Maritime hunter-gatherers of the Atlantic Mesolithic: current archaeological excavations in the...

VOLUME 22: NUMBER 2

July 2014

CONTENTS

Editorial ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

Nicky Milner

Maritime hunter-gatherers of the Atlantic Mesolithic: current archaeological excavations in the shell

levels of Beg-er-Vil (Quiberon, Morbihan, France) ..................................................................................... 3

Grégor Marchand and Catherine Dupont

Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in Belgium and Luxembourg ................................. 10

Christopher Meiklejohn, Rebecca Miller and Michel Toussaint

Redating a Mesolithic skeleton from Cabeço da Arruda, Muge, Portugal .............................................. 40

M.K. Jackes and D. Lubell and M.J. Cunha

Between appearance and reality: the excavation of Bergumermeer S-64B (Province of Friesland) as a

milestone of Stone Age research in the Netherlands .................................................................................. 45

Marcel J.L.Th. Niekus

William Galloway and the Caisteal nan Gillean shell midden on Oronsay, western Scotland .............. 56

Alan Saville

A response to Meiklejohn and Woodman, ‘Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in

Ireland’.......................................................................................................................................................... .70

Alison Sheridan

International conference: "Mesolithic Burials – Rites, symbols and social organisation of early

postglacial communities" .............................................................................................................................. 73

Judith M. Grünberg

UISPP Commission for the Final Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia ......................................................... 74

Berit V. Eriksen and Susan K. Harris

Book news ....................................................................................................................................................... 76

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

2

Editorial

I am delighted to publish this new issue of MM but would like to apologise for the delay: it is entirely my

fault due to fieldwork commitments and maternity leave. I must thank Chris Meiklejohn for his gentle

encouragement and assistant editors Sophy Charlton, Emily Hellewell, Harry Robson and Aimee Little for

their work on this issue. The good news is that MM is having an overhaul in terms of how we are presenting

research and news, as well as expanding the team who work on it. Mesolithic Miscellany will still be

published twice a year (paper submissions permitting) but will focus on research papers, reports and notes

(including current PhD projects) and I am very pleased to be joined by new co-editors Mary Jackes, David

Lubell and Chris Meiklejohn who are already working on the next issue.

In addition, information on forthcoming conferences, announcements, papers recently published etc, will

appear in ‘Mesolithic Miscellany Monthly’ (MMM) thus ensuring rapid dissemination of current news. This

will not replace our Facebook and Twitter output but we are aware that not everybody uses social media and

so wish to provide an alternative through the production of an email news summary. Hayley Saul will be the

editor of MMM, with assistant editors Sophy Charlton, Andy Needham and Harry Robson. In addition,

Sophy will become Communications Officer, Andy will become Data Officer (which includes collating

information on projects, new publications and PhDs), and Harry will continue in his role as Social Media

Officer. We all hope you enjoy the changes we are making. Please continue to send news and papers to

[email protected].

All of the papers in this volume demonstrate the enormous value of revisiting old data, whether it is re-

excavating a site, re-dating human remains or re-examining paper archives. We start with a paper on the site

of Beg-er-Vil which is being re-examined by Grégor Marchand and Catherine Dupont, and has revealed

important new insights. Next, two papers focus on radiocarbon dating: there is another comprehensive

review of sites with dated human remains (the sixth in the series), this time from Belgium and Luxembourg

by Christopher Meiklejohn, Rebecca Miller and Michel Toussaint; and a paper on the redating of a burial at

Cabeço da Arruda, Muge, Portugal by Mary Jackes, David Lubell and M.J. Cunha which demonstrates this

burial is no longer an outlier in terms of date. Finally, in terms of delving into the archives, Marcel Niekus

examines the site of Bergumermeer S-64B as part of a larger archive project and Alan Saville publishes the

transcript of a manuscript written by Galloway in association with his display of the Caisteal nan Gillean

(Oronsay) finds at the 1883 International Fisheries Exhibition in London.

Alison Sheridan has written a response to the last of the dating papers by Chris Meiklejohn and Peter

Woodman which also sets out ideas for future research for the Mesolithic Neolithic transition. Finally, we

have two summaries of recent conferences by Judith Grünberg on the Mesolithic burials conference in Halle

(2013) and Berit Erkisen and Susan Harris on the Final Palaeolithic conference in Schlesvig (2013).

Nicky Milner

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

3

Maritime hunter-gatherers of the Atlantic Mesolithic:

current archaeological excavations in the shell levels of Beg-er-Vil (Quiberon,

Morbihan, France)

Grégor Marchand and Catherine Dupont

CNRS, UMR 6566 CReAAH « Centre de Recherche en Archéologie, Archéosciences et Histoire »

Bâtiment 24-25

Université Rennes 1-Campus Beaulieu 74 205 CS 35 042

Rennes Cedex

[email protected]; [email protected]

Figure 1. Geographical situation of Beg-er-Vil in Western Europe (G. Marchand)

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

4

Figure 2: Location of the Mesolithic site of Beg-er-Vil at Quiberon (Morbihan), France (Laurent Quesnel).

Mesolithic communities on the European Atlantic seaboard

The reopening of excavations from 2012 on the Mesolithic settlement of Beg-er-Vil situated on the

commune of Quiberon, in Brittany (France) (Figure 1, Figure 2), can be placed within the framework of

wider questions concerning the last hunter-gatherers. Their way of life originated from the specific

ecological conditions of the coastal zone, which favoured a wide range of social and economic organisation.

Ethnographic observations made over the last centuries have shown that in temperate or boreal latitudes,

notably around the north Pacific, these communities elaborated a particular type of economy based on

predation, comprising logistical organisation, a high demographic densification, well marked social

competition and a protection of resources which were at times at the origin of armed conflicts (Yesner 1980;

Testart, 1982; Sassaman, 2004). But this relationship is not always automatic. On coastlines further afield,

such as Tierra del Fuego, a highly accentuated mobility and a weak social hierarchy are an indication of

groups subsisting equally on coastal predation (Kelly 2007, p. 67; Legoupil 2000). Finally in the European

archaeological repertoire, the shell-midden levels of the Atlantic coast illustrate economies developed during

the Holocene, with once again very clear differences between site types and in the organisation of the

communities (Arnaud 1989; Bonsall 1996; Andersen 2000; Marchand 2003; Gutiérrez-Zugasti et al. 2011).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

5

The definition of exploitation systems in association with the available resources in the continental and

marine environments is fundamental for our understanding of the historical phenomenon, the most obvious

being the Neolithisation which affected the landscape of the French Atlantic seaboard, at the end of the 6th

millennium or at the beginning of the 5th millennium. This economic and social mutation takes place at a

time when the European coastline was neither fixed nor linear.

Indeed, the rise in sea levels indicates an inflexion on the scale of the Atlantic Ocean during the 7th

millennium BC, with a stabilisation which corresponds to 10 meters below the present coastline and offers to

archaeologists the possibility to find settlements of prehistoric fishing communities. After the results of

analyses carried out on human bone isotopes of the Breton Mesolithic coastal populations (Schulting and

Richards 2001; Schulting 2003, 2005) or the study of animal remains (Tresset 2002, 2005; Dupont and Gruet

2005; Dupont 2006; Dupont et al. 2009), the dependence of human populations on the marine environment

has become evident. At the same time, the study of the territories supplying the lithic industry has shown that

raw materials from the interior do not reach the coastal areas, accentuating even more the hypothesis of an

economic autonomy of the coastal populations in relation to those of inland (Marchand 2005; Marchand and

Tsobgou 2009). Dated between 6200 and 6000 cal BC, the site of Beg-er-Vil presents one of the earliest

examples of this type of economic behaviour on the French Atlantic coast, unfortunately highly eroded today.

The astonishing homogeneity of the archaeological levels has also opened a new vision of the Breton

environment at a moment when the principal climatic accidents of the Holocene occur (‘8200 cal BP

Climatic event’).

Beg-er-Vil: a stratigrahical reference

Discovered by G. Bernier in 1970, the site of Beg-er-Vil is situated on the western side of a low rocky point

at the southern extremity of the Quiberon Peninsula. Opposite, to the south, the islands of Belle-Île, Groix or

the Houat-Hoëdic group – the two latter islands formed one entity during the period concerned – being

integrated within a coastal network already existing and frequented by Mesolithic communities, attested on

several insular sites.

Excavated by O. Kayser between 1985 and 1988, some twenty square metres (Kayser and Bernier 1988;

Kayser 1992), the Mesolithic shell-midden level of 0.50 to 0.60 m was partly situated on an ancient platform

of marine eroded granite bedrock and partly on a fossil beach of pebbles of the Pleistocene. It was covered

by a dune measuring some 0.30 to 1.60 m thick. The conservation of organic archaeological artefacts is

remarkable, despite the fact that the acid soils of north-western France deprive us normally of information of

this type.

The archaeological structures recorded are the only traces of the daily life (pebble heaps, groups of burnt

stones and pits), but they do not contain cemeteries, as known on Hoëdic and Téviec. The pits observed at

the base of the stratification were some ten centimetres in depth and were filled with shells in a sandy matrix,

with blocks of burnt stone. One of them was roughly rectangular measuring 1.50m by 1.0m, with several

alveolus or re-cuts. It contained some characteristic archaeological artefacts: burnt bone splinters, a large

shale pebble, backed knifes, three armatures, a decorated dagger and two fragments of bone tools, an incised

shell and three deer antlers from which the tines had been removed (Kayser and Bernier 1988). This

intriguing composition, because most of the objects had been deliberately fractured, suggests some particular

ritual practice, apparently without any association with a burial.

The Beg-er-Vil midden is represented by a wide diversity of resources and environments exploited:

terrestrial and sea birds have been determined (razorbills, guillemot, great auk, woodcock, mallard, Eurasian

wigeon or northern pintail, tufted duck, white stork or common crane, blackbird or thrush), but also fish (gilt-

head bream, ray, tope, wrasse), crabs (edible crab, shore crab, velvet crab and the warty crab), marine

mammals (seals), land mammals (aurochs, red deer, roe deer, wild boar) (Tresset, 2002, 2005; Schulting et al.

2004). Twenty-four species of mollusc have been determined after the excavations of O. Kayser, 71.4%

coming from rocky areas, 28.3% from sand or sand with mud and 0.3% from totally muddy areas (Dupont

2006). This seems to correspond to opportunist behaviours by this Mesolithic population which did not

hesitate to exploit all the diversity presented by the surrounding environment. Beg-er-Vil presents a rare

opportunity concerning the Mesolithic of the European Atlantic seaboard.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

6

A first radiocarbon date was obtained during excavations that took place during the 1980s, which led us to

believe that the site was contemporary with the earliest Neolithic cultures of the region (Marchand 1999), an

hypothesis that has been abandoned today because the limpets used for dating were contaminated. Eight new

dates have been obtained from short-lived samples (burnt fruit, roe deer bone and twigs or brushwood) which

have enabled us to place the formation of this archaeological layer of human origin between 6200 and 6000

cal BC.

The environment of the prehistoric settlement

The site of Beg-er-Vil is today subjected to a resumption of erosion, facilitated by the soft nature of the fossil

beach which supports it, erosion which is not only related to the wave action of the ocean, but also by wear

caused by tourists descending to the beach and the presence of a coastal path. In liaison with the different

heritage services (Regional Archaeology Service, the Coastal Protection Agency, the Archaeology Service of

the Morbihan Department and the Commune of Quiberon), thanks also to the ‘Arch-Manche’ programme

(Interreg IVA ‘ 2 seas’, financial support FEDER), we have undertaken an ambitious operation aimed at

anticipating the inevitable destruction of this site.

After a campaign of test-pits during the spring of 2012, the excavations covered 60m² in 2013 and 2014 with

a team of 12 to 25 archaeologists (Figure 3, Figure 4). The sediment was systematically sieved with

freshwater and sorting once dried. The sieving programme has produced a high proportion of organic

remains, with new species of molluscs and fish identified in a context that already contained many. It should

be possible to answer questions concerning quantities due to strict sampling procedures.

Figure 3: View of the excavations undertaken in spring 2012 at Beg-er-Vil (Photo: Grégor Marchand).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

7

Figure 4: Beneath the dune cover lays the shell layer. Here, we can see a bed of burnt gneiss fragments which

remains for the moment without interpretation. It produced notably large numbers of oyster shells, but also

animal bones and lithic or bone artefacts (Photo: Grégor Marchand).

The sandy dune cover combined with a large number of modern constructions around Beg-er-Vil make it

difficult to reconstruct the Mesolithic environment, but a future programme of test trenches and core

sampling in the marshland, close to the coast, will open new palaeoenvironmental perspectives. But we must

turn our attention towards the sea! Taking into consideration seabed mapping, it seems probable that a

Mesolithic settlement was situated at the bottom of a bay. We currently consider the needs of these

Mesolithic populations as a key question. The fish caught correspond to a low technical investment and seem

to correspond to fishing close to the seashore of the period (Dupont et al. 2009). Were stone structures such

as fish-traps used? Did Mesolithic people take advantage of the natural trapping of fish in rock pools at low

tide on the intertidal zone or did they construct stone weirs to catch fish? Behind these questions is hidden

the necessity to reconstruct the outline of the coastline of the period and to go beyond the areas actually

covered. Indeed, one must remember that during the Mesolithic the outline of the coast was some 500 m to

1000 m off the present day coastline. Within the framework of the ‘Arch-Manche’ programme, sonar

surveying in front of the site has been carried out in 2013, followed by spot dives, at the same point as the

now submerged foreshore of the 7th millennium.

In conclusion, the latest methodological developments should allow us to explore in depth the coastal

environments of this period and to compare them with those of today. Indeed amongst the environmental

archives available, high resolution analysis of shellfish have registered seasonal variations of

palaeoenvironmental factors, including temperature (PROXARCHEOBIO programme, financial support

UEB-CRB-FEDER). The application of methods from marine biology has enabled us to show that by using

sclerochronology on the clam, Ruditapes decussatus, from Beg-er-Vil it is possible to identify daily growth

patterns (Figure 5). The accretions of growth are related to tides and thus allow us obtain temperature

variation curves over a very short period. These results are very important because most research on

Mesolithic food resources are calibrated on the present climate which can be problematic. In addition, this

research on tidal lines will allow us to determine more clearly the seasonality of occupation on these coastal

sites.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

8

With the reopening of excavations on the Beg-er-Vil site, numerous questions related to the coastal hunter-

gatherer populations of southern Brittany can now be advanced, whilst new methods allow us to investigate

the palaeoenvironment in different ways. The variations in environment must correspond to different

exploitation systems during the Mesolithic: this produces a dynamic perspective for the ways of life and

behaviour of people at the end of the Atlantic Mesolithic.

Figure 5: First thin-section tests through European clams Ruditapes decussatus from the excavations at Beg-er-

Vil (Kayser excavation - AF21B-5th

level) indicating the daily growth of hard tissues (Photo: Catherine Dupont).

Acknowledgments

Translation by Michael Batt. The radiocarbon dates of Beg-er-Vil have been obtained thanks the following

programs:

‘Fonctionnement des sociétés aux 7e et 6e millénaires avant notre ère en Europe occidentale: le

prodrome du Néolithique ?’ directed by Dr Thomas Perrin.

‘Avant la révolution? Techniques et sociétés du Mésolithique au Néolithique en Europe occidentale’

directed by Dr Grégor Marchand.

‘Coastal transitions: A comparative approach to the processes of neolithization in Atlantic Europe’

directed by Dr. Pablo Arias Cabal

References

Andersen S. H. (2000) “Køkkenmøddinger” (Shell Middens) in Denmark: a Survey, Proceedings of the Prehistoric

Society, 66, 361-384.

Arnaud J. M. (1989) The mesolithic communities of the Sado valley, Portugal, in their ecological setting, in

Bonsall C. dir., The Mesolithic in Europe, Papers presented at the third International Symposium, Edinburgh, John

Donald, 614-631.

Bonsall, C. (1996) The ‘Obanian’ problem: coastal adaptation in the Mesolithic of western Scotland, in A. Pollard

and A. Morrison dir., The Early Prehistory of Scotland, Edinburgh, University Press, 183–197.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

9

Dupont C. (2006) La malacofaune de sites mésolithiques et néolithiques de la façade atlantique de la France :

Contribution à l’économie et à l’identité culturelle des groupes concernés, Oxford, Archeopress, British

Archaeological Reports, International Series 1571.

Dupont C., Gruet Y. (2005) Malacofaune et crustacés marins des amas coquilliers mésolithiques de Beg-an-

Dorchenn (Plomeur, Finistère) et de Beg-er-Vil (Quiberon, Morbihan), in Marchand G. and Tresset A., dir., Unité

et diversité des processus de néolithisation sur la façade atlantique de l’Europe (6e-4e millénaires avant J.-C.),

Table ronde de Nantes 26-27 avril 2002, Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique Française, 36, 139-161.

Dupont C., Tresset A., Desse-Berset N., Gruet Y., Marchand G., Schulting R. (2009) Harvesting the seashores in

the Late Mesolithic of north-western Europe. A view from Brittany ? Journal of World Prehistory, 22, 2, 93-111.

Gutiérrez-Zugasti I., Andersen S.H., Araujo A. C., Dupont C., Milner N., Monge-Soares A.M. (2011) Shell midden

research in Atlantic Europe: state of art, research problems and perspectives for the future.Quaternary International.

239, 70-85.

Kayser O. (1992) Les industries lithiques de la fin du Mésolithique en Armorique, in Le Roux C. T. dir., Paysans et

Bâtisseurs. L'émergence du Néolithique atlantique et les origines du Mégalithisme, Actes du 17eme colloque

interregional sur le Néolithique, Vannes, 29-31 octobre 1990, Revue Archéologique de l'Ouest, Supplément n°5,

117-124.

Kayser O., Bernier G. (1988) Nouveaux objets décorés du Mésolithique armoricain, Bulletin de la Société

Préhistorique Française, 85, 45-47.

Kelly R. (2007) The foraging spectrum. Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer lifeways. New York : Percheron Press, 446 p.

Legoupil D. (2000) L'adaptation en milieux froids des chasseurs-cueilleurs de Patagonie et de Terre de Feu : Des

contraintes aux stratégies. In Cupillard C. and Richard A. (dir.), Les Derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs d'Europe

occidentale (13 000 - 5 500 av. J.C.), Besançon, 351-360.

Marchand G. (1999) La néolithisation de l’ouest de la France : caractérisation des industries lithiques. Oxford,

Archaeopress, BAR International Series, n° 748.

Marchand G. (2003) Les niveaux coquilliers du Mésolithique final en Bretagne : fonctionnement des habitats

côtiers et intégration territoriale, Préhistoire Anthropologie méditerranéenne, tome 12, 209-219.

Marchand G. (2005) Le Mésolithique final en Bretagne : une combinaison des faits archéologiques, in Marchand G.

and Tresset A. dir., Unité et diversité des processus de néolithisation sur la façade atlantique de l’Europe (7-4ème

millénaires avant J.-C.), Nantes, 26 avril 2002, Réunion de la Société Préhistorique Française. Bulletin de la

Société Préhistorique Française, mémoire 36, 67-86.

Marchand G., Tsobgou Ahoupe R. (2009) What shall we leave behind ? From the mechanical analysis of rocks to

stylistic variability in the Mesolithic of Brittany, in Sternke F., Eigeland L. and Costa L.-J., Non-Flint Raw material

use in Prehistory. Old prejudices and new directions, BAR International Series 1939, 233-240.

Sassaman K. E. (2004) Complex hunter-gatherers in evolution and history: a north-american perspective, Journal

of archaeological research, 12 (3), 227-280.

Schulting R. (2003) The Marrying kind : Evidence for an exogamous marriage pattern in the breton Mesolithic, and

its implications for the process of neolithisation, in LARSON L. dir., Mesolithic in the move. 6th

International

Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Oxbow Monographs, 431-441.

Schulting R.J. (2005) Comme la mer qui se retire: les changements dans l’exploitation des ressources marines du

Mésolithique au Néolithique en Bretagne, in G. Marchand and A. Tresset dir., Unité et diversité des processus de

néolithisation sur la façade atlantique de l’Europe (6e-4e millénaires avant J.-C.), Table ronde de Nantes 26-27

avril 2002, Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique Française, t. 36, 163-171.

Schulting R. J., Richards M. P. (2001) Dating women becoming farmers: new paleodietary and AMS dating

evidence from the breton mesolithic cemeteries of Téviec and Hoëdic, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20,

314-344.

Schulting R., Tresset A., Dupont C. (2004) From Harvesting the Sea to Stock Rearing Along the Atlantic Façade of

North-Western Europe, Environmental Archaeology, 9, 143-154.

Testert A. (1982) Les chasseurs-cueilleurs ou l’origine des inégalités, Paris, Société d’Ethnographie, 254 p.

Tresset A. (2002) De la mer au bétail en domaine atlantique : unité et diversité des processus d’apparition de

l’élevage à la marge nord-ouest de l’Europe, Antropozoologica, 36, 13-35.

Tresset A. (2005) L’avifaune des sites mésolithiques et néolithiques de Bretagne (5500 à 2500 av. J.-C.) :

implications ethnologiques et biogéographiques, Revue de Paléobiologie, Genève, Vol. Spécial, 10, 83-94.

Yesner D. (1980) Maritime Hunter-Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory, Current Anthropology, Vol. 21, No. 6.

(Dec., 1980), 727-750.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

10

Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains

in Belgium and Luxembourg

Christopher Meiklejohn

University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB Canada, R3B 2E9

[email protected]

Rebecca Miller

Université de Liège, BE-4000 Liège, Belgium

[email protected]

Michel Toussaint

Direction de l’Archéologie, Service public de Wallonie, BE-5100 Namur, Belgium

[email protected]

Figure 1: map of Belgium and Luxembourg

mailto:[email protected]


MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

11

Introduction

This, the sixth of a series on the chronology of Mesolithic human remains, uses, with one exception, identical

methods to the previous paper in the series (Meiklejohn and Woodman 2012). Date calibration employs

CALIB version 6.1 with dates reported at a 1 range. The exception to previous use is that no marine

correction is applied to any finds, based on two considerations. Critical is that “(a) dietary protein source

based mainly on terrestrial mammals, with the possible addition of some freshwater components, is …

supported by the isotopic composition of … Mesolithic human collagen from (Belgium and Luxembourg),

with few differences occurring between individuals” (Bocherens et al. 2007, 18). The second is that 13C

levels range from -19.4 to -24.8, in clear support of this conclusion. The one exception, Atsebach in

Luxembourg (13C = -17.3), is dated to the Neolithic (see section 2.3). Absence of a marine dietary

component is also consistent with the distance of all sites from an ocean source, though Van Neer (1997;

Van Neer et al. 2007) reports evidence for fishing in Magdalenian deposits from the Meuse Basin at Bois

Laiterie and Chaleux, both discussed below. As previously, we stress the importance of reporting raw 14C

laboratory values. Calibrations are a function of calibration engine, reservoir correction value, and marine

and terrestrial isotopic limits used. Calibrated dates published alone are very difficult to interpret.

For the first time in this series no sites discussed were noted within a Mesolithic context by Oakley et al.

(1971; see Twiesselmann 1971a, 1971b). Newell et al. (1979) discussed no Belgian sites, though one

Luxembourg find was seen as demonstrably Mesolithic, a second as “date not clear” (both discussed below).

Twiesselmann (1971a) listed eight sites excavated in the nineteenth century, all as Upper or Middle

Palaeolithic except one “not of great antiquity” (ibid, 9). Direct dates are now available for six, one (Chaleux)

of Mesolithic age (section 1.1), five Neolithic or later (section 2.1), stressing the need to re-evaluate find

provenance when discussing burial chronology or using data from early sources. For Luxembourg

Twiesselmann (1971b) lists one site, Oetrange (not discussed here), considered then as now as Upper

Palaeolithic.

A brief introduction to the Mesolithic in these two countries is required, if only to clarify the earlier

observation that, in 1979 (Newell et al. 1979), only one site was discussed with demonstrably Mesolithic

human remains (Loschbour). Some thirty years later this number has risen to 13. What lies behind the change?

The answer is clearest for Belgium. Firstly, until very recently, sites with Mesolithic remains were

geographically limited to the extended valley system of the Meuse in the provinces of Liège, Hainaut and

Namur. Prior to 2011 no human remains were known from western (“Sandy Flanders”) and northern

Belgium (“Campine”), with the earliest recovered human remains of Late Neolithic (Bell Beaker) age

(Philippe Crombé, pers. comm.). As implied this situation has recently changed. Secondly, the presence of

Mesolithic human remains was long hidden by the presumption that recovered material was either earlier or

later in age (though see section 2.1). The material that apparently predated the Mesolithic was largely

discovered or worked by two individuals, Philippe-Charles Schmerling (1790-1836) and Édouard Dupont

(1841-1911). Of less interest is Schmerling as the key remains attributed to him, from Engis, are Neanderthal

(though see section 2.1). Dupont, on the other hand, excavated at seven and the idea that there are Upper

Palaeolithic burial caves in the Meuse Valley (broadly defined) is largely based on his work, though direct

dating shows that most are later intrusions. For a current understanding of the late Upper Palaeolithic Meuse

Valley see Miller and Noiret (2009).

The presence of Neolithic cave burials was also noted in the nineteenth century. A large number are known;

many now directly dated. In a European Neolithic context this skeletal series stands out for its quality of

chronological control. Bocherens et al. (2007) indicate that over 200 have been excavated, while Toussaint

(2007) lists 94 radiocarbon dates (see also Toussaint 2002a, Toussaint and Ramon 1997) (over 20 further

dates, still unpublished, are now in hand).

Within this context the initial reaction to sites now identified as having at least some Mesolithic human

remains assumed them to be either older or younger, most obviously Magrite (see section 1.1). Magrite,

excavated from 1864 to at least 1867, had human remains described as Aurignacian by Dupont (1867a), a

conclusion apparently accepted by Twiesselmann (1971a, 10) though stating that “(a)dmixture of pottery

throws doubt on the context …”.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

12

The presence of Mesolithic burials in the Meuse valley was only proven in 1984 (Cauwe and Toussaint

1993). Toussaint and Ramon (1997, 160; free translation) indicate that “(i)n 1984, dating of human bones in

the diaclase of Loverval D5 … showed that the graves in the karst area (of Belgium) were not only from the

Late Neolithic but also went back to the Mesolithic, as previously suspected though without real evidence”.

A sense of this suspicion is as follows; in 1968 one of us (CM) was shown material from Malonne by

François Twiesselmann, within the context that it might be Mesolithic. However, a decade later there was

insufficient information for Newell et al. (1979) to write an entry.

Most of our current knowledge of Mesolithic burials in the Meuse basin comes from three individuals or

groups, sometimes in collaboration. In 1983 Georges Dubuis, an amateur archaeologist, excavated a small

cave at Loverval, south of Charleroi in the province of Hainaut, and found human bones. He asked one of us

(MT) to study this material and in this context 14C dates were obtained on human bones, one from Louvain-

la-Neuve (Lv), the other at Gif-sur-Yvette (Gif). Both proved to be Early Mesolithic (see section 1.2).

Within the next few years Nicolas Cauwe excavated Grotte Margaux (1988) and Abri des Autours (1992-

1993) providing a clear sense of Mesolithic burial practice in the region (Cauwe 1998, 2001). Parallel to this

were cooperative Belgian/American excavations by Marcel Otte and Lawrence Guy Straus at Bois Laiterie,

Trou Magrite and Abri du Pape from 1990 to 1995 (Otte and Straus 1995, 1997; Léotard et al. 1999a).

Finally, beginning in 1984, much work on the skeletal material from Mesolithic sites in the Meuse Basin was

by Michel Toussaint (2002a, 2010) and Caroline Polet (Polet and Cauwe 2002, 2007). These papers, and

others deriving from them, are central to the understanding below. Finally, a very brief comment is necessary

on the newest skeletal find reported here, from Bazel-Sluis in northwest Belgian “Sandy Flanders” (see

section 1.2). Though minimal information is yet available this probable loose bone find expands our

geographical coverage.

One other situation requires comment, related here to material from two sites, Trou Al’Wesse (section 1.1)

and Bazel-Sluis (section 1.2), but of considerably broader interest in Belgian archaeology, the question of a

late ceramic Mesolithic. One of these is La Hoguette, identified in Normandy in the 1980s (Jeunesse 1987).

At Trou Al’Wesse several sherds have been found in an apparent Mesolithic context, although the hypothesis

of a pre-LBK Neolithic occupation with La Hoguette pottery cannot yet be excluded (the human mandible is

not in the same stratum, see below). This ceramic style parallels the earliest LBK (Linear Ceramic),

associated with early farming in the Central European Plain. Whether it predates LBK is debated.

Stylistically distinct, La Hoguette ceramics are often found on LBK sites though the distribution is generally

west of the earliest LBK zone and west and southwest of the classic LBK area (see e.g. Bogucki 1999;

Crombé 2009). Associated lithics are often seen as Mesolithic in type and an extended and ongoing debate

concerns both the origin and relationships of the style. Crombé (ibid) argues that the current consensus is that

late Mesolithic groups are manufacturing the pottery. However, whether they are fully independent of the

LBK is less easy to discern (see also Amkreutz et al. 2010; Constantin et al. 2010).

The second ceramic tradition is Swifterbant, associated with sites first discovered on the floor of the

reclaimed Swifterbant Polder in the Netherlands in the 1960s (de Roever 2004; Raemaekers and de Roever

2010). It is known from sites distributed from the valley of the Scheldt in northern Belgium easterly to the

valley of the Elbe in Germany. The date obtained from the recently discovered human bone at the site of

Bazel-Sluis does not exclude a link with this tradition though the link is not yet fully established (Crombé,

pers. comm.). Originally published as associated with the earliest Neolithic population in the Netherlands,

there is now an understanding that, culturally, Swifterbant is associated with populations that are, at the

beginning, late Mesolithic foragers, while later transforming into early Neolithic food producers. As outlined

by Peeters (2010, 151), “phases 1 and 2 belong to the Mesolithic, … phases 3 and 4 to the Early Neolithic.”

Though with possible roots in the LBK and/or Rössen it is not found on LBK/Rössen sites and has long been

seen as having stylistic parallels to the late Mesolithic Ertebølle ceramic tradition in Denmark and northern

Germany (de Roever 1979).

