Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T07:22:18.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Taking microliths into account

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Bart Vanmontfort*
Affiliation:
1Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, c/o Prehistoric Archaeology Unit, K.U.Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E – pb 2409, 3001 Leuven, Belgium (Email: bart.vanmontfort@ees.kuleuven.be)

Extract

I thank Crombé et al. for their comment on an earlier paper (Vanmontfort 2008) and the editor of this journal for providing me with the opportunity to reply to their critique. They use two intensively surveyed and studied areas in the lower Scheldt region to compare the microlith-based method with a site-based approach. Actually this comparison nicely illustrates the potential of the method. My Figure 3 compares the calculated frequencies of sites and microliths – which is not quite the same as the 'Mesolithic use' of these regions – over the Mesolithic period for the two regions. The results correspond remarkably well. This agreement is perhaps not surprising, since the presence of microliths is also one of the most determining factors in the attribution of sites to each of the Mesolithic phases. However, the results from the two methods might easily have diverged from each other. Contrary to Crombé et al.'s expectation of correspondence, the distribution of a particular artefact type may offer different and complementary information to site-based data (Vanmontfort 2008: 250).

Information

Type
Debate
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable