<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Crossing the line: Multi-layer analysis and the identification of different borderlines

Solène Denis, Elsa Defranould, Kata Furholt, Sonja Kačar

► To cite this version:

Solène Denis, Elsa Defranould, Kata Furholt, Sonja Kačar. Crossing the line: Multi-layer analysis and the identification of different borderlines. Journal of lithic studies, 2025, 12 (2), 28 p. 10.2218/jls.9984. hal-05359398

HAL Id: hal-05359398

https://hal.science/hal-05359398v1

Submitted on 11 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Crossing the line: Multi-layer analysis and the identification of different borderlines

Solène Denis¹, Elsa Defranould², Kata Furholt³, Sonja Kačar⁴

1. CNRS, UMR 8068 TEMPS, MSH Mondes, 21 University Alley, FR-92023 Nanterre Cedex, France.
Email: solene.denis@cnrs.fr

2. École des Hautes Études Hispaniques et Ibériques, Casa de Velázquez, University Campus, 3 Paul Guinard Street, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Email: elsa.defranould@proton.me

3. Institute of Pre- and Protohistory, Kiel University, 2-6 Johanna-Mestorf Street, 24118 Kiel, Germany.
Email: kata.furholt@ufg.uni-kiel.de

4. Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Dominikanerbastei 16, 1010 Vienna, Austria. Email: sonja.kacar@oeaw.ac.at

## Abstract:

This paper introduces a volume that brings together specialists in lithic studies to explore how this proxy can reveal different spatial patterns across a large European territory. It examines how diverse behaviours in various environmental and geographical areas can enhance our understanding of social processes during European neolithisation. Initially, we investigate the concept of borders and borderlines, proposing models based on the space considered as a border, the presence of sought-after resources within this space, the agents present, and the nature of interactions between these agents. Subsequently, we discuss the potential of lithic analysis for identifying social groups and different types of borders. Neolithic cultural entities have primarily been defined through typo-stylistic analysis of pottery, while lithics are underutilised in this context. Lithics, however, offer a valuable proxy for understanding the spatial distribution of these entities. Petrographic studies now allow us to precisely define lithic sources, and all actions carried out on these raw materials are readable. Lithics thus enable the tracking of raw material origins and the movement of these materials within a given area. Establishing these circulation networks is crucial for understanding the spaces occupied by prehistoric people and the nature of their interactions. This approach allows us to map and compare spatial groupings based on consumer and producer perspectives. We argue for the necessity of multi-proxy studies and modelling to gain new insights into spatial grouping patterns and their evolution, particularly by considering borderlines at the scale of social groups.

**Keywords:** Mesolithic; Neolithic; Europe; lithic artefacts; raw materials; circulation networks; spatial patterns; social organisation

## 1. Introduction and background

This paper is conceived as an introduction to the special volume entitled "Borderline lithics: from spatial patterns to social processes during the European neolithisation". This volume is the result of session 252 of the 28th Annual Meeting of the European Association
of Archaeologists, held in Budapest (Hungary) in 2022. In what follows, the term "borderline" is understood as an umbrella term for spatial and temporal overlapping and social processes, which clearly includes the notion of indefinite situations or so-called transformations i.e., periods or places where borders become fluid and new social configurations emerge. Our aim is to explore this notion through lithic analysis. This choice is based on the ubiquity of lithics in prehistoric societies, making this proxy relevant for discussing the transition from foraging to Neolithic production economies. Moreover, for a long time our comprehension of Neolithic societies has primarily centred on the study of pottery, an innovation very often concomitant with neolithisation. So, the ambition of this session was to gather specialists in lithic studies to question how this proxy can highlight different spatial patterns in a large European territory and how this diversity of behaviours in the face of different environmental and geographical areas can help us to better understand the social processes at play during the European neolithisation.

First, we begin by briefly examining two key concepts that extend beyond the social sciences and are frequently employed by prehistorians: archaeological culture and territory. These concepts can be approached through the lens of their boundaries, raising questions of frontiers, borders, and liminal spaces. Our objective is not to provide an exhaustive definition or a comprehensive history of their use, but rather to clarify how we interpret these notions and to highlight their relevance for understanding the processes of neolithisation. The second section focuses on the methodological tools used to identify and analyse borderlines -whether geographical, chronological, or cultural- based on lithic data. Finally, we underscore the importance of multi-layered analysis for gaining a deeper understanding of the complexity inherent in Mesolithic and Neolithic trajectories.

This volume brings together a series of case studies that explore how lithic analysis can help identify and interpret border phenomena - be they spatial, technical, or social - across Neolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Through diverse regional perspectives and timeframes, the papers address questions of mobility, interaction, and group identity, demonstrating that lithics provide independent and complementary insights into traditional cultural definitions. These contributions offer a rich comparative ground for discussing the heuristic value of concepts such as liminality, technical traditions, and circulation networks.

## 1.1. The Core: Material Culture, Identity and Archaeological Cultures

One of the challenges of archaeological research is to answer questions such as 'Who made these tools? Who decorated these pots?' and 'What meanings can be attached to these gestures?' (for a historical account of the theoretical approach to these questions, see Harris & Cipolla 2017). To do this, we draw, implicitly or not, on the notions of cultures or cultural identities as defined by anthropology. It is primarily a question of positioning ourselves as observers of a human group to which we do not belong. This concept is above all a tool for comparing entities with one another (Boissinot 2015). It should also be borne in mind that individuals within the same group may hold multiple identities, and that the hierarchy of these identities can vary depending on the social, political, or economic context (Tremblay 1999).

The documentary records available to prehistorians are obviously not the same as those available to anthropologists. However, ways of doing (in the sense of a community of practices), living, burying and representing have meaning for those who produce and reproduce them. For these reasons, the traditional cultural-historical approach, which defines (prehistoric) archaeological cultures through shared traditions or ways of doing (Childe 1936) and more recently referred to 'cultural groups' in Cauliez (2009) or 'social groups carrying traditions' in Roux (2020), remains useful for reconstructing how human communities occupied territories, exploited environments, and managed their economies.
**1.2. Territory as a Lens for Culture and Space Interactions**

In prehistory, the question of territory is very often linked to that of culture, since it involves understanding the relationships between human groups and space. Historically, questions of territory have often been approached either through ethnographic comparisons, especially with subactual hunter-gatherer populations, or through questions of human mobility (e.g., Binford 1980; Bracco 2005; Renfrew 1984). Several parameters are involved in the definition of territory:

- The geographical aspect, which has to do, for example, with topographical and climatic constraints and the availability of different resources (Brunet 2001).

- Human action on this space (e.g., in terms of resource management) and, conversely, how this space is interpreted by human communities (e.g., Bracco 2005; Delvigne 2016).

- The link between an ideal space and a material space, in particular the way in which culture is integrated into a territory (Claval 2002), since "it is through the existence of a culture that a territory is created, and it is through the territory that the symbolic relationship between culture and space is reinforced and expressed" (translated from Bonnemaison 1981: 254).

- The use of territories in the long term, since it is the notion of repetitive mobility, of routes and repeated use of places that allows the shaping of the territory beyond simple one-off movements (Bonnemaison 1981; Gouletquer 2022).

- The question of geographical scales of observation and routes is also important, since territories are a combination of different spaces or places, more or less extensive, more or less known and travelled, and more or less nested within each other. Thus, depending on the approach taken, we can see territories as a patchwork of contiguous areas within a geographical division or, on the contrary, we can have a more dynamic vision made up of different geographical spaces that more or less fit into each other and are not necessarily contiguous.

Obviously, archaeology alone does not give us access to all the dimensions of prehistoric territories. In most cases, we limit ourselves to an economic and geographical approach to the territory, based on mobility (seasonality, circulation of certain objects, isotopic analyses, etc.) and networks of places (archaeological sites with different functions and areas where different raw materials were acquired, etc.).

**1.3. Liminal Spaces as a Means to Decompartimentalise Archaeological Cultures**

In prehistory, archaeological entities cannot be approached in the same way as modern states, with their clear dividing lines. We prefer the term ‘liminal zone’ over frontier, border, or periphery, as it moves us away from a polarised model that opposes a centre (concentrating power, wealth, and dense populations) to peripheries defined merely as the centre’s negative (Cattan 2006). Instead, our focus is on the set of dialectical interactions occurring within contact zones, which Parker aptly describes as ‘boundary processes’ (Parker 2006: 78).

For this special issue, we have chosen to focus on the phenomenon of transitions and liminalities - whether social, spatial, or temporal - which we regard as a powerful lens by which to counter the tendency to view cultures as fixed in time and space. By ‘liminal zone’ or ‘borderline’, we refer to fluid, dynamic, shifting spheres that are constantly reshaped by complex systems of mobility and interaction. This perspective provides a valuable framework for understanding archaeological phenomena, particularly the processes of neolithisation.

Neolithisation, a key moment for human societies, in particular in terms of changing relationships with the environment, is a perfect object of study for questioning these notions
of boundary processes. Indeed, the neolithisation process involves ‘movement and contact’
(Zvelebil 2001: 1), in particular:

i) The colonisation of new areas, *i.e.*, the appropriation of territories (whether inhabited or not) for settlement or resource exploitation, and

ii) Interactions between different human groups, such as late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and early agro-pastoral communities

Examining the phenomenon through its margins is particularly fruitful, as it highlights two perspectives on liminal spaces. First, there are spaces at the margins or the confines of an entity, which are considered to be an uncertain, less populated and less controlled periphery. The space of the frontier then becomes a territory to be appropriated or colonised, for example, in order to deal with demographic pressure, to control a new territory and to appropriate its resources (Parker 2006: 81). Second, there are spaces of variable breadth (ranging from an imaginary line to a defined area) that separate or connect two entities. Depending on their permeability, these spaces can function either as lines of demarcation (gaps) or as bridges linking entities (Donnan & Wilson 1999: 19-42). Liminal spaces can thus be understood in terms of the bridge *versus* gap dialectic framework.

Consequently, these zones are mobile and constantly shaped by processes of opening and closing, offering a lens through which to examine the dynamic relationship with technical and cultural norms, including their potential transgression (Amilhat Szary 2013). As such, they serve as a crucial conceptual tool for understanding complex territorialities and interactions among prehistoric communities.

**2. Lithics at the Centre: Methodological Tools for Deciphering Spatial Patterns**

This volume brings together lithic studies that question how this technical sub-system
can provide essential data for qualifying transitions and liminalities. The development of
relevant methods for characterising siliceous raw materials (Brandl 2016; Bressy 2003;
Delvigne et al. 2019; 2020; Fernandes 2012) allows us to reconstruct the biographies of stone
tools (van Gijn 2010), from the extraction of the raw materials to the disposal of the tools,
especially following the concept of the *chaîne opératoire* (e.g., Cresswell 1976; Leroi-
Gourhan 1964; Tostevin 2011). To explore entities (concentration *versus* expansion) and their
borderline effects (*gap versus* bridge), a set of tools that delineate different entities based on
the social reproduction of technical systems and practices can be particularly useful: the study
of the toolkits, the study of technical identities, the question of craft specialisation and the
study of raw material circulation networks.