The situation in Luxembourg is far less complex with only two sites under discussion, within a kilometre of

each other in the same valley and discovered within a two-year period by the same archaeologist. The

Mesolithic nature of one has been clear since 1950, the other now excluded by direct dating. No other

specific issues need to be raised here.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

13

Finally, for distribution of the sites discussed in this paper and their time of initial discovery see table 1. In

this paper we have divided the table into four groups, two for Belgium and two for Luxembourg. For each

country there is division into sites discussed with human material shown to be Mesolithic, and for those sites

where the material is shown not to be Mesolithic. This table differs from those in previous papers in this

series in adding the second category (in all previous papers the two were considered together). As previously,

the table shows site discovery by time period, with colour indicating the period of maximum discovery. For

Belgian sites with remains dated to the Mesolithic there is a bimodal pattern, with sites discovered either

prior to 1900 or after 1960. Of Belgian sites discussed below where remains are shown to be not Mesolithic,

all but one was discovered prior to 1900. In Luxembourg the two sites discussed were both discovered

between 1900 and 1960, with one shown to be Mesolithic, the other not Mesolithic. Of the total number of

sites, 40 percent (8/20) were discovered before 1900, 50 percent (10/20) since 1960 (only one since 1995).

We would finally stress that the non-Mesolithic sites reported here are a tiny fraction of sites with human

remains available. The current list of sites with Neolithic or later remains in Belgium and Luxembourg

exceeds 150.

Region 1829-1899 1900-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2012

BELGIUM - MESOLITHIC 3 0 1 7 1

BELGIUM - NOT MESOLITHIC 5 0 0 1 0

LUXEMBOURG - MESOLITHIC 0 1 0 0 0

LUXEMBOURG - NOT MESOLITHIC 0 1 0 0 0

TOTAL 8 2 1 8 1 Table 1: Distribution of sites by region and time of first excavation

The Sites

For historical reasons (see above) the division below differs slightly from earlier papers. The primary

division of the paper is chronological with two sections, 1) sites with material directly dated to the

Mesolithic, and 2) those shown to be Neolithic or later. For the first time in this series there are no sites with

material indirectly dated to the Mesolithic or of unclear age. Within each of the chronological sections there

are three historic/geographic divisions: 1) Belgian sites discovered in the nineteenth century, 2) Belgian sites

discovered since 1960, and 3) sites in Luxembourg. In Figure 1, sites shown to be Mesolithic are in green,

those younger than Mesolithic in red. Before proceeding some topographic comments are in order.

Belgium is divided into Low, Middle and High regions, with all but one of the sites discussed here within the

last. Low Belgium, a generally flat lowland, includes the lands along the North Sea coast and northern border

with the Netherlands. The major river system, the Scheldt, rises to the southwest in France (where it is called

l’Escaut), flowing northeast until it empties into its large estuary north of Antwerp. As discussed below, the

newly discovered site of Bazel-Sluis lies in the lower Scheldt valley just south of Antwerp. To the south is

the central plateau of Middle Belgium, including the low plateaus of Hesbaye, Brabant and Hainaut. Finally,

High Belgium lies south of the northeast/southwest line of the valleys of the River Meuse and its tributary,

the Sambre, which joins from the west at Namur. This last area, sometimes referred as the Ardennes,

corresponds to the Belgian Mosan basin, a term used by some sources cited here. It includes three roughly

southwest/northeast sub-regions, each with a different geological substrate, from north to south Condroz,

Fagne-Famenne, and Ardenne (without “s”) with Belgian Lorraine in the extreme southeast. The Ardenne is

a higher wooded plateau with altitudes over 400 metres and a peak at ~700 metres. The Meuse Valley and its

steep-walled tributaries cut through the Condroz and Fagne-Famenne and it is in these valleys that the cave

sites that contain almost all the archaeological sites listed here are located. This is also the middle section of

the Meuse river system. To the south the upper section rises in the French Département of Haute-Marne,

flowing north-north-west to the French-Belgian border where it already lies in the French sector of the

Ardenne. After passing into Belgium it runs north to Namur, a distance of ~40 km, before turning east-

northeast towards Liège. North of Liège the lower section flows north into south-eastern Holland before

heading west, in parallel with the Rhine, to a joint estuary south of Rotterdam.

Luxembourg lies to the immediate southeast of Belgium, with the northern third an eastern extension of the

Ardenne Plateau. Both sites discussed are south of this in the area known as the Gutland. The Ernz-Noire, the

river on which both sites lie, is within this zone and flows north into the Sûre, itself a tributary of the Moselle

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

14

separating Luxembourg from Germany. The Ernz-Noire valley lies in the limestone zone known as the Grès

du Luxembourg (Le Brun-Ricalens and Vallotteau 2005) an area with a strong archaeological presence.

1. Sites with directly dated Mesolithic human remains

This section is divided into three groups as defined above. Within each the sites are listed in alphabetical

order. As in previous articles the latitude and longitude locations are provided in metric terms rather than the

classical degrees, minutes and seconds.

1.1 Belgian sites discovered in the Nineteenth Century

This section discusses three sites discovered and excavated by Édouard Dupont in the mid to late 1860s, two

in the valley of the Lesse, a tributary entering the Meuse at Anseremme, ~3 km south of Dinant. These are

among the 27 sites discovered by Dupont (1872) in the Lesse Valley. The third site, Trou Al’Wesse, is ~35

km to the northeast. Of interest is that the direct dates obtained from all three sites are later than those

discussed in section 1.2.

Figure 2: excavations on the terrace Trou Al’Wesse (copyright Rebecca Miller)

Al’Wesse (Trou Al’Wesse), Liège (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave site and terrace on the right bank of the Hoyoux, a minor tributary of the

Meuse, in the municipality of and ~2 km south of the village of Modave and ~10 km south-southeast of Huy

on the Meuse; 50.43 N, 5.29 E, Figure 2.

• First excavated: By Édouard Dupont, who dug a trench in front of the cave entrance in the mid-1860s,

briefly describing the stratigraphic sequence in his 1872 publication (Dupont 1872, 131-132). His work

showed the presence of six levels. No human remains were recovered at this time.

• Later excavations: Between 1885 and 1887 Ivan Braconnier, Max Lohest and Julien Fraipont uncovered

Mousterian and Upper Palaeolithic materials (Toussaint and Pirson 2006a; see also Masy 1993) using a

tunnelling technique to open a gallery and expose multiple levels (Miller et al. 2004, 2006, 2012a). Fraipont

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

15

discovered a Neolithic collective burial (with recent/late Neolithic ceramics) in the vertical chimney at the

back of the cave system. No deposits from the chimney remain today (Masy 1993).

A number of unpublished excavations occurred from 1912 to 1970 and both Neolithic finds and

isolated human remains were recovered on the terrace and the alluvial plain. More formal excavations by the

Université de Liège and the “Chercheurs de la Wallonie” occurred between 1988 and 2001, directed by

Fernand Collin and Marcel Otte. Seventeen levels ranged from Mousterian to historical times, with the

Mesolithic recovered in levels 7, 6a and 4b.

Work was finally reopened in 2003, continuing to the present, directed by one of us (RM) and

Marcel Otte, Université de Liège, with a focus on “the chronostratigraphy of the Holocene human

occupations” (Miller et al. 2009b, 280). Pirson and Collin (2005; see also Miller et al. 2012a) provide the

fullest discussion of the stratigraphy of the recent excavations, with level 4b further divided into four facies

(“lentilles”) identified as alpha through delta (4b-, 4b-, 4b- and 4b-), of which alpha through gamma are

dated to the Early Mesolithic and delta to the Late/Final Mesolithic. 4b-delta has also been recently sub-

divided into 4b-delta (Late Mesolithic) and 4b-LaH (Final Mesolithic).

• Number of individuals: Mesolithic: at least three; in 1997 several teeth and fragments of human bone

were recovered from the site terrace (Toussaint 2002a). The piece dated from 1997 (OxA-10561; see below)

is a fragment of maxilla (“fragment crânien” of Toussaint 2002a, table 1) (Miller et al. 2012a; see also Miller

et al. 2009b). It is unclear if the maxilla and teeth were associated. In 2005 a deciduous (milk) incisor was

recovered from level 4b-, the level dated by Beta-224153 on charred hazelnut shell (see below), two to three

millennia earlier than the dated maxilla. The location indicates that it is not related to the 1997 material. In

2010 three refit fragments of a right mandible and two molar teeth (right mandibular M1 and M2) were

recovered in level ACOF, underlying level AC directly below level 4b-, possibly eroded from level 7a

(Miller et al. 2010).

Neolithic: ~10; Fraipont (1897, 342; free translation) mentioned the discovery “of at least ten human

skeletons”. Collin et al. (1994; see also Masy 1993) indicate nine mandibles or mandibular fragments, two

maxillae and additional cranial fragments in the collections in Liège. Masy (1993) also provides information

on postcrania and gives a total of 156 bones, congruent with Fraipont (1897). More recently (spring 2011),

further remains from this work were recovered in the departmental archives at Liège including postcranial

material.

• Primary description of human remains: Mesolithic: beyond brief mention (see above) the 1997 and 2005

material is not described. The 2010 material is pictured and partially described by Miller et al. (2010). The

material is currently under study.

Neolithic: Fraipont (1897) described the collective burial, Masy (1993) the material known prior to recent

work, providing an inventory, partial analysis, and full description of the mandibular material. A Master's

thesis (Ernotte 2012) examines this material (including the 2011 finds) as well as some other Neolithic

burials excavated by Fraipont in the nineteenth century.

• Direct dates on human bone: Mesolithic: One; a date for material recovered in 1997 (Toussaint 2002a;

Miller et al. 2008, 2009b, 2012a); from level 4, though not more closely assigned. An attempt to date the

mandibular fragment from level ACOF (Miller et al. 2010) has been unsuccessful. It is as yet unclear

whether it is associated with level 4b or 7a.

Neolithic: Two; dates recently obtained on two individuals (possibly male and female) from the collective

chimney burial indicate an age at the end of the Late Neolithic (Miller et al. 2012b).

• Other dates known: Mesolithic: The Mesolithic sequence is seen in dates on charred hazelnut shell and

mammal bone (Miller et al. 2008, 2009b, 2010, 2012a). Early Mesolithic dates in level 4b range from 9000 ±

40 (Beta-209871) in facies to 9240 ± 40 BP (Beta-224152) in facies , followed by an occupational hiatus

of over two millennia (Miller et al. 2009b). Above this, dates on bone and burnt bone for the later Mesolithic

in levels 4b and 4a (Collin 1989; Otte et al. 1998; Miller et al. 2009a, 2010), range from 6650 ± 70 (Lv-1751)

to 6910 ± 40 BP (Beta-251057), both in level 4b, facies . The dated human bone is from this level. Above

this a date on bone is level 5a, 5950 ± 70 (Lv-1752), is consistent with the late Mesolithic/early Neolithic

border (Collin 1989; Miller et al. 2012a).

Neolithic and later: A Middle Neolithic presence in level 4a is seen in two dates on bone and tooth, 4810 ±

40 (Beta-224151) and 5045 ± 45 BP (OxA-7633/Lyon-592) (Otte et al. 1998; Miller et al. 2009b, 2012a). A

further two dates show recent disturbance; the most recent may indicate the presence of a medieval layer

inside the cave (absent on the terrace).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

16

Middle and Upper Palaeolithic: Seven dates on bone, ivory and mammal bone from basal levels are from

Mousterian, Aurignacian and late Upper Palaeolithic levels (Otte et al. 1998, 2001; Miller et al. 2007, 2012a)

and beyond the context of this paper.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The site contains dated Mesolithic and Neolithic material. It is seen as unique

in Belgium in its stratified sequence with multiple early and late Mesolithic occupations in levels 4b and 5a

(Miller et al. 2009b, 2012a). Mesolithic human remains from 1997 lack stratigraphic context, their age

determined by direct 14C dating. The 2005 and 2010 material is in clear stratigraphic context between levels

4b- and 7a, the former dated, the latter not. By extrapolation a direct date of ~7000 BP is probable. Of

interest is whether the remains, especially from 2010, represent disturbed material from an as yet

undiscovered burial, presumably in level 7a, or whether they fall into the general area of loose human bones

(see Meiklejohn and Babb 2009).

Ongoing debate concerns the placement of La Hoguette ceramic sherds in level 4b-, associated with

Beta-251057 (6910 ± 40 BP; 5740-5840 calBC at 1 sigma). We see the interpretation of the

chronostratigraphy of the La Hoguette sherds as still open to debate with further analyses in progress (more

dates, geological interpretation of the stratigraphic context, etc.). If the ~6900 BP date is reliable, then the

sherds are unrelated to the Early Neolithic material in stratum 4a, although we now think that it is more

likely to be a reworked sample. Stratigraphic analysis so far shows the possibility of a layer between 4a

(Early Neolithic) and 4b- (Late Neolithic) that would contain the La Hoguette sherds. This may be an

occupation separate from both the underlying Late Mesolithic and overlying Early Neolithic. Work is

underway (paper for Antiquity) to present new dates and geological results, and proposes an interpretation of

the La Hoguette presence at Trou Al’Wesse.

Date (BP) Number Bone (if known) 13C 15N cal. BP cal. BC

4450 ± 30 Beta-319270 5th left metatarsal --- --- 4980-5260 3030-3310

4560 ± 30 Beta-319269 5th left metatarsal --- --- 5080-5310 3130-3360

6540 ± 45 OxA-10561 Cranial fragment --- --- 7420-7490 5470-5540

Chaleux (Trou de Chaleux), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave site on the right bank of the Lesse in the municipality of Houyet, ~1 km

west-southwest of the village of Furfooz, ~5 km southeast of Dinant, and ~3 km southeast of where the Lesse

enters the Meuse; 50.22 N, 4.94 E.

• First excavated: By Édouard Dupont in 1865.

• Later excavations: Reviews of the stratigraphy were made by Edouard Rahir (1900 to 1902) and François

Twiesselmann (from 1945 onwards). The most recent work is by Marcel Otte from 1985 to 1988 (Otte 1994;

Otte and Teheux 1986; Teheux 1985).

• Number of individuals: Upper Palaeolithic and/or Mesolithic: Twiesselmann (1971a) refers to material

from two adults, represented by a fragmentary parietal and postcranial remains, including four scapulae.

Though Twiesselmann referred the material to the Magdalenian further work makes this less clear (see

below).

Neolithic: not known.

• Primary description of human remains: Otte (1994, 21; free translation) refers to the discovery of human

remains as follows: “some were discovered at the base of the site, where the Magdalenian level was not

sealed by the second rubble level. The other bones were found in one of the widenings of the main room. In

the same crevice, in 1902, E. Rahir discovered Neolithic material”. The material referred to as Magdalenian

by Twiesselmann (1971a) was mentioned by Beneden et al. (1865) and described by Dupont (1867b). None

of it has been restudied. Aside from mention by Otte the Neolithic material has not apparently been

described.

• Direct dates on human bone: One, element not stated, shows that at least some of Dupont’s material is

Mesolithic (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2002).

• Other dates known: Nine, from Oxford and Louvain on faunal material, confirm the homogeneity of the

Late Magdalenian occupation, spanning ~650 years from 12370 ± 170 (Lv-1568) to 12990 ± 140 BP (Lv-

1569) (all the OxA dates fit within this period). The Louvain dates are on bone splinters from the Dupont and

Otte excavations (Otte and Teheux 1986; see also Gilot 1994; Charles 1996; Lanting and van der Plicht

1995/96; Stevens et al. 2009). The Oxford dates, on pig, horse and musk ox bone, all show cutmarks and

presence of humans at the time of deposition (Hedges et al. 1993, 1994; see also Charles and Baden-Powell

1994; Charles 1996; Housley et al. 1997; Sano et al. 2011; Stevens et al. 2009). A date on pig bone,

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

17

designed to see if pigs were present in the late glacial, shows the find to be intrusive (3060 ± 85 BP; OxA-

4193).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Originally thought to be from Magdalenian levels of this site, recent dating

shows that at least some human material is of Mesolithic age. Otte (1994) clearly indicates that material

assumed to be Magdalenian was recovered from two locations, but also notes (ibid, 21; free translation) that

“their attribution to the Magdalenian is uncertain”. The relationship of the date to the age of this part of the

skeletal collection is unclear, and Toussaint (2010) indicates that the context, including stratigraphic

placement, is unknown. The dating to the Mesolithic of material excavated by Dupont in the 1860s provides

the context for the discussion of the majority of the sites in section 2.1 (below; all except La Martina).


8730 ± 80 OxA-5679 not known -19.9 --- 9560-9880 7610-7930

Magrite (Trou Magrite), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave site on the right bank of the Lesse in the municipality of Dinant, ~2 km

south-southeast of the town of Anseremme and 4 km south of Dinant; 50.22 N, 4.91 E.

• First excavated: By Édouard Dupont from 1864 to 1867, at which time human remains were recovered

(Dupont 1867a; Twiesselmann 1971a; Di Modica 2009a).

• Later excavations: In 1991 and 1992 by Marcel Otte and Lawrence Straus (Otte and Straus 1995).

• Number of individuals: Total: Six; Dupont collected bones identified as from three adults, an adolescent

and two children (Twiesselmann 1971a). Twiesselmann’s inventory differs slightly from that present at the

Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique (Leguebe and Orban 1984).

Mesolithic: One or more; from the nineteenth century excavations (Toussaint 2002a). Only the dated piece is

securely assigned at this time since the relationship to the remaining collection is unclear (Toussaint 2002a),

especially since Twiesselmann (1971a) lists no clavicle, the bone used to obtain an AMS date (see below).

• Primary description of human remains: Mentioned by Dupont (1867a) and tabulated by Dupont (1872)

but not described other than in inventory form (Twiesselmann 1971a; Leguebe and Orban 1984).

• Direct dates on human bone: One, showing that the single piece is Mesolithic (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2002).

• Other dates known: Mesolithic: None.

Upper Palaeolithic: Fifteen dates from Aurignacian levels show a wide range and highlight issues of

contamination in early samples (Noiret et al. 1994; Otte and Straus 1995; Otte et al. 2001; Bronk Ramsey et

al. 2002; Charles et al. 2003; Di Modica 2009a).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The new date shows that some of Dupont’s human material is Mesolithic in

age. However, Toussaint (2010) indicates that the context of the dated find, including stratigraphy, is

unknown. As a result it is premature to state that the date applies to the full collection.


8645 ± 70 OxA-5841 IG 2426 – clavicle -20.5 --- 9540-9680 7590-7730

1.2 Belgian sites discovered since 1960

Eight of nine sites in this section result from work begun in 1962 at Malonne. The first clear demonstration

of a Mesolithic age for a Meuse burial site occurred in 1984 with the dating of Loverval (published in 1995).

The other Meuse sites were then sequentially dated between 1984 and 2002. Léotard et al. (1999b) point out

that much of the Meuse work was due to the efforts of the rock climber and speleologist Philippe Lacroix

(employed as professional technician at the “Direction de l’Archéologie” of the Walloon Region), known as

“Bibiche”. In general there were very few associated artefacts with the burials. Of these sites, as of mid 2014,

the only ones with detailed anthropological analyses are Malonne and Autours. The ninth site is the recently

discovered Bazel-Sluis, with a loose human bone recovered in 2011.

Autours (Abri des Autours), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave site near top of limestone cliff on the right (east) bank of the Meuse in

the Rochers de Freyr massif in the municipality of Dinant, ~2 km south-west of Anseremme and ~4 km

south-southwest of the city of Dinant; 50.22 N, 4.89 E.

• First excavated: By Nicolas Cauwe in 1992 and 1993. Unpublished excavations had occurred earlier

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

18

(Cauwe 1993; Cauwe et al. 1992).

• Later excavations: None known.

• Number of individuals: At least 22 in three burial features, two Mesolithic, the third Neolithic.

Mesolithic: 13; a collective burial (AA2) with at least six adults and six children, a primary burial in a pit

with enclosing walls and minimal grave goods. One of the six adults is cremated. A further single burial

(AA3) lacks grave goods (Cauwe 2001; Polet and Cauwe 2002, 2007).

Neolithic: 9+; a Middle Neolithic (Michelsberg) collective burial (AA1) with grave goods and at least three

adults and six children (one female individual accounts for ~70 percent of the remains).

• Primary description of human remains: Polet and Cauwe (2007) provide descriptions and inventory,

with Polet et al. (2004) and Polet and Dutour (2007) describing the palaeopathology. Summaries of the

collection include reviews by Cauwe (2001) and Polet and Cauwe (2002).

• Direct dates on human bone: Three; one from each of the features (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2002; Cauwe

1995; Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98, 1999/2000). Bocherens et al. (2007) provide a further eight stable

carbon and nitrogen isotope values, including the 15N figures given below.

• Other dates known: None.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: This site is only ~800 metres north of Margaux (see below). With multiple

individuals from two Mesolithic features (the Neolithic feature is not discussed further), Cauwe (2001)

stresses the incompleteness of the remains, not in anatomical connection, and taphonomic issues (see also

Jones 2011; Straus and Otte 1999). Associated material was limited to a small number of flint blades and a

considerable amount of burnt animal bone. The cremated individual in collective burial AA2 is the earliest

dated Mesolithic example (Meiklejohn and Babb 2009).

Date (BP) Number Burial (if known) 13C 15N cal. BP cal. BC

5300 ± 55 OxA-5837 AA1 -21.0 10.1 6000-6180 4050-4230

9090 ± 140 OxA-5838 AA2/2 -19.5 9.5 9940-10480 7990-8540

9500 ± 75 OxA-4917 AA3 -20.2 9.2 10660-11070 8710-9120

Figure 3: Dinant Rochers Freyr (image courtesy of Marc Ryckaert)

Bazel-Sluis (Kruibeke), Oost-Vlaanderen (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Open air wetland site on the west bank of the River Scheldt just below the

mouth of the Rupel, ~2 km southeast of the village of Bazel and ~10-15 km south of Antwerp; 51.14 N, 4.32

E.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

19

• First excavated: In 2011 and 2012 by the Archaeological Heritage Agency (Onroerend Erfgoed) and

Ghent University, Department of Archaeology, following the construction of a lock and adjacent levees

along the river Scheldt.

• Later excavations: None.

• Number of individuals: One; an isolated adult clavicle recovered in 2011.

• Primary description of human remains: The material has not been described.

• Direct dates on human bone: One; personal communication from the excavators.

• Other dates known: Twenty-seven dates on animal bone and antler (25) and carbonized plant remains (2)

are available; the total range lies between ~6200 and ~3700 calBC. Initial dates were published by Perdaen et

al. (2011).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The full context of this find, beyond the direct date, has not yet been published.

Philippe Crombé (pers. comm.) indicates that “(i)t is not yet established whether the human bone is related to

the Swifterbant Culture. The site … is a large palimpsest of occupations starting in the Middle Mesolithic

and ending probably in the Middle Neolithic (4th mill calBC). However the 14C age of the human bone does

not exclude a link with the Swifterbant Culture.”


5790±35 KIA-47328 Clavicle -22.0 9.9 6550-6650 4600-4700

Figure 4: Excavations at Bazel-Sluis (image courtesy of Philipe Crombé)

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

20

Figure 5: Excavations at Bois Laiterie (image courtesy of Philippe Lacroix) and human bones from the site

(image courtesy of Lawrence Straus). The talus was dated.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

21

Bois Laiterie, Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave in karst topography on the Sept Meuses Hill and left bank of the Meuse,

overlooking the Burnot, a minor tributary (ruisseau) in the municipality of Profondeville, <1 km northwest of

the village of Rivière and 1.5 km south of Profondeville; 50.36 N, 4.87 E.

• First excavated: Discovered by Philippe Lacroix in 1989, who dug six small trenches in 1990-91 (the site

had previously been illegally dug). In 1994 and 1995 Marcel Otte, Université de Liège, and Lawrence Straus,

University of New Mexico directed a full excavation.


• Number of individuals: Six; four adults, a juvenile and a child (Toussaint 2002a, 2010; Vandenbruaene

and Gautier 1997; see also Toussaint et al. 1998b); there are four overlapping but slightly disparate

summaries of the material, lifted en bloc and excavated in the laboratory; finds were scattered and

identification of individuals problematic. The preliminary inventory is extremely incomplete (no crania are

mentioned), because the material was still en bloc (Vandenbruaene and Gautier 1997; see also discussion in

López Bayón et al. 1996) prior to its excavation in the laboratory (Toussaint et al. 1998b); the final inventory

has not been published.

• Primary description of human remains: None; Vandenbruaene and Gautier (1997) provide a brief but

incomplete inventory plus details of context (see comment above). Toussaint (2002a; Toussaint et al. 1998b)

provides context but neither description nor inventory.

• Direct dates on human bone: Four from the early Mesolithic (Krueger 1997; Toussaint 2002a; Bocherens

et al. 2007). Bocherens et al. (2007) provide alternate isotope values for the bones dated by Oxford but do

not tie them to the individual dates (13C ranges from -20.3 to -20.6; 15N from 8.9 to 9.4).

• Other dates known: Mesolithic: none.

Upper Palaeolithic: Three from the primary Magdalenian occupation range from 12625 ± 117 (GX-20433)

to 12665 ± 96 BP (GX-20434) (Otte et al. 2001; Sano et al. 2011).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Use of the site as a Mesolithic burial cave follows a lower Magdalenian

occupation; the excavation was directed at the Magdalenian of Belgium and recolonization of northern

Europe after the late glacial maximum (Straus and Otte 1998; see Montet-White 1999; Straus 2006; Sano et

al. 2011). Site use for human burial overlying a primary occupation also occurs at other sites, including Abri

du Pape (Straus 2006; see also Straus and Otte 1999) (section 2.2). Initially the human remains, in a breccia

including ceramics and lacking Mesolithic artifacts, were viewed as Neolithic. A Mesolithic age was later

demonstrated by direct dating. Homogeneity of the 14C dates precludes the possibility that some skeletal

material is of Neolithic age, as had been suggested by Otte and Straus (1997). The remains of this collective

burial are roughly coeval with those at Autours and Malonne (it is not technically an ossuary since some

bones were in anatomical connection; López Bayón et al. 1996).


9235 ± 85 GX-21380G talus (square V9) -20.5 8.3 10280-10500 8340-8550

9420 ± 65 OxA-8911 left humerus -19.7 --- 10560-10720 8610-8770

9445 ± 60 OxA-8878 left humerus -19.9 --- 10580-10740 8630-8790

9515 ± 65 OxA-8910 left humerus -19.4 --- 10600-11060 8650-9110

Burin (Faille du Burin), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Small cave site at the base of cliffs beneath the medieval Château de Samson

at Samson on the Meuse in the municipality of Andenne, ~5 km west-southwest of Andenne itself and ~8 km

east of Namur; 50.47 N, 5.00 E.

• First excavated: In 1989 by Philippe Lacroix; speleologists from Namur had previously explored the site.


• Number of individuals: Six+?; at least four adults and two children (Toussaint 2002a).

• Primary description of human remains: None.

• Direct dates on human bone: Four, published by Toussaint (2002a; Toussaint and Lacroix 2002).

Bocherens et al. (2007) provide additional 13C and 15N values though not linked to the 14C dates (13C

ranges from -20.1 to -21.0, 15N from 9.4 to 10.4). While all of the dated elements are left naviculars, the

Bocherens stable isotope values are from right metatarsal V.


• Diagnosis and Discussion: This collective burial contains only one cultural element, a backed bladelet

(Toussaint 2011).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

22


9315 ± 50 OxA-10564 Left navicular -20.0 --- 10430-10580 8480-8640




Claminforge (Sambreville), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Small cave site on the right bank of the Bième, a tributary of the Sambre in

the municipality of Sambreville, ~1 km south of the village of Falisolle and ~4 km south of Sambreville

itself; 50.41 N, 4.62 E.

• First excavated: In 1988 by the Centre Spéléologique de la Basse Sambre, directed by Pierre Bodart and

André-Marie Lacour; the site had been partially disturbed by a quarry.

• Later excavations: By one of us (MT) in 1995.

• Number of individuals: Five; three adults and two children discovered in 1988.

• Primary description of human remains: None; Toussaint et al. (1996) provide a brief but precise

inventory (see also Toussaint et al. 2002a).

• Direct dates on human bone: Two, provided by Toussaint et al. (1996; Toussaint 2002a; Lanting and van

der Plicht 1997/98; Bocherens et al. 2007 incorrectly cite the older date as OxA-1055).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: The individuals in this burial cave lacked associated artefacts and were

assumed to be Neolithic. Direct dating shows them to be contemporaneous with Autours, Bois Laiterie,

Lombeau and Malonne.


9320 ± 75 OxA-5451 Cervical vertebra -19.4 10.5 10410-10650 8460-8700

9525 ± 60 OxA-10552 3rd

metacarpal -19.4 --- 10710-11070 8760-9120

Lombeau (Grotte Lombeau), Hainaut (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave site on right bank of the Eau d’Heure, a tributary of the Sambre, at

Mont-sur-Marchienne, a suburb of the City of Charleroi; ~3 km south-southwest of the centre of Charleroi;

50.38 N, 4.39 E.

• First excavated: By amateur archaeologist Georges Dubuis in the 1990s.


• Number of individuals: Mesolithic: At least five?; Toussaint (1999a; 2002a) indicates recovery of several

hundred bones, largely from an area of 1m2 at the back of the cave.

Neolithic: At least one; recovered from the anterior of the deposit in the area impacted by construction.


• Direct dates on human bone: Mesolithic: Three (Toussaint and Ramon 1997; Lanting and van der Plicht

1997/98; Toussaint 1999a, 2002a); the 13C values are from the same individuals but on different bones, L1

and L2 on adult crania, L3 on a juvenile mandible (Bocherens et al. 2007).

Neolithic: One; (Toussaint 2002a).

• Other dates known: One; a date of 15190 ± 110 (OxA-6443) on reindeer bone indicates Upper

Palaeolithic use of the site (Toussaint 1999a, 2002a).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Identified as a burial cave (Toussaint 1999a; see also Straus and Otte 1999).

Toussaint (2002a) notes presence of ochre on the Mesolithic burials (also seen at Bois Laiterie and Margaux).

