# 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

Solène Denis, Louise Gomart, Pierre Allard, Laurence Burnez-Lanotte

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

## ► To cite this version:

Solène Denis, Louise Gomart, Pierre Allard, Laurence Burnez-Lanotte. 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, 2024, 26, pp.31-63. 10.12766/jna.2024.2. hal-04567661

HAL Id: hal-04567661

https://hal.science/hal-04567661

Submitted on 3 May 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published 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>
# 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

Solène Denis, Louise Gomart, Laurence Burnez-Lanotte, Pierre Allard

## Abstract

Research on European neolithisation agrees that a process of colonisation throughout the sixth millennium BCE underlies the spread of agricultural ways of life on the continent. From Central to Central-Western Europe, this colonisation path is characterised by one single cultural entity, the so-called Linear Pottery Culture (LBK). At the transition between the sixth and fifth millennia BCE, the LBK breaks apart into a mosaic of “post-LBK” cultural groups through mechanisms that are not entirely understood. To contribute to a better understanding of the social processes underlying this transition, we conduct an integrated analysis of the lithic and ceramic technical subsystems attributed to the LBK and the post-LBK in Middle Belgium, a region with unrivalled material evidence. We use the technical actions carried out by the early farmers to produce their lithic tool blanks and ceramics as proxies to shed light on (i) the modalities of technical know-how in intergenerational transmission, (ii) the possible exogenous influences within the technical system, and (iii) the trajectories of the social groups involved in the LBK-Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (BQY/VSG) transition. Our results reveal that several overlapping mechanisms were at work during this cultural transition. While lithic and ceramic general technical trends are clearly transmitted from one period to another attesting to a clear filiation between the LBK and the post-LBK, both the lithic and ceramic detailed sequences of technical actions tend to hybridise after the transition. This reveals close and prolonged interactions between groups of producers from different learning networks, most likely stemming from population mobility during the cultural transition.

## Introduction

It is generally accepted that the Neolithic transition in continental Europe during the sixth millennium BCE occurred through a rapid process of colonisation from Transdanubia (Hungary) to Normandy, characterised archaeologically by the so-called Linear Pottery Culture (or Linearbandkeramik, abbreviated LBK). Studies on the LBK have led to a homogenous perception of this cultural entity on the basis of its architecture, funerary practices and material culture (Bickle/Whittle 2013; Lichardus/Lichardus-Itten 1985). LBK communities were organised in villages undergoing regular cycles of fission after reaching certain demographic thresholds (Du-bouloz 2012). However, at the turn of the sixth millennium BCE, the LBK

03 May 2024

doi 10.12766/jna.2024.2

CC-BY 4.0

Reviewed: 02 May 2023

Received: 22 May 2023

Published: 03 May 2024

Keywords: European Neolithisation, Lithic industry, Ceramic production, Learning networks, Cultural transition

Cite as: Solène Denis et al.: 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
JNA 26, 2024, 31–63 [doi 10.12766/jna.2024.2]

Authors’ addresses:

Solène Denis

French National Centre for Scientific Research
UMR 8068 TEMPS « Technologie et
Ethnologie des Mondes Préhistoriques »
solene.denis@cnrs.fr

Louise Gomart

French National Centre for Scientific Research
UMR 8215 Trajectoires
« De la sédentarisation à l'état »
louise.gomart@cnrs.fr

Pierre Allard

French National Centre for Scientific Research
UMR 8068 TEMPS « Technologie et
Ethnologie des Mondes Préhistoriques »
pierre.allard@cnrs.fr

Laurence Burnez-Lanotte
Namur University
laurence.burnez@unamur.be

Note by the editors:

The following article was first published in a preliminary version on OSFpreprints and subsequently reviewed on PCI Archaeology where the full review process can be followed. As the Journal of Neolithic Archaeology has declared itself "PCI friendly" and the review process fully met established scientific standards, no additional peer reviews were deemed necessary. - Please note that S. Denis and L. Gomart are both correponding authors.

Further information can be found in the supplements available as separate downloads on the article webpage.
# 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

Solène Denis, Louise Gomart, Laurence Burnez-Lanotte, Pierre Allard

## Abstract

Research on European neolithisation agrees that a process of colonisation throughout the sixth millennium BCE underlies the spread of agricultural ways of life on the continent. From Central to Central-Western Europe, this colonisation path is characterised by one single cultural entity, the so-called Linear Pottery Culture (LBK). At the transition between the sixth and fifth millennia BCE, the LBK breaks apart into a mosaic of “post-LBK” cultural groups through mechanisms that are not entirely understood. To contribute to a better understanding of the social processes underlying this transition, we conduct an integrated analysis of the lithic and ceramic technical subsystems attributed to the LBK and the post-LBK in Middle Belgium, a region with unrivalled material evidence. We use the technical actions carried out by the early farmers to produce their lithic tool blanks and ceramics as proxies to shed light on (i) the modalities of technical know-how in intergenerational transmission, (ii) the possible exogenous influences within the technical system, and (iii) the trajectories of the social groups involved in the LBK-Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (BQY/VSG) transition. Our results reveal that several overlapping mechanisms were at work during this cultural transition. While lithic and ceramic general technical trends are clearly transmitted from one period to another attesting to a clear filiation between the LBK and the post-LBK, both the lithic and ceramic detailed sequences of technical actions tend to hybridise after the transition. This reveals close and prolonged interactions between groups of producers from different learning networks, most likely stemming from population mobility during the cultural transition.

## Introduction

It is generally accepted that the Neolithic transition in continental Europe during the sixth millennium BCE occurred through a rapid process of colonisation from Transdanubia (Hungary) to Normandy, characterised archaeologically by the so-called Linear Pottery Culture (or Linearbandkeramik, abbreviated LBK). Studies on the LBK have led to a homogenous perception of this cultural entity on the basis of its architecture, funerary practices and material culture (Bickle/Whittle 2013; Lichardus/Lichardus-Itten 1985). LBK communities were organised in villages undergoing regular cycles of fission after reaching certain demographic thresholds (Du-bouloz 2012). However, at the turn of the sixth millennium BCE, the LBK

03 May 2024

doi 10.12766/jna.2024.2

CC-BY 4.0

Reviewed: 02 May 2023

Received: 22 May 2023

Published: 03 May 2024

Keywords: European Neolithisation, Lithic industry, Ceramic production, Learning networks, Cultural transition

Cite as: Solène Denis et al.: 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
JNA 26, 2024, 31–63 [doi 10.12766/jna.2024.2]

Authors’ addresses:

Solène Denis

French National Centre for Scientific Research
UMR 8068 TEMPS « Technologie et
Ethnologie des Mondes Préhistoriques »
solene.denis@cnrs.fr

Louise Gomart

French National Centre for Scientific Research
UMR 8215 Trajectoires
« De la sédentarisation à l'état »
louise.gomart@cnrs.fr

Pierre Allard

French National Centre for Scientific Research
UMR 8068 TEMPS « Technologie et
Ethnologie des Mondes Préhistoriques »
pierre.allard@cnrs.fr

Laurence Burnez-Lanotte
Namur University
laurence.burnez@unamur.be

Note by the editors:

The following article was first published in a preliminary version on OSFpreprints and subsequently reviewed on PCI Archaeology where the full review process can be followed. As the Journal of Neolithic Archaeology has declared itself "PCI friendly" and the review process fully met established scientific standards, no additional peer reviews were deemed necessary. - Please note that S. Denis and L. Gomart are both correponding authors.

Further information can be found in the supplements available as separate downloads on the article webpage.
broke apart into a mosaic of cultural groups all over Europe. Major trends regarding this shift are characterised by the adoption of new architectural standards, new ceramic styles and a redefinition of raw material circulation networks (e. g. Gleser/Hofmann 2019). During the second half of the fifth millennium, various elements across Europe point to a demographic boom, an increase in social complexity and segmentation, accompanied by the emergence of agglomerations and mining complexes, underlying social hierarchies and inequalities (e. g. Bostyn 2018; Collin 2019; Hofmann/Gleser 2019; Kerig et al. 2015). Ultimately, the beginning of the fifth millennium, which is characterised by the post-LBK groups, appears as an "in-between" in the midst of the Early Neolithic and the Middle Neolithic (Demoule 2010). "Transition is defined first of all as an in-between which enables us to assess continuities and discontinuities, to pass from one period to another" (Müller 2016, 12). This paper aims to better understand the social mechanisms underlying the period of transition defined by the post-LBK. To do this, it is crucial to focus on the processes at play at the end of the LBK which are yet not entirely understood, notably their diversity at the European scale. For instance, continuity in site occupation has been demonstrated between the LBK and the post-LBK in Saxony and Bohemia (e. g. Link 2015; Stäuble 2014; Zápotocká 2007). In contrast, a chronological gap is documented between the end of the LBK and the beginning of the post-LBK in the Upper Rhine region (e. g. Denaire et al. 2017), where some LBK mass burials, such as Herxheim or Talheim, have been discovered (e. g. Meyer et al. 2014; Zeeb-Lanz 2009). On the Aldenhoven Platte (North Rhine-Westphalia), a massive demographic decline has been highlighted (Balkowski 2017; Zimmermann 2009), whereas in the Paris Basin a population increase during the Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (BQY/VSG) seems to occur (Bedault 2009; Dubouloz 2008).

This variability of historical scenarios leads us to believe that working at the micro-regional level is a prerequisite for a more comprehensive understanding of this transitional phenomenon at the European level. The regional scale in fact allows us to deal with two concepts – that of "inheritance" and that of "generation" – which have been highlighted as two heuristic concepts to grasp mechanisms of historical transition (Müller 2016, 16). In this article, these concepts have been mobilised through an integrated analysis of the lithic and ceramic technical subsystems attributed to the LBK and the post-LBK in Hesbaye (Middle Belgium) (Fig. 1). This region, with the post-LBK period characterised by the BQY/VSG, includes numerous settlement sites attributed to the Early Neolithic. However, with a record of 350 LBK sites and only two BQY/VSG sites (Jadin 2003), the transition here

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Middle Belgium and surroundings areas mentioned in the text. Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset (Hesbaye) are the key sites of the study. 1 Ennery; 2 Metz "Nord"; 3 Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes; 4 Aubechies; 5 Fehxe-le-Haut-Clocher; 6 Rosmeer and 7 Darion (Graphics: S. Denis).</figcaption></figure>
broke apart into a mosaic of cultural groups all over Europe. Major trends regarding this shift are characterised by the adoption of new architectural standards, new ceramic styles and a redefinition of raw material circulation networks (e. g. Gleser/Hofmann 2019). During the second half of the fifth millennium, various elements across Europe point to a demographic boom, an increase in social complexity and segmentation, accompanied by the emergence of agglomerations and mining complexes, underlying social hierarchies and inequalities (e. g. Bostyn 2018; Collin 2019; Hofmann/Gleser 2019; Kerig et al. 2015). Ultimately, the beginning of the fifth millennium, which is characterised by the post-LBK groups, appears as an "in-between" in the midst of the Early Neolithic and the Middle Neolithic (Demoule 2010). "Transition is defined first of all as an in-between which enables us to assess continuities and discontinuities, to pass from one period to another" (Müller 2016, 12). This paper aims to better understand the social mechanisms underlying the period of transition defined by the post-LBK. To do this, it is crucial to focus on the processes at play at the end of the LBK which are yet not entirely understood, notably their diversity at the European scale. For instance, continuity in site occupation has been demonstrated between the LBK and the post-LBK in Saxony and Bohemia (e. g. Link 2015; Stäuble 2014; Zápotocká 2007). In contrast, a chronological gap is documented between the end of the LBK and the beginning of the post-LBK in the Upper Rhine region (e. g. Denaire et al. 2017), where some LBK mass burials, such as Herxheim or Talheim, have been discovered (e. g. Meyer et al. 2014; Zeeb-Lanz 2009). On the Aldenhoven Platte (North Rhine-Westphalia), a massive demographic decline has been highlighted (Balkowski 2017; Zimmermann 2009), whereas in the Paris Basin a population increase during the Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (BQY/VSG) seems to occur (Bedault 2009; Dubouloz 2008).

This variability of historical scenarios leads us to believe that working at the micro-regional level is a prerequisite for a more comprehensive understanding of this transitional phenomenon at the European level. The regional scale in fact allows us to deal with two concepts – that of "inheritance" and that of "generation" – which have been highlighted as two heuristic concepts to grasp mechanisms of historical transition (Müller 2016, 16). In this article, these concepts have been mobilised through an integrated analysis of the lithic and ceramic technical subsystems attributed to the LBK and the post-LBK in Hesbaye (Middle Belgium) (Fig. 1). This region, with the post-LBK period characterised by the BQY/VSG, includes numerous settlement sites attributed to the Early Neolithic. However, with a record of 350 LBK sites and only two BQY/VSG sites (Jadin 2003), the transition here

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Middle Belgium and surroundings areas mentioned in the text. Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset (Hesbaye) are the key sites of the study. 1 Ennery; 2 Metz "Nord"; 3 Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes; 4 Aubechies; 5 Fehxe-le-Haut-Clocher; 6 Rosmeer and 7 Darion (Graphics: S. Denis).</figcaption></figure>
seems to be characterised by a form of rupture linked with a significant de-
crease in population, which is in line with the archaeological record in the
Aachen area (Zimmermann 2009).

The neolithisation of Middle Belgium has been the subject of intense de-
bate since the 1980s, largely sparked by the chronological and cultural con-
nection between the LBK and the post-LBK. Three models have been pro-
posed: (i) anteriority of the BQY/VSG in regard to the final stage of the LBK in
the Paris Basin (RFBP) (Jeunesse 2001); (ii) contemporaneity between both
entities (Cahen/Gilot 1983); and (iii) succession, with possible overlapping,
of the LBK and the BQY/VSG (Constantin 1985; Dubouloz 2003). The "Mis-
sion Archéologique du ministère des Affaires étrangères français en Hain-
aut et en Moyenne Belgique" has contributed to these debates, in particular
through research conducted at the Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset sites in Hes-
baye (Constantin/Burnez-Lanotte 2008), and provided evidence in favour of
the third model (Constantin et al. 2010).

A general consensus regarding the chronological succession between the LBK and the BQY/VSG is now established (Constantin et al. 2010; Jadin 2007). Our studies have thus focused on the socio-cultural dynamics defining the relation between these two entities. Three scenarios have been proposed so far to explain the transition between the LBK culture and the post-LBK groups:

i. an endogenous process linked to profound socio-cultural changes in LBK populations. Several authors have suggested that the transition between the LBK culture and post-LBK groups stemmed from socio-economic transformations in LBK communities, and that these gave then rise to a reorganisation of regional cultural identities (Constantin 2013; Constantin/Llett 1998; Constantin et al. 2010);

ii. a syncretic process, relating to the integration of Neolithic populations from contemporaneous cultural entities, or traits thereof. This hypothesis is essentially based on the idea of a Mediterranean influx into western LBK communities, including the diffusion of limestone bracelets, southern influences in pottery decoration styles, specific bone tools (Constantin/Vachard 2004; Hauzeur/Van Berg 2005; Lichardus-Itten 1986; Sidéra 2008);

iii. a syncretic process, relating to the final stage of the integration of hunt-
er-gatherer populations into Danubian Neolithic populations. This prem-
is e is essentially founded on the presence of two specific types of ceramic
ware in an LBK context, one known as La Hoguette, the other as Limburg,
whose origin is still the matter of an intense debate (e. g., Jeunesse 2002;
Manen/Mazurié de Keroualin 2003; Constantin et al. 2010; Gomart/Burn-
ez-Lanotte 2012; Gomart et al. 2017). La Hoguette pottery appears in the
earliest LBK stages and is mainly found in Western Germany, while the
Limburg pottery seems to appear in the later stages of the LBK and is
mainly found in Northeastern France, Belgium and Dutch Limburg. Ac-
cording to Constantin et al. (2010), a development from La Hoguette to
Limburg pottery can be supposed on the basis of chronological trends in
decoration.

These three scenarios, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, thus confront two processes: an endogenous or an internal one, in which the LBK and the BQY/VSG would be part of a single Danubian tradition, and an exogenous or an external one, in which the emergence of the BQY/VSG would result from intercultural interactions. To unravel these scenarios and grasp the continuous or discontinuous nature of the connection between the LBK and the post-LBK cultures in middle Belgium, here we reconstruct the "technical actions" and know-how implemented for the production of both lithic tool blanks and ceramic ware at the Early Neolithic villages of Verlaine (LBK)
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

seems to be characterised by a form of rupture linked with a significant de-
crease in population, which is in line with the archaeological record in the
Aachen area (Zimmermann 2009).

The neolithisation of Middle Belgium has been the subject of intense de-
bate since the 1980s, largely sparked by the chronological and cultural con-
nection between the LBK and the post-LBK. Three models have been pro-
posed: (i) anteriority of the BQY/VSG in regard to the final stage of the LBK in
the Paris Basin (RFBP) (Jeunesse 2001); (ii) contemporaneity between both
entities (Cahen/Gilot 1983); and (iii) succession, with possible overlapping,
of the LBK and the BQY/VSG (Constantin 1985; Dubouloz 2003). The "Mis-
sion Archéologique du ministère des Affaires étrangères français en Hain-
aut et en Moyenne Belgique" has contributed to these debates, in particular
through research conducted at the Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset sites in Hes-
baye (Constantin/Burnez-Lanotte 2008), and provided evidence in favour of
the third model (Constantin et al. 2010).

A general consensus regarding the chronological succession between the LBK and the BQY/VSG is now established (Constantin et al. 2010; Jadin 2007). Our studies have thus focused on the socio-cultural dynamics defining the relation between these two entities. Three scenarios have been proposed so far to explain the transition between the LBK culture and the post-LBK groups:

i. an endogenous process linked to profound socio-cultural changes in LBK populations. Several authors have suggested that the transition between the LBK culture and post-LBK groups stemmed from socio-economic transformations in LBK communities, and that these gave then rise to a reorganisation of regional cultural identities (Constantin 2013; Constantin/Llett 1998; Constantin et al. 2010);

ii. a syncretic process, relating to the integration of Neolithic populations from contemporaneous cultural entities, or traits thereof. This hypothesis is essentially based on the idea of a Mediterranean influx into western LBK communities, including the diffusion of limestone bracelets, southern influences in pottery decoration styles, specific bone tools (Constantin/Vachard 2004; Hauzeur/Van Berg 2005; Lichardus-Itten 1986; Sidéra 2008);

iii. a syncretic process, relating to the final stage of the integration of hunt-
er-gatherer populations into Danubian Neolithic populations. This prem-
is e is essentially founded on the presence of two specific types of ceramic
ware in an LBK context, one known as La Hoguette, the other as Limburg,
whose origin is still the matter of an intense debate (e. g., Jeunesse 2002;
Manen/Mazurié de Keroualin 2003; Constantin et al. 2010; Gomart/Burn-
ez-Lanotte 2012; Gomart et al. 2017). La Hoguette pottery appears in the
earliest LBK stages and is mainly found in Western Germany, while the
Limburg pottery seems to appear in the later stages of the LBK and is
mainly found in Northeastern France, Belgium and Dutch Limburg. Ac-
cording to Constantin et al. (2010), a development from La Hoguette to
Limburg pottery can be supposed on the basis of chronological trends in
decoration.

These three scenarios, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, thus confront two processes: an endogenous or an internal one, in which the LBK and the BQY/VSG would be part of a single Danubian tradition, and an exogenous or an external one, in which the emergence of the BQY/VSG would result from intercultural interactions. To unravel these scenarios and grasp the continuous or discontinuous nature of the connection between the LBK and the post-LBK cultures in middle Belgium, here we reconstruct the "technical actions" and know-how implemented for the production of both lithic tool blanks and ceramic ware at the Early Neolithic villages of Verlaine (LBK)
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

and Vaux-et-Borset (both LBK and BQY/VSG) (Fig. 1). Through the synchronic and diachronic evaluation of lithic and ceramic technical traditions, this article aims to trace the social groups involved in the LBK-BQY/VSG transition and to identify possible exogenous influences within the technical system in the context of an apparent rupture between the two entities.

## Materials and methods

### Vaux-et-Borset and Verlaine: two key sites for the beginning of the Neolithic in Belgium

The line of thought presented here is based on the technological study of the lithic and ceramic assemblages discovered at the Early Neolithic sites of Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset, both of which are located in Eastern Belgium in the region of Hesbaye. These sites are among the best documented for the period (Burnez-Lanotte et al. 1993; 2001; Constantin/Burnez-Lanotte 2008) in this densely populated region during the Early Neolithic (e. g. Jadin 2003). They also both have been the subject of detailed technological analyses of lithic and ceramic assemblages<fnref n="1" />, enabling an unprecedented cross-over study of the evolving dynamics of the technical systems. Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset were both occupied during the LBK, while only Vaux-et-Borset yielded a BQY/VSG occupation.

