Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in the Netherlands.

VOLUME 23: NUMBER 2

August 2015

CONTENTS

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

Nicky Milner, Mary Jackes, David Lubell, and Christopher Meiklejohn

Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in the Netherlands ...................................................... 3

Christopher Meiklejohn, Marcel J.L.Th. Niekus and Johannes van der Plicht

Seocka pećina: an early Mesolithic site in south-eastern Montenegro ..................................................... 49

Marc Vander Linden, Gary Marriner, David Orton, Anne de Vareilles, Dejan Gazivoda and Dušan

Mihailović

A Mesolithic cremation-related deposit from Langford, Essex, England: a first for the British

Mesolithic ....................................................................................................................................................... 55

Nick Gilmour and Louise Loe

Muge Mesolithic samples analyzed in Canada, including previously unpublished stable isotope data 58

Mary Jackes and David Lubell

Lydia Zapata Peña (1965-2015).................................................................................................................... 63

Nicky Milner, Andrew Fairburn

Book news: An integration of the use-wear and residue analysis for the identification of the function of

archaeological stone tools .............................................................................................................................. 64

Shannon Croft

Contributing to the next volume .................................................................................................................. 65

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

2

Editorial

As the excitement builds before our next MESO gathering in Belgrade in September, we are pleased to be

able to publish this next issue of Mesolithic Miscellany – perhaps something to read on the plane to the

conference?!

In this issue we have four research papers. The first is the seventh article in the series on the chronology of

Mesolithic human remains, led by Chris Meiklejohn, this time focusing on the Netherlands. Although the

history of research into Mesolithic human remains is described as limited, this current research has managed

to identify 22 Mesolithic sites, 17 of which are directly dated and five which are indirectly dated.

The second paper by Vander Linden and colleagues addresses Mesolithic archaeology in Montenegro and

presents preliminary results for the site of Seocka pećina, where signs of human activity during the Early

Mesolithic have been uncovered. This is part on an ongoing ERC-funded project ‘Transmission of

innovations: comparison and modelling of early farming and associated technologies in Europe’.

The next paper by Nick Gilmour and Louise Loe presents an exciting discovery: the first positively identified

cremated human remains from the Mesolithic in Britain. However, as the authors note, it seems likely that

more similar deposits will be found, or else have already been excavated but not radiocarbon dated.

Finally, Mary Jackes and David Lubell report on Muge samples analysed in Canada over many decades

emphasizing the importance of providing full information on human bone samples and that stable isotope

data does not derive from the AMS dating process.

It is with great sadness, that we also report the untimely deaths of Lydia Zapata Peña in January and

Vladimir Lozovski in August. We have included a short contribution about Lydia and in the next issue will

include a piece about Vladimir. Our condolences to their family and friends, and both will be very much

missed at MESO and future conferences.

Nicky Milner, Mary Jackes, David Lubell, and Christopher Meiklejohn

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

3

Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in the Netherlands

Christopher Meiklejohn

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

[email protected]

Marcel J.L.Th. Niekus

Stichting STONE/Foundation for Stone Age research in the Netherlands, c/o Lopendediep 28, 9712 NW

Groningen, The Netherlands

[email protected]

Johannes van der Plicht

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands

[email protected]

Introduction

This, the seventh article on the chronology of Mesolithic human remains, is similar in approach to earlier

articles in the series (e.g. Meiklejohn et al. 2014). Our chronology is based on calibrated 14

C dates; issues of

calibration are discussed in the next section. As before, we stress the need to report raw (measured)

laboratory values for 14C ages, since calibrations reflect the calibration curve used and reservoir correction

value (see discussion in previous papers in this series).

As a point of detail, we cite articles for authors whose surnames begin with a prefix (e.g. de, ten, van, van der)

by the full name in the text (e.g. de Roever, ten Anscher, van den Broek, van Bork-Feltkamp) but cite them

following Dutch practice in the bibliography (e.g. Roever, Anscher, Broek, Bork-Feltkamp). In all cases the

prefix is not capitalized (followed by some but not all Dutch texts).

The history of Mesolithic human remains in the Netherlands is limited. The earliest modern listing of Dutch

“fossil” material appears to be von Koenigswald (1953) with early reviews by van der Vlerk (1955) and

Huizinga (1958, 1959); the three mention eleven sites, with only one, Hengelo, mentioned by all three (see

section 3). Of the eleven, seven are included in the “Oakley” catalogue (Erdbrink and Overweel 1971),

though only two have a full entry, Hengelo and Beegden, the latter not included in any earlier survey. An

editors’ note listed the seven earlier sites, plus a further five, all refered to as “mainly Mesolithic”. A further

four mentioned by van der Vlerk (1955) and/or Huizinga (1958) have, to our knowledge, not been discussed

more recently, “Limburg”, Lith, Smeermaes and “Zeeland”. They are not discussed below. However, no site

from these early sources can currently be defined as Mesolithic by either direct or indirect dating (see section

3). We discuss them below as “River Bed” finds, a term used for material primarily from the braided river

system of the Central and Southern Netherlands, possibly containing material of either late Pleistocene or

early Holocene age. A similar situation occurs in Great Britain (see Meiklejohn et al. 2011).

Excluding the “River Bed” material, the earliest human material from the Dutch mainland discussed below

and now identified as Mesolithic, was discovered in 1967, Swifterbant S2 (see section 2; referred to as Early

Neolithic when first published). Thus, Constandse-Westermann (1997) could reasonably avoid comment on

the Mesolithic while saying that “the earliest … well-dated Dutch skeletal material (was) at Swifterbant”

(Dalfsen and Oirschot, both cremations and both Mesolithic, were known by this date but no “skeletons”).

Earlier material is known from the North Sea Basin (see section 1.3).

Newell et al. (1979) listed seven Dutch sites with only one, Dalfsen, of demonstrated Mesolithic age. All

others were “River Bed” finds. By contrast, this paper discusses 22 Mesolithic sites in two groups, 17

directly dated (sections 1.1, 1.3 and 2.1) and five indirectly dated (sections 1.2 and 2.2). Much has changed,

even since the late 1990s. Section 1 includes sites referred to the Mesolithic sensu stricto, those in section 2

with the Early and Middle Swifterbant Culture (Swifterbant 1 and 2), discovered in the 1960s and initially

seen as Early Neolithic (see further in section 2). In addition, 17 “River Bed” finds are discussed separately

mailto:[email protected]



MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

4

in section 3, with nine directly dated to the Neolithic or later. We also discuss a further eight listed by

Erdbrink and Overweel (1971) and/or Newell et al. (1979), concluding that none is likely to be of Mesolithic

age. The decision to include this section, and especially the undated finds, is to clarify problems raised by

earlier sources. It also extends the discussion of River Bed finds in Meiklejohn et al. (2011), and provides

context to the series of papers from 1975 to 1993 of which one of us (CM) was co-author, identifying a

number of sites as most likely of early Holocene or late Pleistocene age, all in apparent error as as discussed

below.

A Comment on Calibration

All but the last paper in this series (Meiklejohn et al. 2014), dealt at some level with issues of calibration

beyond simple correction for temporal differences in atmospheric 14

CO2, required of all dates. For terrestrial

(“standard”) samples radiocarbon dating is based on the equilibrium between terrestrial materials and

atmospheric 14

CO2 at time of death of the dated material. “Recent activity” corresponds to the 14

C activity of

wood with a date of 1950 AD. Radiocarbon dating is based on the principle that, at death, the equilibrium is

“broken” and 14

C in a sample begins decay at an exponential rate, dependent on its half-life. Standard

calibration, by programmes such as CALIB, corrects for variation in atmospheric 14

CO2 compared to “recent

activity” (as above).

Previous papers in this series corrected for the marine reservoir effect, identified by 13

C values above -20‰,

the limit for pure terrestrial diets (Richards and Hedges 1999). This reservoir exists “because only the surface

of the ocean is in equilibrium with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” (Wood 2006, citing Lanting and

van der Plicht 1998; see also Lanting and van der Plicht 1995/96b). In the marine environment the

complication is that shallow and deep water systems show different degrees of disequilibrium (or lack of

equilibrium) with the atmosphere, rooted in the slow exchange of 14

CO2 between the atmosphere and deep

water. This maximum correction is ~400 years. The actual maximum correction varies geographically,

measured by the reservoir correction or ∆R value; the effect of the marine reservoir effect is that actual

calendar ages are younger than is implied by simple calibration and assumptions of a terrestrial diet. For this

paper there is minimal need for marine correction other than for a single North Sea site (section 1.3). Given

the dynamic nature of this basin in the Holocene the choice of correction value is problematic and we have

chosen the mean of three from the basin provided in the Calib database, -46±10.

In much general practice the marine correction has been the only one in regular use. However, work since ca

1995 shows that freshwater diets also require correction and, further, that such correction is both less

predictable than for marine diets and of potentially (much) larger magnitude. In freshwater systems the

reservoir is caused by presence of dissolved old carbonates. As a result freshwater appears to be old and in

closed systems this ageing can easily have magnitudes of a millennium or more (Philipssen 2013).

With fresh water, a distinction must be made between running and stagnant water. Large western European

rivers like the Rhine consist largely of groundwater. Percolating rainwater dissolves CO2 in the root zone of

the vegetation layer. This CO2 has recent 14

C activity, and a 13

C of –25‰. In the deeper subsoil, exchange

takes place between this dissolved CO2 and fossil marine carbonate, which lacks 14

C activity (it is too old)

and a 13

C of +1‰. In the Netherlands the mixture in groundwater gives typical 13

C values of -12.5‰ and a

recent activity of 50%, For the Rhine (the largest river) the respective values are 14‰ and 85%. Due to the

exchange with atmospheric CO2, and mixing with other types of water, river water may have smaller

reservoir effects downstream.

Stagnant water (i.e. lake or canal water) can regain “recent activity” due to exchange with atmospheric CO2.

In reality, however, most lakes show reservoir effects, partly due to seepage of groundwater but largely to

CO2 originating from organic sediments. Samples of fish (bones and flesh) and shells (carbonate) from rivers

and lakes dated by radiocarbon usually show apparent ages much larger than the maximum marine reservoir

age of ~400 years. A series of tests from the Netherlands show reservoir effects range between 400

and >4000 years (Lanting and van der Plicht 1995/96b). Values of the reservoir effect vary significantly,

depending on geochemical conditions. The archaeological significance is that animals and humans living

(partly) on fish show apparent age offsets from contemporaneous terrestrial samples (see also Philipssen

2013).

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

5

A general scheme summarizing mean values of stable isotope ratios 13

C and 15

N in human bone is given

below, as well as the reservoir effect for 14

C dates. The reservoir effect for each category is indicated, with

numbers for 100% diets in each of the listed categories.

13

C (‰) 15

N (‰) reservoir effect (14

C yrs)

C3 plants -21 +5 -

C3 herbivores/flesh -18 +8 -

C4 plants -7 +5 -

C4 herbivores/flesh -4 +8 -

Marine food -12 +18 400

Freshwater fish/river -24 +16 1500-2500

Freshwater fish/lake -20 +16 500-1500

In practical terms this means that there may be issues of freshwater correction when human remains show

low 13

C levels combined with high 15

N levels. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios (13

C and 15

N)

can theoretically be used to make inferences concerning reservoir effects (e.g. Cook et al. 2001; Fischer et al.

2007). However, practical application of this knowledge is made difficult by the fact that stable isotope ratios

for the human food sources are needed to estimate the size of the reservoir effect, in this case freshwater fish.

Published examples include material from the Iron Gorge (Djerdap) (Cook et al. 2001) and Russian Karelia

(Wood et al. 2013). In the site discussion below we will refer to the specific problems in Dutch sites, first

identified in remains from Swifterbant.

Some 14

C dates on bone, both human and non-human, have been made on the 14

C carbonate fraction rather

than the organic fraction. Caution is recommended since it is recognized that this fraction “is considered

prone to diagenetic alteration due to the small size of bone crystallites, which makes them

thermodynamically unstable and likely to incorporate dissolved carbonates from the environment during

recrystallization” (Zazzo et al. 2009). Lack of preservation of the organic fraction in bone is common in

waterlogged conditions. For a review of issues with carbonate dating see Zazzo and Saliège (2011). Since 13

C

values associated with carbonate dates cannot be used to determine diet we have used grey shade as a

marker in tables where this is the case. In addition we have marked some dates with an asterisk, those that

we view as unreliable and to be treated with caution. Finally, we note that not all isotope values have been

previously published and, where applicable, these have been added by us.

THE MESOLITHIC OF THE NETHERLANDS

Introduction

In sharp contrast to Belgium and Luxembourg (Meiklejohn et al. 2014), most sites discussed below date to

the later Mesolithic. The only Pleistocene/Early Holocene boundary finds are from the North Sea Basin,

discussed here because of Dutch involvement. The archaeological discussion is limited to terminal phases of

the period and the question of where to draw the Mesolithic/Neolithic boundary and, thus, which sites and

finds to include in the core of the paper.

The Mesolithic sequence and its context

Any discussion of the Dutch Mesolithic must involve its geography and geomorphology. The current area we

call the Netherlands differs significantly as the Holocene unfolds. In the early Holocene the present

Netherlands was the eastern/southeastern upland margin of a generally dry North Sea Basin, known today as

Doggerland (see e.g. Coles 1998; Fitch et al. 2007; Peeters and Momber 2014). During the early Holocene

the coastline moved eastward and southward with sea level rise, the present Dutch coastline reached between

7500 and 8000 BP (~6200-7000 calBC) though with sea level still lower than today (Beets and van der Spek

2000; van Gijssel and van der Valk, 2005). From this point on there is “a marked decrease in availability of

‘dry’ land and an accompanying increase in ‘wetlands’” (Niekus 2005/06, 42), in particular in the lower

western Netherlands. This is a continuous process and, as Vos and Kiden (2005, fig. 8) show, much of the

country currently lies below mean sea level (NAP).

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

6

It should be noted that different sequences for the Dutch Mesolithic (with different dates) have been

published over the years (e.g. Newell 1973; Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98; Verhart and Arts 2005;

Verhart and Groenendijk 2005). The early scheme based on flint typology, mainly from surface sites (Newell

1973), has been broadly criticized and largely rejected (see e.g. Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98; Peeters

and Niekus 2005; Niekus 2005/06). Recent work suggests a sequence of either two or three phases prior to

the appearance of ceramics (see next section). The two phase model (Niekus 2005/6: 45; following Lanting

and van der Plicht 1997/8) has an early phase without and a late phase with trapezes with the break during

the Early Atlantic, ~8000-7600 BP (~7000-6450 calBC). The three phase model (Verhart and Arts 2005;

Verhart and Groenendijk 2005) includes a Middle Mesolithic which, depending on the researcher and area in

question (northern or southern Netherlands), apparently starts somewhere between ~9000 and 8200 BP

(~8250-7500 calBC). During this phase surface-retouched points including feuilles de gui were introduced in

the southern Netherlands, referred to as belonging to the ‘Rhine-Basin Kreis’ (Newell 1973) or Rhine-

Meuse-Scheldt Complex (RMS, cf. Gob 1985). The border between the RMS and penecontemporary

Northwest Kreis (cf. Newell 1973) occurs between the rivers Rhine and Vecht (Verhart and & Groenendijk

2005: fig. 8.3). Niekus (2005/6: fig. 3) summarizes the overall Mesolithic sequence for the Northern

Netherlands.

Depending on the framework used, the earliest human remains, other than from the North Sea, date from the

earlier, non-trapeze, phase or Middle Mesolithic. The earlier part of the Swifterbant Culture (see below) falls

at the end of the second or third phase dependent on the system used. The earlier phase (Preboreal and

Boreal) was dominated by Pine forest; the later Atlantic saw deciduous forest dominated by Oak, Elm and

Ash.

Most later Mesolithic sites show evidence for ecological change caused by gradually rising sea level and

eastward shift of the coastline. Earlier, Pleistocene, deposits in the Western Netherlands are mostly covered

by peat and tidal deposits belonging to the Nieuwkoop and Naaldwijk Formations (de Mulder et al. 2003)

(formerly called Calais deposits; Ente 1976).

Sites in the Flevopolder, discovered in the 1960s, were overrun by the encroaching sea during the Early

Neolithic, as seen in Peeters’ detailed maps of land change (2007: 64-71; fig 3.12) in the province of

Flevoland (the Flevopolder and Northeast or Noordoostpolder), reclaimed land from the IJsselmeer (former

Zuiderzee). At 7000 BP (~5900 calBC) the area was dry woodland. By 6500 BP (~5500 calBC) western

margins, especially of the Flevopolder, were covered by shrub, marsh woodland and reed beds. By 6100 BP

(~5000 calBC), when the initial Swifterbant Culture appears, there was a roughly 50/50 partition between

shrub, marsh woodland, reed beds and developing streams and open water to the west and southwest, and

shrinking woodland to the east and southeast. Where classic Swifterbant sites have been located in the

northeastern Flevopolder the only areas permanently above water are dunes and levees connected with these

sites.

The Swifterbant Culture

Any discussion of the Dutch Mesolithic must include the Swifterbant, introduced in the last paper in this

series (Meiklejohn et al. 2014), straddling the Mesolithic/Neolithic border and described as “(i)n its origins

very much a Final Mesolithic phenomenon” (Vanmontfort 2008: 86). As noted below (section 2) it was

discovered in the Noordoost Polder in the late 1950s and the Flevopolder in the 1960s, later found beyond

the polders and currently understood as “occup(ying) the wetlands between Antwerp … and Hamburg”

(Cappers and Raemaekers 2008: 385). Of key importance here is its economy. As originally understood, the

Swifterbant, with distinctive ceramics, was seen as earliest Neolithic in the Northern Netherlands; human

skeletal material recovered after 1964 was first interpreted within this framework (Meiklejohn and

Constandse-Westermann 1978; Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn 1979). However, we now see the

situation as more complex. Late Swifterbant (or an early phase of the Funnel Beaker culture, TRB, as

referred to by some scholars; see discussion below) is clearly a Neolithic food-producing society, with Early

Swifterbant a hunter and gatherer society fitting the definition of Mesolithic used here. Of concern here is

whether to discuss all human skeletal material in Swifterbant context or only finds from earlier in the period.

Our current understanding of Swifterbant chronology divides it into Early, Middle and Late, with full

acquisition of food producing in the late phase (Raemaekers 1999; Cappers and Raemaekers 2008;

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

7

Raemaekers and de Roever 2010; Devriendt 2014) or in two phases, Swifterbant 1 and 2, followed by an

early TRB phase (ten Anscher 2012: section 5.7). The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition is clearly gradual over

this period, differing from its often discussed parallel, the south Scandinavian Ertebølle. When first described

the obvious similarity between the two was that the earliest classic Neolithic marker to appear was pottery

(de Roever 1979). Arrival of the other four, sheep/goat, pig, cattle and cereals, was different. In the Ertebølle

area all appear with the later Funnel Beaker (TRB) culture and full Neolithic. In contrast, they appear in the

Middle/Late Swifterbant in staggered fashion in the sequence sheep/goat and cattle, cereals and pig (see

Raemaekers 1999: 186; fig. 5.1) between ~5000 and 3400 calBC (Raemaekers 2008; Cappers and

Raemaekers 2008; Raemaekers and de Roever 2010). The shift from Middle to Late Swifterbant occurs at

~3900 calBC (Raemaekers 2005; Raemaekers et al. 2013/14; see also Devriendt 2014), roughly coeval with

TRB (Trichterbecherkultur) replacement of Ertebølle in Denmark. We also note that Late Swifterbant has

characteristics, certainly in ceramic styles, supporting direct evolution into early TRB and, as elucidated

above, some see the Late Swifterbant as a transitional phase between the two that should be called early or

pre-Drouwen TRB (Raemaekers et al. 2011/12 citing ten Anscher 2012). The origin of Swifterbant ceramics

appears to be local, though with possible connections to both contemporaneous Neolithic traditions to the

south and east and to “Boreal pottery traditions that travelled west over the north European plain”

(Vanmontfort 2008, 89).

It is obvious that Swifterbant parallels Early Neolithic cultures to the south and east. The LBK

(Linearbandkeramik) appears in southeastern Holland shortly after 5500 calBC, followed by the

Grossgartach and Rössen between 5000 and 4500 calBC; providing a base for gradual introduction of

domesticated animals after ~4700 calBC with cereals after ~4300 calBC (Cappers and Raemaekers 2008;

Raemaekers 2008). The Swifterbant levee sites (S2, S3/5, S4) show cereals appearing between 4300 and

4000 calBC in the Middle Swifterbant (Cappers and Raemaekers 2008). Swifterbant is clearly a culture in

transition lacking evidence for introduction of a “Full Neolithic package”. Louwe Kooijmans (2005/06)

clearly identifies this transition; seeing the early Swifterbant as ceramic hunter-gatherers, with later periods

as semi-agrarian. Though others see the full Neolithic package in the Late Swifterbant (pre-Drouwen TRB),

Louwe Kooijmans restricts this to the full post-Swifterbant TRB. Crombé’s (2009) recent review points out

that Swifterbant is geographically separated from other ceramic styles associated with late hunters and

gatherers. Distribution overlaps incoming LBK, La Hoguette, Limburg and Begleitkeramik styles. He also

stresses evidence for continuity in a number of proxies during the Mesolithic, including lithics (see also

Peeters et al. 2001; Niekus 2009; Devriendt 2014), and raises a critical query (Crombé 2009: 489), that

“whether these domesticates (see above) were locally cultivated … remains unclear”. As well, given the river

dune/levee environment of Swifterbant sites in wetland areas, would “such environments … have been suited

for crop cultivation and cattle herding”. In a similar way Cappers and Raemaekers (2008: 393) state that in

“the plant component of the diet … we might suppose that we are dealing with small-scale fields that were

not crucial but simply an additional aspect of the subsistence strategy.” Finally, Devriendt (2014: 264) notes

that Late Swifterbant in the Netherlands and the Scheldt Valley in Belgium contracts in area after ~4000

calBC; as she puts it:

(t)his evolution starts in the south, in the Scheldt river system. At roughly 4000 cal BC the

Michelsberg culture replaces the Swifterbant culture and creates a sudden change to a Neolithic way

of life. In the Rhine/Meuse river systems the evolution to the Hazendonk culture meant the end of the

Swifterbant culture at roughly 3700 – 3600 cal BC. Only in the river systems of the IJssel/Vecht/Eem

did the Swifterbant culture linger on.

In the discussion below our decision is to include sites with human remains dating to the Early and Middle

Swifterbant (Swifterbant 1 and 2) prior to ~3900 calBC. Although limited cereal cultivation is documented,

as are small numbers of domestic animals, there is evidence that these populations were not settled food

producers. For the Flevoland core area this way of life may have been determined by the mixed landscape of

tidal marshes interspersed with raised levees where many sites were recovered.

