Swifterbant Stones. The Neolithic Stone and Flint Industry at Swifterbant (the Netherlands)....

Swifterbant Stones

The Neolithic Stone and Flint Industry at Swifterbant (the Netherlands):

from stone typology and flint technology to site function

Groningen Archaeological Studies

VOLUME 25

Editorial BoardProf. dr. D.C.M. Raemaekers

Prof. dr. P.A.J. AttemaDr. C. Çakirlar

Prof. dr. R.T.J. CappersProf. dr. P.D. JordanProf. dr. S. Voutsaki

Groningen Institute of ArchaeologyPoststraat 6

NL-9712 ER Groningenthe Netherlands

[email protected]

Websitewww.gas.ub.rug.nl

Publishers’ addressBarkhuis

Zuurstukken 37 9761 KP Eelde the NetherlandsTel. 0031 50 3080936 Fax 0031 87 7844285

[email protected] www.barkhuis.nl

Swifterbant StonesThe Neolithic Stone and Flint Industry at Swifterbant

(the Netherlands):from stone typology and flint technology to site function

Izabel Devriendt

Barkhuis&

Groningen University LibraryGroningen 2014

Catalogue

© 2014 Izabel Devriendt

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electro-nic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without per-mission in written form from the author.

English text editing: Jennifer FosterCover design: Siebe Boersma, GIA, GroningenCover drawings and photo’s: Siebe Boersma, GIA, Groningen, Miriam Los-Weijns, GIA, Groningen, Dick Velthuizen, Nieuw Land Erfgoedcentrum, LelystadBook design: Hannie Steegstra, Drachten

ISBN: 9789491431364

Financial support: Stichting Nederlands Museum voor Anthropologie en Praehistorie University of Groningen / Groningen Institute of Archaeology

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Detailed analysis of the stone artefacts ��11�1 Introduction ��11�2 Artefact types and amounts ��1

1.2.1 Total of all sites ......................................................................................................................................11.2.2 Site S2 .....................................................................................................................................................11.2.3 Site S3 ...................................................................................................................................................111.2.4 Site S4 ...................................................................................................................................................251.2.5 Trenches S21-S24 and parcel H46 ....................................................................................................331.2.6 Site S41 .................................................................................................................................................381.2.7 Site S51 .................................................................................................................................................381.2.8 Site S61 .................................................................................................................................................431.2.9 Sites S80 – S83 .....................................................................................................................................44

Catalogue of the stone artefacts ��45Site S2 (plate 1 – 6) ..........................................................................................................................................46Site S3 (plate 7 – 23) ........................................................................................................................................58Site S4 (plate 24 - 30) ......................................................................................................................................92Trenches S21 – S24 (plate 31 - 32) ..................................................................................................................106Site S41 (plate 32). ...........................................................................................................................................108Site S51 (plate 33 – 34) ....................................................................................................................................110Site S61 (plate 35) ............................................................................................................................................114

Chapter 2 Detailed analysis of the flint artefacts ��1172�1 Introduction �� 1172�2 Artefact types and amounts �� 117

2.2.1 Total of all sites ..................................................................................................................................1172.2.2 Site S2 .................................................................................................................................................1172.2.3 Site S3 .................................................................................................................................................1272.2.4 Site S4 .................................................................................................................................................1402.2.5 Trenches S21-S24 ..............................................................................................................................1502.2.6 Site S41 ...............................................................................................................................................1592.2.7 Site S51 ...............................................................................................................................................1632.2.8 Site S61 ...............................................................................................................................................1692.2.9 Sites S80-S84 ......................................................................................................................................174

Catalogue of the flint artefacts ��181Site S2 (plate 36 – 46) ....................................................................................................................................182Site S3 (plate 47 – 60) ....................................................................................................................................204Site S4 (plate 61 – 67) ....................................................................................................................................234Site S41 (plate 68) ............................................................................................................................................248Site S51 (plate 69 – 71) ....................................................................................................................................250Site S61 (plate 72) ............................................................................................................................................256Sites S80-84 (plate 73 – 74) ..............................................................................................................................258

List of figures

Stone artefactsFigure 1.1 Dimensions of intact flakes at site S2 . ...........................................................................................................................4Figure 1.2 Dimensions of intact chips at site S2 ..............................................................................................................................4Figure 1.3 Dimensions of cores and tested fragments at site S3 . ....................................................................................................5Figure 1.4 Number of artefacts < 3 g per weight class at site S2 . .................................................................................................10Figure 1.5 Dimensions of intact flakes at site S3 . .........................................................................................................................12Figure 1.6 Dimensions of intact blades at site S3 . ........................................................................................................................12Figure 1.7 Dimensions of intact chips at site S3 ............................................................................................................................15Figure 1.8 Dimensions of cores and tested fragments at site S3 . ..................................................................................................16Figure 1.9 Number of artefacts < 3 g per weight class at site S3 . .................................................................................................25Figure 1.10 Dimensions of intact flakes at site S4 . .........................................................................................................................27Figure 1.11 Dimensions of intact chips at site S4 ............................................................................................................................28Figure 1.12 Dimensions of cores and tested fragments at site S4 . ..................................................................................................28Figure 1.13 Number of artefacts < 3 g per weight class at site S4 . .................................................................................................31Figure 1.14 Dimensions of intact flakes at trenches S21-S24 . ........................................................................................................34Figure 1.15 Dimensions of intact chips at trenches S21-S24 . .........................................................................................................35Figure 1.16 Dimensions of cores and tested fragments at trenches S21-S24 . ................................................................................35Figure 1.17 Number of artefacts < 3 g per weight class at trenches S21-S24 . ................................................................................38Figure 1.18 Dimensions of intact flakes at site S51 . .......................................................................................................................39Figure 1.19 Dimensions of intact chips at site S51 ..........................................................................................................................41Figure 1.20 Dimensions of tested fragments at site S51 . ................................................................................................................41Figure 1.21 Number of artefacts < 3 g per weight class at site S51 . ...............................................................................................42Figure 1.22 Number of artefacts < 3 g per weight class at site S61 . ...............................................................................................44

Plate 1 Stone tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................47Plate 2 Stone tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................49Plate 3 Stone tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................51Plate 4 Amber and stone ornaments found in grave IX at site S2. . .......................................................................................53Plate 5 Amber ornaments found in grave V at site S2. . .........................................................................................................55Plate 6 Amber and stone ornaments present at site S2. . .........................................................................................................57Plate 7 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................59Plate 8 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................61Plate 9 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................63Plate 10 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................65Plate 11 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................67Plate 12 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................69Plate 13 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................71Plate 14 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................73Plate 15 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................75Plate 16 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................77Plate 17 Stone tool present at site S3. . ........................................................................................................................................79Plate 18 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................81Plate 19 Stone tools present at site S3. ........................................................................................................................................83Plate 20 Stone tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................85Plate 21 Amber ornaments present at site S3. . ..........................................................................................................................87Plate 22 Stone ornaments present at site S3. . ............................................................................................................................89Plate 23 Stone ornaments present at site S3. . ............................................................................................................................91Plate 24 Stone tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................93Plate 25 Stone tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................95Plate 26 Stone tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................97Plate 27 Stone tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................99

viiTable of Contents

Plate 28 Stone tool present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................101Plate 29 Stone tools and amber pendant present at site S4. ....................................................................................................103Plate 30 Stone tool present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................105Plate 31 Stone tools present at trenches S21-S24. . ...................................................................................................................107Plate 32 Stone tools and pendant present at trenches S21-S24 (nos. 147, 148, and 149) and site S41 (number 150). ........109Plate 33 Stone tools present at site S51. . ..................................................................................................................................111Plate 34 Stone tools present at site S51. . ..................................................................................................................................113Plate 35 Amber ornament and stone tools present at site S61. ...............................................................................................115

Flint artefactsFigure 2.1 Number of chips per weight class of site S2 . ...............................................................................................................126Figure 2.2 Number of chips per weight class of site S3 . ................................................................................................................140Figure 2.3 Number of chips per weight class of site S4 . ................................................................................................................149Figure 2.4 Number of chips per weight class of trenches S21-S24 . .............................................................................................159Figure 2.5 Number of chips per weight class of site S51 . .............................................................................................................169Figure 2.6 Number of chips per weight class of site S61 . .............................................................................................................173Figure 2.7 Number of chips per weight class of sites S80-S82 . ....................................................................................................180

Plate 36 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................183Plate 37 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................185Plate 38 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................187Plate 39 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................189Plate 40 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................191Plate 41 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................193Plate 42 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................195Plate 43 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................197Plate 44 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................199Plate 45 Flint tools present at site S2. . ......................................................................................................................................201Plate 46 Flint debitage material present at site S2. . .................................................................................................................203Plate 47 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................205Plate 48 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................207Plate 49 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................209Plate 50 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................211Plate 51 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................213Plate 52 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................215Plate 53 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................217Plate 54 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................219Plate 55 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................221Plate 56 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................223Plate 57 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................225Plate 58A Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................227Plate 58B Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................229Plate 59 Flint tools present at site S3. . ......................................................................................................................................231Plate 60A Flint tool present at site S3. . .......................................................................................................................................233Plate 60B Debitage material present at site S3. . .........................................................................................................................233Plate 61 Flint tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................235Plate 62 Flint tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................237Plate 63 Flint tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................239Plate 64 Flint tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................241Plate 65 Flint tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................243Plate 66 Flint tools present at site S4. . ......................................................................................................................................245Plate 67 Debitage material present at site S4. . .........................................................................................................................247Plate 68 Flint tools present at site S41. . ....................................................................................................................................249Plate 69 Flint tools present at site S51. . ....................................................................................................................................251Plate 70 Flint tools present at site S51. . ....................................................................................................................................253Plate 71 Flint tools present at site S51. . ....................................................................................................................................255

viii Swifterbant Stones, Catalogue

Plate 72 Flint tools present at site S61. . ....................................................................................................................................257Plate 73 Flint tools present at sites S80-S84. . ...........................................................................................................................259Plate 74 Debitage material present at sites S80-S84. . ..............................................................................................................261

List of tables

Stone artefactsTable 1.1 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S2. ................2Table 1.2 Division of raw material of site S2. ..................................................................................................................................3Table 1.3 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S2. ................................................................................4Table 1.4 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S3. ..............11Table 1.5 Total number of artefacts per typological category of site S3, divided by trench. .........................................................12Table 1.6 Division of raw material of site S3. ................................................................................................................................13Table 1.7 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S3. ..............................................................................15Table 1.8 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S4. ..............26Table 1.9 Division of raw material of site S4. ................................................................................................................................27Table 1.10 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S4. ..............................................................................28Table 1.11 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of trenches S21-S24. ........................................................................................................................................................32

Table 1.12 Total number of artefacts divided per elevated area at trenches S21-S24. ...................................................................32Table 1.13 Division of raw material of trenches S21-S24. ...............................................................................................................33Table 1.14 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at trenches S21-S24. .............................................................34Table 1.15 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S51. ............39Table 1.16 Division of raw material of site S51. ..............................................................................................................................40Table 1.17 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S51. ............................................................................40Table 1.18 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S61. ............42Table 1.19 Division of raw material of site S61. ..............................................................................................................................42

Flint artefactsTable 2.1 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S2. ............118Table 2.2 Division of raw material types of site S2. .....................................................................................................................119Table 2.3 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm of site S2. ......................................................................................120Table 2.4 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S2 .............................................................................121Table 2.5 Different measurement ratios of regular and irregular blades at site S2. ...................................................................122Table 2.6 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S3. ............128Table 2.7 Total number of artefacts per typological category of site S3, divided by trench. .......................................................129Table 2.8 Division of raw material of site S3. ..............................................................................................................................130Table 2.9 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm of site S3. .....................................................................................131Table 2.10 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S3. ............................................................................132Table 2.11 Different measurement ratios of regular and irregular blades at site S3. ...................................................................132Table 2.12 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S4. ............141Table 2.13 Division of raw material of site S4. ..............................................................................................................................142Table 2.14 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm of site S4. ......................................................................................143Table 2.15 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S4. ............................................................................144Table 2.16 Different measurement ratios of regular and irregular blades at site S4 ....................................................................144Table 2.17 Total number of artefacts from trenches S21-S24. .......................................................................................................151Table 2.18 Total number of artefacts per typological category of the sample of trenches S21-S24. .............................................152Table 2.19 Division of raw material types of the sample of artefacts from trenches S21-S24. .....................................................153Table 2.20 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm from trenches S21-S24. ...............................................................155Table 2.21 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at trenches S21-S24 ............................................................156Table 2.22 Different measurement ratios of regular and irregular blades at trenches S21-S24 ...................................................156Table 2.23 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S41. ..........160Table 2.24 Division of raw material of site S41. ............................................................................................................................161Table 2.25 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm of site S41. ....................................................................................161Table 2.26 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S51. ..........162Table 2.27 Division of raw material of site S51. ............................................................................................................................163Table 2.28 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm of site S51. ....................................................................................164

x Swifterbant Stones, Catalogue

Table 2.29 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S51 ...........................................................................164Table 2.30 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S61. ..........167Table 2.31 Division of raw material of site S61. ............................................................................................................................168Table 2.32 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm of site S61. ....................................................................................170Table 2.33 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S61. ..........................................................................171Table 2.34 Total number of artefacts per typological category of sites S80-S82 separately. .........................................................174Table 2.35 Division of raw material of sites S80-S82. ...................................................................................................................175Table 2.36 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S80-S82. ..............................................................................................................................................................176

Table 2.37 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm of sites S80-S82. ...........................................................................177Table 2.38 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at sites S80-S84. .................................................................177

1�1 IntroductionThis catalogue chapter focuses on the presentation of the stone artefacts, i.e. the non-flint artefacts. Here a detailed description is given of all artefact types present at the dif-ferent sites of the Swifterbant cluster. The choice was made to analyse the artefacts for each site separately and present them in a descriptive manner. A summery per site is pre-sented in chapter 4 of the main book while interpretations and inter-site comparison is presented in chapter 6 of the main book. The methodology is addressed in chapter 3 of the main book, whereas the used typology and variables are dealt with in appendix 1 of the main book.

1�2 Artefact types and amounts

1.2.1 Total of all sitesA total number of 36,302 artefacts made out of stone other than flint have been analysed. The artefacts, together weighing 195,881.1 g, are divided into two groups based on their individual weight. The first group consists of arte-facts with a weight < 3 g and is made up of 32,413 pieces of stone weighing 8159.5 g. The second group consists of artefacts with a weight ≥ 3 g and is made up of 3889 pieces of stone weighing 187,721.6 g. The artefacts ≥ 3 g include 361 tools, 81 ornaments, 1438 pieces of debitage mater-ial, 1873 pieces of waste, and 8 other artefacts. The lat-ter are more or less unexpected finds and are therefore not in the typological list; they include two fragments of a mace-head (Geröllkeule) (S22), a stone with two inden-tations (S2), a tool with unknown function (S3), a small fragment of a microlith (S3) and three small amounts of Steinbrösel (S3).

The preservation of the material is in general very good. The artefacts’ fractures look fresh and most of the use-wear traces seem well preserved. Some of the rock types, such as granites and gneisses, are crumbling or even tot-ally disintegrated to grit and dust. This is the result of the weathering of biotite due to humidity, yet this affects only a very small minority of the artefacts.

1.2.2 Site S2

Total amountThe material retrieved from the excavations, designated with S2, and the material retrieved from elsewhere on the parcel or the parcel ditches, designated with G42, is ana-lysed together. Even although the exact find location of the last mentioned material is unknown1, it must belong to site S2 as no other site is discovered on parcel G42.

The material from the three white finds bags labelled ‘G42’ and “G42: uitgeworpen grond” possibly originates from the earliest research done by Van der Heide and is presum-ably not the result of the ditch slope prospection between parcels G41 and G42. This can be deduced by analogy with the working method applied at trenches S21-S24 (see main book section 2.7.7, 2.7.8 and 3.3) and from the lack of evidence of any other field work done on parcel G42. Yet, as more information of the old Swifterbant research has gone missing, this cannot be stated with absolute cer-tainty. Figure 1 in the Van der Waals publication of 1977 depicts site S2 on both sides of the ditch. Yet, as the bags are labelled ‘G42’ the material most likely originates from that side of the ditch and not from parcel G41.

The bag labelled “G42: uitgeworpen grond”, freely translated as ‘G42: collected soil’, only contained artefacts ≥ 3 g, possibly the result of selective gathering. The other two bags labelled ‘G42’ contained both artefacts ≥ 3 g and < 3 g.

The research at site S2 resulted in a total number of 2625 artefacts < 3 g and 530 artefacts ≥ 3 g (table 1.1), weighing 846.6 g and 19070.5 g respectively, or 4% and 96% of the weight. These 530 large artefacts are divided into five arte-fact categories comprising 192 pieces of debitage mater-ial, 37 tools, 26 ornaments, 1 indeterminate artefact type, and 274 pieces of waste. These five categories form 20.9%, 26.7%, 0.2%, 5.2%, and 47.0% of the weight of the mater-ial when the artefacts < 3 g are not included.

Raw material and alteration by fire For the production of the artefacts eighteen different varieties of stone are used (table 1.2). Of these different varieties granite and quartzitic sandstone are used rather regularly (59%). Less often exploited stone types are

1 It can only be presumed where the material was retrieved.

Chapter 1

Detailed analysis of the stone artefacts

2 Swifterbant Stones, Catalogue

gneiss and quartz (20%). These proportions visibly differ for the debitage material and the tools. For the debitage material, the same dominance of granite and quartzitic sandstone exists, yet they largely outnumber the other stone types (70%), while gneiss is used moderately (11%) and quartz hardly ever (1%). For the tools both quartzitic sandstone and gneiss are used predominantly (54%) while granite takes third place (16%). Moderately used types are porphyry and quartzite (18%). Thus, for the tools a more selective variety of stone types was exploited. This selec-tive treatment of raw material types is also valid for the ornaments. The group of waste material represents the largest variety of stone types used.

A limited number of 38 artefacts were visibly exposed to heat (table 1.1). This resulted in fire cracks for lightly exposed specimens and grey to black discolouration for heavily exposed specimens. Heavily exposed specimens clearly outnumber the lesser exposed artefacts in all arte-fact categories. A high number of tools were exposed compared to the debitage material while the ornaments were not exposed to heat at all.

Debitage materialThis set of artefacts is the second largest group of arte-facts ≥ 3 g on the site. The material forms 6.1% of the total number of stone pieces. They comprise 58 flakes, 1 blade, 99 chips, and 34 cores.

The flakes are separated into 38 intact pieces and 20 bro-ken or damaged pieces. The dimensions of the intact flakes range from 9x18x5 mm for the minimum lengths, widths, and thicknesses to 72x60x25 mm for the max-imum lengths, widths, and thicknesses resulting in an average of 29x30x12 mm (figure 1.1). The maximum length of 72 mm is exceptional as all but three flakes clus-ter between 16 and 42 mm. The same applies to the max-imum width of 60 mm. Here the flakes cluster between 18 and 41 mm which is exceeded only by one of the longer flakes. Thicknesses range gradually from 5 to 19 mm, with 25 mm as the exception. The length-width ratio shows a minimum of 0.3 and a maximum of 1.7. This leads to an average of 1.0 while the average of the length-thickness ratio and width-thickness ratio are 2.5 and 2.7 respect-ively (table 1.3). Finally, the weight of the intact pieces

Number % % ≥ 3 g Burnt % LB HB

Debitage material 192 6.1 36.2 8 4.2 Flakes 38 1.2 3 7.9 3Flake fragments 20 0.6 Blade fragments 1 0.0 1 100.0 1Chips 99 3.1 3 3.0 1 2Cores 34 1.1 1 2.9 1Tools 37 1.2 7.0 10 27.0 Hammer stones 2 0.1 1 50.0 1Anvils 3 0.1 1 33.3 1Grinding stones 6 0.2 2 33.3 2Combination tools 5 0.2 1 20.0 1Polished axe fragments 2 0.1 Ground stone fragments 19 0.6 5 26.3 5Other 1 0.0 0.2 Ornaments 26 0.8 4.9 Waste 274 8.7 51.7 20 7.3 Indet. fragments 146 4.6 14 9.6 7 7Pebbles / cobbles 96 3.0 4 4.2 4Frost flakes / potlids 2 0.1 Possible debitage / tool 30 1.0 2 6.7 2Subtotal ≥ 3 g 530 16.8 100.0 38 7.2 8 30 21% 79%< 3 g 2625 83.2 Total 3155 100.0

LB: lightly burnt artefacts, HB: heavily burnt artefacts.

Table 1.1 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S2.

Chapter 1 Detailed analysis of the stone artefacts 3

Num

ber

Gra

nite

Gra

nite

gne

iss

Dio

rite

Gab

bro

Apl

ite

Pegm

atite

Porp

hyry

Gra

nite

por

phyr

y

Rhyo

lite

/ qua

rtz

porp

hyry

Sand

ston

e

Qua

rtzi

tic s

ands

tone

Qua

rtzi

te

Cong

lom

erat

ic s

ands

tone

Hel

lefli

nt

Qua

rtz

Gne

iss

Am

ber

Oth

er

Debitage material 192

Flakes 38 13 1 1 1 1 1 9 3 8 Flake frag-ments 20 8 2 4 1 3 2

Blade frag-ments 1 1

Chips 99 58 2 5 1 25 2 1 5

Cores 34 8 5 1 1 2 8 2 7 Tools 37 Hammer stones 2 1 1

Anvils 3 1 1 1 Grinding stones 6 1 4 1

Combination tools 5 2 1 1 1

Polished axe fragments 2 1 1

Ground stone fragments 19 2 3 4 2 1 7

Other 1 1 Ornaments 26 3 1 21 1Waste 274 Indet. frag-ments 146 74 8 1 1 8 1 1 2 22 1 5 22

Pebbles / cobbles 96 7 1 3 4 39 2 1 37 2

Frost flakes / potlids 2 1 1

Possible arte-facts 30 9 1 1 10 1 8

Total 530 183 17 1 1 2 4 23 4 1 13 132 13 2 6 43 63 21 1 35% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 0% 2% 25% 2% 0% 1% 8% 12% 4% 0%

Debitage material 192 45% 5% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 24% 3% 3% 1% 11%

Tools 37 16% 11% 5% 32% 11% 3% 22% Other 1 100% Ornaments 26 12% 4% 81% 4%Waste 274 33% 3% 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 0% 2% 26% 1% 0% 0% 15% 12% Total 530 183 17 1 1 2 4 23 4 1 13 132 13 2 6 43 63 21 1

Table 1.2 Division of raw material of site S2.