The site 'Le Petit Paradis' in the Verlaine municipality of the Hesbaye region is located on a loess plateau, 300 m east of the Yerne River. It has been explored over a surface of 15,600 m², although the total occupation area is estimated at 3 or 4 ha (Fig. 2). The site was discovered by E. Vanderhoeft, who excavated a pit containing thousands of pieces of flint knapping waste and hundreds of blade cores. The extensive excavation revealed that this pit was in fact part of a classic village. This village includes 140 structures, in addition to between six and fourteen buildings, depending on the scenario, organised in parallel lines in a north-west-south-east orientation (Burnez-Lanotte 2010). Twenty-one smaller flint debitage concentrations (i. e. heaps of coherent blade debitage waste stemming from the same knapping events) have been uncovered in addition to the initial discovery. While the southern, eastern and western limits of the village have been identified, the occupation seems to extend further to the north (Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2008). The Verlaine site lies in a region rich in Early Neolithic sites. At least 20 LBK sites are known in a 3 km radius. The chalk substratum in the Belgian levels of the *Nouvelles assises* (geological bedrock) contains abundant flint. Apart from Verlaine, debitage clusters were found at five other sites, including the famous Dommartin site, which, according to the literature, are comprised of at least 19 clusters (Allard 2005a, 124-125). The seriation of the ceramic decorations from Verlaine is still in progress. Nevertheless, a first periodisation of motifs and decorations on pottery from nine of the pits (structures 1, 2, 56, 10, 23, 29, 34, 61 and 62) places the site occupation in the phases IIc and the beginning of IIId, according to the Dutch Limburg chronological sequence in the later stage of the LBK (Modderman 1970). These nine structures seem to form a chronologically homogenous ensemble (Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2008).

The excavation sections 'Gibour' and 'À La Croix Marie-Jeanne' (Villers-le-Bouillet) at Vaux-et-Borset revealed two adjoining villages, dating from the earliest Neolithic in Hesbaye: one belonging to the LBK ('Gibour'), the other to the post-LBK ('Gibour' and 'À La Croix Marie-Jeanne'). The two settlements are spatially distinctive from one another (Fig. 3), and a minimum distance of 40 m separates the closest structures from each occupation. The presence of the LBK is demonstrated by structures belonging to two building categories: an enclosure and a village. With an estimated

<footnote n="1">¹ Allard 2005a; 2005b; 2007; Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2006; Burnez-Lanotte/Allard 2003; Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1994; 1997; 1998; 2003; Denis 2017; Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Gomart 2014; van Doosselaere et al. 2013; 2016.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

and Vaux-et-Borset (both LBK and BQY/VSG) (Fig. 1). Through the synchronic and diachronic evaluation of lithic and ceramic technical traditions, this article aims to trace the social groups involved in the LBK-BQY/VSG transition and to identify possible exogenous influences within the technical system in the context of an apparent rupture between the two entities.

## Materials and methods

### Vaux-et-Borset and Verlaine: two key sites for the beginning of the Neolithic in Belgium

The line of thought presented here is based on the technological study of the lithic and ceramic assemblages discovered at the Early Neolithic sites of Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset, both of which are located in Eastern Belgium in the region of Hesbaye. These sites are among the best documented for the period (Burnez-Lanotte et al. 1993; 2001; Constantin/Burnez-Lanotte 2008) in this densely populated region during the Early Neolithic (e. g. Jadin 2003). They also both have been the subject of detailed technological analyses of lithic and ceramic assemblages<fnref n="1" />, enabling an unprecedented cross-over study of the evolving dynamics of the technical systems. Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset were both occupied during the LBK, while only Vaux-et-Borset yielded a BQY/VSG occupation.

The site 'Le Petit Paradis' in the Verlaine municipality of the Hesbaye region is located on a loess plateau, 300 m east of the Yerne River. It has been explored over a surface of 15,600 m², although the total occupation area is estimated at 3 or 4 ha (Fig. 2). The site was discovered by E. Vanderhoeft, who excavated a pit containing thousands of pieces of flint knapping waste and hundreds of blade cores. The extensive excavation revealed that this pit was in fact part of a classic village. This village includes 140 structures, in addition to between six and fourteen buildings, depending on the scenario, organised in parallel lines in a north-west-south-east orientation (Burnez-Lanotte 2010). Twenty-one smaller flint debitage concentrations (i. e. heaps of coherent blade debitage waste stemming from the same knapping events) have been uncovered in addition to the initial discovery. While the southern, eastern and western limits of the village have been identified, the occupation seems to extend further to the north (Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2008). The Verlaine site lies in a region rich in Early Neolithic sites. At least 20 LBK sites are known in a 3 km radius. The chalk substratum in the Belgian levels of the *Nouvelles assises* (geological bedrock) contains abundant flint. Apart from Verlaine, debitage clusters were found at five other sites, including the famous Dommartin site, which, according to the literature, are comprised of at least 19 clusters (Allard 2005a, 124-125). The seriation of the ceramic decorations from Verlaine is still in progress. Nevertheless, a first periodisation of motifs and decorations on pottery from nine of the pits (structures 1, 2, 56, 10, 23, 29, 34, 61 and 62) places the site occupation in the phases IIc and the beginning of IIId, according to the Dutch Limburg chronological sequence in the later stage of the LBK (Modderman 1970). These nine structures seem to form a chronologically homogenous ensemble (Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2008).

The excavation sections 'Gibour' and 'À La Croix Marie-Jeanne' (Villers-le-Bouillet) at Vaux-et-Borset revealed two adjoining villages, dating from the earliest Neolithic in Hesbaye: one belonging to the LBK ('Gibour'), the other to the post-LBK ('Gibour' and 'À La Croix Marie-Jeanne'). The two settlements are spatially distinctive from one another (Fig. 3), and a minimum distance of 40 m separates the closest structures from each occupation. The presence of the LBK is demonstrated by structures belonging to two building categories: an enclosure and a village. With an estimated

<footnote n="1">¹ Allard 2005a; 2005b; 2007; Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2006; Burnez-Lanotte/Allard 2003; Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1994; 1997; 1998; 2003; Denis 2017; Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Gomart 2014; van Doosselaere et al. 2013; 2016.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Verlaine 'Le Petit Paradis'. Grey rectangles – identified houses with postholes; red stars – debitage concentrations; grey lines – extent of excavated area (after Burnez-Lanotte 2010; graphics: P. Allard).</figcaption></figure>

perimeter of 810 m, the enclosure consists of a ditch with an irregular oval layout, marking the boundaries of an area of 4.5 ha. Most of the LBK settlement is inside the enclosure. It comprises at least five houses and their construction trenches, as well as an ensemble of 16 intersecting silos, and 35 pits predominantly spread out inside the enclosed area. With the current state of research (seriation of the ceramic assemblages in progress), the settlement is attributed to the second half of the late LBK for the Meuse Basin (i. e. LBK B after Blouet et al. 2013; Modderman IIb, IIc after Modderman 1970) and to the final LBK (Modderman IId). The adjoining post-LBK occupation extends over two sectors ('Gibour' and 'À la Croix Marie-Jeanne'). Almost 13,000 m² have been explored: 'Gibour' is located about 10 m west of the LBK settlement, while 'À la Croix Marie-Jeanne' is located some hundred metres south-west of the LBK excavation section. Due to intense erosion, no clear house plans could be identified. Nevertheless, the characteristics of some structures suggesting lateral pit complexes, as well as refits, indicate the possible presence of at least five buildings (Burnez-Lanotte et al. 1993; 2005).
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Verlaine 'Le Petit Paradis'. Grey rectangles – identified houses with postholes; red stars – debitage concentrations; grey lines – extent of excavated area (after Burnez-Lanotte 2010; graphics: P. Allard).</figcaption></figure>

perimeter of 810 m, the enclosure consists of a ditch with an irregular oval layout, marking the boundaries of an area of 4.5 ha. Most of the LBK settlement is inside the enclosure. It comprises at least five houses and their construction trenches, as well as an ensemble of 16 intersecting silos, and 35 pits predominantly spread out inside the enclosed area. With the current state of research (seriation of the ceramic assemblages in progress), the settlement is attributed to the second half of the late LBK for the Meuse Basin (i. e. LBK B after Blouet et al. 2013; Modderman IIb, IIc after Modderman 1970) and to the final LBK (Modderman IId). The adjoining post-LBK occupation extends over two sectors ('Gibour' and 'À la Croix Marie-Jeanne'). Almost 13,000 m² have been explored: 'Gibour' is located about 10 m west of the LBK settlement, while 'À la Croix Marie-Jeanne' is located some hundred metres south-west of the LBK excavation section. Due to intense erosion, no clear house plans could be identified. Nevertheless, the characteristics of some structures suggesting lateral pit complexes, as well as refits, indicate the possible presence of at least five buildings (Burnez-Lanotte et al. 1993; 2005).
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

prove to have no technical basis, either for the completion of the manu-
facturing process or for the functional character of the produced object.
Consequently, these actions or technical processes carry a strong identity
signature. By identity, we are referring to the affiliation of producers to a
given social group, the nature of which may vary. In actualist contexts, so-
sial groups may, for instance, correspond to gender groups, families, castes,
sub-castes, factions, classes, lineages, clans, ethnic groups, tribes, ethno-
linguistic groups and so on (Roux 2011). Defining these *chaînes opératoires*
and their variability, in the absence of functional constraints, leads to the
identification of "ways of doing" (e.g. Roux 2010), for which multiple de-
tailed observations enable us to set aside possible technical convergences
when carrying out comparisons on a large scale (Gosselain 2018), and thus
to identify the social groups in charge of production. Defining these *chaînes
opératoires* diachronically then makes it possible to assess continuity or dis-
continuity in the transmission of technical know-how between generations.
When temporal or spatial continuity in technical practices is identified, i.e.
transmission of technical know-how from generation to generation among
a community of practice, "ways of doing" can be defined as "technical tra-
ditions".

Changes within the technical system generally point to a redefinition of
social identities within a given context, whether these changes take place
within the confines of a single community, or result from interactions be-
tween different communities (Roux 2019). As sequences of technical actions
reflect deeply anchored facets of producers' identities, evidence for discon-
tinuity or, on the contrary, continuity is always very consequential with re-
gard to socio-cultural dynamics. Indeed, diachronic continuity in techni-
cal traditions shows the local permanence of producers' social groups over
time through an intergenerational transmission of knowledge (Roux 2020).
Discontinuity raises the question of the nature and origin of the new way of
doing to determine whether the changes observed in technical practices
are related to endogenous or exogenous factors. The analysis of discontinu-
ity provides crucial information about mobility patterns and relationships
between different social groups (Roux 2011). Through the detailed recon-
struction of the technical actions and the tools associated with the manu-
facture of flint blades and pottery, our objective is thus to explore these
dynamics and trace the spatial trajectories of the early farming communi-
ties in Central-Western Europe, extending the discussion beyond the ge-
ographical region of Hesbaye (Fig. 1). While the raw materials used for flint
tools have been taken into account in the present article, the study on pot-
tery has been focused on forming actions, which represent extremely sta-
ble know-how within a given apprenticeship network as several ethno-
historical studies (e. g. Mayor 2011; Roux 2019) and archaeological research
(e. g. Vandiver 1987; Roux/Thalmann 2016) show. Once sequences of tech-
nical actions have been embodied during the learning process, producers
tend not to question or change them, passing them down through gener-
ations (e. g. Gosselain 2002). In contrast, raw materials, which provide ex-
tremely valuable information for an understanding of the organisation of
pottery production or for an assessment of circulation networks of goods,
tend to change much more within a given community of practice depend-
ing on various factors, such as consumer demand, local standards (e. g. Gel-
bert 2003), or changes in the producers' environment in the context of mi-
grations (e. g. Gabriele et al. 2022).

The lithic industry

In the scope of this study, the analysis of lithic techniques focuses on blade
production. Acquiring the skills necessary for the production of blades
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

prove to have no technical basis, either for the completion of the manu-
facturing process or for the functional character of the produced object.
Consequently, these actions or technical processes carry a strong identity
signature. By identity, we are referring to the affiliation of producers to a
given social group, the nature of which may vary. In actualist contexts, so-
sial groups may, for instance, correspond to gender groups, families, castes,
sub-castes, factions, classes, lineages, clans, ethnic groups, tribes, ethno-
linguistic groups and so on (Roux 2011). Defining these *chaînes opératoires*
and their variability, in the absence of functional constraints, leads to the
identification of "ways of doing" (e.g. Roux 2010), for which multiple de-
tailed observations enable us to set aside possible technical convergences
when carrying out comparisons on a large scale (Gosselain 2018), and thus
to identify the social groups in charge of production. Defining these *chaînes
opératoires* diachronically then makes it possible to assess continuity or dis-
continuity in the transmission of technical know-how between generations.
When temporal or spatial continuity in technical practices is identified, i.e.
transmission of technical know-how from generation to generation among
a community of practice, "ways of doing" can be defined as "technical tra-
ditions".

Changes within the technical system generally point to a redefinition of
social identities within a given context, whether these changes take place
within the confines of a single community, or result from interactions be-
tween different communities (Roux 2019). As sequences of technical actions
reflect deeply anchored facets of producers' identities, evidence for discon-
tinuity or, on the contrary, continuity is always very consequential with re-
gard to socio-cultural dynamics. Indeed, diachronic continuity in techni-
cal traditions shows the local permanence of producers' social groups over
time through an intergenerational transmission of knowledge (Roux 2020).
Discontinuity raises the question of the nature and origin of the new way of
doing to determine whether the changes observed in technical practices
are related to endogenous or exogenous factors. The analysis of discontinu-
ity provides crucial information about mobility patterns and relationships
between different social groups (Roux 2011). Through the detailed recon-
struction of the technical actions and the tools associated with the manu-
facture of flint blades and pottery, our objective is thus to explore these
dynamics and trace the spatial trajectories of the early farming communi-
ties in Central-Western Europe, extending the discussion beyond the ge-
ographical region of Hesbaye (Fig. 1). While the raw materials used for flint
tools have been taken into account in the present article, the study on pot-
tery has been focused on forming actions, which represent extremely sta-
ble know-how within a given apprenticeship network as several ethno-
historical studies (e. g. Mayor 2011; Roux 2019) and archaeological research
(e. g. Vandiver 1987; Roux/Thalmann 2016) show. Once sequences of tech-
nical actions have been embodied during the learning process, producers
tend not to question or change them, passing them down through gener-
ations (e. g. Gosselain 2002). In contrast, raw materials, which provide ex-
tremely valuable information for an understanding of the organisation of
pottery production or for an assessment of circulation networks of goods,
tend to change much more within a given community of practice depend-
ing on various factors, such as consumer demand, local standards (e. g. Gel-
bert 2003), or changes in the producers' environment in the context of mi-
grations (e. g. Gabriele et al. 2022).

The lithic industry

In the scope of this study, the analysis of lithic techniques focuses on blade
production. Acquiring the skills necessary for the production of blades
entails long and sustained training (Pelegrin 1991; 2007) in order to obtain
a certain technical consistency. In the absence of systematic refitting, apart
from the Verlaine cluster, the blades themselves, representing the material-
isation of the aims of production, form the basis of our study. The vocabu-
lary used to describe the technical characteristics of the lithic artefacts fol-
lows M.-L. Inizan and colleagues (1999).

Early Neolithic LBK and BQY/VSG sites are very much alike in terms of the
technical setting for the production of tool blanks (e.g., Allard/Bostyn 2006).
The *chaîne opératoire* for blade production is well documented by earlier
studies (Allard 2005a; Allard/Denis 2022; Denis 2017) and the description of
the diacritical sketches of the studied blades. To shape the block, one or two
crests need to be created. Shaping begins with hard percussion, then crests
are generally formed though indirect percussion (punch technique). This
technique is also used for blade production, and is carried out according to
a unipolar pattern. Intervening from the base serves to correct accidents or
to maintain convexities, as well as to create neo-crests. The knapping pro-
cess is rotating or semi-rotating. The objective of production is for the most
part a small blade of about 10 cm in length, with a trapezoidal cross-section
of 18-20 mm width, and a thickness of 4-6 mm (Fig. 4a).

The morphological or qualitative constraints imposed by the raw ma-
terial have to be evaluated before a possible technical response can be

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Vaux-et-Borset ‘Gibour’ (LBK and post-LBK) and ‘À La Croix Marie-Jeanne’ (post-LBK). Flint blades: A) Characteristics of intended laminar blanks in the Danubian Early Neolithic of North-Western Europe. 1 Retouched blade; 2 sickle; 3–4 burins; 5 borer; 6–7 scrapers. B) Proximal blade parts. 1 Morphological dihedral butt; 2 flat butt. The first is linked to the preparation of the striking platform by small flakes versus no preparation. 3 Backed overhang prepared with punch; 4 overhangs very well prepared with a stone. Important difference of butt dimensions: wide (3) and thick (2), narrow (4) and thin (1 and 4). A1–3.B2–3 Campanian flint; A4.6 Bartonian flint; A5.7.B1 Ghlin flint; B4 other flint type (Drawings: S. Denis; photos: Unamur/Save-dva).</figcaption></figure>
entails long and sustained training (Pelegrin 1991; 2007) in order to obtain
a certain technical consistency. In the absence of systematic refitting, apart
from the Verlaine cluster, the blades themselves, representing the material-
isation of the aims of production, form the basis of our study. The vocabu-
lary used to describe the technical characteristics of the lithic artefacts fol-
lows M.-L. Inizan and colleagues (1999).

Early Neolithic LBK and BQY/VSG sites are very much alike in terms of the
technical setting for the production of tool blanks (e.g., Allard/Bostyn 2006).
The *chaîne opératoire* for blade production is well documented by earlier
studies (Allard 2005a; Allard/Denis 2022; Denis 2017) and the description of
the diacritical sketches of the studied blades. To shape the block, one or two
crests need to be created. Shaping begins with hard percussion, then crests
are generally formed though indirect percussion (punch technique). This
technique is also used for blade production, and is carried out according to
a unipolar pattern. Intervening from the base serves to correct accidents or
to maintain convexities, as well as to create neo-crests. The knapping pro-
cess is rotating or semi-rotating. The objective of production is for the most
part a small blade of about 10 cm in length, with a trapezoidal cross-section
of 18-20 mm width, and a thickness of 4-6 mm (Fig. 4a).

The morphological or qualitative constraints imposed by the raw ma-
terial have to be evaluated before a possible technical response can be

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Vaux-et-Borset ‘Gibour’ (LBK and post-LBK) and ‘À La Croix Marie-Jeanne’ (post-LBK). Flint blades: A) Characteristics of intended laminar blanks in the Danubian Early Neolithic of North-Western Europe. 1 Retouched blade; 2 sickle; 3–4 burins; 5 borer; 6–7 scrapers. B) Proximal blade parts. 1 Morphological dihedral butt; 2 flat butt. The first is linked to the preparation of the striking platform by small flakes versus no preparation. 3 Backed overhang prepared with punch; 4 overhangs very well prepared with a stone. Important difference of butt dimensions: wide (3) and thick (2), narrow (4) and thin (1 and 4). A1–3.B2–3 Campanian flint; A4.6 Bartonian flint; A5.7.B1 Ghlin flint; B4 other flint type (Drawings: S. Denis; photos: Unamur/Save-dva).</figcaption></figure>
identified. For our survey area, the clastic properties of the materials used are globally comparable. It is the origin of the materials, however, that greatly helps to determine the movements of the technical groups in question. As there is no reference collection for the raw materials found in Hesbaye, they are traditionally considered to consist of fine and coarse flints (Allard 2005a). The first derive from the Campanian, the latter from local Maastrichtian levels. Although few outcrops have been recorded to date, we consider these flints to be of local to regional origin, as we cannot systematically determine the distance to the extracted deposits (0–30 km). Potential deposits of Campanian and Maastrichtian flint crop out in secondary positions near Vaux-et-Borset (Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1994). They are chiefly used for the production of flakes, but their morpho-dimensional characteristics tend to make them inadequate for blade production. This inadequacy suggests a more distant origin for the raw materials selected for blade production. The Verlaine outcrops are local (Allard 2005a). Given the absence of a regional rock reference collection, the origin of certain raw materials, and Maastrichtian flint in particular, remains open to question. The variability of the latter in the assemblages could suggest diverse origins that cannot be evaluated for the time being. Two other raw materials are mentioned in this study: Ghlin flint and tertiary Bartonian flint. Ghlin flint comes from the Mons Basin (Hainaut). The deposits have not yet been precisely located, but the most recent indications point to a probable origin near Baudour (Collin 2016; 2019; Leblois 2000), ca. 100 km from Vaux-et-Borset. Bartonian flint originates from the Paris Basin, 250 km to the south-east (Allard et al. 2005; Blanchet et al. 1989).