THE SITES

The final issues involve site distribution and time of discovery. The tables below, as in previous papers in

this series, define regional groups. We have six provincial groups for the Dutch landmass and one for North

Sea finds, and show site discovery by time period. Green infill indicates periods of maximum discovery by

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

8

region, yellow meaning no finds from a period (for example no Full Mesolithic sites are known from East

Central or Southeast Holland). Grey shading indicates periods with no finds made. The three tables below

are as complete as current knowledge permits. All sites are included except three from the North Sea Basin

with date of discovery currently unknown, and Urk E4 (section 2.3) where analysis suggests that the material

is Late Swifterbant/pre-Drouwen TRB and therefore Neolithic. One site, Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin,

is represented in both Full Mesolithic and Swifterbant tables.

We provide three tables below, for Full or Classic Mesolithic sites, for Swifterbant sites and for “River Bed”

finds. Most widely distributed geographically are Full Mesolithic sites; Swifterbant sites the least. Of sites

discovered before 1970, ~83% (15/18), are “River Bed” finds, with none discovered since 1990. In contrast

all Full Mesolithic sites have been discovered since 1970. For Swifterbant sites there is distribution of finds

over the periods from 1950 to 2009. Discovery of full Mesolithic and Swifterbant sites reflect ongoing

research. Finally, the history of “River Bed” finds initially marks accidental finds made prior to 1950 and,

later, the intensive work by D.P. Erdbrink from 1960 through the 1980s (see further below; section 3).

DISTRIBUTION OF FULL MESOLITHIC SITES BY REGION AND TIME OF FIRST EXCAVATION

Region 1930-1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990-2009 2010-2015

NORTHEAST - DRENTHE/OVERIJSSEL 0 0 2 1 0

NORTH CENTRAL - FLEVOLAND 0 0 0 1 1

SOUTHWEST – ZUID HOLLAND/UTRECHT 0 0 0 3 1

EAST CENTRAL - GELDERLAND 0 0 0 0 0

SOUTH CENTRAL – NOORD BRABANT 0 0 1 0 0

SOUTHEAST - LIMBURG 0 0 0 0 0

NORTH SEA BASIN 0 0 0 2 0

TOTAL 0 0 3 6 2

DISTRIBUTION OF SWIFTERBANT SITES BY REGION AND TIME OF FIRST EXCAVATION

Region 1930-1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990-2009 2010-2015








TOTAL 0 3 2 5 0

DISTRIBUTION OF ”RIVER BED” SITES BY REGION AND TIME OF FIRST EXCAVATION

Region 1930-1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990-2009 2010-2015








TOTAL 7 8 2 0 0

The paper which follows has three sections, mirroring the tables above: 1) Full Mesolithic, 2) Swifterbant

period, and 3) “River Bed” finds. We have not made geographical divisions within groups. Three maps are

presented. Map 1 shows the distribution of Full Mesolithic and Swifterbant sites (sections 1 and 2). In

section 2, Map 2 shows the core Swifterbant sites in the Flevoland Polder, courtesy of Daan Raemaekers. At

the beginning of section 3, Map 3 shows the River-Bed sites, using the same colour coding as in Map 1.

Finally we note that, as in earlier papers in the series, latitude and longitude are reported in decimal degrees

rather than as traditional degrees, minutes and seconds. We do so since decimal degrees will be required in

any use of these data for computational purposes.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

9

1. SITES WITH MESOLITHIC HUMAN REMAINS

1.1 DUTCH MAINLAND SITES WITH DIRECTLY DATED MESOLITHIC HUMAN REMAINS

Map 1: Distribution of True Mesolithic and Swifterbant sites.

Dalfsen, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Construction site for new municipal cemetery, 1-1.5 km east-northeast of

Dalfsen and 11-12 km east of Zwolle; 52.52 N, 6.28 E.

• First excavated: Hearths were noted during construction; an excavation carried out by A.D. (Ad) Verlinde

and the State Service for Cultural Heritage (Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, ROB) in

1973.

• Later excavations: None.

• Number of individuals: One or two?; fragments of cranium, a scapula and humerus identified as part of a

hearth, pit feature 4 (Verlinde 1974). Size differences suggested two individuals (Newell et al. 1979, 101)

though other sources (e.g. Smits and van der Plicht 2009) give the number as one.

• Primary description of human remains: By Verlinde (1974); G.N. van Vark identified the material as

human (A. Verlinde in litt.).

• Direct dates on human bone: One, on collagen from cremated remains published in two versions; the date

below is corrected, the original version (5465 ± 70 BP, GrN-7283A) was withdrawn. The direct date is

suspect given differences with the older charcoal date from the pit (GrN-7283B), and the variant 13

C value

(-28.0) compared to normal bone (Mook in Verlinde 1974; see also Newell et al. 1979). Lanting and van der

Plicht (1997/98) implicate humate contamination in the high δ13

C value, a well known dating issue (see e.g.

Stafford et al. 1988). Gob (1990) gives the corrected date (see also Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98).

• Other dates known: Nine on charcoal; one from pit 4 with the human cremation, published in two forms,

the original by Verlinde (1974), the corrected date by Gob (1990; see also Lanting and van der Plicht

1997/98) (7760 ± 130 BP, GrN-7283B). In more recent years charcoal from nearly all other pits has been

dated in a research programme initiated by one of us (MN). Previously unpublished, the Late Mesolithic

dates are, by age, pit 1 (7460 ± 30 BP, GrN-29357), pit 2 (7760 ± 30 BP, GrN-29358), pit 10 (7780 ± 40 BP,

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

10

GrN-29362), pit 9 (7870 ± 30 BP, GrN-29361), pit 11 (7940 ± 30 BP, GrN-29363), pit 3 (7945 ± 30 BP,

GrN-29359), and pit 5 (7960 ± 40 BP, GrN-29360). In addition to pit 4, burnt bones were also found in pits 3,

6 and 7 (Verlinde 1974, fig. 2). An older date for pit 7 suggests earlier Mesolithic use of the site (8830 ± 45,

GrN-7431).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Though the direct dates suggest a late Mesolithic age, ~6200-6400 calBP the

associated charcoal dates are a millennium earlier and probably provide a better indication of the true age of

the cremation (Newell et al. 1979). Lanting and van der Plicht (1997/98, 150) state that “burnt human bones

were found in several foci in Dalfsen. The excavator is of the opinion that this is not related to cremation

burials.” The relationship of the extra burnt bones (beyond those in cremation pit 4, see section above) is

currently unclear. They have not been specifically identified or described.

Date (BP) Number Burial (if known) 13

C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

5535 ± 70 GrN-7283 Dalfsen 1 -28.0 --- 6280-6400 4340-4450

Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin, Zuid-Holland

• Nature and location of site: Open-air site on top of late glacial river dune (donken) below Holocene clay

and peat. The dune top lies at ~-4 m below sea level (NAP) with archaeological levels between -4.5 and -5.1

m NAP (Nokkert and Louwe Kooijmans 2001). The original location is described as a “dry island ... in a

dense wetland environment” (Gray Jones 2011, 75); ~1 km west-northwest of Hardinxveld-Giessendam, and

20-25 km east-northeast of central Rotterdam; 51.83 N, 4.81 E.

• First excavated: Discovered by hand coring in 1994 prior to construction of the Betuweroute, the freight

railway from Rotterdam to Germany (Louwe Kooijmans 2003), with excavation between September 1997

and July 1998.

• Later excavations: None; the part of the site situated within the railway route was destroyed by

construction; parts outside this remain preserved.

• Number of individuals: Seven: three in level 1, at the base of the site, are discussed here (four in levels 2

and 3 are discussed in section 2.2, below). The two primary burials from level 1 are both adult (G1 and G2;

sometimes referred to as Henk and Elvis), as is an isolated loose cranium and two loose postcranial finds

(metatarsal and talus) (Louwe Kooijmans and Smits 2001; Smits and van der Plicht 2009). The loose bones

appear to be from a single adult individual (Louwe Kooijmans and Smits 2001; table 13.1, 487).

• Primary description of human remains: By Louwe Kooijmans and Smits (2001), primarily focused on

burials G1 and G2; the latter a sitting (hocker) burial (see also Grünberg 2008). The loose bones are

tabulated and briefly discussed but not described. Smits and van der Plicht (2009) place the data into the

broader context of Dutch Mesolithic and Neolithic remains, providing 13

C and 15

N data for the loose

cranium in level 1 and four from G1 and G2.

• Direct dates on human bone: Two; one from each of G1 and G2 (Mol and Louwe Kooijmans 2001); The

stable isotope values in the table below are those judged by one of us (JvdP) to be most reasonable for the

burials; from reanalysis at a later date rather than associated with the dates published by Smits and van der

Plicht (2009). Given clear issues with collagen preservation the resultant stable isotope values in the table

below are marked with an asterisk. Smits and van der Plicht (2009) provided variant values for burial G1

(13

C=-21.5, 15

N=15.7), G2 (13

C=-21.6, 15

N=15.8) and for the undated loose cranium (13

C=-23.0, 15

N=13.3).

• Other dates known: Mol and Louwe Kooijmans (2001; see also Mol 2003) list eighteen dates on mammal

bone, charcoal, food crusts (aankoeksel) and wood. Five from level 1 range from 6420 ± 50 (GrA-13275) at

the base to 6100 ± 50 BP (GrA-13277) at the top. An analysis of the dates and Bayesian analysis places

phase 1 between ~5200-5500 calBC (Mol 2003; Mol and van Zijverden 2007).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The level 1 primary burials (G1 and G2) date to 5500-5700 calBC, close to the

end of the Full Mesolithic as defined here. However, the direct dates appear to be a century or so earlier than

the estimated basal date for the level, likely due to a freshwater fish reservoir effect (Mol 2003; see also

Beerenhout 2001; fish remains were all freshwater). Unfortunately preservation made isotope analysis of fish

collagen impossible. As well the collagen of both G1 and G2 does not meet standard quality criteria and

should be considered unreliable due to low C content; C and N values are too low for both (DeNiro 1985). A

reservoir reduction would make them younger but the correction value remains unclear. The overall site age

overlaps Polderweg (see below), though the primary occupation layers are later (for discussion of levels 2

and 3 see section 2.2).

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

11


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

6530 ± 50*1 GrA-11815 G2 (20685) -21.4 17.2 7420-7500 5470-5550

6710 ± 50* GrA-11816 G1 (20686) -21.0 16.5 7510-7620 5560-5670

Polderweg trench at -10m ASL (Photo by ARCHOL; courtesy of L.P. Louwe-Kooijmans).

1 Dates with an asterisk are considered unreliable.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

12

Hardinxveld landscape at ~5000 calBC. (Courtesy of Johanna Mol, Department of Archaeology,

Leiden University).

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

13

Left: Polderweg burial G1. (Photo courtesy of Faculty of Archaeology, University of Leiden); Right:

Polderweg, Trijnte burial in situ. (Photographer unknown; courtesy of L.P. Louwe Kooijmans).

Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg, Zuid-Holland

• Nature and location of site: As at De Bruin (above); the top of the donk lies at ~-4.5 m NAP, with

uppermost occupation levels at -6 m NAP (Hamburg and Louwe Kooijmans 2001). When occupied the

surrounding area was similar to De Bruin, ~1 km to the east-southeast (see above). Polderweg is ~1.5 km

northwest of the town of Hardinxveld-Giessendam and 20-25 km east-northeast of central Rotterdam; 51.84

N, 4.82 E.

• First excavated: Discovered during hand coring in 1994 prior to construction of the Betuweroute (Louwe

Kooijmans 2003; see De Bruin above). Excavated between September 1997 and February 1998.

• Later excavations: None; as with De Bruin the part of the site situated within the route of the railway was

destroyed by construction, with parts outside this still preserved.

• Number of individuals: Eleven; from four levels, with two graves (G1 and G2; G1 has been referred to as

Trijntje; see Louwe Kooijmans 1998) and 80 loose bone finds, the latter with an MNI of nine. Smits and

Louwe Kooijmans (2001; see also Smits and van der Plicht 2009) give an MNI of twelve, a figure we believe

is in error (see below; Gray Jones 2011). Of the graves G1 is the more complete, from level 0. G2 from level

1, identified after excavation, is less complete with 20 postcranial bones (Smits and Louwe Kooijmans 2001;

Gray Jones 2011). Of the loose human bones, 76 are from level 1, one each from levels 0 and 1/2 and two

from level 2 (Smits and Louwe Kooijmans 2001, 430; table 14.4).

The difference in MNI estimates has two sources. In the first, Smits and Louwe Kooijmans (2001)

identify both radii in grave G2 as from the same side, giving “two options … a double tomb and remains of

two individuals, or a single burial and mixture with (loose) human remains” (ibid, 426: free translation). This

is not reflected in table 14.4 (ibid, 430) which should list a further individual, raising the number to eight in

phase 1 and an MNI of thirteen. However, Gray Jones (2011, 100) shows the G2 radii to be from opposite

sides of a single individual. Secondly, there is still a difference in reported MNI between the sources. Both

identify one adult in level 0, four adults and two subadults in level 1 and an adult in level 1/2. Smits and

Louwe Kooijmans (2001) list two adults in level 2; two non-overlapping bones that Gray Jones (2011) finds

consistent with a single individual. In the absence of a clear reason to identify the bones (cranium and femur)

as from separate individuals the lower MNI of eleven seems preferable.

• Primary description of human remains: An initial analysis (Smits and Louwe Kooijmans 2001) focuses

on graves G1 and G2. The further study by Gray Jones (2011, 79-116) includes both graves and loose bone

finds. Smits and van der Plicht (2009) compare data from the site with Dutch Mesolithic and Neolithic

remains; 13

C and 15

N data for sixteen samples includes two of the loose crania from level 1, a radius from

grave G2, and the cranium in level 2. Stable isotope values were reasonably homogeneous, with a single

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

14

outlier. 13

C values range from -20.26 to -23.95, 15

N values from 13.305 to 16.695. The outlier (-19.96 and

9.88 for a scapula, specimen 23097) is a gracile female with different preservation from the remaining series

and presence of cut marks (Gray Jones 2011).

• Direct dates on human bone: Two, from burial G1 in level 0 and the loose cranium in level 2 (Mol &

Louwe Kooijmans 2001). The most recent 13

C and 15

N values are from Smits and van der Plicht (2009). As

noted above, Smits and van der Plicht (2009) provide additional stable isotope values. As at De Bruin the

direct dates appear to be too old based on the reservoir effect (see also below).

• Other dates known: Twelve on bone, wood, seeds and charcoal range from 6650 ± 60 (GrA-9807) to 5780

± 50 BP (GrA-9800) (Mol & Louwe Kooijmans 2001). Analysis, including Bayesian analysis, places

occupation phase 1 between ~5500-5250 calBC, phase 2 from 5200-4800 calBC and phase 3 from 4700-

4450 calBC (Mol 2003; Mol and van Zijverden 2007).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: As at De Bruin thetwo primary burials, G1 in level 0 and G2 in level 1, are

both clearly Mesolithic. The date for G1 is certainly too old, a result of the freshwater fish reservoir effect,

~350 years assuming a 15

N based model as at Lepenski Vir (Cook et al. 2001, 2002). In this case the C and

N values are within normal ranges. The 80 loose bone finds are scattered through levels 0, 1 and 2, with 0

and 1 clearly within the Full Mesolithic. The single individual in level 2, with two bones, is directly dated

to >5000 calBC and should be terminal Mesolithic, though the reservoir effect may place it in the Early

Swifterbant. Three dog burials were recovered from level 1 together with further loose dog remains. As at De

Bruin, upper site levels are important for their Early Swifterbant ceramics, after ~5000 calBC (Raemaekers

and de Roever 2010). Devriendt (2014, 263) identifies level 2 at Polderweg as having the earliest dated

characteristic Swifterbant pottery.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

6170 ± 50 GrA-11830 Loose skull, level 2 -23.9 16.5 7000-7160 5050-5210

6820 ± 50 GrA-9804 Grave G1 -22.4 13.9 7610-7690 5660-5740

Oirschot 5-21, Noord-Brabant

• Nature and location of site: Open-air site on the Aarlese Heath, a coversand ridge south of the Wilhemina

Canal, ~4 km east-southeast of the village of Oirschot and ~7 km northwest of Eindhoven; 51.48 N, 5.37 E

(est’d).

• First excavated: Identified and excavated by Assien Bohmers in 1957 and 1959 (Lanting and van der

Plicht 1997/98); “in 1957 a long trench was dug, in which several artifact concentrations and at least 12

hearths were found” (ibid 148; free translation). Beginning in 1962 it was surface collected and excavated to

a limited degree by amateur archaeologist J.M.C. (Jan) van de Eertwegh from Eindhoven.

• Later excavations: The cremation in area 21 was excavated by van de Eertwegh in 1983 and 1984.

• Number of individuals: One; 87 g of cremated bone included 113 pieces identified as human.

• Primary description of human remains: Arts and Hoogland (1987) give a partial description and images,

identifying the remains as an older child or young adolescent.

• Direct dates on human bone: One; on the carbonate fraction (Lanting et al. 2001; see also Smits and van

der Plicht 2009).

• Other dates known: Four on charcoal (de Vries & Waterbolk 1958; Vogel and Waterbolk 1963; see also

Gob 1990; Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98); dates from Oirschot VI and Oirschot VII are not discussed

(see Vogel and Waterbolk 1963; Gob 1990; Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98). Of the four Gob (1990;

following Vogel and Waterbolk 1963) rejects the youngest (6230 ± 60 BP, GrN-2172) and considers the next

youngest doubtful (7510 ± 60 BP, GrN-1510). Vogel and Waterbolk note that GrN-1510 is published in two

forms, taking into account the Seuss affect, as above and in a non-adjusted form (7270 ± 60 BP, GrN-1510)

by de Vries and Waterbolk. Of the other two, one is listed as from a hearth (8030 ± 50 BP, GrN-1659; Vogel

and Waterbolk 1963), the other from charcoal associated with the cremation, 7790 ± 130 BP (GrN-14506;

Arts and Hoogland 1987); “(t)he large difference between (the) cremated bones (see above) and charcoal …

is due to the lack of pretreatment with alkali of the charcoal samples” (Lanting et al. 2001, 251).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The cremation appears to be well-dated by the direct date, the associated

charcoal date being too young. The date fits with several other cremations, Loschbour in Luxembourg (7960

± 40; Beta-132067), La Chaussée-Tirancourt in northern France (indirectly dated to ~8400 BP),

Rotterdam/Beverwaard (see below) and, possibly, Dalfsen (see above). All, except possibly Dalfsen, appear

to be linked with the RMS culture (Toussaint et al. 2009; see also Brou et al. 2008; Meiklejohn et al. 2014).

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

15


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

8320 ± 40 GrA-13390 Cremation 1 --- --- 9300-9410 7350-7460

Rotterdam Beverwaard/Tramremise, Zuid-Holland

• Nature and location of site: Open-air construction site for new streetcar garage for the RET (Rotterdamse

Elektrische Tram N.V.), on a sand dune (donk) partly covered by peat, in the Beverwaard district,

southeastern Rotterdam; 51.88 N, 4.56 E (centre coordinates of site).

• First excavated: From 2006 to 2008 coring and trial trenching occurred over a wide area with excavation

in 2008 by BOOR (Bureau Oudheidkundig Onderzoek van Gemeentewerken Rotterdam) (Lelivelt 2006,

2007; Zijl and Schiltmans 2008; Zijl 2011) finding eleven features, mostly pits. Four (features 58, 59, 60 and

70) each contained cremated remains of one individual and (mostly) burnt flint artefacts including retouched

tools. A broken perforated mace head was also found (Drenth and Niekus 2009a, 2009b). These pits and

other features without human remains were dated to the Mesolithic (see below). In addition burnt remains,

possibly human, were found in the find layer (feature 15,000).

• Later excavations: None; site destroyed by construction.

• Number of individuals: Four or five; mostly cremated fragments of neurocranium and long bone

diaphyses, with estimated ages of 10-40 (pit 58), 12-40 (pit 59), 10-34 (pit 60), and > 20 (pit 70). Bone

fragments from feature 15,000, if human, are from an individual > 3. Lightly built postcranial elements from

pit 59 suggest a female.

• Primary description of human remains: By Smits (2011; see also Niekus et al. in press).

• Direct dates on human bone: Four from the Centre for Isotope Research (CIO), University of Groningen;

cremated bone from each pit, three published by Zijl et al. (2011). GrA-49738, from feature 70, became

available later and is published here for the first time. The dates are on apatite (carbonate) rather than

collagen and the 13

C values cannot be used for archaeological inference and are not given below (see also

discussion above).

• Other dates known: Nine, published here for the first time, all on charcoal (no wood species specified).

An initial charcoal sample from the four pits was submitted as a check for the human dates. Later, two

additional samples from features 58 and 60 were dated with the same pretreatment. Charcoal from features

50 and 51 (‘postholes’) and 69 (pit), without human remains, was also dated: 7615 ± 25 (GrN-33091), 7570

± 55 (GrN-33090) and 7315 ± 25 BP (GrN-33088). The six dates from the ‘cremation’ pits range from 4240

± 40 (GrA-56049) to 7850 ± 35 BP (GrN-33089). Significant differences exist between dates on different

material from these pits, especially for features 58 and 60 and we discuss them in turn. Differences in the

chemical analyses give a general conclusion that we are dealing with contaminated samples, i.e. intrusive

charcoal.

Feature 58: Two, 4410 ± 40 (GrA-56050) and 5005 ± 40 BP (GrA-50442), most likely involve charcoal

contamination from the overlying Neolithic. Pottery and other finds from the Hazendonk 1 group (Middle

Swifterbant) and the Early Vlaardingen occur at the dune.

Feature 60: Two, with one, 4695 ± 45 BP (GrA-50441) also fitting Early Vlaardingen; the other (4240 ± 40

BP, GrA-56049) is rather young but may involve an unrecognized later Neolithic occupation.

Feature 59: One, 7850 ± 35 BP (GrN-33089) is slightly younger than the direct human date (see below) but

is Mesolithic; there is possible contamination with later charcoal.

Feature 70: the single date (7830 ± 40 BP, GrN-33087) is older than the cremated human remains (see

below). Inspection of section drawings and photographs suggests a pit with cremated remains was dug

through a Mesolithic hearth-pit.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The cremated remains are securely Mesolithic; features 58 to 60 are Middle

Mesolithic and contemporaneous, feature 70 Late Mesolithic, as defined in the southern Netherlands

(Verhart and Arts 2005; Verhart and Groenendijk 2005). Evidence suggests a small Mesolithic cemetery.

The ‘cremation’ pit fills contain leaf shaped points or point fragments including Wommersom-quartzite

(Grès quartzite de Wommersom), pointing to the RMS-complex (Gob 1984, 1985) (see also Oirschot, above).

