“Ain’t No Mountain High Enough” – Mesolithic Colonisation Processes and Landscape Usage of the Inner-Alpine Region Kleinwalsertal (Prov. Vorarlberg, Western Austria)

1.2.1 Egg-Schwarzwasser

The open-air site Egg-Schwarzwasser is located on a flat hill on a postglacial gravel terrace at 1,081 m a.s.l (Figures 2(80) and 3). Found by Giuseppe Gulisano in the early 1990s, excavations at site took place between 2002 and 2004, with an examination of 130 m². At the site, over 3,000 lithic artefacts were obtained, which cluster in two concentrations on top of the hill and at its south-western slope (Figure 4). The lithic assemblages of both concentrations (including its stray finds) constitute of cores, debris, unmodified, and modified blanks (Table 1). The modified blanks comprise of types such as scrapers, truncated blanks, burins, pièce esquillée, and a total of 26 microliths and 9 micro-burins. The microlith inventory includes two trapezes made from irregular blades, isosceles triangles, backed bladelets, points (pointes à dos), and one backed point, one extreme scalene triangle, and one crescent-shaped microlith (Tables 2 and 3; Figure 5).

Figure 3

Open-air site Egg-Schwarzwasser, seen from the south-east.

Figure 4

Artefact clusters Egg-Schwarzwasser 1 and 2 (Posch, 2022, Abb. 8.7).

Figure 5

Microliths Egg-Schwarzwasser (selection): 1–3 triangles, 4 trapeze, 5–8 backed bladelets, 9 crescent shaped microlith, 10 elongated trapeze. Drawings: J. Haas (1–2; 6, 8); C. Posch (3–5, 7, 9–10).

Unfortunately, no prehistoric structures were preserved, most likely due to extensive agricultural activity as well the construction of a barn in the 1850s. Because of these disturbances, no bones or charcoal samples could be obtained for further dating. Therefore, the assemblages form the site Egg-Schwarzwasser can only be dated via typological means. Because of the composition of the microlith assemblage, an affiliation to the Beuronian A/B (Heinen, 2005) seems most feasible.

1.2.2 Schneiderküren

The rock shelter Schneiderküren (1,542 m a.s.l.) is located at a lentil-shaped limestone cliff at the south-eastern border of the alpine pasture Schneiderküren Alpe (Figures 2(1) and 6). During its excavation from 1998 to 2002, the long usage history of the site became evident through a variety of structures. These included a drystone wall; three hearths; three postholes; and a pit filled with charcoal. According to 14C-dates, most of these structures date form the Middle Bronze Age to Late Iron Age (Table 4). However, next to these younger occupation events, there are traces of an occupation during the late Boreal and early Atlantic biozones at the southern half of the excavation area. These are represented on the one hand by a calcified bone fragment found under the drystone wall, dating to the end of the sixth millennium BC (GrN14838: 6230 ± 40 BP). On the other hand, several thin charcoal layers were preserved in a shallow ditch. Here, two charcoal samples were obtained from its base and its upper most layers, of which the base layer can be dated to the late Early Mesolithic (GrN25812: 7900 ± 60 BP) and the upper most to the Late Mesolithic (GrN24308: 7220 ± 65 BP) (Table 4).

Figure 6

Rock shelter Schneiderküren, seen from the north-west.

Another aspect of great importance at the site Schneiderküren is the multitude of lithic artefacts found at site. More than 7,000 lithic objects surfaced, comprising of cores, unmodified blanks, and debris as well as various modified artefacts and tools (Table 5). Objects classifiable as domestic tools are represented by scrapers, drills, and burins. However, the largest part of the modified objects is represented by 127 microliths. They include backed bladelets, points (pointes à troncature oblique and pointes à dos), micro-points with retouched concave base, drills of the type méche de foret, and convex bases (dorsally retouched), scalene triangles as well as crescents (Figure 7). Furthermore, an assemblage of 12 micro-burins is present (Table 6). The majority of the microliths was found within the charcoal layers of the ditch at the southern border of the excavation area (Figure 8).