Defining technical traditions also involves evaluating the knappers' level of know-how. To determine knappers' shared norms and practices, the objectives or intentions of production have to be perfectly established. The faulty pieces left by apprentice knappers can represent technical variability, created by the imperfect execution of the technical gesture.

Finally, non-essential processes and technical actions bearing strong identifiability are confined to the platforms and the preparation of blade detachment. They attest to the variability of technical actions and tools that differentiate distinct groups of producers (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020). In the absence of exhaustive refits, notably at Vaux-et-Borset, the proximal parts of blades are the best vector for characterising these technical lithic traditions (Fig. 4b).

## Pottery forming

The spatial organisation of pores and mineral inclusions, as well as surface topography, are subject to the type of pressure applied to clay during forming. As a result, the systematic examination of these characteristics on archeological ceramics yields coherent and reproducible indications on the technical actions carried out during the manufacturing process (Pierret et al. 1996). Several ethnographic and experimental works based on such premises demonstrate a direct link between certain technical actions (e. g. rolling, beating, pinching) and specific traces left on outer and inner pottery surfaces (see illustrations of these actions and traces in Livingstone Smith 2001). The macroscopic examination of ceramics concentrates on (1) the organisation of pores and mineral inclusions, as well as correlating discontinuities in the radial and equatorial sections, (2) topographical surface characteristics, (3) variations in the thickness and texture of the walls, and (4) patterns of fractures and fissures. The interpretations of these technical traces and methods of shaping are based on several archaeological, experimental and ethnographical works of reference (e. g. Gelbert 2003; Livingstone Smith 2001; Rye 1981; Shepard 1976).
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

identified. For our survey area, the clastic properties of the materials used are globally comparable. It is the origin of the materials, however, that greatly helps to determine the movements of the technical groups in question. As there is no reference collection for the raw materials found in Hesbaye, they are traditionally considered to consist of fine and coarse flints (Allard 2005a). The first derive from the Campanian, the latter from local Maastrichtian levels. Although few outcrops have been recorded to date, we consider these flints to be of local to regional origin, as we cannot systematically determine the distance to the extracted deposits (0–30 km). Potential deposits of Campanian and Maastrichtian flint crop out in secondary positions near Vaux-et-Borset (Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1994). They are chiefly used for the production of flakes, but their morpho-dimensional characteristics tend to make them inadequate for blade production. This inadequacy suggests a more distant origin for the raw materials selected for blade production. The Verlaine outcrops are local (Allard 2005a). Given the absence of a regional rock reference collection, the origin of certain raw materials, and Maastrichtian flint in particular, remains open to question. The variability of the latter in the assemblages could suggest diverse origins that cannot be evaluated for the time being. Two other raw materials are mentioned in this study: Ghlin flint and tertiary Bartonian flint. Ghlin flint comes from the Mons Basin (Hainaut). The deposits have not yet been precisely located, but the most recent indications point to a probable origin near Baudour (Collin 2016; 2019; Leblois 2000), ca. 100 km from Vaux-et-Borset. Bartonian flint originates from the Paris Basin, 250 km to the south-east (Allard et al. 2005; Blanchet et al. 1989).

Defining technical traditions also involves evaluating the knappers' level of know-how. To determine knappers' shared norms and practices, the objectives or intentions of production have to be perfectly established. The faulty pieces left by apprentice knappers can represent technical variability, created by the imperfect execution of the technical gesture.

Finally, non-essential processes and technical actions bearing strong identifiability are confined to the platforms and the preparation of blade detachment. They attest to the variability of technical actions and tools that differentiate distinct groups of producers (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020). In the absence of exhaustive refits, notably at Vaux-et-Borset, the proximal parts of blades are the best vector for characterising these technical lithic traditions (Fig. 4b).

## Pottery forming

The spatial organisation of pores and mineral inclusions, as well as surface topography, are subject to the type of pressure applied to clay during forming. As a result, the systematic examination of these characteristics on archeological ceramics yields coherent and reproducible indications on the technical actions carried out during the manufacturing process (Pierret et al. 1996). Several ethnographic and experimental works based on such premises demonstrate a direct link between certain technical actions (e. g. rolling, beating, pinching) and specific traces left on outer and inner pottery surfaces (see illustrations of these actions and traces in Livingstone Smith 2001). The macroscopic examination of ceramics concentrates on (1) the organisation of pores and mineral inclusions, as well as correlating discontinuities in the radial and equatorial sections, (2) topographical surface characteristics, (3) variations in the thickness and texture of the walls, and (4) patterns of fractures and fissures. The interpretations of these technical traces and methods of shaping are based on several archaeological, experimental and ethnographical works of reference (e. g. Gelbert 2003; Livingstone Smith 2001; Rye 1981; Shepard 1976).
## Lithic and ceramic material under study

### Lithic sample

Our study is based on the detailed examination of a sample consisting of 398 pieces from Verlaine (Table 1), corresponding to the proximal parts of a selection of blades found inside five pits (124, 130, 131, 61 and 62). The studied objects were found in both domestic waste and debitage concentrations. The whole set of blades from Vaux-et-Borset, 1,941 pieces, was also studied (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020). They come from the LBK area (755 artefacts) and the BQY/VSG section (1,186 artefacts) of the site (Table 2).

<table><caption>Table 1. Verlaine 'Le Petit Paradis'. Lithic artefacts studied according to context of discovery and raw material. The databases related to the studied material are available in the Supplements.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Features</th><th colspan="3">Debitage concentration</th><th colspan="3">Domestic waste</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>Campanian</th><th>Maastrichtian</th><th>Indet.</th><th>Campanian</th><th>Maastrichtian</th><th>Indet.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>124</td><td>26</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>8</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>130</td><td>39</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>22</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>131</td><td>79</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>150</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>232</td></tr><tr><td>130-131</td><td>12</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>17</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>20</td><td>-</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>14</td><td>2</td><td>19</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><th>Total</th><td>156</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>202</td><td>35</td><td>5</td><td>398</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>Table 2. Vaux-et-Borset 'Gibour' and 'À La Croix Marie-Jeanne'. Lithic artefacts studied according to context of discovery and raw material. The databases related to the studied material are available in the Supplements.</caption><thead><tr><th>Houses/ structures</th><th>Ghlin</th><th>Tertiary Paris Basin</th><th>Campanian Hesb.</th><th>Maastrichtian Hesb.</th><th>Other</th><th>Indetermined</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LBK_H1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>37</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>LBK_H2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>97</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>LBK_H3</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>36</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>LBK_H4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>35</td><td>36</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Enclosure</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Other structures</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>416</td><td>31</td><td>6</td><td>17</td><td>472</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total LBK</strong></td><td><strong>3</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>626</strong></td><td><strong>75</strong></td><td><strong>19</strong></td><td><strong>32</strong></td><td><strong>755</strong></td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H1</td><td>150</td><td>29</td><td>114</td><td>18</td><td>10</td><td>26</td><td>347</td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H2</td><td>43</td><td>13</td><td>50</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H3</td><td>46</td><td>25</td><td>216</td><td>42</td><td>20</td><td>29</td><td>378</td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H4</td><td>39</td><td>9</td><td>27</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H5</td><td>56</td><td>8</td><td>43</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>Other structures</td><td>42</td><td>11</td><td>43</td><td>14</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total BQY/VSG</strong></td><td><strong>376</strong></td><td><strong>95</strong></td><td><strong>493</strong></td><td><strong>88</strong></td><td><strong>54</strong></td><td><strong>80</strong></td><td><strong>1186</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

### Ceramic sample

The ceramic sample is comprised of 652 pottery vessels from Verlaine (Table 3). Here, the results obtained at Verlaine are put into perspective by comparing them to those from seven other LBK sites (Gomart 2014). For reasons of accessibility to materials, the ceramic assemblage from the LBK village of Vaux-et-Borset had to be excluded from this first integrated analysis.
## Lithic and ceramic material under study

### Lithic sample

Our study is based on the detailed examination of a sample consisting of 398 pieces from Verlaine (Table 1), corresponding to the proximal parts of a selection of blades found inside five pits (124, 130, 131, 61 and 62). The studied objects were found in both domestic waste and debitage concentrations. The whole set of blades from Vaux-et-Borset, 1,941 pieces, was also studied (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020). They come from the LBK area (755 artefacts) and the BQY/VSG section (1,186 artefacts) of the site (Table 2).

<table><caption>Table 1. Verlaine 'Le Petit Paradis'. Lithic artefacts studied according to context of discovery and raw material. The databases related to the studied material are available in the Supplements.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Features</th><th colspan="3">Debitage concentration</th><th colspan="3">Domestic waste</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>Campanian</th><th>Maastrichtian</th><th>Indet.</th><th>Campanian</th><th>Maastrichtian</th><th>Indet.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>124</td><td>26</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>8</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>130</td><td>39</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>22</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>131</td><td>79</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>150</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>232</td></tr><tr><td>130-131</td><td>12</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>17</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>20</td><td>-</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>14</td><td>2</td><td>19</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><th>Total</th><td>156</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>202</td><td>35</td><td>5</td><td>398</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>Table 2. Vaux-et-Borset 'Gibour' and 'À La Croix Marie-Jeanne'. Lithic artefacts studied according to context of discovery and raw material. The databases related to the studied material are available in the Supplements.</caption><thead><tr><th>Houses/ structures</th><th>Ghlin</th><th>Tertiary Paris Basin</th><th>Campanian Hesb.</th><th>Maastrichtian Hesb.</th><th>Other</th><th>Indetermined</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>LBK_H1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>37</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>LBK_H2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>97</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>LBK_H3</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>36</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>LBK_H4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>35</td><td>36</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Enclosure</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Other structures</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>416</td><td>31</td><td>6</td><td>17</td><td>472</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total LBK</strong></td><td><strong>3</strong></td><td><strong>0</strong></td><td><strong>626</strong></td><td><strong>75</strong></td><td><strong>19</strong></td><td><strong>32</strong></td><td><strong>755</strong></td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H1</td><td>150</td><td>29</td><td>114</td><td>18</td><td>10</td><td>26</td><td>347</td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H2</td><td>43</td><td>13</td><td>50</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H3</td><td>46</td><td>25</td><td>216</td><td>42</td><td>20</td><td>29</td><td>378</td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H4</td><td>39</td><td>9</td><td>27</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>BQY/VSG_H5</td><td>56</td><td>8</td><td>43</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>Other structures</td><td>42</td><td>11</td><td>43</td><td>14</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total BQY/VSG</strong></td><td><strong>376</strong></td><td><strong>95</strong></td><td><strong>493</strong></td><td><strong>88</strong></td><td><strong>54</strong></td><td><strong>80</strong></td><td><strong>1186</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

### Ceramic sample

The ceramic sample is comprised of 652 pottery vessels from Verlaine (Table 3). Here, the results obtained at Verlaine are put into perspective by comparing them to those from seven other LBK sites (Gomart 2014). For reasons of accessibility to materials, the ceramic assemblage from the LBK village of Vaux-et-Borset had to be excluded from this first integrated analysis.
We could, however, use the results of the thorough technological analysis carried out by B. van Doosselaere on 268 BQY/VSG vessels from Vaux-et-Borset (van Doosselaere et al. 2013; 2016).

<table><caption>Table 3. Verlaine 'Le Petit Paradis'. LBK pottery vessels studied according to context of discovery and ware. The databases related to the studied material are available in the Supplements.</caption><thead><tr><th>Features</th><th>Fine ware</th><th>Coarse ware</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>9</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>1</td><td>17</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>14</td><td>23</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>24</td><td>44</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>4</td><td>12</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>6</td><td>-</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>78</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>81</td><td>11</td><td>-</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>84</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>87</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>11</td><td>5</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>94</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>95</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>105</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>124</td><td>15</td><td>14</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>128</td><td>18</td><td>6</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>129</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>130</td><td>22</td><td>12</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>131</td><td>69</td><td>131</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>150</td><td>1</td><td>13</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>156</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>162</td><td>11</td><td>-</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>274</td><td>378</td><td>652</td></tr></tbody></table>
We could, however, use the results of the thorough technological analysis carried out by B. van Doosselaere on 268 BQY/VSG vessels from Vaux-et-Borset (van Doosselaere et al. 2013; 2016).

<table><caption>Table 3. Verlaine 'Le Petit Paradis'. LBK pottery vessels studied according to context of discovery and ware. The databases related to the studied material are available in the Supplements.</caption><thead><tr><th>Features</th><th>Fine ware</th><th>Coarse ware</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>9</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>1</td><td>17</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>14</td><td>23</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>24</td><td>44</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>4</td><td>12</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>6</td><td>-</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>78</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>81</td><td>11</td><td>-</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>84</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>87</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>11</td><td>5</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>94</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>95</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>105</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>124</td><td>15</td><td>14</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>128</td><td>18</td><td>6</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>129</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>130</td><td>22</td><td>12</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>131</td><td>69</td><td>131</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>150</td><td>1</td><td>13</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>156</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>162</td><td>11</td><td>-</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>274</td><td>378</td><td>652</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Results

## The LBK lithic and ceramic technical subsystems

### The LBK lithic industry from Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset

Recent studies, on which the present paper is based, describe the most pertinent technical criteria to distinguish the different ways of doing in Early Neolithic blade production in Hesbaye (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Denis et al. 2021). These criteria led us to differentiate six ways of doing (MF1 to MF6).

During the LBK, one way of doing clearly dominates the assemblages of Vaux-et-Borset and Verlaine (MF1) (Fig. 5). It is similar on both sites and has been identified on two of the extracted materials, i. e. Campanian and Maas-trichtian flint, although the latter was clearly less prevalent. The first material is, incidentally, exclusively found in the Verlaine debitage concentrations (Allard 2005a). Tables 4 and 5 compare the descriptive criteria of this way of doing at Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset. For the latter site, we excluded pieces on which we could not determine the percussion technique employed in the preparation of the overhang to avoid any blurring of the MF1 characteristics. Indeed, the other descriptive criteria were not completely compatible with all of the MF1 features (Denis/Bunez-Lanotte 2020). As compatibility is more pronounced in Verlaine for these criteria, the pieces from this site were included in the description of that way of doing. These technical characteristics are extremely similar between the two LBK sites. Blade overhangs are preferentially prepared with small punch strokes. The butts are quite massive, where smooth and flat butts clearly dominate the assemblages, especially at Verlaine. They attest to the absence of specific striking platform preparations. Four-faceted blades are a little more prevalent at Vaux-et-Borset than at Verlaine. But it is blades with a trapezoidal section that seem to have been the intended result at both sites (about 60% of the blanks). The "operative code" defines the order in which removals were detached. On the blades with a trapezoidal section, the quantity of 123/321 and 212' codes is similar. The non-prevalence of 212' codes suggests that knappers did not look for, did not know of, or did not master the specific organisation that results in the repeated fashioning of blades with a regular trapezoidal section (with regard to strategies cf. Pelegrin in Astruc et al. 2007; Binder 1991; Binder/Gassin 1988). The most obvious difference between the two sites concerns the larger quantity of regular and very regular blades at Verlaine, which suggests a higher level of technical know-how. This superior level of know-how has already been noted (Allard 2012) and is explained by the particular character of the site, with its surplus production of blades (Allard 2007). The nature of techniques on the Verlaine site is remarkably homogeneous, particularly between domestic waste and debitage concentrations, as already underlined by P. Allard and L. Burnez-Lanotte (Allard 2005b; Burnez-Lanotte/Allard 2013). This homogeneity is shared with the site of Vaux-et-Borset.

Yet, in the same way as what was observed at Vaux-et-Borset (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020, 40, MF4), the overhang of some pieces at Verlaine could have been prepared with another type of tool, such as a stone hammer rather than a punch. Only 16 pieces present this characteristic at Verlaine. This low amount does not enable statistically reliable conclusions. Therefore, these few blades from Verlaine will be labelled MF6 while awaiting a discussion on their status.

The examined LBK collections are thus dominated to a large extent by one way of doing (MF1), identified at both Verlaine (n = 357) and Vaux-et-Borset (n = 269). Some very rare pieces could imply that a stone tool was used in preparation for detachment. We have labelled them MF4 (n = 32).
# Results

## The LBK lithic and ceramic technical subsystems

### The LBK lithic industry from Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset

Recent studies, on which the present paper is based, describe the most pertinent technical criteria to distinguish the different ways of doing in Early Neolithic blade production in Hesbaye (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Denis et al. 2021). These criteria led us to differentiate six ways of doing (MF1 to MF6).

During the LBK, one way of doing clearly dominates the assemblages of Vaux-et-Borset and Verlaine (MF1) (Fig. 5). It is similar on both sites and has been identified on two of the extracted materials, i. e. Campanian and Maas-trichtian flint, although the latter was clearly less prevalent. The first material is, incidentally, exclusively found in the Verlaine debitage concentrations (Allard 2005a). Tables 4 and 5 compare the descriptive criteria of this way of doing at Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset. For the latter site, we excluded pieces on which we could not determine the percussion technique employed in the preparation of the overhang to avoid any blurring of the MF1 characteristics. Indeed, the other descriptive criteria were not completely compatible with all of the MF1 features (Denis/Bunez-Lanotte 2020). As compatibility is more pronounced in Verlaine for these criteria, the pieces from this site were included in the description of that way of doing. These technical characteristics are extremely similar between the two LBK sites. Blade overhangs are preferentially prepared with small punch strokes. The butts are quite massive, where smooth and flat butts clearly dominate the assemblages, especially at Verlaine. They attest to the absence of specific striking platform preparations. Four-faceted blades are a little more prevalent at Vaux-et-Borset than at Verlaine. But it is blades with a trapezoidal section that seem to have been the intended result at both sites (about 60% of the blanks). The "operative code" defines the order in which removals were detached. On the blades with a trapezoidal section, the quantity of 123/321 and 212' codes is similar. The non-prevalence of 212' codes suggests that knappers did not look for, did not know of, or did not master the specific organisation that results in the repeated fashioning of blades with a regular trapezoidal section (with regard to strategies cf. Pelegrin in Astruc et al. 2007; Binder 1991; Binder/Gassin 1988). The most obvious difference between the two sites concerns the larger quantity of regular and very regular blades at Verlaine, which suggests a higher level of technical know-how. This superior level of know-how has already been noted (Allard 2012) and is explained by the particular character of the site, with its surplus production of blades (Allard 2007). The nature of techniques on the Verlaine site is remarkably homogeneous, particularly between domestic waste and debitage concentrations, as already underlined by P. Allard and L. Burnez-Lanotte (Allard 2005b; Burnez-Lanotte/Allard 2013). This homogeneity is shared with the site of Vaux-et-Borset.

Yet, in the same way as what was observed at Vaux-et-Borset (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020, 40, MF4), the overhang of some pieces at Verlaine could have been prepared with another type of tool, such as a stone hammer rather than a punch. Only 16 pieces present this characteristic at Verlaine. This low amount does not enable statistically reliable conclusions. Therefore, these few blades from Verlaine will be labelled MF6 while awaiting a discussion on their status.