**2.1. Cultural Entities Based on Toolkits: The Consumers' Perspective**

To decipher spatial patterns through the medium of lithic studies, one approach can be to
focus on the toolkits themselves. This method can combine typo-technology or use-wear
analysis to highlight specific characteristics shared among different communities in order to
compare different entities. The emphasis on the toolkit essentially allows us to define spatial
groupings from the consumers' perspective, as it exclusively centres on the final products and
their use.

The typology-based methods allow a detailed descriptive approach to the tools, which in
this case are made of stone. This approach is therefore fundamentally classificatory, allowing
the comparison of different assemblages. Certain tools or weapons, by virtue of their function,
are believed to have had an important value in the eyes of those who produced and
reproduced them, as is the case, for example, of arrowheads (see Allard & Delvigne 2025, in
this volume) or sickle blades (see Barrera-Cruz et al. 2025, in this volume) (Figure 1). We
have to bear in mind that the typology is not sufficient in itself, but the recognition in time
and space of certain types of tools or toolkits allows us to approach a certain reality of prehistoric groups. That is to say, it participates to a certain extent in defining archaeological cultures, *i.e.*, entities defined by i) an external observer (as opposed to so-called emic cultures, *i.e.*, as perceived by the groups studied) and by ii) an association of common material traits (Boissinot 1998; Gallay 2016; Sackett 1982; 1986; Tremblay 1999).

In order to be effective, this approach must not simply document a single comparative parameter but must propose a global approach, taking into account the technical processes of manufacture, the morphology of the objects and the functional data for certain types of tools (Defranould *et al.* 2022; Léa *et al.* 2009). If we take the example of sickle inserts, emblematic tools of the Neolithic, the study of such variations (hafting, types of blanks, intensity of use) makes it possible to highlight differentiated practices on the scale of the northern Mediterranean, testifying to the adaptation of human groups to the processes of territorial extension and as well as to different agricultural and harvesting practices (Mazzucco *et al.* 2020).

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Examples of groupings obtained through the study of the toolkit. 1) Sub-groups within the LBK in Northwestern Europe based on typo-technological characteristics of arrowheads, from Allard 2005, modified; 2) Sickle blades and harvesting technology, from Mazzucco *et al.* 2018.</figcaption></figure>

Abbildung 1. Beispiele für Gruppierungen, die durch Forschung zu Werkzeugensembles gewonnen wurden. 1) Untergruppen innerhalb des LBK in Nordwesteuropa auf der Grundlage typo-technologischer Merkmale von Pfeilspitzen, aus Allard 2005; 2) Sichelmesser und Erntetechnik, aus Mazzucco *et al.* 2018.

1. ábra. A kőeszközkészlet elemzése alapján meghatározott csoportok példái. 1) A Vonaldíszes kultúrkör északnyugat-európai alcsoportjai a nyílhegyek tipológiai és technológiai jellemzői alapján, Allard 2005 alapján módosítva; 2) Sarlópengék és betakarítási technológia, Mazzucco *et al.* 2018 nyomán.

Therefore, the study of the toolkit involves two main aspects: i) the investigation of shared material characteristics which enables researchers to identify spatial groupings, interpreted as archaeological cultures or techno-complexes (see Kačar 2025, in this volume); ii) the examination of specific features within individual tools, particularly arrowheads or sickles, which enables researchers to discern sub-groupings, representing regional groups associated with specific activities such as hunting or harvesting (see Barrera-Cruz *et al.* 2025). The relationship between both layers (archaeological cultures versus sub-groupings) remains difficult to assess in terms of interpretation and attempts to propose a holistic view of these multi-layer perspectives are rare. One point that is repeatedly raised is the lack of
correlation between these sub-groups and the regional groups established on the basis of
stylistic studies of ceramics (Allard 2005; Mazzucco et al. 2020); this issue is highlighted
here by Allard & Delvigne (2025). Mazzucco and colleagues (2020) pointed out another
aspect related to the processes of change in harvesting toolkits: the link with the degree of
specialisation of the knappers (see section 2.3). The relationship with the technical know-how
of the knappers is also raised as an interesting perspective by Barrera-Cruz et al. (2025). This
involves coupling these sub-groupings with analysis of how the producers were organized.

## 2.2. Technical Entities Based on Production Practices: The Producers' Perspective

The second approach focuses on learning networks, shifting our perspective to the
producers' point of view. The same kinds of toolkits can in fact be produced by different
groups of knappers. The study of blade production has highlighted the existence of discrete
features specific to different learning networks during the LBK and the post-LBK (especially
the Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain culture, henceforth BVSG) in Northwestern Europe
(Allard & Denis 2022; Denis et al. 2021). Indeed, treatment of platforms and preparation of
blade detachment can be linked to specific tools and gestures. This allows us to distinguish
different technical traditions. The development of these technical traditions is connected to
the apprenticeship process which links a tutor and his/her apprentices from the same social
group (e.g., Roux 2010). The geographical extent of these specific technical practices
corresponds to the territory of this social group, whatever its nature (Roux 2020). This
observation concerns only the producers; therefore, the relationship between space and
technical practices must be understood solely from the producers' perspective. Among the
BVSG, a first insight into these spatial groupings based on the producers' point of view
reveals different patterns: some regions are characterised by a high diversity of ways of doing
things, even within the same household, suggesting that different social groups co-inhabited
the same areas while some regions are "socially" very homogeneous (Figure 2).

By superimposing this spatial division on that of cultural entities, mostly defined by
ceramic decoration and architecture, the high social diversity observed through lithics seems
to be especially characteristic of the eastern margins of the space defined as the territory of
the BVSG culture. Here, the borderline effect is underlined by a technical
diversification, probably linked to the coexistence of different social groups gathered in the
liminal space between the BVSG in the West and Grossgartach and Planig-Friedberg cultural
entities in the East. This would recall the definition of a liminal space perceived as a zone of
contact and exchange between distinct peoples with different practices and cultures (bridge
notion).

Mapping these entities and especially their interwoven spatial constructs can bring new
understandings of these social constructions. Furthermore, the question of borrowings,
syncretic practices or avoidance is central for eliciting the borderline effects between these
entities. This approach based on learning networks focuses on management of local
productions, i.e., domestic or village scale. At this stage of analysis, it is important to consider
specialised production and how its circulation influences the development of village-level
production.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Figure 2. Map representing the various learning networks identified to date in post-LBK assemblages (c.a. 4950-4650 BCE). The black hachured line separates the territories of the Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain populations (on the left, BVSG) from the Rhineland populations Grossgartach and Planig-Friedberg (on the right, GG/PF). The division into these large archaeological cultures is largely based on typological analyses and the very general constitution of the toolkits.

Abbildung 2. Karte der bislang in post-LBK-Fundkomplexen (ca. 4950–4650 v. Chr.) identifizierten Lernnetzwerke. Die schwarze Schraffur trennt die Gebiete der BVSG-Gruppen (Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain, links) von den rheinländischen Gruppen GG/PF (Grossgartach und Planig-Friedberg, rechts). Die Unterscheidung dieser großräumigen archäologischen Kulturen beruht im Wesentlichen auf typologischen Analysen und der allgemeinen Zusammensetzung der Werkzeuginventare.

2. ábra. A térkép a vonaldíszes (LBK) időszakot követő (Kr.e. 4950-4650 körül) leletegyüttesekben eddig azonosított különböző tanulási hálózatokat ábrázolja. A fekete vonalkázott határvonal elválasztja a Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (balra, BVSG) populáció területét a Grossgartach és Planig-Friedberg rajnai népességtől (jobbra, GG/PF). A nagyobb régészeti kultúrák elkülönítése elsősorban tipológiai elemzéseken és az eszközkészletek általános összetételén alapul.

## 2.3. Craft Specialisation as a Link Between Technical Identities and Circulation Networks

Kiosak (2025, in this volume) addresses an essential aspect of lithic production, namely variability in the socio-economic organisation of knapping activities, which he frames through a model distinguishing two recurrent "modes" of production. This dual structure between local or domestic knapping (Mode 1) and more formalised, possibly centralised production for exchange or external use (Mode 2) provides a compelling lens to assess the degree of specialisation and social integration within Neolithic communities. Mode 1 is generally associated with expedient production using local raw materials and reflects autonomous household-level organisation. Mode 2, by contrast, involves the use of non-local, high-quality flint, with tools often produced using more elaborate techniques such as the punch technique, and is suggestive of inclusion within broader exchange and learning networks.

Similarly, Mazzucco *et al.* (2020) underline how the variation in harvesting toolkits across the northern Mediterranean corresponds not only to ecological adaptation but also to the degree of craft specialisation, with certain knappers showing the ability to produce highly standardised, durable tools over long distances. These tools circulated through networks that
connected producers and consumers across regional boundaries, forming a key link between technical tradition and the dynamics of material exchange.

Importantly, specialisation does not necessarily emerge as a result of distinct learning traditions; rather, it can develop within the same technical group, and even within the same learning networks. In the case of the BVSG culture, for example, certain communities within the broader technical entity developed specialised production centres dedicated to the large-scale manufacture of long blades of Tertiary Bartonian silicite (Bostyn 1997). These products circulated over considerable distances within the BVSG territory, following well-structured and homogeneous modalities of circulation. However, once they crossed into the territories of other technical groups, such as in Brittany or the Hesbaye region, circulation patterns changed significantly, suggesting that inter-group exchange operated under different principles, possibly reflecting different social or economic frameworks (Bostyn & Denis 2016; Bostyn et al. 2019).

In this sense, craft specialisation functions as a bridge between the study of technical entities (understood through the *chaîne opératoire* and apprenticeship systems) and the identification of broader circulation networks. Specialised production often implies the existence of standardisation, training systems, and targeted distribution, all of which are indicators of structured social organisation. Moreover, it provides a tangible marker of the degree of connectivity between groups, which can be mapped onto the spatial patterns revealed by raw material sourcing (see in this volume, Bauer 2025 and Allard & Delvigne 2025).

Thus, when evaluating the variability of lithic production systems, it is not enough to consider tool types or raw materials in isolation. The organisation of production itself (who knaps what, for whom, and how) is a crucial component in identifying border zones, degrees of integration, and the nature of prehistoric social relationships. Craft specialisation, as such, becomes both a diagnostic and interpretive tool for understanding how technical identities were maintained, transformed, or transmitted across cultural boundaries.