Table 1.3 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at site S2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Width

Length

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width

Figure 1.2 Dimensions of intact chips at site S2 (in mm).

Flakes Chips L W T L W Tmin. 9 18 5 min. 5 5 1max. 72 60 25 max. 25 24 11average 29 30 12 average 13 12 5st. dev. 11.8 8.4 3.8 st. dev. 4.4 3.8 2.0 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.3 0.8 1.3 min. 0.4 1.1 0.3max. 1.7 4.6 6.6 max. 3.0 11.8 4.5average 1.0 2.5 2.7 average 1.1 6.5 2.4

Cores Tested fragments L W T L W Tmin. 39 41 33 min. 13 15 8max. 87 55 41 max. 122 103 71average 61 49 37 average 47 43 29st. dev. 24.2 7.4 4.0 st. dev. 25.5 19.4 14.1 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.8 1.0 1.1 min. 0.3 0.3 0.7max. 1.6 1.5 1.7 max. 2.5 3.5 3.0average 1.2 2.6 1.3 average 0.4 0.5 0.8

L: length, W: width, T: thickness, LW: length/width ratio, LT: length/thickness ratio, WT: width/thickness ratio.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Width

Length

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width

Figure 1.1 Dimensions of intact flakes at site S2 (in mm).


fluctuates between 3.3 g and 80.7 g, clusters between 3.3 g and 16.8 g, and has an average of 11.7 g.

The only blade found at the site is a fragmented one. It measures 52x25x6 mm and has a rather regular appear-ance. The texture and quality of the quartzitic sandstone made it possibly to detach a blade with long, converging edges and a central ridge.

The collection of chips is a combination of 68 intact pieces and 31 fragmented pieces. As the definition implies, these chips are removals weighing < 3 g. Consequently, they may be flakes or blades or fragments thereof. The intact chips measure between 5x5x1 mm for the minimum dimensions and 25x24x11 mm for the maximum ones producing an average of 13x12x5 mm (figure 1.2). They form a tight group as none of these chips fall outside the measurement cluster as some of the flakes do. The length-width average is with 1.1 very similar to that of the flakes (table 1.3). Their weight fluctuates from to 0.1 g to 2.7 g and clusters between 0.1 g and 1.2 g. The average weight of the chips is 0.9 g.

The group of 34 cores are defined as one core with two opposing striking platforms, one core with three striking platforms, a core fragment, and 31 tested fragments. Only flake scars have been observed on these artefacts.

The three cores have varying measurements of 39x52x41 mm, 57x41x38 mm, and 87x55x33 mm (fig-ure 1.3). The largest one is the only one that is not intact meaning that the original size must have been even big-ger. Their weights differ from 91.4 g, over 108.6 g, to 186.0 g. The first core has two opposing striking platforms with impact traces near the edges as the result of debitage attempts. One platform has at least seven flake scars, the other at least three. The second core is a grinding stone fragment with three striking platforms, of which one plat-form shows four flake removals while the other two show only one. The final core is a fragment of cobble with one large flake scar and a handful of small, short flake scars. Therefore, it may be interpreted as less successful than the others.

The 31 tested fragments all show one or two impact points and removals on their sides. These indeter-minate fragments of stone have minimum measure-ments of 13x15x8 mm and maximum measurements of 122x103x71 mm which is well above the largest core. However, the average of 47x43x29 mm makes them gen-erally smaller than the above mentioned cores (table 1.3). Additionally, one of them forms a refit with two flakes.

ToolsThe collection of 37 tools (1.2%) is made up of 2 hammer-stones, 3 anvils, 6 grinding stones, 5 combination tools, 2 polished axe fragments, and 19 ground stone fragments. Mostly used are cobbles or cobble fragments of quartz-itic sandstone, gneiss and granite that fit comfortably in the hand. This is especially the case for the tools that are handheld like hammerstones and handstones. Less often larger stone fragments are utilized.

The two hammerstones are both rather small and light as they are produced on pebbles. The first one is a small quartzitic sandstone pebble measuring 49x42x35 mm. Its shape is oval with a triangular cross-section. Only a few light impact traces on one extremity and one edge are vis-ible (no. 1, pl. 1). Still, a flake chipped off during use. The artefact weighs 79.1 g, therefore a function as retouchoir should be considered. The second hammerstone is more special because of the unusual shape of the pebble (no. 2, pl. 1). This sandstone artefact is long, narrow and flat, measuring 93x29x13 mm. Although it is longer than the other pebble, it weighs only 49.6 g because of its limited width and thickness. The impact traces are grouped together in the centre of one of the long edges. The other edge also has impact traces, combined with several small flake scars, at the exact opposite side. One might question the function of this tool because the impact traces are not located on the extremity of the blank. Therefore, a wider interpretation as wedge or some sort of intermediate piece might be plausible.

The three anvils comprise two intact pieces and one fragmented one, ranging between 65x49x36 mm and

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Width

Length

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0

Width

Length

Figure 1.3 Dimensions of cores and tested fragments at site S3 (in mm).


86x74x53 mm. They all have a similar shape of a flat sur-face opposing a point. With a metaphor, one might typify them as a turned over pyramid. The flat working surface is the base of the pyramid, while the tip of the pyramid is pointing downwards. When the working surface is placed horizontally, the opposing tip or point may be pushed into the ground for stability. The fragmented anvil, made out of quartzitic sandstone, was used both before and after its fragmentation. One of the surfaces has grouped impact traces adjacent to the edge suggesting that was the centre of the artefact before it was broken. A second set of grouped impact traces was presumably made after the fragmentation. This is suggested by its position in the middle of the surface and opposite of the edge that was newly created by the breakage. Several smaller impact traces are visible together with three flake scars making it most likely this anvil was fragmented by debitage. On the second anvil the impact traces are loosely arranged in the middle of one surface (no. 3, pl. 1). This surface is also characterised by four flake scars. The dark brown to black colouration on this porphyry is presumably the result of exposure to heat. The third anvil, made out of granite, also has loosely grouped impact traces in the centre of on one surface. However, almost the whole artefact is covered with flake scars suggesting that the used blank might have been a core (no. 4, pl. 1).

The six grinding stones are all handstones with at least one smoothed to polished surface. They are small enough to be handled with one or two hands and have measure-ments between 65x40x30 mm and 70x63x33 mm for the intact specimens and 63x28x29 mm and 93x67x59 for the fragmented specimens. Their weight ranges from 77.4 g and 308.4 g. Even though they can all be hand-held, their general shape may differ somewhat as the result of the chosen blank. For one a pebble was used, for the other five a cobble or cobble fragment was chosen.

The pebble is irregularly shaped with an oval cross-section (no. 5, pl. 1). Both surfaces are smoothed but not yet showing a gloss or polish. On both extremities impact traces are visible. As they have a rather fresh appearance, these could be the result of recent damage. The artefact, made from quartzitic sandstone, has rather large dimen-sions for a pebble (70x40x30 mm). A definition as grind-ing stone is therefore likely, yet it may also be used as a polishing stone because of its convex surfaces.

The five remaining grinding stones have two oppos-ing flat surfaces or are pyramid shaped. Only one is intact (65x63x33 mm) with a weight of 176.6 g (no. 6, pl. 1). Both surfaces are smoothed to polished and clearly used (see main book section 4.5.2). The others only have one smoothed to polished surface.

The set of five combination tools can be split up by the different combination of traces; two are a combination of hammerstone / grinding stone, two are a combination

of hammerstone / anvil, and one is an anvil / grinding stone. There does not seem to be a specific selection of raw material per tool type as the first set is made up of a granite or aplite and a quartzitic sandstone, the next set of a quartzite and a sandstone, and the last is a granite.

The two hammerstone / grinding stone combina-tions have two opposing flat surfaces showing smoothing and polish combined with impact traces. They measure 94x81x64 mm and 110x54x47 mm. In each case one of the surfaces has a pit in the middle surrounded by smoothing or gloss. In both cases it is not entirely clear whether this is an anvil pit or not. The opposing surface of one of them shows only a few small spots with gloss (no. 7, pl. 2). This tool is also covered with isolated impact traces on the sur-faces and sides. The other artefact was, after it was broken, used as a hammerstone showing impact traces on both extremities and other sides and edges. Several flakes have been chipped off.

The two hammerstone / anvil combinations have a tri-angular cross-section with dissimilar measurements of 83x55x40 mm and 48x32x29 mm. This is also reflected in the weight, namely 185.2 g versus 58.4 g. The first has impact traces on two extremities, of which one is lightly chipped off, and on the surface opposite the pyramid’s tip the traces are centred (no. 8, pl. 2). Some areas of this sur-face are smoother than others, possibly by usage of some sort such as light grinding or crushing. The dark colour-ation is presumably caused by fire. The other tool has grouped impact traces in the centre of both surfaces while the edges near the top only bear light traces (no. 9, pl. 2).

The final artefact of this group is an anvil / grinding stone combination. Again, it has a triangular cross-sec-tion of which three surfaces are flake scars (no. 10, pl. 2). The artefact is 91x42x41 mm and weighs 213.6 g. The highest parts of one surface show a light to high polish. The edge and adjacent surface show random and concen-trated impact traces in the centre of the surface. The other surface, opposite the polished one, bears a large flake scar. The fragmentation and the flake scars lead to the assump-tion that the impact traces on the edge may possibly be debitage attempts. Therefore, the piece is presumably frac-tured by debitage.

Besides the two polished axe fragments an intact speci-men was found in a separate layer with Bell Beaker pot-sherds. As this artefact forms no part of the Swifterbant occupation at the site, it will only be discussed in chapter 4 (see main book section 4.2.2).

The two fragments are rather dissimilar. The first frag-ment is the cutting edge of an axe type which cannot be further defined as it is fragmentary (no. 11, pl. 3). It is made of a quartzite that is typical for the boulder clay and which is highly suitable for the fabrication of axes or adzes as it is fine-grained, hard, and tough. The fragment, bro-ken parallel to the cutting edge, measures 39x57x28 mm and weighs 59.9 g. The fracture plane appears to be made


of two surfaces, each with their own impact point on the side of the axe. This might indicate the deliberate frag-mentation of the tool as these are not the obvious result of use. Additionally, the corner of the cutting edge is re-polished presumably because a flake had been detached. The second specimen is broken through the hourglass perforation also preventing the reconstruction of the ori-ginal shape of the axe (no. 12, pl. 3). However, the pres-ence of an hourglass shaped perforation and not a straight or lightly conic shape is indicative on its own. The frac-ture plane running lengthwise is not a fresh fracture as it is weathered. Impact traces and flake scars are visible at the opposite side of the perforation indicating a second-ary use as hammerstone. The artefact, made of quartzitic sandstone, measures 60x43x29 mm and weighs 96.8 g.

Finally, the ground stone fragments are 16 indeterminate fragments and 3 flakes with a smoothed to polished sur-face or area. They are made up of various stone types such as granite, gneiss, porphyry, and different types of quartz-ites. Their dimensions strongly vary between 17x10x3 mm for the minimum measurements and 121x84x53 mm for the maximum ones. Two of the flakes are espe-cially small; they are actually chips as they weigh < 3 g. The largest ground stone fragment weighs 209.3 g. Two of the indeterminate fragments can be refitted, whereas another indeterminate fragment can be refitted with a fragment < 3 g and a chip, and possibly even with two more fragments.

Other artefactsAn artefact that is dissimilar to all the other tools or arte-facts on the site is artefact nr. 7869 (no. 13, pl. 3). It is an oval to round flat piece of gneiss of 144x135x60 mm weighing 983.2 g. The two large indentations are asymmet-rically placed yet oppose each other. These indentations are 50 to 60 mm wide and approximately 10 mm deep. The artefact is most likely shaped by debitage although this is rather hard to discern due to weathering of the sur-face. The function of the artefact is unknown. Yet, given the fact that fishing and fyke nets are not uncommon on Swifterbant sites (Hoge Vaart, Emmeloord), a function as weight or net sinker is possible.

OrnamentsThe ornaments on this site were found in two different archaeological contexts. Firstly, two graves yielded a total of eighteen ornaments, of which seventeen are of stone. Grave IX contained seven ornaments: three amber pen-dants, one sandstone pendant, one tooth pendant and two amber beads. The ornaments in grave V can be described as two amber pendants, seven amber beads and two amber ornament fragments. Secondly, spread over the cultural layer were another two amber beads, one shale bead, three unfinished (quartzitic) sandstone pendants and three amber ornament fragments.

a) Amber pendants and beadsOne of the most famous finds on the Swifterbant sites is the grave of the so-called ‘chieftain’. This is the grave of an adult man (grave IX), buried with six ornaments on or near his (fore)head and one on his chest (see plate 4). Because of the uniqueness of the find and wealth of these grave goods, the man was commonly referred to as “the chieftain of Swifterbant”. All of the ornaments found near the head are intact and made out of stone. They consist of three amber pendants and two amber beads strung across the head and forehead, along with one sandstone pendant located in the vicinity of the right ear (see below). The one on his chest, a pendant made out of a fragment of a pig’s tooth (no. 4088, pl. 4), is mentioned by Meiklejohn & Constandse-Westermann (1978: 70) and is described in the unpublished PhD thesis of Kielman (1986). As a rule, the ornaments made out of animal teeth are not dis-cussed. Yet for this pendant2 an exception was made as it is part of this man’s set of grave goods.

The three pendants around the head were made out of natural lumps of amber and are the largest recovered in Swifterbant. The first is a tear to rectangular shaped pen-dant (no. 14, pl. 4) with one hourglass perforation 2.5 mm from the edge which has a 7 mm outer diameter and a 4 mm inner diameter. The lump, measuring 37x21x16 mm, is perforated at one extremity. The hole was made from both sides but it cannot be determined whether this was by rotation or some other technique. The pendant has def-initely been worn and presumably for a long time as the string has worn out the hole. The second pendant is rect-angular shaped (no. 15, pl. 4), measures 37x19x17 mm, and has a perforation with a 10 mm outer diameter and a 4.5 inner diameter 2 to 3 mm from the edge. The hole is also located on one end and was made from both sides. Again, the perforation technique could not be determined for there are no striations visible to the naked eye. This pendant has also been worn for a long time; the string has hollowed out the hole and left marks in the form of polish. The third pendant, a triangular shaped one (no. 16, pl. 4), has a perforation 0.5 mm of the edge with a 7 mm outer diameter and a 4.5 mm inner diameter. The perforation was again made from both sides and also shows only wear traces of the string. This pendant measures 35x23x14 mm. Because the holes of these three pendants are largely worn out, it is hard to determine whether both sides of the per-forations were well aligned.

The other two ornaments found around the head of the man were beads. The first one is a rather large bead, measuring 25x20x19 mm, and is quasi-pyramid shaped (no. 17, pl. 4) with a perforation in the middle roughly 7 mm of the edge. The perforation was made from both sides, is well aligned and has a 5.5 mm outer diameter and 2.5 mm inner diameter. The perforation technique can-not be determined by analysis with the naked eye. Minor

2 And for the shark’s tooth pendant (see section 1.2.3).


use-wear traces in the perforation made by the string sug-gests this object was worn for a shorter period of time than the three pendants or the limited weight might have resulted in lesser use-wear. The second bead is smaller measuring 16x13x8 mm, and is round to rectangular shaped (no. 18, pl. 4) with a well aligned perforation 1.5 mm of the edge. The perforation was again made from both sides, has no visible striations, and is perfectly round with a 4 mm outer diameter and a 2.5 mm inner diameter. It is not elongated as pendants nos. 4078, 4079 or 4081 and shows no visible traces of rope-wear in the perfora-tion. Although this might imply a very short life time, it is also possible that the limited weight of the ornament resulted in a slower wearing rate than the larger pieces. There is also the possibility that this bead was tied up in a different way resulting in its immobility on the string causing less friction. One might furthermore presume that the hole of a large pendant is more subject to friction which results in faster wearing than a smaller bead.

Just as fascinating is the grave of an adult woman (grave V). She was buried with eight amber ornaments or frag-ments thereof of which seven were located near her head and neck and one near her pelvis (see plate 5). Although her ornaments are more numerous than the man’s, she was never referred to as “the chieftess of Swifterbant”. Although this might be a gender related issue, it is pre-sumably the result of the research history. It should be mentioned that during the excavations some clandes-tine digging took place in the section containing graves V and VI (Van der Waals, 1977: 13-14). This resulted in the theft of a skull that was sent back to the research-ers on a later date. Although it is not totally certain, Van der Waals believes that it is the woman’s head that was stolen and not the one of the young man in the adjoin-ing grave VI, because she was buried closest to the sec-tion profile. He is convinced that the young man’s skull was destroyed unnoticed during excavations (Van der Waals, 1977: 14). In the material from site S2 a set of two beads and a small pendant are labelled as the ornaments recovered from the skull belonging to grave V or VI. The find numbers (nos. 279-1, 279-2, and 279-3) and the coor-dinates (3539.3022.526) confirm these artefacts form a single find. As the skull from grave VI is considered to be destroyed, this group can only be the ornaments from grave V. I have, however, some reservations about this attribution as the coordinates do not correspond with those of the two graves. Yet, Kielman (1986), who already studied the ornaments of Swifterbant in detail, also con-siders them as a separate find group presumably belong-ing to the grave inventory of grave V. As current evidence cannot solve this matter, I am inclined to follow Kielman’s and Van der Waals’ conclusions for they sound plausible and because Van der Waals is a first-hand witness. Written coordinates can always be influenced by human error. As a last remark, it should be mentioned that, because of the

clandestine digging, the theft and the subsequent trans-port, loss of pendants or beads cannot be ruled out.

The eight ornaments the woman was buried with consist of one small pendant, five whole beads and two fragments. The three ornaments recovered from around (probably) her skull will be dealt with separately at the end of this section.

The five whole beads (nos. 23 – 27, pl. 5) were made from natural lumps of amber with rather small dimen-sions. The average measurements are 9x8x6 mm as the smallest bead measures 7x5x3 mm (no. 27) and the largest measures 12x12x10 mm (no. 26). Because of their natural origin, they are all different in form and somewhat irregu-lar in shape. Most beads have one perforation in the mid-dle of the lump. That hole was produced by perforation from both sides resulting in an hourglass cross-section. The halves of the hole are not always properly aligned pro-ducing not a straight perforation but a crooked one. The holes are located at an average of 1 to 2 mm of the edge and have a diameter of c. 2 mm. Only one whole bead (no. 24) has a second perforation which was made after break-age of the bead through the first perforation. It is a rather irregular rectangular shaped amber lump with the frac-tured original hourglass perforation now located at the edge. That plane of fracture was polished and rounded by later re-use or during the making of the second hole. The new perforation through the middle of the newly formed piece is 1.5 mm in diameter and located at 1.5 mm from the edge. The second perforation was also made from two sides which are aligned at a slight angle.

The only pendant is a nicely proportioned but rather small specimen (13x10x9 mm) with a well aligned perfo-ration made from two sides (no. 28, pl. 5). It is the wom-an’s only ornament that has a perforation that is worn showing a minor hollowed out hole with polish on both sides. None of the five beads bare visible use-wear traces in the perforation.

The woman was also buried with two pendant or bead fragments. One fragment is a pyramid shaped piece of amber broken through the hole (no. 29, pl. 5). The per-foration was made from two sides but is badly aligned, not forming a straight perforation. A fragment of c. 9x7 mm is missing at one end. The second fragment is very irregular in shape (no. 30, pl. 5). The piece appears to be broken through the perforation. More interesting is the start of a second hole. The perforation was started from one side only and was not completed. Poor positioning or bad alignment with the future second half of that perfo-ration was presumably the reason for not penetrating the whole lump. Along with ornament no. 907218 (S3, section 1.2.3), and no. 24, these are the only three beads show-ing traces of a second perforation. It is unclear whether the two unfinished perforations are the result of an old attempt to perforate the lump or a new attempt to pro-duce a second perforation. The irregular shape and small


dimensions of the fragment make it hard to determine whether it was part of a bead or the top of a pendant.

Of all eight ornaments, all but one were found around the neck of the woman, presumably forming a necklace or ornaments on her clothing. The one located between the right side of her sacrum and the side of her pelvis, could be nos. 25 or 26 and most probably is no. 25. Neither of the two differs in form or measurements from the ones found near her neck.

The skull that probably belongs to the woman in grave V was decorated with one small pendant and two beads. The small triangular pendant (no. 20, pl. 5) is nicely propor-tioned and very symmetrical in shape with an hourglass perforation 1 mm from the edge. This perforation is posi-tioned in the middle of the shortest side of the triangle, not in one of the corners or in the centre of the object. Both sides of the perforation are 6 mm wide; the per-foration itself 3.5 mm. The hole is slightly worn by fric-tion of the string resulting in a light polish. The surface of the pendant also bears a gloss. This small pendant is different from the other ornaments worn by the woman because of its appearance. All other beads were made of natural lumps of amber, all different in form and some-what irregular in shape. This pendant has smooth sur-faces and edges which sets it aside from all other amber beads and pendants on the site. Of course, this is a sub-jective division one cannot definitely be sure of whether it was made in prehistoric times or not. The appearance of the pendant also makes it plausible that it was artificially shaped. Again, one cannot substantiate this idea because of the lack of visible traces of this process.