The Mesolithic remains are equivalent in age to finds at Autours, Bois Laiterie and Malonne.


4500 ± 60 OxA-6446 3rd

metatarsal --- --- 5060-5290 3110-3340

9015 ± 80 OxA-6445 L3/5th metatarsal -20.6 10.1 9940-10250 7990-8300



MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

23

Loverval D5, Hainaut (Province)

• Nature and location of site: A cave or “diaclase” (fissure) in the rock on the right side of the stream, the

Fond des Haies, ~2 km south-southwest of Loverval in the municipality of Gerpinnes and ~5 km south-

southeast of Charleroi (close to the Sarrasins cave); 50.36 N, 4.46 W.

• First excavated: In 1983 by amateur archaeologists Georges and Jacqueline Dubuis (Toussaint 1997,

2002a).


• Number of individuals: Two; both apparently female (Toussaint 1997, 2002a).


• Direct dates on human bone: Two; Toussaint (1995) (see also Cauwe 1995; Toussaint and Ramon 1997;

Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98; Toussaint 2002a; Bocherens et al. 2007). Stable isotope values

published by Bocherens et al. (2007) are not explicitly tied to the 14C dates.

• Other dates known: None known.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: In 1984 this was the first burial cave in the Meuse Basin dated to the

Mesolithic (see also above) (Toussaint 1995, 1997; Toussaint and Ramon 1997; Straus and Otte 1999; see

also Toussaint 2002a).

Some sources have incorrectly referred to this site as the Grotte de Sarrasins (Cauwe 1996; Jadin and

Carpentier 1994; Miller et al. 2011; 2012a), a name referring to a nearby site without Mesolithic human

remains.


9090 ± 100 Lv-1506 Not stated -20.5 9.3 10170-10410 8220-8460

9640 ± 100 GifA-94536 Not stated -20.5 9.3 10790-11180 8840-9230

Malonne (Petit Ri), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Remains of cave site in an abandoned quarry in the valley of the Landoir, a

small tributary of the Sambre, within the municipal boundary of the city of Namur, ~1.5 km south of the

village of Malonne and ~5 km southwest of the centre of Namur. 50.43 N; 4.80 E.

• First excavated: Discovered by Michel Carpentier in 1962; a human skull and postcranial bones were

recovered. The site was further examined by the amateur archaeologists Louis Éloy, Pierre Renier and Guy

Bastin, the remains transferred to the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences where they have been

studied since 1965. Eloy and Jean-Marie Cordy did further laboratory analyses of the archaeological and

faunal materials but no excavation.


• Number of individuals: Four; a cranium and postcranial remains of four individuals (MNI based on

number of fibulae) (Twiesselmann and Orban 1994). The site may have contained more individuals; when

discovered it was partly destroyed by quarrying (Jadin and Carpentier 1994).

• Primary description of human remains: By Twiesselmann and Orban (1994): there is brief mention of

the finds in Twiesselmann (1979).

• Direct dates on human bone: One; from a femur (Jadin and Carpentier 1994; Hedges et al. 1996). An

attempt to date the cranium was not successful. The stable isotope results are from Bocherens et al. (2007) (a

13C result of -19.5 was published by Hedges et al. 1996).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Prior to work published in 1994 (Cordy 1994; Éloy and Jadin 1994; Jadin and

Carpentier 1994; Twiesselmann and Orban 1994) the material had only been mentioned three times

(Meiklejohn 1974; Twiesselmann 1979; Awoust and Thiry 1984), the first of these based on information that

the material was probably Mesolithic (F. Twiesselmann, pers. comm. to CM, 1969). However, Twiesselmann

(1971a) did not include the site and, with no further details available, it was not mentioned by Newell et al.

(1979). Prior to direct dating an accurate age assessment was not possible from the limited archaeological

material (Éloy and Jadin 1994) and sparse fauna (Cordy 1994).


9270 ± 90 OxA-5042 Femur -20.4 9.5 10300-10560 8350-8620

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

24

Margaux (Grotte Margaux), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Deep limestone cave at the top of the dry Ravin du Colébi on the Meuse right

(east) bank, ~800 metres south of Autours within the municipality of Dinant, ~3 km south of Anseremme,

and ~5 km south-southwest of Dinant. 50.22 N; 4.89 E.

• First excavated: Discovered in 1988 by Philippe Lacroix and Jean-Marc Léotard, Service de l’Archéologie

du Ministère de la Région Wallonne; excavated in 1988 and 1989 by Nicolas Cauwe and the Université de

Liège (Cauwe 1989) with one of us (MT) as palaeoanthropologist.

• Later excavations: Not known.

• Number of individuals: Mesolithic: Seven to ten (MNI: for technique see Toussaint 1998); fragmentation

makes diagnosis problematic. Toussaint (2011) provides a total bone number of 667; earlier sources provided

varying and overlapping numbers (Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98; Toussaint 1998; Cauwe 2001;

Bocherens et al. 2007). The degree of fragmentation is seen in both the overall bone scatter (Cauwe 1998; fig

39) and individual scatter plots of different bone groups (ibid; figs 41-50).

Post-Mesolithic (?): one (see diagnosis and discussion).

• Primary description of human remains: Not fully described, though considerable attention has been paid

to burial taphonomy (Cauwe 2001). Toussaint’s (1998) initial study includes age and sex assessment (all

apparently adult female), stature, palaeopathology and cut-marks on cranium CR3 (see also Cauwe 2001;

Toussaint 2011).

• Direct dates on human bone: Six; from three laboratories (Hedges et al. 1995, 1996; see also Cauwe 1988,

1989, 1995, 1998, 2001; Cauwe and Toussaint 1993; Gilot 1993, 1997; Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98;

Straus et al. 1993; Verhart 2008). The youngest date, from Louvain-la-Neuve (Lv) on rib fragments from

several individuals, is possibly too young given the Gif and Oxford results. The two 13C values are from

the Oxford laboratory and differ in average from those provided by Bocherens et al. (2007), who also give

15N values. Values from the latter source are linked to neither 14C dates nor individuals.

• Other dates known: None known.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Discovered as part of work designed to locate late Upper Palaeolithic sites

(Cauwe 1998), it was identified as a Mesolithic burial cave. It is ~50 metres deep, the burials placed at the

deepest part of the cave in an apparently homogeneous deposit on top of a stalagmitic layer dated to the early

Würm and before (Cauwe 1998, 2001). The remains are almost definitely secondary and associated with red

ochre, the only recovered artifact a backed bladelet (lamelle à dos) from the top of the burial. On discovery

comparisons were with Neolithic (Michelsberg) cairn burials (ibid) as no material of this type was known to

be Mesolithic. Though the 14C dates could suggest a burial deposit conducted in phases, this was not

detected archaeologically (Cauwe 2001). The burial is a “small pit partly surrounded by a dry-stone wall and

pavement” (ibid, 149) with the cairn apparently of human construction rather than natural (Cauwe 1998, 46-

7).

The site plan in Cauwe (1998) suggests that there was also an undated individual burial in the porch,

under the rock overhang. Cauwe (2001, 149) provides the same diagram but does not discuss the burial.

Cauwe (1998, 24-25) indicates that although identifiable as a child or young adolescent the remains were in

very poor condition, with only ~200 grams of material recovered and much of the apparent skeleton a

“phantom”. Overlying deposits were disturbed and material recovered, including proto-historic pottery,

cannot be associated with the burial. Without a direct date the age is unknown.

Date (BP) Number Bone(s) (if known) 13C 15N cal. BP cal. BC

9190 ± 100 Lv-1709 Rib fragments --- --- 10240-10490 8300-8540

9260 ± 120 GifA-92362 Right humerus/HM8 --- --- 10280-10570 8330-8620

9350 ± 120 OxA-3534 2 metacarpals/MC115 & 117 -19.4 --- 10310-10730 8360-8780

9530 ± 120 OxA-3533 Right humerus/HM10 -19.5 --- 10690-11090 8740-9140



MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

25

Figure 6: Grotte Margaux (image courtesy of Lawrence Straus)

1.3 Luxembourg sites

This section discusses a single site discovered in 1935, one of four found within 2.5 km of the valley of the

Ernz-Noire (see also section 2.3), which flows into the Sûre (Sauer), in turn a tributary of the Mosel

separating Luxembourg from Germany in its lower course. Not discussed in “Oakley” (Twiesselmann 1971b)

it was included by Newell et al. (1979), though misplaced (identical coordinates were provided for both

Loschbour and Atsebach, section 2.3, with the latitude given only ~3 km south of the correct location, but

with a longitude of 11.9 E, ~350 km to the east near the Czech-German border).

(Abri de) Loschbour (Heffingen-Loschbour), Reuland Commune (Luxembourg)

• Nature and location of site: Rock shelter at the foot of cliffs lining the Müllerthal in the valley of the Ernz

Noire, ~3 km southeast of Heffingen and 15 km north-northeast of the City of Luxembourg; 49.76 N, 6.28 E.

• First excavated: By Nicolas Thill and Charles Weber in 1935, assisted by Marcel Heuertz, when both

burials were recovered. Further work was done the following year “in the talus at the foot of the cliff-face”

(Heuertz 1950, 411; free translation) (see also Gob 1982).

• Later excavations: In 1981 André Gob, the Université de Liège and the Société Préhistorique

Luxembourgeoise checked the site stratigraphy, with palaeoenvironmental work conducted in 2003 (Brou

2006; Gob 1982; Toussaint et al. 2009). No remains survived of the 1935 archaeological levels (Gob 1982;

Brou 2006).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

26

• Number of individuals: Two; a largely complete skeleton and a cremation grave. The skeleton has

received considerable attention. Heuertz (1950) and Rozoy (1978) briefly mentioned the cremation (“a

fireplace (‘foyer’) with remains of calcined and indeterminate human and animal bones”; Heuertz 1950, 413;

free translation) but it was otherwise unknown until reworking of the site after 1998 (Brou 2006; Brou et al.

2008; Toussaint et al. 2009).

• Primary description of human remains: Inhumation: described by Heuertz (1950). Delsate et al. (2009,

2011) report new work, including aDNA haplotyping (see also Le Brun-Ricalens et al. 2005).

Cremation: described by Toussaint et al. (2009, 2011a), associated perforated shells of the Eocene genus

Bayania by Brou et al. (2008) (see also Le Brun-Ricalens et al. 2005; Brou 2006).

• Direct dates on human bone: Two; one from the inhumation (Higham et al. 2007), one from the

cremation (Toussaint et al. 2009). The date from the inhumation (OxA-7338) is in general agreement with

GrN-7177 (see next section). Toussaint et al. (2009) incorrectly cite the date from the inhumation as OxA-

7738 in their figure 13.2, though correctly in the text.

• Other dates known: Two (Gilot 1984, 1997; see also Gob 1982, Brou 2006); one on bone (aurochs)

possibly associated with the inhumation (7115 ± 45 BP; GrN-7177) the other on charcoal from travertine

below the archaeological levels (9400 ± 280 BP; Lv-1293).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Named for the small stream (‘ruisseau”) immediately northeast of the rock face

backing the site. Heuertz (1950) described the original excavation and provided the section given by Newell

et al. (1979; see also Heuertz 1969). Other than for the skeletal material little archival evidence survives for

the 1935 work (Brou 2006). Direct dating shows the inhumation to be ~750 years younger than the cremation,

associated with a pure Late Mesolithic industry. The cremation is attributed to the RMS (Rhine-Meuse-

Schelde) “culture” (Gob 1984; see also Brou et al. 2008; Toussaint et al. 2009). Association of the cremation

with both the RMS and the Eocene (Lutetian) fossil shell Bayania lactea links the find with cremations at

Oirschot (Netherlands) and La Chaussée-Tirancourt (northern France) (Brou et al. 2008).


7205 ± 50 OxA-7338 Skull (MNHN-1943-2065) -20.0 --- 7960-8140 6010-6190

7960 ± 40 Beta-132067 Patella from cremation -24.8 --- 8750-8980 6800-7030

Figure 7: the rockshelter at Loschbour (images courtesy of Domi Delsate)

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

27

Figure 8: Loschbour site plan (image courtesy of Laurent Brou)

2. Sites with human remains excluded from the Mesolithic by direct dating

This section looks at sites with human remains now excluded from consideration as Mesolithic, with similar

division as in section 1.

2.1 Belgian sites discovered in the Nineteenth Century

This section is divided into two parts. The shorter initial part has a single site; one that was once suggested to

have Mesolithic human remains. The second includes four sites not referred to previously as Mesolithic but

with a key relationship to Chaleux (section 1.1), their excavation and publication by Édouard Dupont (see

also introduction to 2.1.2 below).

2.1.1 Nineteenth Century site with material initially referred to the Mesolithic

Martina (Grotte de la Martina), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave site above the flood plain on the right bank of the Lesse between the

villages of Walzin and Pont-à-Lesse in the municipality of Dinant, 2-3 km southeast of Anseremme and 1-2

km south of where the Lesse joins the Meuse; 50.22 N, 4.92 E.

• First excavated: By Édouard Dupont in 1867; human and faunal material was recovered without cultural

association (Toussaint and Ramon 1997; see also Dupont 1872).

• Later excavations: By Maria Gilbert-Louis and M.A. Gilbert in 1949, who also recovered human and

faunal material without cultural association (Toussaint and Ramon 1997) other than a single pottery sherd

(Dewez et al. 1995). Minimal records exist prior to donation of the collection to the Université Catholique de

Louvain in 1991 (Dewez et al. 1995; Toussaint and Ramon 1997).

• Number of individuals: Five?; at least three adults and two children. Dupont recovered two adult

mandibles and two partial humeri. A further 23 pieces were recovered in 1949 (Dewez et al. 1995). The two

collections are contemporaneous, suggested by the very close resemblance between humerus fragments from

1949 and 1867. Based on clavicles at least four individuals are present, two adults and two children. In

addition neither mandible from 1867 belongs to calvarium CR1 from 1949, indicating presence of at least

three adults.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

28

• Primary description of human remains: Toussaint and Ramon (1997) provide an inventory from both

excavations. Dupont’s material, assumed to be Neolithic, was included in Hué’s bibliographic study (1937;

see Toussaint and Ramon 1997, Dewez et al. 1995). Dewez et al. (1995) briefly describe the 1949 material,

still in process of being removed from stalagmitic encrustation.

• Direct dates on human bone: Mesolithic: When the 1949 material was inventoried a direct date suggested

a Mesolithic age (Gilot 1997), though later than Loverval and Margaux (see further below) (Dewez et al.

1995; see also Toussaint 2002a who suggests possible carbonate contamination).

Neolithic: Work on the Gilbert-Louis collection noted that differing elements in the faunal material

suggested a complex site taphonomy. Despite the fact that the human material was not accurately associated

with any faunal subsamples a Mesolithic age was suggested (Dewez et al. 1995). In re-examining the full

collection Toussaint and Ramon (1997) dated the four clavicles, and thereby four different individuals, plus a

tibia, all suggesting a Late Neolithic age. The samples also covered material of differing preservation,

equivalent to the earlier noted faunal differences. Toussaint (2002a) also sees femur FM6, apparently

Mesolithic in age, as from the same individual as calvarium CR1, dated to the Neolithic.


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Examination of all sources suggests that this is a Late Neolithic burial cave,

consistent with Hué’s (1937) conclusion that Dupont’s material was Neolithic. Diagnosis as Mesolithic, in

the absence of associated cultural material, is based solely on the Louvain radiocarbon date (Dewez et al.

1995; see also Jadin and Carpentier 1994). Toussaint and Ramon (1997) suggest that Lv-2001 may have

been contaminated with older carbonates, the piece being encrusted in calcite. Cauwe’s (1998) comment

about the unclear relationship of the 1867 and 1949 pieces was written prior to the work of Toussaint and

Ramon (1997; see also Toussaint 2002a). In conclusion, Toussaint (2010, 75; free translation) argues that

“allocation to the late Mesolithic of a small series of bones collected in 1949 at the Grotte de la Martina,

suggested on the basis of a single date (Dewez et al. 1995), is undermined with six other dates from two

different laboratories (Toussaint and Ramon 1997)”.


3940 ± 50 Beta-110769 Tibia Lma TB1 --- --- 4300-4500 2350-2550

4330 ± 55 OxA-6560 Clavicle Lma CLV2 --- --- 4850-4960 2900-3010

4340 ± 55 OxA-6590 Calvarium Lma CR1 --- --- 4850-4960 2900-3010




7440 ± 110 Lv-2001 Femur Lma FM6 --- --- 8170-8380 6220-6430

2.1.2 Nineteenth Century sites excavated by Dupont

Discussion of the following four sites may be seen as marginal since none have been referred to in the

literature as Mesolithic (Twiesselmann 1971a; Newell et al. 1979). However, we feel that a discussion is

advisable for two reasons.

The first relates to the dating of bone from Chaleux to the Mesolithic (see section 1.1). This was unexpected

and raised several lines of enquiry. Chaleux, and other sites excavated by Édouard Dupont between 1864 and

1872, and Schmerling in the 1830s, had material accepted as possibly of Upper Palaeolithic age by

Twiesselmann (1971a). Demonstration that material from one of the sites was Mesolithic raised the question

of the age of material from the other sites. Subsequent dating has, in fact, failed to verify that any of the

material is from the Upper Palaeolithic.

The second reason arises from the first. If none of the material is Upper Palaeolithic, what is its age? Does

the dating at Chaleux raise the possibility that there is other Mesolithic material from the sites excavated by

Dupont? Though not demonstrated to date, this base suggests that the Dupont material is of interest for

further dating. We also note that the unexpected discovery of Mesolithic burial caves in the Meuse Valley

opens the possibility that Mesolithic material exists in those sites not excavated by Dupont but listed

elsewhere (Toussaint 2007; see also Toussaint 2002a, Bocherens et al. 2007). To list and discuss all of these

sites at this point is beyond the possible scope of this article or journal, but is obviously an area that deserves

exploration.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

29

This discussion is limited to the material referred to as Upper Palaeolithic by Twiesselmann (1971a). As a

result one further early site with material now dated in part to the Neolithic is excluded, Spy (Betche-aux-

Rotches). In this case the age of material from the Middle Palaeolithic, identified as Neanderthal, has been

confirmed by direct dating (Toussaint and Pirson 2006b, Semal et al. 2009, Pirson et al. 2012; see also

Jungels 2009). However, the material dated as Neolithic, Spy 4, was excavated by Twiesselmann in the

1950s. Other material dated as late is from what appears to be a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age collective

tomb (Semal et al. 2009). We also do not discuss the other sites inventoried by Twiesselmann (1971a) where

the material is confirmed as Neanderthal (Fond-de-Forêt, La Naulette). Discussions in the section below are

more limited than those in section 1.

Engis (Second Cave/Trou Caheur/Grotte de Schmerling), Liège (Province)

• Nature and location of site: One of four caves on a small tributary of the Meuse Valley, ~1 km northeast

of the Pont d’Engis in the municipality of Flémalle, ~1 km south of the village of Awirs and ~11 km west-

southwest of Liège; 50.58 N, 5.40 E.

• First excavated: By Schmerling in 1829 and 1830.

• Later excavations: By Dupont in 1872, Julien Fraipont in 1885, and several in the 20th century, including

the Chercheurs de la Wallonie (Toussaint and Pirson 2006b).

• Number of individuals: Four?; a child and two adults recovered in 1829 or 1830, an additional ulna in

1872.

• Primary description of human remains: Engis 1 (adult calotte) and 2 (child’s calvarium, maxilla and

teeth) initially described by Schmerling (1833; numbering as in Twiesselmann 1971a). Restudy by Fraipont

(1936) emphasized Engis 2. There is also a study of Engis 1 by Gabriel de Mortillet (1882), and a review by

Twiesselmann (1947).

• Direct dates on human bone: Neolithic: two; both from the same fragment of Engis 1, showing that the

calotte is Neolithic (Hedges et al. 1996; Toussaint 2001, 2002a; Bocherens et al. 2007).

Middle Palaeolithic: two; both from the Engis 2 calvarium (identified as Neandertal), 26820 ± 340 (OxA-

8827) and 30460 ± 210 (GrA-21545) (Toussaint and Pirson 2006b; Toussaint et al. 2011b).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Twiesselmann (1971a, 6) described Engis 1, Engis 3 (adult cranial and

postcranial fragments) and Engis 4 (isolated ulna) together as a unit, as “Aurignacian burial into Mousterian

level. C. Fraipont 1936”, using the singular tense for burial. Whether this means that he thought that the three

belonged to a single individual, the literal meaning of the phrase, or as all attributed to the Aurignacian, is

unclear. After discovery of the three pieces de Mortillet (1882) had called them Robenhausien (Neolithic).

Prior to direct dating the materials were seen as Gravettian in age, following Otte (Spencer 1997; Leguebe

and Orban 1984). If Engis 1, 3 and 4 are in fact linked then all three are probably of Neolithic age. Note that

Twiesselmann’s comment (1971a, 6) that the cave is “now destroyed” is incorrect. The destroyed cave is the

“First Cave”.

Engis 2 (child’s skeleton) was identified as Neanderthal by Fraipont (1936; confirmed by Tillier

1983 and verified by mtDNA analysis; Serre et al. 2004). Its dating is clearly too young, probably because it

was varnished in the nineteenth century.


4590 ± 80 OxA-746 Engis 1 – frag calotte --- --- 5060-5460 3110-3510

4920 ± 50 Beta-154814 Engis 1 – frag calotte -21.2 --- 5600-5700 3650-3750

Frontal (Trou de Frontal/Furfooz), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave site on the right bank of the Lesse, ~1 km south-southeast of the

Chaleux site in the municipality of Dinant, ~1.5 km south of Furfooz and ~6 km southeast of the confluence

of the Lesse and the Meuse in Anseremme; 50.21 N, 4.96 E.

• First excavated: By Édouard Dupont in 1864 and 1865 (Beneden and Dupont 1865; see Charles 1996).

• Later excavations: By Edouard Rahir from around 1900 to 1902 and Jean-Marc Léotard and Nicolas

Cauwe in 1986 (Léotard and Cauwe 1986).

• Number of individuals: Sixteen? (see below); recovered by Dupont.

• Primary description of human remains: Reported by Beneden et al. (1865) and Dupont (1867b, 1872).

There is no full publication of the remains.

• Direct dates on human bone: Two; from the Neolithic (Hedges et al. 1994; Charles 1996; Toussaint and

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

30

Becker 1994; Toussaint and Ramon 1997).

• Other dates known: three; on fauna confirming Upper Palaeolithic use of the site (Gilot 1984; Léotard

1993; Hedges et al. 1994; Charles 1996), ranging from 10720 ± 120 (Lv-1135) to 13130 ± 170 BP (Lv-1750).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: This well-known Magdalenian site (de Sonneville-Bordes 1961; Dewez 1987)

contains a late glacial fauna (Germonpré et al. 2009; van Neer et al. 2007). The human bones from this and

other sites in the Lesse Valley led to identification of “Furfooz Man”, an Upper Palaeolithic “race” parallel

to Cro-Magnon and Grimaldi, among others (e.g. John Lubbock, Arthur Keith, Armand de Quatrefages). The

number of finds is unclear. Twiesselmann (1971a, 8-9) lists “two well preserved crania with mandibles in

yellow clays”, but it is also clear that more material was recovered. Boyd Dawkins (1874, 236) mentions

“sixteen human skeletons”; also stating that there were two skulls, but that “(t)he human remains were mixed

pêle mêle with stones and yellow clay within the chamber” (ibid, 238). For Dupont, Trou de Frontal was a

Magdalenian burial. However, some nineteenth century workers, including de Mortillet (1882) disagreed and

thought that they were Neolithic (see also Engis above). In this context Twiesselmann (1971a; 9) reported a

largely recent nitrogen level (4.98%; analysis apparently by K.P. Oakley), indicating that the finds were “not

of great antiquity”. From this base the two 14C dates clarify that the human bones from Trou de Frontal are

Neolithic.

Date (BP) Number Bone(s) (if known) 13C 15N cal. BP cal. BC

4430 ± 80 OxA-4196 Tibia – number not known -20.1 --- 4880-5270 2930-3320

4430 ± 30 GrN-10179 Rib frags – number not known --- --- 4900-5220 2960-3270

Goyet, Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave complex in the valley of the Samson, a Meuse tributary in the

municipality of Gesves, ~3 km south of the confluence of the Samson and the Meuse, and ~10 km east-

southeast of Namur; 50.44 N, 5.01 E.

• First excavated: By Dupont from ca 1868 to 1870 (Germonpré 2001; Di Modica 2009b).

• Later excavations: Numerous (see Toussaint 2002a, 2005b; Toussaint et al. 1998a; Di Modica 2009b);

“amateurs” between 1914 and 1953, plus work by professionals such as A. de Loë (1907 to 1909), F.

Twiesselmann (1937-1938) and, most recently, Michel Toussaint (1997 to 2004).

• Number of individuals: Nineteenth century: Unknown; three adult mandibles, a fragment of parietal and

two isolated teeth by Dupont in 1868 (Twiesselmann 1971a). However, other bones found by Dupont were

not recognized as human during his excavation; some are Neanderthal and not discussed here further

(Rougier et al. 2009).

Twentieth century: Many, NMI not yet clear; amongst the bones found are a human radius modified into a

point recovered during construction work between 1935 and 1945 (Toussaint 2005a) and a Neolithic child’s

burial discovered in 1998 (Toussaint et al. 2004; Toussaint 2005b).

• Primary description of human remains: Nineteenth century: By Hamy (1873; see also Dupont 1872 and

Walkhoff 1903).

Twentieth century: The human radius is described by Toussaint (2005a), the child’s burial by Toussaint et al.

(2004; Toussaint 2005b).

• Direct dates on human bone: Four; two each for the Iron Age and Neolithic. The youngest Iron Age date

is on material excavated by Dupont (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2002; see also Warmenbol 2007), the older on the

modified radius. The Neolithic dates are for the child discovered in 1998 (Toussaint et al. 2004; Toussaint

2005b), and from the Abri supérieur, date given by Toussaint (2002b) but not discussed.

• Other dates known: Eighteen dates from four laboratories confirm the Upper Palaeolithic nature of much

of the deposit, though with mixture between levels and Holocene admixture in upper levels (Toussaint et al.

1998a; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2002; Stevens et al. 2009 see also Germonpré 1997, 2001, Germonpré and

Hämäläinen 2007, Dalén et al. 2007; Sano et al. 2011). The full date range is from 10640 ± 50 (KIA-13550)

to 38770 +1180/-1030 BP (GrA-9605).

Diagnosis and Discussion: Though Twiesselmann (1971a) attributed Dupont’s material to the Middle

Magdalenian, direct dating suggests that most of it is from the Neolithic, Iron Age or Roman Iron Age,

though some Neanderthal bones and teeth excavated by E. Dupont around 1870 have recently been found in

the storerooms of the Belgian Royal Institute of Natural Sciences (Rougier et al. 2009). Neither human

material nor lithics have been identified from the Mesolithic.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

31


1985 ± 70 OxA-5678 Roman Iron Age -19.1 --- 1860-2030 AD 90-80 BC

2420 ± 40 OxA-8875 Iron Age radius -19.1 --- 2360-2670 410-720

4410 ± 50 Beta-124825 Neolithic child --- --- 4870-5210 2920-3260

5345 ± 50 OxA-10534 Neolithic --- --- 6010-6200 4060-4250

Reuviau, Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Cave site on right bank of the Lesse in the municipality of the city of Dinant,

~1 km south-southwest of Furfooz and ~6 km from the confluence of the Lesse and the Meuse; 50.22 N, 4.96

E.

• First excavated: By Dupont in 1865.


• Number of individuals: Two; cranial and postcranial material, mostly fragmentary.

• Primary description of human remains: Twiesselmann (1971a) lists cranial and postcranial material.

Dupont (1867b) provided a partial inventory, a humerus and a parietal (see also Leguebe and Orban 1984).

There has been no apparent restudy.

• Direct dates on human bone: One; see Bronk Ramsey et al. (2002).

• Other dates known: None

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Identified as Magdalenian by Twiesselmann (1971a), a Middle Neolithic

(Michelsberg) intrusion is confirmed by direct dating, suggested earlier by Rahir (1920).


5025 ± 65 OxA-5677 Burial 2 – I.G.2585-14 -20.2 --- 5670-5690 3720-3940

2.2 Belgian sites discovered since 1960

The single site discussed here is included due to its study parallel to the sites discussed in section 1.2. It was

introduced within the umbrella of both Mesolithic and Neolithic sites, and discussed within this context (see

e.g. Straus and Otte 1999).

Pape (Abri du Pape), Namur (Province)

• Nature and location of site: Small rock shelter at the base of the Rochers de Freyr, bordering the right

bank of the Meuse south of Autours and north of Margaux in the municipality of Dinant, ~2 km south of the

confluence of the Lesse and the Meuse in Anseremme and ~4 km south-southwest of Dinant; 50.22 N, 4.89

E.

• First excavated: Discovered in 1988 by Philippe Lacroix who dug a test-pit (Léotard 1989). In 1989 and

1990 Jean-Marc Léotard and Marcel Otte dug upper levels for the Service de Préhistoire, Université de Liège

and S.O.S. Fouilles, extended in 1992 by Lacroix. The initial work excavated Neolithic and younger levels.

• Later excavations: In 1993 and 1994 Lawrence Straus, in a combined excavation by the Université de

Liège and the University of New Mexico (Léotard et al. 1999a), excavated the remnant of the upper

Neolithic levels along with the Mesolithic below. Stratigraphically, levels 20 to 23 at the base were

Mesolithic, above sterile layers 24 to 26. Level 18 was the base of the Neolithic system (Straus 1999).

• Number of individuals: Six?; Toussaint (1999b) provides an MNI of three adults and three children but

notes that the remains are fragmentary and scattered in the stratigraphy.

• Primary description of human remains: By Toussaint (1999b) as a single unit (refitting was possible of

bones recovered from different “units” of the excavation), including a full inventory (286 bones and teeth

were recovered including 43 isolated teeth). Masy and Toussaint (1999; Toussaint and Masy 1998) discuss

the palaeopathology.

• Direct dates on human bone: One, a conventional date showing a Neolithic age (Léotard 1989; Gilot

1997; Cauwe et al. 2000; Toussaint 2002a).