Figure 7

Microliths Schneiderküren (selection): 1 Truncated micro-point, 2–3 cresents, 4–5 backed bladelets, 6–8 meches de fôret, 9–10 micro-point, 11–15 scalene triangles, 16–19 micro-points with base retouche. Drawings: B. Nutz.

Figure 8

Artefact distributions at the excavation area Schneiderküren. The microliths concentrated mainly to B-F 13-15 in the area of a shallow ditch, filled with 30 cm of charcoal layers (Posch, 2022, Abb. 7.24).

Through the high percentages of backed bladelets and scalene triangles as well as the presence of broad micro-points with a concave base retouch, an affiliation of the microlith ensemble to the Beuronian C (Heinen, 2005) seems feasible, which aligns with the oldest 14C-date from the base of the ditch.

However, the available 14C-dates suggest at least two further occupation phases during the early Atlantic. But because of later prehistoric disturbances of the site, as well as to the partially insufficient excavation documentation, no lithic artefacts could be unequivocally assigned to either of these phases. Because of these impediments, the lithic assemblage had to be analysed as one large ensemble without further subdivisions (Posch, 2022).

Furthermore, the site Schneiderküren represents for now the only site within the Kleinwalsertal where sufficient faunal material was found to conduct archaeozoological studies. They showed that the vast majority of the faunal remains constituted of bones from domesticated animals (mainly sheep and goat). Therefore, an affiliation to the later occupation phases of the site, presumably those dating to the Middle Bronze Age and/or Late Iron Age, seems the most feasible. A clearer assignment to respective occupation phases or layers was also in this case not possible based on the same reasons as those mentioned above for the lithic assemblages (Posch, 2022) (Table 7).

1.2.3 Bäramähder

The open-air site Bäramähder is located in the south of the Kleinwalsertal at 1,660 m a.s.l. on a flat terrace beneath the so-called Bäramähder (Figures 2(17) and 9). The site represents the smallest excavated assemblage of the region, containing only 78 lithic artefacts, which surfaced during its excavation in 2006. These artefacts included various cores, debris, and unmodified blanks, as well as eight modified pieces, which can be denominated as objects with lateral retouch and traces of use ware, a pièce esquillée as well as three scrapers (Tables 8 and 9) and Figure 10. Apart from the lithic artefacts, no further prehistoric structures or organic material were found, complicating an adequate dating of the site. However, because of the presence of a micro-scraper and the absence of forms attributable to other chronological periods, an affiliation to the Mesolithic was proposed (Posch & Leitner, 2019). However, this dating is not unproblematic in itself and should only be seen as a general guideline (Posch, 2022).

Figure 9

Open-air site Bäramähder, seen from the west. Photo: W. Leitner.

Figure 10

Three scrapers (1–3) from the site Bäramähder (Posch & Leitner, 2019).

1.2.4 Surficial Sites

Next to the excavated sites, a main portion of 95% of the archaeological evidence from the Kleinwalsertal is derived from surficial sites. Sites of this type are notoriously difficult to examine for they never show us the whole extent of archaeological features, structures, or artefacts because of their nature as unexcavated sites.

Nevertheless, the author believes that the surficial sites and their artefacts are, despite their vagueness and incomplete appearance, of great value to our understanding of the archaeological record of the Kleinwalsertal.

Through them, we are able to gather useful insights in topics like topographic choices for campsites and the usage of the landscapes in various altitudinal belts. Also with regard to the Early Holocene occupation of the region, the surficial sites are of importance for hypothetical reconstructions of various patterns of mobility and landscape usage. However, their incomplete and at times difficult genesis must always be considered when interpreting and classifying these sites.

In total, the coordinates of 95 unexcavated archaeological find spots have been recorded in the Kleinwalsertal. These find spots were mainly mapped by local enthusiasts and collectors and were provided for the Kleinwalsertal project as the working basis. However, sometimes, more than one GPS find spot coordinate was given to one site. When this became evident, the GPS coordinates were incorporated into a site cluster to represent their topographic togetherness. In doing so, the 95 find spot coordinates from the Kleinwalsertal could be summarised into 14 site clusters and 21 single sites. Among these, six were affiliated to the middle ages and/or the subsequent more recent centuries because of radiocarbon dates and/or the encountered find spectrum (pottery shreds, iron artefacts in the contexts of pastoral activities, etc.).