Apart from this small pendant, two more beads were found together with the skull. Both beads perfectly fit within the average measurements taken from the five whole beads recovered from the grave of the woman. The triangular pendant is bigger measuring 17x13x8 mm. One of the two beads was fabricated from an irregular lump of amber (no. 21, pl. 5) with a badly aligned hourglass per-foration. The second bead is oval-shaped and flat (no. 22, pl. 5), a shape seldom seen among the beads found at Swifterbant. Kielman (1986) considers this bead to be artificially formed. The flat shape has indeed an unnatural feel about it, especially because amber is amorphous and not layered. Natural breakage along layers would there-fore not occur, although conchoidal fractures would. Still, Mazurowski (1984: 18) stated that small flat pieces of amber, coming from the sub-cortical part of pines, were preferred for ornaments at two sites in Poland.

Two other whole amber beads and three fragments have been found in the cultural layer. One bead is a small tri-angular shaped ornament (no. 31, pl. 6) with a light hour-glass perforation of 3 mm at 1 mm from the edge. This is another bead with a flat surface and could consequently have been artificially shaped or just be a sub-cortical

fragment. The surface and edges of the bead are slightly polished by use-wear (contra Kielman 1986). The second bead (no. 32, pl. 6) was made from an irregular lump of amber and has a perforation from two sides which are not properly aligned. Although the perforation is not entirely in the middle, the small size gives it an overall appear-ance of a bead. Finally, three fragments of amber beads have been recovered at one find spot. Two fragments fit together (no. 33, pl. 6) (see main book section 4.4.2) forming half a bead broken through the hourglass perfo-ration. The last fragment (no. 34, pl. 6), already consist-ing of two fitting pieces, is heavily damaged and does not fit with the other two pieces found at the same find spot.

b) Other stone pendants and beadsOf the group of six ornaments buried on or near the head of the adult man in grave IX, only one is made from raw material other than amber. It is an almost square-shaped pendant (no. 19, pl. 4) with one perforation 1.5 mm from the edge with a 5 to 6 mm outer diameter and a 2 mm inner diameter. The perforation, made by rotation, was performed from both sides but is unaligned resulting in an oblique perforation. The flat pebble measures 26x24x5 mm and is made out of light-grey sandstone. Along with the five amber pendants and beads found strung around the head of grave IX, this one was found near the man’s right ear.

An exceptional find is a round, flat bead (15x13x3 mm) recovered from the cultural layer (no. 35, pl. 6). The raw material, dark grey to black shale3, is what makes this piece exceptional. It is the only object made of shale on site S2 and one of only two found within the whole Swifterbant area. The ornament was fabricated on a flat pebble show-ing one perforation in the middle. The hole was made by rotation from both sides and has an outer diameter of 7 mm and an inner diameter of 3 to 4 mm. The perfora-tion shows no visible traces of polishing or usage. The symmetrical, circular shape suggests that the ornament was shaped. Traces of polishing resulting in a light gloss, whether made by people or by use-wear, conceal visible signs of artificial manufacturing. Only a small fragment was chipped off at the edge, possibly during production because the plane of fracture is slightly polished as well.

c) Unfinished pendantsThree flat pebbles with a small pit on one surface have been identified from the cultural layer. This pit can be defined as the start of a perforation. The first is a triangu-lar flat pebble (no. 36, pl. 6) with grouped impact traces on one surface at 4 mm of the edge. On the other surface a small pit has been made by pecking and was presum-ably deepened by the rotation of a drill. This unfinished

3 New research revealed that this ornament is produced out of shale and not out of schist as earlier stated in Devriendt 2008: 387-388.


perforation is located at the top of the triangle, in one of the corners. The flat pebble measures 36x29x7 mm and was made out of quartzitic sandstone. The second one is a small flat tear-shaped pebble (no. 37, pl. 6) with one unfin-ished perforation. The pit was made by rotation and is set at 2 mm from the edge and has a diameter of 1.5 mm. This flat pebble is only 15x11x2 mm and was made out of sandstone with mica particles. The third is an oval flat pebble (no. 38, pl. 6) with the start of a perforation of 1.5 mm at 2 mm from the edge. This was presumably made by pecking for there are no traces of rotation. Several impact traces can be seen on the opposite surface as well. It was produced from a pebble of sandstone with mica particles and measures 22x18x2 mm.

WasteOn this site the group of waste material is the largest of the artefacts ≥ 3 g (8.7%) and consists of 146 indetermi-nate fragments, 96 pebbles, 2 frost flakes, and 30 possible pieces of debitage / tool. For the indeterminate fragments the widest variety of stone types is used. Of these frag-ments, five are crumbling due to the weathering of the biotite and one might be a ground stone fragment. The latter only has a small area on one of its surfaces that might be smoothed. It was observed that at least five inde-terminate fragments are of the same type and colour of granite, and therefore may belong to the same cobble or raw material unit (RMU).

Almost 80% of the pebbles are made out of quartz-itic sandstone and quartz. More specifically, 29 are vein quartz pebbles and 3 are mica sandstone pebbles, all of southern origin. Then again, one pebble is a brown East Sea quartz porphyry, a rock type of northern origin. Most of the pebbles have oval shapes although some flat types occur as well (10%). The oval pebbles have a much larger dimensional variety than the flat pebbles. The first type has minimum and maximum measurements that cluster between 15x10x6 mm and 45x38x26 mm, others range from 49x34x13 mm to 81x71x54 mm, with a few larger specimens ranging up to 126x84x65 mm. The smaller peb-bles weigh between 3.3 g and 45.5 g while the larger speci-mens weigh between 414.4 g and 835.5 g making them more like cobbles. For the flat pebbles this image is rather different. All flat pebbles fall within one cluster ranging from 21x16x4 mm to 51x32x9 mm with weights between 3.4 g and 18.5 g. That the minimum weight limit hovers around 3 g, is a result of the primary selection applied (< or ≥ 3 g). One of the pebbles, found in the finds bag labelled G42 (see above), shows grouped impact traces in the centre of one surface and random impact traces on the extremities and edges. This might be a combination tool of hammerstone / anvil, yet the storage in the finds bag may have caused the damage as well since more artefacts show random impact traces. Therefore, the definition as tool should be treated with caution.

Finally, the possible pieces of debitage / tool may be 10 flakes, 3 chips, 14 flake or chip fragments, 1 tested frag-ment, 1 core or even a plane, and possibly 1 ground stone fragment. The core or plane is a flat, rectangular old cob-ble fragment with one rounded off extremity. From this extremity several flakes have been chipped off. It could be interpreted as an unsuccessful core, a plane or just simply as a damaged fragment. All the others have features that characterise a flake or core but are not convincing enough to be defined as such.

< 3 g: GritThe collection of small pieces or artefacts < 3 g make up 83% of the material found at site S2. Of the 2625 pieces only a proportion are weighed individually, the others are weighed in bulk per excavation unit. When the individu-ally weighed artefacts and the singular artefacts from the bulk units are arranged into a graph, it is clear that the smallest pieces of 0.1 g and 0.2 g occur most often (fig-ure 1.4). They make up 38% of the material < 3 g. Even the difference between 0.1 g and 0.2 g is striking. All the other weight classes are represented less frequently. As with the artefacts ≥ 3 g some artefacts cannot be defined with absolute certainty, for example one possible chip may be present.

Although the raw material type of the artefacts < 3 g was not analysed during this study, it was observed that the general composition of the occurring stone types of these small pieces is similar to those of the artefacts ≥ 3 g. Furthermore, one small pebble of radiolarian rock weigh-ing 1.9 g was found. Also one flat pebble and two halves of a flat pebble, which refitted to form a whole pebble, were observed. Finally, up to 17 little fragments of white quartz and 2 little fragments of red granite were counted. This may be of importance as these two stone types were used as temper in the pottery.

Within the material from the 2004 excavation, up to 243 little grains of quartz were detected spread over 88 excavation units. These grains have the size of pin-heads and are presumably of natural origin. They have not been included in figure 1.4.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Numbe

r

Weigth

Figure 1.4 Number of artefacts < 3 g per weight class at site S2 (weight in 0.1 g).


1.2.3 Site S3

Total amountThe material from site S3, trench S5 and trench S6 will be studied as a whole; they only represent different trenches of the same site. A division by trench can be consulted below (see table 1.5).

The largest number of stone artefacts of the whole Swifterbant area were found on this site. In total 10818 artefacts of stone have been excavated (table 1.4). These can be divided into 8563 stone artefacts < 3 g with a total weight of 4377.9 g and 2255 stone artefacts ≥ 3 g with a total weight of 115211.5 g. After a detailed study the arte-facts ≥ 3 g are defined as 951 pieces of debitage material, 244 tools, 51 ornaments, 4 other artefacts, and 1005 pieces of waste. When the artefacts < 3 g are not included, they form 15.8%, 53.1%, 0.1%, 0.2%, and 30.8% of the weight.

Raw material and alteration by fire The largest variety of stone types was used for producing the artefacts on site S3 (table 1.6). Of these 25 different

types, both quartzitic sandstone and granite were favoured (63%). All other types are used considerably less. Of these types gneiss, quartzite, porphyry, and sandstone still take up between 8% and 4% (21%). The same two stone types were predominantly used for the debitage material (68%) and the tools (69%) as well, although the percentages are more in favour of the quartzitic sandstone. For the debi-tage material quartzite, porphyry, gneiss, and helleflint are moderately present (24%). For the tools this image is slightly different as gneiss, quartzite, granite-gneiss, and porphyry were preferred (19%). The ornaments are also made out of a small selection of rock types, namely dif-ferent types of quartzites and sandstones together with amber. The group of waste material is characterised by the largest assortment.

The number of artefacts that are damaged by fire is restricted to 9% (table 1.4). Of these 203 artefacts, the predominant part is heavily exposed. This is so in every artefact category. Compared to the general image, the tools are burned more often, while the ornaments are rarely exposed.

Number % % ≥ 3 g Burnt % LB HBDebitage material 951 8.8 42.2 32 3 Flakes 225 2.1 5 2 1 4Flake fragments 96 0.9 2 2 2Blades 10 0.1 Blade fragments 2 0.0 Chips 473 4.4 8 2 8Cores 145 1.3 17 12 3 14Tools 244 2.3 10.8 52 21 Hammerstones 12 0.1 1 8 1Anvils 21 0.2 6 29 6Grinding stones 34 0.3 13 38 13Combination tools 92 0.9 26 28 26Polished axes 3 0.0 Polished axe fragments 7 0.1 Ground stone fragments 71 0.7 6 8 2 4Retouched pieces 4 0.0 Other 4 0.0 0.2 Ornaments 51 0.5 2.3 1 2 1Waste 1005 9.3 44.6 119 12 Indet. fragments 660 6.1 90 14 33 57Pebbles / cobbles 232 2.1 21 9 3 18Frost flakes / potlids 8 0.1 3 38 1 2Possible debitage / tool 105 1.0 5 5 2 3Subtotal ≥ 3 g 2255 20.8 100.0 204 9 45 159 22% 78%< 3 g 8563 79.2 Total 10818 100.0




Debitage materialThe debitage material is the second largest group of arte-facts ≥ 3 g on this site. It is just a little bit smaller than the group of waste. These 951 artefacts are defined as 321 flakes, 12 blades, 473 chips, and 145 cores.

Within the set of flakes a division can be made between 225 intact flakes and 96 damaged or fragmented ones. Only the intact flakes will be analysed to provide infor-mation on dimensions. The minimum lengths, widths, and thicknesses are 10x12x4 mm, whereas the maximum are 85x85x39 mm (figure 1.5). The resulting average is 31x32x12 mm. For both the lengths and the widths, as well as for the thicknesses, the dimensions fan out grad-ually towards the higher values. Two flakes in particular are rather thick compared to their length. The length-width ratio presents a minimum of 0.3 and a maximum of 1.9 resulting in an average of 1.0, while the average of the length-thickness ratio is 2.9 and that of the width-thick-ness ratio is 2.9 (table 1.7). These varying dimensions lead to weights that range from 3.0 g to 194.3 g which have an average of 16.1 g. Furthermore, three flakes have mul-tiple impact traces on their dorsal face and one flake has them on the butt. This might suggest that these may be flakes from anvils or hammerstones, or the traces may be the result of numerous fruitless debitage attempts. The surface of two other flakes is so even, they might be smoothed or lightly polished. Finally, it was observed that one flake is a Dalarne porphyry, a stone type very suited for the production of polished stone axes, and three flakes

S3 S5 S6Debitage material 916 4 31Flakes 215 10Flake fragments 95 1 Blades 10 Blade fragments 2 Chips 455 18Cores 139 3 3Tools 233 4 7Hammer stones 12 Anvils 16 3 2Grinding stones 34 Combination tools 88 1 3Polished axes 3 Polished axe fragments 7 Ground stone fragments 69 2Retouched pieces 4 Other 4 Ornaments 51 Waste 973 11 21Indet. fragments 644 4 12Pebbles / cobbles 225 2 5Frost flakes / potlids 8 Possible debitage / tool 96 5 4Subtotal ≥ 3 g 2177 19 59 < 3 g 8504 59 Total 10681 19 118

Table 1.5 Total number of artefacts per typological category of site S3, divided by trench.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Width

Length

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Width

Length

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width

Figure 1.6 Dimensions of intact blades at site S3 (in mm).

Cha

pter

1

Det

aile

d an

alys

is of

the

ston

e ar

tefa

cts

13

Number

Granite

Granite gneiss

Diorite

Gabbro

Pegmatite

Porphyry

Granite porphyry

Basalt

Diabase / Dolerite

Sandstone

Quartzitic sandstone

Quartzite

Conglomeratic sand-stone

Conglomerate

Helleflint

Breccia

Quartz

Gneiss

Amphibolite

Schist

Granulite (leptite)

Slate

Pyrite / Marcasite

Amber

Other

Deb

itage

mat

eria

l95

1

Flak

es22

559

69

110

47

52

821

11

1

Flak

e fr

agm

ents

9622

24

245

71

75

1

Blad

es10

12

41

11

Blad

e fr

agm

ents

21

1

Chip

s47

350

119

21

15

266

802

177

132

7

Core

s14

520

41

128

734

42

78

11

Tool

s24

4

Ham

mer

ston

es12

11

81

1

Anv

ils21

41

11

102

2

Grin

ding

sto

nes

3410

13

112

13

12

Com

bina

tion

tool

s92

117

12

359

41

13

Polis

hed

axes

31

11

Polis

hed

axe

frag

men

ts7

21

12

1

Gro

und

ston

e fr

agm

ents

7112

11

21

138

14

13

51

Reto

uche

d pi

eces

44

Oth

er4

31

Orn

amen

ts51

108

11

292

Was

te10

05

Tabl

e 1.6

D

ivisi

on o

f raw

mat

eria

l of s

ite S

3.

14Sw

ifter

bant

Sto

nes,

Cat

alog

ue

Tabl

e 1.6

co

ntin

ued

Number

Granite

Granite gneiss

Diorite

Gabbro

Pegmatite

Porphyry

Granite porphyry

Basalt

Diabase / Dolerite

Sandstone

Quartzitic sand-stone

Quartzite

Conglomeratic sandstone

Conglomerate

Helleflint

Breccia

Quartz

Gneiss

Amphibolite

Schist

Granulite (leptite)

Slate

Pyrite / Marcasite

Amber

Other

Inde

t. fr

agm

ents

660

315

171

42

2511

12

991

418

18

894

735

61

Pebb

les

/ cob

bles

232

232

12

246

805

61

517

11

4

Fros

t flak

es /

potli

ds8

15

2

Poss

ible

art

efac

ts10

548

15

31

332

22

71

Tota

l22

5557

943

27

286

216

587

837

126

449

531

6817

210

4112

11

366

26%

2%0%

0%0%

4%1%

0%0%

4%37

%6%

2%0%

2%0%

3%8%

0%2%

1%0%

0%2%

0%

Deb

itage

mat

eria

l95

116

%1%

0%5%

0%0%

0%2%

52%

10%

1%0%

4%1%

5%0%

0%0%

1%

Tool

s24

415

%4%

1%4%

1%1%

1%2%

52%

6%2%

0%1%

0%7%

0%0%

1%

Oth

er4

75%

25%

Orn

amen

ts51

20%

16%

2%2%

57%

4%

Was

te10

0538

%2%

0%0%

0%3%

1%0%

0%6%

21%

1%3%

0%1%

0%6%

11%

1%4%

1%0%

0%0%

Tota

l22

5557

844

27

286

216

587

837

126

449

531

6817

210

4112

11

366


could be refitted together into a debitage sequence (see no. 82, pl. 20).

The small number of blades is dividable into 10 complete pieces and 2 fragmented ones. The complete blades have dimensions that range from a minimum of 23x9x7 mm to

a maximum of 53x26x19 mm with an average of 36x15x11 mm (figure 1.6). As the graphs show they do not form a tight group. This is reflected in the weight distributions as well. This varies from 1.7 g to 25.5 g showing an aver-age of 7.4 g. To make the numbers complete the length-width ratio shows a minimum of 2.0 and a maximum of

Flakes Blades L W T L W Tmin. 10 12 4 min. 23 9 7max. 85 85 39 max. 53 26 19average 31 32 12 average 36 15 11st. dev. 13.3 14.0 5.8 st. dev. 11.5 5.7 4.4 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.3 0.6 0.9 min. 2.0 1.5 0.7max. 1.9 7.5 11.3 max. 2.8 6.9 2.9average 1.0 2.9 2.9 average 2.4 3.6 1.5

Chips Cores L W T L W Tmin. 4 3 1 min. 29 30 19max. 29 33 15 max. 144 101 96average 15 14 5 average 77 62 48st. dev. 5.1 5.0 2.4 st. dev. 39.2 26.6 21.5 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.4 0.5 0.5 min. 0.9 1.1 1.0max. 3.9 15.0 9.5 max. 1.9 3.7 2.6average 1.2 3.8 3.5 average 1.2 1.7 1.4

Tested fragments L W Tmin. 8 9 6max. 107 80 56average 42 33 22st. dev. 21.6 15.6 10.8 LW LT WTmin. 0.3 0.6 0.6max. 2.5 6.6 3.9average 1.3 2.0 1.6


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Width

Length

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width




2.8 (table 1.7). This leads to an average of 2.4 while the average of the length-thickness ratio and width-thickness ratio are 3.6 and 1.5 respectively. None of the blades show any sign of systematic blade production and can thus all be described as “long flakes”.

The large number of chips is dividable into a group of intact chips and a group of fragmented ones. The first consists of 304 pieces, the second of 169 pieces. The mini-mum lengths, widths, and thicknesses of the intact chips are 4x3x1 mm whereas the maximum are 29x33x15 mm resulting in average dimensions of 15x14x5 mm (figure 1.7). These minimum and maximum measurements differ substantially, forming a somewhat loose and wide cluster, especially the thicknesses. The length-width ratio reaches as high as 3.9 indicating that several chips have blade pro-portions (table 1.7). The weight of the chips gradually increases from to 0.1 g to 2.9 g with an average 1.1 g.

As with the flakes, a handful of the chips have multiple impact traces on their dorsal face, or might have a small smoothed surface. Regardless of their size or the fact that they are made out of a coarser grained raw material type than flint artefacts, several chips depict nicely developed and well defined butts and bulbs. One is even a regu-lar blade fragment with parallel edges and two paral-lel ridges of 19x18x4 mm. Even more remarkable is the high number of quartzitic sandstone chips and especially the quartzite chips. Up to 65% of the quartzite artefacts on the site are chips. It was observed that large quanti-ties of these quartzite chips are of the type in Dutch often referred to as “zoetwater-kwartsiet” or “cement-kwartsiet” which has a similar texture as “kwartsiet van Tienen”. It may be described as a brown translucent quartzite of a somewhat coarse-grained texture. Furthermore, seven chips of amber were detected (see below). Besides the ornaments, these chips are the only artefact type made of amber. The chips are, however, so small it cannot be dis-cerned whether these are fragments of broken ornaments or natural lumps.

The cores are a combination of 4 cores with one striking platform, 3 with two opposing striking platforms, 5 with

multiple striking platforms, and 133 tested fragments. All removals are different sized flakes.

The cores have rectangular or triangular shapes and have minimum and maximum measurements of 29x30x19 mm and 144x101x96 mm (figure 1.8). The average measurements are 77x62x48 mm. Their weight ranges from 27.2 g to 1666.1 g with an average of 432.8 g. Most of them do not only have flake removals but also impact traces near their edges from unsuccessful debi-tage attempts. The cores with one striking platform show between 3 and 8 removals. From one of them, one or two small flakes are chipped off from the opposing side prov-ing this debitage attempt was ineffective. Of the three cores with two opposing striking platforms, one is a frag-ment of a hammerstone / grinding stone combination and another is an anvil fragment. Both tool fragments were re-used as a core and show up to 6 or 7 removals per plat-form. Some of the cores with multiple striking platforms are also re-used tool fragments such as two hammerstone fragments and an anvil fragment. The platforms are ori-ented opposing and transverse of each other and mostly have three or more flake removals. Random impact traces occur as well.

Although all the tested fragments typologically belong to the same category, their appearance is strongly diverse. Some may be small fragments with a flake removal, while others are larger and have impact traces near the edges. A handful of them also have a possible smoothed area. The dimensions of these indeterminate fragments range from a minimum of 8x9x6 mm to a maximum of 107x80x56 mm. This results in an average of 42x33x22 mm making them generally smaller than the cores (table 1.7). This is even more so for the weight that ranges from 0.9 g to 516.0 g and results in an average of 56.7 g.

ToolsThe excavations yielded 244 tools that are defined as 12 hammerstones, 21 anvils, 34 grinding stones, 92 com-bination tools, 10 polished axes or fragments thereof, 4 retouched pieces, and 71 ground stone fragments. Pebbles, cobbles and cobble fragments are most often

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Width

Length

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0

Width

Length



used as blanks for these tools; only a handful of them are re-used cores or indeterminate fragments.