• Other dates known: Six (Noiret et al. 1994; Straus 1999; Toussaint 1999b); charcoal from the lowest

apparent level with human remains, dated to 4450 ± 360 (GX-20206), is associated with Michelsberg-

associated ceramics and lithics. Four further dates on charcoal from Mesolithic levels 20 through 22 range

from 7843 ± 85 (GX-19365) to 8817 ± 85 BP (GX-19366).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Straus et al. (1993) initially indicated that a “few human remains” were found

in Mesolithic level 20, though probably from the directly dated Neolithic intrusion in level 18 (Léotard 1989).

The material recovered in 1988 was from levels V through VII, while that recovered in later work was from

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

32

equivalent levels 11 to 15. Level 18, in which the majority of the material appears to have been found was

later shown to be from disturbed higher levels (Toussaint 1999b). Disturbance in this level is also seen in the

presence of intrusive faunal material, including rabbit.


4190 ± 60 Lv-1747 Not known --- --- 4630-4840 2680-2890

2.3 Luxembourg sites

A single site is discussed here. As with Loschbour (section 1.3) it is not included in Twiesselmann (1971b),

but listed by Newell et al. (1979) as “age and affinities” not demonstrated.

Atsebach, Reuland Commune (Luxembourg)

• Nature and location of site: Series of four rock-shelters in the valley of the Ernz-Noire, <1 km southwest

of Loschbour (see above), northeast of the village of Reuland and 15 km north-northeast of the City of

Luxembourg; 49.76 N, 6.27 E.

• First excavated: By Nicolas Thill in 1936 who recovered the skeletal remains.


• Number of individuals: Four+?; Heuertz (1969) is cryptic on numbering and location of the finds with

more explicit information provided by Spier (1993). An adult cranium, Ats1, was recovered from the terrace

in front of shelter A1 and interpreted as Mesolithic (Heuertz et al. 1959), while an adult skeleton, Ats2, is

from where shelters 2 and 3 intersect. Heuertz also indicates recovery of two subadult calvaria, an 11 year

old and a 13 year old, together with “fragments of long bones” (Heuertz 1969, 194; free translation). Spier

(1993) mentions only the fragmented material. Neither mentions the source of the latter material.

• Primary description of human remains: The material was partially described by Heuertz (1969); in more

detail by Heuertz et al. (1959).

• Direct dates on human bone: One; on Ats1, published by Spier (1993; see also Hedges et al. 1995). The

calibration does not include a marine correction offset (see introduction). Correction, using a Delta R of -46

± 60, produces a 1-sigma calibration of 5570-5740 calBP, approximately a century later than the figure

below. An attempt to date Ats2 was not successful (ibid).

• Other dates known: None

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Newell et al. (1979) concluded that the mixture of Mesolithic and Neolithic

materials in a uniform gravel deposit made clear association of skeletal material and archaeological levels

impossible. For Spier (1993) Ats1 is clearly Neolithic, Ats2 and the remaining material Ats2 and the

remaining materials are undated.


5010 ± 80 OxA-3579 Cranial fragment A1, 1945-1 -17.3 --- 5660-5890 3710-3940

Acknowledgements

This paper could not have been written without the assistance of many colleagues and we trust that no one

who assisted us is missing from the following list. We would like to thank Weldon Hiebert, Department of

Geography, University of Winnipeg, for the map. Colleagues made completion of this paper possible in

many ways, providing papers, monographs and images, and answering questions of detail. We would

especially like to thank Philippe Crombé (Universiteit Gent) for details, including the date, of the newly

recovered material at Bazel-Sluis, and for a critical reading of the full text. In alphabetical sequence we also

thank Luc Amkreutz (Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden), Laurent Brou (Musée National d'Histoire et

d’Art de Luxembourg), Dominique Delsate (Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle de Luxembourg), Mietje

Germonpré (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique), Philippe Masy (Liège, M.D.), Marcel

Niekus (Groningen), Pierre Noiret (Université de Liège), Rhiannon Stevens (Cambridge University),

Lawrence Straus (University of New Mexico), and Eugène Warmenbol (Université Libre de Bruxelles). We

thank you all unreservedly for your collegiality, and trust that there are neither errors of fact nor

interpretation. Any errors in the paper are entirely ours.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

33

References

Amkreutz, L., Vanmontfort, B., De Bie, M. & Verbeek, C. (2010) Bowls of contention. Mesolithic sites with

pottery in the Lower Rhine area. In B. Vanmontfort, L. Louwe Kooijmans, L. Amkreutz & L. Verhart (eds.) Pots,

farmers and foragers: pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine area,

15-26. Leiden University Press, Leiden.

Awoust, M. & Thiry, G. (1984) Malonne, Pays de Liège. Cercle Histoire et Archéologie de Malonne, Malonne.

Beneden, P.J. van & Dupont, E. (1865) Sur les ossements humains du Trou de Frontal. Bulletin de l'Académie

Royale Belgique, Classe des Sciences 19, 15-29.

Beneden, P.J. van, Hauzeur, N. & Dupont, E. (1865) Sur les fouilles de Chaleux. Bulletin de l'Académie Royale

Belgique, Classe des Sciences 20, 54-60.

Bocherens, H., Polet, C. & Toussaint, M. (2007) Palaeodiet of Mesolithic and Neolithic populations of Meuse

Basin (Belgium): evidence from stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(1), 10-27.

Bogucki, P. (1999) Recent research on early farming in Central Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 28, 85-97.

Boyd Dawkins, W. (1874) Cave Hunting: researches on the evidence of caves respecting the early inhabitants of

Europe. MacMillan, London.

Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T.F.G., Owen, D.C., Pike, A.W.G. & Hedges, R.E.M. (2002) Radiocarbon dates from

the Oxford AMS system: archaeometry datelist 31. Archaeometry 44(3) Supplement 1, 1-149.

Brou, L. (2006) Heffingen-Loschbour (G.-D. de Luxembourg) n° site MNHAL: HLO-2003-110. Sondages

programmés. Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art (MNHA), Luxembourg.

Brou, L., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. & López Bayón, I. (2008) Exceptionnelle découverte de parures mésolithiques en

coquillage fossile sur le site d’Heffingen-“Loschbour”. Empreintes, Annuaire National d’Histoire et d’Art 1, 12-19.

Cauwe, N. (1988) La sépulture collective de la grotte Margaux à Freyr (Province de Namur), rapport préliminaire.

Notae Praehistoricae 8, 103-108.

Cauwe, N. (1989) Recherches archéologiques et paléontologiques à la Grotte Margaux (Namur, Dinant). Notae

Praehistoricae 9, 23.

Cauwe, N. (1993) De l'individuel au collectif: les sépultures de l'abri des Autours à Dinant (Namur). Notae

Praehistoricae 13, 101-107.

Cauwe, N. (1995) Chronologie des sépultures de l'abri des Autours à Anseremme-Dinant. Notae Praehistoricae 15,

51-60.

Cauwe, N. (1996) Les sépultures collectives dans le temps et l'espace. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française

93(3), 342-352.

Cauwe, N. (1998) La Grotte Margaux à Anseremme-Dinant: étude d’une sépulture collective du Mésolithique

ancien. ERAUL 59, Liège.

Cauwe, N. (2001) Skeletons in motion, ancestors in action: early Mesolithic collective tombs in Southern Belgium.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11(2), 147-163.

Cauwe, N. & Toussaint, M. (1993) La sépulture collective de la grotte Margaux. L’Archéologie en Région

Wallonne 1, 17-20.

Cauwe, N., Polet, C. & Orban, R. (2000) Nouvelles datations d'ensembles funéraires du Néolithique moyen du sud

de la Belgique. Internéo 3, 29-35.

Cauwe, N., Steenhoudt, F. & Bosquet, D. (1992) Deux sépultures collectives dans un abri-sous-roche de Freyr:

pérennité d'un site funéraire du Mésolithique au Néolithique moyen-récent). Notae Praehistoricae 12, 101-107.

Charles, R. (1996) Back into the north: the radiocarbon evidence for the human recolonisation of the north-western

Ardennes after the Last Glacial Maximum. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 1-17.

Charles, R. & Baden-Powell, D. (1994) Accelerator mass spectrometry dates from the Trou de Chaleux. In M. Otte

(ed.) Le Magdalénien du Trou de Chaleux (Hulsonniaux – Belgique), 169-172. ERAUL 60, Liège.

Charles, R., Hedges, R.E.M. & Jadin, I. (2003) Aurignacian point, butchery remains and radiocarbon accelerator

dates from the Trou Magrite at Pont-à-Lesse (Commune of Dinant, Province of Namur, Belgium). Anthropologica

et Præhistorica 114, 81-84.

Collin, F. (1989) Trou Al’Wesse (Petit-Modave): fouilles 1989. Notae Praehistoricae 9, 25-26.

Collin, F., Masy, P. & Tinant, M. (1994) La grotte du Trou Al’Wesse (Province de Liège): fouilles et découvertes

de 1993. Notae Praehistoricae 13, 21-23.

Constantin, C., Ilett, M. & Burnez-Lanotte, L. (2010) La Hoguette, Limburg and the Mesolithic: some questions. In

B. Vanmontfort, L. Louwe Kooijmans, L. Amkreutz & L. Verhart (eds.) Pots, farmers and foragers: pottery

traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine area, 27-39. Leiden University Press,

Leiden.

Cordy, J.-M. (1994) Étude de la faune de la grotte du Petit Ri à Malonne. Anthropologie et Préhistoire 105, 87-91.

Crombé, P. (2009) Early pottery in hunter-gatherer societies of Western Europe. In P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil (eds.)

Ceramics before farming: the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers, 477-498. Left

Coast Press, Walnut Creek (CA).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

34

Dalén, L., Nyström, V., Valdiosera, C., Germonpré, M., Sablin, M., Turner, E., Angerbjörn, A., Arsuaga, J.L. &

Götherström, A. (2007) Ancient DNA reveals lack of postglacial habitat tracking in the arctic fox. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences 104(16), 6726–6729.

Delsate, D., Guinet, J.-M. & Saverwyns, S. (2009) De l’ocre sur le crâne mésolithique (haplogroupe U5a) de

Reuland-Loschbour (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise 31, 7-

30.

Delsate, D., Brou, L. & Spier, F. (2011) L’inhumation mésolithique de Loschbour (Loschbour 1) – résultats des

analyses récentes. In Sous nos pieds/Unter unseren Füßen: Archäologie in Luxemburg - Archéologie au

Luxembourg - 1995-2010, 138-142. Musée national d'histoire et d'art, Luxembourg.

de Mortillet, G. (1882) Le crâne d’Engis. Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris Sér. 3, 5, 22-28.

Dewez, M. (1987) Le Paléolithique supérieur récent dans les grottes de Belgique. Publications d’histoire de l’art et

d’archéologie de l’Université Louvain 57, Louvain-la-Neuve.

Dewez, M., Cordy, J.-M., Gilot, E. & Groessens-van Dyck, M.-C. (1995) La Grotte de la Martina (Dinant,

Belgique) et sa sépulture mésolithique. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris Ser IIA, 321(7), 639-

641.

Di Modica, K. (2009a) Le Trou Magrite à Walzin. In K. Di Modica & C. Jungels (eds.) Le Paléolithique Moyen en

Wallonie: la collection Louis Éloy, 145-158. Service du Patrimoine Culturel, Brussels.

Di Modica, K. (2009b) Les grottes de la terrasse de Goyet. In K. Di Modica & C. Jungels (eds.) Le Paléolithique

Moyen en Wallonie: la collection Louis Éloy, 159-172. Service du Patrimoine Culturel, Brussels.

Dupont, E. (1867a) Découverte d’objets gravés et sculptés dans le Trou Magrite à Pont-à-Lesse. Bulletin de

l'Académie Royale des Sciences, Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique 2e series, 24, 129-132.

Dupont, E. (1867b) Étude sur l'ethnographie de l'homme de l'Age du Renne dans les cavernes de la vallée de la

Lesse, ses caractères; sa race; son industrie; ses moeurs. Mémoires Couronnes et autres Mémoires publiés par

l'Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique: Collection in 8 19, 1-76.

Dupont, E. (1872) Les temps préhistoriques en Belgique: l'homme pendant les âges de la pierre dans les environs

de Dinant-sur-Meuse. Muquardt, Brussels.

Éloy, L. & Jadin, I. (1994) L’industrie lithique du Petit Ri à Malonne (Namur, Belgique). Anthropologie et

Préhistoire 105, 83-86.

Ernotte, I. (2012) L'analyse paléoanthropologique des restes humains néolithiques provenant des fouilles

d'Édouard Dupont: Trou Al'Wesse, Abri Sandron, Mont-Falize et Chauveau. Unpublished Master's thesis,

Université de Liège.

Fraipont, C. (1936) Les hommes fossiles d’Engis. Archives de l'Institut de Paléontologie humaine 16.

Fraipont, J. (1897) Les Néolithiques de la Meuse (type de Furfooz). Bulletin de la Société d'Anthropologie de

Bruxelles 16, 311-391.

Germonpré, M. (1997) The Magdalenian upper horizon of Goyet and the late Upper Palaeolithic recolonisation of

the Belgian Ardennes. Bulletin de L’lnstitut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique (Sciences de la Terre) 67,

167–182.

Germonpré, M. (2001) A reconstruction of the spatial distribution of the faunal remains from Goyet, Belgium.

Notae Praehistoricae 21, 57–65.

Germonpré, M. & Hämäläinen, R. (2007) Fossil bear bones in the Belgian Upper Palaeolithic: the possibility of a

proto-bear ceremonialism. Arctic Anthropology 44(1), 1–30.

Germonpré, M., Sablin, M.V., Stevens, R.E., Hedges, R.E.M., Hofreiter, M., Stiller, M. & Despré, V.R. (2009)

Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and

stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(2), 473–490.

Gilot, E. (1984) Datations radiométriques. In D. Cahen & P. Haesaerts (eds.) Peuples chasseurs de la Belgique

Préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel, 115-125. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels.

Gilot, E. (1993) La présence humaine au tardiglaciaire en Belgique et dans les régions limitrophes au regard des

dates 14

C. In M. Toussaint, A. Becker, M. Burhenne, J.-M. Cordy, E. Gilot, J. Heim & E. Juvigné (eds.) Le Trou

Jadot à Comblain-au-Pont (Province de Liège, Belgique). Paléoécologie et archéologie d'un site du Paléolithique

supérieur récent, 31-37. ERAUL 58, Liège.

Gilot, E. (1994) Datations C14. In M. Otte (ed.) Le Magdalénien du Trou de Chaleux (Hulsonniaux – Belgique),

169. ERAUL 60, Liège.

Gilot E. (1997) Index général des dates Lv. Laboratoire du carbone 14 de Louvain/Louvain-la-Neuve. Studia

Praehistorica Belgica 7, 1-223.

Gob, A. (1982) L’occupation Mésolithique de l’abri du Loschbour près de Reuland (G.D. de Luxembourg). In A.

Gob & F. Spier (eds.) Le Mésolithique entre Rhin et Meuse, 91-117. Société Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise,

Luxembourg.

Gob, A. (1984) Les industries microlithiques dans la partie sud de la Belgique. In D. Cahen & P. Haesaerts (eds.)

Peuples chasseurs de la Belgique Préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel, 195-210. Institut Royal des Sciences

Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

35

Hamy, E.T (1873) Sur quelques ossements humains découverts dans la troisième caverne de Goyet, près de

Namèche (Belgique). Bulletin de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris Sér. 2, 8, 425-435.

Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk Ramsey, C. & van Klinken, G.J. (1993) Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford

AMS system: archaeometry datelist 16. Archaeometry 35(1), 147-167.





Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Pettitt, P.B., Bronk Ramsey, C. & van Klinken, G.J. (1996) Radiocarbon dates

from the Oxford AMS system: archaeometry datelist 21. Archaeometry 38(1), 181-207.

Heuertz, M. (1950) Le gisement préhistorique no. 1 (Loschbour) de la vallée de l'Ernz-Noire (G.-D. de

Luxembourg). Archives de l'Institut Grand-Ducal de Luxembourg, Section des Sciences Naturelles, Physiques et

Mathématiques n.s. 19, 409-441.

Heuertz, M. (1969) Documents préhistoriques du territoire luxembourgeois. Le milieu naturel, l’homme et son

oeuvre. Musée d’Histoire Naturelle et de la Société des Naturalistes Luxembourgeois, Luxembourg.

Heuertz, M., Thill, N. & Baudet, J.-L. (1959) Les gisements préhistoriques no. II (Atsebach), no. III (Schléd) et no.

IV (Immendelt) de la vallée de l'Ernz-Noire (G.-D. de Luxembourg). Archives de l'Institut Grand-Ducal de

Luxembourg, Section des Sciences Naturelles, Physiques et Mathématiques n.s. 26, 257-309.

Higham, T.F.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Brock, F., Baker, D. & Ditchfield, P. (2007) Radiocarbon dates from the

Oxford AMS system: archaeometry datelist 32. Archaeometry 49(S1), 1-60.

Housley, R.A., Gamble, C.S., Street, M. & Pettitt, P. (1997) Radiocarbon evidence for the late glacial human

recolonisation of northern Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 25-54.

Hué, É. (1937) Crânes paléolithiques. Congrès Préhistorique de France, XIIe session, Toulouse-Foix 1936, 113-

295.

Jadin, I. & Carpentier, M. (1994) La sépulture mésolithique du Petit Ri à Malonne (Namur, Belgique). Contexte

archéologique et position chronologique. Anthropologie et Préhistoire 105, 65-82.

Jeunesse, C. (1987) La céramique de la Hoguette. Un nouvel “élément non-rubané” du néolithique ancien de

l‘Europe du Nord-Ouest. Cahiers Alsaciens d’Archéologie, d’Art et d’Histoire 30, 3-33.

Jones, A.G. (2011) Dealing with the dead: manipulation of the body in the mortuary practices of Mesolithic North

West Europe. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester.

Jungels, C. (2009) La grotte de la Bètche aux Rotches à Spy. In K. Di Modica & C. Jungels (eds.) Paléolithique

moyen en Wallonie: La collection Louis Éloy. Service du Patrimoine culturel de la Communauté française de

Belgique: Bruxelles, 188-202.

Krueger, H.W. (1997) Radiocarbon dating and isotopic analysis of the human remains. In M. Otte & L.G. Straus

(eds.) La Grotte du Bois Laiterie, 365-367. ERAUL 80, Liège.

Lanting, J.N. & van der Plicht, J. (1995/96) De 14

C-chronologie van de Nederlandse Pre- en Protohistorie. 1: Laat-

Paleolithicum. Palaeohistoria 37/38, 71-125.


C-chronologie van de Nederlandse Pre- en Protohistorie. II:

Mesolithicum. Palaeohistoria 39/40, 99-162.


C-chronologie van de Nederlandse Pre- en Protohistorie. III:

Neolithicum. Palaeohistoria 41/42, 1-110.

Le Brun-Ricalens, F. & Valotteau, F. (2005) Patrimoine archéologique et Grès de Luxembourg: un potentiel

exceptionnel méconnu. Ferrantia 44, 77-82.

Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Brou, L. & Valotteau, F. (2005) Les sépultures mésolithiques de ‘Loschbour’. In F. Le Brun-

Ricalens, L. Brou, F. Valotteau, J. Metzler & C. Gaen, Préhistoire et Protohistoire au Luxembourg, 80-83. Musée

national d’histoire et d’art, Luxembourg.

Leguebe, A. & Orban, R. (1984) Paléontologie humaine. In D. Cahen & P. Haesaerts (eds.) Peuples chasseurs de la

Belgique Préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel, 87-100. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique,

Brussels.

Léotard J.-M. (1989) Occupations préhistoriques à l'Abri du Pape (Roches de Freyr - Dinant). Notae Praehistoricae

9, 27-28.

Léotard, J.-M. (1993) Tourisme magdalénien dans la région dinantaise. Notae Praehistoricae 12, 63-64.

Léotard, J.-M. & Cauwe, N. (1986) Fouilles 1986 au Trou de Frontal à Furfooz. Notae Praehistoricae 6, 83-93.

Léotard, J.-M., Straus, L.G. & Otte, M., eds. (1999a) L’Abri du Pape. Bivouacs, enterrements et cachettes sur la

Haute Meuse Belge: du Mésolithique au Bas Empire Romain. ERAUL 88, Liège.

Léotard, J.-M., Straus, L.G. & Otte, M. (1999b) L’Abri du Pape (Rochers de Freyr, Falmignoul, Dinant, Namur

Province): location, background and introduction. In J.-M. Léotard, L.G. Straus & M. Otte (eds.) L’Abri du Pape.

Bivouacs, enterrements et cachettes sur la Haute Meuse Belge: du Mésolithique au Bas Empire Romain, 1-8.

ERAUL 88, Liège.

López Bayón, I., Straus, L.G., Otte, M., Gautier, A., Cordy, J.-M., Vandebruaene, M., Stutz, A., Krueger, H.W.,

Léotard, J.-M., Lacroix, P., Deville, J., Miller, R., Van Neer, W., Lozouet, P., Ancion, V., Martínez, A., Lejeune,

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

36

M., Orphal, J., Jardón Giner, P., Toussaint, M., Noiret, P. & Alaez Farreres, J. (1996) La Grotte du Bois-Laiterie,

du Magdalénien au Mésolithique: différences comportementales. Notae Praehistoricae 16, 63-74.

Masy, P. (1993) La sépulture collective néolithique du Trou Al’Wesse à Modave (Province de Liège). Bulletin des

Chercheurs de la Wallonie 33, 81-99.

Masy, P. & Toussaint, M. (1999) Paléopathologie des ossements humains néolithiques de l'Abri du Pape. In J.-M.

Léotard, L.G. Straus & M. Otte (eds.) L’Abri du Pape. Bivouacs, enterrements et cachettes sur la Haute Meuse

Belge: du Mésolithique au Bas Empire Romain, 249-265. ERAUL 88, Liège.

Meiklejohn, C. (1974) The Bio-Social basis of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic man in Western Europe.

Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.

Meiklejohn, C. & Babb, J. (2009) Issues in burial chronology in the Mesolithic of northwestern Europe. In P.

Crombé, M. Van Strydonck, J. Sergant, M. Boudin & M. Bats (eds.) Chronology and evolution within the

Mesolithic of North-West Europe, 217-238. Cambridge Scholars Press, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Meiklejohn, C. & Woodman, P.M. (2012) Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in Ireland. Mesolithic

Miscellany 22(1), 22-41.

Miller, R. & Noiret, P. (2009) Recent results for the Belgian Magdalenian. In M. Street, N. Barton & T. Terberger

(eds.) Humans, Environment and Chronology of the Late Glacial of the North European Plain, 39-53. Römisch-

Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz.

Miller, R., Zwyns, N. & Otte, M. (2004) Le site du Trou Al’Wesse (comm. de Modave): campagne de fouilles

2004. Notae Praehistoricae 24, 109-116.

Miller, R., Zwyns, N., Stewart, J., Toussaint, M. & Otte, M. (2006) Trou Al’Wesse: campagne de fouilles 2006.


Miller, R., Stewart, J. & Otte, M. (2007) Résultats préliminaires de l’étude de la séquence paléolithique au Trou

Al’Wesse (comm. de Modave). Notae Praehistoricae 27, 41-49.

Miller, R., Zwyns, N., Stewart, J. & Otte, M. (2008) Modave/Modave: interprétation de la séquence holocène du

Trou Al’Wesse. Chronique de l’Archéologie Wallonne 15, 96-98.

Miller, R., Otte, M. & Stewart, J. (2009a) Le Mésolithique récent du Trou Al’Wesse (Modave, Prov. de Liège):

découverte de tessons non rubanés ou “Bereitkeramiek”. Notae Praehistoricae 29, 5-14.

Miller, R., Stewart, J., Zwyns, N. & Otte, M. (2009b) The stratified early to late Mesolithic sequence at Trou

Al’Wesse (Modave, Belgium). In P. Crombé, M. Van Strydonck, J. Sergant, M. Boudin & M. Bats (eds.)

Chronology and Evolution within the Mesolithic of North-West Europe, 277-296. Cambridge Scholars Press,

Newcastle upon Tyne.

Miller, R., Otte, M. & Stewart, J. (2010) Nouvelles découvertes de la séquence holocène du Trou Al’Wesse:

fouilles 2010. Notae Praehistoricae 30, 35-42.

Miller, R., Stewart, J., Zwyns, N. & Noiret, P. (2011) The Mesolithic of Trou Al’Wesse cave (Belgium) in regional

context. In L. Oosterbeek & C. Fidalgo (eds.) Proceedings of the XV World Congress UISPP (Lisbon, 4-9

September 2006), 217-225. Archaeopress, Oxford, BAR S2224.

Miller, R., Zwyns, N., Otte, M., Stevens, C. & Stewart, J. (2012a) La sequence Mésolithique et néolithique du Trou

Al’Wesse (Belgique): résultats pluridisciplinaires. L’Anthropologie 116(2), 99-126.

Miller R., Stassart E., Otte M., Austin P. & Stewart J. (2012b) Interprétation chronostratigraphique de la séquence

holocène du Trou Al'Wesse à la lumière des nouvelles datations: du Mésolithique ancien au Néolithique moyen

(Modave, B). Notae Praehistoricae 32, 133-139.

Montet-White, A. (1999) Review of Straus & Otte ‘Bois Laiterie and the Magdalenian of Belgium’. Journal of

Anthropological Research 55(2), 298-300.

Newell, R.R., Constandse-Westermann, T.S., & Meiklejohn, C. (1979) The skeletal remains of Mesolithic Man in

Western Europe: an evaluative catalogue. Journal of Human Evolution 8(1), 1-228.

Noiret, P., Otte, M., Straus, L.-G., Léotard, J.-M., Martinez, A., Ancion, V., Newman, M., Lacroix, P., Gautier, A.,

Cordy, J.-M. & Haesaerts, P. (1994) Recherches paléolithiques et mésolithiques en Belgique, 1993: le Trou

Magrite, Huccorgne et l'Abri du Pape. Notae Praehistoricae 13, 45-62.

Oakley, K.P., Campbell, B.G. & Molleson, T.I., eds. (1971) Catalogue of Fossil Hominids, Part II: Europe. British

Museum (Natural History), London.

Otte, M., ed. (1994) Le Magdalénien du Trou de Chaleux (Hulsonniaux – Belgique). ERAUL 60, Liège.

Otte, M. & Straus, L.G., eds. (1995) Le Trou Magrite: fouilles 1991–1992. Résurrection d’un site classique en

Wallonie. ERAUL 69, Liège.

Otte, M. & Straus, L.G., eds. (1997) La Grotte du Bois Laiterie. Récolonisation Magdalénienne de la Belgique.

ERAUL 80, Liège.

Otte, M. & Teheux, E. (1986) Fouilles 1986 à Chaleux. Notae Praehistoricae 6, 63–77.

Otte, M., Collin, F., Miller, R. & Engesser, K. (1998) Nouvelle datations du Trou Al’Wesse dans son contexte

régional. Notae Praehistoricae 22, 141-166.

Otte, M., Noiret, P. & Miller, R. (2001) Le Paléolithique supérieur en Belgique (1996-2001). In P. Noiret (ed.) Le

Paléolithique supérieur européen. Bilan quinquennal 1996-2001, 103-116. ERAUL 97, Liège.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

37

Peeters, H. (2010) Early Swifterbant pottery from Hoge Vaart-A27 (Almere, the Netherlands). In B. Vanmontfort,

L. Louwe Kooijmans, L. Amkreutz & L. Verhart (eds.) Pots, farmers and foragers: pottery traditions and social

interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine area, 151-160. Leiden University Press, Leiden.

Perdaen, Y., Sergant, J., Meylemans, E., Storm, A., Deforce, K., Bastiaens, J., Debruyne, S., Ervynck, A., Langohr,

R., Lentacker, A., Haneca, K., Du Rang, E. & Crombé, P. (2011) Noodonderzoek van een wetland site in Bazel-

Sluis (Kruibeke, Oost-Vlaanderen, B): een nieuw kijk op de neolithisatie in Vlaanderen. Notae Praehistoricae 31,

31-45.

Pirson, S. & Collin, F. (2005) Contribution à la stratigraphie du Trou Al’Wesse à Petit-Modave (comm. de Modave,

prov. de Liège). Notae Praehistoricae 25, 39-47.

Pirson, S., Flas, D., Abrams, G., Bonjean, D., Court-Picon, M., Di Modica, K., Draily, C., Damblon, F., Haesaerts,

P., Miller, R., Rougier, H., Toussaint, M. & Semal, P. (2012) Chronostratigraphic context of the Middle to Upper

Palaeolithic transition: recent data from Belgium. Quaternary International 259, 78-94.

Polet, C. & Cauwe, N. (2002) Les squelettes mésolithiques et néolithiques de l’abri des Autours (province de

Namur, Belgique). Comptes-Rendus Palevol 1(1), 43-50.

Polet, C. & Cauwe, N. (2007) Étude anthropologique des sépultures préhistoriques de l’abri des Autours (Province

de Namur, Belgique). Anthropologica et Praehistorica 118, 71-110.

Polet, C. & Dutour, O. (2007) Étude paléopathologique des squelettes de l’abri des Autours (Province de Namur,

Belgique). Anthropologica et Praehistorica 118, 127-160.

Polet, C., Louryan, S. & Werquin, J.-P. (2004) A Mesolithic case of odontoma? Archives of Oral Biology 49(6),

501-506.

Rahir, E. (1920) L’habitat tardenoisien des grottes de Remouchamps, Chaleux et Montaigle. L’industrie

tardenoisien et son évolution en Belgique. Bulletin de la Société d'Anthropologie de Bruxelles 35, 31-89.

Raemaekers, D.C.M. & Roever, J.P. de (2010) The Swifterbant pottery tradition (5000-3400 BC). Matters of fact

and matters of interest. In B. Vanmontfort, L. Louwe Kooijmans, L. Amkreutz & L. Verhart (eds.) Pots, farmers

and foragers: pottery traditions and social interaction in the earliest Neolithic of the Lower Rhine area, 135-149.

Leiden University Press, Leiden.

Roever, J.P. de (1979) The pottery from Swifterbant – Dutch Ertebølle? Helinium 19, 13-36.