The remaining 29 sites (single find spots n = 15; site clusters n = 14) included surficial lithic artefact scatters ranging from single finds to scatters up to 200 pieces (Table 10). Because of the presences of knapped lithic artefacts, a general chronological attribution to the earlier phases of the Holocene was proposed. Topographically, the surficial sites are located between 1,200 m and 2,100 m a.s.l. (Table 10; Figure 2).

The lithic artefact assemblages of the 15 single sites can be mainly described as little divers (Table 11), including debris, few cores, and unmodified blanks. Microliths only appear sporadically in site 66 (indeterminable microlith) and site 89 (crescent and micro-burin).

The larger lithic artefact assemblages in the research region include the site clusters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9, as well as in smaller quantities but still with over 40 pieces site clusters 8 and 12 (Table 11).

Their assemblages are composed of production debris, cores, blanks as well as modified objects. The modified artefacts comprise on the one hand of domestic tools such as scrapers, drills, truncated, and laterally retouched pieces. Microliths, on the other hand, are present in the site clusters 2–5, as well as 14. The definable forms include backed bladelets (site clusters 2, 3, 5, and 14), rectangles (cluster 3), as well as one trapeze from a regular blade and a micro-point with a concave dorsally retouched base (both cluster 4) (Figure 12). Micro-burins are present in the site clusters 2 and 3.

With regard to a dating of the surficial sites, a first relative chronological affiliation was proposed for the site clusters 2–6, 8, 11–14 as well as the sites 66 and 89. However, it has to be stated that this affiliation needs to be seen as preliminary, because it is often only based on very few objects. It was nonetheless undertaken to propose a first idea of the actual chronology of the occupation history of the Kleinwalsertal for the Boreal and Older Atlantic periods. Further research will be needed in the future to give a stronger chronological sequence for the various sites of the region.

An absolute-chronological dating from organic samples was only possible at site cluster 5 (from the GPS-coordinate sites BÄ.2 A and Bärgunt Lager –  Table 10), where sufficient charcoal was obtained for sampling. The first date points towards the end of the Boreal (Bärgunt-Lager – MAMS40165: 8316 ± 29) (Posch, 2020a), whereas the second sample dates to the beginning of the Atlantic biozone (BÄ2A – KN4730: 7725 ± 112) (Gulisano, 1995).

As for the surficial sites with microlith assemblages, a general taxonomic affiliation was proposed, based on the chronological framework of the Mesolithic of southern Germany (Heinen, 2005, 2012). This way of conduct was chosen because of the strong northern influences noticeable in the excavated sites Schneiderküren and Egg-Schwarzwasser. As a working hypothesis, a similar situation was assumed for the surficial sites.

The sequence begins with a crescent and a micro-burin from single site 89 attributable towards the Early Mesolithic. Further microliths, which can be assigned to the Early Mesolithic, were found in the form of backed bladelets at site clusters 2, 3, 5, and 14, as well as a broad micro-point with a dorsally retouched concave base from site cluster 4, which appeared in combination with a micro-scraper and two micro-burins. Here, both the occurrence of the backed bladelets and of a micro-point with a dorsally retouched concave base would point to the end of the Early Mesolithic and to the Beuronien C phase. Further non-definable microliths, which might be more likely attributed to the Early than the Late Mesolithic because of their size, occurred in site clusters 2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as at single site 66.

Microliths assignable to the Late Mesolithic were found at site cluster 4 (trapeze made of a regular blade) and site cluster 3 (rectangle). Other artefacts, which can be assigned to the Late Mesolithic, can be denominated in forms such as regular blades in the site clusters 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, and 14, as well as the single site 89. Furthermore, Montbani blades appeared at the site cluster 4, as well as at site 89.