Complete bodies were apparently cremated on a pyre; only part collected and deposited in the pits (Smits

2011). None show post-mortem modification (e.g. cut marks). Features 50, 51 and 69 are probably also

Mesolithic although we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that we are dealing with an admixture of older

charcoal in Neolithic pits.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

16


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

6770 ± 40 GrA-49738 Feature 70 --- --- 7590-7650 5640-5700

8135 ± 45 GrA-43443 Feature 59 --- --- 9010-9120 7060-7170

8435 ± 40 GrA-43393 Feature 58 --- --- 9440-9500 7490-7550

8465 ± 45 GrA-43444 Feature 60 --- --- 9460-9520 7520-7570

N23 during excavation Courtesy of ARCHOL / ADC.

N23 - Stages in excavation of grave (Fig 5.22 of Hamburg et al. 2012) Courtesy of ARCHOL / ADC.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

17

N23 - skeleton of Michelle (Fig 6.3 of Hamburg et al. 2012; photo by Restaura) Courtesy of ARCHOL /

ADC.

Swifterbant N23/N307 (site 5), Flevoland

• Nature and location of site: Open-air dune site on cover sand elevation covered by peat and clay, ~2 km

south-southwest of the town of Swifterbant; 52.55 N, 5.63 E.

• First excavated: In 2010 by Archol BV (Leiden) and ADC-ArcheoProjecten (Amersfoort) prior to

construction of exit ramps for the N23/N307 motorway from Lelystad to Kampen. Presence of the site at

~2.5-4 m below present-day ground level (>-4.5 m NAP) was established earlier during coring by ADC-

Archeoprojecten (de Moor et al. 2009).


• Number of individuals: One; badly preserved bone fragments, several teeth and corpse silhouette of a 35-

45 year-old female lacking grave goods, nicknamed Michelle. A darker band at the circumference of the

grave pit suggests an organic grave lining. Widening of the bottom of the grave pit suggested a possible

second, younger, individual, but absence of bone fragments, teeth or corpse silhouette make this highly

unlikely. Flint artefacts and charcoal fragments (see further below) in the pit were probably introduced

during digging of the grave.

• Primary description of human remains: By Baetsen and Kootker (2012).

• Direct dates on human bone: One; direct date on femur dismissed as unreliable (marked with an asterisk)

due to insufficient collagen (see Opbroek & Hamburg 2012). The date has the grave dug long after the

landscape was drowned, a highly unlikely event (see further below).

• Other dates known: >100; on charcoal from hearth-pits and charred hazelnut shell, from Early (9115 ± 45

BP, GrA-52107) through Late Mesolithic (6320 ± 35 BP, GrA-52176) (Hamburg et al. 2012), a few hundred

14C years prior to the Early Swifterbant onset. Three are relevant to the inhumation. An OSL date (1051,

find no. 344) of sand in the grave pit, the only direct date of the grave, gives last direct exposure of the sand

to direct sunlight between ~4500 and 5500 BC, a broad time frame narrowed by two other dates (note that

this date cannot be easily extrapolated to a 14C date referred to as BC or calBC). A dendrochronological date

of 4812-4799 BC on oak (find no. 25, feature 889) gives a terminus ante quem for the grave, marking final

drowning of the cover sand elevation. Finally, a 14C date on charcoal (Salix sp., find no. 990), from a hearth

intersected by the grave pit (6455 ± 40 BP, GrA-50694; feature 7.15, HAK-A 124), acts as a terminus post

quem for the grave (5380-5480 calBC). Grave pit fill charcoal fragments were not dated as they were likely

from hearth-pits partly destroyed during digging of the grave or from the disturbed, charcoal rich, top layer

of the cover sand.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The grave dates to the Late Mesolithic/Early Swifterbant boundary (~5000

calBC), within a ~600 year time span boundaried below by GrA-50694 (see above) and above by the

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

18

dendrochronological date. The overall archaeological assessment is that the skeleton is more likely to be of

Late Mesolithic age than Early Swifterbant. The grave orientation and body position and posture compares to

the slightly older female G1 (=Trijntje, Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg; see above). In total, c. 6700 m2

of dune were excavated; 11 concentrations of flint artefacts (> 100,000) and 793 features were found, mostly

hearth-pits but also 20 pits and the inhumation grave.

Please note that the direct date is considered to be highly unreliable; the C content of the collagen is low and

the date should not be used uncritically (see discussion above).


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

5640 ± 45* GrA-50002 Feature S7.14, Femur, find no.1074 -24.6 --- 6350-6480 4400-4530

1.2 DUTCH MAINLAND SITES WITH INDIRECTLY DATED MESOLITHIC HUMAN REMAINS

Mariënberg, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Large open-air site on high sand ridge in the Vecht valley, ~300 m north of

the village of Mariënberg and ~30 km east of Zwolle; 52.51 N, 6.57 E.

• First excavated: Willem and Lucas Timmerman collected Mesolithic artefacts from a large area on their

farm, beginning in 1950, their Mesolithic nature first identified by the amateur, J. Butter (see also section 3).

• Later excavations: The main features of the site were uncovered during rescue excavations from 1975 to

1993 by A.D. (Ad) Verlinde, Provincial Archaeologist for the Province of Overijssel.

• Number of individuals: Six (?); features interpreted as “sitting” (hocker) graves (Verlinde and Newell

2005, 2006, 2013); the number of individuals cannot be determined (see also below). Six Late Neolithic

graves and Bronze Age material were also recovered (Verlinde and Newell 2006, 2013).

• Primary description of human remains: Minimal primary skeletal material was recovered; two bones

identified as human are from grave pit 91 (Verlinde and Newell 2006).

• Direct dates on human bone: None.

• Other dates known: At least 60 on charcoal represent 55 features spread over five phases and sub-phases

(1 to 4b of Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98), ranging from 6040 ± 45 (GrN-29400) to 8620 ± 60 BP

(GrN-22134). 44 are published by Lanting and van der Plicht (ibid), 41 by Verlinde and Newell (2006),

while Niekus (2005/6) give a further 16. Louwe Kooijmans (2012) and Verlinde and Newell (2013) give the

total as ~60 but do not give the full list.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Mariënberg is contentious since, for all intents and purposes, no human

remains were recovered from the “sitting grave” features. The bones from pit 91 mentioned above could be

LHB (loose human bones) finds unrelated to the pits. In addition no direct dates were obtained from the

“grave pits” in a site spanning >2500 years. Over 800 pit and hearth features were excavated, half of them

Mesolithic (Verlinde and Newell 2006). The burial features were clustered in an area of 20 x 100 m, with

292 pits referred to as “Schaapskooi” (pig-pen) from a nearby modern structure (Louwe Kooijmans 2012).

The “burial” features were identified by “their forms, the ubiquitous presence of a thick ochre layer in the

bottom third of the grave pits and the presence of intentionally deposited (grave goods) in those layers in five

of the six graves” (Verlinde and Newell 2006, 236). Apart from early mention (e.g. Verlinde 1982; van Es et

al. 1988) the first extensive accounts were one for a lay audience and a full report (Verlinde and Newell 2005,

2006). Louwe Kooijmans (2012) published an extensive critique that has been followed by a rebuttal

(Verlinde and Newell 2013). It must be stressed that the critique accepts the basic nature of the central

features; that “these … must indeed have been burial pits” (Louwe Kooijmans 2012, 401). The debate

centres on interpretation of the pit structures, the nature of the “ochre” layers within the pits, some

interpretation of associated grave goods (“(large) shaft polishers, hammer-stones, one B-point, large worked

and unworked blades, cores and blocks”; Verlinde and Newell 2006, 236), and the dating of the pits.

For this review the key issue involves chronology, as none of the burial pits is directly dated. In brief,

Verlinde and Newell see the pits as within the second youngest level (“sub-mode”) (phase 4), the last 300

years of site use between ~6000 and 6300 BP (6750-7280 calBP at 2), the date range for nine closely

neighbouring hearths. Of key importance is “lack of transections in the dense cluster” (Verlinde and Newell

2013, 12). In other words, the burials were not cut through by later hearths and, given their density, must be

late in the sequence. Louwe Kooijmans’ rebuttal centres on a possible transection in grave 92, and

interpretation of the primary charcoal pit fill. He sees them as earlier, “within phase 3 or in the hiatus 3/4”

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

19

(2012, 414), dating to ~7450-8510 calBP at 2, roughly a millennium earlier. We cannot currently sort out

the disagreement beyond noting that the features appear to be both burials and securely dated to the

Mesolithic. A close reading of the three primary reports (Verlinde and Newell 2006, 2013; Louwe

Kooijmans 2012) is recommended for an understanding of the debate.

1.3 SITES IN THE NORTH SEA BASIN WITH DIRECTLY DATED MESOLITHIC HUMAN REMAINS

As noted above the Late Glacial North Sea basin was a dry land mass connecting Britain with the North

European Plain, sometimes referred to as Doggerland. Dredging and fishing, especially in shallower areas,

shows the North Sea floor as archaeologically and palaeontologically rich. Regular finds have been known

for many years, including (modified) antler and bone, stone and flint artifacts, and human remains (see e.g.

Louwe Kooijmans 1971). Main localities with Mesolithic (and rarely Late Upper Palaeolithic) human

remains (see Peeters & Momber 2014), are the Brown Bank and Eurogeul, off the coast of Rotterdam (e.g.

Mol et al. 2006; Peeters 2011) and part of the Southern Bight, the North Sea north of the English Channel

and south of a line stretching from northwestern Holland west to the Wash on the English coast. Another

important find spot is Maasvlakte 2, a westward extension of the Port of Rotterdam built on reclaimed land.

Construction of the new port and infrastructure started in 2008 with sand from an extraction area situated

approximately 10-15 kilometres off the coast to the southwest and located to the north and south of the

Eurogeul (Borst et al. 2014).

The information available on most of these finds is limited to 14C dates and general find locations. Only four

have so far been described and published in any detail and are given a full sight entry. The remaining eight

pieces are given an abbreviated single entry at the end of the section. Most dates given here are from the

CERPOLEX/Mammuthus research programme on North Sea palaeontology and archaeology (see e.g. Mol et

al. 2006). We note that at least six more dates are available for North Sea basin human remains (including

Maasvlakte 2). All but one date to the Mesolithic, between 9440 and 8370 BP. One, previously unpublished,

is from the Late Upper Palaeolithic (GrA-58271, 11050 ± 50 BP; Luc Amkreutz, pers. comm.). Several other

samples are currently being processed and will be published in more detail in a forthcoming paper in which

two of us (MN and JvdP) are involved. For the single case requiring a marine correction we use a ∆R value

of -46 ± 10 (see also above). Finally, we note that the dates currently available from North Sea human

material predate the catastrophic Storegga Slide catastrophe, ~8200 calBP, by a millennium or more (which

is much more than any marine reservoir effect) (Weninger et al. 2008).

Hoek van Holland, Zuid-Holland

• Nature and location of site: Find from the beach at Hoek van Holland; 51.99 N, 4.11 E. The fragment

probably originates from redeposited sand from the Eurogeul. As a result the find-location is not primary

(Storm 2010).

• First excavated: None; fragment found by Sander Schouten on April 17, 2009.


• Number of individuals: One; a small fragment of mandible, probably from an adolescent or young adult

individual (male?) (Storm et al. 2014b).

• Primary description of human remains: By Storm et al. (2014b).

• Direct dates on human bone: One; by Schouten et al. (2014).

• Other dates known: None.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Loose bone find (LHB) from redeposited sand; the original location is unclear

though probably within the Eurogeul.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

8425 ± 40 GrA-56366 Mandible -21.3 --- 9430-9490 7480-7540

Maasvlakte 2/Port of Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland

• Nature and location of site: From the artificial beach on the Maasvlakte 2, the most recent extension of

the Port of Rotterdam. The find is from redeposited sand dredged from an offshore extraction area 10-15 km

to the southwest (see also introduction above). As a result the find-location is not primary; the reconstructed

original position of the skull fragments is ~ 51.96 N, 3.96 E (Weerts et al. 2015, 405).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Rotterdam

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

20

• First excavated: None; found on March 19, 2014 by amateur palaeontologist Walter Langendoen.


• Number of individuals: One; two fragments of right side of an adult cranium; age at death is estimated to

be at least 50 years.

• Primary description of human remains: By Weerts et al. (2015).

• Direct dates on human bone: One; by Weerts et al. (2015).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Loose bone find from redeposited sand. It is not clear if it represents a

disturbed burial. The original location could be reconstructed.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

8565 ± 45 GrA-57501 Cranium -23.5 12.7 9500-9550 7550-7600

Noord Hinder Bank, North Sea Basin

• Nature and location of site: Exact location unclear, minimal depth of ~7.3 m (4 fathoms); 51.69 N, 2.59 E

(est’d.), ~60 km west of Burgh-Haamstede on the Dutch coast (Erdbrink and Tacoma, 1997 give a depth of 4

to 5 fathoms for the find).

• First excavated: None; dredged during fishing for flounder in September 1994 by the crew of the fishing

vessel ’VLI 28’.


• Number of individuals: One; an isolated calotte (not a mandible, “onderkaak”, as per Lanting and van der

Plicht (1997/98, 151).

• Primary description of human remains: By Erdbrink and Tacoma (1997).

• Direct dates on human bone: One; by Erdbrink and Tacoma (1997; see also Lanting and van der Plicht

1997/98; Storm 2010 incorrectly gives a standard error of 40 years).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Lanting and van der Plicht (1997/98: 151-152; free translation) indicate that

“given the date and enormous standard deviation, this (find) could be either Late Paleolithic or Mesolithic in

age. The d13

C of -24.1 is unlikely for humans and apparently there is some contamination with humates. It

may be that the jaw was originally embedded in peat or gyttja. The 13

C suggests negligible use of marine

food. Freshwater fish may have a role in the value.” Note that the older end of the calibrated age (11620

calBP) is younger than for the La Madeleine 4 child, seen as earliest Holocene and therefore Mesolithic

(Meiklejohn et al. 2010).


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

9640 ± 400 UtC-3750 Calotte -24.1 --- 10400-11620 8450-9670

North of the Noord Hinder Bank, North Sea Basin

• Nature and location of site: Exact find spot unclear; identified by Glimmerveen et al. (2004) as 53.00 N,

2.90 E.

• First excavated: None; the fragment, labelled no. 4514, was found by Piet van Es on October 29, 1993

while fishing from the vessel ‘Johannes SL 27’ (see Storm 2010; Storm et al. 2014a).


• Number of individuals: One, a fragment of left mandible; probably a 25-45 year old male (Storm et al.

2014a).

• Primary description of human remains: By Storm et al. (2014a), who also discuss attempts at DNA-

analysis and strontium-isotope research.

• Direct dates on human bone: One; by Glimmerveen et al. (2004).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Loose bone find (LHB); it is not clear if it represents a disturbed burial. An

older calvarium was found in the wider area (see below).


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

8370 ± 50 GrA-11642 Mandible -15.6 --- 9100-9260 7150-7320

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

21

Other locations, North Sea Basin

• Nature and location of site: From three sea-bottom locations in the Southern Bight. As cited by Weninger

et al. (2008, 14; table 6) “(a)ccording to Glimmerveen (in litt.) most of the finds … originate southwest of

the Brown Bank (with) the following approximate coordinates: 52.27 N, 02.58 E” (converted to decimal

degrees). The exception is the calvarium (GrA-42700), from 52.17 N, 2.92 E, north of the Noord Hinder

Bank. The southern two, including the Brown Bank site, are ~80 km west of Leiden while the most northerly

lies ~100 km west of Den Helder.

• First excavated: All pieces dredged; find dates have not been reported.


• Number of individuals: Eight; similar to the bone count. All must be currently considered as loose human

bone finds though some could represent disturbed burials.

• Primary description of human remains: None have been described beyond identification to bone element.

• Direct dates on human bone: Eight; Weninger et al. (2008) list all but the oldest, citing Glimmerveen et al.

(2004) and Mol et al. (2008). The calvarium (GrA-42700) is published by Storm (2010). Some are also

published by Glimmerveen et al. (2006).

• Other dates known: Though a large number of dates are known on non-human dredged bone from the

North Sea, none can be directly associated with any of the human remains.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: All but the oldest indicate human populations living on Doggerland in the

earlier Mesolithic. The oldest find has a overlaps that of the Noord Hinder Bank specimen, very close in age

to the Late Pleistocene/Holocene boundary.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

8180 ± 45 GrA-27205 Humerus -22.6 --- 9030-9240 7080-7290

8340 ± 130 UtC-624 Cranium --- --- 9140-9480 7190-7530

9005 ± 45 GrA-35949 Humerus -23.3 --- 10170-10230 8220-8280

9035 ± 40 GrA-31287 Humerus -23.4 --- 10200-10230 8250-8280

9080 ± 50 GrA-30733 Humerus -22.0 --- 10200-10260 8250-8310

9140 ± 50 GrA-27188 Humerus -23.1 --- 10230-10380 8280-8430

9870 ± 70 GrA-23205 Mandible -25.3 --- 11210-11350 9260-9400

10070 ± 50 GrA-42700 Calvarium -24.7 --- 11410-11760 9460-9810

2. SITES WITH HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE EARLY & MIDDLE SWIFTERBANT (SWIFTERBANT 1 AND 2)

As discussed above, the initial skeletal material from near the town of Swifterbant was identified as Early

Neolithic (Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann 1978; Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn 1979).

However, further work shows that the Early Swifterbant culture (Swifterbant 1) can be viewed as a late

ceramic Mesolithic. The Middle Swifterbant (Swifterbant 2) sees the appearance of domesticates, though not

as a full package, and can be seen as a semi-agrarian period, transitional to the Neolithic. Sites were

discovered from 1956 onwards following drainage of the Flevopolder, the southern portion of the IJsselmeer,

called the Zuiderzee until 1932 when building the Afsluitdijk (“closing dyke”) at its northern end turned it

from salt to fresh water. Drainage revealed “a submerged tidal delta system of creeks and levees” (van der

Waals and Waterbolk 1976, 4) at -5 to -6 m NAP beneath 1 to 2 m of later sediment (ibid). Excavations from

1962 to 1967 by G.D. (Gerrit) van der Heide were conducted in two areas (H46 and G42) with human

skeletal material recovered from both. From 1971 to 1979 J.D. (Diderik) van der Waals and H.T. (Tjalling)

Waterbolk of the Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut (BAI), Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, directed

excavations, cooperating with the Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin after 1974 (one of us, CM,

studied the remains excavated by van der Heide in 1968 and was involved in excavating burials on S2 in

1976).

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

22

Map 2: Distribution of sites on the Swifterbant polder (courtesy of Daan Raemaekers).

New work shows that the tidal delta had limited marine influence (Schepers 2014a, 2014b), a component of

the shifting landscape produced by rising waters of the Holocene. The sites uncovered were in two areas

described as “higher parts of the natural levees and … the late Pleistocene or early Holocene river-bank

dunes … delimit(ing) the area of the tidal delta” (van der Waals and Waterbolk 1976, 4). Of the two original

excavation areas, H46 sites were associated with river-bank dunes, G42 sites with natural levees (ibid). In the

1970s dune sites in H34 and H46 and levee sites in G42 and G43 were excavated. A final major aspect of the

archaeology is that rising sea level provided both the shifting ecology depicted by Peeters (2007) and also a

terminus ante quem as the occupied area gradually fell below sea level shortly after the end of the

Swifterbant culture at ~3400 calBC (Raemaekers et al. 2013/14). Our current understanding of the riverine

area and location of Swifterbant sites is shown in Map 2, courtesy of Daan Raemaekers.

We also note that Smits and van der Plicht (2009) identify all Swifterbant remains as Neolithic rather than

the division into an initial Mesolithic, intermediate period and later Neolithic as used here. Their position

appears to be strictly chronological, with an initial date tied to appearance of LBK communities in Limburg

in the southeastern Netherlands. As a result, Middle Swifterbant sites such as S2 are called Middle Neolithic.

However, they do place “the isolated remains from the phases 2 and 3 (N=10) of the Hardinxveld sites … in

the Late Mesolithic …” since “(t)hese phases are ceramic (Early Swifterbant) but non-agrarian and should …

be considered as (final) Mesolithic” (ibid, 57).

2.1 DIRECTLY DATED SWIFTERBANT AND PRE-DROUWEN TRB FINDS

Schokland P14, Flevoland

• Nature and location of site: Open-air site on coversand ridge on former island of Schokland in the

IJsselmeer, now an elevated ridge in the southern part of the Noordoostpolder, ~3-4 km east of the village of Nagele,

~6 km south-southeast of Emmeloord and 11-12 km east of Urk; 52.65 N, 5.78 E.

• First excavated: Discovered in 1957 by B. van Dalen and H. van Veen, assistants to G.D. van der Heide,

archaeologist for the Rijksdienst voor de IJsselmeerpolders (RIJP) (ten Anscher 2012). The location had

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

23

yielded a stone axe in 1955.

• Later excavations: From 1982 to 1991 by the Instituut voor Prae- en Protohistorie (IPP), Rijksuniversiteit

Amsterdam, under the direction of W.-J. Hogestijn (1982-1987), T. ten Anscher and E. Gehasse (1987-1988)

and T. ten Anscher (1989-1991). Since 1996 the area has been further investigated as part of a long-term

hydrological study of archaeological remains in the area (van Heeringen et al. 2004). Human material was

recovered in 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1990 (ten Anscher 2012).

• Number of individuals: ~20; broken down into three groups, by period, an early Swifterbant/pre-Drouwen

TRB group, a Drouwen phase or TRB group, and a Late Neolithic group (ten Anscher 2012). There is also a

division into certain (“zekere”) graves and possible (“mogelijk”) graves. Poor preservation and the

possibility that further graves existed make it difficult to estimate the original number of burials. Ten

Anscher (2012, 358) provides an MNI of 14 individuals in the Swifterbant/pre-Drouwen group, which would

include both Middle and Late Swifterbant periods. A further grave is attributed to the Drouwen/TRB period,

and a final five to the Late Neolithic. There are also loose human bone (LHB) finds.

• Primary description of human remains: The context of the finds, including the graves and associated

material, is given by ten Anscher (2012), including diagrams. Preservation of the bone was generally very

poor.

• Direct dates on human bone: 25; listed by ten Anscher (2012, 582), six from Groningen (GrA) and 19

from Utrecht (UtC) on bone, dentine and enamel. Ten Anscher (2012, 353) indicates that only the Groningen

dates are reliable, as the Utrecht dates are contaminated with younger humates (ibid, 313). The dates range

from Middle Swifterbant through the Bronze Age with the five earliest dates from Groningen, three dated to

the Middle Swifterbant (>3900 calBC) with one on the boundary with the Late Swifterbant and the youngest

to the Late Swifterbant or pre-Drouwen TRB. All of the Utrecht dates are Neolithic or later; one Groningen

date is from the Early Bronze Age. The Neolithic and later 13

C values are indicative of the humate

contamination (ibid, 353) and are marked with an asterisk as unreliable.

