Düsseldorf: Rheinland-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Löhr, H. (1984). Ein Fund Limburger Keramik von Peffingen, Kr. Bitburg-Prüm. Kurtrierisches Jahrbuch, 24, 19–24.Search in Google Scholar

Löhr, H. , & Ewers-Bartimes, M. (1985). Deux nouveaux témoins du Néolithique ancien au Luxembourg: Herminette de Reisdorf et poterie du Limbourg de Medernach-Savelborn. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise, 7, 103–108.Search in Google Scholar

Löhr, H. , & Spier, F. (1982). Un tesson de la céramique du Limbourg trouvé à Hespérange. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise, 4, 37–43.Search in Google Scholar

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. (2003). The Hardingxveld sites in the Rhine/Meuse Delta, the Nederlands, 5,500–4,500 calBC. In L. Larsson , H. Kindgren , K. Knudsen , D. Loeffler , & A. Akerlund (Eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Papers Presented at the 6th International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000 (pp. 608–624). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Search in Google Scholar

Lüning, J. (1988). Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch RGZM, 35, 27–93.Search in Google Scholar

Lüning, J. , Kloos, U. , & Albert, S. (1989). Westliche Nachbarn der bandkeramischen Kultur: Die Keramikgruppen “La Hoguette“ und” Limburg”. Germania, 67, 355–393.Search in Google Scholar

Lüning, J. , & Stehli, P. (1994). Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Beiträge zur neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte, V. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 36. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Maletschek, T. (2010). Not just bits of bone and shades of red. Bruchenbrücken (Hesse, Germany) and its La Hoguette pottery. In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, Farmers and Foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area (pp. 83–94). Leiden: Archaeological Studies Leiden University 20.Search in Google Scholar

Manen, C. (1997). L’axe rhodano-jurassien dans le problème des relations sud-nord au Néolithique ancien (British Archaeological Reports, Int. Serie 665). Oxford: BAR publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Manen, C. , & Convertini, F. (2009). La céramique du Néolithique ancien. In J.-L. Voruz (Ed.), La grotte du Gardon (Ain). Vol. 1. Le site et la séquence des sixième et cinquième millénaires, couches 60 à 47 (pp. 255–266). Toulouse: Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique.Search in Google Scholar

Manen, C. , & Mazurié de Keroualin, K. (2003). Les concepts “La Hoguette “et” Limburg”: Un bilan des données. In M. Besse , L.-I. Stahl Gretsch , & P. Curdy (Eds.), ConstellaSion. Hommage á Alain Gallay, cahiers d‘ archéologie romande 95 (pp. 115–145). Lausanne.Search in Google Scholar

Marcigny, C. , Aubry, B. , & Mazet, S. (2013). Au bord de l’eau! Les fouilles du Port-au-Chanvre à Alizay et Igoville (Eure), présentation liminaire: Méthodes, attendus, premiers résultats. In Journée archéologiques de Haute-Normandie, Rouen 2012 (pp. 33–46). Rouen: Publications des universités de Rouen et du Havre.Search in Google Scholar

Marichal, H. , Vermeersch, P. M. , & Vanderhoeven, M. (1987). Bandkeramiek te Vlijtingen, Kayberg. Tongeren: Provinciaal Gallo-Romeins Museum.Search in Google Scholar

Mazurkevich, A. , & Dolbunova, E. (2015). The oldest pottery in hunter-gatherer communities and models of Neolithisation of Eastern Europe. Documenta Praehistorica, XLII, 13–66.Search in Google Scholar

Meier-Arendt, W. (1969). Die späteste Linienbandkeramik von Plaidt, Kreis Mayen, und die “Importgruppe 1” von Köln-Lindenthal. Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 10, 9–23.Search in Google Scholar

Meier-Arendt, W. (1972). Ein Gefäßfragment der jungsteinzeitlichen Limburger Gruppe aus Köln-Worringen. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 2, 239–241.Search in Google Scholar

Meunier, K. (2012). Styles céramiques et néolithisation dans le sud-est du Bassin parisien. Une évolution Rubané – Villeneuve-Saint-Germain. Paris: CNRS Editions.Search in Google Scholar

Meunier, K. (2013a). La transition Rubané-Villeneuve-Saint-Germain à travers l'évolution des productions céramiques: Le cas de la région Seine-Yonne. In J. Jaubert , N. Fourment , & P. Depaepe (Eds.), Transition, ruptures et continuité durant la préhistoire. XXVIIe congrès préhistorique de France, Bordeaux – Les Eyzies, 31 may–5 juin 2010 (Vol. 1, pp. 488–502). Paris: Société préhistorique francaise.Search in Google Scholar