To conclude, the material culture of the surficial sites of the Kleinwalsertal suggests an occupational activity from the second half of the Boreal into the early Atlantic biozone, with a peak in occupation activity at the beginning of the Atlantic. Furthermore, the available material from the site clusters 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well as form single site 89 represents a variety of microlith forms from different taxonomic units as well as chronological periods. Together with the available radiocarbon dates from site cluster 5, a repeated use of the same topographic location as a campsite over considerable periods of time can be hypothesised.

For the remaining surficial sites and site clusters, only a general denomination as Mesolithic/Neolithic can be proposed, based on the presence of knapped lithic material at site (Table 11). Because there are to date no reliable indications that the Kleinwalsertal was used during the Late Palaeolithic, the sites will not be classified as such for the time being. Also to what extent flint assemblages were still in use in alpine contexts during the Bronze Age represents a topic, which might need more attention in the alpine archaeological research in the future.

1.2.5 Raw Material Varieties

One of the key aspects in the study of lithic artefacts of the Kleinwalsertal was the determination of their provenance, to establish the quantities of the local and non-local varieties in each lithic assemblage.

To assign the various raw materials of the Mesolithic sites to their respective provenances, the lithic assemblages of the excavated and surficial sites were divided into raw material units, based on characteristics such as general colour and surface structure; type, colouring, and measurements of potential inclusions; and (if present) cortex colour and texture. These general characteristics were studied with the aid of a magnifying glass with 30× magnification. A raw material unit was established if at least two objects with similar characteristics and internal textures were determined. The study concentrated on the diagnostic pieces within the lithic assemblages with measurements over 10 mm. This was done to be able to distinguish the respective raw material characteristics as accurate as possible.

For the affiliation of the raw material groups to potential raw material varieties, the comparative lithic collection of the research centre HiMAT at the University of Innsbruck was consulted.

First results of the study of the lithic assemblages of the region Kleinwalsertal showed that the surficial sites mainly included one to a maximum of three raw material groups. These could be primarily denominated as locally available radiolarite and chert varieties, originating in primary, sub-primary, and secondary deposits in the south of the region (varieties after Brandl: T2_1, T1_1, and T2_5 – Brandl, 2014; Bachnetzer, 2017b). These varieties can be easily distinguished because of their characteristic colouring and heterogenic texture. The same can be stated for the excavated site Bäramähder, which only included the two raw material units T2_1 and T2_5.

Within the two other excavated sites Schneiderküren and Egg-Schwarzwasser, a larger diversity of raw materials was observed, including eight different raw material units at the site Schneiderküren and 15 units at the site Egg-Schwarzwasser. But also here, a clear focus on local radiolarian rock and chert varieties was observed (Table 12) However, within the two sites, further varieties were found, which showed no local comparisons. Therefore, the exogenous origin of these raw materials was established as a working hypothesis. To test this assumption, samples were extracted from each raw material group (sample size 1–10 pieces per raw material unit) for provenance analysis, which were conducted by Michael Brandl (Posch & Brandl, 2022; for method, see Brandl, 2016). The results showed next to small quantities of regional available raw materials – including Flysch quartzite and Spongolite – various “exotic” varieties within the lithic assemblages of the sites Schneiderküren and Egg-Schwarzwasser (Table 12). For the site Schneiderküren, these included chert originating in the Bavarian Danube basin in the regions of Baiersdorf and Ortenburg, at a distance of 300–400 km as the crow flies to the north-east. At the site Egg-Schwarzwasser also, lithic raw materials were found in both concentrations as well as among its stray finds, which originated presumably from chert deposits of the Bavarian Jura as well as from the Bavarian Danube basin, specifically from the region around Arnhofen. Further sites, including Bavarian chert, constitute of the site clusters 3 and 4 (Table 13) (Posch, 2022).

As other exotic raw material varieties, small quantities lithic artefacts made form southern alpine flint were found in concentration 1 at Egg-Schwarzwasser. As their origin, the chert deposits in the Val di Non area, about 190 km south of the Kleinwalsertal, beyond Main Alpine Divide, could be determind.