The examined LBK collections are thus dominated to a large extent by one way of doing (MF1), identified at both Verlaine (n = 357) and Vaux-et-Borset (n = 269). Some very rare pieces could imply that a stone tool was used in preparation for detachment. We have labelled them MF4 (n = 32).
<table><caption>Table 4. Verlaine 'Le Petit Paradis'. Characteristics of the most dominant lithic way of doing (MF1). The regularity is evaluated on representative fragments following 4 levels (0 very regular; 1 regular; 2 not very regular; 3 irregular) according to the parallelism of the edges and arrises and the uniformity of the ventral face.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">Verlaine_LBK_MF 1</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">Campanian et Maastrichtian</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">357 pieces, around 90% of total</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Punch</th><th colspan="2">No preparation</th><th colspan="2">Unspecified tool</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>204</th><th>57</th><th>91</th><th>26</th><th>62</th><th>17</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">44,7</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Flat</th><th colspan="2">Concave</th><th colspan="2">Morphol. dihedral</th><th colspan="2">"True" dihedron</th><th colspan="2">Other</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>300</th><th>84</th><th>26</th><th>7</th><th>13</th><th>4</th><th></th><th></th><th>19</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th rowspan="4">Sections</th><th>2 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">43</td><td colspan="2">22</td></tr><tr><th>3 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">124</td><td colspan="2">62</td></tr><tr><th>4 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">32</td><td colspan="2">16</td></tr><tr><th>total</th><td colspan="6">199</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Operating codes</th><th>123 (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">51</td><td colspan="2">46</td></tr><tr><th>212' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">59</td><td colspan="2">54</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">110</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Regularity</th><th>Very regular' and 'regular' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">261</td><td colspan="2">74</td></tr><tr><th>Not very regular' and 'irregular' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">91</td><td colspan="2">26</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">352</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 5. Vaux-et-Borset 'Gibour'. Characteristics of the most dominant lithic way of doing (MF1). The regularity is evaluated on representative fragments following 4 levels (0 very regular; 1 regular; 2 not very regular; 3 irregular) according to the parallelism of the edges and arrises and the uniformity of the ventral face.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">Vaux-et-Borset_LBK_MF 1</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">Campanian, Maastrichtian</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">269 pieces, 78% of proximal parts</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Punch</th><th colspan="2">No preparation</th><th colspan="2">True dihedron</th><th colspan="2">Others</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>176</th><th>65</th><th>93</th><th>35</th><th></th><th></th><th>30</th><th>11</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">44,16</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Flat</th><th colspan="2">Concave</th><th colspan="2">Morpho. di.</th><th colspan="2">True dihedron</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>209</th><th>78</th><th>10</th><th>4</th><th>17</th><th>6</th><th>3</th><th>1</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th rowspan="4">Sections</th><th>2 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">37</td><td colspan="2">22</td></tr><tr><th>3 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">99</td><td colspan="2">59</td></tr><tr><th>4 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">31</td><td colspan="2">19</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">167</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Operating codes</th><th>123 (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">55</td><td colspan="2">48</td></tr><tr><th>212' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">60</td><td colspan="2">52</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">115</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Regularity</th><th>Very regular' and 'regular' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">168</td><td colspan="2">62</td></tr><tr><th>Not very regular' and 'irregular' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">101</td><td colspan="2">38</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">269</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 4. Verlaine 'Le Petit Paradis'. Characteristics of the most dominant lithic way of doing (MF1). The regularity is evaluated on representative fragments following 4 levels (0 very regular; 1 regular; 2 not very regular; 3 irregular) according to the parallelism of the edges and arrises and the uniformity of the ventral face.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">Verlaine_LBK_MF 1</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">Campanian et Maastrichtian</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">357 pieces, around 90% of total</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Punch</th><th colspan="2">No preparation</th><th colspan="2">Unspecified tool</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>204</th><th>57</th><th>91</th><th>26</th><th>62</th><th>17</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">44,7</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Flat</th><th colspan="2">Concave</th><th colspan="2">Morphol. dihedral</th><th colspan="2">"True" dihedron</th><th colspan="2">Other</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>300</th><th>84</th><th>26</th><th>7</th><th>13</th><th>4</th><th></th><th></th><th>19</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th rowspan="4">Sections</th><th>2 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">43</td><td colspan="2">22</td></tr><tr><th>3 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">124</td><td colspan="2">62</td></tr><tr><th>4 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">32</td><td colspan="2">16</td></tr><tr><th>total</th><td colspan="6">199</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Operating codes</th><th>123 (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">51</td><td colspan="2">46</td></tr><tr><th>212' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">59</td><td colspan="2">54</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">110</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Regularity</th><th>Very regular' and 'regular' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">261</td><td colspan="2">74</td></tr><tr><th>Not very regular' and 'irregular' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">91</td><td colspan="2">26</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">352</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 5. Vaux-et-Borset 'Gibour'. Characteristics of the most dominant lithic way of doing (MF1). The regularity is evaluated on representative fragments following 4 levels (0 very regular; 1 regular; 2 not very regular; 3 irregular) according to the parallelism of the edges and arrises and the uniformity of the ventral face.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">Vaux-et-Borset_LBK_MF 1</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">Campanian, Maastrichtian</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">269 pieces, 78% of proximal parts</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Punch</th><th colspan="2">No preparation</th><th colspan="2">True dihedron</th><th colspan="2">Others</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>176</th><th>65</th><th>93</th><th>35</th><th></th><th></th><th>30</th><th>11</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="6">44,16</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Flat</th><th colspan="2">Concave</th><th colspan="2">Morpho. di.</th><th colspan="2">True dihedron</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>209</th><th>78</th><th>10</th><th>4</th><th>17</th><th>6</th><th>3</th><th>1</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th rowspan="4">Sections</th><th>2 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">37</td><td colspan="2">22</td></tr><tr><th>3 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">99</td><td colspan="2">59</td></tr><tr><th>4 facets (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">31</td><td colspan="2">19</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">167</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Operating codes</th><th>123 (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">55</td><td colspan="2">48</td></tr><tr><th>212' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">60</td><td colspan="2">52</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">115</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr><tr><th rowspan="3">Regularity</th><th>Very regular' and 'regular' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">168</td><td colspan="2">62</td></tr><tr><th>Not very regular' and 'irregular' (number and %)</th><td colspan="6">101</td><td colspan="2">38</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td colspan="6">269</td><td colspan="2">100</td></tr></tbody></table>
at Vaux-et-Borset and MF6 (n = 16) at Verlaine (Fig. 5). The predominance of MF1 on both sites suggests its wide transmission, which enables us to interpret this mode as a technical tradition that we term “Tradition Bêta”. The distribution area of this technical tradition could be much wider. In view of the present data, it could also be identified on local materials (Deramaix 1990, flint drawings A) in the Hainaut Province in Belgium (Allard 2005a, 191 fig. 133; Denis et al. submitted). It is, however, difficult to quantify in this context, as it seems to coexist with another mode, characteristic of the Paris Basin (Allard 2005a; Allard/Denis 2022). The most easterly LBK sites of the Aldenhoven Plateau and Dutch Limburg could also represent an industry with a comparable MF1 mode (Allard 2005a; de Grooth 1987; Zimmermann 1995). But some facetted striking platforms are also mentioned in the Dutch Limburg area (de Grooth 2007). A finer technological analysis of these assemblages is, however, needed to understand if this diversity of preparations in the Limburg area resulted from specific maintenance or if it occurs because of a possible coexistence of several ways of doing.

<table><caption>Fig. 5. Lithic way of doing and technical traditions in Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset (Photos: S. Denis).</caption><thead><tr><th>Ways of doing things</th><th>Main Technical Criteria</th><th>LBK</th><th>BQY/VSG</th><th>Illustration</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alpha tradition=MF2</td><td>Striking platforms prepared by small flakes; butts morphologically dihedral or flat, often concave; punch laid in the concavity; preparation of overhangs with a stone tool; good knowledge of the specific arrangements for obtaining blades with regular trapezoidal cross-section</td><td></td><td>Vaux-et-Borset</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bêta tradition=MF1</td><td>Flat striking platforms, without specific preparation; flat butts, wide and thick; preparation of overhangs with a punch; blades with a more irregular tendency; no knowledge of the specific arrangements</td><td>Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset</td><td>Vaux-et-Borset (and Darion)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF3</td><td>Striking platforms prepared by small flakes in order to obtain a dihedron; dihedral butts; punch laid on the dihedron; tool to prepare overhangs needs to be better defined; very good knowledge of the specific arrangements for blades with regular trapezoidal cross-section; unidirectional</td><td></td><td>Vaux-et-Borset</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF4</td><td>Flat striking platforms, without specific preparation; flat butts of medium dimensions; preparation of overhangs with a stone hammer; no knowledge of the specific arrangements</td><td>Vaux-et-Borset</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF5</td><td>Mostly flat striking platforms but frequently flakes are removed; flat butts of small dimensions; preparation of overhangs with a stone tool; good knowledge of the specific arrangements for blades with regular trapezoidal cross-section</td><td></td><td>Vaux-et-Borset</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF6</td><td>Flat striking platforms, without specific preparation; flat butts, wide and thick; preparation of overhangs with a stone hammer; no knowledge of the specific arrangements</td><td>Verlaine</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
at Vaux-et-Borset and MF6 (n = 16) at Verlaine (Fig. 5). The predominance of MF1 on both sites suggests its wide transmission, which enables us to interpret this mode as a technical tradition that we term “Tradition Bêta”. The distribution area of this technical tradition could be much wider. In view of the present data, it could also be identified on local materials (Deramaix 1990, flint drawings A) in the Hainaut Province in Belgium (Allard 2005a, 191 fig. 133; Denis et al. submitted). It is, however, difficult to quantify in this context, as it seems to coexist with another mode, characteristic of the Paris Basin (Allard 2005a; Allard/Denis 2022). The most easterly LBK sites of the Aldenhoven Plateau and Dutch Limburg could also represent an industry with a comparable MF1 mode (Allard 2005a; de Grooth 1987; Zimmermann 1995). But some facetted striking platforms are also mentioned in the Dutch Limburg area (de Grooth 2007). A finer technological analysis of these assemblages is, however, needed to understand if this diversity of preparations in the Limburg area resulted from specific maintenance or if it occurs because of a possible coexistence of several ways of doing.

<table><caption>Fig. 5. Lithic way of doing and technical traditions in Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset (Photos: S. Denis).</caption><thead><tr><th>Ways of doing things</th><th>Main Technical Criteria</th><th>LBK</th><th>BQY/VSG</th><th>Illustration</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alpha tradition=MF2</td><td>Striking platforms prepared by small flakes; butts morphologically dihedral or flat, often concave; punch laid in the concavity; preparation of overhangs with a stone tool; good knowledge of the specific arrangements for obtaining blades with regular trapezoidal cross-section</td><td></td><td>Vaux-et-Borset</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bêta tradition=MF1</td><td>Flat striking platforms, without specific preparation; flat butts, wide and thick; preparation of overhangs with a punch; blades with a more irregular tendency; no knowledge of the specific arrangements</td><td>Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset</td><td>Vaux-et-Borset (and Darion)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF3</td><td>Striking platforms prepared by small flakes in order to obtain a dihedron; dihedral butts; punch laid on the dihedron; tool to prepare overhangs needs to be better defined; very good knowledge of the specific arrangements for blades with regular trapezoidal cross-section; unidirectional</td><td></td><td>Vaux-et-Borset</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF4</td><td>Flat striking platforms, without specific preparation; flat butts of medium dimensions; preparation of overhangs with a stone hammer; no knowledge of the specific arrangements</td><td>Vaux-et-Borset</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF5</td><td>Mostly flat striking platforms but frequently flakes are removed; flat butts of small dimensions; preparation of overhangs with a stone tool; good knowledge of the specific arrangements for blades with regular trapezoidal cross-section</td><td></td><td>Vaux-et-Borset</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF6</td><td>Flat striking platforms, without specific preparation; flat butts, wide and thick; preparation of overhangs with a stone hammer; no knowledge of the specific arrangements</td><td>Verlaine</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
LBK ceramic production from the Verlaine site

A total of 652 pottery vessels from the ceramic assemblage of Verlaine were examined, and the manufacturing *chaîne opératoire* was identified for 315 of them (Gomart 2014). Four ways of doing were differentiated, one of which is clearly predominant (VPP1), while three others are less prevalent (VPP2, 3 and 4) (Fig. 6). Each of these ways of doing was used to build a range of vessel shapes and sizes, with equivalent proportions of fine and coarse wares (Gomart 2014).

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Verlaine 'Le Petit Paradis'. Schematic representation of the four identified ways of doing regarding forming (Graphics: L. Gomart).</figcaption></figure>

The first way of doing (VPP1, n=281) is characterised by roughing-out the vessels' base by means of the spiralled coil technique, and the following shaping by stretching out the rough-out against a support. In the radial section, the body, neck and rim show regularly spaced oblique voids, with variable orientation depending on the tilt of the wall. If the pottery wall opens outward, the orientation of the voids is inward. If, on the other hand, the pottery wall closes, the orientation is outward. This configuration indicates a roughing-out of the body, the neck and the rim through the use of elongated coils, where the direction of overlapping depends on the orientation of the walls. This way of doing is attested, always in low proportions, at other LBK sites (named Tradition 3 at the scale of the western LBK in Gomart 2014): in the Hesbaye Region, Rosmeer (early/middle LBK) and Fehxe-le-Haut-Clocher (late and final LBK), in Hainaut at Aubechies (late and final LBK) and in the Aisne Valley, in Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (late and final LBK).

The second way of doing (VPP2, n=10) includes vessels with a base that is shaped using a spiralled coil. The body, neck and rim are shaped from coils, with an alternating internal and external orientation (Z or S configuration: Livingstone-Smith 2001). In between these voids, inclusions and pores show a vertical orientation. This type of configuration could either attest to a roughing-out of the body, neck and rim through the superimposition of thin coils (followed by stretching during shaping), or a roughing-out through alternating interior and exterior compression of the coils. This way of doing has been identified in important proportions at other LBK sites (named Tradition 4 at the scale of the western LBK in Gomart 2014): in the Hesbaye Region at Rosmeer and Fehxe-le-Haut-Clocher, and in Hainaut at Aubechies.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

LBK ceramic production from the Verlaine site

A total of 652 pottery vessels from the ceramic assemblage of Verlaine were examined, and the manufacturing *chaîne opératoire* was identified for 315 of them (Gomart 2014). Four ways of doing were differentiated, one of which is clearly predominant (VPP1), while three others are less prevalent (VPP2, 3 and 4) (Fig. 6). Each of these ways of doing was used to build a range of vessel shapes and sizes, with equivalent proportions of fine and coarse wares (Gomart 2014).

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Verlaine ‘Le Petit Paradis’. Schematic representation of the four identified ways of doing regarding forming (Graphics: L. Gomart).</figcaption></figure>

The first way of doing (VPP1, n=281) is characterised by roughing-out the vessels' base by means of the spiralled coil technique, and the following shaping by stretching out the rough-out against a support. In the radial section, the body, neck and rim show regularly spaced oblique voids, with variable orientation depending on the tilt of the wall. If the pottery wall opens outward, the orientation of the voids is inward. If, on the other hand, the pottery wall closes, the orientation is outward. This configuration indicates a roughing-out of the body, the neck and the rim through the use of elongated coils, where the direction of overlapping depends on the orientation of the walls. This way of doing is attested, always in low proportions, at other LBK sites (named Tradition 3 at the scale of the western LBK in Gomart 2014): in the Hesbaye Region, Rosmeer (early/middle LBK) and Fehxe-le-Haut-Clocher (late and final LBK), in Hainaut at Aubechies (late and final LBK) and in the Aisne Valley, in Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (late and final LBK).

The second way of doing (VPP2, n=10) includes vessels with a base that is shaped using a spiralled coil. The body, neck and rim are shaped from coils, with an alternating internal and external orientation (Z or S configuration: Livingstone-Smith 2001). In between these voids, inclusions and pores show a vertical orientation. This type of configuration could either attest to a roughing-out of the body, neck and rim through the superimposition of thin coils (followed by stretching during shaping), or a roughing-out through alternating interior and exterior compression of the coils. This way of doing has been identified in important proportions at other LBK sites (named Tradition 4 at the scale of the western LBK in Gomart 2014): in the Hesbaye Region at Rosmeer and Fehxe-le-Haut-Clocher, and in Hainaut at Aubechies.
The third way of doing (VPP3, n = 17) includes vessels with bases shaped from a circular clay slab, possibly formed through modelling, around which thin, superimposed and only slightly deformed coils are adjoined. The body, neck and rim of the vessels associated with the VPP3 technical tradition show regularly spaced voids, and a subcircular organisation of the inclusions and pores (O or C configuration: Livingstone-Smith 2001), suggesting roughing-out of the body, neck and rim by superimposing thin and only slightly deformed coils. This way of doing has also been identified at the earliest known site of Rosmeer, in the Hesbaye Region (named Tradition 5 at the scale of the western LBK in Gomart 2014).

The fourth way of doing (VPP4, n = 7) includes vessels without preserved bases. Their body and neck are characterised by a subcircular orientation of inclusions and pores (O or C configuration) in radial section, indicating shaping with superimposed, thin, and only slightly deformed coils. The rim of these vases, meanwhile, was formed with a stretched coil so as to obtain a wide band of clay that is then folded up. This way of doing can be found at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes in the Aisne Valley (named Tradition 6 at the scale of the western LBK in Gomart 2014).

As the four ceramic ways of doing identified at Verlaine occur on other LBK sites attributed to different LBK chronological phases and located in different settlement areas, they can be defined as technical traditions transmitted in space and time.

# The BQY/VSG lithic and ceramic subsystems

## The BQY/VSG lithic industry from Vaux-et-Borset

Blade production in the BQY/VSG sector at Vaux-et-Borset indicates the coexistence of four ways of doing (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Denis et al. 2021).

A strong correlation could be demonstrated between the absence of preparation of the striking platforms and the use of a punch for the preparation of overhangs, the main criterion for identifying way of doing no. 1 (MF1; n = 173; Fig. 5). Knappers belonging to this learning network primarily exploited Campanian flint from the Hesbaye Region. The second way of doing is defined by striking platform preparation through the removal of small flakes, serving as concavities in which the punch can then be positioned (concave butts or morphological dihedral butts). A stone tool is used in the preparation of the overhangs (MF2; n = 118; Fig. 5). This way of doing has been identified on exogenous flint, namely Ghlin and tertiary Bartonian flint. A third mode (MF3; n = 23; Fig. 5), only found on blades of Maastrichtian flint, also shows the removal of smaller flakes on the striking platform. Here, however, the intention is the creation of dihedrals for the positioning of the punch (intentional dihedral). This technical operation helps to remove overhangs. The tool used to prepare them when they are still present has not been formally identified due to the rarity of samples.

The last way of doing (MF5; n = 53; Fig. 5) was applied to some blades of Campanian flint from Hesbaye. However, the striking platform treatment is ambiguous. While plain and flat butts are dominant, the proportion of blades with plain concave butts, morphological dihedrals and intentional dihedrals is decidedly higher than for the first way of doing (MF1). This suggests a coexistence of different ways of doing, that is, an inferior mastery of the processes of striking platform preparation, or their reinterpretation. Overhangs are prepared with a stone tool. Furthermore, the blades are markedly more regular, which is in line with the clearly smaller dimensions of the butts than for MF1. Finally, an examination of the operational codes demonstrates that knappers mastered the knowledge and were capable
The third way of doing (VPP3, n = 17) includes vessels with bases shaped from a circular clay slab, possibly formed through modelling, around which thin, superimposed and only slightly deformed coils are adjoined. The body, neck and rim of the vessels associated with the VPP3 technical tradition show regularly spaced voids, and a subcircular organisation of the inclusions and pores (O or C configuration: Livingstone-Smith 2001), suggesting roughing-out of the body, neck and rim by superimposing thin and only slightly deformed coils. This way of doing has also been identified at the earliest known site of Rosmeer, in the Hesbaye Region (named Tradition 5 at the scale of the western LBK in Gomart 2014).

The fourth way of doing (VPP4, n = 7) includes vessels without preserved bases. Their body and neck are characterised by a subcircular orientation of inclusions and pores (O or C configuration) in radial section, indicating shaping with superimposed, thin, and only slightly deformed coils. The rim of these vases, meanwhile, was formed with a stretched coil so as to obtain a wide band of clay that is then folded up. This way of doing can be found at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes in the Aisne Valley (named Tradition 6 at the scale of the western LBK in Gomart 2014).

As the four ceramic ways of doing identified at Verlaine occur on other LBK sites attributed to different LBK chronological phases and located in different settlement areas, they can be defined as technical traditions transmitted in space and time.

# The BQY/VSG lithic and ceramic subsystems

## The BQY/VSG lithic industry from Vaux-et-Borset

Blade production in the BQY/VSG sector at Vaux-et-Borset indicates the coexistence of four ways of doing (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Denis et al. 2021).

A strong correlation could be demonstrated between the absence of preparation of the striking platforms and the use of a punch for the preparation of overhangs, the main criterion for identifying way of doing no. 1 (MF1; n = 173; Fig. 5). Knappers belonging to this learning network primarily exploited Campanian flint from the Hesbaye Region. The second way of doing is defined by striking platform preparation through the removal of small flakes, serving as concavities in which the punch can then be positioned (concave butts or morphological dihedral butts). A stone tool is used in the preparation of the overhangs (MF2; n = 118; Fig. 5). This way of doing has been identified on exogenous flint, namely Ghlin and tertiary Bartonian flint. A third mode (MF3; n = 23; Fig. 5), only found on blades of Maastrichtian flint, also shows the removal of smaller flakes on the striking platform. Here, however, the intention is the creation of dihedrals for the positioning of the punch (intentional dihedral). This technical operation helps to remove overhangs. The tool used to prepare them when they are still present has not been formally identified due to the rarity of samples.

The last way of doing (MF5; n = 53; Fig. 5) was applied to some blades of Campanian flint from Hesbaye. However, the striking platform treatment is ambiguous. While plain and flat butts are dominant, the proportion of blades with plain concave butts, morphological dihedrals and intentional dihedrals is decidedly higher than for the first way of doing (MF1). This suggests a coexistence of different ways of doing, that is, an inferior mastery of the processes of striking platform preparation, or their reinterpretation. Overhangs are prepared with a stone tool. Furthermore, the blades are markedly more regular, which is in line with the clearly smaller dimensions of the butts than for MF1. Finally, an examination of the operational codes demonstrates that knappers mastered the knowledge and were capable
of implementing specific procedures to produce blades with a regular and
trapezoidal section in the manner of knappers using MF2 and MF3. This is
not the case for knappers from the first group (MF1).

