One of the most evocative archaeological cultures in the Netherlands is the Funnel Beaker culture, further referred to as TRB. During the TRB period megalithic burial structures were erected, the...Show moreOne of the most evocative archaeological cultures in the Netherlands is the Funnel Beaker culture, further referred to as TRB. During the TRB period megalithic burial structures were erected, the hunebedden. Most of the hunebedden have been excavated and are located in the north-east of the Netherlands (specifically the province of Drenthe). The excavations of the hunebedden were not very thorough but did however reveal a lot of information about burial practices of the TRB culture. For instance, the hunebedden were communal burials in which multiple people were buried. Along with the deceased, a range of different grave goods were provided, including flint tools and pottery. Due to the excavations, and the visibility of the hunebedden, a lot is known about them. This does not apply to the settlements of the TRB, so where did the people of the TRB live (van Gijn & Bakker, 2005, p. 288-289; van der Sanden, 2017, p. 4; Wentink, 2006, p. 33)? Settlements of the TRB are scarce, which results in less information about the settlements or the way of life of the TRB people. There are however a few settlements known of the TRB, the site of Slootdorp-Bouwlust is for instance one them as well as the site of Haren De Vork, which is examined in this thesis. What is known about the way of life of the TRB people is that their means of survival was in both hunting (and fishing) and agriculture. Their agricultural way of life consisted mostly of a method that is called slash and burn, where parts of forests were burned down to create fertile soil on which crops could be cultivated and harvested. For this agricultural system flint axes, strike-a-lights and sickle blades were used. They also held a range of livestock including pigs, goats and cattle, however no chickens were held (van der Sanden, 2017, p. 6; van Gijn 2013, p. 26-27). These people possibly lived in two-aisled houses. Within the settlements many different activities had probably been carried out, including hide working, wood working and plant working. For these activities a range of flint tools were used including scrapers and axes. The TRB people also produced a distinctive type of pottery, decorated by the deeply incised decoration (van Gijn & Bakker, 2005, p. 282). To interpret what kind activities were conducted at a settlement site, use-wear studies of the ubiquitous flint artefacts recovered from a site can reveal something about the activities carried out. In this thesis a use-wear analysis has been conducted for a selection of flint artefacts recovered at the site of Haren De Vork (Haren, the Netherlands). The site of Haren De Vork is possibly one of the scarce settlements of the TRB found in the Netherlands, and was excavated in 2017. The excavation brought forth a large amount of flint artefacts, namely 20.000 artefacts. Due to the large amount of flint artefacts that were found during the excavations, the finds have been divided in clusters (van Kruining et al., 2018, p. 14; Devriendt, 2021, p. 2-4). In this thesis the 50 artefacts were selected from two different clusters, clusters 3 & 4. Of cluster 3, 11 artefacts were selected and from cluster 4, 39 artefacts were selected. This difference in sample size can be explained through the sizes and the preservation of the artefacts per cluster. Hence, cluster 4 is the bigger cluster and seems to have better preserved artefacts. The selected artefacts of both clusters have been analysed by the so-called low- and high-power approach, where the artefacts are examined through two different microscopes. Among the selected artefacts of both clusters, there also burned artefacts. Cluster 3 consisted of 45% of burned objects, and cluster 4 of 32%. This complicated the analysis but in most cases traces were still visible. Three artefacts from cluster 3 were not interpretable due to heavy burning. The other artefacts showed evidence of hide working, plant working, wood working and bone working, of which hide working was the most prominent activity. The most prominent motion was cutting. For cluster 4 it was not possible to interpret four artefacts. On these artefacts there were either no traces or the traces were not interpretable due to burning. On the remaining 35 artefacts traces of hide working, plant working, bone working and wood working were inferred, of which again hide working was the most prominent. For cluster 4 the prominent motion is scraping but it is closely followed by cutting the contact material. For both clusters there was also a number of edges on which traces were seen but the contact material or motion could not be inferred. The artefacts with the probable used edges were therefore included in the analysis. The preservation of the artefacts of cluster 4 was better in cluster 3, which was clearly visible while conducting the use-wear analysis. Based on the results of the use-wear analysis