## 2.4. Circulation Networks: Mobility, Exchange, and Spatial Dynamics

The identification of circulation networks can reveal the mobility of prehistoric peoples and contacts between distinct geographical, social or cultural groups. It is also a relevant way of identifying the routes, directions and modalities of expansion of different spatial entities. As demonstrated in this volume by Bauer’s paper (2025), the transition to high-resolution characterisation of siliceous raw materials, thanks to petrological microscopic analysis, now constitutes an essential step toward a detailed understanding of circulation networks. Indeed, current approaches in petroarchaeology aim to specify the places where siliceous materials were collected, according to i) their initial geological origin (primary deposits) and ii) their gitological origin (the various secondary deposits) (e.g., Affolter et al. 2021; Brandl 2016; Bressy 2003; Delvigne et al. 2019; 2020; Fernandes 2012).

Firstly, these analyses of the origin of raw materials make it possible to identify 'litho-spaces' (Delvigne 2016). Secondly, the studies make it possible to establish relationships between several types of places (raw material deposits, archaeological sites, spatial extent of the use of certain raw materials, technical features, finished objects), which fit into each other and make it possible to reconstruct the territories inhabited and traversed by prehistoric groups, as well as exchanges between different groups or parts of groups.

In Neolithic studies, lithic assemblages have often served as proxies for reconstructing prehistoric networks, primarily through raw material circulation (e.g., obsidian: Ibáñez et al. 2015; Vianello & Tykot 2016; radiolarite: Mateiciucová 2010; silicite: Trampota & Přichystal 2024), combined with technological practices such as pressure flaking (Pelegrin 2012;
Guilbeau & Perlès 2019) or the “*livre de beurre*” method (Pelegrin 2002; Mallet *et al.* 2012) for example, and through specific tool categories like large blades (Gurova 2024; Vinet & Guilbeau 2024). In addition, compared to earlier periods, data from Neolithic contexts sometimes allow for better resolution, integrating questions relating to craft specialisations, based on the identification of producer and receiver sites (*e.g.*, Léa 2004). For these issues, liminal spaces become dynamic objects of study, where identities are not necessarily fixed, interstices being conducive to change and encounters. They are therefore appropriate spaces in which to observe imitations, changes in the status of certain objects, experiments and reinterpretations of technical schemes.

To refine our narratives of these past societies, the challenge is to develop tools that allow a better perception and understanding of the entanglement between the different observational layers, for example between the different scales of raw material circulation networks.

The presence of exogenous raw materials, such as siliceous rocks found outside their geological source areas, is typically interpreted as evidence of either group mobility (reflecting the extent of territories exploited) or intergroup exchange, understood within the broader framework of social or exchange networks.

Evidence for long-distance circulation, understood here as movement of materials over distances exceeding 100 km from their source, is well documented in hunter-gatherer contexts. For instance, such cases are observed during the Magdalenian (*e.g.*, Delvigne *et al.* 2016, 2019; Sánchez de la Torre *et al.* 2017) and the Mesolithic, particularly with the distribution of Melian obsidian (Binder & Perlès 1990; Perlès 2001: 51; 2009) or Wommersom quartzite (Noens & Van Baelen 2019). However, in pre-Neolithic contexts, the presence of non-local raw materials has traditionally been interpreted more often as evidence of mobility and direct acquisition rather than as a result of structured exchange networks (Binder & Perlès 1990; Perlès 2001: 51; Sánchez de la Torre *et al.* 2017).

In southeastern Europe (Figure 3), the onset of the Neolithic often coincides with the establishment of new raw material exchange networks (Biagi & Starnini 2013; Gurova 2012; Kaczanowska & Kozłowski 2008). Some operated on a regional scale, such as those involving radiolarites in the western Pannonian Plain or radiolarites and “chocolate flints” from the Pindos Range in northern Greece (Perlès 1990; 2001; Perlès & Papagiannaki 2022: 263-266; Šošić Klindžić 2011). Others had a much broader reach, often exceeding 200 km and crossing major geographic barriers, including seas and mountain ranges (*e.g.*, White Spotted - Balkan flint: Gurova 2012; Kaczanowska & Kozłowski 2008 and Gargano cherts: Forenbaher 2021; Forenbaher & Perhoč 2017; Kačar 2019) which can be considered interregional in scale. Tracing the development and extent of these networks not only allows for the reconstruction of potential contacts between distinct geographical groups, but may also shed light on the routes and directions of neolithisation. Although the adoption of Neolithic lifeways in many of these regions was primarily driven by colonisation, as suggested by aDNA studies (see for example Bramanti *et al.* 2009; Haak *et al.* 2010; Hofmanová *et al.* 2016), it is significant that certain exchange networks, such as those involving Melian and Carpathian obsidian, as well as Szentgál radiolarite, were already established in the Mesolithic (Bánffy 2005; Mateiciucová 2010; Perlès 2001: 51). This suggests that existing hunter-gatherer networks facilitated the eventual expansion of farming communities into these areas (Bánffy 2005; Horejs *et al.* 2015; Mateiciucová 2010; Perlès 2001: 51; Reingruber 2011).

However, available archaeological data indicate that with the onset of the Neolithic, significant transformations occurred in the structure, reach, and function of raw material circulation networks (Binder & Perlès 1990; Perlès 2001: 207-209; 2009). These changes are particularly evident in more complex strategies for raw material procurement, involving the
controlled exploitation of lithic sources, their long-distance distribution, and specialised production, which in turn signal a more segmented organisation of labour and suggest early forms of socio-economic specialisation (Binder & Perlès 1990; Perlès 2001: 200-210; 2009).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. Illustration of known raw material distribution networks in the Central Mediterranean and the Balkans during the Early/Middle Neolithic, between c. 6700 and 5000 cal. BCE (the displayed dates indicate the beginning of distribution in the Neolithic). Dotted lines: maximum extension of the network in the Early Neolithic (light blue dotted lines with titles in bold represent obsidian distribution networks). A question mark (?) indicates the presence of high-quality chert of unknown, but probable exogenous, origin. An asterisk (*) indicates the existence of pre-Neolithic networks (modified according to Kačar 2019 with references therein, base map: ÖAI/ÖAW).</figcaption></figure>

Abbildung 3. Bekannte Rohmaterialverteilungsnetzwerke im zentralen Mittelmeerraum und auf dem Balkan während des Früh- und Mittelneolithikums, zwischen ca. 6700 und 5000 v. Chr. (die angezeigten Daten zeigen den Beginn der Verteilung im Neolithikum an). Gepunktete Linien: maximale Ausdehnung des Netzwerks im Frühneolithikum (hell gepunktete Linien mit fettgedruckten Titeln stellen Obsidian-Verteilungsnetze dar). Ein Fragezeichen (?) weist auf das Vorkommen von hochwertigem Hornstein unbekannter, aber wahrscheinlich exogenen Ursprungs hin. Ein Sternchen (*) kennzeichnet das Bestehen präneolithischer Netzwerke (modifiziert nach Kačar 2019 mit den dort angegebenen Referenzen, Basiskarte: ÖAI/ÖAW).

3. ábra: Az ismert nyersanyagelosztási hálózatok illusztrációja a Földközi-tenger középső részén és a Balkánon a kora/középső Neolitikumban, kb. Kr.e. 6700 és 5000 között (a feltüntetett dátumok a Neolitikumban történt elosztás kezdetét jelzik). Szaggatott vonalak: a hálózat maximális kiterjedése a kora Neolitikumban (a világoskék szaggatott vonalak vastagon szedett címkékkel az obszidián-elosztási hálózatokat jelölik). Kérdőjel (?) jelzi az ismeretlen, de valószínűleg exogén eredetű, jó minőségű kovakő jelenlétét. A csillag (*) a Neolitikum előtti hálózatok meglétét jelzi (módosítva Kačar 2019 nyomán az abban található hivatkozásokkal; alaptérkép: ÖAI/ÖAW).

In this sense, although evidence for chert extraction predates the Neolithic, typically in
the form of small-scale quarry pits approximately 2 or 3 metres deep (Kerneder-Gubała
2019), the emergence of structured mining systems is still primarily associated with the
Neolithic (e.g., Gargano in southeastern Italy: Tarantini et al. 2016; Casa Montero in central
Spain: Consuegra et al. 2018). These systems involved specialised knowledge, specific
technologies and tools, and imply a certain degree of social organisation. Beyond the technical skills required for knapping and mining itself, this phenomenon reflects the capacity to manage a surplus of raw materials and finished objects, as well as the labour time and subsistence resources necessary to support such production (Pelegrin 2007). This surplus was then redistributed across a network of consumer sites, often in the form of nucleus preforms or blanks, which required skilled craftsmen for further transformation. From this perspective, the rise of large-scale mining and surplus production can be considered one of the distinctive features of neolithisation.

Furthermore, Neolithic raw material circulation networks appear to have functioned primarily to maintain and reinforce social relationships, suggesting that their operation extended beyond purely functional or economic necessity (Forenbaher & Perhoč 2017; Perlès 2009). For example, the preference for Gargano chert in blade production in Dalmatia, despite the availability of suitable local sources (see section 3.2), demonstrates that lithic organisation in the Neolithic did not always prioritise proximity or efficiency. Rather, certain choices were shaped by social patterns, reflecting culturally mediated preferences and interactions.

Lithic studies allow us to identify different levels of spatial organisation and complementary groupings, based on typology, technology, and raw materials (see for example, in this volume, Barrera-Cruz *et al.* 2025, Kačar 2025 or Kiosak 2025). Across the contributions in this volume, the use of petrographic characterization of raw materials to reconstruct circulation networks emerges as a key approach for understanding both the spaces occupied by prehistoric people and the nature of interactions between agents (see for example Bauer 2025). However, integrating these different analytical layers often remains challenging. This volume offers two original perspectives to address this issue: Faragó (2025) examines the articulation between layers through differential rhythms and tempi revealed by temporal scaling, while Furholt (2025) proposes a methodological framework at micro-, meso-, and macro-scales to analyse various forms of lithic groupings.

# 3. Contributions to Archaeological Narratives

## 3.1. Boundary Processes and the Mesolithic Neolithic Transition

As mentioned, the question of borderlines cannot be considered solely from a geographical perspective, but must also be examined in terms of historical transitions. This is particularly relevant when studying neolithisation, as it represents a transition between two states, hunter-gatherer and agro-pastoralist, during which traits of both states can coexist. This coexistence illustrates the complexity of the processes involved and highlights their liminal nature.

Generally, the Mesolithic and Neolithic are considered distinct periods or ways of life, reflecting the “gap” dialectic of this transition. This distinction can be observed in several ways: (i) Chronologically, as the Neolithic succeeds the Mesolithic in many contexts; (ii) Economically, with the emergence of agriculture and animal husbandry; (iii) Technologically, particularly with innovations such as ceramics, which are generally attributed to agro-pastoral communities in Continental Europe. Lithic production also allows us to distinguish between two spheres. This is particularly evident in the types of tools represented (hunting weapons versus the appearance of sickle blades), the *chaîne opératoire* - for instance, in southern France, the disappearance of pressure debitage during the Cardial Early Neolithic (Binder 1987) - and the emergence of circulation networks for specialized production in the Neolithic, such as blades made from Bedouian chert or obsidian from the Tyrrhenian Sea (Binder 1998; Defranould 2021; Manen *et al.* 2019).