Thus, the BQY/VSG sector at Vaux-et-Borset shows a diversity of ways of
knapping blades, with four identified variations. The first is similar to the
one described in relation to the LBK in Hesbaye. It was interpreted as a tech-
nical tradition in its own right, and has been labelled "Bêta tradition" (Den-
is/Burnez-Lanotte 2020). The second one (MF2) is characteristic of the Hain-
aut Province and the Paris Basin and, with the current state of research, it is
exclusive to these regions (Bostyn 1994; Bostyn et al. 2019; Denis 2017). Its
roots can be identified in the LBK (Allard 2005a), so MF2 can also be inter-
preted as a technical tradition in its own right ("Alpha tradition" after Denis/
Burnez-Lanotte 2020). Dihedral butts, specific to MF3, were previously iden-
tified in Grossgartach and Planing-Friedberg/North Rhine contexts (Denis
2020; Denis et al. 2019). The characteristics of MF5, stemming from both Al-
pha and Bêta traditions, highlight its hybrid nature (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte
2020).

The BQY/VSG ceramics from Vaux-et-Borset

In the ceramic assemblage from the BQY/VSG sector of Vaux-et-Borset, 556 vessels were examined, 268 of which could be linked to a manufacturing *chaîne opératoire* (van Doosselaere et al. 2013; 2016). Three ways of doing were identified (Fig. 7). Present in almost equal proportions in the pits of the site, these can be considered as contemporaneous.

The first way of doing (n=86) is characterised by a roughing-out of the
vessels' base, body and rim by assembling coils, with alternately internal
and external orientation (Z or S configuration), suggesting alternating in-
ternal and external compression during assembly. They were then shaped
using the beating technique. This way of doing has of yet not been identi-
fied as such in an LBK context, but the roughing-out operations (S or Z coils)
are similar to those on several vessels from the Rosmeer and Fexhe-le-Haut
Clocher sites in Hesbaye, as well as from Aubechies in the Hainaut region
(Gomart 2014). The shaping (beating technique) resembles the Ennery 'Le
Breuil-Projet Alloin' assemblage in the Moselle region, where the use of this
technique has been identified on much of the ceramic assemblage and, to
a lesser degree, on the assemblages of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes, Rosmeer, Fex-
he-le-Haut-Clocher and Metz-Nord (Gomart 2014).

The second way of doing (n=57) includes ceramics with bases formed
from spiralled coils and bodies shaped from externally and obliquely over-
lapping and compressed coils. The vessels are then shaped using the beat-
ing technique. It is possible to establish a link between the roughing-out
operations of this second way of doing at Vaux-et-Borset and the techni-
cal tradition associated with the so-called 'standard' Limburg ware found
in LBK contexts, the forms and technical traits of which differ from typical
LBK pottery (see Tradition 7 in Gomart 2014; Gomart/Burnez-Lanotte 2012).
This Limburg tradition is attested at the Rosmeer and Fexhe-le-Haut-Cloch-
er sites in Hesbaye, the Aubechies site in Hainaut, and at Cuiry-lès-Chaud-
ardes in the Aisne Valley. The technique of shaping through beating corre-
sponds to the one from the LBK site at Ennery in the Moselle region.

The third way of doing (n=28) is comprised of vases with bases, bodies and necks consisting of superimposed thin and only slightly deformed coils. These vessels are then shaped out using the beating technique. The roughing-out operations are comparable to those of the LBK sites of Rosmeer and Fexhe-le-Clocher in Hesbaye, and Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes in the Aisne Valley.

The three ceramic forming sequences identified in the BQY/VSG sector
of Vaux-et-Borset relate to technical practices identified in different LBK
of implementing specific procedures to produce blades with a regular and trapezoidal section in the manner of knappers using MF2 and MF3. This is not the case for knappers from the first group (MF1).

Thus, the BQY/VSG sector at Vaux-et-Borset shows a diversity of ways of knapping blades, with four identified variations. The first is similar to the one described in relation to the LBK in Hesbaye. It was interpreted as a technical tradition in its own right, and has been labelled "Bêta tradition" (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020). The second one (MF2) is characteristic of the Hainaut Province and the Paris Basin and, with the current state of research, it is exclusive to these regions (Bostyn 1994; Bostyn et al. 2019; Denis 2017). Its roots can be identified in the LBK (Allard 2005a), so MF2 can also be interpreted as a technical tradition in its own right ("Alpha tradition" after Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020). Dihedral butts, specific to MF3, were previously identified in Grossgartach and Planing-Friedberg/North Rhine contexts (Denis 2020; Denis et al. 2019). The characteristics of MF5, stemming from both Alpha and Bêta traditions, highlight its hybrid nature (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020).

## The BQY/VSG ceramics from Vaux-et-Borset

In the ceramic assemblage from the BQY/VSG sector of Vaux-et-Borset, 556 vessels were examined, 268 of which could be linked to a manufacturing chaîne opératoire (van Doosselaere et al. 2013; 2016). Three ways of doing were identified (Fig. 7). Present in almost equal proportions in the pits of the site, these can be considered as contemporaneous.

The first way of doing (n=86) is characterised by a roughing-out of the vessels' base, body and rim by assembling coils, with alternately internal and external orientation (Z or S configuration), suggesting alternating internal and external compression during assembly. They were then shaped using the beating technique. This way of doing has of yet not been identified as such in an LBK context, but the roughing-out operations (S or Z coils) are similar to those on several vessels from the Rosmeer and Fexhe-le-Haut Clocher sites in Hesbaye, as well as from Aubechies in the Hainaut region (Gomart 2014). The shaping (beating technique) resembles the Ennery 'Le Breuil-Projet Alloin' assemblage in the Moselle region, where the use of this technique has been identified on much of the ceramic assemblage and, to a lesser degree, on the assemblages of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes, Rosmeer, Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher and Metz-Nord (Gomart 2014).

The second way of doing (n=57) includes ceramics with bases formed from spiralled coils and bodies shaped from externally and obliquely overlapping and compressed coils. The vessels are then shaped using the beating technique. It is possible to establish a link between the roughing-out operations of this second way of doing at Vaux-et-Borset and the technical tradition associated with the so-called 'standard' Limburg ware found in LBK contexts, the forms and technical traits of which differ from typical LBK pottery (see Tradition 7 in Gomart 2014; Gomart/Burnez-Lanotte 2012). This Limburg tradition is attested at the Rosmeer and Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher sites in Hesbaye, the Aubechies site in Hainaut, and at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes in the Aisne Valley. The technique of shaping through beating corresponds to the one from the LBK site at Ennery in the Moselle region.

The third way of doing (n=28) is comprised of vases with bases, bodies and necks consisting of superimposed thin and only slightly deformed coils. These vessels are then shaped out using the beating technique. The roughing-out operations are comparable to those of the LBK sites of Rosmeer and Fexhe-le-Clocher in Hesbaye, and Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes in the Aisne Valley.

The three ceramic forming sequences identified in the BQY/VSG sector of Vaux-et-Borset relate to technical practices identified in different LBK
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. Vaux-et-Borset. Schematic representation of the three BQY/VSG ceramic ceramic ways of doing regarding forming (Graphics: L. Gomart).</figcaption></figure>

settlement areas, and can in this respect be considered as continuations of technical traditions, even if the detailed sequences of technical actions seem to slightly change between the LBK and the post-LBK.

## Discussion

### Lithic and ceramic production: comparable production structures?

Highlighting different technical traditions in the lithic and ceramic industries during the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG in the Hesbaye region reveals similarities as well as dissimilarities between the two technical subsystems. During the LBK, the lithic industries show marked homogeneity with a strong local technical identity specific to the Hesbaye region and predominant at both Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset (MF1). Ceramic production is also relatively homogeneous at the scale of the site (VPP1 being largely dominant in the Verlaine corpus), but is characterised by greater diversity at the scale of the whole settlement area (the prevalent way of doing at Verlaine does not predominate the whole Hesbaye region). The BQY/VSG sees an important diversification of technical practices within the two technical subsystems at the scale of the site. Indeed, no less than four lithic technical traditions have been identified at Vaux-et-Borset, two of which are clearly predominant, and three ceramic technical traditions, all of which are present in significant proportions.

In general, the lithic and ceramic subsystems thus seem to follow a broadly similar trend, with a diversification of practical techniques during the BQY/VSG. The fact that lithic and ceramic technical groups do not quite overlap leads, however, to the supposition that the two subsystems are indicative of two distinct production contexts, with a probable repartition of labour within the LBK and BQY/VSG communities. This observation is important, as it allows for a dynamic reading of the LBK-BQY/VSG transition, where the socio-economic practices of several social groups have to be considered.
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. Vaux-et-Borset. Schematic representation of the three BQY/VSG ceramic ceramic ways of doing regarding forming (Graphics: L. Gomart).</figcaption></figure>

settlement areas, and can in this respect be considered as continuations of technical traditions, even if the detailed sequences of technical actions seem to slightly change between the LBK and the post-LBK.

## Discussion

### Lithic and ceramic production: comparable production structures?

Highlighting different technical traditions in the lithic and ceramic industries during the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG in the Hesbaye region reveals similarities as well as dissimilarities between the two technical subsystems. During the LBK, the lithic industries show marked homogeneity with a strong local technical identity specific to the Hesbaye region and predominant at both Verlaine and Vaux-et-Borset (MF1). Ceramic production is also relatively homogeneous at the scale of the site (VPP1 being largely dominant in the Verlaine corpus), but is characterised by greater diversity at the scale of the whole settlement area (the prevalent way of doing at Verlaine does not predominate the whole Hesbaye region). The BQY/VSG sees an important diversification of technical practices within the two technical subsystems at the scale of the site. Indeed, no less than four lithic technical traditions have been identified at Vaux-et-Borset, two of which are clearly predominant, and three ceramic technical traditions, all of which are present in significant proportions.

In general, the lithic and ceramic subsystems thus seem to follow a broadly similar trend, with a diversification of practical techniques during the BQY/VSG. The fact that lithic and ceramic technical groups do not quite overlap leads, however, to the supposition that the two subsystems are indicative of two distinct production contexts, with a probable repartition of labour within the LBK and BQY/VSG communities. This observation is important, as it allows for a dynamic reading of the LBK-BQY/VSG transition, where the socio-economic practices of several social groups have to be considered.
New keys for an understanding of the transition mechanisms
between the LBK and post-LBK in the Hesbaye region

The exploration of the structures of technical traditions during the LBK-BQY/
VSG transition reveals a strong similarity in the functioning of the ceramic
and lithic subsystems. Three mechanisms seem to coexist during the transi-
tion: filiation, migration and syncretism.

Continuity of settlement between the LBK and BQY/VSG

A continuity between the LBK and the BQY/VSG was identified for the two
technical subsystems. With regard to the lithic industry, the Bêta technical
tradition (corresponding to way of doing no. 1) is virtually exclusive to the
LBK and strongly rooted in the Hesbaye territory (Allard 2005a; Denis/Burn-
ez-Lanotte 2020). It persists throughout the transition period, as it can be
identified in significant proportions at the BQY/VSG site at Vaux-et-Borset. It
is also prevalent at the neighbouring site of Darion (Denis 2017).

With regard to ceramics, it is possible to establish parallels between the
roughing-out associated with the technical traditions identified at Vaux-et-
Borset, and those implemented at Verlaine: the VPP2 technical tradition at
Verlaine thus echoes the roughing-out operations of the vessels' body asso-
ciated with tradition no. 1 at Vaux-et-Borset. The same is true for technical
traditions 1 and 3 of Vaux-et-Borset, with roughing-out operations reflect-
ing the shaping methods for vessels' bodies of the VPP3 and VPP4 tradi-
tions at Verlaine. The three technical traditions identified at Vaux-et-Borset
were discovered at two other sites in the Hesbaye region that represent a
large part of the LBK sequence of the area, namely at Rosmeer and Fexhe-
le-Haut-Clocher.

As the "temporal stability of the forming traditions makes them a priv-
ileged variable for assessing producers' social affiliation"" (Roux 2020, 20),
the diachronic persistence of local lithic and ceramic technical traditions be-
tween the LBK and the BQY/VSG testifies to the intergenerational transmis-
sion of know-how within the same social group. The existence of this in-
tergenerational transmission allows the identification of a "social filiation"
between the LBK and the BQY/VSG, here understood as a shared "education,
[an] inclusion in the lineage" (Martial 2012). This social filiation between the
LBK and the BQY/VSG in the Hesbaye region attests to the likely continuity
of population in this settlement area.

A transition marked by exogenous influences originating from
other Danubian settlement areas

Alongside the continuity observed in the Hesbaye region, exogenous in-
fluences also seem to have profoundly marked the transition between the
LBK and the BQY/VSG, for both of the examined technical subsystems. Con-
cerning lithic industries, the Alpha technical tradition (or way of doing no. 2)
probably is the direct result of the migration of a small group from Hainaut
to the Hesbaye region, comprised of knappers with a very high level of ex-
pertise (Denis 2014; 2017; Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020). The analysis of sili-
ceous raw materials pinpoints the origin and circulation of the flint, and con-
tributes to determine knappers' movements, or a lack thereof. Furthermore,
the method of matching macro-features, employed in the study of the cir-
culation of tertiary Bartonian flint (Denis 2019a), seems to confirm that this
migration took place from the Hainaut to the Hesbaye region. The second
trend illustrates links with eastern populations associated with the Gross-
gartach/Planig-Friedberg groups from the Aachen/Cologne area (Denis
New keys for an understanding of the transition mechanisms
between the LBK and post-LBK in the Hesbaye region

The exploration of the structures of technical traditions during the LBK-BQY/
VSG transition reveals a strong similarity in the functioning of the ceramic
and lithic subsystems. Three mechanisms seem to coexist during the transi-
tion: filiation, migration and syncretism.

Continuity of settlement between the LBK and BQY/VSG

A continuity between the LBK and the BQY/VSG was identified for the two
technical subsystems. With regard to the lithic industry, the Bêta technical
tradition (corresponding to way of doing no. 1) is virtually exclusive to the
LBK and strongly rooted in the Hesbaye territory (Allard 2005a; Denis/Burn-
ez-Lanotte 2020). It persists throughout the transition period, as it can be
identified in significant proportions at the BQY/VSG site at Vaux-et-Borset. It
is also prevalent at the neighbouring site of Darion (Denis 2017).

With regard to ceramics, it is possible to establish parallels between the
roughing-out associated with the technical traditions identified at Vaux-et-
Borset, and those implemented at Verlaine: the VPP2 technical tradition at
Verlaine thus echoes the roughing-out operations of the vessels' body asso-
ciated with tradition no. 1 at Vaux-et-Borset. The same is true for technical
traditions 1 and 3 of Vaux-et-Borset, with roughing-out operations reflect-
ing the shaping methods for vessels' bodies of the VPP3 and VPP4 tradi-
tions at Verlaine. The three technical traditions identified at Vaux-et-Borset
were discovered at two other sites in the Hesbaye region that represent a
large part of the LBK sequence of the area, namely at Rosmeer and Fexhe-
le-Haut-Clocher.

As the "temporal stability of the forming traditions makes them a priv-
ileged variable for assessing producers' social affiliation"" (Roux 2020, 20),
the diachronic persistence of local lithic and ceramic technical traditions be-
tween the LBK and the BQY/VSG testifies to the intergenerational transmis-
sion of know-how within the same social group. The existence of this in-
tergenerational transmission allows the identification of a "social filiation"
between the LBK and the BQY/VSG, here understood as a shared "education,
[an] inclusion in the lineage" (Martial 2012). This social filiation between the
LBK and the BQY/VSG in the Hesbaye region attests to the likely continuity
of population in this settlement area.

A transition marked by exogenous influences originating from
other Danubian settlement areas

Alongside the continuity observed in the Hesbaye region, exogenous in-
fluences also seem to have profoundly marked the transition between the
LBK and the BQY/VSG, for both of the examined technical subsystems. Con-
cerning lithic industries, the Alpha technical tradition (or way of doing no. 2)
probably is the direct result of the migration of a small group from Hainaut
to the Hesbaye region, comprised of knappers with a very high level of ex-
pertise (Denis 2014; 2017; Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020). The analysis of sili-
ceous raw materials pinpoints the origin and circulation of the flint, and con-
tributes to determine knappers' movements, or a lack thereof. Furthermore,
the method of matching macro-features, employed in the study of the cir-
culation of tertiary Bartonian flint (Denis 2019a), seems to confirm that this
migration took place from the Hainaut to the Hesbaye region. The second
trend illustrates links with eastern populations associated with the Gross-
gartach/Planig-Friedberg groups from the Aachen/Cologne area (Denis
2020; Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Denis et al. 2021). With the current state of research, however, we do not have an exact understanding of the relations between the two communities.

In the case of ceramics, exogenous influences can also be assumed, particularly with regard to the shaping of the vessels. In the BQY/VSG sector of Vaux-et-Borset, most of the pottery was shaped using the beating technique. This technique is rarely identified in LBK assemblages in the Hesbaye region, in Hainaut or in the Aisne Valley, but was identified on a large majority of vessels from the LBK site of Ennery in the Moselle region in eastern France (Gomart 2014). It should also be noted that roughing-out operations associated with traditions 1 and 3 at Vaux-et-Borset reflect practices identified in Hesbaye, but they are also found in the Hainaut region at Au-bechies, as well as in the Aisne Valley at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. More data would be required in order to outline the exact zones of influence marked by the identified technical gestures.

Ultimately, the BQY/VSG lithic and ceramic subsystems display remarkably similar dynamics, with possible influences from both eastern (Moselle and northern Rhine) and western (Hainaut and Aisne Valley) regions (Fig. 1). The presence of exogenous technical traditions in Hesbaye during the BQY/VSG suggests that an intensification of population movements within the Danubian sphere itself played an important part in the LBK-BQY/VSG transition. The spatio-temporal trajectories of these populations have yet to be grasped.

## Technical hybridisations and social syncretism

Finally, forms of syncretism could also be detected within the two technical systems. Here, we are referring to the definition proposed by F. Le Brun-Ricalens (2014, 684): "hybridisation (syncretisation): from the Greek hybris (illegitimate union), an action resulting from two different elements, and from the Greek sugkrêtismós (union of two Cretans), a coherent mixture within a system of at least two exogenous ones (a variant of addition, in the sense that each element coexists while retaining its particularities)".

With regard to the lithic industries, this syncretic phenomenon can be observed during the BQY/VSG through way of doing no. 5, which incorporates criteria from both Alpha and Bêta traditions (no. 1 and 2) that are identified at the same site. Knowing that, as emphasised above, the two groups of knappers (the local one and the one from Hainaut) undoubtedly came together at some point, we proposed that way of doing no. 5 is the result of a hybridisation of the technical practices employed by these two groups (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Denis et al. 2021).

For ceramics at Vaux-et-Borset, the systematic association of typical LBK roughing-out operations from the Hesbaye region (as well as from Hainaut and the Aisne Valley) along with shaping operations from the Moselle LBK points to the existence of hybridisation mechanisms of technical practices during the LBK-BQY/VSG transition. This suggests prolonged and interwined interactions between pottery producers from distinct learning networks. It may be noted that beating is a very "visible" technique when used for shaping and it is not difficult to implement. In the context of prolonged interactions between producers, it might be more easily borrowed and adopted than less visible techniques and procedures that are more deeply rooted in motor habits, such as the direction in which the coils are placed, or the degree of their elongation.

In addition, the very high prevalence of technical tradition no. 2 at Vaux-et-Borset, typical of the 'standard' Limburg ware in LBK context (Gomart 2014), is intriguing in many ways. The Limburg ware clearly comes from a different learning network than that of producers of typical LBK ware, yet
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

2020; Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Denis et al. 2021). With the current state of research, however, we do not have an exact understanding of the relations between the two communities.

In the case of ceramics, exogenous influences can also be assumed, particularly with regard to the shaping of the vessels. In the BQY/VSG sector of Vaux-et-Borset, most of the pottery was shaped using the beating technique. This technique is rarely identified in LBK assemblages in the Hesbaye region, in Hainaut or in the Aisne Valley, but was identified on a large majority of vessels from the LBK site of Ennery in the Moselle region in eastern France (Gomart 2014). It should also be noted that roughing-out operations associated with traditions 1 and 3 at Vaux-et-Borset reflect practices identified in Hesbaye, but they are also found in the Hainaut region at Aubechies, as well as in the Aisne Valley at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. More data would be required in order to outline the exact zones of influence marked by the identified technical gestures.

Ultimately, the BQY/VSG lithic and ceramic subsystems display remarkably similar dynamics, with possible influences from both eastern (Moselle and northern Rhine) and western (Hainaut and Aisne Valley) regions (Fig. 1). The presence of exogenous technical traditions in Hesbaye during the BQY/VSG suggests that an intensification of population movements within the Danubian sphere itself played an important part in the LBK-BQY/VSG transition. The spatio-temporal trajectories of these populations have yet to be grasped.