it is clear that within cluster 3 and 4 a range of different activities were conducted. The main activity conducted at the site was probably hide working (both scraping and cutting hide). In cluster 3, the activities were diverse and no real main activity could be interpreted. Due to the high burning rate within cluster 3 it is believed by MUG archaeologists that within this cluster fire-related activities were conducted. This could however not be proven by the analysis. For cluster 4 it was seen that scraping hide was the main activity of the cluster, closely followed by cutting plant and plant-like materials. Bone working traces were scarce in both clusters which can indicate that this activity was probably conducted elsewhere. The activities are diverse and this diversity is consistent with a (permanent) settlement, which is also the interpretation of the site. The use-wear analysis supports the interpretation by showing the multiple activities and hide working as a possible main activity.Show less
The consequences for the Neanderthal population in Western Europe upon the arrival of anatomically modern humans in the Upper Palaeolithic, is a matter of intense debate within the field of...Show moreThe consequences for the Neanderthal population in Western Europe upon the arrival of anatomically modern humans in the Upper Palaeolithic, is a matter of intense debate within the field of prehistoric archaeology. The fact that our species is the only one to survive, has traditionally been explained by a supposed cognitive superiority inherent to anatomically modern humans. However, recent studies have refuted most of the proclaimed differences between the species, leaving the reason behind the Neanderthal disappearance even more peculiar. One way to address this issue, is through the study of behavioural differences between the species. By mapping differences and compare the results, we may potentially discern behavioural patterns or cognitive abilities indicating a difference great enough to explain the notable success of our species. In this study, a micro-wear analysis of three multi-functional flint tools, distinct for Upper Palaeolithic assemblages (hence anatomically modern humans) was performed. The tools originate from the final stage of the Early Aurignacian occupation of Les Cottés, France, a site that has been occupied by both Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. The continuous stratigraphical sequence of the site makes it suitable for behavioural comparisons between the two populations within the same context. By understanding the function/s of the tools, tasks performed at the site can be inferred. As a consequence, information about behavioural and cognitive aspects of the manufacturers of the artefacts can be indicated. The results can later be used for behavioural comparisons between anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals, in an attempt to define eventual cognitive or behavioural differences. In order to strengthen any claims of performed tasks, the results from the micro-wear analysis were compared with results derived from the faunal and lithic assemblages of the same context. The results corroborated each other, consequently contributing to our knowledge about certain behavioural aspects of anatomically modern humans from this period.Show less
The aim of this thesis is to re-examine the flint material from a Dutch site named Tienray op den Hees (North-Limburg, The Netherlands). The site should be placed in the occupation history of...Show moreThe aim of this thesis is to re-examine the flint material from a Dutch site named Tienray op den Hees (North-Limburg, The Netherlands). The site should be placed in the occupation history of Northwest-Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum. The re-colonization of Northwest-Europe is closely related to large ecological and climatic changes. The flint assemblage has been examined by Stapert and characterized as Creswellian. An elaborate study on the typo- and technological aspects of flint show that the Tienray assemblage should not be assigned to the Creswellian. On typological grounds, the Laterally Modified Laminar Pieces and technological aspects point into the direction of Federmesser technology. The absence of the en éperon preparation, the low amount of 'lips' and the external platform angles are indications for the use of soft stone percussion for the production of relative straight blade(let)s and blade like flakes. Based on the current geological data, it is not possible to date Tienray op den Hees. However, Tienray op den Hees is located between the Late Pleniglacial terrace level 1 and the younger Holocene driftsands. The large variety of tools suggests that all kinds of daily activitities (e.g. processing of skin and meat) took place at the site. A few LMP show macroscopic impact-traces that can only be the end product by the use of arrow point. Retooling might have took place at the site. None of the so called southern 'Creswellian' sites meet the definition argued by Barton et al. (2003). Unfortunately, sites such as Zeijen and Siegerswoude in the Northern Netherlands are not studied on the technological aspects yet.Show less