However, if we emphasize the “bridge” character of this liminal zone, the boundary between Mesolithic and Neolithic entities is not always clear (Klimscha *et al.* 2022).
Nevertheless, examining the transition between the two remains highly informative for understanding the diverse patterns of neolithisation processes (Hofmann et al. 2022). When neolithisation is not a simple colonisation of virgin territory, there may be contacts between Mesolithic and Neolithic populations, for example in the Swifterbant culture of Northern Europe (Teetaert & Crombé 2021) or on the Atlantic coast (Arzelier et al. 2022; Marchand 2005). In these cases, the lithic productions of both the last hunter-gatherers and the first farmers can be very useful for characterising the contacts, as they were used by both the last Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and the first Neolithic farmers. In particular, analysing the transfer of know-how can be enlightening: is it the whole technical know-how that circulates, signalling acculturation, or specific borrowings, indicating little contact (Marchand 2005)? Or, is there a rejection of innovations, even though the different groups are close in both time and space, indicating exclusion and lack of contact (Perrin & Manen 2021)?

Regarding the Swifterbant culture and their Neolithic neighbours of the BVSG culture, lithic technology and traceology help to better characterise the contacts between both spheres. Indeed, lithics testify to some contacts surrounding a very specific kind of production: faceted tools (Halbrucker et al. 2022). However, these tools are not related to blade productions but to non-predetermined productions. In a BVSG context, it is argued that these products were not made by the same group of knappers who were responsible for producing blades (Augereau 2004; Denis 2017); sometimes they have even been attributed to female knappers (Augereau 2019). Whatever the case, the fact that the exchanges between the two groups involve relatively simple productions rather than highly specialized ones may provide crucial insights into the nature of their interactions and the social dynamics underlying contacts between Mesolithic and Neolithic communities.

This shows that thinking of borderlines at the scale of social groups reveals a more complex picture of prehistoric socio-spatial groupings and their evolution, as has already been stated elsewhere with regard to the notion of trans-local communities (Furholt 2018) or communities of practices (Lave & Wenger 1991). Incorporating the degree of social affiliation into spatial modelling using GIS (see Whitley 2010) could offer a powerful perspective for the analysis of boundary processes, and thus represents a promising avenue for future research

**3.2. Beyond Lithics**

We have argued that lithic studies can bring new layers to our understanding of spatial archaeological groupings, especially with regard to neolithisation. But it is the articulation between the lithics analytical layers (see the methodological proposition in this volume by Faragó 2025 or Furholt 2025) and the other proxies that would open up a better comprehension of these past societies.

Figure 4 illustrates the geographical distribution of Italo-Dalmatian Impressed ware pottery, marking the start of the Neolithic across the eastern Adriatic and parts of the western Adriatic. Due to this similarity in ceramic styles, the whole area is regarded as a unified cultural entity, referred to as the Impressed Ware culture. However, when we integrate lithic data, new cultural entities emerge. In the central Adriatic area (highlighted in red), a sophisticated network operated for the procurement and distribution of Gargano cherts. At several locations on the Gargano promontory, chert nodules were mined, shaped on-site through initial reduction (Tarantini et al. 2016), and subsequently distributed inland, southward along the peninsula, and eastward across the sea. The raw material was likely transported both as (semi-)prepared cores and (semi-)finished products (blade blanks, tools). In southeastern Italy and Dalmatia, this raw material was primarily used to produce blades using the pressure technique (Forenbaher & Perhoč 2017; Guilbeau 2011; Kačar 2019).
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Figure 4. Map illustrating the geographical distribution of the Italo-Dalmatian Impressed Ware pottery (="Impressed Ware culture" shaded in grey) and the distribution of Gargano cherts (shaded in red). The dotted line indicates the hypothetical coastline during the Early Neolithic (with sea level approximately 15m lower than today). A question mark (?) indicates the presence of high-quality cherts of uncertain origin (in the north: possibly Monti Lessini; in the south possibly Gargano, Honey flint, Balkan flint).

Abbildung 4. Karte mit der geographischen Verbreitung der italo-dalmatinischen Impressokeramik (="Impressed Ware Culture", grau schattiert) und der Verbreitung der Gargano-Feuersteine (rot schattiert). Die gestrichelte Linie zeigt die hypothetische Küstenlinie des Frühneolithikums (bei einem Meeresspiegel etwa 15 m unter dem heutigen Niveau). Ein Fragezeichen (?) kennzeichnet das Vorkommen von hochwertigem Feuerstein unklarer Herkunft (im Norden vermutlich aus den Monti Lessini, im Süden möglicherweise aus dem Gargano, Honey Flint oder Balkan-Flint).

4. ábra. A térkép az itáliai-dalmáciai benyomott díszítésű kerámia (="Impressed Ware kultúra" szürkével jelölve) és a Gargano kova (pirossal jelölve) földrajzi elterjedését szemlélteti. A szaggatott vonal jelzi a feltételezett partvonalat a korai Neolitikum idején (a tengerszint a maihoz képest körülbelül 15 méterrel alacsonyabb volt). A kérdőjel (?) jelzi a bizonytalan eredetű, jó minőségű kova jelenlétét (északon: valószínűleg Monti Lessini; délen valószínűleg Gargano, Honey, Balkáni kova).

Surprisingly, in Dalmatia, current research indicates that blade production exclusively relied on Gargano cherts, with no utilisation of local raw materials (Perhoč 2020: 219-222). Given that cherts with similar knapping properties are available locally in Dalmatia (see Perhoč 2009: 48), the observed pattern suggests that raw material choices followed social rather than purely technological criteria. This underscores the importance of social networks in these interactions and supports the idea of cultural uniformity between the two coasts (Forenbaher 2021; Forenbaher & Perhoč 2017; Kačar 2019; 2021). However, outside this
zone, lithic data indicate that blade production is less elaborate, with only local cherts being used (Kačar 2019; 2021). In this context, we can distinguish between the centre and peripheral zones of the Impressed Ware culture: the central Adriatic, linked to the Gargano distribution network, represents the core, while regions beyond it are regarded as liminal zones. While these areas adopted Impressed Ware pottery, they relied on local cherts for lithic production and did not integrate into the Gargano chert network. Furthermore, in certain cases, such as in the northern Adriatic, the use of local chert in less sophisticated blade production, combined with economic data (e.g., the role of fishing), may suggest a significant influence of local hunter-gatherers in the emergence of the Neolithic (Kačar 2021). Incorporating lithic data into the study of the transition to agriculture underscores the need to move beyond the traditional east-west division, in which the western and eastern shores of the Adriatic have been studied separately (Gori & Recchia 2021), and instead to adopt a unified, inter-regional perspective. Any predetermined limitation, whether geographical (viewing the sea as a border) or cultural (following present-day political borders), fails to accurately reflect the historical reality. In the (Early) Neolithic, any boundaries that existed were likely based on different, yet unclear, criteria. It is intriguing to speculate that these liminal areas may indicate areas with larger hunter-gatherer communities, suggesting that Neolithic development in these regions involved a form of cultural hybridization. However, further research is required to substantiate this hypothesis.

In the same sense, Bauer's paper (2025) talks about a "transitional zone" for the LBK area in Bavaria. Located on the periphery of the LBK territory, the circulation of siliceous raw materials exogenous to the LBK area illustrates how different territories could be interconnected through various forms of mobility associated with complementary activities (e.g., animal husbandry or hunting in transitional zones). The empirical patterns identified through lithic analyses would benefit from further modelling approaches. The network analysis presented by Allard & Delvigne (2025), based on Proximal Point Analysis, allows, for example, tracking of clusters and identification of preferential pathways or economic frontiers. Incorporating additional parameters beyond lithics could offer a more comprehensive understanding of the multiple embedded layers within these systems.

Almost all the papers presented in this volume come to the unsurprising conclusion that the spatial groups delineated, on the one-hand, by ceramic typo-stylistics and, on the other, by lithic industries do not coincide. But the link between these different levels of analysis remains extremely complex to handle from a methodological point of view. This complexity arises because ceramic and lithic traditions often reflect different aspects of social practice. Additionally, these materials may have circulated through different networks or were moved at different scales, further complicating attempts to align their spatial patterns. As a result, the apparent disconnect between ceramic and lithic groupings likely reflects the complex, overlapping nature of past social boundaries. One possible avenue for research relies on the relationship existing between technical groups of producers and social groups (Roux 2010). For the LBK in Northwestern Europe, comparisons between lithic and ceramic technological groups may fit a gender-based repartition of both activities (Denis et al. 2024). This could serve as an entry point for a social interpretation of the various layers of observation and their spatial patterns. In this example, the pottery layer could be associated with women's activities and networks, while the lithic network might correspond to those of men. Comparing these patterns from a spatial perspective can, for instance, open up new discussions about the role and significance of liminal spaces, situated at the edges or intersections of cultural or social spheres.

Therefore, combining the horizontal and vertical superposition of identified spatial groupings will support a more complex picture of i) the identity of the agents structuring the shape of the perceptible frontiers and ii) the relationships between the different spatial
segmentations. This would benefit from cross-studies with other materials, with
bioarchaeological data supported by modelling.

**4. Conclusions**

This volume highlights lithics as a proxy for identifying spatial groupings and for
exploring their social relevance. Lithic studies allow us to distinguish multiple,
complementary spatial groupings based on typology, technology, and raw materials.
Understanding the articulation between these different analytical layers is crucial for
deciphering the complex forms of lithic groupings. Raw materials provide invaluable data, as
tracking their origin and circulation allows us to reconstruct the networks of movement and
interaction that shaped prehistoric territories. By examining these networks, we gain an
insight into the liminal zones that lie between social and cultural entities, where contact,
negotiation, and adaptation occur. Such zones can function both as gaps, highlighting
distinctions between Mesolithic and Neolithic ways of life, and as bridges, revealing the
interactions and shared practices that facilitated the processes of neolithisation. Considering
borderlines at the scale of social groups offers a more nuanced understanding of prehistoric
socio-spatial structures and their evolution, complementing concepts such as trans-local
communities or communities of practice. Spatial modelling emerges as an essential tool for
integrating these multiple layers of analysis. In particular, incorporating degrees of social
affiliation within GIS-based models provides a powerful perspective for examining boundary
processes, interactions across liminal zones, and the dynamic relationships that underpin
prehistoric cultural and technological transitions.