• Other dates known: 36; listed by ten Anscher (2012, 582), all from Utrecht. 30 on food crusts (aankoeksel)

range from 3430 ± 50 (UtC-1931) to 5880 ± 70 BP (UtC-1916) (1670-1870 to 4620-4930 calBC), the

earliest from the Early to Middle Swifterbant period. Taking the Middle/Late Swifterbant boundary at ~3900

calBC (5100 BP) put ten of these dates earlier than this transition. A further six on wood samples range from

3570 ± 80 (UtC-2511) to 4860 ± 150 BP (UtC-2512), all from the Late Swifterbant/pre-Drouwen TRB or

later. Some of these dates were published by Lanting and van der Plicht (1999/2000) and Peeters (2007).

Note that 13C values listed by ten Anscher (2012) as -22e (not listed below) are estimated values rather than

direct measurements.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Initial testing showed the presence of Neolithic and later pottery (ten Anscher

2012), with Louwe Kooijmans (1974) suggesting the possible presence of Swifterbant material on the site.

Direct dating shows that the majority of the burials are from an apparent grave-field covering the Middle and

Late Swifterbant (pre-Drouwen TRB) periods. Apparent contamination of the large series of dates from

Utrecht makes any full chronological breakdown of the series problematic (as marked by an asterisk).


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

3210 ± 120 UtC-1951* Loose element C -23.7 --- 3270-3610 1320-1660

3480 ± 50 UtC-1956* Loose element E -22.2 --- 3700-3830 1750-1880

3540 ± 60 UtC-1955* Loose element E -23.1 --- 3720-3900 1770-1950

3640 ± 30 GrA-15438 Loose element E --- --- 3900-4060 1950-2110

3680 ± 50 UtC-1952* Loose element A -22.4 --- 3930-4090 1980-2140

3740 ± 50 UtC-1948* Grave 14 -23.1 --- 3990-4210 2040-2260

3760 ± 70 UtC-1941* Grave 5 --- --- 3990-4240 2040-2290

3810 ± 50 UtC-1954* Loose element D -22.5 --- 4090-4290 2140-2340

3830 ± 50 UtC-1953* Loose element D -22.8 --- 4150-4380 2200-2430

3870 ± 60 UtC-1946* Grave 13 -23.1 --- 4180-4410 2240-2460

3910 ± 50 UtC-1949* Grave 10 -22.6 --- 4260-4420 2310-2470

3970 ± 140 UtC-1942* Grave 6 --- --- 4160-4780 2210-2840

3990 ± 80 UtC-1937* Grave 1 --- --- 4300-4780 2350-2830

3990 ± 80 UtC-1940* Grave 4(3) --- --- 4300-4780 2350-2830

4040 ± 70 UtC-1945* Grave 12 -22.5 --- 4420-4780 2470-2840

4170 ± 80 UtC-1943* Grave 2 --- --- 4580-4830 2640-2880

4200 ± 90 UtC-1944* Grave 7 --- --- 4590-4850 2640-2900

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

24

4370 ± 90 UtC-1938* Grave 4(1) --- --- 4840-5260 2890-3310

4390 ± 80 UtC-1939* Grave 4(2) --- --- 4850-5260 2900-3310

4500 ± 50 UtC-1947* Grave 9 -25.4 --- 5050-5290 3100-3340

4970 ± 40 GrA-15426 Grave 4(1) --- --- 5650-5740 3700-3790

5030 ± 40 GrA-15427 Grave 4(2) --- --- 5720-5890 3770-3940

5200 ± 60 GrA-16186 Grave 5 --- --- 5900-6170 3950-4220

5330 ± 80 GrA-16188 Grave 4 (cluster 3) --- --- 6000-6200 4050-4250

5380 ± 120 GrA-12612 Loose element E --- --- 6000-6280 4060-4340

Swifterbant S2, Flevoland

• Nature and location of site: Open-air levee site on fresh water stream in area G42 of the Flevopolder, ~4

km west-northwest of the town of Swifterbant and 1 km south of the A6 motorway and IJsselmeerdijk: 52.58

N, 5.58 E.

• First excavated: Discovered in 1964 by G.D. van der Heide while digging a trial trench, with further work

in 1967 (van der Waals and Waterbolk 1976; van der Waals 1977). At this time burial I was excavated, as

were the skulls of burials II through IV (Devriendt 2014).

• Later excavations: From 1971 to 1979 by the Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut (BAI), Rijksuniversiteit

Groningen (van der Waals 1977; see also Devriendt 2014), when the remaining skeletal material was

excavated, and in 2004 by one of us (MN) and the Groningen Institute of Archaeology (former BAI)

(Huisman et al. 2009; Prummel et al. 2009).

• Number of individuals: 31 (maximum possible number including loose human bone (LHB) finds)

(Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn 1979; table 1); includes nine graves, three isolated bones and 19

isolated teeth. Smits and van der Plicht (2009) provide an MNI of 27, reporting 18 loose bones finds.

However, they later imply (ibid, 64), in error or as a misprint, that S2 is the only Swifterbant site with human

remains but no LHB finds. Raemaekers et al. (2007; see also Molthof and Raemaekers 2004) list ten

individuals (graves), with S2.VIII listed as a double burial (listed by Meiklejohn and Constandse-

Westermann, 1978, 70 as the primary burial of a child; the second individual involves three rib fragments

“apparently representing an individual older than a child”). During excavation and the initial analysis there

was no evidence linking the ribs to the child’s burial.

• Primary description of human remains: By Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann (1978) with

analysis by Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn (1979). Smits and van der Plicht (2009) list elements of

the burials, centring on demography, a grouped site analysis of all Swifterbant remains, and burial ritual.

Smits et al. (2010) give δ13

C, δ15

N, δ34

S and δ18

O isotope results from teeth, plus strontium and lead isotope

ratios. Raemaekers et al. (2007) give burial listings and associated data.

• Direct dates on human bone: One, on collagen from S2:I (Vogel and Waterbolk 1972; see also Lanting

and van der Plicht 1999/2000; Raemaekers et al. 2007; Prummel et al. 2009). Lanting and van der Plicht

(1995/96b, 505) point out that linking GrN-5606 to S2:V/VI by Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann

(1978, 48) is incorrect (see below regarding reservoir effect for this date). An attempt to date a second burial

was not successful due to insufficient collagen (no further information is available).

• Other dates known: One, 5300 ± 40 BP (GrN-5443) on charcoal from the occupation level, dates the end

of site occupation (Vogel and Waterbolk 1972; see also Lanting and van der Plicht 1999/2000; Prummel et al.

2009).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The first discovered natural levee site in the Flevopolder (S1 on lot H46 was

renumbered S21/23). The nine graves belong to the Middle Swifterbant phase, ~4300 to 4000 calBC

(Raemaekers et al. 2007), overlapping the charcoal date GrN-5443 (4000-4240 calBC at 2). That the direct

skeletal date is ~250 years older than GrN-5443 was discussed without resolution by Meiklejohn and

Constandse-Westermann (1978) other than that the burials were from the base of the occupation layer

(Deckers, 1979, placed them prior to occupation of the site). Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann (1978;

see also Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn 1979) noted the thinness of the occupation layer at ~0.25

m. The solution appears to be the freshwater reservoir effect (see discussion above). Reservoir correction for

GrN-5606 would be 240 ± 65 years (Lanting and van der Plicht 1995/96b, 505), placing it close to the

charcoal date.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

5540 ± 65 GrN-5606 S2:I -22.6 --- 6290-6400 4340-4450

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

25


• Nature and location of site: Open-air river dune site in Flevopolder lot H34, ~2 km north of the town of

Swifterbant and 1.5 km south of the A6 motorway and IJsselmeerdijk; 52.59 N, 5.63 E.

• First excavated: By T. Douglas Price and Robert Whallon Jr. in 1974 with further work by Whallon from

1976 to 1978 (Whallon and Price 1976; Price 1981).


• Number of individuals: Two; a partially preserved skeleton with cranial, postcranial and dental elements

(S11.1 of Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann 1978), and an obvious grave pit with only teeth

preserved (S11.42), the skeleton reduced to a dark stain near the teeth.


analysis by Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn (1979). The Smits and van der Plicht (2009, 57)

reference to the S11.42 teeth as dispersed (=LHB) misconstrues the original context; all were in occlusion in

a darkly stained area lacking bone preservation, clearly in situ (see Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann

1978, 61).

• Direct dates on human bone: Two, on the carbonate fraction of the bone and tooth fragments (Devriendt

2014, 40).

• Other dates known: Twenty on charcoal, food residue and organic matter in ceramic shards; of six

charcoal dates Whallon and Price (1976; see also Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1986; Gob 1990; de Roever

2004) give an initial two, 6285 ± 45 (GrN-7214) and 6330 ± 45 BP (GrN-7215), suggesting a Late

Mesolithic age. An additional four (Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98; see also Peeters 2007) range from

6320 ± 70 (GrN-10352) to 7260 ± 110 BP (GrN-10351); three are viewed as too young due to incomplete

treatment (Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98). De Roever (2004) provides a younger date, 5400 ± 70 BP

(GrA-5402) on foodcrust. Finally, Hogestijn and Peeters (1996; see also Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98;

Raemaekers 1999) provide thirteen dates on the organic fraction of ceramic shards, rejecting four. The

accepted range, 5670 ± 90 (UtC-3482-2) to 6380 ± 70 BP (UtC-3482-2), is somewhat later than the charcoal

dates. Both Hogestijn and Peeters (1996) and Lanting and van der Plicht (1997/98) suggest considerable

caution in use of this date set.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Prior to the recent direct dating the S11 burials were seen as of either Early or

Middle Swifterbant age. Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann (1978, 40) saw “the skeletal finds … (as)

clearly intrusive to the occupation levels and … the burial pits extend to the truncated top of the

site”.Whallon and Price (1976) also noted difference in burial pit colour from other parts of the excavated

site. The new dates confirm the burials as younger than dates from the site (see above), dated by de Roever

(2004) to ca 5250 to 4250 calBC, with last possible occupation at ~3800 calBC, shortly after the Middle-

Late Swifterbant boundary. The direct dates place the burials between 4250 and 3800 calBC, shortly before

the Middle-Late Swifterbant boundary at ~3900 calBC, with average ages of 3930 calBC for the burial and

4105 calBC for the teeth.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

5255 ± 35 GrA-38131 Skeleton 1 (S11.1) --- --- 5760-6000 3810-4050

5170 ± 70 GrA-39707 S.42 (tooth fragments) --- --- 5940-6170 3990-4220

Swifterbant S21/22/23, Flevoland

• Nature and location of site: Originally identified as S1. Palimpsest of open-air river dune sites in lot H46

of the Flevopolder, ~1 km north of the town of Swifterbant and 1.5 km southwest of the Kettelmeerdijk; S21

is to the northeast of the dune, S22 ~100 m to the southwest at the other end of the dune, and S23 ~10 m east

of S22; 52.58 N, 5.64 E.

• First excavated: S21 and S22 in 1962 and 1966 by G.D. van der Heide and the Rijksdienst voor de

IJsselmeerpolders (RIJP) (van der Heide 1966; see also van der Waals and Waterbolk 1976). . Most, though

not all, of the human material was discovered at this time (Devriendt 2014). For S23 see below.

• Later excavations: In 1971 and 1973 P. de Roever of the BAI, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, expanded the

work on S21 and S22; grave XI was discovered on S21 at this time. In 1976 there was further work on S21

and S22 by T. D. Price. University of Wisconsin. Price also excavated S23 for the only time, in order to

explore the top of the dune and its slope and determine whether in situ occupation levels were present (Price

1981). Between 2008 and 2010, further work on S21 and S22 was conducted by the Groningen Institute of

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

26

Archaeology (Raemaekers et al. 2013/14).

• Number of individuals: 17 or 18 dependent on the number at S22 (see below); the description below is

separated by “site” (Smits and van der Plicht, 2009, list all as a single series).

S21 - Ten; Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn (1979, 239) list five graves (III, IV, V, X and XI) and

five LHB finds, four isolated teeth (two given a single number) and two isolated bones or bone groups. The

first four graves were uncovered between 1962 and 1966 when skulls were removed, postcrania in 1971.

Grave pit XI was found in 1973; the skeleton recovered in 1976.

Different listings vary slightly. De Roever (1976) lists four graves and four loose finds, not including

grave X (with a fragmentary molar crown and two enamel pieces), and combines two numbered dental finds

as one sample. Molthof and Raemaekers (2004, 42) list five graves; including LHB find 744 (mandible and

teeth) but omitting grave X. Others list six graves. Raemaekers et al. (2007) give the five from the previous

source but also list find 485, “a calotte, mandibular fragments and loose teeth” from a grave pit with “no

postcranial remains” (Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann 1978, 54) (see also Geuverink et al. 2009).

S22 - Six or seven; summarized by Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn (1979, 239) as five graves and

two LHB finds. However, the LHB finds, an isolated tooth and separate isolated bone (Meiklejohn and

Constandse-Westermann 1978) can be interpreted in other ways. All pieces except a single tooth were in

“pits” or “grave pits”, the exception a loose upper molar (M2) near graves I and IX. De Roever (1976) lists

six graves (see below), associating the loose molar with grave I. Using Meiklejohn and Constandse-

Westermann (1978) and de Roever (1976) as a base, the remaining six finds have two isolated and

fragmentary skulls (cranium and mandible) with dentition, graves I and II. The other four, with skulls, partial

postcrania and dentitions, are single graves VI and IX and double grave VII/VIII. Graves I and II were

recovered in 1966, the others in 1971. Geuverink et al. (2009) also give a total of six graves.

S23 - One; grave (XII) with very poorly preserved skeleton, recovered in 1976.

• Primary description of human remains: By Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann (1978), with a

preliminary analysis by Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn (1979). Demographic data were obtainable

from four graves and four LHB finds. For S21, grave V contained a complete skeleton lacking burial goods

but condition precluded recovery (Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann 1978, 52; contra de Roever

1976, 218); one tooth was unavailable for study. Smits et al. (2010) provide a δ18

0 value for a loose tooth

(stable carbon, nitrogen and sulphur values could not be obtained). For S23 only partial diaphyses of a

humerus and radius were identifiable, identified as an older adolescent or adult (see also Molthof and

Raemaekers 2004; Raemaekers et al. 2007).

• Direct dates on human bone: Thirteen, all on the carbonate fraction. For S21 six on three graves and three

LHB finds (Geuverink et al. 2009) span 400-500 years at 1, averaging ~4200 calBC (Raemaekers et al.

2007 list the earliest run date, for grave IV); for S22 six, one from each grave (ibid), span 300-400 years at

1, averaging ~4310 calBC; for S23 one from grave XII. Of the dates two, GrA-33541 and GrA-33542, are

incorrectly identified as GrN by Raemaekers et al. (2007).

• Other dates known: Seven for the three sites, noted separately below. The peat date 5610 ± 60 BP (GrN-

5067) (Vogel and Waterbolk 1972; see also Ente 1976; de Roever 1976; misidentified by Price 1981, 79 as

GrN-5607), has no assigned site and is said to provide a terminus ante quem for occupation of the dune.

Devriendt (2014, 263) identifies S21/23 as the earliest Mesolithic in the Swifterbant area.

S21 - Two on charcoal; 6670 ± 35 (GrN-6708) and 7775 ± 40 BP (GrN-6709) (de Roever 1976, 1979; see

also Price 1981; Lanting and van der Plicht 1997/98).

S22 - One: on charcoal, 6875 ± 45 BP (GrN-6710) (de Roever 1976, 1979; see also Price 1981; Lanting and

van der Plicht 1997/98).

S23 - Three, two on charcoal; one from a hearth directly beneath the burial, 6240 ± 50 BP (GrN-8248), a

second, 6280 ± 40 BP (GrN-30973), with no specified location (Price 1981; Deckers 1982; see also Lanting

and van der Plicht 1997/98, 1999/2000; Raemaekers 1999; de Roever 2004; Geuverink et al. 2009). The third,

on pot food crusts, is 5320 ± 120 BP (GrA-4334; viewed as acceptable by Lanting and van der Plicht

1999/2000, 56) (both GrN-8248 and GrA-4334 are listed by Peeters 2007 as from S24). Note that the last

date is technically younger than the “terminal” date for the dune.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: All reported river dune sites in H46 except S24 and S25 produced human

burials. Current thinking sees these as a palimpsest of occupations, with recent work showing the sites as

surrounded by an alder carr or fen with entrance near the recently excavated S25 (Raemaekers 2013, 117).

All burials are apparently Middle Swifterbant in age, between 4600 and 4000 calBC (Geuverink et al. 2009).

For S21 and S22 this is at the end of the total occupation, estimated by de Roever (2004) as 6550 to 4000

calBC. Dates for burials for the separate “sites” overlap broadly.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

27


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

5200 ± 35 GrA-38133 S21.III --- --- 5920-5990 3970-4040

5295 ± 70 GrA-38711 S22.I --- --- 6000-6180 4050-4230

5305 ± 30 GrA-38138 S21.798/calotte --- --- 6010-6170 4060-4220

5370 ± 30 GrA-38140 S23.XII --- --- 6120-6270 4170-4320

5400 ± 30 GrA-38139 S22.IX --- --- 6200-6270 4250-4320

5400 ± 40 GrA-42739 S22.VI --- --- 6190-6280 4240-4330

5400 ± 70 GrA-39708 S21.485/mandible --- --- 6030-6290 4080-4340

5425 ± 35 GrA-33541 S21.IV --- --- 6210-6280 4260-4330

5480 ± 30 GrA-38135 S22.VIII --- --- 6230-6310 4280-4360

5490 ± 35 GrA-38134 S21.XI --- --- 6220-6310 4280-4360

5500 ± 70 GrA-39712 S22.II --- --- 6240-6380 4290-4430

5640 ± 70 GrA-39709 S21.744/calotte & mandible --- --- 6320-6490 4380-4540

5650 ± 35 GrA-33542 S22.II --- --- 6400-6470 4450-4520

Zoelen, Gelderland

• Nature and location of site: Open-air site northwest of the village of Zoelen, ~3 km north-northwest of

Tiel and ~25-30 km southeast of Utrecht; 51.91 N, 5.40 E.

• First excavated: By W.-J. Hogestijn, for the Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (ROB)

in 1991 after “ground work threatened the field in which the site was located” (Raemaekers 1999, 98; citing

Hogestijn and Lauwerier 1992; Hulst et al. 1993). Only the grave was excavated.

• Later excavations: None known.

• Number of individuals: 3+?; single grave with three skeletons, two older females and a child. Skull

fragments were also recovered near the grave (Molthof and Raemaekers 2004; see also Hogestijn and

Lauwerier 1992; Hulst et al. 1993).

• Primary description of human remains: Raemaekers et al. (2007) give age and sex estimates plus

information on burial type. The child and one adult were in a double grave; the cranium and humerus of the

other adult in a level above a layer of “undetermined plant material” (ibid, 532; see also Smits and van der

Plicht 2009). The LHB skull fragments are neither listed nor described.

• Direct dates on human bone: Lanting and van der Plicht (1999/2000, 59; see also Raemaekers et al. 2007)

give the first accessible listing of the date (13

C content unknown). The age may be too old due to a diet

containing fresh-water fish.


• Diagnosis and Discussion: The grave and LHB finds were in Swifterbant association but not apparently

part of a settlement. Though direct dating suggests a Middle Swifterbant date the question of whether a

fresh-water fish correction is necessary cannot be currently answered (Lanting and van der Plicht 1999/2000).

Raemaekers et al. (2007) accept the burial as Middle Swifterbant (only minimal pottery was found).


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

5190 ± 50 UtC-1961 Not known --- --- 5910-5990 3960-4040

2.2 INDIRECTLY DATED SWIFTERBANT FINDS

The material in this section is dated by archaeological context. In the Swifterbant area later intrusions can be

largely eliminated as sites fell below rising sea levels (see also discussion above). We also discuss finds from

the upper Swifterbant levels at Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin (for full Mesolithic remains see section

1.1). We also note that the individual from level 2 at Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg may be earliest

Swifterbant in age, dependent on the fresh water fish correction (the date without the effect is latest

Mesolithic; see above – we do not give a separate entry below).

Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin, Zuid-Holland

• Nature and location of site: See section 1.1.

• First excavated: Discovered in 1994; excavated in 1997 and 1998.


MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

28

• Number of individuals: Four; seven LHB finds in levels 2 and 3. Level 2 has an adult clavicle and pair of

deciduous molars from an older child; an adult left innominate and phalanx may represent a single adult.

Level 3 has a loose adult cranium and older adolescent metatarsal (numbers follow Louwe Kooijmans and

Smits 2001, 487; table 13.1; see also Smits and van der Plicht 2009, 57; table 1 - note that table 2, pg 64,

incorrectly gives the MNI represented by loose bones as three rather than five: L. Smits in litt.). Though

Gray Jones (2011, 78) mentions twelve (rather than ten) loose bones, she indicates (in litt., January 2013)

that the extra bones are non-human.

• Primary description of human remains:, The LHB finds are tabulated and briefly discussed by Louwe

Kooijmans and Smits (2001), though not described.

• Direct dates on human bone: None for material in levels 2 and 3.

• Other dates known: Nine from level 2 range from 6170 ± 50 (GrA-12304) to 5685 ± 50 BP (GrA-14864),

four from level 3 from 5900 ± 50 (GrA-13272) to 5430 ± 60 BP (GrA-10950). Analysis, including Bayesian

analysis, dates phase 2 to 4800-5200 calBC, phase 3 to 4450-4700 calBC (Mol and Louwe Kooijmans 2001;

Mol 2003; Mol and van Zijverden 2007) (see also section 1.1 above).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The overall age of de Bruin overlaps nearby Polderweg, though primary

occupation layers are later. With no level 2 or 3 material directly dated the association of pieces is inferred

rather than demonstrated. Early Swifterbant ceramics appear in phase 2 (Raemaekers and de Roever 2010),

domestic animals at the end of phase 3 at the top of the site (Devriendt, 2008 sees this as one of three main

sites for early Swifterbant culture). Finds from level 2 apparently span the terminal Mesolithic/Early

Swifterbant boundary, those from level 3 the Early/Middle Swifterbant boundary.

The vast majority of bone remains from

Hoge Vaart phase 3 (Early Swifterbant)

is calcined. The human remains have

been found amongst heavily burned

animal bones (photo courtesy of Hans

Peeters.

Hoge Vaart A27, Flevoland

• Nature and location of site: Buried open-air site on coversand ridge in the South Flevopolder at ~-6 m

NAP, ~10 km southeast of Almere and ~2 km northeast of the A27 motorway bridge from Flevoland to

Noord Holland; 52.32 N, 5.34 E.

• First excavated: Discovered during survey work for the motorway in 1993; excavated by W.J. Hogestijn

and J.H.M. Peeters for the Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (ROB) between 1994 and

1997 (Brinkkemper et al. 1999; Hogestijn and Peeters 2001; Peeters 2004, 2007, 2009).