The twelve hammerstones are a combination of four peb-bles and eight larger cobbles. The latter all have square or rectangular cross-sections resulting in two opposing flat surfaces while the pebbles are oval. Both in weight and measurements, these two blank types form two groups ranging from 36x32x18 mm to 49x39x24 mm for the peb-bles, and from 47x39x35 mm to 110x83x56 mm for the cobbles. In weight these span from 29.1 g to 56.7 g for the first type, and from 76.3 g to 770.8 g for the second type. The locations of the impact traces, however, do not differ largely; the intensity does. The composition of raw mater-ial types of the cobbles show a larger variety than that of the pebbles.

Of the four pebbles, three are intact and one is a flake chipped off from a pebble during use. It has intensive impact traces on the dorsal surface and is the only of the four that is made from a quartzite pebble and not from quartzitic sandstone. The three intact pebbles have impact traces on one or two extremities and parts of the edge; one is even used over the whole edge (no. 39, pl. 7). Of the other two the surfaces are very smooth but of an uncertain character. Whether these are polishers or not could not be attested with certainty. One is even used so intensely as a hammerstone that one of the two extremities is blunted.

The larger cobbles all have impact traces on their extremities and/or edges. In five cases this pounding resulted in the accidental removal of flakes from the work-ing edge (no. 40, pl. 7). One of the cobbles also has impact traces on the surface. This artefact is a corner fragment of a hammerstone that is re-used as a hammerstone or crushed by some other pulverising activity after breakage. Three more hammerstones are re-used artefacts, namely a grinding stone fragment, an anvil fragment and a core (no. 41, pl. 7). The re-use of tool fragments can often be attested by the order or the succession of the traces. In case of the grinding stone fragment, the use as ham-merstone chipped of flakes which damaged the original grinding surface. The same applies to the re-use of frac-tured surfaces. These can be covered with impact traces in a later stage proving use before and after breakage as is the case with the anvil fragment.

The general shape of most of the 21 anvils can be described as cobbles or cobble fragments with two opposing flat sur-faces; one of these is a re-used core (no. 42, pl. 7). Two other anvils are flakes and the remaining six have a flat surface opposing a point (nos. 43 and 44, pl. 8). When the five fractured anvils are not included, the lengths, widths, and thickness all cluster between 45x37x25 mm and 95x88x60 mm. Only the length of 144 mm and the width of 77 mm are exceptional. The weights cluster between 56.4 g and 464.7 g whereas two artefacts are heavier weighing 652.1 g and 729.3 g. Almost half of the anvils are

made of quartzitic sandstone, the others are mainly gran-ite, porphyry and gneiss. The grouped impact traces are in four cases located in the centre of one surface, in fifteen cases on two surfaces, and in two cases on three surfaces (no. 44). These surfaces are located opposite or adjacent to each other according the general shape of the blank. Two opposing flat surfaces means traces on one or two of the opposing surfaces whereas a triangular cross-section means traces on the surface opposing the tip of the arte-fact and, possibly, an adjacent side just as on a pyramid where all sides are adjacent to each other and the base sur-face. The only anvil with two opposing flat surfaces that does not solely depict opposing working surfaces, is one of the anvils with three worked surfaces; both oppos-ing surfaces and an intermediate side are worked. It was observed that the intensity of the impact traces may differ per surface, sometimes rather light, mostly moderate, and seldom hard and intense.

Of the anvils with two opposing flat surfaces, such as no. 42, two are old grinding stone fragments. These frag-ments are re-used as an anvil after they were, presum-ably deliberately, broken. Impact traces on the edges of the planes of fracture, observed on several more anvils, point in this direction. One of these tools even is an anvil / grinding stone combination, proven by the grouped impact traces at the former centre of this polished sur-face. The other artefact shows some light, isolated impact traces on the polished surface indicating roughening. Two other anvils might have been grinding stone fragments. Here however, the surface is only possibly smoothed and does not yet show any sign of gloss or polish. On four anvils a small pit with impact traces occurs. Whether this pit is natural or the result of pecking or use could not be established in all cases. It was observed that most pits are rather shallow, measuring up to approximately 5-6 mm deep. One of these anvils even has two pits.

The anvils with triangular cross-section basically pres-ent the same characteristics as the other anvils. Two were used as anvil before and after breakage (no. 43), two have a shallow pit, and some show intentional breaking by debi-tage or flaking. On one anvil, the grouped impact traces are so intense that a crushed area is created in the centre of the surface while a final piece is used on (almost) all sides and faces (no. 44).

The group of grinding stones are divided into 30 hand-stones and 4 netherstones. Mostly smaller or larger cob-bles or cobble fragments from quartzitic sandstone or granite were used. Almost half of the grinding stones have been exposed to heat.

The handstones mainly have cross-sections showing two opposing flat surfaces, six have a triangular cross-section, two are produced on a pebble, and three are too damaged to define their original shape. Of the tools with two opposing flat surfaces, thirteen have one working sur-face (no. 45, pl. 9), five have two working surfaces (no. 46,


pl. 9), and one even has three working surfaces. Weight and dimensions are highly variable as most of them are fragmented. The working surfaces are smoothed to pol-ished and often show a gloss at the highest parts or pro-truding areas of the surface. Frequently the gloss is located near the edges of the surface. Exceptional is that on one artefact the full curve of the edge is polished (no. 00504). Impact traces near and on the edges, combined with flake scars, point towards deliberate breakage or debitage of most of these tools. In one case, the tool was used as grinding stone after the flakes had been removed. This might indicate shaping or reducing the size of the artefact before use. Several special features have been observed as well. One of the artefacts has two parallel, curved ridges running diagonally across the surface, one being slightly larger than the other (no. 20783). Even if these are natural, it is a rarely observed feature. Furthermore, one of the sides between the two surfaces of this tool is smoothed as well and its edge has a sharp 110 degree angle which is presumably artificially created by the two adjoining grinding surfaces. Whether this can be accomplished by regular grinding activities or whether this is the result of the use as whetstone is unknown. Another handstone has a bit of a convex surface. Although this is common for handstones in general (Adams 2002, Hamon 2008) on the Swifterbant sites the surfaces are predominantly flat. Finally, two grinding stones might have had second-ary usage as well. One specimen shows minor flaking at one end and may therefore be used as a hammerstone (no. 27269). Another tool has a pit created by a flake scar that shows traces of hammering as well as smoothing of the surface (no. 38215). A use as anvil or perhaps even mortar can therefore not be ruled out.

The six handstones with a triangular cross-section (no. 47, pl. 9) also have impact traces and flake scars on the edges and sides. In two cases, this pounding or these debi-tage attempts may have led to the breakage of the artefact. Furthermore, roughening in the form of isolated impact traces on the smoothed to polished surface was observed. The final tool has two intensely used, almost polished sur-faces. After this primary use the stone was broken and lightly re-used as the plane of fractures shows traces of smoothing as well (no. 47).

The two last handstones are made from a pebble. One surface of the first tool is smoother than the other surfaces and is even showing a light gloss (no. 48, pl. 9). The oppos-ite surface might be smoothed as well but this is hard to establish. As its measurements are 50x34x21 mm and its weight is limited to 46.9 g, it might be defined as a pol-ishing stone. The second pebble has an elongated shape (62x20x10 mm). One of the surfaces is flattened, presum-ably as the result of its usage as polisher or maybe even as whetstone. Its general shape makes it stand out from all other tools produced on pebbles.

The four netherstones (no. 49, pl. 10) may possibly have been only three different tools as two slabs of granulite

(leptite) can be fitted together as an upper part and a lower part of one netherstone (see main book section 4.4.2). Whether the artefact was broken before or after use can-not be discerned, therefore, they are counted as two sepa-rate tools. There is, however, a difference in intensity of use between the two. Only one shows patches of gloss on its working surface, while the other slab is only smoothed. This difference in intensity between the upper surface and the lower surface of a netherstone has been observed sev-eral times (see main book section 4.5). An artefact from site S4 (nr. G92-04336-1) is produced from exactly the same type of raw material and is similar in shape as the netherstone from site S3. Even though this fragment did not fit it is most likely part of the netherstone. The pres-ence of three or four netherstones is of consequence for the minimum and maximum dimensions of the tools. The slabs measure between 130x68 mm and 218x181 mm for length and width. Depending on the possibility of three or four artefacts the minimum thickness may be 19 or 26 mm, the maximum is 59 mm. Weight is also an issue. This may range from 285.7 g or 595.9 to 3030.1 g. The third netherstone is also made from two fitting fragments. The tool shows an almost polished surface; it is largely covered with gloss and the protruding areas even have a bright, mirror-like gloss (no. 49). The centre of the slab is slightly concave as the result of frequent use and the surface is randomly roughened with impact traces. Noteworthy is that the direction of use is the same as the bedding of the gneiss. In this way fewer crystals are released. The black discolouration of the grinding area might be a result of intense usage and not of burning. Even more remarkable is the refit with a ground stone fragment from site S2 (nr. 7613). Another fragment from site S2 (nr. 6843) may also belong to this grinding stone as it is made from exactly the same raw material but it could not actually be refit-ted. The final netherstone was probably roughly shaped by flaking one corner and a side. One surface is smoothed to polished with a soft gloss on the surface and a bright gloss at the edges presenting several random impact traces as well. The opposing flat surface has several flakes off the sides and shows rough, deeper lying patches in a polished surface. The middle of this surface is a little hollowed out. The size would suggest a determination as lower grind-ing stone, just as the weight of 3030.1 g, but the polishing traces all over the surfaces and especially at the edges of one surface suggest the use as upper grinding stone. This artefact also shows black discolouration at the edges pre-sumably from handling.

The large number of combination tools is a collection of 11 hammerstone / grinding stones, 58 are a combination of hammerstone / anvil, 9 are an anvil / grinding stone combination, and 14 are a triple combination of ham-merstone / anvil / grinding stone. These tools are pre-dominantly made of quartzitic sandstone, granite, and granite-gneiss. Approximately 25% are exposed to heat.


The hammerstone / grinding stone combinations are four pebbles, five cobbles with two opposing flat sur-faces, one cobble fragment with a triangular cross-sec-tion, and a flake. Of the four pebbles one is fragmented. The others measure between 48x32x16 mm and 58x34x25 mm and weigh between 32.2 g and 83.4 g. As with the grinding stones described above, the limited size of these tools make them ideal candidates for being polishers, yet here in combination with being retouchoirs. In all cases one or two of the surfaces are smoothed to polished and impact traces are visible on the extremities or edges (no. 50, pl. 10). This image is the same for the cobbles with two opposing flat surfaces, even if they are larger (no. 51, pl. 10). The intact specimens measure between 78x57x55 mm and 136x95x90 mm with weights ranging from 404.2 g to 1222.8 g. Because the surfaces are often flat, instead of lightly convex as with the pebbles, the gloss on these tools is more distinctly present at the edges. The gloss or polish itself is also more pronounced. This might be the result of the raw material type, but may also be the result of different and/or more intense use. The only tool with a triangular cross-section has a blunted tip, two smoothed to polished surfaces and a score of 10x30 mm on another surface (no. 52, pl. 11). The triangular shape is the result of a fracture, possibly intentionally created by debitage; yet, the crystals in the middle of the plane of fracture are lightly crushed also pointing to usage after breakage. The smoothed area currently in the middle of one surface may also have been created after the tool was broken. Finally, the flake was detached from the side of a cobble with at least one flat surface. Traces of smoothing and gloss are visible on the dorsal face, just as some trace of roughen-ing. The impact traces on the side or edge are numerous and indicate the use as hammerstone as well as repeated attempts to detach the flake.

The largest group of combination tools are the hammer-stone / anvils. They are also produced on different types of blanks being 3 pebbles, 39 cobbles with two opposing flat surfaces, and 15 cobbles with a triangular cross-section. Quartzitic sandstone is very dominantly present within this tool category. The three pebbles have impact traces grouped in the middle of one or two surfaces as well as impact traces on the extremities (no. 53, pl. 11). One of them was broken possibly during use and re-used at least as a hammerstone after breakage. The remaining two measure 41x36x23 mm and 42x39x22 mm and weigh 50.9 g and 48.5 g respectively. The latter shows more intense impact traces than the other two. Of the cobbles with two opposing flat surfaces 33 are intact. The measurements of these tools cluster between 35x60x42 mm and 100x85x63 mm. Two are larger measuring up to 137x115x73 mm and 186x133x111 mm. This translates itself in the weight classification as well. The tools cluster between 81.0 g and 603.5 g with the two exceptions of 1421.1 g and 4388.2 g. It was observed that 15 tools have impact traces on one surface, 18 on two surfaces, and 7 on three surfaces. These

are always combined with impact traces on the extremi-ties, the sides, or the edges. Sometimes even small flakes have been chipped off. Of the tools with one anvil surface (no. 54, pl. 11), three show a shallow pit in the middle of the surface whereas another tool even has two areas of grouped impact traces in the middle of the surface. The tools with two anvil surfaces (no. 55, pl. 12) are even more diverse; one is a re-used grinding stone fragment (no. 56, pl. 12), one may be considered a core as four flakes have been detached, two might additionally be used as grind-ing stone, and two other specimens have shallow pits. Of the tools with three anvil surfaces one was used as core as well (no 57, pl. 12). One of the extremities of the tool is rather crushed, instead of showing impact traces, which resulted in the blunting of the tool. Lastly, all but one of the hammerstone / anvils with a triangular cross-section are intact (no. 58, pl. 13). Their weights gradually increase from 68.3 g to 275.1 g. The dimensions are less evenly spread. Widths and thicknesses form a tight group between 40x29 mm and 68x54 mm. The lengths, however, cluster between 49 mm and 79 mm. One artefact is rather long, measuring 109 mm, while its width and thickness falls within the limits set by the other tools. Six have one anvil surface of which one was used as core and another may have additionally been used as grinding stone. Of the nine specimens with two anvil surfaces one shows a shallow pit.

The definition as anvil / grinding stone combination is for all tools on the site confirmed by the presence of a shallow pit or some other form of (grouped) traces located in the middle of a surface. All but one of the intact artefacts have two opposing flat surfaces with very diverse dimensions and weights. These range from 80x37x34 mm to 190x128x55 mm and from 302.2 g to 1790.8 g. The only fragment is irregularly shaped. On four of the specimens with two opposing flat surfaces a pit is visible in the centre of a surface (no. 59, pl. 13). This does not always need to be the grinding surface. In two cases this pit is rather deep compared to the others, up to 8 mm, which might hint at another function, for example the use as mortar, or may simply be the result of prolonged use. On one specimen, two pits are present, one on each surface (no. 60, pl. 13), and small flakes have been chipped off of the smoothed surface as well. The three tools that have no pit in the centre are characterised by some sort of smoothing in one case and by grouped impact traces in the other cases. The former is possibly the result of some sort of crush-ing of the centre of the surface (no. 61, pl. 14), whereas one of the other two has traces on the side and the pro-truding tip of the triangular shaped tool (no. 62, pl. 14). It is not entirely clear whether this crushing is solely the result of the use as anvil or whether it is combined with the weathering of the crystals. As the gloss of the grind-ing surface is sometimes located at the edges of that sur-face and not in the centre, the use as handstone is implied. The final intact tool is produced on a pebble (no. 63, pl.


15). The combination of a smoothed to polished surface with impact traces is confirmed for this tool as well. As the pebble measures 61x49x17 mm and weighs 72 g a def-inition as polisher may be justified.

The last type of combination tool is the hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone combination. The two general shapes are cobbles with two opposing flat surfaces and cobbles with a triangular cross-section. The first type is the most numerous. Eight of these eleven artefacts are intact forming a loosely organised cluster ranging from 75x51x41 mm to 95x84x70 mm. As with the hammer-stone / anvil combinations one artefact is rather long measuring 124 mm. The weights are much more variable, spanning from 227.8 g to 721.8 g. The combination of traces seems infinite on these tools. One or two polished surfaces are combined with impact traces grouped in the middle of one or two surfaces and/or one or two shallow pits, together with randomly placed impact traces on the surfaces, sides, edges, or extremities (no. 64 - 68, pl. 15 - 17); two even have traces on all surfaces and sides (no. 68, pl. 17). Of the three artefacts with triangular cross-section two are intact measuring 53x49x40 mm and 59x59x56 mm (no. 67, pl. 16). Their weight is 153.9 g and 285.0 g respectively. As with the other eleven, the combination of traces is very diverse.

As with many artefact types, the axes are most numer-ously present on site S3. These include three intact speci-mens and seven fragments. Of the intact specimens two are very alike, namely two axes with oval cross-section. The first is made of basalt and is lightly damaged (no. 69, pl. 18). The measurements of 56x46x22 mm are presum-ably very close to the original dimensions. The weight of 98.7 g might be a little too light although presumably not by much. Noteworthy are the many traces of pecking covering large parts of the axe; at the butt these might be interpreted as impact traces. Near the cutting edge, these traces are polished away as the result of creating or sharp-ening the edge. The second axe with oval cross-section is made of quartzitic sandstone and has two pits, one on each side (no. 70, pl. 18). In Dutch these are referred to as dellen (Heijmans et al. 2007: 61). The artefact measures 64x53x32 mm and weighs 154.6 g which is slightly heav-ier that the other axe. This is presumably the result of the different dimensions and not so much the result of the dif-ferent raw material, as the specific gravity of basalt is 3.01 g and that of quartzitic sandstone 2.32 g. These two pits are created by heavy pecking, which also covers most part of the axe’s body. Again, near the cutting edge these peck-ing traces have disappeared due to polishing. The third axe is different in shape and measurements (no. 71, pl. 18). It is a thin butted axe with oval cross-section measur-ing 78x44x21 mm. Its weight is 103.9 g and the axe is also made of quartzitic sandstone.

The axe fragments are a wide variety of different shapes and bits. The seven fragments found on site S3 form

two refits, one between two pieces from site S3 and one between a fragment from site S3 (see main book section 4.4.2) and a fragment from site S41 (see main book sec-tion 4.4.3). The first refit is formed by two halves of the cutting edge of a shaft-hole axe (no. 72, pl. 18). The arte-fact is made of dark-grey to black fine-grained amphi-bolite and has a straight perforation. This might have a lightly conical shape, which is a standard feature of the shaft-hole axes, but the fragmentation makes this impos-sible to discern. It is most definitely not an hourglass per-foration. It was also observed that this perforation runs parallel to the cutting edge. The current dimensions are c. 63x60x37 mm while its current weight is 200.9 g. The distance between the perforation and the cutting edge is 49 mm making this a short specimen. The second refit is smaller and shows only a part of the hourglass shaped perforation (no. 73, pl. 19). This specific shape of perfora-tion and the raw material type, a blackish quartzite from the boulder clay deposits, suggest a local origin of the axe fragment. Even more, the axe fragment is a refit of two pieces of which one was found on site S3 and the other on site S41. The current dimensions are 65x46x24 mm and the refitted artefact weighs 73 g. It was also observed that the raw material is very similar to the axe fragment found on site S2 (no. 14, see no. 11, pl. 3) suggesting production from a comparable or even the same block of quartzite.

The fourth fragment found on site S3 (no. 74, pl. 18) may also belong to a fractured axe recovered at different sites. The artefact is a small piece of polished axe without much diagnostic features (27x20x9 mm, 4.6 g). Although it cannot be refitted to any other fragment, the raw mater-ial, a dark grey to black fine-grained diabase, is exactly the same as fragments nos. 1034, G92-00488-1, G92-01484-1, and G92-01563 from site S4. Of these at least two are refit-ted together forming a piece of the cutting edge and side indicating the fragmented state of the axe.

More remarkable are two other, large fragments. They are, just as the shaft-hole axe, broken through the perfo-ration and missing their butt. The first is a fragment of an axe with an hourglass perforation (no. 75, pl. 19). It was made out of very dark grey to black medium-grained quartz porphyry and currently measures 69x49x33 mm and weighs 160.4 g. The artefact is broken straight through the perforation. It was observed that the cutting edge does not run parallel to the perforation, as is the case for the shaft-hole axes, but is slightly tilted or oblique. The sur-face of the axe is totally polished showing a bright gloss. The second fragment is technologically very similar, yet its appearance is very different (no. 76, pl. 19). Again it is a fragment of an axe with an hourglass perforation. This one is also made out of dark grey fine-grained porphyry and currently measures 93x83x55 mm and weighs 395.3 g. The artefact is also broken straight through the perfora-tion but is missing a part of the cutting edge. Remarkable is that the cutting edge of this artefact, which looks so different from the other, also is tilted compared to the


perforation. The sides are bevelled off towards this per-foration but these are natural sides, not manufactured. The cutting edge is, however, constructed and polished. It appears that a cobble with somewhat the right shape was chosen for the production of this tool as to limit the amount of time and work to produce an adequate axe. The bright friction gloss inside the perforation indicates shaft-ing and usage of the axe. Use-wear analysis also revealed traces on the cutting edge.

The final fragment is a heavily weathered axe fragment with hourglass perforation (no. 77, pl. 19). It is made of light-grey medium-grained gneiss and has a rather angu-lar to oval shape. Its current measurements are 76x70x44 mm and it weighs 270.3 g.

The retouched pieces are exceptional finds because of their rareness; they are the only ones to have been found on the Swifterbant sites. These are one scraper, two blade fragments fitting together, and one small fragment of a retouched edge. They are all made of a different colour of quartzite. The raw material is of a rather rough type, some sort of intermediate form between quartzitic sandstone and quartzite. Quartzite is the only type of raw material present on the sites, besides flint, that is so well suited for producing flakes, blades or even tools. The scraper, still partially covered with cortex, measures 21x17x5 mm and weighs 2.4 g (no. 78, pl. 19). The retouches are applied on the dorsal face and cover the lateral edge and distal part. The two blade fragments fit together forming the medial part of a, still incomplete, blade (no. 79, pl. 19). The blade has a regular appearance with parallel edges and two par-allel ridges. The dorsal retouches are present on both edges of the blade. Although the artefact is still incomplete, it measures up to 33x13x5 mm. The little piece of working edge is retouched dorsally (no. 80, pl. 19). It might have been a part of a truncated blade or even a trapeze.