All these exogenous raw material varieties have one thing in common: none of them could have been transported to the Kleinwalsertal by natural means (Figure 15). In the case of the raw materials from Southern Germany, the rivers in this region drain to the north and a transportation via river cobbles is impossible. In the case of the Southern Alpine raw material varieties, the Main Alpine Divide poses the problem in a natural distribution of raw materials from these areas farther to the north. Therefore, we might assume with some confidence that the exogenous raw materials found within archaeological contexts of the Kleinwalsertal were transported to this region. Whether this transport was conducted by just one person or if it constituted the product of various go-between stations remains a matter of debate and will be the topic of future research.

1.4.1 Resource Management

Starting with the management of resources, food as the basis for all life immediately comes to mind. If one thinks about the diet of Mesolithic hunter–gatherer–fisher groups, a “classic” picture emerges of a “menu” consisting mainly of meat. Archaeological research has shown, however, that Mesolithic food range also in alpine contexts was much wider and more diverse than previously expected (Miller, 2003; Wierer, Betti, Gala, Tagliacozzo, & Boscato, 2016). This variability is mainly due to the respective ecological contexts and the range of food types and supplies locally available.

The regional pollen profiles show that at the beginning of the occupation activities during the Boreal, the region was covered by an increasingly dense mixed deciduous forest composed mainly of birch and elm, with a tree line around 1,600 m a.s.l. With the turn of the Boreal to the Atlantic, the proportions of spruce increased, transforming the woods of the Kleinwalsertal into dense spruce forests with components of fir and beech in it. Furthermore, a widespread distribution of hazel is indicated, especially in the vicinity of wetlands, with a hazel peak between 10500 and 9000 BP, before decreasing from the onset of the Older Atlantic onwards (Oeggl & Walde, 2004).

The use of hazel as an important contribution to the diet of Mesolithic hunter–gatherers is attested not only from various sites in neighbouring southern Germany, but also from the wetland sites of northern Europe (Groß, Lübke, Schmölcke, & Zanon, 2019; Holst, 2009, 2018; Taute, 1980). It has been theorised that Mesolithic forager groups intervened directly in the landscape through slash-and-burn practices to obtain this fat- and protein-rich food source. Evidence for these practices is commonly seen in high levels of charcoal as well as light and nitrogen pointers in Boreal and Atlantic sections of pollen profiles (Bos & Urz, 2003). Regional examples, where such practices are discussed, originate from the Schleinsee Lake (Clark, Merkt, & Müller, 1989) and Lake Böhringen (Lechterbeck & Rösch, 2020) in Baden-Württemberg as well as from the Bavarian Haspelmoor pog (Graf, 2015).

However, although a human presence is clearly visible in the archaeological record of the Kleinwalsertal, there is no indication of an anthropogenic intervention into the Boreal or Older Atlantic landscape within the available pollen cores (Oeggl & Walde, 2004; Scheffer et al., 2019). Also, the usage of hazel as a food resource within the Kleinwalsertal can as yet neither be proven nor negated. Therefore, it remains unclear whether this resource was used at all in the valley during the Mesolithic occupation or whether – according to Optimal Foraging Models (Kelly, 2013, pp. 46–76) – the focus was rather on the riskier but, if successful, more profitable hunting. Nevertheless, it seems to be an interesting aspect why, despite the increasingly dense forest cover in the Older Atlantic, clearing measures within the valley were refrained from. Possibly, the alpine plains offered natural tree-free areas and thus facilitating the hunt for the desired prey and accordingly extensive anthropogenic interventions were not considered necessary.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to reconstruct which animals were hunted within the Kleinwalsertal and to what extent. Only at the site Schneiderküren sufficient remains were found to conduct archaeozoological analyses. However, most of these could not be assigned with certainty to the Mesolithic period and were in fact mainly interpreted as belonging to the Bronze Age occupation phase of the site because of the high number of bones from domesticated animals. Accordingly, conclusions about the potentially available and hunted fauna are solely possible by means of analogy. Evaluated ensembles from various Mesolithic sites in inner-alpine contexts show no standardised hunting prey during the Mesolithic, but rather a combination of local conditions and characteristics as well as of the corresponding needs of the people frequenting the sites. Still, a general trend can be observed towards a preference of red deer, roe deer, chamois, and ibex as the most popular hunting animals (Bazzanella, Betti, & Wierer, 2007; Boessneck, 1980a,b,c; Fontana et al., 2009; Nielsen, 2009; Thun Hohenstein, Turrini, Guerreschi, & Fontana, 2016). Similar circumstances might also be assumed for Kleinwalsertal. Which of these were preferred and how the various local and climatic conditions influenced the choice of hunting fauna, however, cannot be answered satisfactorily.