• Later excavations: None; site destroyed by motorway construction.

• Number of individuals: Two; adult cranial and postcranial fragments and right half of a juvenile mandible

represent at least an adult and juvenile (H. Peeters in litt.) from phase 3 of the occupation (see below). The

material is calcined and associated with hearths and Swifterbant-style pottery.

• Primary description of human remains: None.


• Other dates known: 65; on charcoal, soot on pottery, wood and nutshell (Peeters 2007; 33 previously

published by Hogestijn and Peeters 2001). 64 range from 5346 ± 49 (UtC-5714) to 6432 ± 45 BP (UtC-

12480), with an outlier at 7800 ± 60 BP (UtC-5709).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Large open-air site; a north to south coversand ridge with lower “riverine and

tidal gullies” to the east (Peeters 2009, 270). Four occupation phases, two Mesolithic (1 and 2) and two in the

Swifterbant (3 and 4), are separated by breaks of different length. In the Mesolithic the coversand

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

29

environment developed from birch/pine woodland through lime to oak and lime, while gullies developed

from willow swamp to alder swamp and then open water. In the Early Swifterbant, early oak woodland

occurred with reed swamp in phase 3; phase 4 saw a mix of marshy woodland and open water. Peeters (in

litt.) places the human remains, seen here as LHB, with surface hearths dated to phase 3, between 5667 ± 42

(UtC-12478) and 5976 ± 48 BP (UtC-4626), 4370-4600 to 4740-4920 calBC at 2 . This places the human

remains in the Early Swifterbant.

Swifterbant S3/5, Flevoland

• Nature and location of site: Open-air levee site on fresh water stream in lot G43 of the Flevopolder, ~4

km west-northwest of the town of Swifterbant, 1.5 km south of the A6 motorway and IJsselmeerdijk, ~600 m

south of S2 (see section 2.1) and ~30 m south of S4 (see below); 52.58 N, 5.58 E.

• First excavated: From 1972 to 1977 at S3 by Diderik van der Waals (1977; van der Waals and Waterbolk

1976; see also Raemaekers et al. 2005; Devriendt 2014); the site had been mapped earlier. Trench S5, an

extension of S3 into the neighbouring streambed, was excavated in 1975 and 1977.


• Number of individuals: Fifteen; all are loose bone (LHB) and tooth finds. A mandible body and six teeth

plus a right tibial diaphysis are from S5, recovered in 1977. Thirteen loose teeth found between 1973 and

1976 are from S3. Smits and van der Plicht (2009) list the same number of elements but give an MNI of 14,

though not indicating the bones or teeth paired as a single individual.


analysis by Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn (1979). Smits and van der Plicht (2009) include data

from S3/5 in their group analysis. Smits et al. (2010) provide 13

C, 15

N, 18

O and 34

S isotope values and

87

Sr/86

Sr ratios for four loose teeth.


• Other dates known: Twenty-two; no source lists all. Most cited are six Groningen dates on peat, charcoal

and wood from van der Waals (1976), ranging from 4955 ± 40 BP (GrN-7505), on peat overlying the

occupation, to 5375 ± 40 BP (GrN-7043) on charcoal from the lowest layer. The peat date is accepted as

younger than the occupation level, with an upper charcoal date of 5230 ± 40 BP (GrN-6896), giving an

occupation of ~145 radiocarbon years (3960-4220 to 4060-4330 calBC at 2 ). These dates are listed by de

Roever (2004, 14) who also gives a date of 5490 ± 70 BP (UtC-1046) on pot cooking residue that, like the

date on human bone from S2, shows a reservoir effect and is seen as too old. All but one of these (GrN-7505,

see above) is also listed by Lanting and van der Plicht (1999/2000, 55), who provide ten further dates that,

though of interest, do not alter the site’s overall date range. Finally, Devriendt (2014, 39; see also

Raemaekers in press) lists five dates on charred barley (Hordeum), from 5267 ± 35 (OxA-15608) to 5358 ±

34 BP (OxA-15611), also overlapping earlier dates.

Two from the S5 creek base (GrN-8810 and GrN-8811) are stratigraphically below GrN-7043 (see

above) but give younger values. Five on wooden objects from the creek deposits, including an axe handle,

lack stratigraphic control and lie within the above occupation range. Finally, two on otter bone are subject to

reservoir effect (see also de Roever 2004, 25), while one on a wooden pole shows early medieval

contamination.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: This, “the best preserved and most extensively investigated” levee site

(Cappers and Raemaekers 2008, 387), presents some of the best evidence for cereal cultivation (ibid). S5

refers to the “deep trench … through the creek alongside of S3” (van der Waals and Waterbolk 1976, 12).

Extensive dating shows Middle Swifterbant occupation from 4300 to 4000 calBC, dating the general

occupation of levee sites in G42 and G43. All human remains from S3 are loose teeth, a different situation

from other LHB finds since teeth are often lost in life and do not require an active process for inclusion in

site deposits. Furthermore, of thirteen, eight are milk (deciduous) teeth normally lost in childhood or

adolescence. Of the two bones on S5, Clason and Brinkhuizen (1978) see the tibia fragment as possibly

representing cannibalism. Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn (1979, 257 ff.) are doubtful, pointing to

similarities with the mandible. Both may represent material thrown into the creek with evidence of gnawing

by dogs and rodents.


• Nature and location of site: Open-air levee site on fresh water stream in Flevopolder lot G43, ~4 km west-

northwest of the town of Swifterbant, 1.5 km south of the A6 motorway and IJsselmeerdijk, ~600 m south of

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

30

S2 and 30 m north of S3/5; 52.58 N, 5.58 E.

• First excavated: Discovered during coring in 1972; excavated by Louwrens Hacquebord in 1974 to check

stratigraphy, artefact samples and material for 14C dating (van der Waals 1977). No human remains were

recovered at this time.

• Later excavations: From 2005 to 2007 by D. Raemaekers as part of new work (Raemaekers et al. 2005,

2011); human remains were discovered in 2005 and excavated in 2006 (Raemaekers et al. 2007).

• Number of individuals: Two; a primary burial and separate LHB find. The disturbed burial involves the

fragmentary skull and partial skeleton of a ~7 year-old child; the LHB find is a largely complete right

parietal with open sutures, interpreted as from a 20-40 year old adult.

• Primary description of human remains: Raemaekers et al. (2005) report the discovery of the grave. L.

Smits gives a partial description, though without full inventory or photos (in Raemaekers et al. 2007).

• Direct dates on human bone: None known.

• Other dates known: Five; two on beaver bone and three on seeds, by Devriendt (2014), ranging from 5010

± 40 (GrA-33953; 3710-3910 calBC) to 5390 ± 70 BP (GrN-30447; 4080-4340 cal BC), both on seeds. GrA-

33953 aside, the range of the other dates is from 3980-4220 to 4080-4340 calBC.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: The indirect dates are primarily of Middle Swifterbant age with one (GrA-

33953) showing site use into the Late Swifterbant. This is in agreement with Raemaekers et al. (2011,

2011/12; see also Raemaekers 1999) who place S4 in the Middle Swifterbant group with S2 and S3, between

4300 and 4000 calBC (see above). Direct dating of the human material would still be useful.

2.3 INDIRECTLY DATED FINDS SEEN AS LATE SWIFTERBANT/PRE-DROUWEN TRB

We discuss a single site, based on an apparent direct Mesolithic date. Though four direct 14C dates are

available both excavator and later analysts reject them all. The remains are probably Late Swifterbant/pre-

Drouwen TRB, almost certainly post-3900 calBC. Comparison should be to other Late Swifterbant and

Neolithic burials such as Ypenburg Locatie 4 (Koot et al. 2008) (see also Schokland P14, ten Anscher 2012,

see above).

Urk-E4, Flevoland (Noordoost Polder)

• Nature and location of site: Open-air river dune site immediately south of the town of Urk in the

Noordoost Polder, ~10 km west-southwest of Emmeloord and 8-10 km north of Swifterbant; 52.65 N, 5.62 E.

• First excavated: Archaeological material on river dune reported in 1991 by D.E.P. (Dick) Velthuizen,

Assistant Provincial Archaeologist for Flevoland with further work in 1996. F.J.C. Peters, J.W.H. Hogestijn

and J.H.M. Peeters made a full excavation for the Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek

(ROB) in 1997 with further technical work through 2000.


• Number of individuals: Ten; in five graves with several extended burials, a hocker “sitting” grave, and

burial of two isolated skulls (Peters and Peeters 2001); nine adults or adolescents and an older child.

• Primary description of human remains: By d’Hollosy and Baetsen (2001), focusing on grave structures.

Bone preservation was generally poor.

• Direct dates on human bone: Four; on skeletons 1, 5, 7 and 8 (13

C values from D. Raemaekers in litt.,

2005). Attempts to date 3 and 4 were unsuccessful (Peters and Peeters 2001). Though they suggest site use

for over three millennia they are inconsistent with evidence that the burials are from the top of the dune. In

addition, evidence for flooding of the dune at the end of the Swifterbant period, ~3400 calBC, places the two

youngest dates well after inundation of the site. The oldest date, apparently full Mesolithic in age, is

inconsistent with associated cultural material. Finally, all four are on fractions other than collagen and should

be rejected (Raemaekers 2003/04; Niekus 2005/06). Peters and Peeters (2001) see GrA-16827 as most

congruent with other evidence from the site but suggest caution in dating the burials to the Late Swifterbant.

• Other dates known: Seventeen on peaty clay and wood, peat and wood, charcoal, foodcrusts and cereal

grains, in two groups. The first ranges from 4670 ± 35 (GrN-25689) to 5300 ± 30 BP (GrN-25691), the

second from 6270 ± 60 (GrN-25687) to 7850 ± 60 BP (GrN-25683) (Peters and Peeters 2001).

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Inclusion of this site is justified by the publication of the oldest bone date,

which suggests that at least one burial is from the Full Mesolithic. However, issues with material dated

means that all direct dates have been rejected (Raemaekers 2005; Peeters in litt.). Also note that the C% is

low for GrA-12899. Raemaekers (2005, 16) concludes “that the burials date to the latest part of the

occupation and may be considered Late Swifterbant.”

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

31


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

4150 ± 50* GrA-16825 Skeleton 1 -27.3 --- 4610-4820 2660-2870

4350 ± 50* GrA-16828 Skeleton 8 -28.1 --- 4860-4960 2910-3020

5110 ± 50* GrA-16827 Skeleton 7 -27.1 --- 5760-5920 3810-3970

7250 ± 100* GrA-12899 Skeleton 5 -26.8 --- 7980-8170 6030-6220

3. RIVER BED FINDS NOW KNOWN TO BE POST-MESOLITHIC OR OF UNKNOWN DATE

Any discussion of Dutch Mesolithic human remains must include the “River Bed People”, even though no

specific finds presently date to this period. Riverbed or alluvial finds were previously raised in this series for

finds from Great Britain, with material initially identified in the 1860s (Meiklejohn et al. 2011). Finds at

Galley Hill were identified as the earliest modern human (Keith 1911), resulting in a debate over modern

human origins. For Great Britain most dated pieces are post-Mesolithic; the majority post-Neolithic;

exceptions are Staythorpe and Tilbury (Meiklejohn et al. 2011; Schulting 2013).

The British database provided the framework for Dutch and German work. The term “River Bed People”

was first used for a German find (Rees: Erdbrink and Tacoma 1968b), the term suggested to Erdbrink by

Kenneth Oakley in reference to the Dutch entry in the Catalogue of Fossil Hominids (Erdbrink and Overweel

1971). Later sixteen further papers on Dutch alluvial finds were published, beginning with Erdbrink et al.

(1975; 297 pieces from 60 sites were described in total).

To give further context, Dirk P. (Bosscha) Erdbrink (1922-2004), a geologist and vertebrate palaeontologist

at the University of Utrecht, was interested in Miocene and later mammals. He began work in the 1950s. Part

involved material from three Dutch sources, small local museums, private collectors, and sand and gravel

dredge operators maintaining water flow in the braided river system of central and southern Holland, the

Meuse, Rhine and Waal and tributaries such as the IJssel. Erdbrink’s interest led to human material coming

to his attention after 1960 (see Bunde below) and, later, to collaboration with Jouke Tacoma, anatomist at the

University of Utrecht. Initial publications led to the Dutch entry for the Oakley “Catalogue” (see above).

Erdbrink’s interest was human material of possible Pleistocene age, a focus leading to premature

identification of material from three sites as Neandertal.

Parallel to this CM approached Erdbrink in the fall of 1968 about examining Dutch material following

discussion with Kenneth Oakley and Theya Molleson at the British Museum (Natural History; where CM

was working). He later saw several specimens discussed below in November, and was asked to collaborate in

further description. Interests overlapped in identifying possible pre-Neolithic material (Meiklejohn 1973).

Parallel to this was work with Swifterbant material (Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westermann 1978;

Constandse-Westermann and Meiklejohn 1979) and production of Skeletal remains of Mesolithic Man

(Newell et al. 1979).

Erdbrink’s approach included screening through fluorine and nitrogen assay and association with Pleistocene

fauna. By 1985 it was decided to attempt direct dating. With support from John Gowlett, material was

sampled for dating by Oxford, with five specimens dated, four humans and a Late Pleistocene mammal.

Beegden B1, a human femur, had apparent mineralization and identification as Neandertal (Erdbrink and

Tacoma 1966). Elst/Amerongen 3, a child’s mandible (Erdbrink et al. 1982a), had low nitrogen and moderate

fluorine levels and resembled a French Neandertal find (Tillier 1979). Koerhuisbeek K2, a human calvarium

apparently associated with late Pleistocene fauna (Erdbrink et al. 1979a), had a nitrogen level equivalent to

Coelodonta (wooly rhinoceros) from the same site, and moderate fluorine level. Rhenen Rh2, a partial

human maxilla with huge canine root, had low nitrogen and moderate fluorine levels (Erdbrink et al. 1982a).

The late Pleistocene mammal was a Cave Lion mandible (Panthera leo spelaea) from Lathum, a test case;

the youngest acceptable date would be Late Pleistocene.

Based on (unwise) assumptions, the hope was for all to be of Pleistocene or early Holocene age. The results

were sobering (Gowlett et al. 1987). Though the Lathum Cave Lion mandible was terminal Pleistocene

(10670 ± 120: OxA-729) the human bones were all Late Bronze Age or younger (see below). Though one

piece described in the River Valley People papers later yielded an Early Neolithic date (Rees, Germany; 5160

± 80, OxA-668), all other Dutch pieces in similar contexts have yielded similar late results (see section 3.1),

including a second piece from Rhenen (Stapert 1986).

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

32

What can be said 30 years later? Initial screening underestimated three variables. First, and critical, was

heterogeneity of the sampled deposits. Material recovered from was strikingly different geological levels.

Where human material from dredges also yielded Pleistocene mammals, the latter were a poor proxy for

dating the former. Secondly, fluorine and nitrogen screening was cost effective but it assumed that materials

dredged together were of similar depositional age, an assumption in the worst possible meaning of the word.

Without guarantees of depositional contemporaneity, interpreting fluorine and nitrogen levels was moot, a

point missed by other workers at the time (e.g. Niggli et al. 1953; van der Vlerk 1955; Overweel 1965).

Stapert’s (1986) criticism about screening and use of scientific “dating methods” was legitimate to a point

but failed to recognize two things, the costs involved, especially for AMS dating, and the amount of bone

required for “classic” 14C dating. The third issue was the inherent danger in typology-based identification.

Though three of four dated specimens had apparent pre-sapiens features all were dated to the Bronze Age or

later.

The above does not mean, de facto, that Late Pleistocene (Upper Palaeolithic) or Early Holocene (Mesolithic)

pieces cannot exist in material dredged from Dutch rivers, underlined by the recovery of demonstrable

Pleistocene mammal finds. However, they were not identified by the screening tools in use, a problem also

seen in dating specimens from similar German contexts (e.g. Hahnöfersand, Paderborn and Rhünda; Bronk

Ramsey et al. 2002; Street et al. 2006). None are Neandertal or early Upper Palaeolithic, as first described,

though two are Mesolithic.

Also far from obvious in 1985 was that we were, at least in part, apparentlysampling a population of whose

presence we were unaware. While the basis for the work involved recovery of Pleistocene fauna in river

deposits, other markers were not considered and, in hindsight, cannot be reconstructed, primarily involving

post-Neolithic material. Neither Erdbrink nor Meiklejohn were looking for such ties nor aware of them. Later

workers have been, in both the Netherlands and Great Britain, and elements may exist in Ireland. Ter

Schegget (1999) provides the Dutch context, contextualizing Iron Age human remains from Kessel on the

Meuse, north of s’Hertogenbosch. In examining human remains from Dutch rivers a core source were the

“River Bed” papers, described as the “initial impetus to describe human material from rivers” (ibid, 200) (32

of 44 sites listed were described there). Furthermore, examination of Kessel and similar finds shows two

similarities with “River Bed” material, the range of dates and distribution of body parts. In context, the

human dates in Gowlett et al. (1987), 2900 to 1460 BP, overlap those from Kessel, 2150 to 855 BP, with half

between 2150 and 2010 BP. Ter Schegget (1999) also lists five further dates from four sites in Drenthe,

between 4000 ± 40 (GrA-2431) at Deurzerdiep and 1350 ± 40 BP (GrA-2439) at Anreep. Ter Schegget

argues for deposition of bodies in ritual contexts outside the framework of formal burial. In the period in

which Kessel is framed, the Late Iron Age Urnfield phase, formal burial practice involved use of cremation

cemeteries.

From the above it is interesting that Roymans and Hoogland (1999) examine a site parallel to Kessel, an

Urnfield cremation cemetery within ~1 km of the site of the “River Bed” collection at Beegden (see Erdbrink

et al. 1975 and above). Though no direct dating was published,

the described age parallels that for Beegden 1 (see below) while

the pattern of finds at Beegden is eerily similar to that noted by

ter Schegget (1999), dominated by crania and long bones,

especially femora.

Finally, the “River Bed” dates outlined below parallel those from

England and Ireland (Meiklejohn et al. 2011; Meiklejohn and

Woodman 2012). In England Thames River finds (Bradley and

Gordon 1988) clearly overlap the Dutch finds, while parallels

exist with finds from the River Ribble (Turner et al. 2002),

though with a broader date range. In Ireland, two of five pieces

dated by Delaney and Woodman (2004) are Iron Age, the other

three medieval or later. Beginning in the Bronze Age there is

widespread use of riverine or similar contexts for disposal of the

dead.

Map 3: Distribution of "River-Bed" sites.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

33

The discussion below is in two parts, sites directly dated, all post-Mesolithic, and those undated but likely to

be post-Mesolithic. A final issue concerns finds to be discussed. Inclusion of all is beyond the scope of this

paper. We therefore limit discussion to finds seen as possibly Mesolithic (or earlier) by Erdbrink and

Overweel (1971) or Newell et al. (1979), plus those directly dated for the “River Bed” project or

independently, a total of seventeen sites, seven listed by both sources, five by the former only. The location

of these sites is shown in Map 3.

3.1 DIRECTLY DATED RIVER BED FINDS NOW KNOWN TO BE POST-MESOLITHIC

This set contains nine sites, all dated to the Bronze Age or later. A caveat is that dating one bone from a site

does not necessarily date all finds in that site, especially given the complex depositional history of some

locations. As a result the possibility exists that some bones from these sites are older. However, we stress

that in most cases material selected for dating was chosen as likely to show an early date. A further

consequence of depositional history is that in no case can different specimens from a site be linked. As a

result figures are given for number of bones rather than number of individuals.

Beegden, Limburg

• Nature and location of site: Dredging site(s) on left bank of the Meuse near village of Beegden, ~4 km

west-southwest of Roermond; 51.18 N, 5.92 E (est’d.).

• First excavated: Dredged in 1962 and 1963 and between then and the early 1970s; Erdbrink and Overweel

(1971) give find dates for specimens B1 through B11.

• Later excavations: None reported.

• Number of bones: Thirteen; eight partial calvaria or calottes, four femora and a partial humerus.

• Primary description of human remains: Described by time of discovery, two partial femora and a partial

humerus (B1-3) by Erdbrink and Tacoma (1966), two further partial femora (B4 and B13) by Erdbrink and

Tacoma (1968a, 1970, 1977), the cranial remains (B5-12) by Erdbrink et al. (1975).

• Direct dates on human bone: One, by Gowlett et al. (1987).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Erdbrink and Overweel (1971) used morphology and crystallography to

separate B1 as older than later finds (see further below), all viewed as Upper Pleistocene and contemporary

with recovered fauna. In contrast Newell et al. (1979, 181) saw “neither stratigraphic nor archaeological

security” while Oakley (1980, 45) saw nitrogen (N) values for B5 to B13 (all >3.04 %; Erdbrink et al. 1975)

as “not of great antiquity and … certainly post-Pleistocene”. The levels dredged ranged in age from

Medieval to Pleistocene at depths of up to 16 metres, with no basis to assume stratigraphic equivalence of

material dredged over a decade. B1 to B3 (with B1 dated), were radiographically screened for fluorine (F)

level using techniques of Niggli et al. (1954, see also van der Vlerk 1955). B1 through B4 were also screened

using N and F levels, B5 to B13 by N alone (Erdbrink and Tacoma 1977). Direct comparison is difficult. The

decision to date B1 was based on the argument that the piece might be Neandertal (Erdbrink and Tacoma

1966). The date obtained shows the weakness of using labile markers such as mineralization, and difficulties

in typological identification from limited markers. With Oakley’s comment in mind it is instructive that

dating and bone distribution of the Beegden finds are consistent with Urnfield material at Kessel on the Waal

(ter Schegget 1999) and closeness to the nearby Urnfield cemetery (Roymans and Hoogland 1999) (see also

above). The piece dates to the Iron Age.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

2450 ± 90 OxA-726 Beegden 1 - left femur --- --- 2370-2700 420-750

Elst/Amerongen, Gelderland

• Nature and location of site: Dredged basin in the Rhine flatlands 150 m north of the river, ~2 km west of

Elst and ~3-4 km south-southeast of Amerongen; 51.98 N, 5.47 E.

• First excavated: Basin dredged in 1973 with skeletal remains found in 1973 and 1975.


• Number of bones: Three; partial calotte and two partial mandibles.

• Primary description of human remains: By Erdbrink et al. (1982a).

• Direct dates on human bone: One; by Gowlett et al. (1987; see also Lanting and van der Plicht 1995/96a).

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

34


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Not listed by Erdbrink and Overweel (1971) or Newell et al. (1979); included

here due to direct dating. Reasons for dating included dental similarities with a Neandertal juvenile (Tillier

1979), low N levels (1.03 %) and moderate F levels (0.25 %), equivalent to the Lathum Cave Lion dated at

the same time. Direct dating is to the Late Bronze or Early Iron Age.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

2900 ± 130 OxA-728 El/Am3 - Mandible --- --- 2880-3210 930-1260

Hengelo, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Hengelo 1: Construction site for oil harbour on north bank of the Twenthe

Canal within town of Hengelo; 52.25 N, 6.80 E (Erdbrink et al. 1979a place it south of the canal). Hengelo 2:

unknown.