Meunier, K. (2013b). La céramique de Juvigny “les Grands Traquiers” (Marne) et le Rubané récent champenois. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Francaise, 110, 421–446.Search in Google Scholar

Meurers-Balke, J. , & Kalis, A. J. (2001). Früh-, alt- und jungneolithische Landnutzung – archäopalynologische Bearbeitung der Wilhelma-Travertine von Bad Cannstatt. In B. Gehlen , M. Heinen , & A. Tillmann (Eds.), Zeit-Räume. Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Taute (pp. 631–648). Bonn, Habelt: Archäologische Berichte 14.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, R. , Otte, M. , & Stewart, J. (2009). Le Mésolithique récent du Trou Al’Wesse (Modave, Prov. de Liège). Decouverte de tessons non rubanés ou “Bereitkeramiek”. Notae Prehistoricae, 29, 5–14.Search in Google Scholar

Modderman, P. J. R. (1970). Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein. Nederlandse Outheden III. S’Gravenhage: Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 3.Search in Google Scholar

Modderman, P. J. R. (1974). Die Limburger Keramik von Kesseleyk. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 4, 4–11.Search in Google Scholar

Modderman, P. J. R. (1981). Élements non-rubanés du Néolithique ancien entre les Vallées du Rhin inférieur et de la Seine. I. Céramique du Limbourg: Rhenanie, Westphalie, Pays-Bas, Hesbaye. Helinium, 21, 140–160.Search in Google Scholar

Nadler, M. (2010). Landnahme in Mainfranken - Eine Siedlung der Ältesten Bandkeramik bei Wallmersbach. Das archäologische Jahr in Bayern, 2010, 11–14 Search in Google Scholar

Neth, A. (1999). Eine Siedlung der frühen Bandkeramik in Gerlingen, Kreis Ludwigsburg. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 79. Stuttgart: Theiss.Search in Google Scholar

Niederlender, A. , Lacam, R. , & Arnal, J. (1966). Le gisement néolithique de Roucadour (Thémines, Lot). Paris: Editions du CNRS.Search in Google Scholar

Perdaen, Y. , Meylemans, E. , Bogemans, F. , Deforce, K. , Storme, A. , & Verdurmen, I. (2011). Op zoek naar prehistorische resten in de wetlands van de Sigmacluster Kalkense Meersen. Prospectief en evaluerend archeologisch onderzoek in het gebied Wijmers 2, zone D/E (Wichelen, prov. Oost-Vl.). Relicta, 8, 9–45.Search in Google Scholar

Perrin, T. (2013). Potentialités de contacts entre mésolithiques et néolithiques dans le sud de la France. In J. Jaubert , N. Fourment , & P. Depaepe (Eds.), Transition, ruptures et continuité durant la préhistoire. XXVIIe Congrès préhistorique de France, Bordeaux – Les Eyzies, 31 may–5 juin 2010 (Vol. 1, pp. 357–372). Paris: Société préhistorique francaise.Search in Google Scholar

Perrin, T. , Manen, C. , Valdeyron, N. , & Guilaine, J. (2018). Beyond the sea. The Neolithic transition in the southwest of France. Quaternary International, 470, 318–332.Search in Google Scholar

Petitdidier, M.-P. , Thomashausen, L. , Decker, E , Constantin, C. , Ilett, M. , … Kieffer, J.-L. (2013). Le Né́olithique ancien en Lorraine. Volume 1: Etude typochronologique de la céramique (Mé́moires de la Socié́té́ pré́historique franç̧aise, Vol. 55).Search in Google Scholar

Pétrequin, P. , Martineau, R. , Nowicki, P. , Gauthier, E. , & Schaal, C. (2009). La poterie Hoguette de Choisey (Jura), les Champins. Observations techniques et insertion régionale. Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Francaise, 106(3), 491–515.Search in Google Scholar

Piezonka, H. (2015). Jäger, Fischer, Töpfer. Wildbeutergruppen mit früher Keramik in Nordosteuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr, Bonn: Habelt.Search in Google Scholar

Prestreau, M. (1992). Le site néolithique et protohistorique des Falaises de Prépoux à Villeneuve-la-Guyard (Yonne). Gallia Préhistoire, 34, 171–207.Search in Google Scholar

Rauba-Bukowska, A. (2009). Bone temper in early Neolithic vessels from southern Poland. Examinations using scanning mikroscopy. In D. Hofmann & P. Bickle (Eds.), Creating communities. New advances in Central European neolithic research (pp. 235–248). Oakville: Oxbow Books.Search in Google Scholar