Effectively, a grounded reconstruction of usage and management of local resources within the Kleinwalsertal based on material culture is only possible via its local lithic raw materials.

For the Mesolithic, the usage of the full range of locally and regionally available radiolarite and chert varieties can be observed on both sides of the main Alpine ridge (Cornelissen & Reitmaier, 2016; Gehlen, 2010; Heinen, 2005; Leuzinger et al., 2020, 2021; Visentin, 2018; Visentin, Bertola, Ziggiotti, & Peresani, 2016). Distant varieties are – if at all – usually only found as individual pieces and finished products in the respective lithic tool ensembles.

Within the Kleinwalsertal, the following patterns of raw material procurement can be observed during its Mesolithic occupation:

Taking as an example the excavated sites Egg-Schwarzwasser and Schneiderküren (Table 12), the majority of their raw materials is represented by local radiolarian rock and chert varieties – representing within the diagnostic ensembles 95.8–97.7% at Egg-Schwarzwasser and 85% at Schneiderküren. Regional varieties from the wider context of the Northern Alps – mainly collected from secondary deposits such as stream gravels – are present at the site Egg-Schwarzwasser with 1.5–2.4% and at Schneiderküren with 11.5%. Exogenous raw materials appeared in both sites in small but similar quantities (0.4–0.6% Egg-Schwarzwasser; 1.1% Schneiderküren), reaching the sites mainly as finished or semi-finished products (Posch & Brandl, 2022). However, although both sites show similar tendencies, when looking more closely, interesting differences can be seen between the two assemblages.

Within the Early Mesolithic site Egg-Schwarzwasser (Table 12), the local raw materials T2_1 (red radiolarian rock) and T2_5 (olive green radiolarian rock) are distributed quite evenly at the concentration Egg-Schwarzwasser 1 (T2_1: 46.4%; T2_5: 36%) and with a slight preference for the green variety T2_5 in the concentration Egg-Schwarzwasser 2 (T2_1: 24.2%; T2_5: 44.4%).

Interestingly, although at the younger late Early Mesolithic site Schneiderküren, the general trend of a preference for local raw material varieties is maintained, there is a change in the selection of the specific varieties (Table 12). The red radiolarian rock variety T2_1 clearly emerges as the preferred type with a share of 68% of the diagnostic ensemble, followed by olive green – T2_5 (14 %) and blue radiolarite – T1_1 (3%).

A similar situation can also be seen within the data from the Early and Late Mesolithic surficial sites, where the red radiolarian rock represents between 70 and 100% of the respective ensembles, with a gradient observed from south to north and the highest proportions of red radiolarian rock being in those sites closest to the primary outcrops of the Gemsteltal valley (Table 13).

Accordingly, it might be hypothesised that there was an increasing preference for red radiolarian rock within the Kleinwalsertal from the end of the Early Mesolithic onwards. The reasons for this are difficult to fathom. The varieties appear in the same quantities and a selection of red radiolarite on the basis of better knapping properties can be negated, as it shows similar or equal properties with the other chert varieties. One conceivable reason for this choice of raw material might have been its striking red colour.

Interestingly, the actual strategies for the exploitation of local raw materials do not seem to have changed through time (Tables 15 and 16). Within both the sites Egg-Schwarzwasser and Schneiderküren, the cortex surfaces of the artefacts made from local raw materials show an origin from the river gravels of the Breitach river and the Gemstelbach river as well as from the sub-primary scree deposits below the primary outcrops in the Gemsteltal valley. Therefore, although there is a considerable time gap between the sites Egg-Schwarzwasser and Schneiderküren as well as a different focus in the choices of colour, the general exploitation strategy seems to remain the same and includes a direct and possibly deliberate exploitation in near vicinity to the actual primary outcrops.