• First excavated: Hengelo 1: During construction in 1935 (Erdbrink et al. 1979a) or in either 1934 or 1935

(Newell et al. 1979; Flörschutz and van der Vlerk 1936 are not specific). Hengelo 2: 1941 or 1942 (Erdbrink

et al. 1979a).


• Number of human bones: Two; both are calottes.

• Primary description of human remains: Hengelo 1: by van den Broek (1936). Mentioned by Huizinga

(1959) and redescribed by Erdbrink et al. (1979a). Hengelo 2: by Erdbrink et al. (1979a).

• Direct dates on human bone: One, on Hengelo 1 (Hedges et al. 1993).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Hengelo 1: recovered ~3 m below upper surface of deposits; originally seen as

Würm late glacial cycle (Masurian interstadial; Flörschutz and van der Vlerk 1936), later as earliest

Holocene (Erdbrink and Overweel 1971; after van der Vlerk 1955). Associated antler artefacts were called

Maglemosian (Bursch 1936). Erdbrink and Overweel cite van der Vlerk (1955) as suggesting the find was

found higher in the section. However, this is likely a circular argument as van der Vlerk saw fluorine and

nitrogen levels as a direct measure of stratigraphic level (see also Butter 1955). Within this framework and a

typological paradigm Huizinga (1959) saw the age as Early Holocene/Mesolithic, similar to Erdbrink and

Overweel’s (1971, 268) conclusion that the piece was “latest Pleistocene or earliest Holocene” (see also

Oakley 1980). Newell et al. (1979) were more critical, seeing the worked deer antler as non-diagnostic; the

stratigraphic position unclear. Direct dating is to the late Iron Age. Hengelo 2: of unknown provenance and

undated.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

2260 ± 60 OxA-3758 Hengelo 1 – calotte -19.7 --- 2170-2340 220-390

Herten-Ool, Limburg

• Nature and location of site: Dredging location on the Meuse opposite the villages of Herten and Ool, ~2

km east of Roermond; 51.19 N, 5.96 E (est’d).

• First excavated: Recovered between 1964 and 1974 (Erdbrink et al. 1975; Erdbrink and Tacoma 1977;

Hupperetz 1998).


• Number of human bones: Sixteen cranial and postcranial pieces; most, including the dated finds, were

from a private collection, the others from the Heemkundige Vereniging (Regional Antiquarian Society) at

Sint Odiliënberg (Erdbrink et al. 1975).

• Primary description of human remains: Described by Erdbrink et al. (1975; Erdbrink and Tacoma 1977)

including N and F levels; see also Hupperetz (1998).

• Direct dates on human bone: Two; reported by Hupperetz (1998). Lanting and van der Plicht (1999/2000)

give the lab number as GrN-6998, apparently in error as this number is associated with a geophysical site in

the Rhine/Meuse delta (Berendsen and Stouthamer 2001; see also Cohen 2003).


MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

35

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Though cranial material from the site showed variable N and F levels, both

dated pieces had effectively identical levels, underlining the danger of their use as age markers in unclear

contexts. The older piece is Neolithic, the younger Carolingian in age.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

1120 ± 50 GrA-6997 Calotte HeO-1 -20.0 --- 960-1070 AD 880-990

4750 ± 50 GrA-6998 Calotte HeO-2 -20.1 --- 5340-5580 3400-3630

Hummelo, Gelderland

• Nature and location of site: Two open-air “sites” on the Old (Oude) IJssel, <1 km apart on either side of

where the road, the Jonker Emilweg, crosses the river, ~2-3 km west-southwest of Hummelo and 3-4 km

southeast of Doesburg; 52.00 N, 6.20 E (Hu 1); 52.00 N, 6.19 E (Hu 2).

• First excavated: During canalization of the Oude IJssel in 1940/41.


• Number of human bones: Two; both calottes.

• Primary description of human remains: By Huizinga (1959) with further description and diagrams by

Erdbrink et al. (1978), who also described four red deer antler pieces found at the same time as Hu 1.

• Direct dates on human bone: One, on Hu 2, published by Gowlett et al. (1987).

• Other dates known: None known.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: We stress that two sites are sampled; provenance of material at one gives no

information on the other (contra the implication of Newell et al. 1979). Hu 2 gave an Iron Age date; Hu 1 is

undated though N levels suggest a recent age (3.77 %). No material was found with Hu 2 contra Gowlett et

al. (1987) who state that worked antler was found with both (see also Housely 1991). Worked red deer antler

pieces were in proximity to Hu 1 rather than in association and, as noted by Newell et al. (1979), are not

diagnostic.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

2530 ± 90 OxA-616 Hummelo 2 - calotte --- --- 2490-2740 540-800

Koerhuisbeek, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Large artificial basin now filled with water on left bank of the IJssel,

immediately south of Deventer, ~200 m north of the E30 (A1) highway and <1 km east of the IJssel; 52.24 N,

6.17 W.

• First excavated: By hand between 1935 and 1937 to recover sand; J.J. Butter first recovered human

remains in January 1936.


• Number of human bones: 23 (21 extant: Newell et al. 1979), ten cranial. Three numbering systems have

been used. Butter used a K prefix apparently including all finds whether human or otherwise, while Vallois

(1943) used letters and numbers (e.g. C1 for cranium 1, M1 for mandible 1). Erdbrink et al. (1979a, 1980)

numbered finds in sequence.

• Primary description of human remains: Initially by Vallois (1943); revised by Erdbrink et al. (1979a,

1980) with data used by Constandse-Westermann (1974), Frayer (1978) and Huizinga (1959).

• Direct dates on human bone: One, on K2 (Gowlett et al. 1987), recovered from immediately above level

IV and one of two deepest pieces recovered (Vallois 1943).

• Other dates known: None known.

• Diagnosis and Discussion: Among “River Bed” site, Koerhuisbeek may be the most difficult to interpret.

Dug by hand rather than by dredge, Butter collected most of the material, recording both stratigraphy and

find location (1940, 1941, 1949, 1955, 1957). With eight metres of deposits and four gravel layers identified,

lowest level IV contained late Pleistocene fauna. Human material was between levels II and III (mostly

postcranial) and III and IV (mostly cranial); none apparently came from within or below level IV. A layer

with snail shells below level III was attributed by as of Boreal age, and by Vallois (1943) as Mesolithic

(Maglemose). Thus at least some material could reasonably be seen as of Pleistocene or early Holocene age .

Newell et al. (1979) viewed some as possibly Mesolithic (or earlier); N results “suggest … an increase in

age … with increasing depth” (ibid, 183). However, results were inconsistent. The dated piece (K2) was

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

36

from just above level IV with N=0.97% (compare 0.96% from a piece of Woolly Rhinoceros; the two had

discrepant F levels). The direct date (post-Roman Iron Age to Early Medieval), the youngest date obtained

by Erdbrink and CM (Gowlett et al. 1987) contradicts all assumptions. There is little reason to believe any of

the other pieces are significantly older, even given the fauna in the site. It should be noted that the Mesolithic

socketed axe described by Louwe Kooijmans (1971) was discovered in 1968, ~400 m west of Butter’s site.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

1460 ± 80 OxA-669 Koerhuisbeek 2 - calvarium --- --- 1290-1480 AD 470-660

Rhenen, Utrecht

• Nature and location of site: Dredged sand and gravel site on south slope of the Grebbeberg push moraine

north of the Rhine, ~1 km southeast of Rhenen and 20-25 km west of Arnhem; 51.95 N, 5.59 E.

• First excavated: Initial find in 1967, the others in 1974 and 1979, all from different locations of the

deposit (Erdbrink et al. 1979b, 1982a).


• Number of human bones: Three; partial femur, fragment of left maxilla with associated teeth, and

thoracic vertebra.

• Primary description of human remains: Femur described by Erdbrink et al. (1979b; as “neanderthaloid”),

maxilla and vertebra by Erdbrink et al. (1982a).

• Direct dates on human bone: Two; femur dated by Stapert (1986; see also Lanting and van der Plicht

1995/96a), maxilla by Gowlett et al. (1987; see also Housley 1991).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: The dates, both post-Roman, highlight inherent problems in typological

assessment of individual bone fragments and N and F screening in complex taphonomic situations. Issues

over identifying postcranial pieces as Neandertal are remarkably similar for Rhenen 1 and Beegden 1 (see

above), and there is no reason to further consider either in that light. N and F levels at Rhenen highlight

groundwater and soil complexity (N from 0.39 to 2.55 %, F from 0.10 to 0.26 %). Rhenen 1 was

intermediate in both and comparable to many “River Bed” finds. Rhenen 2 was selected for dating for its

huge canine root. Though N levels suggested it was the oldest find, F levels made it the youngest! In the

aftermath of the results, and with many years of further insight, the debate between Stapert (1986) and

Erdbrink (1986) over F and N screening is largely beyond the point. The system doesn’t work in complex

environments and comparison of disparate sites.


C 15

N cal. BP cal. AD

1330 ± 110 GrN-12079 Rhenen 1 – femur -21.3 --- 1100-1350 600-850

1640 ± 100 OxA-727 Rhenen 2 – maxilla --- --- 1410-1680 270-540

Smilde (Middensmilde), Drenthe

• Nature and location of site: Construction site for excavation of soil, on southeast edge of the village of

Smilde, ~6-7 km southwest of Assen; 52.95 N, 6.46 E (est’d.).

• First excavated: Recovered in 1970 at an apparent depth of 1-1.5 m.


• Number of human bones: One; a partial calotte.

• Primary description of human remains: By Erdbrink et al. (1982b).

• Direct dates on human bone: One, by Lanting and van der Plicht (1995/96a).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Inclusion is because the piece was described in the River Bed series and then

dated. Lanting and van der Plicht (1995/96a, 90; free translation) indicate that “the Smilde skull was found

under Pleistocene sand beneath peat during excavation … by Tj. Vermaning who suggested an age of 40,000

years, partly because of … Neanderthal-like features; the latter not confirmed by Erdbrink et al. (1982b) who

argued for a Holocene age. Others argued that the skull was more recent and probably not more than a few

hundred years old (van der Sanden 1991).” The last is confirmed, consistent with published N and F levels

(Erdbrink et al. 1982b; N=3.82 %; F=<0.02 %). The piece is medieval.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

37


C 15

N cal. BP cal. BC

480 ± 90 Ua-1499 Smilde 1 - calotte --- --- 340-640 AD 1320-1610

Zwolle 2, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Construction site for development of Holtenbroek housing site, North Zwolle,

~2 km north-northwest of walled centre of Zwolle; 52.53 N, 6.08 E (est’d.).

• First excavated: In 1969 during building of the National School in the area (Stapert 1986).


• Number of human bones: One; an isolated frontal bone.

• Primary description of human remains: Stapert (1986) gives a brief description and images.

• Direct dates on human bone: One by Stapert (1986; see also Lanting and van der Plicht 1995/96a).


• Diagnosis and Discussion: Lanting and van der Plicht (1995/96a, 90: free translation) indicate “(a) human

skullcap was found in a ditch in a residential area of Zwolle, but could have come from spread Pleistocene

sand. A discriminant analysis by G. van Vark showed it as significantly different from both current humans

and Neandertal and possibly quite old (Stapert 1986). However, Stapert had plausible grounds, based on F

and U levels, to see the bone as very young. 14C dating was performed, partly at the urging of van Vark,

showing that the specimen was recent.” This specimen is from a different site than the Zwolle 1 cranium

listed by Erdbrink and Overweel (1971) (see also below).


C 15

N cal. BP cal. AD

465 ± 80 GrN-7307 Cranium -18.2 --- 330-620 1330-1620

3.2 UNDATED RIVER BED FINDS

The following eight finds, all undated, are included here since Erdbrink and Overweel (1971) and/or Newell

et al. (1979), implied a possible Mesolithic or earlier age. The general sense of the three authors is that all are

probably Bronze Age or later, concordant with the previous set. All have either complex depositional

histories (see also above), or lack associated evidence to provide a date. In some cases original assessments

had typological assumptions, again problematic (see above).

Bunde, Limburg

• Nature and location of site: Excavation pit during bridge construction over the River Geul, a Meuse

tributary <0.5 km south of the village of Bunde and 4-5 km north of Maastricht; 50.89 N, 5.72 E (est’d.).

• First excavated: In 1962 when the human find and associated material was recovered.

• Later excavations: None; the site was destroyed.

• Number of human bones: One; a partial calotte.

• Primary description of human remains: By Erdbrink et al. (1975; Erdbrink 1964 gives a photograph).



• Diagnosis and Discussion: Sandy clay beneath 4-7 m of overlying loess suggested a late Pleistocene age

(Erdbrink 1964, 1968). Associated fauna, apparently including Saiga, were primarily from the clay. Direct

dating of the calotte was unsuccessful despite a reasonably high N level (3.32%; no F assay attempted).

Strongest argument for an early age is the suggestion that the calotte was from the clay rather than the

overlying loess, seen in colour and weight. However, disagreement exists between Erdbrink (1964, 1968)

and Clason (1968) over faunal identification with Clason identifying the apparent Saiga remains as

Sheep/Goat, arguing for post-Roman deposition of the loess and, by extension, a younger age for the clay.

This disagreement can only be resolved by direct dating.

Deventer, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Construction pit for entrance to Deventer harbour from the IJssel, the Prins

Bernhardsluis (Prince Bernhard Lock), on the south side of town, ~1 km north of Koerhuisbeek (see above);

52.24 N, 6.17 E.

• First excavated: Remains recovered between January and July 1949.


MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

38

• Number of human bones: Three; a cranium, calvarium and posterior of a calvarium.

• Primary description of human remains: By van Bork-Feltkamp (1957); discussed by Huizinga (1959)

with descriptions and photographs by Erdbrink et al. (1979a). Frayer (1978) published dental data.



• Diagnosis and Discussion: Mentioned by Erdbrink and Overweel (1971) and Newell et al. (1979). The

first find was recovered from dredging debris; the others in situ (Butter 1949; see also Erdbrink et al. 1979a;

Newell et al. 1979) at a depth equivalent to level III at Koerhuisbeek (see above). Though Huizinga (1959,

41: free translation) suggests that “remains of Cervus elaphus were found in the same levels”, Erdbrink et al.

(1979a) indicate that these were dredged west of the lock in 1942. The deposits at Deventer and

Koerhuisbeek are continuous (ibid), and neither level nor N and F values suggest the Deventer materials are

older. An educated guess would see the finds as Bronze Age or younger.

Elst, Gelderland

• Nature and location of site: Now flooded construction site for recovery of sand, clay and gravel, the

Aamsche Plas, ~1 km southeast of Elst and ~8 km south-southwest of the Rhine at Arnhem; 51.91 N, 5.86 E.

• First excavated: Dug in 1952 with skeletal finds made in the same year.


• Number of human bones: five; a cranium, two calvaria, a calotte and pair of matching parietals.

• Primary description of human remains: Mentioned by van der Vlerk (1955); described by Erdbrink et al.

(1984).



• Diagnosis and Discussion: Site separate from Elst/Amerongen (section 3.1); the two are in the same

province ~25 km apart, this one to the east-southeast. Identification as early is because E1 and E2 were found

10-12 metres below ground level in deposits including mammoth. From this van der Vlerk (1955; citing J.

Huizinga) in suggested that the remains were Pleistocene in age (with E3 to E5 seen as younger). However,

N and F levels (Erdbrink et al. 1984) show mixed support. Though E1 and E2 N levels (2.32 and 3.06 %) are

lower than E3 through E5 (3.98 to 4.32 %; effectively modern), F levels for E1 and E2 are at the lower end

of the range for the five pieces and appear the most recent (0.21 and 0.23 %; total range 0.21-0.45 %). Thus

though Erdbrink et al. (1984, 409) saw E1 and E2 as “quite possibly … Upper Pleistocene”, this is hard to

support. We suspect the pieces are all sub-modern and direct dating would be useful.

Nijenbeek, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Two dredging sites on the IJssel across the river from ruins of Nijenbeek

Castle (Slot Nijenbeek), ~0.5 km north of the castle, ~2 km north-northeast of the village of Voorst and 6-7

km south of Deventer; 52.19 N, 6.16 E (Nijenbeek 2, based on van Bork-Feltkamp 1964) (the location for

Nijenbeek 1 is apparently nearby but not given in available sources).

• First excavated: Nijenbeek 1 in April 1950, Nijenbeek 2 in September or October 1961.

• Later excavations: None known; Erdbrink et al. (1979) note recovery of a Hallstatt (Iron Age) Bronze

dagger in the same vicinity in 1958.

• Number of individuals: Two; a calvarium and calotte.

• Primary description of human remains: N1 described by van Bork-Feltkamp (1957), N2 by van Bork-

Feltkamp (1964); both redescribed by Erdbrink et al. (1979a).



• Diagnosis and Discussion: Bork-Feltkamp (1957) and Erdbrink et al. (1979a) give maximum dredge level

as ~10 metres, thus possibly reaching Pleistocene levels. N and F levels suggest that the two were recovered

from different environments. Though F levels are almost identical (Erdbrink et al. 1979a; contra van Bork-

Feltkamp 1964), N values are quite different with N1 at <1 % and N2 at <3 %. Though N1 should be older

(Newell et al. 1979), no further information exists to provide a meaningful date.

Vianen, Utrecht

• Nature and location of site: Not fully identified. Huizinga (1958) places the discovery as “during work in

connection with the Amsterdam-Rhine canal near Vianen”. With the canal on the opposite (northern) side of

the Rhine from Vianen the possibilities are broad. We give the position as where the Canal joins the Lek

(Lower Rhine), closest to Vianen. Erdbrink et al. (1989) locate it where the Amsterdam-Rhine canal joins the

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

39

Rhine at Wijk-bij-Duurstede, ~18 km to the east); 52.00 N, 5.10 E (est’d).

• First excavated: Apparently in 1940 during construction.


• Number of individuals: One; a largely complete cranium.

• Primary description of human remains: By Huizinga (1958, 1959) and, in comparison, by Erdbrink et al.

(1989).



• Diagnosis and Discussion: Huizinga (1958, 1959) described the piece as possibly Mesolithic based on

typological similarity to Téviec (Brittany). Other pieces seen by Huizinga as similar to Vianen are all now

known or thought to be later (Koerhuisbeek 2, Hengelo, both Hummelo skulls). No information exists on the

find context (Newell et al. 1979). Huizinga’s comment (1958; see also Newell et al. 1979) that F levels did

not exclude a Mesolithic age were based on Overweel’s assumption of a constant relationship between F

content and depth of burial. Published N and F levels suggest that the piece is not recent but provides no

guarantee of age (N=2.37%; F=0.33%) (Erdbrink et al. 1989).

Windesheim, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Dredging site in the IJssel flatlands immediately west of the village of

Windesheim, ~7 km south of the town of Zwolle; 52.45 N, 6.11 E.

• First excavated: Collected from a dredger, probably in 1957 or 1958.


• Number of individuals: One; a partial right femur.

• Primary description of human remains: Described by Erdbrink and Tacoma (1968c) with location

provided by Erdbrink et al. (1979a, 1980).



• Diagnosis and Discussion: Listed by Erdbrink and Overweel (1971), with a reasonably high N (3.23 %)

and low F (0.07 %) content (Erdbrink et al. 1980). The piece is likely to be subrecent.

Zandweert, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Dredged basin on east side of the IJssel in northwest Deventer, more recently

a yachting harbour; 52.26 N, 6.13 E.

• First excavated: Dredged in 1939 with material reported the following year by J.J. Butter (1940).

• Later excavations: By a private collector; no further human remains recovered (Erdbrink et al. 1979a).

• Number of individuals: Seven; a mandible and six postcranial bones recovered by Butter.

• Primary description of human remains: By Erdbrink et al. (1979a, 1980).



• Diagnosis and Discussion: As with Windesheim, listed in the editors’ note to Erdbrink and Overweel

(1971). The material is undated with variable N and moderate F levels. Further consideration requires direct

dating.

Zwolle 1, Overijssel

• Nature and location of site: Road construction site at a depth of 1.5 m, ~400 m southwest of the walled

centre of Zwolle; 52.51 N, 6.08 E (est’d.).

• First excavated: Apparently in 1931 (not 1933 as in Erdbrink et al. 1979a).


• Number of individuals: One; a partial cranium.

• Primary description of human remains: Vallois (1943) gave a short description and measurements,

emphasizing typology. Erdbrink et al. (1979a) provide a more complete description. One of us (CM) was

shown an apparently associated but never published tibia in 1968 (registration ST. 94090; Rijksmuseum voor

Geologie en Mineralogie, Leiden).



• Diagnosis and Discussion: Vallois (1943, 23) saw no means to date the specimen. Discussion as

Mesolithic was typologically based with Vallois (ibid: free translation) commenting that “there is no doubt

that (the skull) is old”. Included here as listed by Erdbrink and Overweel (1971), N and F levels given by

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

40

Erdbrink et al. (1979a) suggest a subrecent age. The dating of Zwolle 2 (see above) is not related to this

piece.

Acknowledgements

This paper could not have been written without the assistance of colleagues and we trust that no one who

assisted us is missing from the list below. Again, we thank Weldon Hiebert, Department of Geography,

University of Winnipeg, for the maps. Assistance was given in in many ways, providing papers, monographs

and images, and answering questions of detail. In alphabetical sequence we thank Luc Amkreutz

(Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden), Theo ten Anscher (RAAP Archeologisch Adviesbureau, Drachten),

Nico Arts (Archeologisch Centrum Eindhoven en Helmond, Eindhoven), Izabel Devriendt (Gent), Amy Gray

Jones (University of Chester), Willem-Jan Hogestijn (city archaeologist, Gemeente Almere), Leendert

Louwe Kooijmans (Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, retired), Dick Mol (Natuurhistorisch Museum, Rotterdam),

Joanne Mol (Rijksuniversiteit Leiden), Hans Peeters (Groningen Institute of Archaeology), Patrick Ploegaert

(Bureau Oudheidkundig Onderzoek van Gemeentewerken, Rotterdam), Daan Raemaekers (Groningen

Institute of Archaeology), Muuk ter Schegget (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Amersfoort), Rick

Schulting (Oxford University), Bjorn Smit (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Amersfoort), Liesbeth

Smits (Smits Anthropologisch Bureau, Amsterdam), Paul Storm (Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden), Ad

Verlinde (Amersfoort), Jakob Wallinga (Nederlands Centrum voor Luminescentiedatering, Wageningen),

and Jørn T. Zeiler (ArcheoBone, Haren). We thank you all unreservedly for your collegiality, and trust that

neither facts nor interpretation have been “lost in translation”. Any errors in the paper are entirely ours.