Rice, P. (1999). On the origins of pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 6, 1–54.Search in Google Scholar

Rice, P. M. (1987). Pottery analysis: A sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rouselle, R. (1984). La céramique danubienne. In M. Otte (Ed.), Les fouilles de la Place Saint-Lambert à Liège I (pp. 153–170). Lüttich: Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège.Search in Google Scholar

Rousseau, J. , Forré, P. , Hamon, G. , & Querré, G. (2015). Un vase de La Hoguette au sud de la Loire (Guibrelou I à Machecoul, Loire-Atlantique). Bulletin Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, 23, 17–37.Search in Google Scholar

Roux, V. (2011). Anthropological interpretation of ceramic assemblages: Foundations and implementations of technological analysis. In S. Scarcella (Ed.), Archaeological ceramics: A review of current research (BAR International Series 2193. pp. 80–88). Oxford: BAR.Search in Google Scholar

Schade-Lindig, S. , & Schade, C. (2010). Woher kommt Flomborn? Keramikimporte und Nachahmungen in der bandkeramischen Siedlung Bad Nauheim-Nieder-Mörle “auf dem Hempler”. In D. Gronenborn & J. Petrasch (Eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas (pp. 461–474). Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz.Search in Google Scholar

Schmidgen-Hager, E. (1993). Neue Forschungen zur Bandkeramik an der mittleren Mosel. In Le Néolithique du nord-est de la France et des régions limitrophes. Actes du XIIIe Colloque Interrégional sur le Néolithique (Metz, 10, 11 et 12 octobre 1986) (pp. 60–63). Paris: Ed. de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.Search in Google Scholar

Schmidgen-Hager, E. (2003). Das Steininventar der bandkeramischen Siedlung Trier-Euren “Schloss Monaise”. Aspekte der Rohmaterialversorgung und Beobachtungen zur Dechselschäftung. In J. Eckert , U. Eisenhauer , & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 407–415). Rahden/Westf.Search in Google Scholar

Schut, P. (1988). Poteries du Néolithique ancien à Ede (Prov. de Gueldre). Helenium, 28, 223–231.Search in Google Scholar

Sedlmeier, J. (2003). Neue Erkenntnisse zum Neolithikum in der Nordwestschweiz. Archäologie der Schweiz, 4, 2–14.Search in Google Scholar

Spatz, H. (1991). Der “Langweiler Typus” – Ein Nachweis der Gruppe Blicquy im Rheinland. Germania, 69, 155–162.Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, L. (1995). Die Vorgeschichte in der Pfalz und am nördlichen Oberrhein. Speyer: Katalog des Historischen Museums Pfalz.Search in Google Scholar

Spier, F. , Ewers, M. , & Stein, J.-P. (2001–2002). Le Mesolithique de la région Medernach - Ermsdorf - Eppeldorf. Une aire de prospection. Bulletin Societè Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise, 23–24, 51–73.Search in Google Scholar

Stöckl, H. (2001). Eine Scherbe der La Hoguette-Keramik aus Herxheim bei Landau. Archäologie in der Pfalz, 2001, 273–277.Search in Google Scholar

Strien, H.-Ch. , Schön, W. , & Gehlen, B. (2018). Westexpansion und Regionalisierung der Ältesten Bandkeramik. (Kommunikation und Wandel). Kerpen-Loogh: Welt und Erde Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Strien, H. C. , & Tillmann, A. (2001). Die La-Hoguette-Fundstelle von Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt: Archäologie. In B. Gehlen , M. Heinen , & A. Tillmann (Eds.), Zeit-Räume. Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Taute (pp. 673–681). Bonn: Habelt.Search in Google Scholar

Tappret, E. , & Villes, A. (1996). Contribution de la Champagne à l’étude du néolithique ancien. In P. Duhamel (Ed.), La Bourgogne entre les bassins rhenan, rhodanien et parisien: Carrefour ou frontière. Actes du XVIIie Colloque Interrégional sur le Néolithique. (Dijon 25–27 octobre 1991). (Revue d’archéologique de l’Est, 14e supplementaire, pp. 175–255). Dijon: Société archéologique de l’Est de la France.Search in Google Scholar

Tromme, F. , & Haeck, J. (1974–1976). Le Village Omalien de “Noir Fontaine” à Horizon-Hozemont. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d’Études Geologiques et Archéologiques Les Chercheurs de Wallonie, 23, 331–378.Search in Google Scholar