The ground stone fragments are a combination of 30 inde-terminate fragments and 39 flakes with a smoothed to polished surface or area. They are predominantly made of quartzitic sandstone and granite. As they have all sorts of different shapes, their measurements range from 6x10x2 mm for the minimum dimensions and 84x86x38 mm for the maximum ones. Although their measurements over-lap largely, the five largest artefacts are flakes. On the other hand, the small dimensions are also due to several small flakes or chips as they weigh well below 3 g. The heavi-est artefact is an indeterminate fragment weighing 143.1 g. Two indeterminate fragments with a polished surface form larger refits with unaltered indeterminate fragments whereas another fragment and a flake also bear several impact traces on their surfaces.

Other artefactsFour artefacts have such special or rare characteristics, that they are discussed separately. Three of them are very

alike. In the past they have been defined as Steinbrösel. These are fully weathered pieces of rock that are similar to the disintegrated fragments described in the section above (see Waste). Yet, these small pieces of grit and dust form a fine mixture with sand, charcoal, and burnt bone setting them aside from the others.

The remaining artefact has the shape of a discus and is made of gneiss (no. 81, pl. 20). The artefact is intact, measures 77x74x29 mm and weighs 185.9 g. The round and flat shape is created by flaking the tool centripetally. The many impact traces on the edge may be the result of this procedure or may be the result of usage as hammer-stone. The function, besides possible hammerstone, is as yet unknown.

OrnamentsThe largest number of ornaments from the Swifterbant area was found on site S3. All 51 objects were recovered from the cultural layer as no graves have been discovered. The group of amber objects is the largest with 29 pieces comprising 4 pendants and 25 (fragments of) beads. On top of that 7 chips were found at the site as well (see above). The other stone ornaments are 4 pendants, 1 bead fragment and 17 unfinished pendants. To make the group of ornaments complete, 17 perforated animal teeth and 1 perforated fish vertebra, already described by Kielman (1986), need to be mentioned. Finally, the notorious find of a shark’s tooth is discussed.

a) Amber pendants and beadsThe four amber pendants are slightly damaged. They are all fractured through the perforation losing parts of the top. Only two have exact measurements, one is very near its original size and the other has an estimated measure-ment. This results in an average of 24x16x8 mm. With one pendant the fragmentation is located on the side of the perforation so the maximal measurements are still intact. This ornament (no. 83, pl. 21) is irregularly triangular shaped with an asymmetrical hourglass perforation, 2.5 mm from the edge, with a 7 mm outer diameter and a 3 mm inner diameter. The pendant is broken through the hole which shows no clear visual traces of wear. Because the missing part of approximately 3x4 mm is located at the side the measurements of 23x19x6 mm are correct.

The second pendant (no. 84, pl. 21) could be refitted with a fragment (no. 36699) still leaving the piece still somewhat incomplete (see main book section 4.4.2). The measurements of the object changed from 22x23x11 mm to approximately 29x23x11 mm. The natural lump out of which the pendant was fabricated has a pyramid-like shape. The perforation was made from two sides but is badly aligned. The edges of the base-side and the protrud-ing bulb of the pyramid are highly polished as a result of wear. The perforation is slightly worn by friction of the string.


The third pendant (no. 85, pl. 21) is fractured near the side of the perforation; the measurements of this object, 21x12x4 mm, are therefore very similar to the original size. It is a rectangular shaped flat amber pendant with one perforation of 4 mm in diameter 1.5 mm from the edge. The perforation was presumably made from one side only, possibly by rotation. The limited thickness of the piece presumably allowed this technique. No wear marks are visible in the hole or on the surface. A fragment of 3x2 mm is missing.

The last pendant has lost a large part of its body, namely the whole top. It is a thick triangular shaped pendant (no. 86, pl. 21) which has lost a fragment of approximately 5x5 mm. The perforation is presumably hourglass-shaped but because of the fracture this is not certain. Wear-traces in the form of a bright gloss are visible on one side near the perforation; this is presumably the back side. The current measurements of 16x10x12 mm can be added with the presumed measurements of the missing fragment result-ing in an assumed size of 21x10x12mm.

The amber beads and fragments form a large group of 25 pieces. The 12 whole beads were all made of natural amber lumps of angular and round shapes. The majority (nos. 88 – 91, pl. 21) measure between 6 and 10 mm (aver-age 8x6x4 mm), while two beads are a little larger meas-uring 13x8x5 mm (no. 93, pl. 21) and 13x13x8 mm (no. 94, pl. 21). The final bead is rather atypical (no. 95, pl. 21). Although the cube-shaped piece is naturally formed, the location of the perforation is exceptional. Instead of pen-etrating the bead from one side to the opposing side, the perforation runs from one side to the adjacent one. This gives a different orientation. When the ornament is worn, it would look like a diamond-shaped pendant instead of a ‘classic’ square bead. The hourglass perforation of 2 mm in diameter is 2 mm from the edge, enlarging this effect. Its larger size (16x12x12 mm) also sets it apart from the other beads found on the site.

Although they were originally much larger than the group of 12 whole beads discussed above, the majority (nos. 96 – 99, pl. 21) of the 13 fragments currently meas-ure between 6 and 10 mm (average 8x7x5 mm). Two fragments (no. 100, pl. 21) are smaller measuring 3x5x4 mm and 3x5x6 mm respectively and two fragments (nos. 36699 and 907218) are larger measuring 12x11x7 mm and 15x11x10 mm respectively. The former is already dis-cussed in the paragraph on amber pendants as it is the fitting part of the pyramid-like pendant; the latter shows, besides the perforation through which it is broken, the start of a second one. That perforation was started from one side only and was presumably not completed because of poor positioning or bad alignment with the future sec-ond half of that perforation, as was with the other frag-ment from S2 (no. 30, pl. 5, section 1.2.2). Clear rotation marks are visible in this second perforation. Because of

its size and general shape it is possibly the top part of a pendant.

It should be mentioned that Van der Waals (1976: 617) published a number of amber pendants and beads. All but one of these can be retraced today, and are thus discussed above. The remaining bead has a pointed shape and pre-sumably measures c. 14x9 mm (no. 87, pl. 21). It has most likely been lost as it was published by Louwe Kooijmans in 1985 (1985: 91) but was not analysed or published by Kielman (1986).

b) Amber chipsFinally, seven amber chips were recovered (see above). Chips are fragments of amber without recognisable fea-tures. They are often too small to determine which part of the bead they originally came from or if they were part of a bead or pendant in the first place. It is just their raw material that sets them aside as something special because amber is not used for any other purpose than ornamenta-tion on the Swifterbant sites. These seven chips (nos. 101 – 103, pl. 21) have average measurements of 9x5x4 mm with the smallest chip measuring 4x3x2 mm and the larg-est measuring 15x7x4 mm.

c) Other stone pendants and beadsAs with the amber ornaments, site S3 presents the larg-est number of stone pendants. The four pendants are all fabricated on flat pebbles, three out of sandstone, and one out of quartzitic sandstone. The first pendant is spe-cial because of its two perforations (no. 104, pl. 22). This triangular shaped flat pebble measures 38x30x4 mm. The two perforations, 3 and 5 mm from the edge, have an outer diameter of 4 mm and an inner diameter of 1.5 to 2 mm. It is noteworthy that one hole was made by perforation from one side (funnel shape) while the other was made from both sides (hourglass shape). Even the location of the per-forations cannot help in determining which of the two holes was made first. One hole was made in the middle of the triangle’s base so if the pendant hangs from the string it is oriented upside down with the triangle’s tip pointing downwards. The other is placed more towards the corner of the base. When the pendant is worn through this hole the triangle’s tip points approximately 45° to the side and not straight down. Due to the weathered surface it is hard to detect hammering or pecking traces that might have preceded the perforation. Presumably there are none.

The other three pendants only have one perforation. The first pendant (no. 105, pl. 22) belongs, along with the formerly discussed pendant, to a larger size group measuring 38x23x5 mm. It is triangular to rectangu-lar shaped with one perforation 4 mm from the edge. The hole, with an outer diameter of 5 mm and an inner diameter of 1 to 1.5 mm, was made by rotation from both sides. Unfortunately, they are poorly aligned resulting in an oblique perforation. The pebble is not entirely flat, it


has a light curvature. This is uncommon for pebbles and therefore we cannot rule out any manipulation of the sur-face. Unfortunately, the surface is smoothed to polished obscuring any manufacturing or use-wear traces that would have been visible for the naked eye. No impact or pecking traces near the perforation or on any other part of the pendant could be detected either.

The second pendant with one perforation is the small-est of them (no. 106, pl. 22) and measures 29x16x4 mm. It is a tear-shaped flat pebble with a thin vein of quartz run-ning across at one end. The perforation is set just below the quartz vein 3.5 mm from the edge. When worn, the vein of quartz runs horizontally. The hole, with an outer diameter of 3 mm and an inner diameter of 1 to 1.5 mm, was made by rotation from both sides producing an hour-glass shape. No hammering or polishing traces can be detected on the surface.

The last pendant (no. 107, pl. 22) is broken through its perforation. As only a small fragment of 1 to 2 mm at the top is missing, the presumed maximum measurements are 29x17x3 mm. The ornament was made from an ellip-tically shaped flat pebble. The hole of 2 mm in diameter is set at approximately 3 to 4 mm from the edge. It was made at the thinnest end of the pebble, only 1.5 mm instead of 3 mm. Traces of rotation are more clearly visible on one side of the hourglass perforation than on the other.

The small fragment (no. 108, pl. 22) is the only stone bead found on this site. It is a piece of a presumably round bead with uneven thickness; one end is thinner than the other. The perforation is positioned slightly out of the centre, more towards the thin end of the pebble. It has an asym-metric hourglass shape which is possibly the result of the production technique (Chevalier et al. 1982). The small dimensions of the fragment (14x5x6 mm) make the raw material determination hesitant. The dark-grey fine-grained material is most likely shale4. The lack of a bright gloss sets it aside from jet and radiolarian rock.

d) Unfinished pendants A total of 17 pebbles show traces of one or more perfora-tions. They can be divided up in a group of eight pebbles with one unfinished perforation, a group of again eight pebbles with two unfinished perforations and one pebble with four unfinished perforations. All but four artefacts were made from flat pebbles with an average thickness of 5 mm. The remaining four were made on classic, thick pebbles with a thickness between 9 and 16 mm.

Two of the ornaments of the group with one unfinished perforation are made on classic, thick pebbles. The small-est (no. 109, pl. 22) is an oval pebble with an unfinished

4 New research revealed that this ornament is made from shale and not from radiolarian rock or jet as earlier stated in Devriendt 2008: 389.

perforation at 8 mm of the edge. The pit is very shallow, only 1 mm deep, and created by rotation. The shallowness of the pit makes it clear that the attempt of perforating this pebble was quickly abandoned. The thickness of this peb-ble, it is the thickest of all the pebbles used for ornaments on the Swifterbant sites (32x27x16 mm), was perhaps the reason for this. Besides the shallow pit, no other traces, not even pecking or impact traces could be detected on the surface.

The pebble chosen for the second thick ornament (no. 110, pl. 22) is more triangular in shape and meas-ures 40x26x12 mm. The unfinished perforation of 1 mm is set 5 mm from the edge. Had the perforation been com-pleted, this would have created a remarkable orientation of the pebble; the hole is located in the corner of the long side resulting in the base side tilting to the right, the top corner tilting to the left. Both ornaments were made of quartz, a raw material in no other case used for this pur-pose on the Swifterbant sites. Quartz is a rock type with crystals that are rather hard (7 on Mohs’ scale of mineral hardness), harder than sandstone or quartzitic sandstone. This is presumably the second reason for abandoning the perforation attempts; it would simply take too much time. Furthermore, the hardness is even greater than that flint, which would cause the drills to dull rapidly or even splin-ter or break.

The next five unfinished pendants with one unfin-ished perforation (nos. 111 – 115, pl. 22) were made from flat, sandstone or quartzitic sandstone pebbles with aver-age measurements of 29x21x5 mm. Only the raw material determination of no. 23916 is uncertain. All of the perfo-rations are approximately 2 mm wide and located 4 mm from the edge. Ornament no. 111 forms an exception. The rather large unfinished perforation of 3.5 mm is set at only 2.5 mm from the edge. This is related to the overall shape of the pebble. The hole was produced in the slender tip was produced in the slender tip of the diamond-shaped flat pebble, leaving not much space at the sides. The prox-imity to the edge might be the reason for abandoning the attempt. Ornament no. 113 is tear-shaped with a line of vein quartz at the top. The unfinished perforation has two rotation points just adjacent to each other creating seem-ingly one pit; one rotation point is slightly more profound than the other. Even more remarkable are the two lines of vein quartz in no. 114. The unfinished perforation is posi-tioned in such a way, that when the ornament would be worn, the lines of vein quartz would be positioned hori-zontally. Finally, as mentioned, the raw material determi-nation of ornament no. 112 is uncertain; either it is an exceptional fine-grained and dark-coloured quartzitic sandstone type or it could be radiolarian rock. Its over-all measurements are 31x15x7 mm and it is roughly rect-angular shaped with a rounded top.

The last pebble with one unfinished perforation is no. 29895 (no. 116, pl. 23) and would have fitted per-fectly within the previous group had it been made from


sandstone instead of radiolarian rock. The reason for abandoning perforation attempts are obvious in two cases; nos. 109 and 110 were discarded because of the wrong choice of raw material, combined with large thick-nesses, no. 111 because of the poorly located perforation. In all the other cases it is unclear why perforation was not finished.

The group with two unfinished perforations are pebbles in a further stage of completion than the previous group. On all but one (no. 119, pl. 23) the perforations were initi-ated on both surfaces of the same end. Of the seven whole pebbles three have an exceptionally large length (length: width ratio at 2.4 or more instead of an average 1.5) and two of these are even rather thick (9 and 10 mm). This influences the average measurements which are 37x20x7 mm. If the three exceptional pebbles (nos. 118 – 119, pl. 23, no. 41142) are excluded, the dimensions of the remaining pebbles are in more agreement with the previ-ous group measuring 33x24x6 mm. One ornament (no. 122, pl. 23) is broken in half and therefore not included. It is this remaining half that bears both pits produced by rotation. The raw material used is also very similar to the previous group, namely (flat) sandstone and quartz-itic sandstone pebbles. The raw material determination of ornament no. 119 is, just as with no. 112, uncertain. In both situations, the shining patina covering the peb-ble obscures good determination. Breaking the pendant for a better observation is in both cases not justified. The raw material used is either dark-grey to black fine-grained sandstone or radiolarian rock. On all the ornaments, the work was that far advanced that a (small) pit is visible. On this artefact, however, only the patina was worn off on two places; one by light hammering, the other presumably by light rotation. Both definitions are not 100% certain with an enlargement of only 10 times. A second irregularity with the other artefacts is the location of the perforations, one on the extremity of one surface, the other on the other extremity of the opposite surface. As it is the only arte-fact with this type of traces, and because of the location of these traces, I feel rather confident to say it is an unfin-ished pendant nonetheless. The overall range of perfora-tion diameters and distances from the edge largely vary from 1 to 7 mm and 0.5 to 7 mm respectively but result in averages of 4 and 4 mm. The diameters are therefore twice as wide as with the previous group, the location from the edge is the same. Two reasons could be detected for aban-doning the perforation attempts. For ornaments nos. 118, 120, 122, and 123 poor alignment of the two perforations was the trigger, for ornaments nos. 121 and 15726 a com-bination of two factors was decisive: first the un-align-ment of the perforations and second the location of a pit too close to the edge. Pendant no. 119 is unique for it has an unfinished perforation on one surface and the other one on the opposite end of the other surface.

The last unfinished pendant has up to four unfinished per-forations (no. 117, pl. 23). It is an ellipse-shaped flat peb-ble made out of quartzitic sandstone measuring 33x19x4 mm. One surface shows two worked areas; one with grouped pecking traces 6 mm from the edge alongside an unfinished perforation located 1 mm left of it; the other is an unfinished perforation of 1 mm diameter 4.5 mm from the edge. On the other surface a larger unfinished perfora-tion is made with a 3 mm diameter 4.5 mm from the edge. Unfortunately, these later two are not aligned.

To summarise, the reasons for abandonment could be the poor alignment of the two perforations, the wrong choice of raw material, the thickness of the pebble, a per-foration too close to the edge, or one not detectable to us. On the other hand, there doesn’t always need to be a rea-son for abandoning a piece of work. Some people leave unfinished business lying around while others save it for a rainy day!

e) The notorious shark’s toothAs a rule, the ornaments made out of animal teeth are only mentioned to complete the number of pendants present on the site and are not discussed in detail. For one pen-dant an exception was made. Common animal teeth for pendants on the Swifterbant sites are incisors and canines of cattle, wild boar, pig, horse, otter and dog. The many beaver incisors may have been used as pendants as well, but if they were, it did not leave any wear traces visible to the naked eye. The tooth was uncovered in 1974 and was at first regarded with suspicion. After thorough inspec-tion and much consideration, however, Van der Waals was convinced of the true nature of this find (Van der Waals, 1976: 611). This tooth was engraved with the snout of an animal with whiskers; according to Van der Waals a small rodent, or even an otter, one of the frequent preys of the Swifterbant hunters (ibid: 614). Unfortunately, it turned out to be a student’s hoax (Verhart, 1995). The shark’s tooth was real, the engraving and the perforation were not.

WasteThis collection of artefact types lightly outnumbers the debitage material and includes 660 indeterminate frag-ments, 232 pebbles, 5 frost flakes, 3 potlids, and 105 possible pieces of debitage / tool. The indeterminate frag-ments are the artefact category composed of the larg-est variety of stone types. One of them is the only piece of pyrite / marcasite found on the Swifterbant sites (see main book figure 4.17). It is a 19x14x6 mm curved frag-ment weighing 4.7 g. It has a radial structure and is show-ing signs of the beginnings of weathering. Furthermore, seven of the indeterminate fragments might be flakes, two might be ground stone fragments, and one possibly has impact traces on its surface. Yet, all these definitions are made with due reservation. Up to 24 fragments are in


an advanced stage of weathering as they crumble when touched, whereas 9 other fragments are fully weathered, they have totally disintegrated into grit and dust.

Up to 76% of the pebbles or cobbles are made out of quartzitic sandstone, quartz, and sandstone. At least eight of these are mica sandstone pebbles, a rock type origin-ating from the Ardennes, while 43 are vein quartz peb-bles and four are made of radiolarian rock. The pebbles mostly have an oval shape, although flat types occur as well (31%). The first type show a rather large dimensional variety clustering between 16x11x4 mm and 45x40x35 mm with exceptions up to 119x84x62 mm. Weight clas-sification mirrors this effect clustering between 3.1 g and 89.5 g with heavy weights up to 757.2 g. The flat pebbles cluster between 23x14x3 mm and 51x40x15 mm rang-ing from 3.3 g to 25.6 g. Three pebbles have a rather smooth and even surface but the nature of this smoothing is uncertain; they may be polishers. Three more pebbles have a few impact traces on their surface and/or extremi-ties and may therefore be anvils and/or hammerstones.

The last discussed category is the possible pieces of debitage / tool. These comprise of 44 flakes, 18 chips (including a possible axe fragment), 37 flake or chip frag-ments, 3 tested fragments, 1 core, 1 ground stone frag-ment, and 1 pendant. All these artefacts have certain characteristics that are typical for the artefact types they resemble, but these features are not convincing enough to define them as such. For example, the grouped impact traces on one side of the flat pebble (no. 23090, 38x22x5 mm) are so faint it is unclear whether they are inten-tional or accidental, while one of the chips is so small (no. 905614, 7x1x2 mm) that it is unclear whether the dorsal surface is polished or just covered with patina.

< 3 g: GritThe small artefacts and fragments thereof, all weighing < 3 g, form 79% of the material found at the site. The frag-ments that were hand collected during excavation have been weighed individually, if they occurred as single arte-facts per find number. The others, gathered in bulk per excavation unit and designated with only one find num-ber, are weighed in bulk. When all individually weighed artefacts are arranged into a graph by weight class, a

dominance of the pieces of 0.4 g, 0.5 g, and 0.6 g is vis-ible (figure 1.9). They make up 20% of the material < 3 g. Once heavier than 0.6 g, the number of pieces diminishes gradually. Of the 8570 artefacts < 3 g several have certain characteristic of other artefact types such as 8 flakes, 25 chips, 7 flake or chip fragments, and 2 possible ground stone fragments. Furthermore, just as with the larger arte-facts, several of the smaller artefacts are starting to crum-ble due to weathering.

It must be mentioned that the stone types of these small artefacts are the same as those of the artefacts ≥ 3 g. Up to 66 fragments of white quartz, 124 fragments of red granite (feldspar), 10 flat pebbles, and 5 oval pebbles were observed. The 10 flat pebbles are one radiolarian rock and the others are different types of quartzites coming from the southern Rhine and Meuse deposits.

1.2.4 Site S4

Total amountThe material from the old and the new excavations is stud-ied here as a whole because the two excavation areas over-lap each other and are part of one site. The excavations yielded 18,403 stone artefacts which can be divided into 17846 pieces < 3 g and 557 pieces ≥ 3 g (table 1.8), weigh-ing 2132.0 g and 29,847.4 g respectively. The large objects are defined as 167 pieces of debitage material, 51 tools, 1 ornament, and 338 pieces of waste. These groups form up to 30%, 9.1%, 0.2%, and 60.7% of the weight when the artefacts < 3 g are not included.

It must be mentioned that the analysis of a small part of the sieved material is still ongoing. Therefore, the num-bers and percentages are presented with some reserve, yet, most of the material is studied here.