References Anscher, T.J. ten (2012) Leven met de Vecht. Schokland-P14 en de Noordoostpolder in het Neolithicum en de

Bronstijd. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Arts, N. & Hoogland, M. (1987) A Mesolithic settlement area with a human cremation grave at Oirschot V,

Municipality of Best, the Netherlands. Helinium 27(2), 172-189.

Baetsen, S. & Kootker, L. (2012) 6 Graf. In T. Hamburg, A. Müller & B. Quadflieg (eds.) Mesolithisch Swifterbant.

Mesolithisch gebruik van een duin ten zuiden van Swifterbant (8300-5000 v.Chr.). Een archeologische opgraving

in het tracé van de N23/N307, provincie Flevoland, 147-156. Archol BV en ADC - Archeoprojecten,

Leiden/Amersfoort (=Archol rapport 174 & ADC rapport 3250).

Beerenhout, B. (2001) Vissen. In L.P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.) Archeologie in de Betuweroute. Hardinxveld-

Giessendam De Bruin. Een kampplaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin van de Swifterbant-cultuur (5500-

4450 v. Chr.), 299-325. NS Railinfrabeheer B.V., Utrecht (=Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88).

Beets, D.J. & van der Spek, A.J.F. (2000) The Holocene evolution of the barrier and back-barrier basin of Belgium

and the Netherlands as a function of Late Weichselian morphology, relative sea-level rise and sediment supply.

Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 79(1), 3-16.

Berendsen, H.J.A. & Stouthamer, E. (2001) Palaeogeographic development of the Rhine-Meuse delta, the

Netherlands. Koninklijke Van Gorcum, Assen.

Bork-Feltkamp, A.J. van (1957) Skull Fragments from Deventer, Nijenbeek and Rees. Nederlandsch Museum voor

Anthropologie, Amsterdam.

Bork-Feltkamp, A.J. van (1964) La calotte cranienne de Nijenbeek 259. L’Anthropologie 68(5/6), 569-574.

Borst, W., Weerts, H., Vellinga, T. & Otte, A. (2014) Monitoring programma for the MV2, Part IV –

archaeological and palaeontological finds. Terra et Aqua 135, 5-16.

Bradley, R. & Gordon, K. (1988) Human skulls from the River Thames, their dating and significance. Antiquity

62(236), 503-509.

Brinkkemper, O., Hogestijn, W.-J., Peeters, H., Visser, D. & Whitton, C. (1999) The Early Neolithic site of Hoge

Vaart, Almere, the Netherlands, with particular reference to non-diffusion of crop plants, and the significance of

site function and sample location. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8(1), 79-86.

Broek, A.J.P. van den (1936) The Pleistocene human skull from Hengelo. II. Anthropological part. Proceedings of

the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen 39(1), 81-82.

Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T., Owen, T.H.F., Pike, A.W.G. & Hedges, R.E.M. (2002) Radiocarbon dates from the

Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 31. Archaeometry 44(3 Supp), 1-149.

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.

Bursch, F.C. (1936) The Pleistocene human skull from Hengelo. III. Archaeological part. Proceedings of the

Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen 39(1), 83-87.

Butter, J. (1940) The excavation at Koerhuisbeek, Deventer, Netherlands. 1935-1937. Cadastre: C2, Ns 632-640.

Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen 43(1), 95-104.

Butter, J. (1941) Praehistorische vondsten te Deventer en elders. Geologie en Mijnbouw 3(9), 262-270.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

41

Butter, J. (1949) De vondsten bij het graven van de sluisput te Deventer (1948/1949). Proceedings of the

Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen 52(7), 766-772.

Butter, J. (1955) The fluorine dating method. A useful help for finds in the valley of the river IJssel, the

Netherlands. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen B58(4), 282-301.

Butter, J. (1957) Les trouvailles dans la vallée de la rivière Yssel et ses affluents, examinées au point de vue de leur

teneur en fluor. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d'Études Géologiques et Archéologiques 16(1), 1-15.

Cappers, R.T.J. & Raemaekers, D.C.M. (2008) Cereal cultivation at Swifterbant? Neolithic wetland farming on the

North European Plain. Current Anthropology 49(3), 385-402.

Clason, A.T. (1968) The subfossil bones from Bunde reconsidered. Publicaties van het Natuurhistorisch

Genootschap in Limburg 18(3/4), 50-51.

Clason, A.T. & Brinkhuizen, D.C. (1978) Swifterbant, mammals, birds, fishes. Swifterbant Contribution 8.

Helinium 18(1), 69-82.

Cohen, K.M. (2003) Differential subsidence within a coastal prism: late-Glacial-Holocene tectonics in the Rhine-

Meuse delta, the Netherlands. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Utrcht.

Coles, B.J. (1998) Doggerland: a speculative survey. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64, 45-81.

Constandse-Westermann, T.S. (1974) L'homme mésolithique du nord-ouest de l'Europe, distances biologiques,

considérations génétiques. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris Sér XIII, 1(2), 173-199.

Constandse-Westermann, T.S. (1997) The Netherlands. In F. Spencer (ed.) History of Physical Anthropology: an

encyclopedia, 726-731. Garland, New York.

Constandse-Westermann, T.S. & Meiklejohn, C. (1979) The human remains from Swifterbant. Swifterbant

Contribution 12. Helinium 19(3), 237-266.

Cook, G.T., Bonsall, C., Hedges, R.E.M., McSweeney, K., Boronean, V. & Pettitt, P.B. (2001) A freshwater diet-

derived 14C reservoir effect at the Stone Age sites in the Iron Gates Gorge. Radiocarbon 43(2A), 453-460.

Cook, G.T., Bonsall, C., Hedges, R.E.M., McSweeney, K., Boronean, V., Bartosiewicz, L. & Pettitt, P.B. (2002)

Problems of dating human bones from the Iron Gates. Antiquity 76, 77-85.

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).

Deckers, P.H. (1979) The flint material from Swifterbant, earlier Neolithic of the Northern Netherlands, I. Sites S-2,

S-4 and S-51. Final reports on Swifterbant II. Palaeohistoria 21, 143-180.

Deckers, P.H. (1982). Preliminary notes on the Neolithic flint material from Swifterbant. Swifterbant Contribution

13. Helinium 22(1), 33-39.

Delaney, M. & Woodman, P.C. (2004) Searching the Irish Mesolithic for the humans behind the hatchets. In H.

Roche, E. Grogan, J. Bradley, J. Coles & B. Rafferty (eds.) From megaliths to metals: essays in honour of George

Eogan, 6-11. Oxbow, Oxford.

DeNiro, M.J. (1985) Postmortem preservation and alteration of in vivo bone collagen isotope ratios in relation to

paleodietary reconstruction. Nature 317(6040), 806-809.

d’Hollosy, M. & Baetsen, S. (2001) Fysische antropologie. In F.J.C. Peters & J.H.M. Peeters (eds.) De opgraving

van de Mesolithische en Neolithische vindplaats Urk-E4 (Domineesweg, gemeente Urk), 48-60 (=Rapportage

Archeologische Monumentenzorg 93).

Devriendt, I. (2008) Becoming Neolithic. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and its impact on the flint and stone

industry at Swifterbant (the Netherlands). Documenta Praehistorica 35, 131-141.

Devriendt, I. (2014) Swifterbant Stones. The Neolithic stone and flint industry at Swifterbant (the Netherlands):

from stone typology and flint technology to site function. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/Barkhuis, Groningen/Eelde

(=Groningen Archaeological Studies 25).

Drenth, E. & Niekus, M.J.L.Th. (2009a) 14C-datierte Geröllkeulen aus den Niederlanden. Archäologische

Informationen 32(1/2), 91-94.

Drenth, E. & Niekus, M.J.L.Th. (2009b) Stone mace-heads and picks: a case-study from the Netherlands. In P.

Crombé, M. van Strydonck, J. Sergant, M. Boudin & M. Bats (eds.) Chronology and evolution within the

Mesolithic of North-West Europe, 747-766. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.

Ente, P.J. (1976) The Geology of the northern part of Flevoland in relation to the human occupation in the Atlantic

time. Swifterbant Contribution 2. Helinium 16(1), 15-35.

Erdbrink, D.P. (1964) A fossil faunule with Homo from a prehistoric site along the Meuse in the Netherlands.

Natuurhistorisch Maandblad 53(7/8), 107-114.

Erdbrink, D.P. (1968) The bones from Bunde reconsidered: a reply. Publicaties van het Natuurhistorisch

Genootschap in Limburg 18(3/4), 52-55.

Erdbrink, D.P. (1986) “Wetenschap kan niet bestaan zonder controverse”. Cranium 3(2), 79-85.

Erdbrink, D.P. & Overweel, C.J. (1971) Netherlands. In K.P. Oakley, B.G. Campbell & T.I. Molleson (eds.)

Catalogue of Fossil Hominids, Part II: Europe, 265-269. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Erdbrink, D.P. & Tacoma, J. (1966) Enkele fossiele menselijke overblijfselen uit de Maas bij Roermond.

Natuurhistorisch Maandblad 55(4), 47-57.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

42

Erdbrink, D.P. & Tacoma, J. (1968a) Another fossil human femur from the Meuse Valley near Beegden.

Publicaties van het Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg 17(1), 1-4.

Erdbrink, D.P. & Tacoma, J. (1968b) Another human skull from Rees, Germany. Proceedings of the Koninklijke

Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen C71(5), 487-494.

Erdbrink, D.P. & Tacoma, J. (1968c) Drie fossiele menselijke overblijfselen uit het stroomgebied van IJssel en

Vecht. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Vereniging tot Beoefening van Overijsselsch Recht en Geschiedenis 83,

1-8.

Erdbrink, D.P. & Tacoma, J. (1970) Opnieuw een fossiel menselijk dijbeen opgebaggerd te Beegden.

Natuurhistorisch Maandblad 59(6), 93-95.

Erdbrink, D.P. & Tacoma, J. (1977) Additional fossil human remains from Limburg Province in the Netherlands.

Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen C80(2), 73-79.

Erdbrink, D.P. & Tacoma, J., (1997). Une calotte humaine datée au 14C du bassin sud de la mer du nord.

L’Anthropologie 101(3), 541-545.

Erdbrink, D.P., Meiklejohn, C. & Tacoma, J. (1975) River Valley People: fossil human remains from Limburg

Province in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen C78(3),

226-264.

Erdbrink, D.P., Meiklejohn, C. & Tacoma, J. (1978) River Valley People: fossil human remains from river deposits

near the Dutch-German border in the Rhine Valley. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van

Wetenschappen C81(1), 61-89.

Erdbrink, D.P., Meiklejohn, C. & Tacoma, J. (1979a) River Valley People: fossil human remains from river

deposits in the IJssel Valley and the Dutch Province of Overijssel (cranial specimens). Proceedings of the

Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen C82(3), 275-324.

Erdbrink, D.P., Meiklejohn, C. & Tacoma, J. (1979b) An incomplete, probably neanderthaloid femur from the

Grebbeberg in the central Netherlands. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen

C82(4), 409-420


in the IJssel valley in the Dutch provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel (postcranial specimens and some recently

found additions). Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen C83(4), 363-386.

Erdbrink, D.P., Meiklejohn, C. & Tacoma, J. (1982a) River Valley People: fossil human remains from river

deposits along the Rhine between Arnhem and Amerongen in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Koninklijke

Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen C85(2), 149-178.

Erdbrink, D.P., Meiklejohn, C. & Tacoma, J. (1982b) River Valley People: isolated fossil human cranial material

from seven widely separated Dutch localities. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van

Wetenschappen C85(4), 473-496.


upstream part of the Betuwe between Arnhem and Amerongen in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Koninklijke

Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen B87(4), 383-416.

Erdbrink, D.P., Meiklejohn, C. & Tacoma, J. (1989) River Valley People: fossil human material from the Maurik

area. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen C92(4), 275-324.

Es, W.A. van, Sarfatij, H. & Woltering, P.J. (1988) Archeologie in Nederland. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig

Bodemonderzoek (ROB), Amersfoort.

Fitch, S., Gaffney, V. & Thomson, K. (2007) In sight of Doggerland: from speculative survey to landscape

exploration. Internet Archaeology 22, http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/22/3/toc.html.

Fischer, A., Olsen, J., Richards, M., Heinemeier, J., Sveinbjornsdottir, A.E. & Bennike, P. (2007) Coast-inland

mobility and diet in the Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic: evidence from stable isotope values of humans and dogs.

Journal of Archaeological Science 34(12), 2125-2150

Florschütz, F. & van der Vlerk, I.M. (1936) The Pleistocene human skull from Hengelo. I. Geological

palaeontological part. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen 39(1), 76-80.

Frayer, D.W. (1978) The evolution of the dentition in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe. University of

Kansas Publications in Anthropology 10.

Geuverink, J., Raemaekers, D.C.M. & Devriendt, I. (2009) Op zoek naar archeologie bij Doug’s duin

Kamperhoekweg, Swifterbant, gemeente Dronten. Inventariserend veldonderzoek door middel van boringen.

Grondsporen: Opgravings- en onderzoeksrapporten van het Groninger Instituut voor Archeologie, 14.

Gijssel, K. van & van der Valk, B. (2005). Aangespoeld, gestuwd en verwaaid: de wording van Nederland. In L.P.

Louwe Kooijmans, P.W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens & A. van Gijn (eds.), Nederland in de prehistorie, 45-74.

Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, Amsterdam.

Glimmerveen J., Mol, D., Post, K., Reumer, J.W.F. van der Plicht, J., van Geel, B., van Reenen, G. & Pals, J.P.

(2004) The North Sea project: the first palaeontological, palynological and archaeological results. In N.C.

Flemming (ed.), Submarine Prehistoric Archaeology of the North Sea, 21-36. Council for British Archaeology

Research Report 141.

http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/22/3/toc.html

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

43

Glimmerveen, J., Mol, D. & van der Plicht, J. (2006) The Pleistocene reindeer of the North Sea – initial

palaeontological data and archaeological remarks. Quaternary International 142/143, 242-246.

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.

Gob, A. (1985) Extension géographique et chronologique de la culture Rhein-Meuse-Schelde (RMS). Helinium

25(1), 23-36.

Gob, A. (1990) Chronologie du Mésolithique en Europe: atlas des dates 14C. Centre Informatique de Philosophie

et Lettres, Liège.

Gowlett, J.A.J., Hedges, R.E.M., Law, I.A. & Perry, C. (1987) Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system:

archaeometry datelist 5. Archaeometry 29(1), 125-155.

Gray Jones, A. (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.

Grünberg, J.M. (2008) Aufrecht ins Jenseits: Die sitzende Haltung von Verstorbenen im Mesolithikum. Die Kunde

35, 39-89.

Hamburg, T.D. & Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (2001). Vooronderzoek en opgraving. In L.P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.)

Archeologie in de Betuweroute. Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het

riviergebied (5500-5000 v. Chr.), 13-34. NS Railinfrabeheer B.V., Utrecht (=Rapportage Archeologische

Monumentenzorg 83).

Hamburg, T., Müller, A. & Quadflieg, B. (eds.) (2012) Mesolithisch Swifterbant. Mesolithisch gebruik van een

duin ten zuiden van Swifterbant (8300-5000 v.Chr.). Een archeologische opgraving in het tracé van de N23/N307,

provincie Flevoland. Archol BV en ADC - Archeoprojecten, Leiden/Amersfoort (=Archol rapport 174 & ADC

rapport 3250).

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.

Heeringen, R.M. van, Mauro, G.V. & Smit, A. (eds.) (2004) A pilot study on the monitoring of the physical quality

of three archaeological sites at the UNESCO World Heritage Site at Schokland, Province of Flevoland, the

Netherlands. ). Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort (=Nederlandse Archeologische

Rapporten 26).

Heide, G.D. van der (1976) Opgraving bij Swifterbant. Fibula 7, 87-89.

Hogestijn, J.W.H. & Lauwerier, R.C.G.M. (1992) Zoelen-Beldert. Jaarverslag Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig

Bodemonderzoek 1991, 108.

Hogestijn, W.-J. & Peeters, H. (1996) De opgraving van de mesolithische en vroegneolithische bewoningsresten

van de vindplaats ‘Hoge Vaart’ bij Almere (prov. Fl.): een blik op een duistere periode van de Nederlandse

prehistorie. Archeologie 7, 80-113.

Hogestijn, W.-J. & Peeters, H. (2001) De Mesolithische en Vroeg-Neolithische vindplaats Hoge Vaart-A27

(Flevoland). Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort (=Rapportage Archeologische

Monumentenzorg 79).

Housley, R.A. (1991) AMS dates from the Late Glacial and early Postglacial in North-west Europe: a review. In N.

Barton, A.J. Roberts & D.A. Roe (eds.) The Late Glacial in North-West Europe: Human adaptation and

environmental change at the end of the Pleistocene, 25-36. Council for British Archaeology, London.

Huisman, D.J., Jongmans, A.G. & Raemaekers, D.C.M. (2009) Investigating Neolithic land use in

Swifterbant (NL) using micromorphological techniques. Catena 78(3), 185-197.

Huizinga, J. (1958) The Vianen skull, Téviec man in Holland? Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands

Akademie van Wetenschappen C61(4), 482-489.

Huizinga, J. (1959) De prehistorische mens in Nederland. Antiquity and Survival 2(5/6), 37-57.

Hulst, R.S., Hogestijn, J.W.H., de Haan, M.J.A., Lauwerier, R.C.G.M. & Mastwijk, R.W. (1993) Buren-Zoelen.

Jaarverslag Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 1992, 69.

Hupperetz, W.M.H. (1998) Menselijke schedels uit de Maas bij Herten-Ool. Archeologie in Limburg 78, 61-62.

Keith, A. (1911) The Briton of 170,000 years ago: the Galley Hill man. Illustrated London News 4 Mar 1911, 304-

305.

Koenigswald, G.H.R. von (1953) Pays-Bas. In H.V. Vallois & H.L. Movius, Jr. (eds.) Catalogue des hommes

fossiles, 185-187. Congrès Géologique International, Algiers (=Comptes Rendus de la 19ième Session, Section V).

Koot, H., Brunung, L. & Houkes, R.A. (2008) Ypenburg-Locatie 4. Een nederzetting met grafveld uit het Midden-

Neolithicum in het West-Nederlandse kustgebied. Hazenberg Archeologie B.V., Leiden.

Lanting, J.N. & van der Plicht, J. (1995/96a) De 14

C-chronologie van de Nederlandse pre- en protohistorie. I: Laat-

Paleolithicum. Palaeohistoria 37/38, 71-125.

Lanting, J.N. & van der Plicht, J. (1995/96b) Wat hebben Floris V, skelet Swifterbant S2 en visotters gemeen?

Palaeohistoria 37/38, 491-519.

Lanting, J.N. & van der Plicht, J. (1997/98) De 14

C-chronologie van de Nederlandse pre- en protohistorie. II:

Mesolithicum. Palaeohistoria 39/40, 99-162.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

44

Lanting, J.N. & van der Plicht, J. (1998) Reservoir effects and apparent 14

C-ages. Journal of Irish Archaeology 9,

151-165.

Lanting, J.N. & van der Plicht, J. (1999/2000) De 14

C-chronologie van de Nederlandse pre- en protohistorie. III:

Neolithicum. Palaeohistoria 41/42, 1-110.

Lanting, J.N., Aerts-Bijma, A.T. & van der Plicht, J. (2001) Dating of cremated bones. Radiocarbon 43(2A), 249-

254.

Lelivelt, R.A. (2006) Rotterdam Tramremise Beverwaard. Een bureauonderzoek en een verkennend

inventariserend veldonderzoek door middel van grondboringen. Bureau Oudheidkundig Onderzoek van

Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, Rotterdam (=BOORrapporten 315).

Lelivelt, R.A. (2007) Rotterdam Tramremise Beverwaard. Een karterend inventariserend veldonderzoek door

middel van grondboringen. Bureau Oudheidkundig Onderzoek van Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, Rotterdam

(=BOORrapporten 346).

Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (1971) Mesolithic bone and antler implements from the North Sea and from the

Netherlands. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 20-21, 27-73.

Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (1974) The Rhine-Meuse Delta. Four studies on its prehistoric occupation and Holocene

geology. Leiden University Press, Leiden (=Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia VII).

Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (1998) Trijntje van de Betuweroute: jachtkampen uit de steentijd te Hardinxveld-

Giessendam. Spiegel Historiael 33, 423-428.

Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (2003) The Hardinxveld sites in the Rhine/Meuse delta, the Netherlands, 5500-4500 cal

BC. In L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Leoffler & A. Åkerlund (eds.) Mesolithic on the Move, 608-624.

Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (2005/06) Schipluiden: a synthetic view. In L.P. Louwe Kooijmans & P.F.B. Jongste (eds.)

Schipluiden: a Neolithic settlement on the Dutch North Sea coast c. 3500 cal BC, 485-516. Leiden University Press,

Leiden (=Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 37/38).

Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (2012) Reflections on the Mesolithic burial pits at Marienberg (province of Overijssel), the

Netherlands. In M.J.L.Th. Niekus, R.N.E. Barton, M. Street & Th. Terberger (eds.) A mind set on flint. Studies in

honour of Dick Stapert, 401-424. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/Barkhuis, Groningen/Eelde (=Groningen

Archaeological Studies 16).

Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. & Smits, L. (2001) De menselijke skeletresten. In L.P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.)

Archeologie in de Betuweroute. Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin. Een kampplaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en

het begin van de Swifterbant-cultuur (5500-4450 v. Chr.), 479-491. NS Railinfrabeheer B.V., Utrecht

(=Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88).

Meiklejohn, C. (1973) The use of secondary information for dating human skeletal material in doubtful

archaeological or geological association. In R. Getty & K. Fladmark (eds.) Historic Archaeology in Northwestern

North America, 171-182. The Student's Press, Calgary.

Meiklejohn, C. & Constandse-Westermann, T.S. (1978) The human skeletal material from Swifterbant, earlier

Neolithic of the Northern Netherlands: inventory and demography. Final reports on Swifterbant I. Palaeohistoria

20, 39-89.

Meiklejohn, C. & Woodman, P.C. (2012) Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in Ireland. Mesolithic

Miscellany 22(1), 22-41.

Meiklejohn, C., Bosset, G. & Valentin, F. (2010) Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in France.

Mesolithic Miscellany 21(1), 10-57.

Meiklejohn, C., Chamberlain, A. & Schulting, R.J. (2011) Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in

Great Britain. Mesolithic Miscellany 21(2), 20-58.

Meiklejohn, C., Miller, R. & Toussaint, M. (2014) Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in Belgium

and Luxembourg. Mesolithic Miscellany 22(2), 10-39.

Mol, D., Post, K., Reumer, J.W.F, van der Plicht, J., de Vos, J., van Geel, B., van Reenen, G., Pals, J.P. &

Glimmerveen, J. (2006) The Eurogeul - first report of the palaeontological, palynological and archaeological

investigations of this part of the North Sea. Quaternary International 142/143, 178-85.