**Acknowledgements**

We are grateful to Rhoda Allanic for her excellent proofreading of most of this volume. We would also like to warmly thank the reviewers of this paper for their helpful comments. We hope that the final version does justice to their valuable feedback. Elsa Defranould's work benefited from a postdoctoral grant from the École des Hautes Études Hispaniques et Ibériques at the Casa de Velázquez ("Entre chasseurs-collecteurs et agro-pasteurs: interactions, transferts et mobilités durant le processus de Néolithisation du Nord-Est de la péninsule Ibérique"). Solène Denis's research was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) through the MOBILITH project (ANR-24-CE27-1795-01). Kata Furholt's work was supported by the "XSCAPE Material Minds project ERC-951631" (Kiel University) and "Comparative petrological, petrophysical and geochemical investigations of polished stone artefacts and potential source rocks from the point of prehistoric raw material selection strategy project NKFI-Advanced 150223" (HUN-REN Centre for Energy Research). Sonja Kačar's work on this volume was supported by the Austrian Archaeological Institute of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. She further acknowledges support from her previous institutions: the Laboratory TRACES (University of Toulouse), which facilitated her PhD research, and the Irish Research Council for funding her Postdoctoral Fellowship at University College Dublin (Project: The Last Hunter-Fisher-Gatherers of South-Eastern Europe: Networks, Innovations and Migrations between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean during the 8th and 7th Millennia BCE), where the work contributing to this volume was initiated.
References

Affolter, J., Wehren, H., Emmenegger, I. 2021, Determination method of silicites (siliceous raw materials): An explanation based on four selected raw materials. *Quaternary International*, 615: 33-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.02.030

Allard, P. 2005, *L'industrie lithique des populations rubanées du nord-est de la France et de la Belgique*. Marie Leidorf, Rahden Westf., 242 p. (in French) (“The lithic industry of the LBK populations of northeastern France and Belgium”)

Allard, P. & Denis, S. 2022, Technical traditions and individual variability in the Early Neolithic: Linear pottery culture flint knappers in the Aisne Valley (France). *PLOS ONE*, 17(6): e0268442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268442

Allard, P. & Delvigne, V. 2025, Lithic industries and stylistic entities during the Early Neolithic (LBK) in the Rhine-Meuse-Seine basins. In: *Borderline Lithics: from spatial patterns to social processes during the European neolithisation* (S. Denis, E. Defranould, K. Furholt, S. Kačar & A. Srinivas, Eds.), Journal of Lithic Studies, Vol. 12(2), University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics & Archaeology, Edinburgh, 25 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.9961

Amilhat Szary, A.-L. 2013, Montagnes mobiles?. *Journal of Alpine Research*, 101(2): 2-5. (in French) (“Moving Mountains?”) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.2135

Arzelier, A., Rivollat, M., De Belvalet, H., Pemonge, M.-H., Binder, D., Convertini, F., Duday, H., Gandelin, M., Guilaine, J., Haak, W., Deguilloux, M.-F. & Pruvost, M. 2022, Neolithic genomic data from southern France showcase intensified interactions with hunter-gatherer communities. *iScience*, 25(11): 105387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105387

Augereau, A. 2004, *L'industrie du silex du Ve au IVe millénaire avant J.-C. dans le sud-est du Bassin parisien*. Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris, 220 p. (in French) (“The flint industry from the 5th to the 4th millennium BC in the south-east of the Paris Basin”)

Augereau, A. 2019, Change and continuity. Gender and flint knapping activities during the Neolithic in the Paris basin. In: *Gender transformations in prehistoric and archaic societies* (J. K. Koch & W. Kirleis, Eds.), Scales of transformation in prehistoric and archaic societies, Sidestone Press, Leiden: p. 435-458.

Barrera-Cruz, M., García-Puchol, O., Cortell-Nicolau, A., García-Rivero, D. 2025, Evolution of Harvesting Technology: A study of diversity from lithic and botanical remains in Neolithic Iberia (8th-7th millennium cal. BP). In: *Borderline Lithics: from spatial patterns to social processes during the European neolithisation* (S. Denis, E. Defranould, K. Furholt, S. Kačar & A. Srinivas, Eds.), Journal of Lithic Studies, Vol. 12, n° 2, University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics & Archaeology, Edinburgh: 32 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.8074

Bánffy, E. 2005, Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts as reflected in ritual finds. *Documenta Praehistorica*, 32: 73-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.32.4

Bauer, L. 2025, Outside the box: lithic raw material analysis as an indication of crossing cultural borderlines by the earliest Linear Pottery Culture? In: *Borderline Lithics: from spatial patterns to social processes during the European neolithisation* (S. Denis, E. Defranould, K. Furholt, S. Kačar & A. Srinivas, Eds.), Journal of Lithic Studies, Vol.
12, n° 2, University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics & Archaeology,
Edinburgh: 33 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.8966

Biagi, P. & Starnini, E. 2013, Pre Balkan Platform flint in the Early Neolithic sites of the Carpathian Basin, its occurrence and significance. In: *Moments in Time. Papers presented to Paul Raczky on his 60th birthday*. (A. Anders & G. Kurcsar, Eds., with G. Kalla, V. Kiss & G.V. Szabó), L'Harmattan Kiadó, Budapest: p. 47-60.

Binder, D. 1987, *Le Néolithique ancien provençal : typologie et technologie des outillages lithiques*. Editions du CNRS, Paris, 209 p. (in French) ("The Provençal Early Neolithic")

Binder, D. 1998, Silex blond et complexité des assemblages lithiques dans le Néolithique liguro-provençal. In: *Production et identité culturelle, Actes des deuxièmes Rencontres Méridionales de Préhistoire Récente, Arles, 8-9 Novembre 1996* (A. D'Anna & D. Binder, Eds.), Éditions APDCA, Antibes: p. 111-128 (in French) ("Blond flint and complexity of lithic assemblages in Liguro-provençal Neolithic")

Binder, D. & Perlès, C. 1990, Stratégies de gestion des outillages lithiques au Néolithique. *Paléo*, 2(1): 257-283. (in French) ("Management strategies for lithic tools in the Neolithic period") DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/pal.1990.1004

Binford, L.R. 1980, Willow smoke and dog's tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. *American Antiquity*, 45(1): 4-20.

Boissinot, P. 1998, Que faire de l'identité avec les seules méthodes de l'archéologie?. In: *Production et identité culturelle, Actes des deuxièmes Rencontres Méridionales de Préhistoire Récente, Arles, 8-9 Novembre 1996* (A. D'Anna & D. Binder, Eds.), Éditions APDCA, Antibes: p. 17-26. (in French) ("What can be done about identity using archaeological methods alone?")

Boissinot, P. 2015, Le concept d'acculturation : son utilité et les limites dans son application à l'archéologie. In: *Contacts et acculturations en Méditerranée occidentale, Hommage à Michel Bats. Actes du colloques d'Hyères, 15 au 18 septembre 2011* (R. Roure Ed.), Éditions Errance, Paris: p. 145-152. (in French) ("the concept of acculturation: its usefulness and limitations in its application to archaeology")

Bonnemaison, J. 1981, Voyage autour du territoire. *Espace géographique*, 10 (4): 249-262 (in French) ("A voyage around the territory")

Bostyn, F. 1997, Characterization of Flint Production and Distribution of the Tabular Bartonian Flint during the Early Neolithic (Villeneuve-Saint-Germain Period) in France. In: *Man and Flint* (R. Schild & Z. Sulgostowska, Eds.), 7e International Flint Symposium, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw: p. 171-183.

Bostyn, F., Charraud, F. & Denis, S. 2019, Variabilités techniques, évolutions et aires d'influence des centres de productions laminaires au sein de la culture de Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain. In: *Préhistoire de l'Europe du Nord-Ouest : mobilité, climats et identités culturelles, actes du XXVIIIe Congrès préhistorique de France (Amiens, 30 mai-4 juin 2016)* (C. Montoya, J.-P. Fagnart, J.-L Locht, Eds.), vol. 3, Société préhistorique française, Paris, p. 43-56. (in French) ("Technical variability, development and areas of influence of blade production centres within the Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain culture")
Bostyn, F. & Denis, S. 2016, Specialised production and distribution networks for flint raw materials during the Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain Culture (Early Neolithic). In: *Alles was zählt: Festschrift für Andreas Zimmermann* (T. Kerig, K. Nowak & G. Roth, Eds.), Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn: p. 195-208.

Bracco, J.-P. 2005, De quoi parle-t-on ? Réflexions sur l'appréhension des territoires en Préhistoire paléolithique. In: *Territoires, déplacements mobilités, échanges durant la Préhistoire. Terres et Hommes du Sud. Actes des 126 emes congrès nationaux des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Toulouse, 2011* (J. Jaubert & M. Barbaza Eds), Editions du CTHS, Paris: p. 13-16 (In French) ("What are we talking about? Reflections on the understanding of territories in Palaeolithic prehistory")

Bramanti, B., Thomas, M.G., Haak, W., Unterlaender, M., Jores, P., Tambets, K., Antanaitis-Jacobs, I., Haidle, M.N., Jankauskas, R., Kind, C.-J., Lueth, F., Terberger, T., Hiller, J., Matsumura, S., Forster, P. & Burger, J. 2009, Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe's First Farmers. *Science*, 326(5949): 137-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176869

Brandl, M. 2016, The Multi Layered Chert Sourcing Approach (MLA). Analytical Provenance Studies of Silicite Raw Materials. *Archeometriai Műhely*, 13(3): 145-156.

Bressy, C. 2003, *Caractérisation et gestion du silex des sites mésolithiques et néolithiques du Nord-Ouest de l'arc alpin. Une approche pétrographique et géochimique.* BAR International Series 1114, BAR Publishing, Oxford, 295 p. (in French) ("Characterisation and management of flint from Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in the north-western Alpine arc. A petrographic and geochemical approach")

Brunet, R. 2001, *Le déchiffrement du Monde*. Belin, Paris, 192 p. (in French) ("Deciphering the world")

Cattan, N. 2006, Centre-Périphérie. In: *Dictionnaire des mondialisations* (Ghorra-Gobin C. Ed.), Armand Colin, Paris: p. 47-49 (In French) ("Center-Periphery")

Cauliez, J. 2009, *Espaces culturels et espaces stylistiques au Néolithique final dans le sud-est de la France. Dynamiques de formation et d'évolution des productions céramiques*. Unpublished Master thesis, Department of Art History and Archaeology, Aix-Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, 415 p. (In French) ("Cultural and stylistic spaces in the Late Neolithic in south-eastern France. Dynamics of formation and evolution of ceramic production")

Childe, G.V. 1936, *Man Makes Himself*, Watts & Company, London, 275 p.