Roever, J.P. de (2004) Swifterbant-Aardewerk. Een analyse van de neolithische nederzettingen bij Swifterbant, 5e

millennium voor Christus. Barkhuis, Eelde (Groningen Archaeological Studies 2).

Rougier H., Crevecoeur I., Semal P. & Toussaint M., 2009. Des Néandertaliens dans la troisième caverne de Goyet.

In K. Di Modica & C. Jungels (eds.) La Paléolithique Moyen en Wallonie: la collection Louis Éloy, 173. Service du

Patrimoine Culturel, Brussels.

Rozoy, J.-G. (1978) Les derniers chasseurs de l’Épipaléolithique en France et en Belgique: essai de synthèse.

Société Archéologique Champenoise, Charleville-Mezières.

Sano, K., Maier, A. & Heidenreich, S.M. (2011) Bois Laiterie revisited: functional, morphological and

technological analysis of a Late Glacial hunting camp in north-western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science

38(7), 1468-1484.

Schmerling, P.-C. (1833) Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles découverts dans les cavernes de la Province de

Liège. Collardin, Liège.

Semal, P., Rougier, H., Crevecoeur, I., Jungels, C., Flas, D., Hauzeur, A., Maureille, B., Germonpré, M., Bocherens,

H., Pirson, S., Cammaert, L., De Clerck, N., Hambucken, A., Higham, T.F.G., Toussaint, M. & van der Plicht, J.

(2009) New data on the late Neandertals: direct dating of the Belgian Spy fossils. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 138(4), 421–428.

Serre, D., Langaney, A., Chech, M., Teschler-Nicola, M., Paunovic, M., Mennecier, P., Hofreiter, M., Possnert, G.

& Pääbo, S. (2004) No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans. PLoS Biology 2(3),

0313–0317.

Sonneville-Bordes, D. de (1961) Le Paléolithique supérieur en Belgique. L’Anthropologie 65(5/6), 421–443.

Spencer, F. (1997) Engis. In Spencer, F. (ed.) History of Physical Anthropology, 360-362. Garland, New York.

Spier, F. (1993) Datation radiométrique par la méthode AMS du crâne humain de l’abri Reuland-Atsebach 1.

Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise 15, 13-19.

Stevens, R.E., Germonpré, M., Peterie, C.A. & O’Connell, T.C. (2009) Palaeoenvironmental and chronological

investigations of the Magdalenian sites of Goyet Cave and Trou de Chaleux (Belgium), via stable isotope and

radiocarbon analyses of horse skeletal remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(3), 653-662.

Straus, L.G. (1999) Excavation of the basal Neolithic and Mesolithic levels at the Abri du Pape (Freyr, Dinant,

Namur Province, Belgium). In J.-M. Léotard, L.G. Straus & M. Otte (eds.) L’Abri du Pape. Bivouacs, enterrements

et cachettes sur la Haute Meuse Belge: du Mésolithique au Bas Empire Romain, 29-58. ERAUL 88, Liège.

Straus, L.G. (2006) Of stones and bones: interpreting site function in the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic of

Western Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25(4), 500–509.

Straus, L.G. & Otte, M. (1998) Bois Laiterie and the Magdalenian of Belgium. Antiquity 72(276), 253-268.

Straus, L.G. & Otte, M. (1999) Contributions au Mésolithique de la Belgique: camps et sépultures du début de

l’Holocène dans le bassin de la Meuse au Nord-ouest de l’Ardenne. In J.-M. Léotard, L.G. Straus & M. Otte (eds.)

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

38

L’Abri du Pape. Bivouacs, enterrements et cachettes sur la Haute Meuse Belge: du Mésolithique au Bas Empire

Romain, 333-349. ERAUL 88, Liège.

Straus, L.G., Gautier, A., Lacroix, P., Léotard, J.-P., Newman, M., & Otte, M. (1993) The Pope's Mesolithic:

preliminary report on 1993 excavations of the lower levels in l'Abri du Pape (Dinant, Namur Province, Belgium).

Mesolithic Miscellany 14(1/2), 2-5.

Teheux, E. (1985) Nouvelle fouille à la grotte de Chaleux. Notae Praehistoricae 5, 123–129.

Tillier, A.-M. (1983) Le crâne d’enfant d’Engis 2: un exemple de distribution des caractères juveniles, primitif et

néanderthaliens. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d’Anthropologie et de Préhistoire 94, 51-75.

Toussaint, M. (1995) Quelques aspects de la problématique des recherches paléoanthropologiques et

archéologiques dans les sépultures préhistoriques holocènes du karst mosan. Bulletin des Chercheurs de la

Wallonie, 35, 161-195.

Toussaint M. (1997) Gerpinnes, Loverval. Deux sépultures du Mésolithique ancien. In M.-H. Corbiau (ed.) Le

patrimoine archéologique de Wallonie, 149-150. Institut du Patrimoine Wallon, Namur.

Toussaint, M. (1998) Approche anthropologique des ossements humains mésolithiques anciens de la Grotte

Margaux, à Dinant. In N. Cauwe (ed.) La Grotte Margaux à Anseremme-Dinant: étude d’une sépulture collective

du Mésolithique ancien, 39-44. ERAUL 59, Liège.

Toussaint, M. (1999a) Charleroi/Mont-sur-Marchienne: contexte des datations radiocarbones des sépultures

collectives de la grotte Lombeau. Chronique de l'Archéologie Wallonne 7, 25-27.

Toussaint, M. (1999b) Approche anthropologique des ossements humains néolithiques de l’Abri de Pape (Freyr,

Dinant, Province de Namur). In J.-M Léotard, L.G. Straus & M. Otte (eds.) L’Abri du Pape. Bivouacs,

enterrements et cachettes sur la Haute Meuse Belge: du Mésolithique au Bas Empire Romain, 215-247. ERAUL 88,

Liège.

Toussaint M. (2001) Flémalle/Les Awirs: datations AMS situant au Néolithique le célèbre “crâne d’Engis”

découvert par P.-C. Schmerling au Trou Caheur. Chronique de l'Archéologie Wallonne, 9, 99-101.

Toussaint, M. (2002a) Problématique chronologique des sépultures du Mésolithique mosan en milieu karstique.


Toussaint, M. (2002b) Gesves/Mozet: un couteau protohistorique réalisé au départ d'un radius humain

protohistorique en provenance des grottes de Goyet. Chronique de l'Archéologie wallonne 10, 237-240.

Toussaint, M. (2005a) Un couteau aménagé dans un radius humain protohistorique découvert aux grottes de Goyet

(Gesves, province de Namur, Belgique). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 102(3), 625-637.

Toussaint, M. (2005b) La sépulture d’enfant néolithique des nouveaux réseaux du Trou du Moulin, à Goyet

(Gesves, province de Namur). Anthropologica et Praehistorica 116, 179-210.

Toussaint, M. (2007) Les sépultures néolithiques du bassin mosan wallon et leurs relations avec les bassins de la

Seine et du Rhin. In F. Le Brun-Ricalens, F. Valotteau & A. Hauzeur (eds.) Relations interrégionales au

Néolithique entre Bassin parisien et Bassin rhénan. Actes du 26e

colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique

Luxembourg, 8 et 9 novembre 2003, Archeologia Mosellana 7, 507-549.

Toussaint, M. (2010) Les sépultures mésolithiques du basin mosan wallon: où en est la recherche en 2010? Bulletin

des Chercheurs de la Wallonnie hors-série 2, 69-86.

Toussaint, M. (2011) Intentional cutmarks on an Early Mesolithic human calvaria from Margaux Cave (Dinant,

Belgium). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144(4), 100-107.

Toussaint, M. & Becker, A. (1994) Une sépulture du Michelsberg: Le Trou de la Heid à Comblain-au-Pont

(Province de Liège, Belgique). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique française 91(1), 77-84.

Toussaint, M. & Lacroix, P. (2002) Andenne/Thon: la Faille du Burin à Samson, une nouvelle sépulture collective

du Mésolithique ancien. Chronique de l'Archéologie Wallonne 10, 228-230.

Toussaint, M. & Masy, P. (1998) Approche anthropologique et paléopathologique des ossements humains

néolithiques de l'abri du Pape, à Dinant (province de Namur). Notae Praehistoricae 18, 185-191.

Toussaint, M. & Pirson, S. (2006a) L’exploration en galeries souterraines, une pratique méconnue de l’histoire des

fouilles préhistoriques en grottes au XIXe siècle: l’exemple de la caverne de la Naulette (Belgique). Paléo 18, 293-

312.

Toussaint, M. & Pirson, S. (2006b) Neandertal studies in Belgium: 2000-2005. Periodicum Biologorum 108(3),

373-387.

Toussaint, M. & Ramon, F. (1997) Les ossements humains présumés mésolithiques de la grotte de La Martina, à

Dinant, ne seraient-ils pas plutôt néolithiques. Notae Praehistoricae 17, 157-167.

Toussaint, M., Ramon, F. & Dewez, M. (1996) L'ossuaire Mésolithique ancien de la grotte de Claminforge à

Sambreville (prov. de Namur). Actes de la Quatrième Journée d'Archéologie Namuroise, 19-32. Ministère de la

Région Wallonne, Namur.

Toussaint, M., Becker, A. & Lacroix, P. (1998a) Recherches 1997-1998 aux grottes de Goyet, à Gesves, province

de Namur. Notae Praehistoricae 18, 33-44.

Toussaint, M., López Bayón, I., Otte, M., Straus, L.G., Léotard, J.-M., Vandenbruane, M., Gautier, A.,

Lambermont, S., Ancion, V. & Lacroix, P. (1998b) Les ossements humains du Mésolithique ancien de la grotte du

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

39

Bois Laiterie à Profondeville (province de Namur): note préliminaire. In J. Plumier & M.-H. Cordiau (eds.) Actes

de la Sixième Journée d'Archéologie Namuroise, 33-50. Ministère de la Région Wallonne, Gembloux.

Toussaint, M., Lacroix, P., Lambermont, S., Lemaire, J.-F. & Beaujean, J.-F. (2004) La sépulture d’enfant

néolithique des nouveaux réseaux du Trou du Moulin, à Goyet (Gesves, prov. de Namur): rapport préliminaire.


Toussaint, M., Brou, L., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. & Spier, F. (2009) The Mesolithic site of Heffingen-Loschbour

(Grand Duchy of Luxembourg). A yet undescribed human cremation possibly from the Rhine-Meuse-Schelde

Culture: anthropological, radiometric and archaeological implication. In P. Crombé, M. Van Strydonck, J. Sergant,

M. Boudin & M. Bats (eds.) Chronology and Evolution within the Mesolithic of North-West Europe, 239-260.

Cambridge Scholars Press, Newcastle.

Toussaint, M., Brou, L., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. & Spier, F. (2011a) Le crémation mésolithique de Loschbour

(Loschbour 2). In Sous nos pieds/Unter unseren Füßen: Archäologie in Luxemburg - Archéologie au Luxembourg -

1995-2010, 143-148. Musée national d'histoire et d'art, Luxembourg.

Toussaint, M., Semal, P. & Pirson, S. (2011b) Les Néandertaliens du bassin mosan belge: bilan 2006-2011. In M.

Toussaint, K. di Modica & S. Pirson (eds.) Le Paléolithique moyen en Belgique, 149-196. ERAUL 128, Liège.

Twiesselmann, F. (1947) Présentation des ossements humains paléolithiques de la Belgique. In La Géologie des

Terrains Récents dans l'Ouest de l'Europe, 196-207. M. Hayez, Brussels.

Twiesselmann, F. (1971a) Belgium. In K.P. Oakley, B.G. Campbell & T.I. Molleson (eds.) Catalogue of Fossil

Hominids, Part II: Europe, 5-13. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Twiesselmann, F. (1971b) Luxembourg. In K.P. Oakley, B.G. Campbell & T.I. Molleson (eds.) Catalogue of Fossil

Hominids, Part II: Europe, 261-262. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Twiesselmann, F. (1979) Populations préhistoriques, historiques et actuelles de la Belgique et du Grand-Duché de

Luxembourg. In I. Schwidetzky (ed.) Rassengeschichte der Menschheit. Europa V, 103–146. Oldenbourg Verlag,

Munich/Vienna.

Twiesselmann, F. & Orban, R. (1994) Ossements humains dans le massif rocheux du Petit Ri à Malonne (province

de Namur, Belgique). Anthropologie et Préhistoire 105, 93-125.

Vandenbruaene, M. & Gautier, A. (1997) Mesolithic human remains from la Grotte du Bois Laiterie: a preliminary

report. In M. Otte & L.G. Straus (eds.) La Grotte du Bois Laiterie: récolonisation Magdelénienne de la Belgique,

361-364. ERAUL 80, Liège.

Van Neer, W. (1997) Fish remains from the Upper Magdalenian in the Grotte du Bois Laiterie. In M. Otte & L.G.

Straus (eds.) La Grotte du Bois Laiterie. Récolonisation Magdalénienne de la Belgique, 205-213. ERAUL 80,

Liège.

Van Neer, W., Wouters, W. & Germonpré, M. (2007) Fish remains from three Upper Palaeolithic cave deposits in

southern Belgium. Anthropologica et Præhistorica 118, 5-22.

Verhart, L. (2008) New developments in the study of the Mesolithic of the Low Countries. In G. Bailey & P.

Spikins (eds.) Mesolithic Europe, 158-181. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Warmenbol, E. (2007) Le dépôt d’ossements humains en grotte aux âges des metaux en Belgique. Nouvelles

questions. In P. Barral, A. Daubigney, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel & M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (eds.) L’âge du Fer dans

l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer, 537-548. Presses Universitaires

de Franche-Comté, Besançon.

Walkhoff, O. (1903) Die diluvialen menschlichen Kiefer Belgiens und ihre pithekoiden Eigenschaften. In Selenka,

E. (ed.) Studien über Entwicklungsgeschichte der Tiere, 403-406. C.W. Kreidel, Wiesbaden.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

40

Redating a Mesolithic skeleton from Cabeço da Arruda, Muge, Portugal

M.K. Jackes and D. Lubell

University of Waterloo, Canada

[email protected] [email protected]

M.J. Cunha

Museu de Antropologia e Pré-História Mendes Corrêa, Porto

[email protected]

For a number of years we have had questions about a date (Beta-127451) for Skeleton 6 from Cabeço da

Arruda published by Cunha et al. (2003). Our questions (Jackes & Meiklejohn 2004; Jackes & Lubell 20121)

focus on the reported age of the skeleton which makes it earlier by several hundred years than other dates

from the Muge sites, apart from one date on charcoal from Arruda, TO-10215, for which an old wood effect

can be postulated. It is important to be aware of the association of the Muge Mesolithic with the period

during which estuarine resources were well established locally, probably not much before 8100 cal BP (6450

cal BC) (Jackes & Lubell 2012). We have therefore redated Arruda Skeleton 6, excavated in 1937, and held

in the collections of the Museu de Antropologia e Pré-História Mendes Corrêa, Porto (Table 1).

While the two dates are not statistically different (t = 2.59, χ2 = 3.84 at 1 df) this new date (AA-101343)

moves the skeleton from being an outlier to fitting in with interpretations of the chronological spread of

burials within the deposits at Arruda.

Lab ID 14

C date δ13

C δ15

N % marine Cal BP 1σ Cal BC 1σ

Beta-127451 7550 ± 100 -19 unknown 23.28 8364-8172 6415-6223

AA-101343 7351 ± 70 -16.6 10.9 44 8016-7867 6067-5918

Table 1: The orginal date and the new date for Skeleton 6. Dates calibrated using Calib 7.0.2, Marine/No. Hem.

(Reimer et al. 2013).

Figure 1: The dated sample was removed from the right fibula of Arruda 6 (1937), taken from the proximal end

of the already broken shaft.

1 The published version contains formatting errors and the omission of part of a table. The correct version is available at

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~mkjackes/corrected%20from%20BAR%2007new.pdf




MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

41

Figure 2: Arruda 6 at the time of excavation. Photograph Muge 1937/4, Museu de Antropologia e Pré História

Mendes Corrêa, Porto. Reproduced with permission.

The sample we dated was a fragment of a right fibula (Figure 1), confirmed as belonging to the individual

numbered Arruda 6 by comparison with the left (complete) fibula of the same individual2. The sample was

removed with permission in 2013 with a fine saw from the proximal end of the surviving shaft section. The

laboratory report includes the information that the C/N ratio is 3.3, the collagen %C is 39.3 and the %N is

13.8: the results are highly reliable.

2 Cláudia Umbelino (in litt. 26/08/2013) sampled the fragmented distal right tibia. Chris Patrick, Beta Analytic (in litt. 10/07/2013)

reports that paper records were not retained, so there is no further information available.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

42

In order to check further, a comparison of the bones of Arruda 6 was made with a photograph taken by the

Mendes Corrêa team when excavating Arruda in 1937 (Figure 2). Although the negative was not labelled, it

was possible to identify the individual by examination of the bones and resources in Cardoso and Rolão

(1999/2000). It has now been confirmed that this is indeed a photo of Arruda 6 from a scan of the positive

(Abrunhosa 2012: 277, the same image, here numbered 37-06) which has an annotation on the back

recording the identification, the location of the find (square and level) and the fact that skeleton lay 0.80 m

above the basal terrace sands.

The skeleton now labelled Arruda 6 in the collection of the Museu de Antropologia e Pré-História Mendes

Corrêa can be further confirmed as identical with that in the photograph, based on additional evidence such

as ash still adhering to the damaged right femur.

Arruda 6 was excavated in square N7. The first full skeleton found at the site in 1937 was initially said to be

from N7 (Cardoso and Rolão 1999/2000: 177), but is elsewhere recorded as from M7. It lay at a depth of 4 m,

and was 1.4 m from the base of the midden deposits. Other skeletons were in N7: Skeleton 3 lay at 1.2 m

from base, and an unnumbered skull and ribs were close by at the same depth. Skeleton 6, described as at the

top of the deep layer was the lowest in this square, but was not, however, the deepest in the sequence since

further skeletons were found in square P7 as low as only 0.30 m above the basal sands (we do not know the

points from which measurements were taken).

Roche (1974) stated that the burials he excavated in the 1960s were at the very base of the anthropogenic

deposits, directly on the sand, in shallow natural depressions. A photograph and sketch plan (Cardoso &

Rolão 1999/2000:235; see also Roche 1974: Plate III – which is published reversed) confirm that the 1960s

deep burials were all at the one level. There was a close spatial relationship between the 1937 skeletons and

those excavated in the 1960s: Roche’s deep level burials were probably adjacent to the 1937 squares O7 and

P7.

Excavations in 1864 and 1880 had uncovered a large number of skeletons, all of which were said to be

between 1 and 2 m above the sands. The situation in 1937 seems to have been slightly different, but perhaps

with no skeleton actually on the sand. Roche’s description clearly states that all of his nine deep level

skeletons, in his 1 m2 squares I and J, were directly on or in the sand. The burials must have been in or on a

deposit below level 85, that is, below the lowest anthropogenic layer in that portion of his profile. The 1960s

deep burials were around 5 m below the modern surface (Roche 1967).

We do not have a date for the skeletons excavated by Roche at Arruda, but they may be very slightly older

than CA-00-02 excavated by Rolão, who cleared back the profile in the area of Roche’s squares I and J.

Skeleton CA-00-02 presumably lay close to the bottom of the trench, but the photograph (Roksandic 2006)

seems to indicate that it was within midden deposits, although this is uncertain in view of heavy winter rains

in 2000, as well as the constant flooding which can erode the lower levels of Arruda. Roche (1974: 25)

recorded that in 1966 the flood waters reached half way up the profile. Skeleton CA-00-02 had associated

charcoal which gave a date of 7410 ± 70 (TO-10215) close to that of the Beta-127451 date for Arruda 6 of

7550 ± 100, but the skeleton itself is dated by TO-10216 to 7040 ± 60 (Figure 3).

Figure 3 demonstrates that CA-00-02 (TO-10216) is younger than the new date for Arruda 6 (AA-101343)

and appears to fit very well in age with most of the skeletons from the 1880s excavations (collections in the

Museu Geológico, Lisbon), giving us an indication of the general dates for the burials in those levels 1 to 2

m above the basal terrace sands. The new date for Arruda 6 from 1937 suggests that further into the mound,

closer to what was the highest point of the original mound and very slightly deeper towards the base, the

burials may have been a little older. A date around 7900 cal BP fits perfectly with the earliest date for

Amoreira CAM-00-01 of 7300 ± 80 (TO-11819R: Meiklejohn et al. 2009), a child buried in the terrace sands

and excavated by Rolão in 2000. We await with interest publication of new dates on additional Muge

skeletons by Rita Peyroteo Stjerna (Uppsala University).

In summary, when we compare it with the new date (AA-101343) and with information on the main age

range of Arruda burials, we suggest that the original Arruda 6 date (Beta-127451) was anomalous.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

43

Figure 3: Calibrated 1σ age probabilities for Arruda human skeletons (IntCal13): reservoir effect adjustments

for 140 ± 40 ΔR, with the percentage marine component to the diet calculated for a δ13

C range -27.1 to -10.7.

Dates calibrated using Calib 7.0.2, Marine/No. Hem. (Reimer et al. 2013).

Acknowledgements

For their support in helping us to complete this paper we thank Ana Abrunhosa, Pedro Alvim, Ana Cristina

Araújo, Cleia Detry and A. Huet Bacelar Gonçalves. Dr.Nuno Ferrand de Almeida, Director, Museu de

História Natural, Universidade do Porto permitted us to take the sample for dating. The photograph used in

Figure 2 is one of a series scanned in 2010 by Pedro Alvim using facilities at the Centro Português de

Fotografia, Porto with permission from Prof. Dr. José Luís Santos, Faculty of Sciences, Porto and in

collaboration with Dr. Bernardino Castro, Dra. Ilda Zambumba and Dra. Carla Barros. We are grateful, as

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

44

always, for the continuing help we have received from Dr. Miguel Magalhães Ramalho, Coordenador,

Museu Geológico, Laboratório Nacional de Energia e Geologia, Lisbon. Funds to process the date, and to

scan the 1937 negatives, were provided by a bequest to MJ from Esther Palmer.

References Abrunhosa, A. (2012) As escavações arqueológicas nos concheiros mesolíticos de Muge: contributo para o estudo

da historiografia das investigações da década de 1930. Master’s thesis, University of Porto.

Cardoso, J.L.and Rolão, J. M. (1999/2000) Prospecções e escavações no concheiros mesolíticos de Muge e de

Magos (Salvaterra de Magos): contribuição para a história dos trabalhos arqueológicos efectuados. Estudos

Arqueológicos de Oeiras 8, 83–240.

Cunha, E., Cardoso, F. & Umbelino, C. (2003) Inferences about Mesolithic life style on the basis of

anthropological data. The case of the Portuguese shell middens. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D.

Loeffler, A. Åkerlund (eds) Mesolithic on the Move, 184-188. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Jackes, M. & Meiklejohn, C. (2004) Building a method for the study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in

Portugal. In M. Budja (ed) The Neolithization of Eurasia - paradigms, models and concepts involved. Neolithic

Studies 11, Documenta Praehistorica 31, 89-111.

Jackes, M. & Lubell, D. (2012) Mortuary archaeology of the Muge shell middens. In Gibaja, J.F., Carvalho, A.F.

and Chambon, P. (eds), Funerary Practices in the Iberian Peninsula from the Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic, 67-76.

Oxford, Archaeopress: BAR International Series 2417.

Meiklejohn, C., Roksandic, M., Jackes, M.K. & Lubell, D. (2009) Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human

remains in Portugal. Mesolithic Miscellany 20 (1), 4-16.

Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H.,

Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J.,

Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A.,

Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J. IntCal13 and MARINE13 radiocarbon age calibration

curves 0-50000 years calBP Radiocarbon 55(4). DOI: 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947

Roche, L’Abbé J. (1967) Note sur la stratigraphie de l’amas coquillier mésolithique de Cabeço da Arruda (Muge).

Communicações dos Serviços Geológicos de Portugal 52, 79-94.

Roche, L’Abbé J. (1974) Sépultures de l’amas coquillier mésolithique de Cabeço da Arruda (Muge). Actas do

Congresso Nacional de Arqueologia, 25–36. Porto.

Roksandic, M. (2006) Analysis of burials from the new excavations of the sites Cabeço da Amoreira and Cabeço da

Arruda (Muge, Portugal). In N. Bicho & H. Verissimo (eds) Do Epipaleolítico ao Calcolítico na Península Ibérica:

Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, 43–54. Universidade do Algarve, Faro.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

45

Between appearance and reality: the excavation of Bergumermeer S-64B

(Province of Friesland) as a milestone of Stone Age research in the Netherlands

Marcel J.L.Th. Niekus

Lopendediep 28 – 9712 NW Groningen, The Netherlands

[email protected]

Summary

The excavation of the extensive site at Bergumermeer S-64B in the early 1970s had a significant influence

on Mesolithic studies in the Netherlands and beyond. In particular the postulated presence of several more or

less contemporaneously inhabited ‘dwelling structures’ has attracted the attention of numerous scholars.

Based on these ‘huts’, the size of the site and the composition of the flint assemblage, the site was interpreted

as a residential settlement belonging to the Late Mesolithic ‘Leijen-Wartena Complex’. This interpretation

formed the basis for hypotheses on Mesolithic demographic patterns and increasing sedentism of Late

Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Unfortunately these and other claims cannot be verified or refuted due to a lack

of published data. The present research programme aims at digitally disclosing all of the available data on

the excavation and furthermore it will attempt to answer the question concerning whether the assumed

spatio-temporal integrity is justified. The alleged ‘dwelling structures’ will occupy a central position in the

research. The outcome of this project is not only of scientific importance but will also have an influence on

the public perception of the Mesolithic in Dutch popular publications and reconstructions in archaeological

theme parks. Last, but not least, the results will also contribute to discussions on the meaning of extensive

Mesolithic sites and will help in constructing solid frames of reference for heritage management.

Key-words: the Netherlands, Bergumermeer S-64B, Late Mesolithic, ‘Leijen-Wartena Complex’, Odyssee

programme, ‘dwelling structures’, extensive sites, multiple occupations (palimpsests), spatial analyses,

archaeological heritage management

Introduction

The Mesolithic site of Bergumermeer (Lake Bergum) S-64B, situated in the Province of Friesland in the

northern part of the Netherlands (Figure 1), is without doubt one of the most famous Stone Age sites in the

Netherlands and is renowned among archaeologists working on the Northwest-European Plain. Excavated

between 1971 and 1974 by R. R. Newell of the former Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut (now Groningen

Institute of Archaeology), the site had a major influence on different aspects of Mesolithic research in the

Netherlands such as: 1) the definition of settlement systems; 2) demographic aspects of Mesolithic hunter-

gatherers; 3) economy and sedentism, and 4) chronology. Unfortunately, as is the case with many other

excavated Stone Age sites in the Netherlands, the finds and features have not been published in detail which

hampers the objective assessment of the scientific value of the site. To make up for this, the Netherlands

Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands Institute for Heritage (Erfgoed Nederland)

and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OC&W) initiated the Odyssee programme. The main

aim of this programme (2008-2012) (which is designed for other archaeological periods as well), is: “to

realise a thorough scientific disclosure of the archaeological field research carried out between 1900 and

2000 that was not further investigated and published and that is of international importance, is important for

the refining of research questions for new research, and/or can make a contribution to the selection and

decision-making process with respect to archaeological interventions during excavation works” (see

www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOA_7LQU7T and www.erfgoednederland.nl/odyssee/item10569).

One of the proposals that has been awarded a one-year financial grant for the disclosure, analysis and

publication of archaeological data is entitled ‘Between appearance and reality: the excavation Bergumermeer

S-64B (Province of Friesland) as a milestone of Stone Age research in the Netherlands’. This project

commenced in January 2011 and is a collaboration between the Groningen Institute of Archaeology at

Groningen University (Research group Stone Age Archaeology of North-west Europe) and De Steekproef bv

(Zuidhorn), a company for archaeological research and consultancy. Other partners include the Province of

Friesland, the Fries Museum (Leeuwarden) and the local archaeological museum at Bergum which houses


http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOA_7LQU7T

http://www.erfgoednederland.nl/odyssee/item10569

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

46

numerous Stone Age finds from the area around the Bergumermeer. After briefly describing the historical

background of Mesolithic research in the northern Netherlands and the excavation of Bergumermeer S-64B

the goals of the Odyssee project will be outlined.

Figure 1: The location of Bergumermeer S-64B in the Netherlands (drawing E. Bolhuis, University of Groningen,

Groningen Institute of Archaeology).

A short note on Mesolithic research in the Netherlands

Until the 1970s Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic research in the Netherlands was primarily directed towards

the typological classification of flint artefacts and time-space questions (Bohmers and Wouters 1956).

Besides the work undertaken by A. Bohmers, who at the time was working at the Biologisch-Archaeologisch

Instituut, the majority of Stone Age research was undertaken by amateur-archaeologists (Waterbolk 2003).

With the involvement of American archaeologists such as R. R. Newell, T. D. Price and R. Whallon

Mesolithic archaeology radically changed with the introduction of ideas based on ethnographic research and

anthropological models. For the first time archaeological sites were seen as “settlement units having finite

borders within which a finite number of people, organised into a social structure, performed a specific and

finite range of activities by means of an equally specific and finite range of tools” (Newell 1973, 400) instead

of as geological formations with the artefacts being no more than ‘fossils’ characterising these formations.

This change of focus from the individual artefact to the site as the patterned remains of prehistoric hunter-

gatherer behaviour is also apparent from publications where the focus is on functional differences between

sites, intra-site spatial patterning, settlement systems and patterns and site-formation processes (e.g. Newell

1973, 1980; Price 1975, 1978, 1980; Price, Whallon and Chappell 1974). Regional studies like those

conducted by Groenendijk (1997) in the Peat-Colonies in the Province of Groningen and especially Arts

(1988) in the Province of Noord-Brabant are tributes to these studies by American scholars. The influence of

the New Archaeology in the Netherlands also brought about fundamental changes in excavation techniques

such as the meticulous way of recording artefacts and features, sampling strategies and statistical analyses.