## Technical hybridisations and social syncretism

Finally, forms of syncretism could also be detected within the two technical systems. Here, we are referring to the definition proposed by F. Le Brun-Ricalens (2014, 684): "hybridisation (syncretisation): from the Greek hybris (illegitimate union), an action resulting from two different elements, and from the Greek sugkrétismós (union of two Cretans), a coherent mixture within a system of at least two exogenous ones (a variant of addition, in the sense that each element coexists while retaining its particularities)".

With regard to the lithic industries, this syncretic phenomenon can be observed during the BQY/VSG through way of doing no. 5, which incorporates criteria from both Alpha and Bêta traditions (no. 1 and 2) that are identified at the same site. Knowing that, as emphasised above, the two groups of knappers (the local one and the one from Hainaut) undoubtedly came together at some point, we proposed that way of doing no. 5 is the result of a hybridisation of the technical practices employed by these two groups (Denis/Burnez-Lanotte 2020; Denis et al. 2021).

For ceramics at Vaux-et-Borset, the systematic association of typical LBK roughing-out operations from the Hesbaye region (as well as from Hainaut and the Aisne Valley) along with shaping operations from the Moselle LBK points to the existence of hybridisation mechanisms of technical practices during the LBK-BQY/VSG transition. This suggests prolonged and interwined interactions between pottery producers from distinct learning networks. It may be noted that beating is a very "visible" technique when used for shaping and it is not difficult to implement. In the context of prolonged interactions between producers, it might be more easily borrowed and adopted than less visible techniques and procedures that are more deeply rooted in motor habits, such as the direction in which the coils are placed, or the degree of their elongation.

In addition, the very high prevalence of technical tradition no. 2 at Vaux-et-Borset, typical of the 'standard' Limburg ware in LBK context (Gomart 2014), is intriguing in many ways. The Limburg ware clearly comes from a different learning network than that of producers of typical LBK ware, yet
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

it is evidently linked, in our view, to the LBK sphere (Constantin et al. 2010; Gomart 2014; Gomart/Burnez-Lanotte 2012). The fact that, up until now, no site has revealed a ceramic assemblage in a reliable context composed exclusively of Limburg ware, and that these ceramics maintain a homogenous stylistic characteristic in the whole western LBK expansion zone tends, in our view, to refute the hypothesis of production by hunter-gatherer groups (Constantin et al. 2010). Limburg ware is nearly always found in contexts associated with the collective sphere (i. e. in houses where collective consumption is assumed: Gomart 2014), and imitated by producers of typical LBK ceramics<fnref n="2" />. It thus seems to constitute a specific functional category and to carry strong cultural significance for the LBK communities. The local origin of the clay used to form Limburg pots, as well as the marked uniformity of the technical gestures associated with their production throughout the whole western LBK chronological sequence across vast territories, including Belgium, the Netherlands and Northeastern France (which stand in opposition to the diversity of technical practices associated with typically LBK assemblages), may suggest that Limburg ware was produced and disseminated by itinerant artisans. These artisans would have formed an integral part of LBK communities, although their social role might have differed from those held by the producers of domestic ware (Gomart 2014). The use of tradition no. 2 at Vaux-et-Borset could suggest that the learning network behind the production of Limburg ware during the LBK remained active after the transition towards the BQY/VSG. The producers and the products themselves would nevertheless have lost their specific cultural and social roles. For the Neolithic communities in question, it is indeed highly probable that a cultural transition would be accompanied by profound transformations in the cultural and social meaning attributed to specific categories of artefacts (Raczky et al. 2010). It is thus possible to suppose that producers from the Limburg learning network, having lost their status as itinerant craftsmen and now making pottery for domestic use, could have established themselves locally in BQY/VSG villages. This new local anchoring would entail prolonged interactions with the descendants of the typical LBK style pottery learning networks, giving rise to important technical and stylistic transfers between producer groups. This scenario of interaction would also explain the spread of bone temper among BQY/VSG assemblages (while it was nearly exclusively used on Limburg ware in LBK contexts), but also the fashioning of large-sized vases with everted walls and the use of impressed or incised herringbone decorative patterns which were hitherto characteristic of Limburg ware.

The different processes of technical hybridisation identified among lithic and ceramic productions could not have emerged without close and prolonged interaction between producers from different learning networks (Roux et al. 2017). The presence of these phenomena at Vaux-et-Borset – in the form of way of doing no. 5 with regard to the lithic industry and the use of the beating technique for the production of the whole pottery assemblage – reinforces our conclusion that the western and eastern influences identified in the two technical subsystems during the BQY/VSG culture are indeed the result of exogenous population inputs at the turn of the fifth millennium that integrated into the communities already established in the Hesbaye region, leading to social syncretism visible in the technical system. Another mechanism of social syncretism is represented in the massive employment of technical tradition no. 2 in the BQY/VSG sector of Vaux-et-Borset, formerly associated with Limburg ware, which suggests a local settling of producers hitherto in charge of making the said Limburg ware. This was probably accompanied by the loss of their specific societal role, as well as that of the status of their products.

<footnote n="2">² A technological study of la Hoguette pottery has yet to be conducted to assess whether it was also imitated by producers of typical LBK ceramics.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

it is evidently linked, in our view, to the LBK sphere (Constantin et al. 2010; Gomart 2014; Gomart/Burnez-Lanotte 2012). The fact that, up until now, no site has revealed a ceramic assemblage in a reliable context composed exclusively of Limburg ware, and that these ceramics maintain a homogenous stylistic characteristic in the whole western LBK expansion zone tends, in our view, to refute the hypothesis of production by hunter-gatherer groups (Constantin et al. 2010). Limburg ware is nearly always found in contexts associated with the collective sphere (i. e. in houses where collective consumption is assumed: Gomart 2014), and imitated by producers of typical LBK ceramics<fnref n="2" />. It thus seems to constitute a specific functional category and to carry strong cultural significance for the LBK communities. The local origin of the clay used to form Limburg pots, as well as the marked uniformity of the technical gestures associated with their production throughout the whole western LBK chronological sequence across vast territories, including Belgium, the Netherlands and Northeastern France (which stand in opposition to the diversity of technical practices associated with typically LBK assemblages), may suggest that Limburg ware was produced and disseminated by itinerant artisans. These artisans would have formed an integral part of LBK communities, although their social role might have differed from those held by the producers of domestic ware (Gomart 2014). The use of tradition no. 2 at Vaux-et-Borset could suggest that the learning network behind the production of Limburg ware during the LBK remained active after the transition towards the BQY/VSG. The producers and the products themselves would nevertheless have lost their specific cultural and social roles. For the Neolithic communities in question, it is indeed highly probable that a cultural transition would be accompanied by profound transformations in the cultural and social meaning attributed to specific categories of artefacts (Raczky et al. 2010). It is thus possible to suppose that producers from the Limburg learning network, having lost their status as itinerant craftsmen and now making pottery for domestic use, could have established themselves locally in BQY/VSG villages. This new local anchoring would entail prolonged interactions with the descendants of the typical LBK style pottery learning networks, giving rise to important technical and stylistic transfers between producer groups. This scenario of interaction would also explain the spread of bone temper among BQY/VSG assemblages (while it was nearly exclusively used on Limburg ware in LBK contexts), but also the fashioning of large-sized vases with everted walls and the use of impressed or incised herringbone decorative patterns which were hitherto characteristic of Limburg ware.

The different processes of technical hybridisation identified among lithic and ceramic productions could not have emerged without close and prolonged interaction between producers from different learning networks (Roux et al. 2017). The presence of these phenomena at Vaux-et-Borset – in the form of way of doing no. 5 with regard to the lithic industry and the use of the beating technique for the production of the whole pottery assemblage – reinforces our conclusion that the western and eastern influences identified in the two technical subsystems during the BQY/VSG culture are indeed the result of exogenous population inputs at the turn of the fifth millennium that integrated into the communities already established in the Hesbaye region, leading to social syncretism visible in the technical system. Another mechanism of social syncretism is represented in the massive employment of technical tradition no. 2 in the BQY/VSG sector of Vaux-et-Borset, formerly associated with Limburg ware, which suggests a local settling of producers hitherto in charge of making the said Limburg ware. This was probably accompanied by the loss of their specific societal role, as well as that of the status of their products.

<footnote n="2">² A technological study of la Hoguette pottery has yet to be conducted to assess whether it was also imitated by producers of typical LBK ceramics.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

Social mechanisms deeply embedded in migration patterns

The identification of exogenous influences and of technical hybridisation in the BQY/VSG of Middle Belgium led us to speak of social syncretism. These social mechanisms are deeply anchored in migration patterns. Mastering knowledge and know-how related to complex productions (such as lithic blades and pottery productions) requires long and sustained training (Pelègrin 1991; 2007). Furthermore, some of the technical traits involved in the hybridisation processes are invisible on the finished artefacts. These processes must therefore be related to durable contacts, exchanges and dialogues between individuals that can only stem from the integration of exogenous individuals within the local communities. This phenomenon involves processes of migration i.e. "a permanent shift of residence of a social unit [probably] larger than an individual" (Hofmann 2016, 235).

The question of the mobility of these sedentary agro-pastoralist populations has become more salient with the introduction of bioarchaeological data into prehistoric narratives (e. g. Bickle/Hofmann 2007; Hofmann 2016; 2020; Scharl/Gehlen 2017; Zvelebil et al. 2012). In the early 2000s, the development of strontium isotope analysis revealed some forms of individual mobility among LBK farmers, especially that of women, which were interpreted as a signal of patrilocality (Bentley et al. 2002; Hedges et al. 2013; Price et al. 2001). Mobility and migration seem to be an intrinsic component of LBK lifestyles even after the earliest phases of colonisation (Hofmann 2016), but it has also been argued that "migration episodes which took place within the LBK area will be largely indistinguishable at a molecular level" (Hofmann 2016, 236). This is indeed obvious, for example, with regard to the hypothesis of itinerant knappers during the BQY/VSG (Denis 2019a) and itinerant Limburg potters, whose travel routes and rhythms cannot be captured by specific isotopic signatures. It is also important to note that bioarchaeological studies are conducted in funerary contexts, which are especially lacking in our study area.

As M. Furholt (2018) points out, communities of practice which can be tracked thanks to technological analyses are ideal for working on mobility and migration patterns. Using this concept, our study has thus underlined that (1) the LBK is characterised by a homogeneity of lithic technical practices, while pottery technical traditions are diverse; (2) the transition to the BQY/VSG is marked by a diversification of technical practices in both subsystems.

Looking at the organisation of both productions, the dissymmetry between lithics and ceramics observed for the LBK can be discussed in the light of the hypothesis developed for the Neolithic of a gender-specific division of activities, in which ceramic production is often considered a feminine task (e. g. Bickle/Hofmann 2023; Hofmann 2020, 10) and the production of stone tools is often assigned to men (e. g. Augereau 2019). If we accept these gender-specific attributions of tasks then, for the LBK of Middle Belgium, lithic homogeneity versus ceramic diversity fully fits the patrilocality models based on aDNA and isotopes analysis, with a higher mobility signal for women compared to men. However, the transition to the BQY/VSG, which is characterised by a general diversification of technical practices, raises new questions. From the lithic point of view, we observe an intensification of producers' mobility. Two hypotheses can be discussed. First, the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG could be linked to an evolution of kinship systems. This could echo the social network analysis of E. Claßen (2009), which suggests a destabilisation of kinship networks at the end of the LBK in the Cologne/Aachen area. Secondly, we can assume a reorganisation of the techno-economic activities among the post-LBK communities. In the lithic technical subsystem, this is perceptible through the massive appearance of simple products (mostly flakes) during the BQY/
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

Social mechanisms deeply embedded in migration patterns

The identification of exogenous influences and of technical hybridisation in the BQY/VSG of Middle Belgium led us to speak of social syncretism. These social mechanisms are deeply anchored in migration patterns. Mastering knowledge and know-how related to complex productions (such as lithic blades and pottery productions) requires long and sustained training (Pelègrin 1991; 2007). Furthermore, some of the technical traits involved in the hybridisation processes are invisible on the finished artefacts. These processes must therefore be related to durable contacts, exchanges and dialogues between individuals that can only stem from the integration of exogenous individuals within the local communities. This phenomenon involves processes of migration i.e. "a permanent shift of residence of a social unit [probably] larger than an individual" (Hofmann 2016, 235).

The question of the mobility of these sedentary agro-pastoralist populations has become more salient with the introduction of bioarchaeological data into prehistoric narratives (e. g. Bickle/Hofmann 2007; Hofmann 2016; 2020; Scharl/Gehlen 2017; Zvelebil et al. 2012). In the early 2000s, the development of strontium isotope analysis revealed some forms of individual mobility among LBK farmers, especially that of women, which were interpreted as a signal of patrilocality (Bentley et al. 2002; Hedges et al. 2013; Price et al. 2001). Mobility and migration seem to be an intrinsic component of LBK lifestyles even after the earliest phases of colonisation (Hofmann 2016), but it has also been argued that "migration episodes which took place within the LBK area will be largely indistinguishable at a molecular level" (Hofmann 2016, 236). This is indeed obvious, for example, with regard to the hypothesis of itinerant knappers during the BQY/VSG (Denis 2019a) and itinerant Limburg potters, whose travel routes and rhythms cannot be captured by specific isotopic signatures. It is also important to note that bioarchaeological studies are conducted in funerary contexts, which are especially lacking in our study area.

As M. Furholt (2018) points out, communities of practice which can be tracked thanks to technological analyses are ideal for working on mobility and migration patterns. Using this concept, our study has thus underlined that (1) the LBK is characterised by a homogeneity of lithic technical practices, while pottery technical traditions are diverse; (2) the transition to the BQY/VSG is marked by a diversification of technical practices in both subsystems.

Looking at the organisation of both productions, the dissymmetry between lithics and ceramics observed for the LBK can be discussed in the light of the hypothesis developed for the Neolithic of a gender-specific division of activities, in which ceramic production is often considered a feminine task (e. g. Bickle/Hofmann 2023; Hofmann 2020, 10) and the production of stone tools is often assigned to men (e. g. Augereau 2019). If we accept these gender-specific attributions of tasks then, for the LBK of Middle Belgium, lithic homogeneity versus ceramic diversity fully fits the patrilocality models based on aDNA and isotopes analysis, with a higher mobility signal for women compared to men. However, the transition to the BQY/VSG, which is characterised by a general diversification of technical practices, raises new questions. From the lithic point of view, we observe an intensification of producers' mobility. Two hypotheses can be discussed. First, the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG could be linked to an evolution of kinship systems. This could echo the social network analysis of E. Claßen (2009), which suggests a destabilisation of kinship networks at the end of the LBK in the Cologne/Aachen area. Secondly, we can assume a reorganisation of the techno-economic activities among the post-LBK communities. In the lithic technical subsystem, this is perceptible through the massive appearance of simple products (mostly flakes) during the BQY/
VSG culture, particularly in the Hesbaye region (e. g. Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 2008; Denis 2017). These products, manufactured on a domestic scale, indicate the appearance of a new group of producers (Denis 2017) that is independent from the group of blade producers who tends to adopt diverse forms of specialised organisation (Bostyn et al. 2019; Denis 2019b). The local settling of Limburg ware producers during the BQY/VSG, probably accompanied by a loss of their specific social role and of the status of their products, is probably part of the same type of socio-economic upheaval.

## Conclusion

In the framework of an apparent "rupture" pattern between the LBK and the BQY/VSG in the Hesbaye region, our premise was aimed at testing the validity of the three models of historical transition proposed to explain the shift from the LBK to the post-LBK:

i. an endogenous process linked to profound socio-cultural changes within LBK populations;

ii. a syncretic process, relating to the integration of Neolithic populations from contemporaneous cultural entities;

iii. a syncretic process, relating to the final stage of integration of hunter-gatherer populations.

Our results reveal several overlapping mechanisms were at work in the Hesbaye region during the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG. In fact, the ceramic and lithic subsystems attest to a combination of filiation, migration, and social syncretism. The technical continuity observed between the LBK and the BQY/VSG in the ceramics and lithic industries, which attests to continuity in the peopling of the Hesbaye region, is accompanied by migrations and phenomena of syncretism between groups from different geographical origins, albeit with similar cultural affiliations. The interactions that could be identified in the lithic subsystem seem indeed to be indicative of exchanges between communities from different regions (the Hainaut region or the Paris Basin). In the same vein, the southeastern influx into the ceramic subsystem stems from the Danubian cultural sphere. These interactions between communities seem to be linked to an intensification of population movements within the Danubian cultural sphere during the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG. In view of the current state of research, however, neither the lithic nor the ceramic subsystem from the Hesbaye region reveals indications of influx from contemporaneous non-Danubian cultural entities (e. g. Cardial, epi-Cardial), nor of the integration of hunter-gatherer populations into BQY/VSG communities.

It is important to underline that profound socio-economic changes are also perceptible between the LBK and the BQY/VSG through the massive emergence of simple lithic products (e. g. flakes), as well as the loss of specific cultural and social roles for the Limburg ware.

This combination of complex phenomena seems to mainly reflect processes specific to the Danubian sphere, although their exact rhythms are yet to be understood. Data retrieved from lithic and ceramic industries point to population movements, but these do not appear to be synchronous. With the present state of the data, the supposed interactions between ceramic communities of practice are identified during the LBK and seem to only give rise to technical hybridisations during the BQY/VSG. By contrast, the LBK lithic industries are characterised by strong technical homogeneity, with no evidence of transfers between communities of practice. It is only from the BQY/VSG that the lithic subsystem provides evidence of interactions and manifests technical transformations and hybridisations. As shown
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

VSG culture, particularly in the Hesbaye region (e. g. Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 2008; Denis 2017). These products, manufactured on a domestic scale, indicate the appearance of a new group of producers (Denis 2017) that is independent from the group of blade producers who tends to adopt diverse forms of specialised organisation (Bostyn et al. 2019; Denis 2019b). The local settling of Limburg ware producers during the BQY/VSG, probably accompanied by a loss of their specific social role and of the status of their products, is probably part of the same type of socio-economic upheaval.

## Conclusion

In the framework of an apparent "rupture" pattern between the LBK and the BQY/VSG in the Hesbaye region, our premise was aimed at testing the validity of the three models of historical transition proposed to explain the shift from the LBK to the post-LBK:

i. an endogenous process linked to profound socio-cultural changes within LBK populations;

ii. a syncretic process, relating to the integration of Neolithic populations from contemporaneous cultural entities;

iii. a syncretic process, relating to the final stage of integration of hunter-gatherer populations.

Our results reveal several overlapping mechanisms were at work in the Hesbaye region during the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG. In fact, the ceramic and lithic subsystems attest to a combination of filiation, migration, and social syncretism. The technical continuity observed between the LBK and the BQY/VSG in the ceramics and lithic industries, which attests to continuity in the peopling of the Hesbaye region, is accompanied by migrations and phenomena of syncretism between groups from different geographical origins, albeit with similar cultural affiliations. The interactions that could be identified in the lithic subsystem seem indeed to be indicative of exchanges between communities from different regions (the Hainaut region or the Paris Basin). In the same vein, the southeastern influx into the ceramic subsystem stems from the Danubian cultural sphere. These interactions between communities seem to be linked to an intensification of population movements within the Danubian cultural sphere during the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG. In view of the current state of research, however, neither the lithic nor the ceramic subsystem from the Hesbaye region reveals indications of influx from contemporaneous non-Danubian cultural entities (e. g. Cardial, epi-Cardial), nor of the integration of hunter-gatherer populations into BQY/VSG communities.

It is important to underline that profound socio-economic changes are also perceptible between the LBK and the BQY/VSG through the massive emergence of simple lithic products (e. g. flakes), as well as the loss of specific cultural and social roles for the Limburg ware.

This combination of complex phenomena seems to mainly reflect processes specific to the Danubian sphere, although their exact rhythms are yet to be understood. Data retrieved from lithic and ceramic industries point to population movements, but these do not appear to be synchronous. With the present state of the data, the supposed interactions between ceramic communities of practice are identified during the LBK and seem to only give rise to technical hybridisations during the BQY/VSG. By contrast, the LBK lithic industries are characterised by strong technical homogeneity, with no evidence of transfers between communities of practice. It is only from the BQY/VSG that the lithic subsystem provides evidence of interactions and manifests technical transformations and hybridisations. As shown
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

above, we cannot exclude the possibility that this assessment may only be
the reflection of the current state of research. Technological analyses relat-
ing to ceramic apprenticeships have so far concentrated on the LBK of the
Paris Basin, Belgium and Eastern France, whereas for lithic industries, it is
rather the post-LBK assemblages from Belgium and the Rhineland that have
been the main focus. Yet this observation may also reflect differing social
dynamics depending on the technical subsystem, linked to a gendered di-
vision of tasks (e.g. Bickle 2020; Masclans Latorre et al. 2020; Masclans et
al. 2021). It is thus tempting to assume that the intensity of influxes (with-
out visible hybridisation) observed in the ceramic subsystem during the LBK
could be the reflection of a strong mobility of women, for instance in the
case of matrimonial movements (as suggested by a number of bioarchae-
ological studies: e.g. Bentley et al. 2002; Price et al. 2001) – women settling
where they marry with their own ceramic technical traditions (Gomart et al.
2015; 2017). In parallel, the more local anchoring of lithic technical traditions
during the LBK could reflect this patrilocal system. The intensification of ex-
changes and population movements during the BQY/VSG, stemming from
changes in social and economic paradigms, would reshape the structure of
the LBK social core and give rise to new types of interactions between indi-
viduals at the level of the whole society.