Raw material and alteration by fire On this site a total of twenty different stone types are used (table 1.9). A marked preference for granite, quartzitic sandstone, and gneiss is discernible for the whole assem-blage (73%). Of all the other stone types, porphyry is used the most (8%). For the debitage material, these four main stone types are the same, even if they are represented in different percentages (85%). The tools are also made out of quartzitic sandstone, gneiss, and granite (61%). The fourth stone type in the sequence is diabase (8%). This is solely the result of the four polished axe fragments, the only artefacts made out of diabase found on the site. The single ornament is also the only object made out of amber. With the waste material, the same four stone types as those for the debitage material are used regularly (80%).A low number of artefacts were exposed to heat (4%). These twenty artefacts are mainly waste material and tools (table 1.8). The overall picture shows a dominance of lightly exposed artefacts. This is however not the case for all artefact categories. For example, the tools are all heavily burned.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Numbe

r

Weight



Debitage materialBecause of the very high number of artefacts < 3 g, the debitage material forms less than 1% of all artefacts retrieved on the site. They can be defined as 55 flakes, 1 blade, 85 chips, and 26 cores.

Most of the flakes are intact. The measurements of these 44 artefacts will be discussed. The minimum dimensions are 16x14x4 mm whereas the maximum dimensions are 70x93x28 mm (figure 1.10). The average of 31x32x11 mm is rather low considering the high maximum values. These high values are the result of four flakes outside the loose cluster limit of 47x50x15 mm. This is also reflected in the weight classification. Although the weight fluc-tuates between 3 g and 107.4 g, with an average of 12.7 g, only five artefacts reach over the cluster limit of 22 g. These include the four long and wide flakes mentioned above. The length-width ratio ranges from a mini-mum of 0.5 to a maximum of 1.8 producing an average of 1.1 (table 1.10). The averages of the length-thickness ratio and width-thickness ratio are 3.3 and 3.3 respect-ively. Furthermore, on the dorsal face of two flakes sev-eral impact traces were observed. These traces can both be the result of repeated debitage attempts or the use as hammerstone.

The single blade found on the site is an intact specimen measuring 56x26x9 mm. It is made of quartzitic sand-stone and weighs 12.9 g. The artefact is possibly better described as a ‘long flake’; its length is the result of the central guiding ridge on the dorsal side.

The chips can be separated into 63 intact specimens and 22 broken or damaged ones. They are flakes and blades, or fragments thereof, weighing < 3 g. The intact chips measure between 5x4x1 mm and 34x31x10 mm forming a rather homogenous group with averages of 15x14x4 mm (figure 1.11). The length-width ratio ranges between 0.5 and 2.9 with an average of 1.2 (table 1.10), whereas the weight of the chips gradually increases from 0.1 g to 2.9 g as their number gradually decreases.

The group of cores can be separated into 1 core with one striking platform, 2 cores with opposing striking plat-forms, 1 core with multiple striking platforms, and 22 tested fragments. All cores are defined as flake cores.

The four cores have divergent measurements. One core measures 24x32x14 mm, two others are rather similar measuring 67x57x54 mm and 72x48x34 mm, and the final one is large measuring 152x112x103 mm (figure 1.12). Their weight shows a comparable image of 11.9 g, 243.2 g, 155.3 g, and 1513.1 g respectively. The three smallest

Number % % ≥ 3 g Burnt % LB HBDebitage material 167 0.9 30.0 1 1 Flakes 44 0.2 Flake fragments 11 0.1 Blades 1 0.0 Chips 85 0.5 Cores 26 0.1 1 4 1 Tools 51 0.3 9.2 3 6 Hammer stones 4 0.0 Anvils 8 0.0 Grinding stones 10 0.1 Combination tools 12 0.1 2 17 2Polished axe fragments 5 0.0 Ground stone fragments 12 0.1 1 8 1Ornaments 1 0.0 0.2 Waste 338 1.8 60.7 16 5 Indet. fragments 219 1.2 9 4 6 3Pebbles / cobbles 49 0.3 2 4 2Frost flakes / potlids 1 0.0 Possible debitage / tool 69 0.4 5 7 5 Subtotal ≥ 3 g 557 3.0 100.0 20 4 12 8 60% 40%< 3 g 17846 97.0 Total 18403




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Width

Length

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width



Num

ber

Gra

nite

Gra

nite

gne

iss

Dio

rite

Gab

bro

Porp

hyry

Gra

nite

por

phyr

y

Dia

base

/ D

oler

ite

Sand

ston

e

Qua

rtzi

tic s

ands

tone

Qua

rtzi

te

Cong

lom

erat

ic s

ands

tone

Cong

lom

erat

e

Hel

lefli

nt

Qua

rtz

Gne

iss

Am

phib

olite

Schi

st

Gra

nulit

e (le

ptite

)

Am

ber

Oth

er

Debitage ma-terial 167

Flakes 44 9 2 1 5 1 9 2 3 12 Flake fragments 11 6 2 1 2 Blades 1 1 Chips 85 19 1 1 5 2 23 7 4 23 Cores 26 8 1 1 10 6 Tools 51 Hammer stones 4 1 1 2 Anvils 8 1 4 2 1 Grinding stones 10 2 1 4 1 1 1 Combination tools 12 1 1 4 2 3 1 Polished axe frag-ments 5 4 1

Ground stone fragments 12 5 2 1 1 3

Ornaments 1 1 Waste 338 Indet. fragments 219 88 12 3 1 15 4 36 2 3 2 3 1 44 1 1 2 1Pebbles / cobbles 49 5 8 1 7 19 5 3 1 Frost flakes / potlids 1 1

Possible artefacts 69 22 1 5 1 1 15 3 1 14 5 1 Total 557 165 19 6 1 44 6 4 14 128 22 4 2 12 4 110 10 1 3 1 1 30% 3% 1% 0% 8% 1% 1% 3% 23% 4% 1% 0% 2% 1% 20% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Debitage ma-terial 167 25% 2% 1% 8% 2% 1% 26% 5% 4% 26%

Tools 51 14% 6% 2% 6% 8% 2% 29% 6% 4% 18% 6% Ornaments 1 100% Waste 338 34% 4% 1% 0% 8% 1% 4% 21% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 17% 2% 0% 1% 0%Total 557 165 19 6 1 44 6 4 14 128 22 4 2 12 4 110 10 1 3 1 1


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Width

Length

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0

Width

Length


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Width

Length

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width



Cores Tested fragments L W T L W Tmin. 24 32 14 min. 10 11 6max. 152 112 103 max. 62 75 47average 79 62 51 average 28 25 16st. dev. 53.4 34.7 38.2 st. dev. 14.2 14.1 10.1 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.8 1.2 1.1 min. 0.6 0.8 1.0max. 1.5 2.1 2.3 max. 2.6 5.2 2.9average 1.2 1.6 1.5 average 1.2 2.1 1.7




cores have between three and eight flake removals. It was observed that one of the chips is made from exactly the same raw material as the smallest core. Unfortunately, it could not be refitted to the core. The largest core shows flake removals from all sides giving the artefact an irregu-lar shape. Several impact traces near the edges are a sign of more, unsuccessful debitage attempts. The core may possibly have been used as an anvil as well.

The tested fragments have one to three impact points or flake removals on their sides. These indeterminate fragments have dimensions between 10x11x6 mm and 62x75x47 mm resulting in an average of 28x25x16 mm. However, most of them are rather small as only three are larger than 39x15x10 mm (table 1.10). One of the smaller ones may have been split using the bipolar debi-tage technique.

ToolsThe tools retrieved from site S4 are 4 hammerstones, 8 anvils, 10 grinding stones, 12 combination tools, 5 pol-ished axe fragments, and 12 ground stone fragments. These tools are mostly on cobbles and cobble fragments of quartzitic sandstone, gneiss, and granite.

The four hammerstones are all produced on a differently shaped blank (no. 124, pl. 24). Yet their dimensions are similar measuring between 64x51x26 mm and 80x71x54 mm. The weights range from 119.6 g to 301.2 g. Two hammerstones have impact traces around the edge that resulted in the removal of some small flakes. Another hammerstone was originally presumably a core as several surfaces are actually planes of fracture and flake scars. Intensive impact traces are visible on the edges of these removals. The last hammerstone was originally a part of a hammerstone / anvil before breakage. The remain-der of the surface shows a small but deep pit with ran-dom impact traces in the pit, on the surrounding surface and on the edge as well. These impact traces also cover the edges of several planes of fracture which are therefore applied after breakage. They could also be from debitage attempts.

The anvils are all intact and a combination of five artefacts with two opposing flat surfaces and three artefacts with a triangular to diamond shaped cross-section. One of the former is a re-used core with two opposite striking plat-forms. Most fall within the minimum measurements of 55x48x32 mm and maximum measurements of 87x68x50 mm. Only one anvil is longer, measuring 117x71x25 mm. Yet, the weight of the anvils gradually increases from 114.8 g to 303.4 g.

The five anvils with two opposing flat surfaces have grouped impact traces in the middle of one surface (no. 125, pl. 24) or both surfaces (no. 126, pl. 24). Of this last group, two specimens are mentionable. On the first the grouped impact traces are combined with a shallow pit

in the middle of the surface (no. 126). The dark-brown discolouration of one half of the artefact is presumably the result of handling. The second artefact has, besides the two opposed working surfaces, a third surface with traces, which is one of the sides. This area is however more crushed than hammered on.

Of the artefacts with triangular cross-section one is truly triangular while others are more irregular or dia-mond shaped (no. 127, pl. 25). This diamond shape is created by a lightly protruding surface instead of a flat surface opposite the pointed end. In both these cases the impact traces are located in the centre of this protruding area. The triangular tool also has grouped impact traces located in the centre of the flat surface. One of these even has impact traces on the edge pointing to some isolated debitage attempts.

The grinding stones can be defined as six handstones and four netherstones. Of the handstones two are damaged and of the netherstones all are fragmented. This limits the amount of information derivable from the dimen-sions and weight. The intact handstones produced on cobbles have minimum measurements of 57x39x34 mm and maximum measurements of 79x59x44 mm. These weigh between 86.1 g and 343.7 g. The one produced on a pebble measures 62x42x29 mm and weighs 130.4 g, which is somewhat larger than the other pebbles found at Swifterbant. Most grinding stone fragments fall within this dimensional range, yet two exceed it greatly. The first fragmented netherstone measures 169x116x79 mm, weighs 1988.7 g and several flakes seem to be chipped off at the edges. The other netherstone is even larger, even if it is broken. It measures 185x165x105 mm and weighs 4376.0 g.

For the handstones two opposing flat surfaces occur the most (no. 128, pl. 25). These have one or two smoothed surfaces, with or without a light gloss on the protruding areas and at the edges. In addition, some isolated impact traces may occur. The above mentioned pebble only has one smoothed surface showing a light polish (no. 129, pl. 25). On another artefact impact traces near the edges are visible and several flakes seem to be chipped off. Of the two handstones with a triangular cross-section one is rather special as it has the general shape of an axe (no. 130, pl. 25). Both opposing surfaces are smoothed and one shows a light gloss. Although it is made out of black and white fine-grained amphibolite, it is presumably too brittle to be used as an axe. It also lacks a sharp cutting edge.

The three netherstones are all fragments with presum-ably two opposing flat surfaces (no. 131, pl. 26). Even if two specimens are missing their lower part, their general morphology gives them a slab-like appearance. The first has one smoothed to polished surface left. Some crystals show a mirror-like gloss and have visible striations run-ning in different directions. The brown discolouration is


the result of use. The second netherstone has two oppos-ing surfaces that are smoothed, one showing a more dis-tinct gloss than the other. This time, both surfaces are discoloured. Impact traces give evidence of deliberate fragmentation; all sides are flake scars. The final tool is a large irregular shaped fragment (no. 131). The surface is irregular and shows protruding patches of polished sur-face with gloss. Flakes have been chipped off from almost all sides, and impact traces are visible as well. This might point toward light usage as an anvil or may just as well be the result of debitage attempts.

The group of combination tools consists of one hammer-stone / grinding stone, seven hammerstone / anvils, and three anvil / grinding stones. For these tools both quartz-itic sandstone and gneiss are preferably used. Two of them are exposed to heat. Together with a ground stone frag-ment, these are the only tools damaged by fire.

The hammerstone / grinding stone combination is a fragment with two opposing flat surfaces. It shows smoothing with the beginning of a gloss on one sur-face and impact traces on the extremities. At least three flake scars were observed as a result of debitage (no. 132, pl. 26).

Of the seven hammerstone / anvils two have an irregu-lar to triangular cross-section (no. 133, pl. 26); four have two opposing flat surfaces (no. 134, pl. 27). The last, a frag-ment with triangular cross-section, is too small to be able to pronounce on the original shape of the tool. The intact specimens cluster between a minimum of 54x48x29 mm and a maximum of 86x55x45 mm. Weight ranges between 118.9 g and 237.8 g. One artefact is smaller measuring 49x40x19 mm. Its dimensions, and especially its weight of 56.3 g, are smaller than the others, probably because it is a re-used hammerstone fragment with grouped impact traces in the centre of a plane of fracture. These combin-ation tools mostly have traces on only one surface com-prising of grouped impact traces in the middle of the surface and impact traces on edges and/or extremities. One specimen is used rather intensely showing a large area in the centre of one surface with impact traces cre-ating a shallow pit. Both adjacent sides have grouped impact traces in the middle of the surface as well and the two extremities bear light impact traces. The other surface is an old flake scar with very few impact traces (no. 134). The two artefacts with two working surfaces are a cobble and a large pebble. The pebble has impact traces along the whole edge. One surface bears a larger, central area with impact traces and a smaller pit whereas the opposite sur-face also shows grouped traces in the middle of the sur-face but with two shallow pits (no. 135, pl. 27).

The three anvil / grinding stones are somewhat dis-similar. The first is an old boulder fragment, measuring 250x176x72 mm, with two opposing flat surfaces (no. 136, pl. 28). Its large size corresponds with a weight of 4374 g. During the 2005 excavation, this tool was found

in situ at approximately 15 cm from another artefact, the hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone combination men-tioned below (no. 141). The proximity of these two tools implies that these are the upper and lower parts of one grinding tool (see book cover). They are both intact and have well-matching dimensions. The shattered pot found at roughly 40-50 cm from these objects make this find even more special. The second anvil / grinding stone with two opposing flat surfaces is smaller measuring 88x72x44 mm and weighs 324.3 g. It is a re-used anvil / grinding stone fragment (no. 137, pl. 29). One surface bears a shal-low pit with impact traces located near the rim. This pit might have been located in the centre before the artefact was broken. On the opposite surface some light impact traces are visible as well. These impact traces were applied after the tool was discoloured by use. A third surface is smoothed showing a very bright, mirror-like gloss in two places. The artefact was definitely used as grinding stone before it was broken and re-used as anvil. There are no indications that it was no longer used as grinding stone after it was fragmented. The light and isolated impact traces around the whole edge may be the result of debi-tage attempts. The third tool has a triangular cross-section (no. 138, pl. 29). On the surface opposing the tip of the artefact impact traces grouped in the middle of the sur-face are clearly visible. One of the adjacent surfaces shows impact traces as well while the other shows smoothing but has not yet developed a gloss. This tool is the smallest of the three (72x58x46 mm).

The final tool, a round cobble with a roughly triangular cross-section, is a hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone combination (no. 141, pl. 30). It is the handstone of the grinding tool found on the site. The artefact has a sur-face that is somewhat convex instead of flat. It shows a gloss and has a large pit made by hammering or peck-ing in the centre. The tip opposing this surface is covered with impact traces. One of the adjacent sides is smoothed to polished showing some roughening. The edges of the artefact must have been heavily used as they are blunted. The dark grey discolouration is presumably the result of handling.

The five axe fragments are four fragments of the same axe and one flake of a different polished axe. Of the four frag-ments of diabase two fit together forming a part of the cutting edge of the axe (no. 139, pl. 29) (see main book section 4.4.2). The left fragment was found during the old 1974 excavation, the right fragment with the corner of the cutting edge was excavated in 2005. The remaining frag-ments, also found in 2005, are smaller measuring 17x11x8 mm and 17x12x6 mm. Two of the three fragments excav-ated in 2005 lay within 1 or 2 m distance of the old excav-ation trench. It was observed that artefact no. 57510 (no. 74), retrieved at site S3 and made out of exactly the same raw material, is most likely part of the same diabase axe. The fifth fragment is a flake of a polished quartzite axe.


Although the flake is broken, it still measures 19x19x2 mm. The dorsal face is totally polished.

The ground stone fragments are 9 indeterminate frag-ments and 3 flakes with a smoothed to polished surface or area. They are mainly made of granite or gneiss. Their dimensions range from 23x18x11 mm for the minimum lengths, widths, and thicknesses, to 67x53x38 mm for the maximum ones. Weights range from 3.2 g to 63.4 g, the artefact weighing 140 g is exceptional. On four of these artefacts impact traces, fresh planes of fracture and/or flake scars have been observed.

OrnamentsOne of the rarest finds is the pendant retrieved from the grave of a young child of approximately 7-8 years old (Raemaekers et al. 2009). It is the only grave found on site S4 so far. The ornament was recovered in 2006 near the left knee of the child. The pendant, measuring 14x10x7 mm, was made of an angular, tear-shaped naturally formed lump of amber (no. 140, pl. 29). The perforation, set at 1 mm from the edge, has an outer diameter of 3 mm and an inner diameter of 2 mm. The pendant is perfo-rated from two sides resulting in a well aligned hourglass shaped hole. The rims and interior of the perforation are smooth, showing no traces of rotation or wear of a string visible to the naked eye. Therefore, it was deemed possible that the undamaged, small pendant was freshly made or at least not worn over a long period of time (Devriendt 2008: 390). This conclusion seemed consistent with the age of the child. New use-wear analysis confirms this idea (see main book section 5.4).

The cultural layer on site S4 yielded, besides three tooth pendants, only one more ornament. The artefact is made out of flint and will therefore be described in appen-dix 3, section 3.1.4.

WasteThis group of artefacts includes 219 indeterminate frag-ments, 49 pebbles, 1 frost flake, and 69 possible pieces of debitage / tool. The indeterminate fragments are made of the widest variety of raw materials within one artefact type. At least seven of these fragments may have belonged to the same larger nodule of gneiss. Unfortunately, none of them fit together. Another five pieces are starting to crumble due to weathering of the minerals. Finally, five other fragments have several impact traces on their surfaces.

Contrary to the indeterminate fragments, the peb-bles form a smaller collection of different stone types. Quartzitic sandstone and porphyry are preferred types. More specifically, two artefacts are defined as vein quartz, one as mica sandstone, and another as mica quartzite. These stone types have a southern origin. The majority of the pebbles are oval whereas 18% are defined as flat. The first type has minimum measurements of 15x11x6 mm

and maximum measurements of 54x35x21 mm result-ing in weights that range from 3.0 g to 28.0 g. One pebble is significantly heavier weighing 123.8 g and measuring 61x43x29 mm, just as one pebble fragment of 133.6 g. The flat pebbles measure between 26x20x4 mm and 62x34x9 mm and weigh between 3.2 g and 24.8 g. One of the flat pebbles, made out of sandstone, may have an unfinished perforation. It is, however, so small, that this cannot be attested with certainty.

The possible pieces of debitage / tool may be 16 flakes, 2 blades, 12 chips, 23 flake or chip fragments, 2 cores, 2 hammerstones or crushing tools, 3 ground stone frag-ments, 4 anvils or fragments thereof, and 5 fragments of an axe. The two possible cores have several impact traces and flake scars. Yet the nature of these traces is uncertain. The same applies to the three possible tool types. Impact traces, often very light, may be of natural origin, as may be the smooth surfaces. The five possible axe fragments are all weathered and crumbling which impedes the analy-ses. Four fragments can be refitted (see main book sec-tion 4.4.2) by bringing the polished, concave areas close to each other. When together, they have the appearance of a perforated axe fragment, somewhat similar to no. 77, pl. 19 (no. 37868) due to the weathering, but with a straight perforation. The fifth fragment, found in the same square metre of excavated soil, cannot be refitted to the others, yet is identical in raw material and condition.

< 3 g: GritThe smallest pieces or artefacts < 3 g represent up to 97% of the material found on site S4. Two different excav-ation techniques were used to retrieve these 17842 pieces of stone. Up to four-fifths of the levee was excavated by shovelling, the remaining one-fifth was sieved. As most of the material was collected in bulk (in squares of 50x50x5 cm), it was also weighed in bulk. Therefore, little infor-mation on the weight of the individual pieces is available at this site. The number of individually weighed artefacts per weight class shows a rather erratic distribution (figure 1.13). The smallest pieces of 0.1 g up to 0.3 g make up 31% of the material. Yet, as only 339 artefacts were weighed individually, which is only 2% of the total material < 3 g,

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Numbe

r

Weight



Number % % ≥ 3 g Burnt % LB HBDebitage material 126 11.8 26.5 Flakes 54 5.1 Flake fragments 17 1.6 Blades 1 0.1 Blade fragments 1 0.1 Chips 42 3.9 Cores 11 1.0 Tools 17 1.6 3.6 1 6 Hammer stones 2 0.2 Anvils 3 0.3 Combination tools 8 0.8 1 13 1Polished axe fragments 1 0.1 Ground stone fragments 3 0.3 Other 3 0.3 0.6 2 67 1 1Ornaments 1 0.1 0.2 Waste 328 30.8 69.1 14 4 Indet. fragments 136 12.8 13 10 10 3Pebbles / cobbles 162 15.2 1 6 1 Possible debitage / tool 30 2.8 Subtotal ≥ 3 g 475 44.6 17 4 12 5 71% 29%< 3 g 590 55.4 Total 1065 100.0


Table 1.11 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of trenches S21-S24.

Number S21 S22-S23 H46Debitage material 126 45 21% 50 26% 31Flakes 54 21 18 15Flake fragments 17 7 6 4Blades 1 1Blade fragments 1 1 Chips 42 11 22 9Cores 11 5 4 2Tools 17 5 2% 8 4% 4Hammer stones 2 1 1 Anvils 3 1 2 Combination tools 8 3 2 3Polished axe fragments 1 1 Ground stone fragments 3 2 1Other 3 3 Ornaments 1 1 Waste 328 163 77% 134 68% 31Indet. fragments 136 72 44 20Pebbles / cobbles 162 80 77 5Possible debitage / tool 30 11 13 6Subtotal ≥ 3 g 475 213 41% 196 44% 66 < 3 g 590 311 59% 246 56% 33 Total 1065 524 442 99

Table 1.12 Total number of artefacts divided per elevated area at trenches S21-S24.


one might wonder about the representativeness of this graph. During the analysis it was observed that pieces of white quartz or red granite (feldspar) were rather rare.

