A diachronic perspective on lithic raw material procurement strategies and mobility: case studies from the Final Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic in Central Europe

Figures & data

Figure 1. Simplified chronology of the Late/Final glacial and Early Holocene cultural development. Only phases and cultural groups evaluated in this paper are presented (graph B. Gehlen).

Table with a simplified chronology of the Late/Final glacial and Early Holocene cultural development. There are eight columns. From left to right: Chronozones, archaeological phases, six geographical areas. Seven archaeological periods are shown in the lines. From bottom to top: Meiendorf Interstadial/Late Magdalenian up to the Subboreal/Late Neolithic. On the very left a timescale years BC, on the very right a timescale years BP.

Figure 2. Boxplots for the polygon sizes of the Palaeolithic sites and those from the Pleistocene-Holocene Interface. The differences in the areas of all Palaeolithic phases and the transition are not statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis-test, p = 0.4409). The differences between the southern and the western working area, however, are significant (Kruskal–Wallis-test, p = 0.03096) (Graph Frank Siegmund).

Boxplots showing the sizes of raw material catchments for the Late and Final Palaeolithic in the southern study area (south-eastern France, Switzerland, and south-western Germany, four boxplots in Red), and western Germany (three boxplots in Green). The differences in the areas of all Palaeolithic phases and the transition are not statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis-test, p = 0.4409). The differences between the southern and the western working area, however, are significant (Kruskal–Wallis-test, p = 0.03096) (Graph Frank Siegmund).

Figure 3. Boxplots for the polygon sizes of the Mesolithic sites. The differences are statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis-Test, p = 0.00108) (Graph Frank Siegmund).

Boxplots showing the sizes of raw material catchments for the Mesolithic in the study areas (four boxplots). The differences are statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis-Test, p = 0.00108) (Graph Frank Siegmund).

Figure 4. Boxplots for the polygon sizes of the Neolithic sites. The differences are statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis-Test, p = 0.00427) (Graph Frank Siegmund).

Boxplots showing the sizes of raw material catchments for the Neolithic in the southern study areas (six boxplots). The differences are statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis-Test, p = 0.00427) (Graph Frank Siegmund).

Figure 5. Boxplots for the polygon sizes of the Neolithic sites without the one for the Younger Neolithic II to illustrate the dimensions of the other phases more clearly (Graph Frank Siegmund).

Boxplots showing the sizes of raw material catchments for the Neolithic in the southern study areas without the one for the Younger Neolithic II to illustrate the dimensions of the other phases more clearly (five boxplots and the median for the Younger Neolithic II, Graph Frank Siegmund).

Data availability statement

Three appendices with the basic data and references for this research can be downloaded from https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3J255fYBK7dNMTq

Appendix 1a: Inventories with coordinates and relevant information on dating, sample size and basic literature; 1b: References Appendix 1.

Appendix 2: Location of raw material sources with information on geological age and use during the Stone Age periods.

Appendix 3: Descriptive Statistics and results of statistical testing for the created box plots (Figures 2–5) using R 4.2.1 (R Core Team, 2022).

The data for all sites with their raw material sources and the mapped polygons will be published in an open-access repository after the ‘Paleomaps’-Volume has been printed.