One of the sites that may serve as an excellent example of this new influx is Bergumermeer S-64B (Newell

and Vroomans 1972).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

47

The ‘Leijen-Wartena Complex’

As a result of his comprehensive study of the Mesolithic settlement of the Northwest European Plain, Newell

(1970a) noted that there exists a “critical lack of data pertaining to the latest phase of the Mesolithic and its

potential transition toward a food-producing economy” (Newell and Vroomans 1972, 57). Named after two

partially excavated and largely unpublished Mesolithic sites, namely De Leijen excavated in 1938-1940 by

amateur-archaeologist Siebinga and in 1956 by Bohmers and Wartena excavated by Bohmers in 1964, this

so-called ‘Leijen-Wartena Complex’ (hereafter named LWC), was seen as a nonlocal development, the

manifestation of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups moving south from the gradually drowning North Sea

basin (Newell 1970b). The presence of core- and flake-axes in LWC sites suggested a genetic relationship

with the northern European Mesolithic (Maglemose-Kongemose tradition) and as such it contrasted with the

indigenous Northwest Group (Kreis) of the western European Mesolithic or Sauveterre-Tardenoisian

tradition (Newell 1973, but see Lanting and Van der Plicht 1997/1998; Verhart and Groenendijk 2005 and

Niekus 2005/2006 for comments and alternative views). The absence of completely or sufficiently well

excavated LWC sites prompted the ‘Leijen Project’, a systematic regional survey of Mesolithic sites around

the Bergumermeer and De Leijen (Newell and Vroomans 1972, 57). Following this survey a site known as S-

64 was chosen for excavation because of its relatively good preservation and the presence of flint axes,

which indicated affinities with the LWC. It was expected that the excavation of this site would provide

important information, not only on the material culture of the LWC but also on the size, form and internal

features of a LWC settlement and last but not least on economic and domestic activities of this group of Late

Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (Newell and Vroomans 1972).

Figure 2: The site Bergumermeer S-64B (star) is situated on the southern shore of Lake Bergum

(Bergumermeer). Key to the figure: 1. distribution of Elsterian and Holsteinian clays; 2. brook valleys; 3.

weichselian coversand ridges; 4. borehole with thickness (indicated in m) of clay over 50 m; 5. mesolithic sites

(modified after Casparie and Bosch 1995, Figure 4).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

48

Figure 3: Plan of Bergumermeer S-64B with all major features excavated between 1971 and 1974 (modified after

Newell 1980, Figure 3 and Casparie and Bosch 1995, Figure 1).

N %

Point 710 19.7

Backed blade 153 4.3

Borer 166 4.6

Burin 289 8.0

End-scraper 651 18.1

Side-scraper 113 3.1

Knife 256 7.1

Axe 64 1.8

Miscellaneous tools 1194 33.2

Total 3596 99.9

Table 1: Type-group composition of Bergumermeer S-64B (based on Huiskes 1988, Table 10).

Bergumermeer S-64B: the excavation, finds and features

The site is located on a sand ridge running approximately WNW-ESE and borders the southern shore of the

Bergumermeer (Figure 2). During the Late Mesolithic the lakeshore was situated 100-150m from the site

(Casparie and Bosch 1995). The ridge which consists of Late Glacial aeolian sands is made up of two knolls

separated by a lower part. After an extensive sampling strategy, described in detail by Newell and Vroomans

(1972), of the sand ridge, lake edge and the presumed lake bottom, the most eastern knoll (‘Settlement B’)

was chosen as the target for excavation. Between 1971 and 1974 approximately 1,100m2 were excavated

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

49

which amounts to 80% of the total estimated site size of 1,400m2. In order to ensure the recognition of

ground features the size of the excavation units was set at 2 x 2m (Figure 3). The soil was excavated by

trowel and all finds (flint artefacts, stones, pieces of charcoal etc) were recorded in three dimensions and

described on datasheets. All excavated soil was sieved through a mesh of 4mm. Features were drawn,

photographed and sampled for chemical and radiocarbon analyses.

During the excavation more than 123,000 flint artefacts were found and dozens of larger stones (‘structural

stones’) were recorded. Approximately 2.9% of the flint artefacts were classified as retouched tools (Table 1).

Nearly 25% of all tools consist of points (mainly single-edged and obliquely truncated points), triangles

(scalene and isosceles), trapezes (mainly broad, asymmetric) and backed bladelets. The observed features

consist of pits, hearth-pits, ‘ditches’ and natural disturbances such as tree fall features and mole nests. Six

large horseshoe-shaped orange-stained discolorations (Figure 4) were interpreted as the remains of

Mesolithic dwelling structures or huts (Newell 1980; Bloemers, Louwe Kooijmans and Sarfatij 1981). From

the available radiocarbon dates presented in Table 2 it is clear that a substantial Late Mesolithic component

(after c. 8100/8000 BP) is indeed present at the site but younger activities (Neolithic and Iron Age/Roman

period) are attested as well (Casparie and Bosch 1995; Lanting and Van der Plicht 1997/1998; Niekus

2005/2006). During the excavation a small number of Neolithic artefacts were found. Late Upper

Palaeolithic artefacts, possibly belonging to the Ahrensburgian-tradition, are known from the immediate

vicinity of the site on the edge of the sand ridge (Henstra et al., 1997).

Lab. number Sample type Feature Square Date BP (± 1σ) cal BC/AD (2σ)

Atlantic period:

Mesolithic

GrN-14889 charcoal ditch 2 ? 7700±50 6640-6450 cal BC

GrN-14886 charcoal hearth IX BM-26/27 7310±60 6360-6030 cal BC

GrN-7927 charcoal hearth V BH-27 7175±35 6100-5980 cal BC

GrN-6843 charcoal hearth I BK-27 7035±45 6010-5800 cal BC

GrN-8227 charcoal pit 34 AT-33 7030±90 * 6060-5730 cal BC

GrN-14890 organic fill pit 3 BF-25 6870±240 6250-5300 cal BC

GrN-12000 charcoal hearth VIII BM-26 6860±70 5900-5630 cal BC

GrN-6844

organic

material pit 25 BH-33/34 6820±85 * 5900-5560 cal BC

GrN-14885 charcoal hearth IV BI-25 6720±140 6000-5350 cal BC

GrN-14884 charcoal ? BE-26 6710±90 5760-5470 cal BC

GrN-8228 organic fill pit 1 BB-29 6630±110 * 5730-5360 cal BC

GrN-14891 organic fill posthole BE-33 6600±150 5800-5200 cal BC

GrN-11998 charcoal hearth II BF-26 6320±120 5550-4950 cal BC

Subboreal period: Neolithic

GrN-11999 charcoal hearth VI AW-32 4980±110 4050-3500 cal BC

GrN-14887 charcoal hearth XI BN-26 3940±60 2580-2200 cal BC

Subatlantic period : Iron Age/Roman

GrN-6842 charcoal hearth BS-25 2615±35 840-660 cal BC

GrN-7930 charcoal

hearth, feat.

203 BJ-26 2420±150 900-100 cal BC

GrN-7928 charcoal hearth VII

BM/BN-

22/23 2145±40 360-50 cal BC

GrN-7929 charcoal

hearth, feat.

202 BI-26 2030±130

400 cal BC- 250 cal

AD

GrN-14888 charcoal

hearth, feat.

201

AZ/BA-

27/28 2010±20

50 cal BC - 60 cal

AD

Table 2: Bergumermeer S-64B. All radiocarbon dates on samples from archaeological features (based on

Casparie and Bosch 1995; Lanting and Van der Plicht 1997/1998; Niekus 2005/2006). Radiocarbon dates with an

asterisk are unreliable due to insufficient pre-treatment (see Lanting and Van der Plicht 1997/1998, 136-137).

The radiocarbon determinations were calibrated according to Reimer et al. (2004) with OxCal version 3.10, 2005

(Bronk Ramsey 2001).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

50

Figure 4: The ‘dwelling structures’ of Bergumermeer S-64B and associated 2x2m squares (after Newell 1980,

Figure 4).

The significance of Bergumermeer S-64B

Nearly 40 years ago Bergumermeer was one of the largest and most systematically conducted Mesolithic

excavations on the Northwest European Plain and hence attracted students and archaeologists from all over

Europe and beyond. Many archaeologists started their careers on the shore of the lake (Figure 5).

Bergumermeer is especially important because of its major influence on Mesolithic research in the

Netherlands such as the definition of Mesolithic settlement systems and their interpretation in terms of

anthropological models as base or maintenance camps and subordinate extraction camps (Figure 6). The

size of the site, covering an area of nearly 1,500 m2, the presence of dwelling structures and the diversity in

tool-types led to the interpretation of Bergumermeer S-64B as a ‘residential settlement’.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

51

Figure 5: Bergumermeer S-64B. Impression of the excavation in 1973 (photograph University of Groningen,

Groningen Institute of Archaeology).

Figure 6: Length-width parameters of Mesolithic settlements on the Northwest European Plain including

residential settlements attributed to the ‘Leijen-Wartena Complex’ according to Newell (1973). Type A: base or

maintenance camps; Types B and C: subordinate extraction-camps (drawing C. Luinge after Newell 1973,

Figure 1).

The increase in the size of Mesolithic sites was seen as evidence for a significant population growth during

the Late Mesolithic and the LWC was seen as a transitional phase in the evolution of Mesolithic societies

towards a “greater degree of permanence or sedentism” (Newell 1973, 409) and a way of life based on

agriculture and cattle-breeding, thus Bergumermeer formed an important link in thoughts about the process

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

52

of Neolithisation in the Low Countries. Furthermore, the typo-chronological subdivision of the later

Mesolithic is largely based on the flint artefacts excavated at Bergumemeer S-64B (Figure 7).

Despite the enormous amount of data that was collected during the excavation only a limited number of

studies on the site have been published. These include a use-wear study of flint artefacts (Odell 1978), a

study on Mesolithic dwelling structures in Europe, including Bergumermeer (Newell 1980), and a report on

geological and palynological research of the wider Bergumermeer area (Casparie and Bosch 1995). A table

with artefact types (see also Table 2) was provided by Huiskes (1988) in his article on Tietjerk-Lytse Geast I,

a complex of small Mesolithic sites attributed to the LWC, but detailed type-lists have not been published.

Reports on the chemical analyses of the features, measurements of flint artefacts and data on refitting are

available but have never been published.

The Odyssee programme: aims and research questions

Although the site is regularly mentioned in publications (e.g. Bogucki 1988; Vermeersch and Bubel 1997;

Evans, Pollard and Knight 2002; Tolksdorf et al. 2009) it is nearly impossible to verify the claims discussed

in the preceding section or to formulate alternative interpretations and/or hypotheses. Obviously it is not

feasible in light of the duration of this Odyssee project to analyse and publish the site in full detail and

therefore we will confine ourselves to several major research questions.

First of all we will attempt to assess the spatial and temporal integrity of Bergumermeer S-64B since these

form the foundations upon which the claims are based. This phase of the project consists of checking the

classifications of the retouched tools and preparing distribution maps for the artefacts, especially the

chronologically ‘sensitive’ tools like points, triangles and trapezes. Are we for example dealing with a

diffuse distribution with little or no differentiation or are several concentrations visible, each perhaps

characterised by different types of tools, which may hint at several partly overlapping sites? To gain an

understanding on the time-depth of occupation a number of samples from hitherto undated features will be

submitted for radiocarbon dating. These analyses are expected to provide answers on the nature of the site,

i.e. is it likely that Bergumermeer was occupied within a relatively short time-frame or does the site consists

of multiple occupations (palimpsests cf. Bailey 2007) over hundreds or even thousands of years?

A second important related question is whether the spatial patterning of the flint artefacts and other finds

provide solid evidence for the presence of Mesolithic dwelling structures. So far no Late Upper Palaeolithic

or Mesolithic dwelling structures have been identified with certainty in the Netherlands and the lack of

information on the nature and size of living structures is seen as a clear lacuna in our knowledge of Stone

Age societies by ‘The National Archaeological Research Agenda’ or NOaA (Deeben et al., 2006). If the

horseshoe-shaped discolorations represent the remains of Mesolithic huts one would expect a clear spatial

relation between these features and the distribution of the artefacts. Several methods for spatial analysis will

be used including the ‘Ring & Sector’ method (Stapert 1992) and part of a newly developed method based

on ‘Graph and Lattice Theory’ (Merrill and Read 2010).

If the spatio-temporal integrity and/or the presence of dwelling structures cannot be validated there exists a

serious problem with respect to the value of Bergumermeer S-64B for Mesolithic studies. This will not only

have its effect on the scientific community but also on the perception of the general public since the

reconstructed Mesolithic huts (Figure 8) in the archaeological theme park Archeon are based on the

excavation of Bergumermeer (IJzereef 1999; see also the excavation plan in Bloemers, Louwe Kooijmans

and Sarfatij 1981). Last but not least the project will also contribute to discussions on the scientific value of

extensive Mesolithic sites (residential settlements or palimpsests) in the Netherlands and how to deal with

these in archaeological heritage management. Whether or not large residential settlements did exist during

the Late Mesolithic will affect decisions to either protect a site or to (partially) excavate when threatened by

destruction by providing a solid frame of reference.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

53

Figure 7: Stylistic seriation of points for the Northwest Group and the ‘Leijen-Wartena Complex’ (drawing C.

Luinge after Newell 1973, Figure 3).

Figure 8: Reconstruction of a Mesolithic hut in archaeological theme park Archeon in Alphen aan den Rijn, the

Netherlands. This reconstruction is based on the excavation of Bergumermeer S-64B (photograph R. Meijer,

Veendam).

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

54

Acknowledgments

For their help with the figures I am very grateful to C. Luinge and E. Bolhuis (both Groningen Institute of

Archaeology) and F. de Vries (ToonBeeld, Stiens). R. Meijer (Veendam) is thanked for providing the

photograph of a reconstructed Mesolithic dwelling structure in Archeon. D. C. M. Raemaekers (Groningen

Institute of Archaeology) is thanked for his valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Arts, N. (1988) Archaeology, environment and the social evolution of later band societies in a lowland area. In

C. Bonsall (ed) The Mesolithic in Europe, 291-312. Edinburgh, John Donald Publishers.

Bailey, G. (2007) Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 26(2), 198-223.

Bloemers, J. H. F., Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. and Sarfatij, H. (1981) Verleden land. Archeologische

opgravingen in Nederland. Meulenhoff, Amsterdam.

Bohmers, A. and Wouters, Aq. (1956) Statistics and graphs in the study of flint assemblages, III: A

preliminary report on the statistical analysis of the Mesolithic in northwestern Europe. Palaeohistoria 5, 27-38.

Bogucki, P. (1988) Forest farmers and stockherders: early agriculture and its consequences in North-Central

Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bronk Ramsey, C. (2001) Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43 (2A), 355–363.

Casparie, W. A. and Bosch, J. H. A. (1995) Bergumermeer - De Leijen (Friesland, the Netherlands): a

Mesolithic wetland in a dry setting. Mededelingen Rijks Geologische Dienst 52, 271-82.

Deeben, J., Peeters, J. H. M., Raemaekers, D. C. M., Rensink, E. and Verhart, L. (2006) De vroege prehistorie.

In Nationale Onderzoeksagenda Archeologie (version 1.0, www.noaa.nl), 1-48. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel

Erfgoed, Amersfoort.

Evans, C. Pollard, J. and Knight, M. (2002) Life in the Woods: Tree-throws, 'Settlement' and Forest Cognition.

Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (3), 241 – 254.

Groenendijk, H. A. (1997) Op zoek naar de horizon. Het landschap van Oost-Groningen en zijn bewoners

tussen 8000 voor Chr. en 1000 na Chr. Regio-project Uitgevers, Groningen.

Henstra, K. R., Niekus, M. J. L. Th., Spijkstra, Sj. and De Vries, F. (1997) De Tsjoegen, een laat-paleolithische

vindplaats aan het Bergumermeer (FRL.): een eerste rapportage. ArcheoForum 1, 5-10.

Huiskes, B. (1988) Tietjerk-Lytse Geast I: A reconstruction of a Mesolithic site from an anthropological

perspective. Palaeohistoria 30, 29–62.

Lanting, J. N. and Van der Plicht, J. (1997/1998) De 14C-chronologie van de Nederlandse pre- en protohistorie,

II: Mesolithicum. Palaeohistoria 39/40, 99-162.

Merrill, M. and Read, D. (2010) A new method using graph and lattice theory to discover spatially cohesive

sets of artifacts and areas of organized activities in archaeological sites. American Antiquity 75 (3), 419-451.

Newell, R. R. (1970a) The Mesolithic Affinities and Typological Relations of the Dutch Bandkeramik Flint

Industry. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London.

Newell, R. R. (1970b) Een afslagbijl uit Anderen, gem. Anloo en zijn relatie tot het Atlantisch Mesolithicum.

Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak 88, 177-184.

Newell, R. R. (1973) The post-glacial adaptations of the indigenous population of the northwest European

plain. In S.F. Kozlowski (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe, 399-440. Warsaw University Press, Warsaw.

Newell, R. R. (1980) Mesolithic dwelling-structures: fact and fantasy. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für

Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam 14/15, 235–284.

Newell, R. R. and Vroomans, A. (1972) Automatic artefact registration and system for archaeological analysis

with the Philips P1100 computer: a Mesolithic test-case. Anthropological Publication, Oosterhout.

Niekus, M. J. L. Th. (2005/2006) A geographically referenced 14C database for the Mesolithic and the early

phase of the Swifterbant culture in the northern Netherlands. Palaeohistoria 47/48, 41-99.

Odell, G. H. (1978) Préliminaires d’une analyse fonctionnelle des pointes microlithiques de Bergumermeer

(Pays-Bas). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 75(2), 37–49.

Price, T. D. (1975) Mesolithic settlement systems in the Netherlands. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of

Michigan.

Price, T. D. (1978) Mesolithic settlement systems in the Netherlands. In P. Mellars (ed), The early postglacial

settlement of northern Europe, 81-113. Duckworth, London.

Price, T. D. (1980) The Mesolithic of the Drents Plateau. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig

Bodemonderzoek 30, 11–63.

Price, T. D., Whallon, R. and Chappell, S. (1974) Mesolithic sites near Havelte, province of Drenthe

(Netherlands). Palaeohistoria 16, 7-61.

http://catalogus.rug.nl/DB=1/SET=1/TTL=1/CLK?IKT=4&TRM=stockherders

http://www.noaa.nl/

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

55

Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C.

E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P.,

Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S. W., Ramsey, C. B., Reimer, R. W.,

Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., Van der Plicht, J. & Weyhenmeyer, C. E.

(2004) IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 Cal Kyr. Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058.

Stapert, D. (1992) Rings and sector: intrasite spatial analysis of stone age sites. Unpublished PhD thesis,

University of Groningen.

Tolksdorf, J. F., Kaiser, K., Veil, S., Klasen N. and Brückner, H. (2009) The Early Mesolithic Haverbeck site,

Northwest Germany: evidence for Preboreal settlement in the Western and Central European Plain. Journal of

Archaeological Science 36 (7), 1466-1476.

Verhart, L. B. M. and Groenendijk, H. A. (2005) Living in abundance. Middle and Late Mesolithic, in L. P.

Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. van Gijn (eds), The Prehistory of the

Netherlands, vol. 1, 161-178. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Vermeersch, P. M. and Bubel, S. (1997) Postdepositional artefact scattering in a podzol. Processes and

consequences for Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites. Anthropologie 35 (2), 119-130.

IJzereef, G. F. (1999) The reconstruction of sites in the Archaeological theme park ARCHEON in the

Netherlands, in P. G. Stone and P. G. Planel (eds), The Constructed Past: Experimental Archaeology,

Education, and the Public (=One World Archaeology 36), 171-180. Routledge, London.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236844%232009%23999639992%231092084%23FLA%23&_cdi=6844&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0d0abde9b403ed97961c71baa8ede5a1

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

56

William Galloway and the Caisteal nan Gillean shell midden on Oronsay,

western Scotland

Alan Saville

National Museums Scotland

[email protected]

The architect and antiquary William Galloway (1832–1897) has a special place in the history of Mesolithic

research in Scotland as the first excavator of prehistoric shell middens on the small island of Oronsay, Inner

Hebrides, western Scotland. His initial season of excavation at the Caisteal nan Gillean3 shell mound in 1881

was undertaken in association with Symington Grieve (the historian and naturalist of Oronsay and Colonsay

and the ‘biographer’ of the great auk), who initiated the interest in the midden (Grieve 1882, 480). The

second season in 1882 seems to have been under Galloway’s sole direction, as were his subsequent

investigations in 1884 at two other Oronsay middens, Cnoc Sligeach and Cnoc Rioch (Mellars 1987, 120–

121), sites which Grieve (1923, 16 & 41) claimed to have discovered. For reasons which are not clear a

report on the excavations by Galloway never materialized, other than the summary accounts in Grieve’s

publications (Grieve 1882, 1885, 1923), which rather gloss over Galloway’s role, and the description,

primarily of the finds, given by Joseph Anderson (1898, 306–313), Keeper of the Society of Antiquaries of

Scotland’s museum, after these had been acquired for the national collections in Edinburgh.

Research for a forthcoming biographical account of Galloway and his wide-ranging archaeological and

architectural activity in Scotland (Ritchie forthcoming) has reinforced the view that there had been a major

breakdown in relations between Galloway and Anderson in the early 1880s, which was never repaired and

obviously coloured Anderson’s somewhat disparaging references to Galloway in his 1898 report4.

Paul Mellars (1987, 117–126, 170) in his survey of previous work on Oronsay, has given a more detailed and

rather more sympathetic indication of Galloway’s role in the Oronsay discoveries than Anderson and Grieve.

However, he followed Anderson in discounting the existence of any meaningful documentation by Galloway:

Anderson claimed that his account of these sites was based on some ‘notes’ and ‘jottings’ which

accompanied Galloway’s collection, together with the labelling provided on the specimens themselves.

Evidently, the extent of this documentation must have been very scanty and any trace of the original notes or

documents would now seem to have disappeared (Mellars 1987, 121).

The purpose of the present note is to publish in full for the first time a transcript of a manuscript written by

Galloway in association with his display of the Caisteal nan Gillean finds at the 1883 International Fisheries

Exhibition in London. A short summary of these finds, presumably compiled by Galloway, was published at

the time in the exhibition catalogue (IFEL 1883, 117–118; see Ritchie forthcoming), but was not mentioned

by Anderson, who did not visit the exhibition5. Since this exhibition catalogue is not easily available, the

summary description therein is reproduced here as Appendix 1.

The manuscript (Appendix 2), written out in clear elegant longhand, was possibly for a lecture at one of the

many conference sessions, though it reads as though the audience is beside the exhibits, and there is no

record of any such lecture being delivered. It survives in the manuscript collection of the Society of

Antiquaries of Scotland, held now by the library of National Museums Scotland (NMS SAS 175a). There is

3 The mound excavated by Galloway and Grieve is now known as Caisteal nan Gillean I to distinguish it from the adjacent Caisteal

nan Gillean II mound recorded and excavated by Mellars (1987).

4 Galloway’s remarks about Joseph Anderson in letters of 1877 to his friend and patron Sir Henry Dryden are not exactly collegiate

(quoted in Clarke 2002, 2 and 15). Perhaps the most likely reason for the subsequent cessation of any contact between the two,

however, could be over Galloway’s involvement in the Fisheries Exhibition in London and his personal retention of the Oronsay and

Colonsay finds. Relations between Galloway and Grieve also appear to have broken down (Grieve 1923, 15; Mellars 1987, 118), and

Mellars (1987, 120) suggests these had already deteriorated before the 1883 exhibition.

5 Grieve did not visit the Fisheries Exhibition either, though it is clear he was aware of what Galloway had exhibited and that he did

see the exhibition catalogue (Grieve 1885, 55; 1923, 57).


MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

57

no indication of when or how the Society acquired this manuscript, other than that it remained uncatalogued,

along with many of the Society’s other manuscripts, until 1957, and therefore it cannot be said definitively

whether Anderson ever knew of it or not. However, it would seem very unlikely that even he would have

categorized this manuscript as ‘jottings’ (Anderson 1898, 306)6. Indeed, it includes some details and

comments not mentioned by Anderson, including the highly percipient and prescient remark of Galloway

that the Caisteal nan Gillean deposits date ‘back to the earlier part of the Neolithic Age’. The attribution to

the ‘earlier part of the Neolithic Age’, rather than just to the Neolithic in general, seems to follow in

Galloway’s reasoning from the absence of pottery, flint implements and domesticated animals, the use of

shell and bone artefacts, and the ignorance of metals. It could be argued that he was grasping towards a pre-

Neolithic explanation, but without the framework or vocabulary to achieve this. Otherwise the manuscript is

remarkable in showing that Galloway had a very clear understanding of the nature of the midden site and its

ecological setting and of the artefactual and ecofactual remains he had unearthed. In fact the recovery and

subsequent description and interpretation of the latter, as shown in the manuscript, place Galloway’s work

very much at the forefront of such archaeological work at the time.

Galloway’s Oronsay finds came to the museum of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland shortly after his

death, when, together with various other antiquities which had been in his possession, they became available

for purchase through his sister Miss J M Galloway (Grieve 1923, 57). A listing of these finds was published

in the Society’s Proceedings (Anon 1899), in the volume subsequent to that in which Anderson (1898, 306)

had been able to include his almost instantaneous account (with some fine illustrations of bevel-ended tools)

following their acquisition7.

Virtually all the finds from Caisteal nan Gillean described in Galloway’s manuscript seem to have been

included in the museum acquisition, with one major exception. The remarkable group of eleven barbed bone

/ antler points and fragments, which was part of the 1883 exhibition, was not present, a fact lamented by both

Anderson (1898, 307) and Grieve (1923, 57). Three of these fragmentary biserially barbed points were

sketched when on display at the exhibition in London by the Revd Dr J M Joass, but despite frequent

reproductions of the illustration made from his sketch (Anderson 1898, figs 16–18; Grieve 1923, fig.10;

Lacaille 1954, fig.86; Mellars 1987, fig. 8.3), none of these implements has yet come to light.

The catalogue entry (Appendix 1) and the manuscript (Appendix 2) have been transcribed by Dr Anna

Ritchie and I am immensely grateful to her for that and for her help with other aspects of this note. A scan of

the catalogue entry was kindly provided by Doug Stimson of the Science Museum at Wroughton and we are

grateful for his help. Dr Ritchie and I are grateful to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland for permission to

publish the Society’s manuscript here. The text of the manuscript is reproduced in full, except for Part II (the

brief final paragraphs on the Viking grave at Kiloran Bay, Colonsay), and reproduces exactly the grammar,

capitalization, punctuation and any misspellings of the original. The numbers inserted within square brackets

refer to my explanatory notes which follow the manuscript. Oransay was a common alternative spelling of

Oronsay into the earlier part of the 20th century.

6 There are other papers in the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland manuscript collection held by National Museums

Scotland library (NMS SAS 577.xii) comprising some preparatory notes made by Galloway (including a mixture of

scribbled longhand and shorthand) which do not provide much if anything in the way of further significant information

about his work on the middens, and these may well be the papers to which Anderson had access and to which he

referred disparagingly, but with justification if so, as ‘jottings’ (Anderson 1898, 306). 7 The Minutes of the Purchase Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland for 23 July 1898 record Miss Galloway’s

acceptance of the Society’s offer of £20 ‘for the selection made from her late brother’s collection’ as agreed on 18 June (A. Ritchie

pers comm). A loose paper among the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland manuscript collection held by National Museums Scotland

library (NMS SAS Ms UC 17/335) comprises a list of the Galloway items, with pencilled monetary values written against each

category. The prices paid to Miss Galloway for the ‘midden’ part of her brother’s collection total £6-19s-6d for the Caisteal nan

Gillean finds; £3-2s-0d for those from Cnoc Sligeach; and £1-8s-6d for those from Cnoc Rioch.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

58

References

Anderson, J. (1895) Notice of a cave recently discovered at Oban, containing human remains, and a refuse-heap of

shells and bones of animals, and stone and bone implements. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland

29 (1894–95), 211–230.

Anderson, J. (1898) Notes on the contents of a small cave or rock-shelter at Druimvargie, Oban; and of three shell-

mounds in Oronsay. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 32 (1897–98), 298–313.

Anderson, J. (1907) Notice of bronze brooches and personal ornaments from a ship-burial of the Viking time in

Oronsay, and other bronze ornaments from Colonsay … with a description, from notes by the late William

Galloway, of a ship-burial of the Viking time at Kiloran Bay, Colonsay. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries

of Scotland 41 (1906–07), 437-450.

Anon. (1899) Purchases for the Museum and Library. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 33

(1898–99), 6–9.

Bishop, A.H. (1914) An Oransay shell-mound – a Scottish pre-Neolithic site. Proceedings of the Society of

Antiquaries of Scotland 48 (1913–14), 52–108.

Clarke, D.V. (2002) ‘The foremost figure in all matters relating to Scottish archaeology’: aspects of the work of

Joseph Anderson (1832–1916). Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 132, 1–18.

Grieve, S. (1882) Notice of the discovery of remains of the Great Auk or Garefowl (Alca impennis, L) on the island

of Oronsay, Argyllshire. Journal of the Linnean Society – Zoology 16, 479–487.

Grieve, S. (1885) The Great Auk, or Garefowl (Alca impennis, Linn.): Its History, Archaeology, and Remains.

London: Thomas C. Jack

Grieve, S. (1923) The Book of Colonsay and Oronsay. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

IFEL. (1883) International Fisheries Exhibition London 1883 Catalogue. London.

Kristiansen, K. (2002) The birth of ecological archaeology in Denmark. In A. Fischer and K. Kristiansen (eds), The

Neolithisation of Denmark: 150 Years of Debate, 11–31. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications.

Lacaille, A.D. (1954) The Stone Age in Scotland. London: Oxford University Press (for The Wellcome Historical

Medical Museum).

Mellars, P. (1987) Excavations on Oronsay: Prehistoric Human Ecology on a Small Island. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Ritchie, A. (forthcoming) A Scottish antiquarian-architect: William Galloway.

APPENDIX 1

Extract from International Fisheries Exhibition London 1883 Catalogue, pp. 117−118:

Division LVI. – [East and West Quadrants.]

Specimens and representations illustrative of the relations between extinct and existing fishes.