Valotteau, F. , Naton, H.-G. , Fabre, M. , Brou, L. , & Spier, F. (2009). La fréquentation au Mésolithique moyen de l’abri-sous-roche “Auf der Leien” à Hersberg, commune de Bech (G.-D. de Luxembourg). Bulletin de la Sociétè Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise, 31, 71–108.Search in Google Scholar

van Berg, P.-L. , & Tromme, F. (1982). Un tesson Néolithique ancien non rubané à Crisnée. Bulletin de la Société belge d’Etudes géologiques et archéologiques “Les chércheurs dé la Wallonie”, 25, 587–590.Search in Google Scholar

van Berg, P.-L. (1987). Céramique de La Hoguette à Sweijkhuizen. Helinium, 27, 259–269.Search in Google Scholar

van Berg, P.-L. (1990). Ceramique du Limbourg et Néolithisation en Europe du Nord-Ouest. In D. Cahen & M. Otte (Eds.), Rubané et Cardial. Actes du Colloque de Liège, novembre 1988 (pp. 161–208). Lüttich: Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Universitè de Liège 39, Université de Liège.Search in Google Scholar

van Berg, P.-L. (1997). La céramique et son décor en Eurasie. In Jeunesse, Ch (Eds.), Le néolithique danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine : XXIIe Colloque interrégional sur le néolithique, Strasbourg, 27-29 octobre 1995 (pp. 223–264). Supplément aux Cahiers de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace 3.Search in Google Scholar

van Berg, P.-L. , Keeley, L.H. , Van Roeyen, J.-P. , & Van Hove, R. (1992). Le Gisement mesolithique de Melsele (Flandre-Orientale, Belgique) et le subneolithique en Europe Occidentale. Revue archeologique Ouest, Supplement 5, 93–99.Search in Google Scholar

van de Velde, P. (2007). On the neolithic pottery from the site. In P. van de Velde (Ed.), Excavations at Geleen-Janskamperveld 1990/1991. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 39, 99–127.Search in Google Scholar

van de Velde, P. (2010). Non-LBK in Dutch LBK. Epi-Limburg ware at Geleen Janskamperveld. In B. Vanmontfort , L. L. Kooijmans , L. Amkreutz , & L. Verhart (Eds.), Pots, Farmers and Foragers. Pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Area (Archaeological Studies Leiden University, pp. 69–78). Leiden: Leiden University Press.Search in Google Scholar

van der Sloot, P. , Damblon, F. , Debenham, N. , Fechner, K. , Gob, A. , Haesaerts, P. , … Banmontfort, B. (2003). Le Mésolithique et le Néolithique du site Saint-Lambert à Liège dans leur contexte chronologique, geologique et environnemental. Synthèse des données et acquis recents. Notae Praehistoricae, 23, 79–104.Search in Google Scholar

van Doosselaere, B. , Burnez-Lanotte, L. , Gomart, L. , & Livingstone-Smith, A. (2013). Analyse technologique de céramiques du Néolithique ancien de Vaux-et-Borset (Hesbaye, B): Résultats préliminaires. Notae Praehistoricae, 33, 15–26.Search in Google Scholar

van Wijk, I. , Amkreutz, L. , & van de Velde, P. (Eds.). (2014). ‘Vergeten’ Bandkeramiek: Een Odyssee naar de oudste neolithische bewoning in Nederland. Leiden: Sidestone Press.Search in Google Scholar

van Willigen, S. (2004). Aspects culturels de la néolithisation en Méditerranée occidentale: Le Cardial et l’Epicardial. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Francaise, 101(3), 463–495.Search in Google Scholar

van Willigen, S. (2018). Between Cardial and Linearbandkeramik: From no-man’s-land to communication sphere. Quaternary International, 470, 333–352.Search in Google Scholar

Verhart, L. B. M. (2000). Times fade away. The neolithization of the southern Netherlands in an anthropological and geographical perspective. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Waterbolk, H. T. (1959). Die bandkeramische Siedlung von Geleen . Palaeohistoria, VI–VII, 121–161.Search in Google Scholar

Wolf, J.-J. , Viroulet, B. , & Trouchaud, N. (1993). Sierentz “Sandgrube” (Haut-Rhin): Un village du Néolithique rubané récent: II, Le mobilier de la maison 7: Mobilier et etude de la céramique. Cahier de l'Association pour la promotion de la recherche archéologique en Alsace, 9, 137–180.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-08-28
Revised: 2021-07-29
Accepted: 2021-08-04
Published Online: 2021-11-23

© 2021 Erich Kirschneck, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.