This evidence of an exploitation of radiolarian rock and chert varieties directly in the Gemsteltal valley raises the question if Mesolithic mining activities were conducted in the Kleinwalsertal (Leitner, 2008).

During the Mesolithic, evidence of a direct exploitation of lithic raw materials in actual mining sites is extremely rare. Few examples are known, for example from Switzerland, such as the rock crystal extraction site at the Fiescheralp (Canton Valais – Hess, Turck, Vries, & Della Casa, 2021)) and the Late Mesolithic rock crystal mining site Fuorcla da Strem Sut (Canton Uri/Grisons – Reitmaier, Maur, der Reitmaier-Naef, Seifert, & Walser, 2016). For the Kleinwalsertal, there is currently no reliable evidence of targeted mining for radiolarian rock during the Mesolithic. The quarry site Am Feuerstein – previously denominated as Mesolithic – has been recently revaluated as dating to the turn of the third to the second millennium BC (Bachnetzer, 2017a). For the preceding phases, currently only a more or less targeted gathering activity of block rubble on the scree deposits directly below or at the primary radiolarian rock outcrops can be expected. This exploitation of lithic raw materials directly at their sub-primary source has a number of advantages for the Mesolithic hunter–gatherers of the region, such as a wider range of radiolarian rock and chert compared with the secondary gravels of the Breitach river.

It is also interesting to note with regard to the raw material management that exogenous raw materials have so far only been found within the sites of the Schwarzwassertal valley. They occurred in the excavated sites of Egg-Schwarzwasser and Schneiderküren, as well as site clusters 3 and 4, only comprising of a few individual pieces.

1.4.2 Landscape Usage and Mobility

An additional aspect of interest in the study of the Mesolithic sites of the Kleinwalsertal were considerations regarding the topographic position of the sites in the landscape as well as local and seasonal mobility patterns. Concerning these aspects, various studies have been carried out in recent decades, especially in the Southern Alps.

With regard to mobility patterns, Klaus Kompatscher and Nandi Hronzy-Kompatscher highlighted a number of observations on the choice of campsites of Mesolithic groups in alpine contexts, including the reconstruction of potential routes and hunting-foraging territories around the respective campsites (Kompatscher & Kompatscher, 2007, 2011). Their model is based on the spatial distribution of archaeological sites in the landscape, related to the specific morphology of the Alpine space to subsequently identify possible regularities. Their reconstructions mainly refer to data from surface sites, which are numerous especially in the Southern Alps (Dalmeri, Kompatscher, Kompatscher, Cusinato, & Bassetti, 2009; Lunz, 1986; Visentin, 2018) and directly to the north of the Brenner region in Northern Tyrol. However, the sites forming part of the mobility model were only selected according to the predicate “Mesolithic.” As a result, sites of the Early as well as the Late Mesolithic are found within the same mobility model and therefore do not provide any information on whether the routes through the alpine landscape remained constant or whether there were changes in the corridors of movement over the millennia. Nevertheless, Kompatscher’s and Hronzy-Kompatscher’s model poses the possibility to discuss how connections and routes might have been chosen in alpine landscapes.

Concerning the seasonality of Mesolithic life in alpine areas, Stefano Grimaldi developed a model of the movement behaviour of Sauveterrian hunter–gatherer communities in the southern Alps and north-eastern Italy (Grimaldi & Flor, 2009; Grimaldi, 2005). In this model, the inner-alpine sites in the highlands as well on the valley bottoms are mainly occupied during the summer and autumn months. For the remainder of the year, he assumes a merger of several smaller groups into a larger community, which hibernates further south in the Po Valley. In the summer, these groups split up again and use their respective territories in the Alps or on the coast in the subsequent months. The model is based on an evaluation of ethnographic as well as archaeological data. Grimaldi defines it as circular nomadism (Grimaldi, 2005, p. 83), which he contrasts with the model of vertical nomadism (Broglio, 1980; Clark, 2000). This model was primarily established for the sites within the Conca di Trento and its neighbouring regions. It envisages the use of the campsites in the alpine highlands during the summer and the sites close to the valley floor (Loc Romagnano III, Pradestel, Riparo Gaban, Riparo Tagliente, etc.) during the winter months.