Mol, D., Glimmerveen, J. Post, K., van der Plicht, J. & van Geel, B. (2008) Kleine encyclopedie van het leven in

het Pleistoceen; mammoeten, neushoorns en andere dieren van de Noordzeebodem. Veen Magazines, Diemen.

Mol, J. (2003) Landscape evolution and site formation of two Mesolithic sites in the lower Rhine-Meuse delta

(Hardinxveld, The Netherlands). In A.J. Howard, M.G. Macklin & D.G. Passmore (eds.) Alluvial Archaeology in

Europe, 147-162. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Mol, J. & Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (2001) Stratigrafie, chronologie en fasering. In L.P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.)


het begin van de Swifterbant-cultuur (5500-4450 v. Chr.), 57-73. NS Railinfrabeheer B.V., Utrecht (=Rapportage


Mol, J. & van Zijverden, W. (2007) Prehistorische woonplaatsen in de dynamische landschappen van de Rijn-

Maasdelta/Prehistoric settlements in the dynamic landscapes of the Rhine-Meuse delta. In R. Jansen & L.P. Louwe

Kooijmans (eds.) Van contract tot wetenschap: tien jaar archeologisch onderzoek door Archol BV, 1997-

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

45

2007/From contract to science: ten years of archaeological investigations by Archol BV, 1997-2007. Leiden,

Archol.

Molthof, H. & Raemaekers, D.C.M. (2004) Wat te doen met onze doden? Het grafritueel van de Swifterbantcultuur

in Nederland. Paleo-aktueel 16, 37-43.

Moor, J.J.W. de, Bos, J.A.A., Bouman, M.T.I.J., Moolhuizen, C., Exaltus, R., Maartense, F.P.A. & van der Linden,

T.J.M. (2009) Definitief archeologisch onderzoek in het tracé van de Hanzelijn in het Nieuwe Land. Een

interdisciplinaire geo-archeologische waardering van het begraven landschap van Oostelijk Flevoland. Deltares,

Delft (=Deltares rapport 1001311-000-GEO-0005).

Mulder, F.J. de, Geluk, M.C., Ritsema, I.L., Westerhoff, W.E. & Wong, T.E. (eds.) (2003) De ondergrond van

Nederland. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen/Houten.

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., 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.

Niekus, M.J.L.Th. (2005/06) 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.

Niekus, M.J.L.Th. (2009) Trapeze shaped flint tips as proxy data for occupation during the Late Mesolithic and

the Early to Middle Neolithic in the northern part of the Netherlands. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(2),

236-247.

Niekus, M.J.L.Th., Ploegaert, P.H.J.I., Zeiler, J.T. & Smits, L. (in press) A small Middle Mesolithic cemetery with

cremation burials from Rotterdam, the Netherlands. In H. Meller, B. Gramsch, J.M. Grünberg, L. Larsson & J.

Orschiedt (eds.) Mesolithic burials - rites, symbols and social organization of early postglacial communities;

Proceedings of the International Conference. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt -

Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Halle (=Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle).

Niggli, E., Overweel, C.J. & van der Vlerk, I.M. (1953) An X-ray crystallographical application of the fluorine-

dating method of fossil bones. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen B56, 538-

542.

Nokkert, M. & Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (2001) Vooronderzoek en opgraving. In L.P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.)


het begin van de Swifterbant-cultuur (5500-4450 v. Chr.), 13-32. NS Railinfrabeheer B.V., Utrecht (=Rapportage


Oakley, K.P. (1980) Relative dating of the fossil hominids of Europe. Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural

History (Geology) 34(1), 1-63.

Opbroek, M. & Hamburg, T. (2012). 5 Sporen en Structuren. In T. Hamburg, A. Müller & B. Quadflieg (eds.)

Mesolithisch Swifterbant. Mesolithisch gebruik van een duin ten zuiden van Swifterbant (8300-5000 v.Chr.). Een

archeologische opgraving in het tracé van de N23/N307, provincie Flevoland, 113-145. Archol BV en ADC -

Archeoprojecten, Leiden/Amersfoort (=Archol rapport 174 & ADC rapport 3250).

Overweel, C.J. (1965) The application of Fluorine dating in the Quaternary from 1955 to March 1961. INQUA

Proceedings 1961, 699; 721.

Peeters, J.H.M. (2004) The Mesolithic to early Neolithic occupation at the Hoge Vaart (Almere, the Netherlands):

forager land-use dynamics in the context of a drowning landscape. In Section 7: Le Mésolithique/The Mesolithic.

Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liège, Belgium, 2-8 September 2001, 27-37. British

Archaeological Reports International Series 1302.

Peeters, J.H.M. (2007) Hoge Vaart-A27 in context: towards a model of Mesolithic-Neolithic land use dynamics as a

framework for archaeological heritage management. Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en

Monumenten, Amersfoort.

Peeters, J.H.M. (2009) Early Holocene landscape dynamics and forager land use diversity: the example of Hoge

Vaart-A27 (Almere, The Netherlands). In S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren & P. Woodman (eds.) Mesolithic

Horizons, 269-276. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Peeters, J.H.M. (2011) How wet can it get? – Approaches to submerged prehistoric sites and landscapes on the

Dutch continental shelf. In J. Benjamin, C. Bonsall, C. Pickard & A. Fischer (eds.) Submerged Prehistory, 55-64.

Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Peeters, J.H.M. & Momber, G. (2014) The southern North Sea and the human occupation of northwest Europe after

the Last Glacial Maximum. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 93(1/2), 55-70.

Peeters, J.H.M. & Niekus, M.J.L.Th. (2005) Het Mesolithikum in Noord-Nederland. In J. Deeben, E. Drenth, M.F.

van Oorsouw & L. Verhart (eds.) De steentijd van Nederland, 201-234. Stichting Archeologie, Meppel

(=Archeologie 11/12).

Peeters, J.H.M., Schreurs, J. & Verneau, S.M.J.P. (2001) 18 Vuursteen: typologie, technologische organisatie en

gebruik. In J.W.H. Hogestijn & J.H.M. Peeters (eds.) De Mesolithische en Vroeg-Neolithische vindplaats Hoge

Vaart-A27 (Flevoland). Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort (=Rapportage


MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

46

Peters, F.J.C. & Peeters, J.H.M. (eds.) (2001) De opgraving van de Mesolithische en Neolithische vindplaats Urk-

E4 (Domineesweg, gemeente Urk). Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 93.

Philippsen, B. (2013) The freshwater reservoir effect in radiocarbon dating. Heritage Science 1(24), 1-19.

Price, T.D. (1981) Swifterbant, Oost Flevoland, Netherlands: excavations at the river dune sites, S21-24, 1976.

Final Reports on Swifterbant III. Palaeohistoria 23, 75-104.

Prummel, W., Raemaekers, D.C.M., Beckerman, S.M., Bottema, N., Devriendt, I., Cappers, R.,

Cleveringa, P. & de Wolf, H. (2009) Terug naar Swifterbant. Een kleinschalige opgraving te Swifterbant-S2 (gemeente

Dronten). Archeologie 13, 17-45.

Raemaekers, D.C.M. (1999) The articulation of a ‘New Neolithic’. The meaning of the Swifterbant Culture for the

process of neolithisation in the western part of the North European Plain (4900-3400 BC).. Rijksuniversiteit

Leiden (=Archaeological Studies Leiden University 3).

Raemaekers, D.C.M. (2003/4) An outline of the Late Swifterbant pottery in the Noordoostpolder (Province of

Flevoland, the Netherlands) and the chronological development of the pottery of the Swifterbant culture.

Palaeohistoria 45/46, 11-36.

Raemaekers, D.C.M. (2005) Het Vroeg- en Midden-Neolithicum in Noord-, Midden- en West-Nederland. In J.

Deeben, E. Drenth, M.F. van Oursouw & L. Verhart (eds.) De Steentijd van Nederland, 261-282. Stichting

Archeologie, Meppel (=Archeologie 11/12).

Raemaekers, D.C.M. (2008) The Swifterbant pottery (5000-4600 calBC): research history, age, characteristics and

the introduction of pottery. In S. Hartz, F. Luth & T. Terberger (eds.) Early pottery in the Baltic – dating, origin

and social context, 485-500. Von Zabern, Frankfurt (=Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 89).

Raemaekers, D.C.M. (2013) Looking for a place to stay – Swifterbant and Funnel Beaker settlements in the

northern Netherlands and Lower Saxony. In Niedersächsisches Institut für historische Küstenforschung,

Wilhelmshaven (eds.) Marschenrat Colloquium 2011. Current archaeological research on the southern coast of

the North Sea: methods – strategies – projects, 111-129. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden (=Siedlungs- und

Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet/Settlement and Coastal Research in the Southern North Sea Region

36).

Raemaekers, D.C.M. (in press) Rethinking Swifterbant S3 ceramic variability. Searching for the transition to TRB

before 4000 calBC. In J. Kabaciński, S. Hartz, D.C.M. Raemaekers & T. Terberger (eds.) The Dąbki Site in

Pomerania and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands (c. 5000–3000 calBC), 321-334. Verlag Marie

Leidorf, Rahden (=Archäologie und Geschichte im Ostseeraum/ Archaeology and History of the Baltic 8).

Raemaekers, D.C.M. & de Roever, J.P. (2010) The Swifterbant pottery tradition (5000-3400 BC). Matters of fact

and matters of interest. In B. Vanmontfort, L.P. 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.

Raemaekers, D.C.M., Devriendt, I., Cappers, R.T.J. & Prummel, W. (2005) Het Nieuwe Swifterbant Project.

Nieuw onderzoek aan de mesolithische en neolithische vindplaatsen nabij Swifterbant (provincie Flevoland,

Nederland). Notae Praehistoricae 25, 119-127.

Raemaekers, D.C.M., Molthof, H.M. & Smits, L. (2007) The textbook ‘dealing with death’ from the Neolithic

Swifterbant culture (5000–3400BC), the Netherlands. In L. Larsson, F. Lüth & T. Terberger (eds.) Innovation and

continuity – non-megalithic mortuary practices in the Baltic. New methods and research into the development of

stone age society, 529-550. Von Zabern, Frankfurt (=Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 88).

Raemaekers, D.C.M., Geuverink, J., Maurer, A., Scheele, E. & van der Laan, J. (2011) Van Swifterbant naar TRB

(4300-3700 v. Chr.). Een archeologisch onderzoek van een midden-neolithische oeverzone. Grondsporen:

Opgravings- en onderzoeksrapporten van het Groninger Instituut voor Archeologie, 14.

Raemaekers, D.C.M., Aalders, Y.I., Beckerman, S.M., Brinkhuizen, D.C., Devriendt, I., Huisman, H., de Jong, M.,

Molthof, H.M., Prummel, W., Niekus, M.J.L.Th. & van der Wal, M. (2011/12) The submerged pre-Drouwen TRB

settlement site Wetsingermaar, c. 3500 cal. BC (Province of Groningen, the Netherlands). Palaeohistoria 53/54, 1–

24.

Raemaekers, D.C.M., Geuverink, J., Woltinge, I., van der Laan, J., Maurer, A., Scheele, E.E., Sibma, T. &

Huisman, D.J. (2013/14). Swifterbant-S25 (gemeente Dronten, provincie Flevoland). Een bijzondere vindplaats van

de Swifterbant-cultuur (ca. 4500-3700 cal. BC). Palaeohistoria 55/56, 1–56.

Richards, M.P. and Hedges, R.E.M. (1999). Stable isotope evidence for similarities in the types of marine foods

used by Late Mesolithic humans at sites along the Atlantic Coast of Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science

26(6), 717–722.

Roever, J.P. de (1976) Excavations at the river dune sites S21-22. Swifterbant Contribution 4. Helinium 16(3), 209-

221.

Roever, J.P. de (1979) The pottery from Swifterbant - Dutch Ertebølle? Swifterbant Contribution 11. Helinium

19(1), 13-36.

Roever, J.P. de (2004) Swifterbant-Aardewerk. Een analyse van de neolithische nederzettingen bij Swifterbant, 5e

millennium voor Christus. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/Barkhuis, Groningen/Eelde (=Groningen Archaeological

Studies 2).

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

47

Roymans, N. & Hoogland, M. (1999) The Early Iron Age urnfield of Beegden. In F. Theuws & N. Roymans (eds.)

Land and ancestors: cultural dynamics in the Urnfield period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands,

63-86. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Sanden, W.A.B. van der (1991) De ‘Neandertaler’-schedel van Smilde opnieuw bekeken. Nieuw Drentse

Volksalmanak 108, 149-155.

Schegget, M.E. ter (1999) Late Iron Age human skeletal remains from the river Meuse at Kessel: a river cult place?

In F. Theuws & N. Roymans (eds.) Land and ancestors: cultural dynamics in the Urnfield period and the Middle

Ages in the Southern Netherlands, 199-240. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Schepers, M. (2014a) Wet, wealthy worlds: the environment of the Swifterbant river system during the Neolithic

occupation (4300-4000 cal BC). Journal of Archaeology in the Low Countries 5(1), 79-106.

Schepers, M. (2014b) Reconstructing vegetation diversity in coastal landscapes. Barkhuis, Groningen (=Advances

in Archaeobotany 1).

Schouten, S., Mol, D., van der Colk, T. & Storm, P. (2014) Een onderkaakfragment van een mesolithische mens

(Homo sapiens) van het strand van Hoek van Holland. Cranium 31(1), 10-11.

Schulting, R. (2013) ‘Tilbury Man’: a Mesolithic skeleton from the lower Thames. Proceedings of the Prehistoric

Society 79, 1-19.

Smits, L. (2011). Bijlage 1. Menselijk botmateriaal. In W. Zijl, M.J.L.Th. Niekus, P.H.J.I. Ploegaert & J.M. Moree

(eds.) Rotterdam Beverwaard Tramremise. De opgraving van de top van een donk met sporen uit het Mesolithicum

en Neolithicum (vindplaats 13-83), 93-100. Bureau Oudheidkundig Onderzoek van Gemeentewerken Rotterdam,

Rotterdam (=BOORrapporten 439).

Smits, E. & Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. (2001) De menselijke skeletresten. In L.P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.)

Archeologie in de Betuweroute. Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het

riviergebied (5500-5000 v. Chr.), 419-440. NS Railinfrabeheer B.V., Utrecht (=Rapportage Archeologische

Monumentenzorg 83).

Smits, L. & van der Plicht, H. (2009) Mesolithic and Neolithic human remains in the Netherlands: physical

anthropological and stable isotope investigations. Journal of Archaeology in the Low Countries 1(1), 55-85.

Smits, L. Millard, A.R., Nowell, G. & Pearson, D.G. (2010) Isotopic investigation of diet and residential mobility

in the Neolithic of the Lower Rhine Basin. European Journal of Archaeology 13(5), 5-31.

Stafford, T.W. Jr., Brendel, K. & Duhamel, R.C. (1988) Radiocarbon, 13C and 15N analysis of fossil bone: removal of humates with XAD-2 resin. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 52(9), 2257-2267.

Stapert, D. (1986) Het “Neandertal-achtige” bot van Rhenen, en een paar andere menselijke resten uit Nederland:

dateringsproblemen. Cranium 3(1), 56-68

Storm, P. (2010) Start onderzoek Homo sapiens resten Noordzee: micro-evolutie in de Lage Landen. Cranium

27(2), 63-66.

Storm, P., Altena, E., van der Colk, T., Kootker, L., Mol, D. & Post, K. (2014a) Mesolithische man uit de Noordzee.

Analyse van een opgevist prehistorisch stuk onderkaak. Grondboor & Hamer 4/5, 131-137.

Storm, P., Mol, D., Schouten, S. & van der Colk, T. (2014b) Beschrijving mesolithisch stuk mensenkaak Hoek van

Holland. Cranium 31(1), 12-19.

Street, M., Terberger, T. & Orschiedt, J. (2006) A critical review of the German Paleolithic hominin record.

Journal of Human Evolution 51(6), 551-579.

Tillier, A.-M. (1979) La dentition de l’enfant moustérien Châteauneuf 2 découvert à l’abri de Hauteroche

L’Anthropologie 83(3), 417-438.

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.

Turner, A., Gonzalez, S. & Ohman, J.C. (2002) Prehistoric human and ungulate remains from Preston Docks,

Lancashire, UK: problems of river finds. Journal of Archaeological Science 29(4), 423-433.

Vallois, H.-V. (1943) Les ossements humains de Koerhuisbeek près Deventer, Hollande. Verhandelingen der

Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Natuurkunde, Sec. 2 40(3), 1-25.

Vanmontfort, B. (2008) A southern view on north-south interaction during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in

the Lower Rhine Area. In H. Fokkens, B.J. Coles, A.L. van Gijn, J.P. Kleijne, H.H. Ponjee & C.G Slappendel (eds.)

Between foraging and farming: an extended broad spectrum of papers presented to Leendert Louwe Kooijmans,

85-97. Leiden University, Leiden (=Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40).

Verhart, L. & Arts, N. (2005) Het Mesolithicum in Zuid-Nederland. In J. Deeben, E. Drenth, M.-F. van Oorsouw &

L. Verhart (eds.) De steentijd van Nederland, 235-260 (=Archeologie 11/12).

Verhart, L. & Groenendijk, H. (2005) Leven in overvloed. Midden- en laat-Mesolithicum. In L.P. Louwe

Kooijmans, P.W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens & A. van Gijn (eds.) Nederland in de prehistorie, 161-178.

Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, Amsterdam.

MM 23:2 (August 2015)

ISSN 0259-3548

48

Verlinde, A.D. (1974) A Mesolithic settlement with cremation at Dalfsen. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het

Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 24, 113-117.

Verlinde, A.D. (1982) Archeologische kroniek van Overijssel over 1980/81. Overijsselse Historische Bijdragen 97,

167-208.

Verlinde, A.D. & Newell, R.R. (2005) Zes laat-mesolitische 'sitting graves' tussen honderden haardplekken uit

7600 - 5000 voor Chr. te Mariënberg (Ov.). Westerheem 54(1), 2-13.

Verlinde, A.D. & Newell, R.R. (2006) A multi-component complex of Mesolithic settlements with late Mesolithic

grave pits at Mariënberg in Overijssel. In B.J. Groenwoudt, R.M. van Heeringen & G.H. Scheepstra (eds.) Het

zandeilandenrijk van Overijssel, 83-270. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort

(=Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 22).

Verlinde, A.D. & Newell, R.R. (2013) The Mesolithic cemetery at Mariënberg (NL), a rebuttal to alternative

interpretations. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Amersfoort (=Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 42)..

Vlerk, I.M. van der (1955) Zijn er in Pleistocene lagen van Nederland skeletresten van de mens gevonden? Leidse

Geologische Mededelingen 20(1), 195-203.

Vogel, J.C. & Waterbolk, H.T. (1963) Groningen radiocarbon dates IV. Radiocarbon 5(1), 163-202.

Vogel, J.C. & Waterbolk, H.T. (1972) Groningen radiocarbon dates X. Radiocarbon 14(1), 6-110.

Vos, P. & Kiden, P. (2005) De landschapsvorming tijdens de steentijd. In J. Deeben, E. Drenth, M.-F. van Oorsouw

& L. Verhart (eds) De Steentijd van Nederland, 7-37 (=Archeologie 11/12).

Vries, H. de & Waterbolk, H.T. (1958) Groningen radiocarbon dates III. Science 128(3338), 1550-1556.

Waals, J.D. van der (1977) Excavations at the natural levee sites S2, S3/5 and S4. Swifterbant Contribution 6.

Helinium 17(1), 3-27.

Waals, J.D. van der & Waterbolk, H.T. (1976) Excavations at Swifterbant – discovery, progress, aims and methods.

Swifterbant Contribution 1. Helinium 16(1), 3-14.

Weerts, H.T.J., Borst, W.G., Smit, B.I., Smits, E., van der Plicht, J. & van Tongeren, O.F.R. (2015) Mesolithic

skull fragments of the Maasvlakte 2 artificial beach. In J.M. Moree & M.M. Sier (eds.) Interdisciplinary

Archaeological Research Programme Maasvlakte 2, Rotterdam, 399-414. Bureau Oudheidkundig Onderzoek van


Weninger, B., Schulting, R., Bradtmöller, M., Clare, L., Collard, M., Edinborough, K. Hilpert, J., Jöris, O., Niekus,

M., Rohling, E.J. & Wagner, B. (2008) The catastrophic final flooding of Doggerland by the Storegga Slide

tsunami. Documenta Praehistorica 35, 1-24.

Whallon, R., Jr. & Price, T.D. (1976) Excavations at the river dune sites S11-13. Swifterbant Contribution 5.

Helinium 16(3), 222-229.

Wood, R.E. (2006) Freshwater resources: a chronometric and paleodietary study at the Mesolithic and Neolithic

burial ground of Minino, NW Russia. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University of Oxford.

Wood, R.E., Higham, T.F.G., Buzilhova, A., Suviriv, A., Heinemeier, J. & Olsen, J. (2013) Freshwater radiocarbon

reservoir effects at the burial ground of Minino, Northwest Russia. Radiocarbon 55(1), 163-177.

Zazzo, A., Saliège, J.-F., Person, A. & Boucher, H. (2009) Radiocarbon dating of calcined bones: where does the

carbon come from? Radiocarbon 51(2), 601-611.

Zazzo, A. & Saliège, J.-F. (2011) Radiocarbon dating of biological apatites: a review. Palaeogeography,

Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 310, 52-61.

Zijl, W. (2011) Bijlage 8. Waardering vindplaatsen 13-19 en 13-83. In W. Zijl, M.J.L.Th. Niekus, P.H.J.I.

Ploegaert & J.M. Moree (eds.) Rotterdam Beverwaard Tramremise. De opgraving van de top van een donk met

sporen uit het Mesolithicum en Neolithicum (vindplaats 13-83), 107-127. Bureau Oudheidkundig Onderzoek van


Zijl, W. & Schiltmans, D.E.A. (2008) Rotterdam Tramremise Beverwaard zone D. Een bureauonderzoek en

verkennend inventariserend veldonderzoek door middel van grondboringen. Bureau Oudheidkundig Onderzoek

van Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, Rotterdam (=BOORrapporten 419).

Zijl, W., Niekus, M.J.L.Th., Ploegaert, P.H.J.I. & Moree, J.M. (2011) (eds.) Rotterdam Beverwaard Tramremise.

De opgraving van de top van een donk met sporen uit het Mesolithicum en Neolithicum (vindplaats 13-83). Bureau

Oudheidkundig Onderzoek van Gemeentewerken Rotterdam, Rotterdam (=BOORrapporten 439).

Zvelebil, M. & Rowley-Conwy, P. (1986) Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (ed.) Hunters in

transition: Mesolithic societies of temperate Eurasia and their transition to farming, 67-93. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in the Netherlands.

Documents

Transcript of Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in the Netherlands.