Claval, P. 2002, Limites et barrières culturelles. In: *Limites et discontinuités en géographie* (L. Carroué, P. Claval, G. Di Méo, A. Miossec, J.-P. Renard, L. Simon, Y. Veyret, J.-P. Vigneau Eds.), Sedes, Paris: p. 82-94 (In French) ("Cultural limits and barriers")

Consuegra, S., Castañeda, N., Capdevila, E., Capote, M., Criado, C., Casas, C., Nieto, A. Diaz-del-Rio, P. 2018, The Early Neolithic flint mine of Casa Montero (Madrid, Spain), 5350-5220 cal BC. *Trabajo de Prehistoria*, 75: 52-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2018.12203

Cresswell, R. 1976, Techniques et culture, les bases d'un programme de travail. *Techniques et Culture*, 1: 7-59. (in French) ("Techniques and culture, the basis of a work programme")
Defranould, E. 2021, The Cardial-Epicardial Early Neolithic of Lower Rhône Valley (South-Eastern France): a lithic perspective. *Open Archaeology*, 7: 939-952.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0182

Defranould, E., Philibert, S. & Perrin, T. 2022, Evolutionary Dynamics of Armatures in Southern France in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic. *Open Archaeology*, 8(1): 905-924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0261

Delvigne, V. 2016, *Géoressources et expression techno-culturelles dans le sud du Massif central au Paléolithique supérieur : des déterminismes et des choix*. Unpublished PhD thesis, Doctoral School of Science and Environment, Bordeaux University, 1293 p. (in French) (“Géoressources and techno-cultural expression in south of ‘Massif Central’ in upper Paleolithic: some determinisms and some choices”)

Delvigne, V., Fernandes, P., Piboule, M., Bindon, P., Chomette, D., Defive, E., Lafarge, A., Liabeuf, R., Moncel, M.-H., Vaissié, E., Wragg-Sykes, R., Raynal, J.-P. 2019, Barremian-Bedoulian flint humanly transported from the west bank of the Rhône to the Massif-Central Highlands - A diachronic perspective. *Comptes Rendus Palevol*, 18: 90-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvp.2018.06.005

Delvigne, V., Fernandes, P., Tuffery, C., Raynal, J.-P., Klaric, L. 2020, Taphonomic methods and a database to establish the origin of sedimentary silicified rocks from the Middle-recent Gravettian open-air site of La Picardie (Indre-et-Loire, France). *Journal of Archaeological Science Reports*, 32: 102369.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102369

Denis, S. 2017, *L'industrie lithique des populations blicquiennes (Néolithique ancien, Belgique): organisation des productions et réseaux de diffusion: petits échanges en famille*. BAR Publishing, Oxford, 257 p. (in French) (“The lithic industry of the Blicquian populations (Early Neolithic, Belgium): organisation of production and distribution networks: small family exchanges”)

Denis, S., Burnez-Lanotte, L. & Trampota, F. 2021, Neolithization Processes of East Belgium: Supra-Regional Relationships Between Groups Highlighted by Technological Analysis of Lithic Industry. *Open Archaeology*, 7(1): 904-922.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0180

Denis, S., Gomart, L., Burnez-Lanotte, L. & Allard, P. 2024, Transmission of Lithic and Ceramic Technical Know-how in the Early Neolithic of Central-Western Europe: Shedding Light on the Social Mechanisms Underlying Cultural Transition. *Journal of Neolithic Archaeology*, 26: 31-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12766/JNA.2024.2

Donnan, H. & Wilson, T. 1999, *Borders: frontiers of identity, nation and state*. Berg., Oxford, 182 p.

Faragó, N. 2025, Big wheels keep on turning: Some diagnostic phenomena within knapped stone tools of the Hungarian Neolithic. In: *Borderline Lithics: from spatial patterns to social processes during the European neolithisation* (S. Denis, E. Defranould, K. Furholt, S. Kačar & A. Srinivas, Eds.), Journal of Lithic Studies, Vol. 12, n° 2, University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics & Archaeology, Edinburgh: 33 p.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.8949

Fernandes, P. 2012, *Itinéraires et transformations du silex: une pétroarchéologie refondée, application au Paléolithique moyen*. Unpublished PhD thesis, Doctoral School of Science and Environment, Bordeaux University, 2 vol., 623 p. (in French) (“Flint
itineraries and transformations: a new petroarchaeology applied to the Middle
Palaeolithic")

URL: http://www.theses.fr/2012BOR14533

Forenbaher, S. 2021, *Trans-Adriatic Contacts After the Transition to Farming*. *Origini: prehistory and protohistory of ancient civilizations = preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche*, 45: 123-146.

URL: https://www.torrossa.com/fr/resources/an/5914842?digital=true

Forenbaher, S. & Perhoč, Z. 2017, Lithic assemblages from Nakovana (Croatia): Raw material procurement and reduction technology from the Early Neolithic until the end of prehistory. *Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology*, 30: 189-211.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.35405

Furholt, K. 2025, *Dynamic multiscalar approach for structuring and scaling human activities involving lithics*. In: *Borderline Lithics: from spatial patterns to social processes during the European neolithisation* (S. Denis, E. Defranould, K. Furholt, S. Kačar & A. Srinivas, Eds.), *Journal of Lithic Studies*, Vol. 12, n° 2, University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics & Archaeology, Edinburgh: 36 p.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.9394

Furholt, M. 2018, *Translocal Communities - Exploring Mobility and Migration in Sedentary Societies of the European Neolithic and Early Bronze Age*. *Praehistorische Zeitschrift*, 92(2): 304-321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pz-2017-0024

Gallay, A. 2016, *Quelques réflexions sur le concept de culture. In: Le Chasséen, des Chasséens... Retour sur une culture nationale et ses parallèles, Sepulcres de fossa, Cortaillod, Lagozza. Actes du colloque international tenu à Paris (France) du 18 au 20 novembre 2014* (T. Perrin, P. Chambon, J.F. Gibaja Bao & G. Goude, Eds.), *Archives d'Écologie Préhistorique*, Toulouse, p. 11-23 (in French) (“Some thoughts on the concept of culture”)

van Gijn, A. 2010, *Flint in Focus. Lithic Biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age*. Sidestone Press, Leiden, 289 p.

Gouletquer, P. 2022, *Préhistoire du futur. Archéologie intempestive du territoire*. Anacharsis, Toulouse, 223 p (in French) (“Prehistory of the future. Untimely archaeology of the territory”)

Gori, M. & Recchia, G. 2021, *The making of Adriatic and Ionian seascapes: interpreting seaborne social and economic interactions during late prehistory*. *Origini: prehistory and protohistory of ancient civilizations = preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche*, 45: 119-122. URL: https://digital.casalini.it/10.48235/1128

Guilbeau, D. 2011, *Le début du Néolithique en Italie méridionale : Ce que nous disent les productions en silex du Gargano*. *Origini*, 33(5): 83-106. (in French) (“The Beginning of the Neolithic in Southern Italy: What the Gargano Flint Productions Tell Us”)

Guilbeau, D. & Perlès, C. 2019, *Please help us find the origins of Greek and Italian Early Neolithic lever pressure-flaking*. In: *Near Eastern lithic technologies on the move. Interactions and contexts in Neolithic traditions, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, 8th International Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East, Nicosia, Cyprus, November 23rd to 27th 2016* (L. Astruc, C. McCartney, F. Briois & V. Kassianidou, Eds.), Uppsala, Astrom Editions: p. 511-518.
Gurova, M. 2012, "Balkan flint"- fiction and/or trajectory to the Neolithisation: Evidence from Bulgaria. *Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology*, 1: 15-49.
URL: https://be-ja.org/index.php/journal/article/view/be-ja-2-1-2012-15-49

Gurova, M. 2024, Flint superblades - biography and function: A case study from Bulgaria. In: *Artefact Biographies from Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe and Beyond. Papers in honour of Professor Annelou van Gijn* (A. Verbaas, G. Langejans, A. Little & B. Chan, Eds.), Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, Sidestone Press, Leiden: p. 183-200.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59641/pp090sb

Haak, W., Balanovsky, O., Sanchez, J.J., Koshel, S., Zaporozhchenko, V., Adler, C.J., Der Sarkissian, C.S.I., Brandt, G., Schwarz, C., Nicklisch, N., Dresely, V., Fritsch, B., Balanovska, E., Villems, R., Meller, H., Alt, K.W., Cooper, A. & the Genographic Consortium 2010, Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic Farmers Reveals Their Near Eastern Affinities. *PLOS Biology*, 8(11): 1-16.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536

Halbrucker, E., Messiaen, L., Denis, S., Meylemans, E. & Crombé, P. 2022, Faceted tools within indigenous hunter-gatherer assemblages of NW Belgium: evidence of forager-farmer contact during the 5th millennium cal BC. *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 119(4): 605-633.

Harris, O.J.T. & Cipolla, C.N. 2017, *Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium: Introducing Current Perspectives*. Routledge, London, 238 p.

Hofmann, D., Peeters, H. & Meyer, A.-K. 2022, Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers. In: *Stone Age Borderland Experience: Neolithic and Late Mesolithic parallel societies in the North European plain* (F. Klimscha, M. Heumüller, D.C.M. Raemaekers, H. Peeters & T. Terberger, Eds.), Materialhefte zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Niedersachsens, In Kommission bei VML, Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden: p. 263-293.

Hofmanová, Z., Kreutzer, S., Hellenthal, G., Sell, C., Diekmann, Y., Díez-del-Molino, D., van Dorp, L., López, S., Kousathanas, A., Link, V., Kirsanow, K., Cassidy, L.M., Martiniano, R., Strobel, M., Scheu, A., Kotsakis, K., Halstead, P., Triantaphyllou, S., Kyparissi-Apostolika, N., Urem-Kotsou, D., Ziota, C., Adaktylou, F., Gopalan, S., Bobo, D.M., Winkelbach, L., Blöcher, J., Unterländer, M., Leuenberger, C., Çilingiroğlu, Ç., Horejs, B., Gerritsen, F., Shennan, S.J., Bradley, D.G., Currat, M., Veeramah, K.R., Wegmann, D., Thomas, M.G., Papageorgopoulou, C. & Burger, J. 2016, Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 113(25): 6886-6891.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523951113

Horejs, B., Milić, B., Ostmann, F., Thanheiser, U., Weninger, B., & Galik, A. 2015, The Aegean in the Early 7th Millennium BC: Maritime networks and colonization. *Journal of World Prehistory*, 28: 289-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-015-9090-8

Ibáñez, J.J., Ortega, D., Campos, D., Khalidi, L. & Méndez, V. 2015, Testing complex networks of interaction at the onset of the Near Eastern Neolithic using modelling of obsidian exchange. *Journal of The Royal Society Interface*, 12(107): 20150210.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0210

Kačar, S. 2019, Impressed ware blade production of northern Dalmatia (Eastern Adriatic, Croatia) in the context of Neolithisation. *Documenta Praehistorica*, 46: 352-374.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.22
Kačar, S. 2021, The Neolithisation of the Adriatic: Contrasting Regional Patterns and Interactions Along and Across the Shores. *Open Archaeology*, 7 (1): 798-814.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0166

Kačar, S. in press, Late Mesolithic Blade and Trapeze Industries between the Land and the Sea: example of Montenegro. In: *Borderline Lithics: from spatial patterns to social processes during the European neolithisation* (S. Denis, E. Defranould, K. Furholt, S. Kačar & A. Srinivas, Eds.), Journal of Lithic Studies, Vol. 12, n° 2, University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics & Archaeology, Edinburgh.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.9510

Kaczanowska, M. & Kozłowski, J. K. 2008, The Körös and the early Eastern Linear Culture in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin: a view from the perspective of lithic industries. *Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis* 7: 9-22.