The detailed reconstruction of lithic and ceramic technical know-how dur-
ing the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG in the Hesbaye region
thus reveals groups of producers whose spatial trajectories and socio-eco-
nomic behaviours seem to change profoundly at the turn of the sixth and
fifth millennia BCE. This study shows the potential of integrated technolog-
ical approaches to enhance our understanding of the first farmers' mobility
patterns and to build, beyond Central Belgium, robust transition scenarios
taking into account the cultural, social and economic dynamics in a system-
ic perspective that led to the fragmentation and disintegration of the LBK
system at the European scale (Denis et al. forthcoming; Marton et al. 2020).

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out in the framework of the following projects: (i) "Technical Identities and Social, Economic and Cultural Dynamics at the beginning of the Neolithic in North-Western Europe. The lithic industries of agro-pastoral populations of the first third of the fifth millennium" funded by "MOVE-IN Louvain" Incoming Post-doctoral Fellowship, co-funded by the Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (S. Denis, supervised by L. Burnez-Lanotte); (ii) Project iNSTaNT "The End of the Early Neolithic in North-Western Europe: from the integrated approach of the technical system to the socio-cultural dynamics of a major historical transition (sixth to fifth millennia BC)" funded by the MSH Mondes, Nanterre, France (directed by S. Denis and L. Gomart); (iii) the Operational Programme Research, Development, and Education - Project "Postdoc2MUNI" (No. CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/18_053/0016952). We thank the CNRS UMR 7055 Préhistoire et Technologie and UMR 8215 Trajectoires for their support.

The excavation of the site of Verlaine was led by L. Burnez-Lanotte be-
tween 1996 and 2002 for the project Mission Archéologique du ministère
des Affaires étrangères français en Hainaut et en Moyenne Belgique. The
excavation of Vaux-et-Borset was led by C. Constantin (CNRS) and J.-P. Cas-
par † (KULeuven then UNamur) between 1989 and 1999. The team was com-
posed of: the Hesbaye-Condroz Archaeological Circle, who discovered the
site, under the direction of J. Docquier †, then E. Delye with N. Rochus and
R. Bit, members of the archaeological mission in Hainaut and Middle Bel-
gium of the Ministry of the French Foreign Affairs, the 'Protohistory' team of
the CNRS UMR 7041 (today: UMR 8215), and the Museum of French National
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

above, we cannot exclude the possibility that this assessment may only be
the reflection of the current state of research. Technological analyses relat-
ing to ceramic apprenticeships have so far concentrated on the LBK of the
Paris Basin, Belgium and Eastern France, whereas for lithic industries, it is
rather the post-LBK assemblages from Belgium and the Rhineland that have
been the main focus. Yet this observation may also reflect differing social
dynamics depending on the technical subsystem, linked to a gendered di-
vision of tasks (e.g. Bickle 2020; Masclans Latorre et al. 2020; Masclans et
al. 2021). It is thus tempting to assume that the intensity of influxes (with-
out visible hybridisation) observed in the ceramic subsystem during the LBK
could be the reflection of a strong mobility of women, for instance in the
case of matrimonial movements (as suggested by a number of bioarchae-
ological studies: e.g. Bentley et al. 2002; Price et al. 2001) – women settling
where they marry with their own ceramic technical traditions (Gomart et al.
2015; 2017). In parallel, the more local anchoring of lithic technical traditions
during the LBK could reflect this patrilocal system. The intensification of ex-
changes and population movements during the BQY/VSG, stemming from
changes in social and economic paradigms, would reshape the structure of
the LBK social core and give rise to new types of interactions between indi-
viduals at the level of the whole society.

The detailed reconstruction of lithic and ceramic technical know-how dur-
ing the transition between the LBK and the BQY/VSG in the Hesbaye region
thus reveals groups of producers whose spatial trajectories and socio-eco-
nomic behaviours seem to change profoundly at the turn of the sixth and
fifth millennia BCE. This study shows the potential of integrated technolog-
ical approaches to enhance our understanding of the first farmers' mobility
patterns and to build, beyond Central Belgium, robust transition scenarios
taking into account the cultural, social and economic dynamics in a system-
ic perspective that led to the fragmentation and disintegration of the LBK
system at the European scale (Denis et al. forthcoming; Marton et al. 2020).

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out in the framework of the following projects: (i) "Technical Identities and Social, Economic and Cultural Dynamics at the beginning of the Neolithic in North-Western Europe. The lithic industries of agro-pastoral populations of the first third of the fifth millennium" funded by "MOVE-IN Louvain" Incoming Post-doctoral Fellowship, co-funded by the Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (S. Denis, supervised by L. Burnez-Lanotte); (ii) Project iNSTaNT "The End of the Early Neolithic in North-Western Europe: from the integrated approach of the technical system to the socio-cultural dynamics of a major historical transition (sixth to fifth millennia BC)" funded by the MSH Mondes, Nanterre, France (directed by S. Denis and L. Gomart); (iii) the Operational Programme Research, Development, and Education – Project "Postdoc2MUNI" (No. CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/18_053/0016952). We thank the CNRS UMR 7055 Préhistoire et Technologie and UMR 8215 Trajectoires for their support.

The excavation of the site of Verlaine was led by L. Burnez-Lanotte be-
tween 1996 and 2002 for the project Mission Archéologique du ministère
des Affaires étrangères français en Hainaut et en Moyenne Belgique. The
excavation of Vaux-et-Borset was led by C. Constantin (CNRS) and J.-P. Cas-
par † (KULeuven then UNamur) between 1989 and 1999. The team was com-
posed of: the Hesbaye-Condroz Archaeological Circle, who discovered the
site, under the direction of J. Docquier †, then E. Delye with N. Rochus and
R. Bit, members of the archaeological mission in Hainaut and Middle Bel-
gium of the Ministry of the French Foreign Affairs, the 'Protohistory' team of
the CNRS UMR 7041 (today: UMR 8215), and the Museum of French National
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Antiquities of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1989-1990: C. Louboutin), Cercle ar-
chéologique des Chercheurs de la Wallonie (1989-1990: F. Tromme) and
thanks to the financial contribution of the ministry of French Foreign Af-
fairs and also of the excavations of the Walloon Region and the Belgian
FNRS. The research project, carried out by B. van Doosselaere on the ceram-
ic assemblage of Vaux-et-Borset under the supervision of L. Burnez-Lanotte,
was funded by an FSR Cofund Marie Curie program of the Academy of Lou-
vain, by the University of Namur, as well as by the Carestream company. We
would like to thank Mr. Dupont, H. Meurisse, D. Hublet, O. Lebecq and O. de
Muller of the radiology department of the CHU de Mont Godinne (Catholic
University of Louvain) for their collaboration in the project.

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Bogdana Milić and an
anonymous reviewer for the relevance of their comments that helped to
greatly improve the earlier draft of this paper. We also would like to thank
Clare Burke for her acceptance to be the recommender of this paper for PCI
Archaeology.

Funding

This work was supported by the following projects:

i. Project "Technical Identities and Social, Economic and Cultural Dynamics at the beginning of the Neolithic in North-Western Europe. The lithic industries of agro-pastoral populations of the first third of the fifth Millennium" funded by "MOVE-IN Louvain" Incoming Post-doctoral Fellowship, co-funded by the Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (S. Denis, supervised by L. Burnez-Lanotte),

ii. Project iNSTaNT "The End of the Early Neolithic in North-Western Europe. An integrated approach to the technical system for reconstructing the socio-cultural dynamics underlying a major historical transition (sixth to fifth Millennia BC)", MSH Mondes, France (directed by S. Denis and L. Gomart),

iii. The Operational Programme Research, Development, and Education – Project "Postdoc2MUNI" (No. CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/18_053/0016952).

References

Allard 2005a: P. Allard, L'industrie lithique des populations rubanées du nord-est de la France et de la Belgique (Rahden 2005).

Allard 2005b: P. Allard, Surplus production of flint blades in the early Neolithic of western Europe: New evidence from Belgium. European Journal of Archaeology 8, 3, 2005, 205–223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957105076058.

Allard 2007: P. Allard, An economy of surplus production in the Early Neolithic of Hesbaye (Belgium): Bandkeramik blade debitage at Verlaine 'Petit Paradis.' In: P. Allard/F. Bostyn/F. Giligny/J. Lech (eds.), Flint mining in the Prehistoric Europe, interpreting the archaeological records (Oxford 2007) 31–40.

Allard 2012: P. Allard, Détection de spécialistes de la taille de la pierre au Rubané. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 109, 2, 2012, 267–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2012.14107.

Allard/Bostyn 2006: P. Allard/F. Bostyn, Genèse et évolution des industries lithiques danubiennes du Bassin parisien. In: Contribution des matériaux lithiques dans la chronologie du Néolithique ancien et moyen en France et dans les régions limitrophes, Session de l'EAA (Lyon, septembre 2004). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1494 (Oxford 2006) 28–52.

Allard et al. 2005: P. Allard/F. Bostyn/J. Fabre, Origine et circulation du silex durant le Néolithique en Picardie. Des premières approches ponctuelles à une systématique régionale. Revue archéologique de Picardie 22, 1, 2005, 49-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/pica.2005.2721.
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Antiquities of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1989-1990: C. Louboutin), Cercle ar-
chéologique des Chercheurs de la Wallonie (1989-1990: F. Tromme) and
thanks to the financial contribution of the ministry of French Foreign Af-
fairs and also of the excavations of the Walloon Region and the Belgian
FNRS. The research project, carried out by B. van Doosselaere on the ceram-
ic assemblage of Vaux-et-Borset under the supervision of L. Burnez-Lanotte,
was funded by an FSR Cofund Marie Curie program of the Academy of Lou-
vain, by the University of Namur, as well as by the Carestream company. We
would like to thank Mr. Dupont, H. Meurisse, D. Hublet, O. Lebecq and O. de
Muller of the radiology department of the CHU de Mont Godinne (Catholic
University of Louvain) for their collaboration in the project.

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Bogdana Milić and an
anonymous reviewer for the relevance of their comments that helped to
greatly improve the earlier draft of this paper. We also would like to thank
Clare Burke for her acceptance to be the recommender of this paper for PCI
Archaeology.

Funding

This work was supported by the following projects:

i. Project "Technical Identities and Social, Economic and Cultural Dynamics at the beginning of the Neolithic in North-Western Europe. The lithic industries of agro-pastoral populations of the first third of the fifth Millennium" funded by "MOVE-IN Louvain" Incoming Post-doctoral Fellowship, co-funded by the Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (S. Denis, supervised by L. Burnez-Lanotte),

ii. Project iNSTaNT "The End of the Early Neolithic in North-Western Europe. An integrated approach to the technical system for reconstructing the socio-cultural dynamics underlying a major historical transition (sixth to fifth Millennium BC)", MSH Mondes, France (directed by S. Denis and L. Gomart),

iii. The Operational Programme Research, Development, and Education – Project "Postdoc2MUNI" (No. CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/18_053/0016952).

References

Allard 2005a: P. Allard, L'industrie lithique des populations rubanées du nord-est de la France et de la Belgique (Rahden 2005).

Allard 2005b: P. Allard, Surplus production of flint blades in the early Neolithic of western Europe: New evidence from Belgium. European Journal of Archaeology 8, 3, 2005, 205–223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461957105076058.

Allard 2007: P. Allard, An economy of surplus production in the Early Neolithic of Hesbaye (Belgium): Bandkeramik blade debitage at Verlaine 'Petit Paradis.' In: P. Allard/F. Bostyn/F. Giligny/J. Lech (eds.), Flint mining in the Prehistoric Europe, interpreting the archaeological records (Oxford 2007) 31–40.

Allard 2012: P. Allard, Détection de spécialistes de la taille de la pierre au Rubané. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 109, 2, 2012, 267–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2012.14107.

Allard/Bostyn 2006: P. Allard/F. Bostyn, Genèse et évolution des industries lithiques danubiennes du Bassin parisien. In: Contribution des matériaux lithiques dans la chronologie du Néolithique ancien et moyen en France et dans les régions limitrophes, Session de l'EAA (Lyon, septembre 2004). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1494 (Oxford 2006) 28–52.

Allard et al. 2005: P. Allard/F. Bostyn/J. Fabre, Origine et circulation du silex durant le Néolithique en Picardie. Des premières approches ponctuelles à une systématique régionale. Revue archéologique de Picardie 22, 1, 2005, 49-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/pica.2005.2721.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2006: P.Allard/L. Burnez-Lanotte, Surplus production in the Belgian Linearbandkeramik: blade debitage at Verlaine "Petit Paradis" (Verlaine, Hesbaye, Belgium). In: G. Körlin/G. Weisgerber (eds.), Stone Age – Mining Age: VIII International Flint Symposium, Bochum 13.–17. September 1999, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum. Der Anschnitt Beiheft 19 (Bochum 2006) 37–54.

Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2008: P.Allard/L. Burnez-Lanotte, An economy of surplus production in the early Neolithic of Hesbaye (Belgium): Bandkeramik blade debitage at Verlaine "Petit Paradis". In: P. Allard/F. Bostyn/F. Giligny/J. Lech (eds.), Flint mining in prehistoric Europe: interpreting the archaeological records (Oxford 2008) 31–39.

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

Astruc et al. 2007: L. Astruc/B. Gratuze/J. Pelegrin/P. Akkermans, From production to use: A parcel of obsidian bladelets at Sabi Abyad II. In: L. Astruc/D. Binder/F. Briois (eds.), Systèmes techniques et communautés du Néolithique précéramique au Proche-Orient. Presented at the 5ᵉ Colloque International, Fréjus, 29 fév.–5 mars 2004 (Antibes 2007) 327–341.

Augereau 2019: A. Augereau, Change and continuity. Gender and flint knapping activities during the Neolithic in the Paris basin. In: J.K. Koch/W. Kirleis (eds.). Gender transformations in prehistoric and archaic societies. Scales of Transformation in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies 6 (Leiden 2019) 435–458.

Balfet 1991: H. Balfet, Observer l'action technique: des chaînes opératoires, pour quoi faire? (Paris 1991).

Balkowski 2017: N. Balkowski, From Merzbachtal to the Graetheide? Mobility at the end of the Linear Pottery Culture. In: S. Scharl/B. Gehlen (eds.), Mobility in prehistoric sedentary societies. Papers of the CRC 806 workshop (Cologne, 26–27 June 2015). Kölner Studien zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 8 (Rahden/Westf. 2017) 119–128.

Bedault 2009: L. Bedault, First reflexions on the exploitation of animals in Ville- neuve-Saint-Germain society at the end of the early Neolithic in the Paris Basin (France). In: D. Hofmann/P. Bickle (eds.), Creating communities: New advances in Central European Neolithic research (Oxford 2009) 111–131.

Bentley et al. 2002: R.A. Bentley/T.D. Price/J. Lüning/D. Gronenborn/J. Wahl/P.D. Ful- lagar, Prehistoric migration in Europe: Strontium isotope analysis of Early Neo- lithic skeletons. Current Anthropology 43, 5, 2002, 799–804. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1086/344373.

Beugnier/Maigrot 2005: V. Beugnier/Y. Maigrot, La fonction des outillages en ma- tières dures animales et en silex au Néolithique final. Le cas des sites littoraux des lacs de Chalain et Clairvaux (IIIe millénaire av. J.-C., Jura, France). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 102, 2, 2005, 335–344. DOI: https://doi. org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13111.

Bickle 2020: P. Bickle, Thinking gender differently: New Approaches to identity dif- ference in the Central European Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 30, 2, 2020, 201–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000453.

Bickle/Whittle 2013: P. Bickle/A. Whittle (eds.), The first farmers of Central Europe: Di- versity in LBK lifeways (Oxford 2013).

Bickle/Hofmann 2007: P. Bickle/D. Hofmann, Moving on: The contribution of isotope studies to the early Neolithic of Central Europe. Antiquity 81, 2007, 1029–1041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00096095.

Bickle/Hofmann 2023: P. Bickle/D. Hofmann, Female mobility patterns in prehistory: Patrilocality, descent and kinship of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK). In: R.-M. Arbo- gast/A. Denaire/Š. Grando-Válečková/P. Lefranc/M. Mauvilly/S. van Willingen (eds.), D’Oberlag à Wesaluri, itinéraire d’un préhistorien. Mélanges offerts à Christian Jeunesse. Mémoires d’Archéologie du Grand Est 8 (Strasbourg 2023) 105–122.

Binder 1991: D. Binder, Facteurs de variabilité des outillages lithiques chasséens dans le sud-est de la France. In: A. Beeching/J.-C. Blanchet/D. Binder (eds.), Iden- tité du Chasséen: actes du colloque international de Nemours, 17.–19. mai 1989 (Nemours 1991) 261–272.

Binder/Gassin 1988: D. Binder/B. Gassin, Le débitage laminaire chasséen après chauffe: technologie et traces d'utilisation. In: S. Beyries (ed.), Industries lithiques: tracéologie et technologie (Oxford 1988) 93–125.
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2006: P.Allard/L. Burnez-Lanotte, Surplus production in the Belgian Linearbandkeramik: blade debitage at Verlaine "Petit Paradis" (Verlaine, Hesbaye, Belgium). In: G. Körlin/G. Weisgerber (eds.), Stone Age – Mining Age: VIII International Flint Symposium, Bochum 13.–17. September 1999, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum. Der Anschnitt Beiheft 19 (Bochum 2006) 37–54.

Allard/Burnez-Lanotte 2008: P.Allard/L. Burnez-Lanotte, An economy of surplus production in the early Neolithic of Hesbaye (Belgium): Bandkeramik blade debitage at Verlaine "Petit Paradis". In: P. Allard/F. Bostyn/F. Giligny/J. Lech (eds.), Flint mining in prehistoric Europe: interpreting the archaeological records (Oxford 2008) 31–39.

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

Astruc et al. 2007: L. Astruc/B. Gratuze/J. Pelegrin/P. Akkermans, From production to use: A parcel of obsidian bladelets at Sabi Abyad II. In: L. Astruc/D. Binder/F. Briois (eds.), Systèmes techniques et communautés du Néolithique précéramique au Proche-Orient. Presented at the 5ᵉ Colloque International, Fréjus, 29 fév.–5 mars 2004 (Antibes 2007) 327–341.

Augereau 2019: A. Augereau, Change and continuity. Gender and flint knapping activities during the Neolithic in the Paris basin. In: J.K. Koch/W. Kirleis (eds.). Gender transformations in prehistoric and archaic societies. Scales of Transformation in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies 6 (Leiden 2019) 435–458.

Balfet 1991: H. Balfet, Observer l'action technique: des chaînes opératoires, pour quoi faire? (Paris 1991).

Balkowski 2017: N. Balkowski, From Merzbachtal to the Graetheide? Mobility at the end of the Linear Pottery Culture. In: S. Scharl/B. Gehlen (eds.), Mobility in prehistoric sedentary societies. Papers of the CRC 806 workshop (Cologne, 26–27 June 2015). Kölner Studien zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 8 (Rahden/Westf. 2017) 119–128.

Bedault 2009: L. Bedault, First reflexions on the exploitation of animals in Ville- neuve-Saint-Germain society at the end of the early Neolithic in the Paris Basin (France). In: D. Hofmann/P. Bickle (eds.), Creating communities: New advances in Central European Neolithic research (Oxford 2009) 111–131.

Bentley et al. 2002: R.A. Bentley/T.D. Price/J. Lüning/D. Gronenborn/J. Wahl/P.D. Ful- lagar, Prehistoric migration in Europe: Strontium isotope analysis of Early Neo- lithic skeletons. Current Anthropology 43, 5, 2002, 799–804. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1086/344373.

Beugnier/Maigrot 2005: V. Beugnier/Y. Maigrot, La fonction des outillages en ma- tières dures animales et en silex au Néolithique final. Le cas des sites littoraux des lacs de Chalain et Clairvaux (IIIe millénaire av. J.-C., Jura, France). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 102, 2, 2005, 335–344. DOI: https://doi. org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13111.

Bickle 2020: P. Bickle, Thinking gender differently: New Approaches to identity dif- ference in the Central European Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 30, 2, 2020, 201–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000453.