1.2.5 Trenches S21-S24 and parcel H46

Total amountThe total number of recovered artefacts at trenches S21-S24 is 1065 (table 1.11). These can be divided into 590 artefacts < 3 g weighing 642.3 g and 475 artefacts ≥ 3 g weighing 15,709.4 g. The group of larger artefacts repre-sent 126 pieces of debitage material, 17 tools, 1 orna-ment, 3 other artefacts, and 328 pieces of waste. When the artefacts < 3 g are not included, these groups form

15.78%, 18.01%, 0.04%, 7.82%, and 58.35% of the weight respectively.

It must be mentioned that the material retrieved from the excavations, designated with S21-S24, is supplemented with material from elsewhere on the parcel, designated with H46, and with material stored in finds bags labelled “H46 kavelsloot noord”, “H46 kavelsloot zuid”, “H46 berms-loot oost” and “H46 bermsloot west”, designating the differ-ent sides of the two ditches (see main book sections 2.7.7, 2.7.8, and 3.3). Initially it was presumed that these finds bags contained the material collected in 1961 when the site was originally discovered. This would have suggested that both slopes of both ditches revealed archaeological remains. However, seeing the sheer amount of artefacts

Num

ber

Gra

nite

Gra

nite

gne

iss

Dio

rite

Gab

bro

Porp

hyry

Gra

nite

por

phyr

y

Sand

ston

e

Qua

rtzi

tic s

ands

tone

Qua

rtzi

te

Cong

lom

erat

ic s

ands

tone

Hel

lefli

nt

Qua

rtz

Gne

iss

Am

phib

olite

Schi

st

Gra

nulit

e (le

ptite

)

Jet

Oth

er

Debitage material 126 Flakes 54 5 9 36 3 1 Flake fragments 17 1 2 2 8 4 Blades 1 1 Blade fragments 1 1 Chips 42 3 1 1 1 26 10 Cores 11 7 3 1 Tools 17 Hammer stones 2 1 1 Anvils 3 2 1 Combination tools 8 1 5 2 Polished axe frag-ments 1 1

Ground stone frag-ments 3 1 2

Other 3 2 1 Ornaments 1 1 Waste 328 Indet. fragments 136 22 1 1 4 3 1 24 64 3 1 1 7 2 2Pebbles / cobbles 162 2 1 4 2 6 79 9 2 52 2 1 2Possible artefacts 30 1 1 3 22 1 1 1 Total 475 33 1 2 6 11 5 45 256 37 2 1 55 10 4 1 1 1 4 7% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 9% 54% 8% 0% 0% 12% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Debitage material 126 6% 1% 2% 2% 10% 63% 16% 1% 1% Tools 17 6% 6% 59% 24% 6% Other 3 67% 33% Ornaments 1 100% Waste 328 8% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 10% 50% 4% 1% 0% 16% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1%Total 475 33 1 2 6 11 5 45 256 37 2 1 55 10 4 1 1 1 4

Table 1.13 Division of raw material of trenches S21-S24.


recovered from similar white finds bags, in combination with finds notes5, this is most likely incorrect. The pos-sibility exists that the material originates from the early excavations conducted between 1962 and 1966 by Van der Heide. Alternatively, this would mean the material from the ditch slope inspections has not yet been identified.

Although a rather large area has been excavated on this river dune site not many stone artefacts were retrieved. The material from the four different trenches, along with

5 The notes recovered from the finds bags containing flint arte-facts all roughly indicate the same, that the material was checked or not-checked by Van der Waals, with a date around 13.06.1968. This implies the material was excavated before 1968 and possibly by someone other than van der Waals. Possibly the material was examined as a preparation for Van der Waals’ research in 1971.

all the other material found at the parcel is studied here as a whole because they presumably form one site (see main book section 2.6.1). Nevertheless, it may be argued that by separating the four trenches, and studying them individually, a functional diversity between the different areas may emerge, especially between S21 on one hand and S22-S24 on the other, the two elevated areas of the dune. The amount of stone material per trench proved to be too little to be representative, yet when trenches S22-S24 are combined this issue is somewhat resolved (table 1.12). Both areas are very similar in artefact type com-position. Trenches S22-S24 have slightly more debitage material and somewhat less waste material. Most remark-able is the presence of the axe fragment, the ornament, and the grinding stones in trenches S22-S23.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Width

Length

0

5

10

15

20

25

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width

Figure 1.14 Dimensions of intact flakes at trenches S21-S24 (in mm).




Table 1.14 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at trenches S21-S24.


Raw material and alteration by fire The small number of artefacts ≥ 3 g was made of eighteen different stone types (table 1.13). Quartzitic sandstone was clearly preferred (54%). Other stone types that were used quite often are quartz, sandstone, granite, and quartz-ite (36%). The high percentage of quartz is the result of the waste material, i.e. the pebbles. Both quartzitic sand-stone and quartzite were particularly used for the debitage material (79%), whereas the tools are nearly exclusively made of these two types of raw material (82%). The sin-gle ornament was made from a jet pebble and is the only product of that raw material on the Swifterbant sites. The waste material shows the widest variety of stone types.

Damage by fire is detected on seventeen artefacts, mainly indeterminate fragments, which is only 4% of the arte-facts ≥ 3 g (table 1.11). These are mainly lightly exposed showing small and larger fire cracks. For the artefacts < 3 g heat damaged was not investigated.

Debitage materialThis collection of artefacts is the second largest group of artefacts ≥ 3 g on the site. They form 11.8% of the total number of artefacts. The debitage material can be divided into 71 flakes, 2 blades, 42 chips, and 11 cores.

The flakes can be described as 54 intact pieces and 17 fragmented ones. The intact specimens cluster within

minimum measurements of 16x16x5 mm and maximum measurements of 50x57x20 mm (figure 1.14). Three flakes are larger up to 60x72x23 mm; still, the average is 31x33x10 mm. This is also reflected in the weight clas-sification. The cluster ranges from 3.0 g to 30.5 g; the larger artefacts weigh up to 92.3 g. This results in a weight average of 12.8 g. The length-width ratio has a minimum of 0.5 and a maximum of 1.9 resulting in an average of 0.8 (table 1.14). The averages of the length-thickness ratio and width-thickness ratio are 2.6 and 2.8 correspondingly.

The two blades found on the site are both made of quartz-itic sandstone and weigh 1.1 g and 4.7 g. The intact arte-fact measures 35x16x9 mm, while the damaged blade only measures 28x11x5 mm.

Of the set of 42 chips only 11 are broken. The intact speci-mens all have the dimensions of flakes, thus they are not two times longer than wide. The average measurements of 16x16x5 mm result from minimum dimensions of 8x9x2 mm and maximum dimensions of 27x27x14 mm. The thickness of 14 is exceptional and occurs only once; all other chips measure between 2 and 8 mm. When these intact chips are plotted in a graph, we can see that they form a loosely organised group (figure 1.15), only the thick artefact is separate from the cluster.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Width

Length

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width

Figure 1.15 Dimensions of intact chips at trenches S21-S24 (in mm).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

Width

Length

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5

Width

Length

Figure 1.16 Dimensions of cores and tested fragments at trenches S21-S24 (in mm).


The cores are defined as 1 core with multiple striking plat-forms and 10 tested fragments. The core, produced from quartzitic sandstone, has two main striking platforms with either three or four flake scars. These platforms are opposing. Several other flakes have been chipped off from multiple directions. The artefact measures 73x58x84 mm and weighs 382.5 g (figure 1.16). The ten tested frag-ments have between one and four impact points and/or removals on their sides. These indeterminate fragments have divergent dimensions ranging from 30x15x12 mm to 92x74x62 mm with an average of 55x45x11 mm. The weight distribution in particular, between 6.3 g and 391.9 g, emphasises this range.

ToolsThe small set of tools includes 2 hammerstones, 3 anvils, 8 combination tools, 1 axe fragment, and 3 ground stone fragments. The first two tool types are made of quartzitic sandstone and quartzite, the other three have additional types such as amphibolite, porphyry, and gabbro. Both cobbles and pebbles were used to produce these tools.

The two hammerstones are pebbles (no. 142, pl. 31), each with impact traces on both extremities. They measure 36x32x31 mm and 54x39x35 mm and weigh 50.0 g and 96.1 g. From one pebble a flake was chipped off as the result of its use as a hammerstone. During the analysis, this flake was recovered from within the same finds bag. It forms a perfect fit with the hammerstone, but, while the hammerstone kept its original grey colour, the flake is discoloured to a reddish-brown rusty colour. This is the effect of iron in the soil implying the two artefacts were preserved in different soil layers or areas. The second peb-ble also has two smooth surfaces but it cannot be attested beyond all doubt that these are the result of usage.

The three anvils are all fragmented cobbles made of quartzitic sandstone or quartzite (no. 143, pl. 31). Judging by their morphology and measurements between 42x35x22 mm and 63x43x40 mm they are only smaller fragments. Only one fragment is part of a cobble with two opposing flat surfaces (no. 143); of the other two the base part is missing. Impact traces in the centre of one or both surfaces are distinguishable. One of them even has a small anvil pit.

The eight combination tools are defined as six hammer-stone / anvil combinations and two hammerstone /anvil / grinding stone combinations. The specimens of the first group are in general rather similar as they all have two opposing flat surfaces. Yet, their measurements range from a minimum of 54x51x33 mm to a maximum of 114x74x54 mm. This expresses itself in weight limits of 135.9 g to 506.2 g. Most often the grouped impact traces are restricted to the middle of one surface, with additional impact traces on one or two extremities (no. 144, pl. 31).

Only one of them also has a shallow pit in the middle (no. *14). The remaining hammerstone / anvil has two surfaces with grouped impact traces in the middle of the surface (no. 262). Here, the impact traces run around the whole edge and are not confined to the extremities.

The first “triple” combination tool, a pebble measur-ing 44x41x22 mm, has intensive impact traces around the edge (no. 145, pl. 31). One or two flakes have been chipped off at this edge as the result of usage. Both opposing sur-faces are smoothed and have light impact traces in the middle as well. The limited measurements and weight of 59.6 g make the definition of this pebble as polisher more likely. Yet, it remains the question whether such intensive impact traces are the result of usage as retouchoir. The sec-ond one is larger, measuring 80x70x47 mm, and is heav-ier (444.9 g). The tool is made out of a rectangular cobble with two opposing flat surfaces. One surface is smoothed and has grouped impact traces in the middle, the oppos-ing surface only shows grouped impact traces in the mid-dle, while the edges are covered with impact traces as well.

The axe fragment is a flake of 19x25x3 mm weighing 1.1 g (no. 146, pl. 31). At the proximal end the flake has a con-cave delineation which may be interpreted as the edge of a perforation.

The three ground stone fragments are indeterminate frag-ments with a polished or smoothed surface. Their current dimensions between 20x19x16 mm and 48x34x20 mm, combined with limited weights between 11.6 g and 31.3 g, suggest they are only a small part of what they originally must have been.

Other artefactsThis set of three objects is actually two parts of one mace-head (Geröllkeule), and a third unidentified object. The first part of the mace-head has been known ever since it was discovered in 1976 (Price 1981: 84). It is a quarter of a round object broken through the hourglass perforation and made out of quartzitic sandstone. The artefact was retrieved from the bottom of a hearth (feature 4) in trench S22. The charcoal sample taken from this hearth gave a date of 6280±40 BP, or c. 5350-5075 cal BC, confirming the Mesolithic designation of this artefact6. This is the first mace-head securely dated in the Netherlands (Drenth & Niekus 2009: 754). During this study, a second quar-ter of the same mace-head was found in a bag containing material from the ditch slopes at trench S22. Both frag-ments are a perfect match (see main book section 4.4.2)

6 Mace-heads or Geröllkeule are generally dated to the Mesolithic. It is unclear whether they continue into the Neolithic as the picks or Spitzhauen do (Beuker 1990, Drenth & Niekus 2009). Even more, a difference between hourglass shaped and straight or lightly conical perforations should clearly be made in the cultural designation of the mace-heads (see Hulst & Verlinde 1976).


and must have been found at least c. 20 m apart7. The refit-ted artefact, currently measuring c. 123x83x62 mm, is just a bit less than one-half of the original and weighs 733.2 g. The object is presumably perforated in the middle yet it is not totally symmetrical in cross-section, one end being thicker than the other (no. 147, pl. 32). Its surface and sides are covered with impact traces as a result of random impact traces or pecking, a feature often observed with mace-heads. Price reports that the surface is “ground to a smooth finish” (ibid: 85). When the definitions used in this research are applied, the surface is not considered to be smoothed as the crystals at the surface are not abraded. A light friction gloss is visible inside the perforation at least indicating hafting and possibly even indicating use.

The third artefact is presumably that already described by Price. Within the dune sand of trench S23, Price and his team uncovered an artefact which he described as a “pick” (ibid: 94). The only artefact fitting this description is that found within the material from the trenches S21-S24. It is a conical object measuring 129x78x45 mm (no. 148, pl. 32). From lack of a better word, I would describe the shape as that of a bull’s horn. The artefact is made out of gneiss and weighs 494.8 g. It is broken but presuma-bly has a totally natural form as no marks of any kind of manufacturing process could be found. It must be men-tioned that the surface of the artefact is discoloured from an original greyish colour to a deep red-brown. The sur-face is smooth as if this colour is some sort of patina cov-ering the artefact. Even more, small, translucent bubbles are visible in isolated spots. It looks like some sort of lac-quer was applied to the surface of the artefact. Whether this lacquer is responsible for the discolouration of the artefact, could not be established.

OrnamentsA total of eleven burials were discovered in trenches S21, S22 and S23. In the past they have been studied separately because the original numbering of the preliminary arch-aeological reports was maintained (see de Roever, 1976; Whallon & Price, 1976; Van der Waals, 1977; Meiklejohn & Constandse-Westermann, 1978; Price, 1981). It was only recently that Raemaekers (et al. 2009) discovered that the graves from trenches S21 and S22 on one hand and trench S23 on the other hand were orientated in the same direction, suggesting they all belonged to one cemetery.

Centre of attention in this section is the skull from grave I of trench S22, by Van der Waals (1976: 617) still referred to with its old designation “grave no. 1 of site S1” (parcel H46). Although it is presented as grave I, it is in fact the burial of an isolated skull (De Roever, 1976: 217; Meiklejohn & Constandse-Westermann, 1978: 55,

7 At Hattemerbroek a mace-head fragment was retrieved from a pit while the other fragment was found a few metres away (Drenth & Niekus 2009: 755).

Raemaekers et al. 2009), and not of a whole body. With the head of this woman, a jet pendant was recovered (no. 149, pl. 32). The ornament was found 7 cm below the left ear (processus mastoideus) which caused Van der Waals (1976: 619) to determine the ornament as a “hanger” or pendant. According to the definitions used in this work the ornament is a pendant because the perforation is located at one end regardless of how it may have been worn in the past. The pendant was produced out of a tear-shaped flat pebble of jet and shows one perforation of 6.5 mm outer diameter and 2.5 inner diameter 3.5 mm from the edge. It is perforated from two sides resulting in an hourglass shaped hole. The pebble still has its ori-ginal, natural shape with rounded sides and measures 32x27x8 mm. The visible polish might be the result of wearing. Although the artefact weighs 5.5 g, it may very well have been worn as an ear ornament. One might won-der if the skull is the re-burial of an ancestral skull and not of a ‘fresh’ body; in which case, would the skull still have ears to wear the pendant from? Or was the pendant placed into the newly created grave in the position in which it was worn during life?

WasteThe collection of waste material consists of 136 indetermi-nate stone fragments, 162 pebbles or cobbles, and 30 pos-sible pieces of debitage / tool. The diversity of used stone types is wide with seventeen types. These are all used for the indeterminate fragments. Three of these fragments are weathered so much that nothing more than some crumbs and dust remain in their finds bags.

The pebbles and cobbles are mostly made out of quartzitic sandstone and quartzite. They often have an oval shape whereas flat pebbles occur rarely (10%). One of these flat pebbles is made from radiolarian rock. Another pebble is split lengthwise but both halves were retrieved at the site making the artefact whole again (see main book section 4.4.2). The flat pebbles measure between 22x16x3 mm and 67x35x8 mm, whereas the measurements of the classic pebbles gradually enlarge from a minimum of 15x11x4 mm to a maximum of 56x46x32 mm; a second set measures between 65x41x16 mm and 75x68x60 mm. Three larger cobbles measure up to 188x97x68 mm. This is also reflected in the weight distribution. The cluster limits are set at 3 g - 76.5 g and 59 g – 347.2 g; the larger cobbles weigh up to 1756.2 g. Three pebbles have around the edges and on the surfaces just as many impact traces as on the extremities. It is the regularity of the distribu-tion that makes a definition as hammerstone improbable. Such regularity has not been observed on any hammer-stone found on the Swifterbant sites. It is therefore more likely these traces are the result of their storage in the finds bag full of indeterminate fragments and other peb-bles and cobbles. It must also be mentioned that some of the smaller pebbles, especially the quartz ones, may nat-urally occur on the river dune.


The possible pieces of debitage / tool may be 5 flakes, 2 chips, and 8 flake or chip fragments. Most of them are made of quartzitic sandstone making a definition as flake or chip rather plausible. Yet, not all characterising features that make a flake to be a flake are present.

< 3 g: GritOn this site the 590 artefacts < 3 g form roughly half of the material. At the time of excavation, some of them were collected individually; the ones that were collected in bulk were weighed individually to gain more informa-tion on weight classes and distribution. Once placed in a graph (figure 1.17), it is clear that the weight classes are represented rather irregularly instead of showing a grad-ually decreasing graph. The artefacts weighing 0.1 g are the most numerous (9%).

1.2.6 Site S41

Total amountThe three artefacts from this site were most likely retrieved during the stratigraphical description and examination of the ditch slopes. The flake and combination tool, weighing 50.4 g and 169.9 g respectively, are presumably retrieved from the side of parcel G39; the axe fragment, weighing 17.3 g, was presumably from the opposing side at parcel G44. Their limited number, combined with the quality of the finds, make me believe that they are the result of selective collecting. It is of course also possible that the researchers were extremely fortunate in finding only tools and debitage material and not other artefacts, such as waste material or small pieces of stone.

Raw material and alteration by fire Both the hammerstone / anvil combination and the pol-ished axe fragment are made of quartzite, the flake out of quartzitic sandstone. None of these artefacts show any sign of heat exposure.

Debitage materialThe flake is a large, intact specimen measuring 79x47x12 mm with a weight of 50.4 g.

ToolsThe combination tool found at this site is a hammerstone / anvil combination (no. 150, pl. 32). The artefact is intact measuring 63x49x42 mm. An old cobble fragment with triangular cross-section was used as a blank. Grouped impact traces are visible in the centre of the working sur-face, which is positioned opposite the tip. One side and the edges show impact traces as well. Several small chips have been chipped off, presumably from the use as a ham-merstone and not as the result of debitage.

Interestingly, this axe fragment from site S41 could be refitted with an axe fragment from site S3 (see appendix 2, section 2.2.3, no. 73, pl. 18). This piece measures 46x27x17 mm and was broken through the hourglass perforation. The other fragment bears a larger part of the perforation. This axe is made of a particular type of quartzite, fine-grained, hard, and tough (as opposite to brittle) which is exceptionally suitable for the production of polished axes. It is also similar to the material used for axe fragment no. 0014 on site S2. They are most likely not from the same axe, but may be from the same large boulder.

1.2.7 Site S51

Total amountThe excavation campaign of 1978 resulted in a total of 292 artefacts (table 1.15). These are separated into a group of 241 artefacts < 3 g weighing 62 g and a group of 51 arte-facts ≥ 3 g weighing 4902 g. The artefacts ≥ 3 g are defined as 24 pieces of debitage material, 10 tools, and 17 pieces of waste. When these are considered by themselves, they form 10%, 71%, and 19% of the weight respectively.

Raw material and alteration by fire For the production of these 51 artefacts ≥ 3 g ten different stone types are used (table 1.16), particularly quartzitic sandstone and granite (61%). Less often used are gneiss, porphyry and quartzite. The other stone types are rep-resented by a singular artefact. For the debitage mater-ial and the tools, the dominance of these two main stone types applies as well (71% and 60%). The shifting percent-ages are most likely the result of the limited number of artefacts within the assemblage. Of the other three types all are used for the tools and two are used for the debitage material. The group of waste is very diverse but also shows the dominance of granite and quartzitic sandstone (47%).

It was observed that of these 51 artefacts ≥ 3 g, three spec-imens or 6% show traces of heat exposure (table 1.15). These are a hammerstone / anvil combination, an inde-terminate fragment, and a possible flake fragment. All are

Figure 1.17 Number of artefacts < 3 g per weight class at trenches S21-S24 (weight in 0.1 g).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Numbe

r

Weight


heavily exposed to fire showing small fire cracks and black discolouration.

Debitage materialThe debitage material forms 8.2% of all stone artefacts found at the site. The group consists of 7 flakes, 11 chips, and 6 cores.

The seven flakes are all intact. It should be mentioned that the limited number of flakes might have influenced the average measurement calculations and can raise questions about the representativeness of this sample. Therefore, the following data should be taken into account with some reservation. The flakes form a loose scatter as their dimensions range from minimum lengths, widths, and thicknesses of 18x19x9 mm to 39x60x19 mm (figure 1.18). The resulting average is 27x33x13 mm. Two flakes in particular are rather wide and thick compared to their

length, they measure 35x60x19 mm and 39x46x19 mm. The length-width ratio has a minimum of 0.6 and a max-imum of 1.8 with an average of 0.9 (table 1.17). Finally, the averages of the length-thickness ratio and width-thickness ratio are 2.2 and 2.4 correspondingly. This shift in dimensions is particularly visible in the weight clas-sification. This clusters between 3.7 g and 9.7 g with the two wider flakes weighing up to 25.0 g and 37.5 g. The average is calculated at 13.0 g.