Kerneder-Gubała, K. 2019, In search of the chocolate flint mine in Orońsko (PL1, Southern Poland): New data for analysis of exploitation and use of flint in north-western part of its outcrops. *Anthropologica et Præhistorica*, 128/2017 (2019): 199-208.
URL: https://biblio.naturalsciences.be/associated_publications/anthropologica-prehistorica/anthropologica-et-praehistorica/ap-128/ap128-uispp_199-208_kerneder-gubala-07012020-600-cmjn-final.pdf

Kiosak, D. 2025, Modes of chipped stone tool production: the early farming societies in the North-Western Pontic region. In: *Borderline Lithics: from spatial patterns to social processes during the European neolithisation* (S. Denis, E. Defranould, K. Furholt, S. Kačar & A. Srinivas, Eds.), Journal of Lithic Studies, Vol. 12, n° 2, University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics & Archaeology, Edinburgh: 27 p.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.8936

Klimscha, F., Heumüller, M., Raemaekers, D.C.M., Peeters, H. & Terberger, T. 2022, *Stone age borderland experience: Neolithic and Late Mesolithic parallel societies in the North European plain*. In Kommission bei VML, Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden, 472 p.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991, *Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 138 p.

Léa, V. 2004, *Les industries lithiques du Chasséen en Languedoc oriental*. BAR International Series 1232, BAR Publishing, Oxford, 294 p. (in French) (“Chassean lithic industries in eastern Languedoc”)

Léa, V., Gassin, B. & Linton, J. 2009, Quelles armatures de projectiles pour le Midi méditerranéen et ses marges du milieu du Ve millénaire au milieu du IVe millénaire ?, *Gallia Préhistoire*, 51: 155-177. (in French) (“What type of projectile arrowhead was used in the southern Mediterranean and its fringes from the mid-5th to the mid-4th millennium BCE?”)

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964, *Le Geste et la Parole, tome 1 Technique et Langage*. Albin Michel, Paris, 326 p. (in French) (“ Gesture and Speech, Volume 1 Technique and Language”)

Mallet, N., Ihuel, E. & Verjux, C. 2012, La diffusion des silex du Grand-Pressigny au néolithique. In: *L'Europe, déjà, à la fin des temps préhistoriques. Des grandes lames en silex dans toute l'Europe. Actes de la table-ronde internationale, Tours, Septembre 2007* (J.-C. Marquet C. & Verjux, Eds.), Supplément à la Revue archéologique du centre de la France, Fédération pour l'édition de la Revue archéologique du Centre de la
France, Tours: p. 131-147. (in French) ("Diffusion of Grand-Pressigny flint during Neolithic")

Marchand, G. 2005, Contacts, blocages et filiations entre les aires culturelles mésolithiques et néolithiques en Europe atlantique. *L'Anthropologie (Paris)*, 109(3): 541-556. (in French) ("Contacts, blockages and filiations between Mesolithic and Neolithic cultural areas in Atlantic Europe")

Manen, C., Perrin, T., Raux, A., Binder, D., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Briois, F., Convertini, F., Dubernet, S., Escallon, G., Gomart, L., Guilaine, J., Hamon, C., Philibert, S., Queffelec, A. 2019, Le sommet de l'iceberg ? Colonisation pionnière et néolithisation de la France méditerranéenne. *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 116 (2): 317-361. (in French) ("The top of the iceberg? Pioneer colonisation and neolithisation in Mediterranean France")

Mateiciucová, I. 2010, The beginnings of the Neolithic and raw material distribution networks in eastern Central Europe: symbolic dimensions of the distribution of Szentgál radiolarite. In: *Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas = The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe* (D. Gronenborn & J. Petrasch, Eds.), RGZM-Tagungen, Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni 2005, International Symposium, Mainz 24 June-26 June 2005, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz: p. 273-300.

Mazzucco, N., Capuzzo, G., Petrinelli Pannocchia, C., Ibáñez, J.J. & Gibaja, J.F. 2018, Harvesting tools and the spread of the Neolithic into the Central-Western Mediterranean area. *Quaternary International*, 470: 511-528.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.04.018

Mazzucco, N., Ibáñez, J.J., Capuzzo, G., Gassin, B., Mineo, M. & Gibaja, J.F. 2020, Migration, adaptation, innovation: The spread of Neolithic harvesting technologies in the Mediterranean. *PLOS ONE*, 15(4): e0232455.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232455

Noens, G. & Van Baelen, A. 2019, On the spatial distribution of archaeological sites with Wommersom quartzite in the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt area. *Notae Praehistoricae*, 39: 15-44. URL: https://biblio.naturalsciences.be/associated_publications/notae-praehistoricae/NP39/np39_015-044_noens-vanbaelen_wommersom_281119_600-rgb pa17.pdf

Parker, B.J. 2006, Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes. *American Antiquity*, 71(1): 77-100.

Pelegrin, J. 2002, La production des grandes lames de silex du Grand-Pressigny. In: *Matériaux, productions, circulations du néolithique à l'âge du bronze* (J. Guilaine, Ed.), Collection des Hespérides, Editions Errance, Paris: p. 131-148. (in French) ("The production of long blades in the Grand-Pressigny flint")

Pelegrin, J. 2007, Réflexions sur la notion de “spécialiste” dans la taille de la pierre au Paléolithique. In: *Arts et cultures de la Préhistoire. Hommages à Henri Delporte* (R. Desbrosse & A. Thévenin Eds), Paris, Editions du CTHS: p. 315-318 (in French) ("Reflections on the notion of “specialist” in Palaeolithic stone-knapping")

Pelegrin, J. 2012, New experimental observations for the characterization of pressure blade production techniques. In: *The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: From origin to modern experimentation* (P. Desrosiers, Ed.), New York, Springer: p. 465-500.
Perhoč, Z. 2009, Sources of chert for prehistoric lithic industries in Middle Dalmatia. *Archeometriai Műhely*, 3: 45-56.

Perhoč, Z. 2020, *Rohmaterial für die Produktion von Steinartefakten im Spätjungpaläolithikum, Mesolithikum und Neolithikum Dalmatiens (Kroatien)*. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Chemistry and Earth Sciences, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, 616 p. (in German) (“Raw Material for the Production of Stone Artefacts in the Late Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic of Dalmatia (Croatia)”) DOI: https://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00030102

Perlès, C. 1990, L'outillage de pierre taillée néolithique en Grèce: approvisionnement et exploitation des matières premières. *Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique* 114 (1): 1-42. (in French) (“Neolithic Knapped Stone Tools in Greece: Procurement and Exploitation of Raw Materials”)

Perlès, C. 2001, *The early Neolithic in Greece*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 356 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612855

Perlès, C. 2009, Les industries lithiques néolithiques: Logiques techniques et logiques sociales. In: *De Méditerranée et d'ailleurs. Mélanges offerts à Jean Guilaine (Collectif)*. Archives d'écologie préhistorique, Toulouse: p. 557-571. (in French) (“Neolithic Lithic Industries: Technical Logics and Social Logics”)

Perlès, C. & Papagiannaki, L. 2022, The flaked stone assemblages. In: *Platia Magoula Zarkou. The Neolithic Period. Environment, Stratigraphy and Architecture, Chronology, Tools, Figurines and Ornaments* (E. Alram-Stern, K. Gallis & G. Toufexis, Eds.). Oriental and European Archaeology 23, Vienna: p. 197-274.

Perrin, T. & Manen, C. 2021, Potential interactions between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers in the Western Mediterranean: The geochronological data revisited. *PLOS ONE*, 16(3): e0246964. DOI: https://doi.org/doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0246964

Reingruber, A. 2011, Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean. *Documenta Praehistorica*, 38: 291-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.23

Renfrew, C. 1984, *Approaches to social archaeology*. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massa, 430 p.

Roux, V. 2010, Lecture anthropologique des assemblages céramiques: fondements et mise en oeuvre de l'analyse technologique, In: *Approches de la chaîne opératoire de la céramique : le façonnage*, Les Nouvelles de l'Archéologie, Paris: p. 4-9. (in French) (“Anthropological reading of ceramic assemblages: foundations and implementation of technological analysis”)

Roux, V. 2020, Chaîne opératoire, technological networks and sociological interprétations. *Cadena Operativa*, redes tecnológicas e interpretaciones sociológicas, *Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada*, 30(0): 15-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/cpag.v30i0.15370

Sackett, J.R. 1982, Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology*, 1(1): 59-112.

Sackett, J.R. 1986, Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari: A reply to Wiessner. *American Antiquity*, 51(3): 617-624.

Sánchez de la Torre, M., Le Bourdonnec, F. X., Dubernet, S., Gratuze, B., Mangado, X., & Fullola, J. M. 2017, The geochemical characterization of two long distance chert tracers
by ED-XRF and LA-ICP-MS. Implications for Magdalenian human mobility in the Pyrenees (SW Europe). *STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research*, 3(2): 405-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20548923.2017.1370842

Šošić Klindžić, R. 2011, The supply system of siliceous rocks between the Drava, Sava and Danube rivers during the Starčevo culture. *Documenta Praehistorica* 38: 345-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.27

Tarantini, M., Eramo, G., Monno, A. & Muntoni, I. M. 2016, Gargano Promontory Flint: Mining practices and archaeometric characterisation. In: *Ressources lithiques, productions et transferts entre Alpes et Méditerranée, Actes de la journée de la Société préhistorique française, Nice, March 28th to 29th 2013* (A. Tomasso, D. Binder, G. Martino, G. Porraz, P. Simon & N. Naudinot, Eds.), Société Préhistorique Française, Paris: p. 249-267.

Teetaert, D. & Crombé, P. 2021, The start of pottery production by hunter-gatherers in the Low Countries (Swifterbant Culture, 5th millennium BC): a critical assessment of the available radiocarbon dates. *Notae Praehistoricae*, 41: 173-186.

Tostevin, G. 2011, Levels of Theory and Social Practice in the Reduction Sequence and Chaîne Opératoire Methods of Lithic Analysis. In: *Special Issue: Reduction Sequence, Chaîne Opératoire, and Other Methods: The Epistemologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis* (G. Tostevin, Ed.), *PaleoAnthropology*, 2011: 351-375.