989. GALLOWAY, WILLIAM, Inveresk by Edinburgh. Collection of various interesting objects from a

pre-historic shell-mound, in the island of Oransay, Western Hebrides. This shell-mound is situated on the old

coast line, and dates undoubtedly from a period anterior to its elevation. No trace of metals have been found,

but the occurrence of numerous flint chips, &c., carry it back evidently to the neolithic age. Of objects,

showing unmistakable traces of human use and agency, there are ten fish-spear or harpoon heads of bone,

and one butt; also numerous rubbed bones, chisels, borers or awls, and picks of the same material. Also lap

and hammer-stones, rubbed stones, limpet hammers, &c. Also several shells, evidently trimmed for use as

spoons, pierced for suspension, &c. In addition to the usual edible shellfish, the shells of which occur in

large quantities, there are also remains of the Rorqual, Seal, Red Deer, Otter, and other mammals; of the

Mullet, Wrasse, picked Dogfish, Skate, &c. Among the aquatic birds are included bones of the now extinct

Great Auk, the Wild Swan, Razorbill, Guillemot, &c., forming one of the most important discoveries of this

kind made in Scotland.

APPENDIX 2

Galloway’s 1883 manuscript starts here:

Catalogue Raisonnée,

of the

Loan Collection

From

Oransay and Colonsay

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

59

No. 989 East Arcade.

International Fisheries Exhibition.

London 1883.

William Galloway. Corr. Mem S. A. Scot.

Exhibitor.

Preparatory Note.

This Loan Collection naturally divides itself into two parts.

First.

A series of Objects forming the result of various prehistoric shell-mound explorations carried on by the

exhibitor in the island of Oransay. Western Hebrides.

Second.

A variety of objects from a Viking Grave discovered in June 1882, at the head of Kiloran Bay, Colonsay, by

Malcolm McNiell Esq. of Colonsay.[1]

The objects ranged under both of these divisions relate to what may be termed the Archaeology of

the Fishing and Shipping Industries a field of inquiry or of exposition which, owing probably to the recent

origin of Fisheries Exhibitions has been comparatively unrepresented.

The first part of the Collection goes back to the very Dawn of the Scottish Fisheries, and probably

also to the very earliest conditions of human existence in the Western Islands.

Down to the summer of 1881, the presence of such shell-mounds in the island of Oransay was quite

unexpected. The largest and most important as yet explored, the “Caisteal-nan-Gillean” i.e. “Castle of the

young men, boys or Servants”,[2] was from its apparently artificial formation, traditionally believed to be a

tumulus,[3] and in the account of his “Voyage to the Hebrides” is actually enumerated as such amongst the

antiquities of Oransay, by the eminent Antiquary Thomas Pennant, who visited the island in 1772.[4]

As the result of an elaborate examination through the kind permission of Sir John C. McNeill

proprietor of the island, carried on by the exhibitor during the available seasons of 1881−82, this tradition

has been completely disproven, and the fact clearly established that the artificial aspect referred to, while still

in so far due to human agency, denotes a much higher antiquity than any tumulary remains could possibly

indicate.

In the view given the external appearance of the “Caisteal-nan-Gillean” is represented, and in the

two sections its internal structure is shown to the full extent to which the excavations have been carried.[5]

From these sections it will be seen that the conical and formal character of this mound is due mainly

to a series of alternate shell-beds and sand blows, gradually accumulating one above the other, to a depth in

all from the lowermost of the shell-beds to the apex of the mound of over eight feet, from the character of the

mound, beneath these accumulations, as revealed in excavations made to a total depth of sixteen feet,

combined with the physical characteristics of the adjacent locality, it is evident that these shell beds must

have been deposited on one of the raised beaches skirting almost the entire Scottish seaboard, and as the

latest of the geologic changes effected in the British Islands, going back in all probability to a date long

anterior to the commencement of the historic period.

The character of the remains found in these shell-bed or Kjokken Möedding[6] accumulations

exactly agree with this supposition, and show a people subsisting under the very rudest and most primitive

conditions of life and to all appearance totally unacquainted not only with the use of metals, but even with

the art of the potter.

In all the successive shell bed layers, most extensive cooking places have been found, accumulations

of from three to five or six feet in diameter forming solid masses of carbonaceous matter, full of burnt and

comminuted shells, stones, fragments of charcoal &c, also carefully disposed hearths, quantities of stone

heaters, fire-fractured pebbles &c. Yet with all these elaborate arrangements for the preparation and

consumption of food, not the slightest trace, or the minutest fragment of pottery has been found. On the

contrary all the indications go to prove that for Culinary Utensils these Oransay shell-mound people were

entirely dependant upon the larger class of shore-gathered bivalves, e.g. Janira Maxima, Cyprina Islandica,

Laevicardium Norvegicium, and Cardium Tuberculatum.[7] If we except perhaps the latter species, the

capture of all the shell-fish in their natural habitats, was as will afterwards be seen, quite beyond the

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

60

resources of these people, the great majority of the shells from their worn and weathered appearance also

showing that they were shore-gathered.

The total unacquaintance of this early race with the use of metals is equally evident, although no flint

implements have been found, the presence of flint nodules and chips, seem to carry these deposits back to the

earlier part of the Neolithic Age.

All the implements found bearing unmistakeable traces of human use or manufacture, are either of

stone or bone, and to these we may add the larger shells already mentioned.

The stone implements are never fashioned in any way, but are merely water-rolled pebbles or pieces

of schist and other local rocks, of convenient size and form, such as may be gathered to any extent round the

shores at the present time.

The bone implements have been much more carefully made, the barbed harpoon heads especially,

being well adapted for their purpose.

The animal remains found show that to the art of the fisher these shell-mound people added that of

the hunter, as the great proportion of the mammal bones are those of Red Deer. There is no trace whatever of

domestic animals, and excepting the Red Deer and the Roe, the food supply seems to have been entirely

Oceanic or littoral.

The principal constituent of these shell-beds is the limpet, Patella Vulgata, which occurs in

enormous quantities, combined with the periwinkle, dogwhelk, and other available shellfish.

A comparison of the remains found with the existing find shows however that the resources of this

primitive race for the capture of their molluscous food supply was very limited, and confined to the species

which could be gathered during ebb. With the Sand-burrowing Molluscs, e.g. the Razor fish, Solen Siliqua[8]

and the Lutraria elliptica and oblonga,[9] they seem to have been entirely unacquainted, to also such deep

water shell fish as the Buccinum undatum, and Fusus Antiquus[10], both abundant round these coasts are

entirely absent. The same remark applies to the Lobster in contradistinction to the Crab. The Lobster-fishing

is now one of the local industries, although only started within the last forty years, and affords a steady

supply for the Southern Markets.

At the early period referred to, like the Crab, this crustacean must have been plentiful, and even

without the aid of creels might have been captured at low water, yet its remains are practically non existent,

while those of the Crab abound.

Of amphibious animals, the principal indications are those of the Seal, Pluca Vitulina, and

gryphus[11], and the Otter, the latter being caught apparently in all stages of growth from the young up to the

mature animal.

The bird remains found are entirely aquatic, the most important being those of the now extinct Great

Auk, Alca Impennis[12]. Traces of it have hitherto only been found in one locality in Scotland viz. At Keiss

in Caithness, where four or five portions of bone occurred in a Kitchen Midden.[13] In the present Collection

there are three times this number, all out of the one Shell-Mound.

While attention has been as yet principally confined to the Caistean-nan-Gillean, the exhibitor is

acquainted with six other stations round the Oransay shores where similar deposits occur.[14] All of these

are so situated as to prove indisputably that they must have been laid down prior to the elevation of the old

coast line, and while the shores had a very different configuration from what they have at present.[15]

All these shell-mounds are laid down either at the heads of or in immediate proximity to convenient

bays or boat harbours where these nomadic people might conveniently draw up such rude coracles as they

possessed.

Covered up by sand blows immediately after their deposition and never disturbed since their final

abandonment, no more genuine or authentic remains of an extremely primitive condition of life dependant

for its supplies mainly on the ocean could possibly be found than these shell heaps, where these fishermen

had temporarily squatted, and left the refuse of their feasts for future civilised inquiry.

I trust also that little apology will be required in including the objects found in the Viking Grave

with the present Exhibit.[16]

They can scarcely be deemed irrelevant when it is remembered that these Norsemen or Vikings were

really the first seamen who ever frequented the Scottish shores. True, they came only to plunder and

devastate the country, but this does not interfere with the high degree of skill and enterprise they exhibited

both in the construction of sea going vessels of a large size, and in the arts of navigation.

The interment evidently belongs to the pagan period of the norse dominion or prior to the eleventh

century, and the objects found including rivets for a clinker built ship or boat, Iron Sword, Spear Head,

Battle Axe, etc. correspond with other Scandinavian finds, the most interesting and unique being that of the

Scales and weights, which are very rare.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

61

In conclusion the Exhibitor regrets that owing to some change in the allotments originally made, he

has neither been able to exhibit the collection in its entirety, nor under the conditions he anticipated. The

regulation width of the tables was given at 3 feet 6 ins instead of 2 feet 3 inches, and the space allotted to his

exhibit was one of the wall compartments with an available height of 10 feet. The result is that the collection

is very much disarranged and compressed from what it was intended to be.

Catalogue of Objects exhibited from the prehistoric Shell-Mound on Caisteal-nan-Gillean, Oransay.

First. Stone Implements.

These stones have all been selected, and then used just as gathered, without being shaped or

fashioned otherwise than by use, and may be divided as follows.

1 Lapstones.[17]

Of these, three of moderate size are shown. They are all more or less deeply indented and marked

with irregular pits either singly or in groups, and were evidently used for setting the jagged extremities of

mammal bones on, while being splintered to get at the marrow. The indentations agree exactly in character

with those on the second class of stones used in the same operation, i.e.

2 Hammerstones.[18]

These are chiefly pebbles or water rolled stones of all sizes suitable for use in the hand, some round,

to be held in toto in the hand, others elongated so as to be held as by a handle, but the majority all used for

the one purpose, that of breaking up bones in order to get at the marrow; which seems to have been regarded

as a favourite delicacy.

3 Limpet Hammers.[19]

These are elongated stones generally with a flat broad end used for detaching limpets from the rocks

by a sudden side blow. By use many of them have become marked and chipped at the extremity. Stones of a

similar kind have been used by the inhabitants for the same purpose down to recent times.

4 Rubbed Stones.[19]

This is a most important class of implements used for polishing or burnishing some unknown

material. The stones range in size from 1½ inches in length up to 10 inches, of all shapes suitable to be held

in the fingers but mostly flat elongated stones, used at the extremities, generally on both sides so as to form a

bevelled edge, which is often also splintered or chipped as if with the violence of the operation. In a great

majority of instances these bevelled edges are also straited longitudinally as if the operation had been carried

out either on a rough surface or by means of sand. It is unfortunate that no remains of any object has been

found which could possibly give a clue to the peculiar use of these little stones. They must have been

employed in a precisely similar operation to that of the Rubbed Bones to be afterwards mentioned.[20]

5 Selected Stones.

These are stones which must have been gathered and carried up from the shore for some purpose or

other either actual or intended, but have no marks that might indicate the use to which they were applied.

6 Discous and Flat Stones.

Stones similar to the last, but of a different form.

Second. Implements of Bone.

Under this head are included the only implements designed made and fashioned for human use. Of

these the most important are the Fish-spear or Harpoon heads, of which ten have been found and one butt.

They are all more or less imperfect, having been broken, and then the fractured portions utilised as rubbed

bones, each of the portions found being bevelled at the ends like the bones to be afterwards mentioned, after

having served this temporary purpose they were flung aside as useless.[21] The lengths vary a good deal, but

all are distinctly barbed the barbs being sometimes alternate, occasionally opposite, and the material is

evidently Red deer bone. The butt which has also been utilised as a rubbed bone, is slightly notched at the

extremity, to give firmer attachment probably to a line or other fastening. It has one sessile barb, which is

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

62

sufficient however to prove the connection it had with the barbed spear heads. These implements are of very

rare occurrence in the Museum of Antiquities in Edinburgh.[22]

2 Beneath these are exhibited a series of implements less formal in character than the above, but not

less subservient to human uses. Some of these from their sharp edges and special forms may be classed as

“Chisels”, others long and tapering have served as Awls or borers, it may be in the preparation of the Skins

which must have played an important part in the economy of these people.[23]

3 Beneath these again are another series of implements formed almost exclusively of splinters and

pieces of bird-bones. From their being delicately pointed and worn at the extremity, they were evidently used

as picks, for the extraction of such shellfish as the periwinkle &c. Some of these are two or three inches in

length, and have an artificially ragged edge, as if they had been tied or fastened to a stick or small handle.

4 In addition to these but in a still more fragmentary state is shown portions of perforated antlers

which may have been used either as handles in which were inserted stone implements, or vice versa the

portion of antler may itself have been the implement, and the orifice intended for the insertion of a wooden

handle.[24]

5 Rubbed Bones.

Of this most important class of implements, two mounts full are shown covering in all some three

square feet. One of these mounts contains fragments of Red deer limb bones, the other portions of Antlers.

Whatever the substance upon which they were used, or the nature and object of the operation these sets of

limb and antler bones were evidently used at quite independant stages. The limb bones are still for the most

part hard and compact and have been used chiefly at one extremity, although sometimes both ends are

rubbed, but in most cases the operation does not affect the body of the bone which usually shows all the

rough angularities of the original fracture. As in the case of the rubbed stones, the stage in which they were

used seems to have been a comparatively rough one, and accompanied by a certain degree of violence. The

great majority of these rubbed limb-bones like the rubbed stones have splinters or chips broken off their

rubbed extremities showing they must have been used on some hard or rough surface.

The antler-fragments on the contrary show no such splintering indeed they would have gone to

pieces under such rough treatment. At the same time not only are the extremities smoothly rubbed and

bevelled, but in a great majority of cases the entire body of the bone especially on the interior surface is also

rubbed quite smooth. It seems then that these antler-fragments had been used at the finishing stage of the

same work as the rubbed bones and stones, but that, instead if being held in the fingers, and the ends only

brought to bear on the surface operated on, they were for the most part laid flat on it, and so rubbed, until the

rubber and doubtless also the object rubbed were quite smooth.[25]

The majority of these Antler-fragments are small and to be held only in the fingers, but at the top of

the mount will be noticed a very large and very fine portion of the beam of a large antler which had been

used for precisely the same purpose. Being found not far from the surface where there was freer access of

moisture, it had unfortunately got into a very spongy state, and was rescued only in pieces. The rubbed end is

however quite perfect, and shows that the antler must have been grasped in toto in the hand, and so brought

to bear on the surface operated on. The lower surface is quite smooth and polished but shows also quite

considerable delicate striations, a characteristic common to all the rubbed surfaces of these bones and stones.

On the upper surface of this large antler-fragment an inch or two from the rubbed extremity will be noticed a

rough pit, or broken part in the rugose surface of the antler. This has evidently been produced by the pressure

or action of the right forefinger nail while the antler was being firmly pressed down on the rubbed surface.

Beneath, are four fragments from large pieces of Antler which have been used in a similar way, I am

not aware that attention has been hitherto directed to this subject, or that rubbed bones of a similar kind have

been found so extensively distributed in the one locality.

As another class of objects which must have been turned to account as utensils, I think as already mentioned

we may safely include all the large bivalves, e.g. the Ganira Maxima,[7] Cyprina Islandica, Laevicardium

Norvegicum, and even Cardium Tuberculatum, distributed round the vertical back-parts of the cases. That

this was really the case, and that they are not accidentally present appears from the following

considerations.[26]

1. The capture in a living state of the great bulk of these shellfish in their native deep water habitats was

quite beyond the resources of these people. Even such sand burrowing bivalves as the Lutrarias and the

Solens which may be easily dug for at ebb or very low spring tides, seem to have been quite unknown to

them, and much more so, shellfish only to be found on banks several fathoms under water.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

63

2. While such is the case everything in these shellbeds on this mound above the weight of blown sand or

land shells must have been transferred thither by human agency. This is easily proven by reference to the

mass of pure sand intervening between the lowermost of these shell bed layers, and the earliest coating of

vegetation this mound ever carried, marked aaa on both the sections.[5]

3. Except it may be in the case of storms, when there may be a stray one, these shellfish are seldom to be

found on the Oransay shores in an edible state. The banks where they do occur lie to the east of the island,

and it is chiefly in the bays there where even the dead shells are to be found. They occur but seldom round

the southern beaches where the Caisteal Nan Gillean is situated. Even as dead shells then the bulk of the

above bivalves must have been transported over two miles or even more from the bays where they most

frequently occur to this squatting place.

4. Add to this the entire absence of the larger dead shells to be gathered plentifully on the shores, but which

could not be made useful, e.g. such univalves as Buccinum Undatum and Fusus Antiquus, abundant in the

living state on these coasts in deep water, and as dead shells on the shores, yet not a solitary example of the

Fusus Antiquus has occurred and of the Buccinum Undatum only the trifling fragments exhibited.

5. An examination of the bulk of these shells, and especially the larger ones the Pectens and Cyprinas shows

they were gathered not as living and fresh, but as dead shells weathered and water rolled.

6. While no special preparation was required to make these Pectens and Cyprinas serviceable, the undoubted

fact that the smaller shells to be now mentioned were trimmed and adapted for use, proves that shells were

really used as utensils.

7. In the case of the Pectens the disparity in numbers between the flat and concave valves is most decided. In

the case of living shells the ratio should have been about equal. As it is, the preference seems to have been

given to the concave valves, as being the most serviceable of the two, whether they were used as drinking or

food vessels.

We now come to the trimmed and pierced shells exhibited together. These are valves either of the

Laevicardium Norwegicum or Cardium Tuberculatum. The trimming has taken place around the margin of

the shell, and that it is designed, and not accidental appears to me indisputable. The object of the trimming

seems to have been to give a firmer rest for the left thumb in using the vessel for drinking purposes, while

the right hand would act as knife and fork. The artificial adaptation becomes still more apparent when the

shells are taken in the hand, and their fitness for the end in view is quite striking. The fact of the umbo being

pierced not with the round smooth lipped hole of a boring animal, but with an irregular fracture artificially

induced, shows that once trimmed or selected these were considered favourite shells.

Such are the only implements found in this prehistoric shell-mound, that they are extremely rude and

primitive will be at once admitted, and there can be little doubt they go back to the earliest period of the

Neolithic age.[27]

Third. Remains of Animals used as Food &c.[28]

The largest and most important of the mammals so used has been undoubtedly the Red deer, Cervus

Elaplius,[29] its bones in a more or less fragmentary state are distributed all through these shell beds, and out

of them are fashioned the most important of the implements found. Want of space has compelled me to limit

the exhibit to a few typical examples, which might easily have been very much extended. One noticeable

peculiarity is, the treatment of the limb-bones for the extraction of the marrow. A complete or approximately

complete bone is never to be found, but either articular extremities roughly hacked across as if by a flint, and

then broken, or splinters from the shaft of the bone. Examples in all these states are exhibited. The antlers

also were turned to account as far as possible, as we have seen under implements, and there is a mount

exhibited devoted exclusively to pieces of antlers roughly hacked round and then broken across as in the case

of the bones, proving to demonstration the very imperfect tools these people had to work with.

Of the Roe deer Cervus Caprimulgus[29] several bones have been found.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

64

Of the Cetacea undoubtedly traces occur in the large portion of rib, and the fragment apparently of a

weapon or implement exhibited. It may however have been obtained otherwise than by the actual capture of

the animal in a living state.[11]

The remains of the Pinnipedia or Seal Family, both from the number and variety of bones, show that

they must have been freely captured, and used for food etc. Bones from all parts of the body occur, vertebrae,

limb-bones, phalanges, teeth etc., both of the grey and the common seal. This Amphibian is abundant on the

shores at present, and must have been still more so in these remote ages. A small island adjoining Oransay is

called Eilean-na-Ron or the Seals island, and there is also Roll-na-Ron or the Seals pool. They are frequently

to be seen in large droves, and are specially protected by the proprietor. There need be no surprise then in

finding its remains forming a pretty high ratio amongst those of other animals, although with the very

imperfect implements or weapons they possessed, the capture of so large an animal, and still more that of the

Red deer must have been no light task.

The remains of the Otter, Lutra Vulgaris,[30] also occur coextensively with those of the Seal, and

that in all stages of growth from the comparatively young animal with its bones not yet thoroughly

anchylosed up to the mature animal.

It would be prized no doubt for its skin, but the fact of the bones being found interspersed with the

masses of apparently cooked animal debris, would lead to the conclusion it was used for food as well.

At the period in question the otter would no doubt be abundant all round these coasts. It is now

believed to be quite extinct, but this has only taken place within the last 40 or 50 years.

The Gaelic names of various localities show the prevalence of this animal at one time all round the

islands, at the same time, owing to the limited amount of fresh water streams and lakes its habitat must have

been chiefly the sea, and the rocks which everywhere skirt the coast.

The Bird remains are exclusively Aquatic, the most interesting being those of the now extinct Great

Auk, Alca Impennis, previously mentioned.

At the period when this shell-mound was in process of formation, the Great Auk would no doubt

occur abundantly on the Scottish shores. The entire country would then be in the almost undisturbed

possession of a wild fauna, on whose vast numbers, the encroachments made by man would be

comparatively few and feeble. Of good size and powerless for flight the Auk when caught out of its favourite

element would no doubt be an easy prey. The bones in question are chiefly humeri or wing bones, both distal

and proximal ends. Coracoids, part of a Scapula, and fragments of limb bones, as the Tibia.

It is a curious fact that although with much greater powers of flight, and therefore of escape, than the

Great Auk, the birds whose remains occur most numerously are those of the allied species, the Razorbill or

Alca torda, and the Guillemut Uria troile.[31] The proportion between the bones of these active birds,

equally at home either in the water or the air, and those of all the other species put together is so great, as to

make their mode of capture a matter of surprise. They are indeed the only birds, of which remains occur

really in force, or numerously. Amongst other species are bones of the Wild Swan, Duck, &c.

Although the species are by no means so easily identifiable as those of the Mammals and Birds, and

at the same time much more fragile and perishable, the Fish Remains are really very extensive and varied. At

the same time owing to the restricted space (ten square feet less table space than was allocated) at disposal, it

has been necessary to exclude the greater part of these, and the other animal remains.

From the vertebrae and other bones found it is evident that by whatever means, fish of all sizes, and

various kinds were captured and eaten. Of the Wrasse also a local fish, unmistakeable traces occur in the

numerous inferior pharyngeal bones set with the characteristic palatal tuberosities or teeth. The Skate has

also left distinct traces in the tubercles with which it is armed, and also the Picked Dogfish, in its powerful

prickles.[32]

From the number of Scales, and other remains found, the mullet must also have been extensively

captured. Indeed, at one spot I found a solid compressed mass of pure fish debris entirely composed of scales

bones and animal matter about an inch in thickness, and 16 to 18 inches in diameter, and this without any

admixture of foreign matter. Similar deposits, of much less quantity were by no means unfrequent, and show

traces of some large strong scaled fish such as the mullet. The mullet occurs abundantly round these shores,

but is seldom taken owing to the difficulty of capture. With a properly constructed net however tons of this

fish have been secured in “the Strand”, or narrow strait dry at half ebb, separating Oransay from Colonsay.

The only Crustacean whose remains occur in any quantity are those of the Common Crab, plentiful

of course on the coast. The claws and fragments of the Carapace are abundantly distributed throughout the

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

65

shell-beds, and show that the specimens caught must have been of large size, and formed no doubt a

favourite article of food.

In the neighbourhood of the Cooking places nothing is more common than to find the thick solid

extremities of the claws either wholly or partially burnt, showing that probably the animal had been

subjected to some kind of roasting process.

Except it may be one or two doubtful fragments which judging from the character of the tubercles

may be Lobster, the remains of this allied Crustacean, are conspicuous by their absence. At the same time

although in deeper water, and more inaccessible habitats the Lobster is nearly as abundant round these coasts

as the Crab, and Lobster fishing is one of the local industries constantly pursued in summer and autumn. It is

clear then, as in the case of the sand-burrowing and deep water mollusks already mentioned, that the Lobster

was quite beyond the powers of capture of these early fishermen. Even if known to exist, it had no place as

an article of food, or admidst the extensive crab remains some traces of its congener would also have

occurred.

It may be as well to mention that at low water the Lobster like the crab can be caught in the crevices

of the rocks.

Of the shellfish or Mollusca used as food, the common Limpet, Patella vulgata, is by far the most

abundant. The great mass of the shell-beds are composed of Limpet shells amounting it must be to hundreds

of tons. Then as now, the limpet no doubt covered the rocks between high and low water mark, while the

number of “limpet-hammers” is further proof of the importance attached to this mollusk.

Next in quantity comes the periwinkle, Littorina Litorea also abundantly distributed through all the

layers. Although to a less extent, the same remark holds good of the Dogwhelk Purpura Lapillus. Of bivalves

the Cockle, Cardium edule, and Tuberculatum, are really with exception of a few Mussels, all that can be

reasonably inferred to have been used for food. The Cockle is found pretty plentifully at ebb tide in the

Strand between Oransay and Colonsay, and the Mussel Mytilus edulis, also occurs although by no means

abundantly among the rocks on the shore.[33]

Two or three exhibits illustrate the cooking of these varied food supplies. e.g. A box full of

Carbonaceous matter intermixed with which are broken, burnt and comminuted shells, fragments of burnt

wood and pine charcoal, burnt stones &c. A second box contains almost pure animal debris in a very

comminuted state together with bird and other bones of fish, fish scales &c. Yet another contains fire-

fractured pebbles or heaters, which occur in large numbers or nests in the various layers.

[1] At this one point Galloway misspells McNeill as McNiell, as did Grieve in his initial publication (1882,

480).

[2] Various translations of Caisteal nan Gillean from the Gaelic have been given. Grieve also has ‘the castle’

(1882, 480; 1885, 47) but subsequently has ‘the fort of the young men or ghillies or followers’ (1923, 41);

Mellars (1987, 117) has ‘the hill of the servants or followers’.

[3] Grieve’s initial reason for investigating the Caisteal nan Gillean mound was precisely because it was

thought to contain ancient burials (Mellars 1987, 117 & 170).

[4] Grieve (1923, 14) inadvertently attributes Pennant’s recognition of the mounds to 1769, the year of his

first tour of Scotland, whereas his visit to the Hebrides was not until 1772, as correctly noted here by

Galloway, and as previously by Grieve (1882, 480) himself.

[5] This makes it clear that Galloway exhibited two sections and a ‘view’. There is no record of what these

were and they are not known to survive. However, Grieve (1882, 481), when first publishing the now well-

known woodcut illustration of the Caisteal nan Gillean mound, indicates that it was based on a photograph

taken by Galloway, possibly the one (presumably taken by Galloway since he is not in the photograph)

reproduced later by Grieve (1923, fig.3) and Mellars (1987, fig. 11.19). The only extant section is the

schematic one published by Grieve (1923, fig.9). Mellars reproduced this (1987, fig.8.2) attributing it to

Grieve and describing it as ‘demonstrably inaccurate’ (1987, 170). It seems unlikely that this was one of the

sections referred to by Galloway, who was an accomplished draughtsman (Ritchie forthcoming). That

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

66

Galloway’s sections were drawings and not photographs is implied later on in the manuscript, when the

deposit marked ‘AAA’ on the section is referred to.

[6] Køkkenmødding (kjokkenmoedding) is the Danish word for kitchen midden which became established in

English-speaking countries as the appropriate term for a shell midden as a result of the high-profile

investigation of these sites in Denmark in the second half of the 19th century (see Kristiansen 2002).

[7] These are all bivalve molluscs. By ‘Janira Maxima’ (and later in the text ‘Ganira Maxima’), Galloway

undoubtedly meant the great scallop, Pecten maximus Linn., 1758. The black clam ‘Cyprina Islandica’

would now be classed as Arctica islandica Linn., 1767; Laevicardium Norvegicium the Norway cockle

would be Laevicardium crassus Gmelin, 1791 (Cardium norvegicum), and Cardium Tuberculatum is the

rough cockle, Acanthocardia tuberculata Linn., 1758. It should be noted that the corrected scientific

nomenclature I have given here and in subsequent notes is my own attempt at interpretation of what the

current classifications for Galloway’s identifications should be, based purely on his text; I have not tried to

match any of these identifications with actual museum specimens from Galloway’s collection.

[8] The Solenidae are the razor shell family and ‘Solens Siliqua’ is the common pod razor shell, which would

now be classed as Ensis siliqua Linn., 1758.

[9] ‘Lutraria Elliptica’ is the common otter shell Lutraria lutraria Linn., 1758, and Lutraria oblonga Gmelin,

1791 is a related species.

[10] ‘Buccinum undatum’ is the common whelk Buccinum undatum Linn., 1758; ‘Fusus Antiquus’ is the red

whelk or spindle shell Neptunea antiqua Linn., 1758.

[11] ‘Pluca Vitulina’ is the harbour seal Phoca vitulina Linn., 1758, and ‘gryphus’ is the grey seal

Halichoerus grypus Fabricius, 1791. Note that rorqual is mentioned in the exhibition catalogue and that three

probable rorqual bones were specified by Grieve (1885, 55; and see note [28] below).

[12] ‘Alca Impennis’, the great auk, which is now classed as Pinguinus impennis Linn., 1758, became a

major focus of Symington Grieve’s interest in the Oronsay middens (Grieve 1882; 1885).

[13] The great auk finds from Keiss are described by Grieve (1885, 43–46).

[14] The ‘six other stations’ to which Galloway refers must include Croch Sligach / Cnoc Sligeach and

Croch Riach / Cnoc Rioch which Galloway went on to examine in 1884, and the location of which is shown

on Grieve’s map (1923, frontispiece; though see Mellars 1987, 122–123), but which the other four were is

uncertain.

[15] Mellars (1987, 129) attributes the initial highly important observation about the location of the Oronsay

middens relative to a former high shoreline, and thus their significant antiquity, to Bishop (1914, 55). From

the manuscript it is clear that Galloway had already achieved this insight by 1883 (contra Grieve 1885, 60–

61).

[16] Malcolm McNeill and Galloway’s discoveries in 1882 and 1883 in the Viking grave at Kiloran Bay,

Colonsay, were initially published by Anderson (1907).

