less detail

2.8 Pattern differences in macro and core regions

Charting post-depositional and research factors is essential for a regional investigation. Yet this is still not enough to allow a good estimate of the true worth of a distribution map. Only through a comparison of distribution patterns on the various levels, as is done in the Meuse Valley Project, will the distortions become 'painfully' clear.

The distribution pattern of the late Mesolithic sites around Venray may come to look completely different. The data obtained by the survey of literature and the databank of the State Service for Archaeological Investigations (ROB) (macro region) are both quantitatively and qualitatively essentially different from the data obtained by making an inventory of museums and private collections (core region).

In the western part of the core region map there is only a condensing of the number of sites, which will in general have little or no consequences for the archaeological interpretation. In the eastern part, however, many sites occur that are all absent on the macro level. Information about these sites comes in part from the group of amateurs from Oirlo and in part from Driessens. In both cases they have never been reported to the ROB or published in accessible journals. Without this knowledge, the interpretation of late Mesolithic exploitation patterns can be wide of the mark.

Such 'eye-openers' alert us to the fact that we should handle regional data with extreme caution and not over-interpret the data. At each level the analytical techniques used should match the limited quality of the fundamental data.

[Pattern differences]
Fig. 33 The quantitative and qualitative differences in the late Mesolithic site pattern if either based on the data from the literature/national database (macro region; left) or based on the inventory of museums and private collections (core region; right)


© Internet Archaeology