Bickle/Whittle 2013: P. Bickle/A. Whittle (eds.), The first farmers of Central Europe: Di- versity in LBK lifeways (Oxford 2013).

Bickle/Hofmann 2007: P. Bickle/D. Hofmann, Moving on: The contribution of isotope studies to the early Neolithic of Central Europe. Antiquity 81, 2007, 1029–1041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00096095.

Bickle/Hofmann 2023: P. Bickle/D. Hofmann, Female mobility patterns in prehistory: Patrilocality, descent and kinship of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK). In: R.-M. Arbo- gast/A. Denaire/Š. Grando-Válečková/P. Lefranc/M. Mauvilly/S. van Willingen (eds.), D’Oberlag à Wesaluri, itinéraire d’un préhistorien. Mélanges offerts à Christian Jeunesse. Mémoires d’Archéologie du Grand Est 8 (Strasbourg 2023) 105–122.

Binder 1991: D. Binder, Facteurs de variabilité des outillages lithiques chasséens dans le sud-est de la France. In: A. Beeching/J.-C. Blanchet/D. Binder (eds.), Iden- tité du Chasséen: actes du colloque international de Nemours, 17.–19. mai 1989 (Nemours 1991) 261–272.

Binder/Gassin 1988: D. Binder/B. Gassin, Le débitage laminaire chasséen après chauffe: technologie et traces d'utilisation. In: S. Beyries (ed.), Industries lithiques: tracéologie et technologie (Oxford 1988) 93–125.
Blanchet et al. 1989: J.-C. Blanchet/M. Plateaux/C. Pommepuy, Matières premières et sociétés protohistorique dans le Nord de la France. Action Thématique Pro- programmée «Archéologie métropolitaine», rapport d'activité (Direction des Anti- quités de Picardie 1989).

Blouet et al. 2013: V. Blouet/T. Klag/M.-P. Petitdidier/L. Thomashausen/M. Ilett/C. Con- stantin, Synchronisation des séquences du Rubané de Lorraine et du Bassin pa- risien. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 110, 3, 2013, 513–537. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/BSPF.2013.14294.

Bostyn 1994: F. Bostyn, Caractérisation des productions et de la diffusion des in- dustries lithiques du groupe néolithique du Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (Unpubl. thèse de doctorat Paris/Nanterre 1994).

Bostyn 2018: F. Bostyn, Spécialistes et spécialisations: essai sur les industries lithiques du Néolithique ancien et moyen du nord-ouest de la France (Unpubl. thèse d'habilitation à diriger des recherches Paris 2018).

Bostyn et al. 2019: F. Bostyn/F. Charraud/S. Denis, Variabilités techniques, évolutions et aires d'influence des centres de productions laminaires au sein de la culture de Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain. In: C. Montoya/J.-P. Fagnart/J.-L. Locht (eds.), Préhistoire de l'Europe du Nord-Ouest: mobilité, climats et identités culturelles. 28ᵉ congrès préhistorique de France 3 (Amiens 2019) 43–56.

Burnez-Lanotte 2010: L. Burnez-Lanotte, Acquérir, transformer, échanger ou con- sommer les matériaux siliceux au Rubané: problématiques et approche con- textuelle du site de Verlaine «Petit Paradis» (Hesbaye, Belgique). In: L. Burnez- Lanotte/C. Constantin/A. Hauzeur (eds.), Le Néolithique ancien de Belgique. Sites du Hainaut et de Hesbaye (Amay 2010) 175–204.

Burnez-Lanotte/Allard 2003: L. Burnez-Lanotte/P. Allard, Blade debitage in the Bel- gian Linerbandkeramik: The production at Harduémont (Verlaine, Hesbaye). In: L. Burnez-Lanotte (ed.), Production and management of lithic materials in the European Linearbandkeramik. British Archaeological Reports International Se- ries 1200 (Oxford 2003) 59–64.

Burnez-Lanotte/Allard 2013: L. Burnez-Lanotte/P. Allard, Stratigraphic relationships, chronological and spatial correlation of activities: One domestic unit in the blade producer settlement of Verlaine «Petit Paradis» (Hesbaye, Belgium). In: C. Hamon/P. Allard/M. Ilett (eds.), The domestic space in LBK settlements. Inter- nationale Archäologie – Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 17 (Rahden/Westf. 2013) 141–154.

Burnez-Lanotte et al. 1993: L. Burnez-Lanotte/J.-P. Caspar/C. Constantin, I Introduc- tion. In: J.-P. Caspar/C. Constantin/A. Hauzeur/L. Burnez-Lanotte (eds.), Nou- veaux éléments dans le groupe du Blicquy en Belgique: le site de Vaux-et-Borset "Gibour" et "A la Croix Marie-Jeanne". Helinium 34, 1, 1994, 67–79.

Burnez-Lanotte et al. 2001: L. Burnez-Lanotte/J.-P. Caspar/C. Constantin, Rapports chronologiques et culturels entre Rubané et Groupe de Blicquy à Vaux-et-Bor- set (Hesbaye, Belgique). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 98, 1, 2001, 53–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/BSPF.2001.12439.

Burnez-Lanotte et al. 2005: L. Burnez-Lanotte/J.-P. Caspar/M. Vanguestaine, Tech- nologie des anneaux en schiste dans le groupe de Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint- Germain à Vaux-et-Borset (Hesbaye, Belgique): interférences de sous-systèmes techniques. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 102, 3, 2005, 551–596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13142.

Cahen/Gilot 1983: D. Cahen/E. Gilot, Chronologie radiocarbone du Néolithique da- nubien. In: S.J. De Laet (ed.), Progrès récents dans l'étude du Néolithique ancien. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 21 (Brugge 1983) 21–40.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1994: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, III. Le lithique. In: J.- P. Caspar/C. Constantin/A. Hauzeur/L. Burnez-Lanotte (eds.), Nouveaux éléments dans le groupe du Blicquy en Belgique: le site de Vaux-et-Borset "Gibour" et "A la Croix Marie-Jeanne". Helinium 34, 1, 1994, 3–93.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1997: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, L'industrie lithique de Vaux-et-Borset (Hesbaye liégeoise): nouveaux éléments dans le groupe de Blic- quy (Belgique). In: C. Jeunesse (ed.), Le Néolithique danubien et ses marges en- tre Rhin et Seine. Actes du 22ᵉ Colloque Interrégional sur le Néolithique (Stras- bourg 1997) 411–429.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1998: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, L'industrie lith- ique du Rubané récent de Hesbaye à Vaux-et-Borset "Gibour" (Villers-le- Bouillet) dans le contexte de la problématique des rapports chrono-cul- turels entre Rubané et groupe de Blicquy en Hesbaye liégeoise (Belgique). In:
Blanchet et al. 1989: J.-C. Blanchet/M. Plateaux/C. Pommepuy, Matières premières et sociétés protohistorique dans le Nord de la France. Action Thématique Pro- programmée «Archéologie métropolitaine», rapport d'activité (Direction des Anti- quités de Picardie 1989).

Blouet et al. 2013: V. Blouet/T. Klag/M.-P. Petitdidier/L. Thomashausen/M. Ilett/C. Con- stantin, Synchronisation des séquences du Rubané de Lorraine et du Bassin pa- risien. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 110, 3, 2013, 513–537. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/BSPF.2013.14294.

Bostyn 1994: F. Bostyn, Caractérisation des productions et de la diffusion des in- dustries lithiques du groupe néolithique du Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (Unpubl. thèse de doctorat Paris/Nanterre 1994).

Bostyn 2018: F. Bostyn, Spécialistes et spécialisations: essai sur les industries lithiques du Néolithique ancien et moyen du nord-ouest de la France (Unpubl. thèse d'habilitation à diriger des recherches Paris 2018).

Bostyn et al. 2019: F. Bostyn/F. Charraud/S. Denis, Variabilités techniques, évolutions et aires d'influence des centres de productions laminaires au sein de la culture de Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain. In: C. Montoya/J.-P. Fagnart/J.-L. Locht (eds.), Préhistoire de l'Europe du Nord-Ouest: mobilité, climats et identités culturelles. 28e congrès préhistorique de France 3 (Amiens 2019) 43–56.

Burnez-Lanotte 2010: L. Burnez-Lanotte, Acquérir, transformer, échanger ou con- sommer les matériaux siliceux au Rubané: problématiques et approche con- textuelle du site de Verlaine «Petit Paradis» (Hesbaye, Belgique). In: L. Burnez- Lanotte/C. Constantin/A. Hauzeur (eds.), Le Néolithique ancien de Belgique. Sites du Hainaut et de Hesbaye (Amay 2010) 175–204.

Burnez-Lanotte/Allard 2003: L. Burnez-Lanotte/P. Allard, Blade debitage in the Bel- gian Linerbandkeramik: The production at Harduémont (Verlaine, Hesbaye). In: L. Burnez-Lanotte (ed.), Production and management of lithic materials in the European Linearbandkeramik. British Archaeological Reports International Se- ries 1200 (Oxford 2003) 59–64.

Burnez-Lanotte/Allard 2013: L. Burnez-Lanotte/P. Allard, Stratigraphic relationships, chronological and spatial correlation of activities: One domestic unit in the blade producer settlement of Verlaine «Petit Paradis» (Hesbaye, Belgium). In: C. Hamon/P. Allard/M. Ilett (eds.), The domestic space in LBK settlements. Inter- nationale Archäologie – Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 17 (Rahden/Westf. 2013) 141–154.

Burnez-Lanotte et al. 1993: L. Burnez-Lanotte/J.-P. Caspar/C. Constantin, I Introduc- tion. In: J.-P. Caspar/C. Constantin/A. Hauzeur/L. Burnez-Lanotte (eds.), Nou- veaux éléments dans le groupe du Blicquy en Belgique: le site de Vaux-et-Borset "Gibour" et "A la Croix Marie-Jeanne". Helinium 34, 1, 1994, 67–79.

Burnez-Lanotte et al. 2001: L. Burnez-Lanotte/J.-P. Caspar/C. Constantin, Rapports chronologiques et culturels entre Rubané et Groupe de Blicquy à Vaux-et-Bor- set (Hesbaye, Belgique). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 98, 1, 2001, 53–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/BSPF.2001.12439.

Burnez-Lanotte et al. 2005: L. Burnez-Lanotte/J.-P. Caspar/M. Vanguestaine, Tech- nologie des anneaux en schiste dans le groupe de Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint- Germain à Vaux-et-Borset (Hesbaye, Belgique): interférences de sous-systèmes techniques. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 102, 3, 2005, 551–596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13142.

Cahen/Gilot 1983: D. Cahen/E. Gilot, Chronologie radiocarbone du Néolithique da- nubien. In: S.J. De Laet (ed.), Progrès récents dans l'étude du Néolithique ancien. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 21 (Brugge 1983) 21–40.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1994: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, III. Le lithique. In: J.- P. Caspar/C. Constantin/A. Hauzeur/L. Burnez-Lanotte (eds.), Nouveaux éléments dans le groupe du Blicquy en Belgique: le site de Vaux-et-Borset "Gibour" et "A la Croix Marie-Jeanne". Helinium 34, 1, 1994, 3–93.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1997: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, L'industrie lithique de Vaux-et-Borset (Hesbaye liégeoise): nouveaux éléments dans le groupe de Blic- quy (Belgique). In: C. Jeunesse (ed.), Le Néolithique danubien et ses marges en- tre Rhin et Seine. Actes du 22e Colloque Interrégional sur le Néolithique (Stras- bourg 1997) 411–429.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 1998: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, L'industrie lith- ique du Rubané récent de Hesbaye à Vaux-et-Borset "Gibour" (Villers-le- Bouillet) dans le contexte de la problématique des rapports chrono-cul- turels entre Rubané et groupe de Blicquy en Hesbaye liégeoise (Belgique). In:
N. Cauwe/P. van Berg/A. Hauzeur (eds.), Organisation néolithique de l'espace en Europe du Nord-Ouest. Actes du XXIIIe colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Bruxelles 1998) 217-236.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 2003: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, Gestion des matériaux siliceux dans les premières communautés danubiennes (culture à Céramique Li-néaire et groupe de Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain) à Vaux-et-Borset (Hes-baye, Belgique). In: L. Burnez-Lanotte (ed.), Production and management of lith-ic materials in the European Linearbandkeramik. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1200 (Oxford 2003) 51-58.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 2008: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, Les industries lithiques des cultures du Rubané et du Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain: mises en con-vergence d'analyses croisées. In: L. Burnez-Lanotte/M. Ilett/P. Allard (eds.), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Bel-gique (5100-4700 av. J.-C.): autour des recherches de Claude Constantin. Socié-té préhistorique française 44 (Paris/Namur 2008) 35-56.

Classen 2009: E. Classen, Settlement history, land use and social networks of Early Neolithic communities in western Germany. In: D. Hofmann/P. Bickle (eds.), Cre-ating communities: New advances in central European Neolithic research (Ox-ford 2009) 95-110.

Collin 2016: J.-P. Collin, Mining for a week or for centuries: Variable aims of flint ex-traction sites in the Mons Basin (Province of Hainaut, Belgium) within the lith-ic economy of the Neolithic. Journal of Lithic Studies 3, 2, 2016, 163-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v3i2.1819.

Collin 2019: J.-P. Collin, De la mine à l'habitat : économie des productions minières du Bassin de Mons au Néolithique. De la fin du 5ᵉ millénaire à la fin du 3ᵉ millé-naire avant notre ère (Unpubl. thèse de doctorat Université Paris Sorbonne 2019).

Constantin 1985: C. Constantin, Fin du Rubané, céramique du Limbourg et Post-Ru-bané en Hainaut et en Bassin Parisien. British Archaeological Reports Interna-tional Serie 273 (Oxford 1985).

Constantin 2013: C. Constantin, Précisions sur l'étape finale du Rubané récent du Bassin parisien et la formation du groupe de Villeneuve Saint-Germain. Bulle-tin de la Société préhistorique française 110, 3, 2013, 473-494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2013.14292.

Constantin et al. 2010: C. Constantin/P. Allard/L. Demarez, Le site rubané d'Aubechies "Coron Maton" (Hainaut). Fouilles de 1984 à 2002. In: L. Burnez-Lanotte/C. Constantin/A. Hauzeur (eds.), Le Néolithique ancien de Belgique. Sites du Hainaut et de Hesbaye. Bulletin du Cercle archéologique Hesbaye-Condrez 30 (Amay 2010) 5-112.

Constantin/Burnez-Lanotte 2008: C. Constantin/L. Burnez-Lanotte, La mission ar-chéologique du ministère des Affaires étrangères français en Hainaut et moy-enne Belgique: bilan et perspectives de recherches. In: L. Burnez-Lanotte/ M. Ilett/P. Allard (eds.), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien (5100-4700 av. J.-C.): autour des recherches de Claude Constan-tin. Société préhistorique française 44 (Paris/Namur 2008) 35-56.

Constantin/Ilett 1998: C. Constantin/M. Ilett, Culture Blicquy-Villeneuve-Saint-Ger-main, rapports chronologiques avec les cultures rhénanes. Actes du 23ᵉ col-loque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Anthropologie et préhistoire 109, 1998, 207-216.

Constantin/Vachard 2004: C. Constantin/D. Vachard, Anneaux d'origine méridionale dans le Rubané récent du Bassin parisien. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 101, 2004, 75-83.

Cresswell 2003: R. Cresswell, Geste technique, fait social total. Le technique est-il dans le social ou face à lui? Techniques & Culture [En ligne] 40, 2003. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.4000/tc.1576.

de Grooth 1987: M. de Grooth, The organisation of flint tool manufacture in the Dutch Bandkeramik. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 20, 1987, 27-52.

de Grooth 2007: M. de Grooth, Flint: Procurement and distribution strategies; tech-nological aspects. In: P. van de Velde (ed.), Excavations at Geleen-Janskamper-veld 1990/1991 (Leiden 2007) 143-172.

Demoule 2010: J.-P. Demoule (ed.), La révolution néolithique dans le monde (Paris 2010).

Denaire et al. 2017: A. Denaire/P. Lefranc/J. Wahl/C. Bronk Ramsey/E. Dunbar/ T. Goslar/ A. Bayliss/N. Beavan/P. Bickle/A. Whittle, The Cultural Project: Formal
N. Cauwe/P. van Berg/A. Hauzeur (eds.), Organisation néolithique de l'espace en Europe du Nord-Ouest. Actes du XXIIIe colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Bruxelles 1998) 217-236.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 2003: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, Gestion des matériaux siliceux dans les premières communautés danubiennes (culture à Céramique Li-néaire et groupe de Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain) à Vaux-et-Borset (Hes-baye, Belgique). In: L. Burnez-Lanotte (ed.), Production and management of lith-ic materials in the European Linearbandkeramik. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1200 (Oxford 2003) 51-58.

Caspar/Burnez-Lanotte 2008: J.-P. Caspar/L. Burnez-Lanotte, Les industries lithiques des cultures du Rubané et du Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain: mises en con-vergence d'analyses croisées. In: L. Burnez-Lanotte/M. Ilett/P. Allard (eds.), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Bel-gique (5100-4700 av. J.-C.): autour des recherches de Claude Constantin. Socié-té préhistorique française 44 (Paris/Namur 2008) 35-56.

Classen 2009: E. Classen, Settlement history, land use and social networks of Early Neolithic communities in western Germany. In: D. Hofmann/P. Bickle (eds.), Cre-ating communities: New advances in central European Neolithic research (Ox-ford 2009) 95-110.

Collin 2016: J.-P. Collin, Mining for a week or for centuries: Variable aims of flint ex-traction sites in the Mons Basin (Province of Hainaut, Belgium) within the lith-ic economy of the Neolithic. Journal of Lithic Studies 3, 2, 2016, 163-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v3i2.1819.

Collin 2019: J.-P. Collin, De la mine à l'habitat : économie des productions minières du Bassin de Mons au Néolithique. De la fin du 5ᵉ millénaire à la fin du 3ᵉ millé-naire avant notre ère (Unpubl. thèse de doctorat Université Paris Sorbonne 2019).

Constantin 1985: C. Constantin, Fin du Rubané, céramique du Limbourg et Post-Ru-bané en Hainaut et en Bassin Parisien. British Archaeological Reports Interna-tional Serie 273 (Oxford 1985).

Constantin 2013: C. Constantin, Précisions sur l'étape finale du Rubané récent du Bassin parisien et la formation du groupe de Villeneuve Saint-Germain. Bulle-tin de la Société préhistorique française 110, 3, 2013, 473-494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2013.14292.

Constantin et al. 2010: C. Constantin/P. Allard/L. Demarez, Le site rubané d'Aubechies "Coron Maton" (Hainaut). Fouilles de 1984 à 2002. In: L. Burnez-Lanotte/C. Constantin/A. Hauzeur (eds.), Le Néolithique ancien de Belgique. Sites du Hainaut et de Hesbaye. Bulletin du Cercle archéologique Hesbaye-Condrez 30 (Amay 2010) 5-112.

Constantin/Burnez-Lanotte 2008: C. Constantin/L. Burnez-Lanotte, La mission ar-chéologique du ministère des Affaires étrangères français en Hainaut et moy-enne Belgique: bilan et perspectives de recherches. In: L. Burnez-Lanotte/ M. Ilett/P. Allard (eds.), Fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien (5100-4700 av. J.-C.): autour des recherches de Claude Constan-tin. Société préhistorique française 44 (Paris/Namur 2008) 35-56.

Constantin/Ilett 1998: C. Constantin/M. Ilett, Culture Blicquy-Villeneuve-Saint-Ger-main, rapports chronologiques avec les cultures rhénanes. Actes du 23ᵉ col-loque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Anthropologie et préhistoire 109, 1998, 207-216.

Constantin/Vachard 2004: C. Constantin/D. Vachard, Anneaux d'origine méridionale dans le Rubané récent du Bassin parisien. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 101, 2004, 75-83.

Cresswell 2003: R. Cresswell, Geste technique, fait social total. Le technique est-il dans le social ou face à lui? Techniques & Culture [En ligne] 40, 2003. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.4000/tc.1576.

de Grooth 1987: M. de Grooth, The organisation of flint tool manufacture in the Dutch Bandkeramik. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 20, 1987, 27-52.

de Grooth 2007: M. de Grooth, Flint: Procurement and distribution strategies; tech-nological aspects. In: P. van de Velde (ed.), Excavations at Geleen-Janskamper-veld 1990/1991 (Leiden 2007) 143-172.

Demoule 2010: J.-P. Demoule (ed.), La révolution néolithique dans le monde (Paris 2010).

Denaire et al. 2017: A. Denaire/P. Lefranc/J. Wahl/C. Bronk Ramsey/E. Dunbar/ T. Goslar/ A. Bayliss/N. Beavan/P. Bickle/A. Whittle, The Cultural Project: Formal