Research master thesis | Archaeology (research) (MA/MSc)
closed access
This thesis reports on the excavation Oldeboorn, where traces of activity from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age were recoverd. Due to the good preservation of organic material, especially...Show moreThis thesis reports on the excavation Oldeboorn, where traces of activity from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age were recoverd. Due to the good preservation of organic material, especially fish bone, and the presence of Veluvian bell beakers, very rare in the northern Netherlands, this site deserves scientific attention. After the excavation by Jan Lanting and Harry Fokkens in 1980 various material categories were subjected to separate analyses. The results of these analyses are collected and contextualized in this thesis. The find material was located at a depth of about 40 cm below the surface, on a Pleistocene sand dune beneath peat deposits. The location of the finds shows no clear separation between the periods. Yet pottery from the Bronze Age is mainly concentrated in the culture layer on the top of the dune. This also suggests that the bulk of the fish bone stems from this period. The high proportion of catadrome fish species and the absence of anadrome fish species indicate that we are dealing here with an extraction camp in the Bronze Age, mainly for catching pike. The presence of Elp-pottery indicates that the site was more connected to sandy Drenthe than to the rest of Holocene Netherlands, especially Holland. 14C dating of charcoal from the cultural layer gives an absolute dating of 1675 ± 43 BC. The pottery from the Neolithic is more evenly distributed across the site. The pottery consists solely of Veluwe bell beakers and pot beakers. Oldeboorn is the most northern location of this type of pottery, while from the nearby Pleistocene Drenthe only beakers of the Epi-Maritime type are known from this period. An unknown proportion of the recovered flint also stems from this period. The find spectrum reflects a full range of activities conducted at this site, and would warrant an interpretation as a normal Bell Beaker settlement. During the Mesolithic the location is also in use. Hearth pits from this period are the only anthropogenic features on the site. The typology of points and the 14C dating of charcoal from the hearth pits places the occupation in the Middle Mesolithic. Whether we are dealing with multiple phases or a single event is impossible to say.Show less
Tracing the origins of ‘modernity’ in the archaeological record has been an ongoing, and often heavily debated topic of discussion in the field of human origins for quite some time. Cognitive...Show moreTracing the origins of ‘modernity’ in the archaeological record has been an ongoing, and often heavily debated topic of discussion in the field of human origins for quite some time. Cognitive modernity – generally defined as the manifestation of complex language and abstract thought – is often inferred from various perceived innovations in material culture that are believed to indicate behavioral modernity (e.g. parietal art, personal adornment, bone tool technology, hafting technology, etc.). One of the more contentious facets of this debate is the subject of fire production during the time when controlled use of fire appeared to become a requisite component of the hominin technological repertoire: the Middle Palaeolithic. The mere presence of traces of fire on a site is not necessarily indicative that it was kindled by artificial means, however. To determine this, one must seek out the ‘tools of the trade’, which for this period were likely flint ‘strike-a-lights’ forcibly applied to fragments of sulphuric iron (more commonly known as marcasite or pyrite). Unfortunately, definitive examples of these tools are conspicuously absent in the archaeological record during the Middle Palaeolithic. Surprisingly, this trend appears to extend even into the early Upper Palaeolithic when modern human colonizers were pouring into Europe. In fact – contrary to the commonly held belief that modern humans were proficient fire-makers by this time – physical evidence of this technology does not appear with any regularity in the modern human tool kit until the mid- to late Upper Palaeolithic despite very regular use of fire by these peoples. One possible reason for this is simply hominids were obligate fire users (as opposed to producers) through the Middle Palaeolithic into the early Upper Palaeolithic. An alternate scenario advocated in this thesis is that both modern humans and Neandertals from the Middle Palaeolithic onward were likely able to make fire at will, but the tools they used to perform this task have not been recognized as such in the archaeological record. Drawing inspiration from the apparent ‘ad hoc’ nature of Middle Palaeolithic lithic technology, this thesis advocates what is called