However, a discussion and comparison of these two models proves difficult, because studies regarding seasonality of the killing of animal prey are yet scarce in the region. Analysis from the faunal remains of the alpine sites Mondeval de Sora and Plan de Frea IV as well as from the site Dos de la Forca/Galgenbühel in the Adige valley a predominate usage of these sites during the summer months and therefore seem to strenghten the circular mobility model (Alciati et al., 1995; Alessio, Angelucci, Broglio, & Importa, 1996; Angelucci et al., 1999, 2002; Wierer et al., 2016). However, Ursula Wierer states that especially from occupation phase 3 faunal remains are also present which were butchered presumably during the winter months. This suggests that the site was not completly abandond in winter. Furthermore, other sites in the Adige Valley, such as Riparo Pradestel, Gaban, and Romagnano III, show favourable conditions regarding solar exposure and therefore would make settlement activities possible during the winter months. However, the available data are simply too scanty to make any reliable statement on this subject (Wierer et al., 2016, pp. 119–120).

These models on migratory cycles and the seasonal usage of the high mountain sites offer thought-provoking impulses on the accessibility of and movement in alpine habitats. Yet, they are specifically designed for the areas south of the main Alpine ridge, where environmental and landscape parameters are different from those found, for example, in the Northern Limestone Alps. From a topographical point of view, the timberline of the Kleinwalsertal is lower than in the Southern Alps. Furthermore, it is usually possible to ascend to the sites at higher altitudes within 2–3  h, which may have facilitated the return to the nearest campsites close to the valley floor. Nevertheless, various characteristics can be observed within the region, which were also perceived south of the main alpine ridge and could possibly provide indications of general locational preferences.

The Early Holocene sites of the Kleinwalsertal valley are mostly located in subalpine contexts (Table 10), but also occur occasionally in montane situations close to the valley floor, such as the sites Egg-Schwarzwasser and site cluster 2. Thus, the region is one of the few in the inner-alpine area of the Austrian Northern Alps where sites close to the valley bottom were preserved.

The sites of the Kleinwalsertal are almost exclusively open-air sites. Only the rock shelter Schneiderküren offers a projecting rock roof as natural protection from the weather. At all other sites, additional protective structures in the form of shelters or tents would have to be constructed.

With regard to the distribution of sites, two regional clusters become apparent, on the one hand within the Schwarzwassertal valley in the west and on the other hand in the valley head of the Breitachtal valley and the Bärgunttal valley in the south (Figure 2). In the eastern sections of the Kleinwalsertal, Mesolithic sites, such as those observed further south and west, are missing so far.

The position of the sites is characterised in several cases by their location in topographical bottleneck situations, either where the terrain dictates a specific path or where it is possible to cross obstacles such as streams (e.g. site Egg-Schwarzwasser and site clusters 2, 3, and 5).

Larger sites with more than 40 lithic artefacts are more frequently located at altitudes between 1,400 m and 1,700 m a.s.l. Smaller concentrations of finds with less than 40 finds appear in a wide range of topographic positions and statistically more frequently at higher altitudes between 1,650 m and 1,970 m a.s.l.

Regarding the various activity zones around the sites, Kompatscher and Hronzy-Kompatscher give a walking radius of 2 h for gathering and of 4 h for hunting activities. When calculating these gathering and hunting “catchment zones,” the following interesting results were obtained (Figure 14): the sites of the Schwarzwassertal valley are almost all located within a radius of 2 h to each other (Figure 14(5)–(8)). Also within the Bärgunttal valley, again, all sites lie within their respective 2-h radii and are thus located in a common close range (Figure 14(1)–(4)).

If one considers in a next step the 4-h walking radius around the sites, it becomes apparent that all the sites of the Kleinwalsertal lie in the same radius. This would subsequently allow the hypothesis that the region can be seen as one interlinked activity zone.