[17] ‘Lapstones’ are what would normally now be called anvil-stones and are a common feature of

‘Obanian’ assemblages (Bishop 1914, fig.32; Lacaille 1954, fig.98; Mellars 1987, fig.8.6). Rather than from

use with working bone, the pits and indentations on these stones result primarily from their use as anvils for

knapping flint pebbles by so-called bipolar anvil technique.

[18] Hammerstones would undoubtedly have been used for breaking up bones, as proposed here, but they

would also have been used in the flint-knapping process.

[19] This is an extremely important distinction drawn between ‘Limpet Hammers’ and ‘Rubbed Stones’, the

former with abraded ends, the latter bevelled. Although the distinction is perhaps insufficiently clarified here

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

67

by Galloway, since the former are ‘elongated stones’, and the latter are also ‘elongated stones’ and up to ‘10

inches’ (254 mm) in length, nevertheless, it is clear that the implement type now normally referred to as a

bevel-ended tool or a bevelled pebble is what Galloway distinguished as a ‘rubbed stone’ in contrast to a

‘limpet hammer’. Grieve (1882, 482, 486–487) had also made this observation but did not emphasize it as

much as Galloway does here.

[20] Mellars (1987, 123) credits Anderson (1898, 309–311) as the first to recognize the similarity between

the bevelled tools of bone and stone, something which Galloway had clearly noticed.

[21] Galloway shows a keen understanding of the process here, whereby parts of implements of bone and

antler, such as barbed points, were recycled after breakage for use as bevel-ended tools. Anderson (1895,

224), when publishing similar examples from MacArthur Cave, did not appear to fully appreciate this re-use

cycle.

[22] This reference is obscure and intriguing, as there do not appear to have been any barbed points in the

Edinburgh museum collection until the examples from MacArthur Cave, Oban, were acquired in the early

1890s (Anderson 1895).

[23] Galloway here makes a significant, and presumably correct, assumption about skins being an important

resource for the people of the Oronsay middens, and a resource which would have required appropriate tools,

such as piercing implements, for their utilization. He does not, however, go on to suggest that the ‘rubbed

stones and bones’ could have been used for skin preparation, as subsequently did Anderson (1895, 222).

[24] Mellars (1987, 123) credits Anderson (1898, 309) as being the first to draw attention to perforated antler

implements from Oronsay, but here Galloway has independently made this observation.

[25] These observations about the different wear and use patterns on the bone and antler bevelled tools have

not yet been fully explored in any modern studies of this tool type.

[26] Mellars (1987, 129) credits Bishop (1914, 99–100) as the first to recognize that the large shells had been

used as implements and containers, another insight previously gained by Galloway.

[27] The antiquity of the Oronsay shell-middens was perhaps another significant topic for disagreement

between Galloway and Grieve at the time of the excavation, since the latter initially felt ‘that it is not

necessary to relegate the objects found on Caisteal-nan-Gillean to a period much earlier than the Christian

era’ (Grieve 1885, 61). Even Anderson, when considering the finds from the midden deposit in MacArthur

Cave, Oban, could by 1895 only conclude in broad terms that ‘archaeologically the fauna and implements of

the cave must be classed as Neolithic at the earliest’ (Anderson 1895, 230), and it was not until 1898 that he

felt able to attribute the ‘Obanian’ finds, including those from Oronsay, to the pre-Neolithic ‘hiatus’

(Anderson 1898, 313). The problematic linkage of the Oronsay and ‘Obanian’ finds with Epipalaeolithic

ones from Mas-d’Azil in France was promoted by Bishop (1914; see Mellars 1987, 125–126), and Grieve

subsequently adopted the descriptive term Azilian for the Oronsay finds, but helped spread further confusion

by concluding that there would have been a time-lag, making the Azilian in the west of Scotland of Neolithic

age (Grieve 1923, 14, 16, & 41).

[28] Apart from the animal remains described here by Galloway, Grieve (1885, 55) lists the following as also

represented in Galloway’s display at the Fisheries Exhibition: ‘Wild boar or pig (Sus scrofa), two tusks

which have probably belonged to that animal . …. There are three cetacean bones that have probably

belonged to the rorqual or finwhale. They are: one large fragment of a rib, one part of vertebral epiphysis,

and one fragment of a rib made into a pointed spear or lancehead’. Rorqual is listed in the catalogue entry

(Appendix 1 above), but is not mentioned in the manuscript.

[29] The red deer ‘Cervus Elaplius’ is Cervus elaphus Linn, 1758; the roe deer ‘Cervus Caprimulgus’ is

Capreolus capreolus Linn., 1758.

[30] The otter ‘Lutra Vulgaris’ is Lutra lutra Linn., 1758.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

68

[31] The razorbill is Alca torda Linn., 1758; the ‘Guillemut Uria troile’ is the guillemot Uria aalge

Pontoppidan, 1763.

[32] The ‘Picked Dogfish’ is the piked or spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias Linn., 1758.

[33] The periwinkle ‘Littorina Litorea’ is the edible periwinkle Littorina littorea Linn., 1758; the ‘Dogwhelk

Purpura Lapillus’ is the dog whelk Nucella lapillus Linn., 1758; the ‘Cockle, Cardium edule, and

Tuberculatum’ are the common cockle Cerastoderma edule Linn., 1758, and the rough cockle Acanthocardia

tuberculata Linn., 1758; and the ‘Mussel Mytilus edulis’ is the blue mussel Mytilus edulis Linn., 1758.

Addendum

Subsequent to the above paper being accepted for publication in Mesolithic Miscellany, further investigation

of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland’s manuscript collection by Dr Anna Ritchie revealed the drawing

reproduced here (Figure 1; the archive reference for this drawing is NMS SAS 522/55). The drawing

comprises a single large sheet of stiff paper (size approx. 26 x 21 inches; 660 x 530 mm), currently folded

three times (but with other previous fold marks), on which there are two sections sketched in ink.

The upper part of the drawing is labelled ‘Longitudinal section of mound no. I’, with layers labelled from the

surface downwards as A, B, C, D, E and F, and what appears to be a feature labelled BB intruding into layer

C.

The lower part is labelled ‘Cross section of mound no. II’, and has layers labelled from the surface

downwards as A, C, D, F, G, H and K, and features AB intruding into C, DE intruding into F, and HI as what

appears to represent an accumulation of large cobbles on the surface of layer K.

There is no other accompanying information, and the drawing has no scale or key, and no signature although

Dr Ritchie is certain the handwriting is that of William Galloway.

There seems little doubt that these sections relate to Oronsay shell midden mounds, and there is a possibility

that a cross-reference to Galloway’s account of Caisteal nan Gillean I is provided for the longitudinal section

in the upper part of the drawing by the superficial deposit he refers to as ‘AAA’ (see note [5] above).

There is no obvious cross-reference in Galloway’s text to the cross-section in the lower part of the drawing.

The captions are ambiguous, but it is assumed that the ‘I’ and ‘II’ on the drawing must refer to separate

mounds rather than to separate sections of the same mound. This seems obvious anyway from the different

stratigraphy shown in each section, and in this regard the contrast in the thickness and character of the ‘A’

layers should be noted.

The above reading of the drawing is not without problems. Firstly, in his manuscript Galloway refers to two

sections showing the internal structure of Caisteal nan Gillean which accompanied the exhibition of the

artefacts (see note [5]), so this drawing is probably not the one referred to in the manuscript. Secondly, the

Caisteal nan Gillean excavation was in 1881-82, whereas it was in 1884 that the other two mounds were

investigated, making it seem unlikely that sketches of Caisteal nan Gillean and another mound would be on

the same sheet of paper. Thirdly, since ‘A’ seems to have been the generic designation for the uppermost

mound horizon, the reference in the manuscript to ‘AAA’ being a link with Caisteal nan Gillean may be

erroneous. On the other hand, we have no information to suggest that the 1884 investigations of the other

mounds was anywhere near as extensive as depicted in the drawing (cf. Mellars 1987, 196).

It is possible that further research will help to decipher the story of this drawing, but for the moment it only

seems safe to conclude that it is by Galloway and that it does relate to Oronsay middens; the precise mounds

depicted remains elusive.

Alan Saville

Edinburgh

20.03.2013

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

69

Figure 1: Sections thought to relate to the Oronsay mounds.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

70

A response to Meiklejohn and Woodman, ‘Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic

human remains in Ireland’

Alison Sheridan

National Museums Scotland

[email protected]

Meiklejohn’s and Woodman’s review of the currently-available radiocarbon dates for human remains in pre-

Neolithic and Mesolithic–Neolithic ‘transition period’ Ireland (along with a critical review of others that had

previously been viewed as pertaining to these periods) in Mesolithic Miscellany 22:1 provides a useful and

welcome round-up. However, it also re-opens the whole question of how one defines ‘Mesolithic’ and

‘Neolithic’, and it includes some unintentional misrepresentation of some of the arguments relating to the

transition. The purpose of this brief note is not to discuss the issues surrounding the Mesolithic–Neolithic

transition in detail, there being plenty of ink already spilt on this matter (e.g. Sheridan 2010), but to correct a

couple of errors and misrepresentations of the current author’s position.

The most serious misreading of this author’s multi-strand model of Neolithisation is to be found on page 25,

where Meiklejohn and Woodman write ‘It should be noted that the model of an initial Neolithic postdating

4000 calBC disagrees with the position of Alison Sheridan…, who argues for an earliest Neolithic in Ireland

(her Carinated Bowl Neolithic), with links between southwest Ireland and western France, as early as ~4300

cal BC. However, evidence is limited…especially after removal of the early dates from Ballynagilly…’ This

is wrong on two major counts. Firstly, my argument for the presence of a trait usually identified as a

distinguishing feature of a Neolithic way of life around 4300 BC does not relate to my ‘Carinated Bowl’ (CB)

strand of Neolithisation, for which there is indeed no undisputed evidence in Ireland prior to 4000 BC.

(Furthermore, not only have I not cited ApSimon’s Ballynagilly dates to support a pre-4000 BC CB

Neolithic, I have consistently and vigorously pointed out that ApSimon himself finally acknowledged that

the dates in question are wholly flawed. For chapter and verse on the Ballynagilly dates, see Cooney et al.

2011, 601 and table 12.4.) Rather, the evidence to which I have referred in arguing for a Neolithic presence

in Ireland around 4300 BC relates to the presence of domestic cattle bones at Ferriter’s Cove. Second, the

authors seem to have jumbled up my various strands of Neolithisation and are confused as to what came

from where and when, so to recap, I argue for the following, pertaining to Ireland:

1. A very small-scale movement of farmers from north-west France to south-west Ireland, possibly

around 4300 BC (as based on the OxA-3869 date of 4450–4270 cal BC for Ferriter’s Cove cattle

bone; the earlier date of 4760–4610 cal BC can safely be discounted as it was determined on charred

bone, a notoriously unreliable material). This would have been responsible for the introduction of

the domestic cattle as seen at Ferriter’s Cove and, as argued in several publications (including

Sheridan 2010), it seems to have involved insufficient immigrants to have allowed their

farming/herding lifestyle to take root. In other words, there was not a critical mass of immigrants.

Added to this, if the current author’s reading of the evidence is correct, the local hunters-fishers-

gatherers appear not to have been keen to adopt a herding/farming lifestyle, instead regarding the

alien creatures as interesting new prey to be hunted and eaten.

2. Another small-scale movement of farmers, this time from the Morbihan region of Brittany up the

Atlantic façade, and settling on the coast of south-west and north-west Wales, western Scotland and

the northern half of Ireland, arriving at some time between c 4300 and c 3900 BC. These people

brought the wholly novel tradition of constructing megalithic funerary monuments (i.e. the closed

chambers and simple passage tombs, as seen in the Carrowmore cemetery, for example); and the

ceramic finds from Achnacreebeag in western Scotland show that not only did they build Breton-

style monuments, they also used Breton-style pottery (i.e. Late Castellic and related ware). These

communities flourished in some areas (including parts of Ireland), but not in others (especially

Wales, where the tradition of constructing passage tombs died out, to be reintroduced several

centuries later from eastern Ireland, during the late fourth millennium).

3. A slightly larger-scale movement of small farming groups – the ‘Carinated Bowl Neolithic’ – from

Nord-Pas de Calais to many parts of Britain. The nuts and bolts of this process continue to be

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

71

debated vigorously, with Whittle et al. (2011, fig. 14.16) having argued for a single point of arrival

in south-east England and a northwards and westwards expansion from there, while the current

author argues for a broader, diasporic character of this initial appearance, the arrival extending much

further up the eastern seaboard of Britain as far as Caithness and lasting over several generations

(e.g. Sheridan 2012; 2013). Whether this hypothetical, small-scale ‘colonisation’ from northern

France extended as far as Ireland in its initial appearance is a moot point, but in the current author’s

opinion, it is most likely to have arrived in Ireland as a result of small-scale secondary movement

from Scotland. When this happened remains another $64,000 question; the Magheraboy dating

conundrum to which Meiklejohn and Woodman refer may only be resolved through fresh

excavation and dating of that causewayed enclosure (cf. Cooney et al. 2011, section 12.2). However,

the dates that Meiklejohn and Woodman cite for domestic cattle from Kilgreany Cave (5190±80 BP,

4220–3820 cal BC) and from Derragh Island (Lough Kinale) of c 3900 cal BC – the former from a

location where early-style, ‘traditional Carinated Bowl’ pottery has also been found – suggest that

there had indeed been a pre-38th century BC ‘House Horizon’ Neolithic in Ireland (cf. Smyth 2014).

Quite how the indigenous hunter-gatherer-fisher population of Ireland reacted to the really striking novelties

of new subsistence foodstuffs, new technology, new architecture and new practices and beliefs is a

fascinating question; as indicated above, those living at Ferriter’s Cove around 4300 BC seemed uninterested

in ‘becoming Neolithic’. This author is not in disagreement with Graeme Warren’s argument that, for some,

life went on as normal for some time after the appearance of Neolithic lifestyle traits in their area. Given the

low density of the population, both regarding indigenous communities and putative incomers, it would have

been possible to live in the same area and be unaware of each other’s presence for at least a generation. What

is so very interesting, however, is the absolute paucity of Late Mesolithic-style sites post-dating c 4000 BC.

How is this to be explained? The Derragh Island site offers a glimpse into a changing lifestyle in one part of

Ireland during the all-important period around 4000 BC, but we need much more evidence if we are to

replace our current, inadequate ‘snapshot’ picture with a fuller and more nuanced and accurate account of the

transition.

The most pressing questions and issues to be addressed now, in the current author’s opinion, are:

1. Is there other evidence, waiting to be found, of the hypothetical episode or process of colonisation in

south-west Ireland around 4300 BC? (That it was a case of people coming from France and

introducing cattle, rather than the result of people from Ireland going over to France, seems most

likely to this author, not least because there had been absolutely no history of contact from Ireland to

France before that, whereas there had been a history of long-distance seafaring from Brittany for at

least two centuries before 4300 BC (as discussed, for example, by Cassen et al. 2013)

2. The date of the construction of Ireland’s closed chambers and simple passage tombs really does need

to be bottomed out, to check the validity of this author’s Atlantic façade, Morbihannais strand of

Neolithisation hypothesis. The recent, very welcome dating of bone and antler pins from the

Carrowmore cemetery by Robert Hensey and Stefan Bergh (2013) has indicated that the use of these

monuments extends back as far as 3775–3520 cal BC (which is their Bayesian-modelled ‘start’ date),

but this evidence does not demonstrate when those monuments were built and first used.

3. The date of the earliest presence of the Carinated Bowl Neolithic has to be resolved, and this can

only come through excavation (especially that of court tombs, to check for the presence of a pre-

megalithic timber phase, as seen at Dooey’s Cairn, Ballymacaldrack, Co. Antrim). The Magheraboy

causewayed enclosure needs further excavation and dating.

4. The significance of the use of shell middens post-c4000 BC needs to be explored. Is this evidence

for the continuity of a ‘Mesolithic way of life’? Is it a localised adaptation, following lean farming

years? Here, the isotopic analysis undertaken by Rick Schulting (e.g. Schulting 2013) is invaluable

in highlighting the absolute dominance of terrestrial resources in the diet of people in Ireland post-c

4000 BC; similarly, Jessica Smyth’s lipid analysis of Carinated Bowl pottery (Cramp et al. 2014) has

revealed that the ceramic evidence for diet is resolutely terrestrial in nature. Who, then, was eating

the shellfish, how, and why?

5. What is the latest date for a site in Ireland that is purely ‘Late Mesolithic’ in nature (i.e. in terms of

technology, structures, traditions and practices)?

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

72

Meiklejohn and Woodman’s piece touches on a topic which continues to be of central importance to Irish

prehistory, even if it has been discussed extensively for many years now. It is hoped that a combination of

targeted research (including new fieldwork) and good luck may help us to forge a more detailed and accurate

narrative of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in the future.

References

Cassen, S., Boujot, C., Dominguez Bella, S., Guiavarc’h, M., Le Pennec, C., Prieto Martinez, M.P., Querré, G.,

Santrot, M.-H. and Vigier, E. (2012) Dépôts bretons, tumulus carnacéens et circulations à longue distance. In P.

Pétrequin, S. Cassen, M. Errera, L. Klassen, J.A. Sheridan and A.-M. Pétrequin (eds), JADE. Grandes haches

alpines du Néolithique européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C., 918–95. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de

Franche-Comté (Les cahiers de la MSHE Ledoux no 17).

Cooney, G., Bayliss, A., Healy, F., Whittle, A., Danaher, E., Cagney, L., Mallory, J., Smyth, J., Kador, T. &

O’Sullivan, M. (2011) Ireland. In A. Whittle, F. Healy & A. Bayliss (eds.) Gathering Time: dating the Early

Neolithic enclosures of Britain and Ireland, 562-669. Oxbow, Oxford.

Cramp, L.J.E., Jones, J., Sheridan, J.A., Smyth, J., Whelton, H., Mulville, J., Sharples, N.M. and Evershed, R.P.

(2014) Immediate replacement of fishing with dairying by the earliest farmers of the NE Atlantic archipelagos.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24523264, accessed July 2014

Hensey, R. and Bergh, S. (2013) ‘The inns at Sligo are better than those at Auray…and the scenery far more

beautiful’: Carrowmore re-visited. In M.A. Timoney (ed.), Dedicated to Sligo: thirty-four essays on Sligo’s past,

41–3. Keash: Publishing Sligo’s Past.

Schulting, R.J. (2013) On the northwestern fringes: earlier Neolithic subsistence in Britain and Ireland as seen

through faunal remains and stable isotopes. In S. Colledge, J. Conolly, K. Dobney, K. Manning and S.J. Shennan

(eds), The origins and spread of domestic animals in southwest Asia and Europe, 313–38. Walnut Creek: Left Coast

Press.

Sheridan, J.A. (2010) The Neolithisation of Britain and Ireland: the Big Picture, in B. Finlayson and G. Warren

(eds.), Landscapes in Transition, 89–105. Oxford: Oxbow.

Sheridan, J.A. (2012) Review of A. Whittle, F. Healy and A. Bayliss, Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic

Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Antiquity 86 (331), 262–4.

Sheridan, J. A. (2013) Early Neolithic habitation structures in Britain and Ireland: a matter of circumstance and

context. In D. Hofmann and J. Smyth (eds.), Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe, 283–300. New York,

Dordrecht, Heidelberg and London: Springer.

Smyth, J. (2014) Settlement in the Irish Neolithic. Oxford: Oxbow (Prehistoric Society Research Paper No. 6).

Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, A. (2011) Gathering time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern

Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24523264

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

73

Conference Reviews

International conference: "Mesolithic Burials – Rites, symbols and social

organisation of early postglacial communities"

Halle (Saale), 18th - 21st September 2013

Judith M. Grünberg

Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt – Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte,

Richard-Wagner-Str. 9,

06114 Halle (Saale),

Germany,

[email protected]

Currently more than 200 Mesolithic burial sites with the skeletal remains of more than 2000 individuals in 24

European countries are known, which seemed reason enough to organise the first international and

interdisciplinary conference on this topic, to summarize the extensive and diverse data and to structure the

current state of research. The conference was held at the State Museum of Prehistory in Halle (Saale),

Germany, from 18-21 September 2013, where skeletal remains and grave inventories from three Mesolithic

funeral places in Saxony-Anhalt (Bad Dürrenberg, Unseburg) and Thuringia (Bottendorf) are on display in

the permanent exhibition.

A total of 49 lectures and seven posters were presented by archaeologists, anthropologists and

archaeozoologists from 18 countries (Europe, USA and Canada). The new research concerned Mesolithic

burials in Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands,

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain and Sweden. One session focused on the large number of loose

human bones at camp sites and the manipulation of skeletal remains in tombs.

A view across the borders of Europe followed. The excellent preservation of organic remains, the variety of

grave goods and the scientific findings of two major burial sites from (maritime) Archaic Indians at

Windover in Florida and Port au Choix in Newfoundland were presented. Similarly, the unusual Capsien

mortuary rites at Aïn Berriche in Algeria were discussed. The possible variety of burial forms was shown by

the numerous ethnological reports on the Australian aborigines.

The keynote lecture was given by Bernhard Gramsch (Potsdam) in the auditorium of the "Löwengebäude" of

the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg on his longterm archaeological excavations at the unique

Mesolithic site of Friesack in Brandenburg, Northern Germany.

A bookstall from Archaeopress at the conference offered a wide range of new publications. The conference

was financially supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) in Bonn

and the Association for the Advancement of the State Museum of Prehistory in Halle. The program and the

abstracts of the presentations can be found on the website of the State Office of Heritage Management and

Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt (LDA) - State Museum for Prehistory, Halle (Saale) under: www.lda-lsa.de

(Tagungen/Archiv Tagungen).


http://www.lda-lsa.de/

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

74

The lectures and posters will be published as a separate volume in our conference proceedings series. The

name of this monograph series is: Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle/Congresses of the

State Museum for Prehistory Halle.

Participants of the international and interdisciplinary conference "Mesolithic Burials - Rites, symbols and social

organisation of early postglacial communities" in front of the main entrance of the State Museum of Prehistory

on 18 September 2013 (later arrived: M. Mussi, S. Pratsch), Photograph: A. Hörentrup, LDA

UISPP Commission for the Final Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia

The Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology, Schlesvig

November 5th

- 6th

, 2013

Berit V. Eriksen and Susan K. Harris

Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology,

Foundation Schleswig-Holstein State Museums,

Schloss Gottorf,

D-24837 Schleswig,

Germany

[email protected]

[email protected]

The Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology hosted the UISPP/IUPPS (Union Internationale des

Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques / International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences)

Commission for the Final Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia for meetings November 5th to 6

th, 2013, with an

excursion to the Ahrensburg Tunnel Valley on November 7th. Among the 61 people attending the meetings,

13 different countries and 3 continents were represented. A total of 23 scholarly papers were presented and



MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

75

eight posters were on display during the course of the meetings. The meeting was a tribute to the 80th

anniversary of the seminal excavations conducted by Alfred Rust in the Meiendorf kettle hole in the

Ahrensburg Tunnel Valley. Papers for the conference had been solicited under the themes: 80 years after

Meiendorf – advances in the study of the Hamburgian; raw material use, lithic industries and blade

technologies in the Final Palaeolithic; man and environment in the Late Pleistocene; Late Palaeolithic

reindeer hunters and their prey; and other communications such as site reports and presentations of materials.

All of these themes were well represented in the conference program.

While all papers and posters aimed their focus on the final pleistocene and/or early holocene periods, the

geographical diversity of presentations were more marked. Thus, the case studies or regional overviews

presented spanned all of Northern Eurasia including Russia, Latvia, Poland, Moravia, Bohemia, Germany,

Holland, the North Sea basin, and Great Britain on an East-to-West axis and Norway, Denmark, Belgium,

France, and Italy on a North-to-South axis. On a more exotic note, a presentation dealing with the projectile

technology of the Japanese Late Palaeolithic also added to the diversity of the program.

The meetings began on the morning of November 5th with words of welcome from Claus von Carnap-

Bornheim (Executive Director of the Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology and the Foundation

Schleswig Holstein State Museums), François Djindjian (Treasurer of the International Union of Prehistoric

and Protohistoric Sciences), and Berit V. Eriksen (President of the UISPP Commission for the Final

Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia and main organizer of the meeting). The first paper presented was a

summary of research on the Federmesser and Ahrensburg groups in Schleswig-Holstein by Ingo Clausen.

This paper provided a very appropriate opening to the meetings with background on the works of Alfred

Rust and others in the area of Schleswig-Holstein, including many sites that were visited during the Thursday

excursion. The remaining talks of the day presented research on the Late Palaeolithic from eight additional

countries including Japan. Immediately following the talks a business meeting of the members of the UISPP

commission for “The Final Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia” was convened.

The second day of the meetings included 12 talks as well as a concluding discussion. Many of the papers

presented research that focused on larger ecological regions, sometimes crossing national borders, and the

relationship between Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers and their environment.

Thursday was devoted to an excursion to the Ahrensburg Tunnel Valley, the area of Alfred Rust’s most

famous work. Conference participants were led by Ingo Clausen from the State Archaeological Department

of Schleswig-Holstein and Mara-Julia Weber from the Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology to

look at locations of Alfred Rust’s excavations from 1932-36 as well as Tromnaus’s excavations from 1967-

1971. Specific sites that were visited include: Meiendorf, Poggenwisch, Teltwisch, Stellmoor Hill, and

Stellmoor Pond. The discussion during the excursion focused on the seminal work that was conducted at

these locations, as well as more recent work by Ingo Clausen including excavations at Stellmoor in 2008 and

the potential for future research in the region.

The proceedings of the conference is scheduled for publication in 2015 in the series "Workshop Papers from

the ZBSA" issued by the Centre for Baltic and Scandinavian Archaeology. The volume will also comprise

some papers presented at the previous UISPP commission meeting in Amersfoort 2012 and it will be co-

edited by Berit Valentin Eriksen, Eelco Rensink and Susan K. Harris.

The organization of the meeting was co-financed by a subvention from the "Verein zur Förderung des

Archäologischen Landesmuseums e.V. Schloss Gottorf" for which the organizers would like to express their

most sincere gratitude.

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

76

Conference participants at the UISPP commission for the Final Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia

Book news

Culture, Behaviour, and the 8200 cal BP cold event.

Mikael A. Manninen

This book is available to download on the website:

http://www.sarks.fi/masf/masf_4/masf_4.html

The main thesis incorporates the following articles:

Paper I. Manninen, M. A. & Knutsson, K. 2011. Northern Inland

Oblique Point Sites – a New Look into the Late Mesolithic

Oblique Point Tradition in Eastern Fennoscandia. In: T. Rankama

(Ed.), Mesolithic Interfaces – Variability in Lithic Technologies in

Eastern Fennoscandia. Monographs of the Archaeological Society

of Finland1, 143–175.

Paper II. Manninen, M. A. 2009. Evidence of mobility between the

coast and the inland region in the Mesolithic of Northern

Fennoscandia. In: S. B. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren, P.

Woodman (Eds.), Mesolithic Horizons, Vol. I. Oxbow books,

Oxford, pp. 102–108. Embedded with permission from Oxbow books.

http://www.sarks.fi/masf/masf_4/masf_4.html

MM 22:2 (July 2014)

ISSN 0259-3548

77

Paper III. Tallavaara, M., Manninen, M. A., Hertell, E. & Rankama, T. 2010. How flakes shatter: a

critical evaluation of quartz fracture analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2442–2448.

Embedded with permission from Elsevier.

Paper IV. Manninen, M. A. & Tallavaara, M. 2011. Descent History of Mesolithic Oblique Points in

Eastern Fennoscandia – a Technological Comparison Between Two Artefact Populations. In: T.

Rankama (Ed.), Mesolithic Interfaces – Variability in Lithic Technologies in Eastern Fennoscandia.

Monographs of the Archaeological Society of Finland 1, 177–211.

Paper V. Manninen, M. A. & Knutsson, K. 2014. Lithic raw material diversification as an adaptive

strategy–Technology, mobility, and site structure in Late Mesolithic northernmost Europe. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 33, 84–98. Embedded with permission from Elsevier.

Star Carr: Life in Britain after the Ice Age

Milner, N., Taylor, B., Conneller, C. and Schadla-Hall, T. (2013)

Council for British Archaeology (Archaeology for All)

Star Carr is one of the most famous and important prehistoric sites in

Europe. Dating from the early Mesolithic period, over 10,000 years ago,

the site has produced a unique range of artefacts and settlement

evidence.

First excavated in 1949–51 by Professor Grahame Clark of Cambridge

University, the site was buried in a deep layer of peat on the edge of

prehistoric Lake Flixton. The peat has preserved an incredible

collection of organic artefacts, including bone, wood and antler, as well

as thousands of flint tools. This has allowed archaeologists to build up a

detailed picture of life on the edge of the lake around 9000 BC. New

excavations have now revealed the remains of what may be the earliest house ever found in Britain, and have

shown that the settlement stretched for several hundred metres along the lake shore.

This book tells the story of the discovery of Star Carr, and brings it up-to-date with details of the current

excavations. It also discusses other important Mesolithic sites in Britain and Europe and how these are

transforming our view of life after the Ice Age.

This book was nominated for Best Archaeological Book in the 2014 British Archaeology Awards.

Zamostje 2: Lake Settlement of the Mesolithic and

Neolithic Fisherman in Upper Volga Region

Editors: Vladimir M. Lozovski, Olga V. Lozovskaya, Ignacio Clemente

Conte (2013)

Research at Zamostje has been ongoing since 1989. The site of

Zamostje 2 has revealed a wealth of organic remains including fish traps,

paddles, nets, floats etc.

This book is written in both Russian and English and beautifully

illustrated with photographs and drawings. The images of the fish traps

in particular are striking as they are so well preserved, complete with

bindings.

There is a wealth of incredible data in this book. The wonderful news is

that it is available for free on line:

http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/vagnejshije-izdanija/pdf/Zamostje_2013.pdf

http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/vagnejshije-izdanija/pdf/Zamostje_2013.pdf

Maritime hunter-gatherers of the Atlantic Mesolithic: current archaeological excavations in the...

Documents

Transcript of Maritime hunter-gatherers of the Atlantic Mesolithic: current archaeological excavations in the...