the ‘expedient strike-a-light’ hypothesis. It contends that early strike-a-lights were not formalized tools used to kindle numerous fires such as those recovered from later time periods. Instead, this study postulates strike-a-lights were either A) fashioned from simple, readymade flakes, utilized for only a short while – perhaps for just a single fire-making episode – and then discarded; or B) tools or small flake cores already on hand were expediently used as strike-a-lights. In this latter scenario, it is likely subsequent retouching of the tool would eliminate and evidence of it having been used to kindle a fire. An experimental usewear-based approach to testing the viability of this hypothesis was employed by analyzing the traces left behind on flint flake tools forcibly applied to a nodular piece of sulphuric iron for short periods of time using a variety of techniques with the express purpose of generating sparks. The findings were then compared with archaeological specimens exhibiting seemingly similar wear patterns identified during a comprehensive, low-magnification examination of the lithic collection recovered from the Last Interglacial (~120 ka) site of Neumark-Nord 2/2 (Germany). More detailed analysis using higher magnification found that none of the segregated specimens exhibited the requisite usewear to be considered possible strike-a-lights. Nevertheless, it is the author’s contention that this initial return of negative evidence in no way diminishes the value of this study. The rich and diverse body of data provided by this study, including detailed descriptions of usewear traces observed on both experimental flint strike-a-lights and the sulphuric iron contact material; supporting archaeological evidence culled together from extant literature; preliminary experimental statistical data concerning strike-a-light efficacy; and the novel methods outlined by the ‘expedient strike-a-light’ hypothesis, all combine to provide a solid foundation for future research seeking to shed light on the origins of man-made fire.Show less
The Bandkeramik culture came to the Netherlands as a complete package. This new culture settled itself at the Graetheide plateau in the south of the Netherlands on the fertile loess grounds. Geleen...Show moreThe Bandkeramik culture came to the Netherlands as a complete package. This new culture settled itself at the Graetheide plateau in the south of the Netherlands on the fertile loess grounds. Geleen-Janskamperveld is one of these Bandkeramik settlements. All aspects of the Bandkeramik culture are very similar between the different settlements so models are very suitable to analyzee the Bandkeramik culture. One of these aspects which has different models, is the settlement structure. The Hofplatz model is used for centuries as the main model for the Bandkeramik culture. Within this model clusters of houses represent successive houses and thus continuity on a single location. There is still some disagreement whether one or several houses were in use at one time within such a cluster. Rück proposed a different model in which the settlement is structured along lines. He also proposed a different reconstruction of the houses and he assumes a longer use-life for the individual houses: up till a 100 years instead of the 25 years which is used most. Within this research a use-wear study of the flint artefacts found at Geleen-Janskamperveld is executed with the hope of finding some specialization between different houses. This information could help with finding which of these models is best suitable for this excavation. Some use-wear study was already done in the past. The results of the previous study are used for this new research. The predominant contact material found at Geleen-Janskamperveld is hide, followed by cereal harvesting tools. This is in line with other Bandkeramik sites in the Netherlands which were studied in the same way. Other contact materials like wood, reed, bark, meat, bone, clay, mineral materials and the mysterious contact materials which produces ‘polish 10’ and ‘polish 23’ were also recognised. Unfortunately no real specialization was found between the different houses of Geleen-Janskamperveld. The rest of the analysis therefore is based on the literature. Rück proposed new models for different aspects of the settlement. He argues that houses were built on poles instead of on the ground. His main argument, steep slopes on which the houses were built in Bandkeramik times, is not valid for the Dutch LBK. His argument about the duration of a house generation is more plausible. The old arguments for a house generation are a bit outdated. Houses probably would have last longer. A visual analysis is executed to find possible settlement structures at Geleen-Janskamperveld. This resulted in several maps which clearly show that the model of Rück is not plausible for this excavation. No real alignments are apparent. A model in which clusters of several houses success each other is more plausible. This is supported by other features such as ditches.Show less