Trampota, F. & Přichystal, A. 2024, On foot, by boat: Distribution methods of raw materials suitable for lithics in Central Europe in c. 4900-3400 BCE. *Journal of Lithic Studies*, 11(1), 23 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.7971

Tremblay, R. 1999, Culture et ethnicité en archéologie : les aléas de l’identité conjugués au passé. *Recherches amérindiennes au Québec*, 29(1): 3-8. (in French) (“Culture and ethnicity in archaeology: the vagaries of identity in the past tense”)

Vianello, A. & Tykot, R.H. 2016, Exchange networks from close-up: The case of Lipari obsidian. *Journal of Lithic Studies*, 3(2): 725-740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v3i2.1410

Vinet, A. & Guilbeau, D. 2024, The long blades and their uses: Examples of long laminar flakes from Anatolia. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 53: 104378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104378

Whitley, T.G. 2010, On the Frontier: Looking at Boundaries, Territoriality and Social Distance with GIS. In: *Beyond the Artifact. Digital Interpretation of the Past, Proceedings of CAA2004, Prato 13-17 April 2004* (F. Nicolucci & S. Hermon, Eds.), Archaeolingua, Budapest, p. 41-46.

Zvelebil, M. 2001, The agricultural transition and the origins of Neolithic society in Europe. *Documenta Praehistorica*, 28: 1-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.28.1
# Au-delà des limites : analyses multiscalaires et identification de différentes frontières

Solène Denis¹, Elsa Defranould², Kata Furholt³, Sonja Kačar⁴

1. CNRS, UMR 8068 TEMPS, MSH Mondes, 21 allée de l'Université, FR-92023 Nanterre Cedex, France.

Email: solene.denis@cnrs.fr

2. École des Hautes Études Hispaniques et Ibériques, Casa de Velázquez, Cité universitaire, rue Paul Guinard 3,

28040 Madrid, Espagne. Email: elsa.defranould@proton.me

3. Institut de Préhistoire et de Protohistoire, Université Christian-Albrechts de Kiel, rue Johanna-Mestorf 2-6,

24118 Kiel, Allemagne. Email: kata.furholt@ufg.uni-kiel.de

4. Institut Archéologique Autrichien, Académie Autrichienne des Sciences, Dominikanerbastei 16, 1010 Vienne,

Autriche. Email: sonja.kacar@oeaw.ac.at

## Résumé :

Cet article introduit un volume qui rassemble des spécialistes des études lithiques néolithiques pour explorer comment ce proxy peut révéler différentes organisations spatiales à travers un vaste territoire européen. Il examine si les comportements sont les mêmes selon les différentes zones géographiques et environnementales étudiées et en quoi ils peuvent enrichir notre compréhension des processus sociaux au cours de la néolithisation de l'Europe. Dans un premier temps, nous définissons le concept de frontières, en proposant des modèles basés sur l'espace considéré comme une frontière, la présence de ressources recherchées dans cet espace, les agents présents, et la nature des interactions entre ces agents. Ensuite, nous discutons du potentiel de l'analyse de l'industrie lithique pour identifier les groupements et différents types de frontières. Les entités culturelles néolithiques ont principalement été définies par l'analyse typo-stylistique de la poterie, tandis que les études lithiques ont été sous-utilisées dans ce contexte. Le lithique, pourtant, représente une variable précieuse pour comprendre la distribution spatiale des entités préhistoriques. Les études pétrographiques nous permettent maintenant de définir précisément l'origine des sources de matières premières exploitées, et toutes les actions réalisées sur ces matières siliceuses ne peuvent être supprimées et sont donc lisibles. Les industries lithiques permettent ainsi de suivre l'origine des matières premières et le mouvement de ces matériaux au sein d'une zone donnée. Établir ces réseaux de circulation est crucial pour comprendre les espaces occupés et traversés par les populations préhistoriques et la nature de leurs interactions. Cette approche nous permet de cartographier et de comparer les groupements spatiaux obtenus selon différentes perspectives, et notamment celles des consommateurs ou des producteurs. Nous plaidons pour la nécessité d'études à variables multiples et de modélisation afin de renouveler nos interprétations des groupements spatiaux et de leur évolution au cours du temps. Plus particulièrement, c'est par le prisme d'une cartographie des différents groupes sociaux qu'une première clef de lecture est proposée.

**Mots-clefs** : Mésolithique; Néolithique; Europe; industrie lithique; matières premières; réseaux de circulation; organisation spatiale; organisation sociale
# Die Grenze überschreiten: Mehrschichtige Analyse und die Identifikation verschiedener Grenzlinien

Solène Denis¹, Elsa Defranould², Kata Furholt³, Sonja Kačar⁴

1. CNRS, UMR 8068 TEMPS, MSH Mondes, 21 Allée de l'Université, 92023 Nanterre Cedex, Frankreich.
Email: solene.denis@cnrs.fr

2. École des Hautes Études Hispaniques et Ibériques, Casa de Velázquez, Universitätsstadt, Paul-Guinard-Straße 3, 28040 Madrid, Spanien. Email: elsa.defranould@proton.me

3. Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Johanna-Mestorf-Straße 2-6, 24118 Kiel, Deutschland. Email: kata.furholt@ufg.uni-kiel.de

4. Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Dominikanerbastei 16, 1010 Wien, Österreich. Email: sonja.kacar@oeaw.ac.at

## Zusammenfassung:

In diesem Beitrag wird ein Band vorgestellt, in dem Fachleute aus dem Bereich der Steingeräteforschung zusammenkommen, um zu untersuchen, wie diese Artefaktkategorie unterschiedliche räumliche Muster in einem großen europäischen Gebiet aufzeigen kann. Es wird diskutiert, wie die Untersuchung unterschiedlicher Verhaltensweisen in verschiedenen Umweltbereichen und geografischen Gebieten unser Verständnis sozialer Prozesse während der europäischen Neolithisierung verbessern kann. Zunächst untersuchen wir das Konzept von Grenzen und Grenzlinien und schlagen Modelle vor, die auf dem Vorhandensein von begehrten Ressourcen, den anwesenden Akteuren und der Art der Interaktionen zwischen diesen Akteuren basieren. Anschließend erörtern wir das Potenzial lithischer Analysen zur Identifizierung sozialer Gruppen und verschiedener Arten von Grenzen. Neolithische kulturelle Einheiten wurden in erster Linie durch die typo-stilistische Analyse von Keramik definiert, während die Lithik in diesem Zusammenhang nicht ausreichend genutzt wird. Steingeräte bieten jedoch einen wertvollen Anhaltspunkt für das Verständnis der räumlichen Verteilung solcher Einheiten. Petrographische Untersuchungen ermöglichen es uns heute, die Herkunft von lithischen Rohstoffen genau zu bestimmen, und viele an diesen vorgenommenen Handlungen sind rekonstruierbar. Anhand von Steinmaterial lassen sich somit die Herkunft von Rohstoffen und die Bewegung dieser Materialien in einem bestimmten Gebiet verfolgen. Die Ermittlung dieser Zirkulationsnetze ist entscheidend für das Verständnis der von prähistorischen Menschen bewohnten Räume und der Art ihrer Interaktionen. Dieser Ansatz ermöglicht es uns, räumliche Gruppierungen auf der Grundlage von Perspektiven der Konsumenten- und Produzenten der Steingeräte zu kartieren und zu vergleichen. Wir plädieren für die Notwendigkeit von Multi-Proxy-Studien und Modellierung, um neue Erkenntnisse über räumliche Muster und ihre Entwicklung zu gewinnen, insbesondere durch die Berücksichtigung von Grenzlinien auf der Ebene sozialer Gruppen.

**Schlüsselwörter:** Mesolithikum; Neolithikum; Europa; Steinartefakte; Rohstoffe; Zirkulationsnetzwerke, räumliche Muster; soziale Organisation
# A határ átlépése: többrétegű elemzés és a különböző határvonalak azonosítása

Solène Denis¹, Elsa Defranould², Kata Furholt³, Sonja Kačar⁴

1. CNRS, UMR 8068 TEMPS, MSH Mondes, 21 Allée de l'Université, 92023 Nanterre Cedex, Franciaország.
Email: solene.denis@cnrs.fr

2. École des Hautes Études Hispaniques et Ibériques, Casa de Velázquez, Ciudad Universitaria, Calle de Paul Guinard 3, 28040 Madrid, Spanyolország. Email: elsa.defranould@proton.me

3. Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Johanna-Mestorf-Straße 2-6, 24118 Kiel, Németország. Email: kata.furholt@ufg.uni-kiel.de

4. Austrian Archaeological Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Dominikanerbastei 16, 1010 Bécs, Ausztria. Email: sonja.kacar@oeaw.ac.at

## Absztrakt:

Ez a cikk egy olyan kötetet mutat be, amely a kőeszközökkel foglalkozó szakembereket gyűjti össze annak érdekében, hogy feltárják, miként azonosíthatók különböző térbeli mintázatok proxy-k (közvetítő változó) segítségével egy kiterjedt európai területen. A kötet azt vizsgálja, hogy miként segítheti a különböző környezeti és földrajzi területeken tapasztalható eltérő viselkedésmódok tanulmányozása az európai neolitizáció során történt társadalmi folyamatok mélyebb megértését. Először a határok és határvonalak fogalmát vizsgáljuk, olyan modelleket javasolva, amelyek a határ, térként értelmezett tér, az ott található, keresett nyersanyagok, a jelenlévő cselekvő felek (ágensek), valamint e felek közötti interakciók természetének figyelembevételén alapulnak. Ezt követően a kőeszközelemzésben rejlő lehetőségeket vitatjuk meg a társadalmi csoportok és különböző határtípusok azonosításában. A neolitikus kulturális entitásokat elsősorban a kerámia tipológiai-stilisztikai elemzésével határozták meg, míg a kőeszközöket ebben az összefüggésben eddig nem használták ki kellőképpen. A kőzetek azonban értékes közvetítő változót nyújtanak ezen entitások térbeli eloszlásának megértéséhez. A petrográfiai vizsgálatok ma már lehetővé teszik a nyersanyagforrások pontos meghatározását, és ezeken a kőzeteken végzett minden tevékenység jól rekonstruálható. Ezáltal a kőeszközök lehetővé teszik a nyersanyagok eredetének és egy adott területen belüli mozgásának nyomon követését. A kőeszköz forgalmi/elterjedési hálózataiknak megállapítása döntő fontosságú a Neolitikum előtti és neolitikus közösségek által lakott terek, valamint az ezek között zajló interakciók természetének megértéséhez. Ez a megközelítés lehetővé teszi a térbeli csoportosulások feltérképezését és összehasonlítását a fogyasztói és termelői perspektívák alapján. A tanulmány amellett érvel, hogy többféle proxy alkalmazását és modellezési megközelítéseket egyaránt szükséges bevonni annak érdekében, hogy új ismereteket nyerjünk a térbeli csoportosulások mintázatairól és azok alakulásáról különösen a társadalmi csoportok szintjén értelmezett határvonalak figyelembevételével.

**Kulcsszavak:** Mezolitikum; Neolitikum; Európa; kőeszközök; kőnyersanyagok; elterjedési/forgalmi/elosztási hálózatok; térbeli mintázat; társadalomszervezet