Research on human bone artifacts has been rarely conducted exclusively. Indeed, researchers have limited their interests to intentional modifications of human bones in the frame of ritual contexts....Show moreResearch on human bone artifacts has been rarely conducted exclusively. Indeed, researchers have limited their interests to intentional modifications of human bones in the frame of ritual contexts. Thus, interpretations of the human bone’s use as raw material mainly concern its implementation in mortuary practices, side-lining the manufacture of tools and ornaments. Notwithstanding, the recent discovery of two human bones originated in the submerged Doggerland enriches the Mesolithic archaeological record, together with raising new questions concerning the human bone’s use during this period. This research aims to investigate the uses of human bone during the Mesolithic in Europe. Particularly, it attempts to unravel how frequent was the use of human bone, for which artifact categories it was used, and the body parts that were selected. Another interest concerns whether the use of human bones as a raw material was intentional or accidental. Consequently, the contextual analysis of the sites yielding human bone artifacts will offer a broader framework to approach such issues. Furthermore, considering that Mesolithic mortuary practices were related to the transformation, destruction, and manipulation of the human bone, I link these practices to the manufacture of human bone artifacts. Beyond these preoccupations, this study aims to interpret the potential differences and similarities concerning the use of human bone as a raw material during the Mesolithic. That is why it proposes a comparison of human bone’s use between the Mesolithic and the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic. Relevant here are questions related to the differences of human bone artifacts between these periods, and if there are similarities indicating a continuation of existing practices across time. The comparison reveals that during the Late Upper Palaeolithic, in specific regions human bone artifacts seems to bear special importance linked to ritual practices. However, during the Mesolithic, such findings do not seem to bear the same value, as often they have been found mixed with animal bone artifacts. Based on this observation, I rely on ethnographic studies to explore the potential presence of animistic practices in the Mesolithic. The conceptualization of the relationship between animal and humans and their respective artifacts reveals that human bone artifacts were perceived in equivalent ways with the animal ones.Show less
Research master thesis | Archaeology (research) (MA/MSc)
closed access
The production of bifacial tools is one of the main technological strategies practiced throughout both the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of northwestern Europe (MIS 15 – 3; ca. 600-35 ka BP)....Show moreThe production of bifacial tools is one of the main technological strategies practiced throughout both the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of northwestern Europe (MIS 15 – 3; ca. 600-35 ka BP). Within the broad definition of this tool category, there exist wide variation in morphological and technological properties. Additionally, the occurrence of particular biface types seems to vary, both chronologically, as well as geographically. Nowadays, many archaeologists focus on the steering mechanisms behind the observed variations and in doing so apply different methodologies. The bifacial objects used in this thesis to address these broader theoretical questions come from the southern Netherlands, a thus far marginally explored area when it comes to Palaeolithic archaeology. Published data on bifaces is combined with object registrations in the national database (ARCHIS) and primary descriptions of bifacial objects by the author to form a comprehensive dataset of 122 bifacial objects in total. Primarily, these objects are typologically classified with the help of a synthesized methodological framework that combines the main northwestern European typological traditions. The outcome of this analysis shows that the overall typological variation in bifacial objects from the southern Netherlands is more diverse than currently envisaged, which has direct consequences for the conceptualization of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic occupation of the research area. Consecutively, hypotheses for the observed variations in bifacial tool morphology are explored. Despite the limited chronostratigraphic information available for basically all objects, the combined analysis of associated geological formations, their age implications, and the distribution of particular tool types throughout norhtwestern Europe suggests that chronological differentiation in bifacial tool morphology occurs in the research area. At the same time, this explanation does not seem to fully explain the overall variation. Therefore, the technological aspects of morphological variation are explored as well. Scar pattern analysis is performed on four bifaces and shows that these all display long and extended artefact biographies during which likely different phases of use, re-use and recycling occurred. Based on the technological properties of the overall dataset it is proposed that economizing behaviours, in combination with different functional desires, have strongly affected biface morphology in the research area. The final hypothesis explaining variation is that of socio-cultural interactions. A re-analysis of bifacial tools from Sint Geertruid, previously used in such models by other researchers, in combination with their depositional context shows that the current dataset is unsuited for contributing to supra-regional contemporaneous cultural interactions between Neanderthal groups. This examination of the bifacial record of the southern Netherlands has shown that this material has higher potential for understanding hominin occupation and behaviour in this particular region than is currently being exploited. Finally, some suggestions for how to come to such understandings are proposed.Show less
The archaeology of the late Paleolithic in the Netherlands studies human behavior during the termination of the last glacial period. These studies focus mostly on lithic material due to...Show moreThe archaeology of the late Paleolithic in the Netherlands studies human behavior during the termination of the last glacial period. These studies focus mostly on lithic material due to preservative conditions. One of the ‘groups’ defined on the basis of this lithic material is the Federmesser-group, or Azilien. This tradition is generally dated to the Allerød warm period (11.800-10.800 BP). This thesis focuses on Federmesser-mobility patterns in the western Meuse area of Limburg, the Netherlands. Specifically, the sites of Horn-Haelen and Heythuysen-de Fransman will be addressed. Here we show that Heythuysen-de Fransman may actually have a different chronological position than was previously assumed. Based on assemblage size, a differentiation was made between Meuse sites and Peelhorst sites, interpreting the sites on the peelhorst as Base camps and the Meuse-region sites as extraction camps. In this thesis it is suggested that larger Peelhorst-sites may actually consist of a palimpsest of various sites related to clustered resources in this area, as opposed to the Meuse area. However, lithic typology does suggest processing activities were more important on the Peelhorst, while hunting activities dominate in the Meuse area. Through the analysis and publications of the lithic inventories of Horn-Haelen and Heythuysen-de Fransman, the author hopes to contribute to the dataset of published upper Paleolithic sites in the Netherlands. The author also hopes to contribute to the larger debate on mobility strategies for the Late Paleolithic, on which little has been published for the Netherlands in the last 20 years.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