The chips can be separated into an intact group and a damaged group. The first includes seven specimens, the second group the remaining four. The same reservation as with the flakes should be taken into account for the data presented here as well. The minimum measurements of the intact chips are 5x7x2 mm whereas the maximum are 15x16x7 mm (figure 1.19). The average dimensions of 10x11x5 mm indicate a well formed cluster, even if it

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Width

Length

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width


Number % % ≥ 3 g Burnt % LB HBDebitage material 24 8.2 47 Flakes 7 2.4 Chips 11 3.8 Cores 6 2.1 Tools 10 3.4 20 1 10 Anvil 1 Grinding stones 2 0.7 Combination tools 3 1.0 1 33 1Polished axe fragments 1 0.3 Ground stone fragments 3 1.0 Waste 17 5.8 33 2 12 Indet. fragments 6 2.1 1 17 1Pebbles / cobbles 3 1.0 Possible debitage / tool 8 2.7 1 13 1Subtotal ≥ 3 g 51 17.5 100 3 6 3 100%< 3 g 241 82.5 Total 292 100.0







Num

ber

Gra

nite

Gra

nite

gne

iss

Porp

hyry

Gra

nite

por

phyr

y

Sand

ston

e

Qua

rtzi

tic s

and-

ston

e

Qua

rtzi

te

Hel

lefli

nt

Qua

rtz

Gne

iss

Debitage material 24 Flakes 7 1 1 2 3Chips 11 5 6 Cores 6 2 1 1 2Tools 10 Anvil 1 1 Grinding stones 2 2 Combination tools 3 1 1 1Polished axe fragments 1 1 Ground stone fragments 3 1 1 1 Waste 17 Indet. fragments 6 2 1 2 1 Pebbles / cobbles 3 2 1 Possible debitage / tool 8 3 1 1 1 1 1Total 51 15 1 4 1 1 16 4 1 1 7 29% 2% 8% 2% 2% 31% 8% 2% 2% 14%

Debitage material 24 33% 8% 38% 21%Tools 10 20% 10% 40% 20% 10%Waste 17 29% 6% 6% 6% 6% 18% 12% 6% 6% 6%Total 51 15 1 4 1 1 16 4 1 1 7



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5 10 15 20

Width

Length

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Width

Length

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

Thic

knes

s

Length / Width

is loosely grouped. These chips all have the dimensions of flakes and are solely made of quartzitic sandstone and granite. Almost all other artefact categories, consisting of more than one artefact, are made up of more than two types of raw material. Only the two grinding stones are both made out of quartzitic sandstone.

The cores are all tested fragments. These six indeterminate stone fragments have one or two flake scars often in com-bination with two or three impact traces on the surface. No blade removals were observed. Their dimensions are diverse ranging from minimums of 13x27x14 mm to max-imums of 69x94x45 mm with an average of 38x46x28 mm (figure 1.20). This is also reflected in the weight that spans from 3.7 g up to 217.2 g. The weight average is 66.7 g.

ToolsThe small set of tools consists of 1 anvil, 2 grinding stones, 3 combination tools, 1 polished axe fragment, and 3 ground stone fragments. Pebbles and cobble fragments were particularly used as blanks, made from a variety of different stone types.

The anvil is a somewhat irregular piece of granite with several planes of fracture (no. 151, pl. 33). Whether this is a re-used core could not be established with full cer-tainty. The tool, measuring 108x96x96 mm, is intact and weighs 1374.5 g. Two surfaces and one side show grouped

impact traces near the middle of the working surface. On this intermediate side these traces are a combination of normal and intense impact traces. The latter are larger, deeper, and crushed more crystals implying they were applied with more force.

The two grinding stones are both made of quartzitic sand-stone, are both intact but have two different shapes. The first is a handstone made from a re-used core with tri-angular cross-section (no. 152, pl. 33). Several flakes have been removed from two transverse striking platforms. The artefact measures 54x52x40 mm and weighs 114.9 g. The smoothed to polished surface is lightly convex which makes the gloss especially visible in the centre of the surface. The second grinding stone is a pebble meas-uring 47x39x25 mm that weighs 58.4 g (no. 153, pl. 33). Therefore, the definition as polisher is more likely. One surface is smoothed to polished showing a gloss. This sur-face is also discoloured black as the result of use, not by the exposure to heat. The other surface might be lightly polished but this is hard to discern due to presence of lac-quer covering the find number.

The three combination tools are a collection of two ham-merstone / anvils and one hammerstone / grinding stone (retouchoir / polisher). The first two have two opposing flat surfaces (no. 154, pl. 34). Only one is intact, meas-uring 130x76x59 mm and weighs 617.5 g. The other is


Figure 1.20 Dimensions of tested fragments at site S51 (in mm).


approximately half that size and weight. They both have one surface with grouped impact traces in the middle. The larger tool also has random impact traces over the whole surface. The fractured tool shows additional impact traces on one extremity and an edge. The third tool is made from a quartzitic sandstone pebble measuring 45x43x28 mm (no. 155, pl. 34). The tool is intact and weighs 72.3 g. One extremity and part of the adjacent edge shows intense impact traces. Two adjacent extremities have impact traces as well. Both surfaces are lightly smoothed to pol-ished showing a light gloss.

The axe fragment is a flat, elongated oval shaped artefact weighing 17.9 g (no. 156, pl. 34). As it measures 66x21x10 mm it may be described as blade-like. The plane of frac-ture starts at the cutting edge and runs along the side of the axe. Therefore, it presumably detached during use. Not only is the surface of the axe polished, but the plane of fracture is smoothed to polished as well. This black,

fine-grained quartzite is not of northern origin and more likely comes from the Meuse area than the Rhine area (pers. comm. H. Huisman 2008).

The three ground stone fragments are a combination of one flake and two indeterminate fragments with a smoothed to polished surface. All three are of a different type of raw material. The flake is intact, measures 41x27x12 mm and weighs 13.5 g. The two indeterminate fragments are larger measuring 85x74x44 mm and 138x59x39 mm and weigh 455.6 g and 384.1 g correspondingly. These two are the

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Numbe

r

Weight


Number % ≥ 3 g Burnt % LB HBDebitage material 12 0.5 67 Flakes 2 0.1 Flake fragments 1 0.0 Chips 6 0.2 Cores 3 0.1 Tools 2 0.1 11 1 50 Anvils 1 0.0 1 100 1Combination tools 1 0.0 Ornaments 2 0.1 11 Waste 2 0.1 11 Pebbles / cobbles 1 0.0 Possible debitage / tool 1 0.0 Subtotal ≥ 3 g 18 0.7 100 1 6 1 100%< 3 g 2546 99.3 Total 2564 100.0



Num

ber

Qua

rtzi

tic s

ands

tone

Qua

rtzi

te

Qua

rtz

Am

ber

Debitage material 12 Flakes 2 1 1 Flake fragments 1 1 Chips 6 3 2 1Cores 3 3 Tools 2 Anvils 1 1 Combination tools 1 1 Ornaments 2 2Waste 2 Pebbles / cobbles 1 1 Possible debitage / tool 1 1 Total 18 10 4 1 3 56% 22% 6% 17%



artefacts with “unknown origin” (see appendix table 3.5). They were retrieved at “the east side of the south section”; this is presumably the south section of the trench.

WasteThe waste material is a collection of six indeterminate frag-ments, three pebbles, and eight possible pieces of debitage / tool. The number of raw materials used is limited as are the artefacts themselves. The most diverse are the possible pieces of debitage / tools; almost all are made from differ-ent stone types. Two oval shaped pebbles are intact meas-uring 36x29x19 mm and 46x20x17 mm. These weigh 21.0 g and 20.7 g correspondingly. The third pebble is a dam-aged flat pebble. The possible pieces of debitage / tool may be two flakes, two chips, and four flake or chip fragments.

< 3 g: GritThe number of artefacts < 3 g is larger than that of the arte-facts ≥ 3 g. These 241 small pieces of stone make up 83% of the whole assemblage. During the excavation the soil was sieved per m² which resulted in the retrieval of the smallest fragments in bulk. Therefore, most of the mater-ial is weighed in bulk. A set of 41 pieces was registered and weighed individually providing the following infor-mation. Within this set, the artefacts weighing 0.1 g are most common (figure 1.21). They make up 49%, whereas the other weight classes are represented by only one, two or three artefacts or even none at all.

1.2.8 Site S61

Total amountWithin this assemblage the relative amount between arte-facts < 3 g and artefacts ≥ 3 g is disproportional (table 1.18). The first group yielded the largest amount of arte-facts being 2546 pieces with a total weight of 97.0 g. Of the second group, the artefacts ≥ 3 g, merely 18 were recovered. Their weight equals 2742.5 g. These 18 arte-facts have been identified as twelve pieces of debitage material, two tools, two ornament fragments, and two pieces of waste. The dominance of debitage material is observed but the low number of artefacts might raise questions about the representativeness of this percentage. The different artefact categories represent 14.3%, 85.1%, less than 0.1%, and 0.6% of the weight when the artefacts < 3 g are excluded.

Raw material and alteration by fire Five different types of stone were used to produce these 19 artefacts ≥ 3 g (table 1.19). The dominant use of quartzitic sandstone can be attested (56%). Other types of quartzite and amber are utilized less often. Within the separate arte-fact types the exclusive use of one stone type over another is influenced by the overall low number of artefacts ≥ 3 g.

Only one artefact was exposed to heat (table 1.18); the anvil is discoloured to a black shade indicating heavy heat exposure.

Debitage materialThe high number of artefacts < 3 g reduces the share the debitage material has in this assemblage to 0.5%. This is, however, more than all the other artefact types ≥ 3 g com-bined. The debitage material is defined as three flakes, six chips, and three cores.

Of the three flakes two are intact and one is fragmented. The intact flakes have measurements of 24x22x7 mm and 34x32x19 mm resulting in an average of 29x27x13 mm. This variation is also reflected in the weight shifting from 4.3 g up to 21.5 g. The damaged flake must have been of a larger size because, even though it is broken, it still meas-ures 53x69x19 mm and weighs 70.0 g.

The chips can be divided into three intact specimens and three damaged specimens. One of the chips is a very small piece of amber measuring 3x2x1 mm. It weighs even less than 0.1 g and can be refitted to the fractured ornament found at the site (see below). The other two intact chips have flake dimensions of 8x10x10 mm and 10x17x4 mm. These weigh 0.8 and 0.6 respectively. Two of the three damaged chips are so small they also weigh less than 0.1 g.

The cores are three tested fragments. They have one to three flake removals and several impact traces on the edges. Two are rather similar measuring 38x55x24 mm and 41x26x19 mm. With its dimensions of 65x57x49 mm and weight of 219.4 the third fragment is more massive than the other two which only weigh 52.2 g and 23.1 g correspondingly.

ToolsThe first tool is an almost intact anvil (no. 158, pl. 35). This cobble with triangular cross-section, measuring 104x80x71 mm, weighs 797.4 g. The tool has one surface showing a large, wide pit with some grouped and ran-dom impact traces. The pit is located opposite the angle formed by the other two surfaces or sides of the tool. One of those sides is very lightly smoothed making a definition as grinding tool hesitant. There are also grouped impact traces near the edges of that surface. These impact traces are no longer located in the centre of the surface due to fracturing and damaging of that extremity. This anvil is thus produced on a former anvil possibly grinding stone combination tool.

The second tool is an anvil / grinding stone combin-ation on a quartzitic sandstone cobble (no. 159, pl. 35). The artefact is intact and has two opposing flat surfaces. Therefore, the dimensions of 160x125x55 mm and the weight of 1535.2 g are representative. One surface is


smoothed to polished with a very shallow but broad pit and light impact traces in the middle. These may be the result of roughening from when it was used as a grinding stone, as well as impact traces from when it was used as an anvil. Additionally, a bright gloss or polish is visible on the rim of the pit and on the edges of the surface. The oppos-ite surface is a natural one with some light impact traces.

OrnamentsA total of three pieces of amber have been found in the cultural layer, namely two fragments and a chip (see above) (no. 157, pl. 34). They all fit together (see main book section 4.4.2) forming what looks like the base of a flat, somewhat triangular shaped bead. Apparently, the bead was broken in several pieces through the perfora-tion. The measurements of the refitted bead fragment are approximately 13x7x3 mm.

WasteThe group of waste material consists of one pebble and one possible piece of debitage / tool. The vein quartz pebble is small, measuring 2x2x1 mm, and weighs 4.3 g. The possible piece of debitage / tool, made of quartzitic sandstone, may be a flake. Its dimensions and weight are 35x24x13 mm and 12.9 g.

< 3 g: GritThe pieces of stone found at the site are almost all arte-facts < 3 g consequently forming up to 99.3% of the whole assemblage. Most of these 2546 artefacts were col-lected in bulk. This has its repercussions on the informa-tion these artefacts can provide. Of the 24 individually weighed pieces 79% or 19 pieces weigh 0.1 g (figure 1.22). Although the raw material type of the artefacts < 3 g is not analysed, it was observed that the general composi-tion of stone types is similar to those of the artefacts ≥ 3 g. Even more, in at least 76 of the excavation units white quartz fragments were regularly observed, sometimes in substantial amounts.

It was observed that the bulk material also included numerous quartz grains. These are mainly very small grains of quartz, often the size of pin-heads, weighing 0.1 g or 0.2 g or even less. At least 1327 of these grains of c. 2 to 3 mm were counted. Their total weight is estimated between 27.2 g and 28.9 g.

1.2.9 Sites S80 – S83

Total amountThe stone material from these sites is limited to six arte-facts. The four pieces of stone found during the 1993 cam-paign in the north-eastern ditch at parcel H2 could not be retrieved and remains unstudied. The only artefact from site S81 is a piece of stone within the category of artefacts < 3 g, weighing 1.3 g. It is unclear as to whether no other stone artefacts were recovered during the old excavations or whether that the material has been lost or was not stored in the first place.

For the more recent excavations at site S83, no stone artefacts were mentioned (Jordanov 2005). Yet, when the material was analysed in the line of this research one little piece of porphyry weighing 0.7 g was discovered amongst the flint material. It was erroneously defined as flint.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Numbe

r

Weight


Catalogue of the stone artefacts


Key: Number – plate number. Tool type, find number, site, original publication with fig. number, list of similar tools.Some of the drawings taken from old publications are reworked for conformity to the new drawings.

Site S2 (plate 1 – 6)No. 1 – plate 1. Hammerstone (retouchoir), no. 2171, site S2.No. 2 – plate 1. Hammerstone, no. 5180, site S2.No. 3 – plate 1. Anvil, no. 3943, site S2, similar tool: no. 2788.No. 4 – plate 1. Anvil, no. 4099, site S2.No. 5 – plate 1. Grinding stone (polisher), no. 2335, site S2.No. 6 – plate 1. Grinding stone (handstone), no. 1602, site S2, similar tools: nos. 2170, *02, *04, *05.

47Catalogue of the stone artefacts: plates

Plate 1 Stone tools present at site S2. Scale 1:2.


Site S2 (continued)No. 7 – plate 2. Hammerstone / grinding stone, no. 0001-0016, site S2, similar tool: no. 3546.No. 8 – plate 2. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 0054, site S2.No. 9 – plate 2. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 1932, site S2.No. 10 – plate 2. Anvil / grinding stone, no. 0740, site S2.


Site S2 (continued)No. 11 – plate 3. Axe fragment, no. 0014, site S2.No. 12 – plate 3. Axe fragment, no. 5531, site S2.No. 13 – plate 3. Artefact with two indentations, 7869, site S2.


Site S2 (continued)No. 14 – plate 4. Pendant (amber), no. 4078, site S2, grave IX, drawing GIA, publisher unknown.No. 15 – plate 4. Pendant (amber), no. 4079, site S2, grave IX, drawing GIA, publisher unknown.No. 16 – plate 4. Pendant (amber), no. 4081, site S2, grave IX, drawing GIA, publisher unknown.No. 17 – plate 4. Bead (amber), no. 4080, site S2, grave IX, drawing GIA, publisher unknown.No. 18 – plate 4. Bead (amber), no. 4083, site S2, grave IX, drawing GIA, publisher unknown.No. 19 – plate 4. Pendant (sandstone), no. 4091, site S2, grave IX.


Plate 4 Amber and stone ornaments found in grave IX at site S2. Scale 1:1. Adapted from Kielman 1986, fig. 46.


Site S2 (continued)No. 20 – plate 5. Pendant (amber), no. 0279-1, site S2, presumably skull grave V.No. 21 – plate 5. Bead (amber), no. 0279-2, site S2, presumably skull grave V.No. 22 – plate 5. Bead (amber), no. 0279-3, site S2, presumably skull grave V.No. 23 – plate 5. Bead (amber), no. *0002, site S2, grave V.No. 24 – plate 5. Bead (amber), no. *0003, site S2, grave V.No. 25 – plate 5. Bead (amber), no. *0004, site S2, grave V.No. 26 – plate 5. Bead (amber), no. *0007, site S2, grave V.No. 27 – plate 5. Bead (amber), no. *0008, site S2, grave V.No. 28 – plate 5. Pendant (amber), no. *0006, site S2, grave V.No. 29 – plate 5. Ornament fragment (amber), no. *0001, site S2, grave V.No. 30 – plate 5. Ornament fragment (amber), no. *0005, site S2, grave V.


Plate 5 Amber ornaments found in grave V at site S2. Scale 1:1. Adapted from Kielman 1986, fig. 46.


Site S2 (continued)No. 31 – plate 6. Bead (amber), no. 901268, site S2.No. 32 – plate 6. Bead (amber), no. 901271, site S2.No. 33 – plate 6. Bead fragment (amber), nos. 901270-1 and 901270-3, can be refitted together, site S2.No. 34 – plate 6. Bead fragment (amber), no. 901270-2, site S2.No. 35 – plate 6. Bead (schist), no. 2787, site S2.No. 36 – plate 6. Unfinished pendant (quartzitic sandstone), no. 0060, site S2.No. 37 – plate 6. Unfinished pendant (sandstone), no. Z-133-1, site S2.No. 38 – plate 6. Unfinished pendant (sandstone), no. Z-232-1, site S2.


Plate 6 Amber and stone ornaments present at site S2. Scale 1:1.


Site S3 (plate 7 – 23)No. 39 – plate 7. Hammerstone (retouchoir), no. 31711, site S3, similar tools: nos. 13031 (flake), 34512, 40080.No. 40 – plate 7. Hammerstone, no. 57092, site S3, similar tools: nos. 02858, 49049, 910313.No. 41 – plate 7. Hammerstone, no. 910278, site S3, similar tools: nos. 25460 (on hammerstone fragment), 36748 (on grinding

stone fragment), 51638 (on anvil fragment).No. 42 – plate 7. Anvil (on core), no. 33908, site S3, similar tools: nos. 19852, 31767, 36815 (on flake), 49077, 50042 (on flake),

50582, 53209, 57539 (on anvil / grinding stone fragment), 900139 (on grinding stone fragment), 910200, Z-571-4, 005 (trench S5), 218 (trench S5), 800364 (trench S6).


Site S3 (continued)No. 43 – plate 8. Anvil, no. 19992, site S3, similar tools: nos. 09344, 30865, 900073, 800799 (trench S6).No. 44 – plate 8. Anvil, no. 001 (trench S5), site S3.


Site S3 (continued)No. 45 – plate 9. Grinding stone (handstone), no. 55537, site S3, similar tools: nos. 01000, 07982, 24969, 26689, 27269, 30403,

31852, 32238, 36130-2, 41554, 47650, 48633. Too fragmented to reconstruct shape, yet with one remaining working surface: nos. 00504, 20093, 33183.

No. 46 – plate 9. Grinding stone (handstone), no. 11563, site S3, similar tools: nos. 20762, 36130-1, 38215, 45009, 20783 (three surfaces).

No. 47 – plate 9. Grinding stone (handstone), no. 50510, site S3, similar tools: nos. 15006, 15250, 24163, 35624, 46657.No. 48 – plate 9. Grinding stone (polisher), no. 55273, site S3, similar tool: no. 56244 (whetstone?).


Site S3 (continued)No. 49 – plate 10. Grinding stone (netherstone), no. 20770 (refitted with nr. 7613 from site S2), site S3, similar tools: nos. 37362,

37526, 53873.No. 50 – plate 10. Hammerstone / grinding stone (retouchoir / polisher), no. 37986, site S3, similar tools: nos. 03654, 40105,

53037.No. 51 – plate 10. Hammerstone / grinding stone, no. 52366, site S3, similar tools: nos. 05865, 08557, 18814 (flake, refit with nr.

25310), 44038, 55984.


Site S3 (continued)No. 52 – plate 11. Hammerstone / grinding stone, no. 31146, site S3.No. 53 – plate 11. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 52621, site S3, similar tools: nos. 53030, 57104.No. 54 – plate 11. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 50135, site S3, similar tools: nos. *00006, 00025, 00919, 02050, 02753, 13152,

14857, 24566, 27061, 36680, 50332, 51369, 56026, 800034 (trench S6).


Site S3 (continued)No. 55 – plate 12. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 18206, site S3, similar tools: nos. *00005, 01032, 03114, 16325, 23685, 24796,

26635-3, 26833, 35647, 46621, 46623, 50185, 51636, 52462, 900216, 900252.No. 56 – plate 12. Hammerstone / anvil (on grinding stone fragment), no. 16210, site S3.No. 57 – plate 12. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 56086, site S3, similar tools: nos. 03816, 06780, 20521, 20872, 24886, 910169.


Site S3 (continued)No. 58 – plate 13. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 21845, site S3, similar tools: nos. 22301, 26635-1, 28414, 29435, 29633, 31822,

33203, 35586, 40344, 46617, 47516, 51514, 163 (trench S5), 800265 (trench S6).No. 59 – plate 13. Anvil / grinding stone, no. 26403, site S3, similar tools: nos. 04951, 23742, 910325.No. 60 – plate 13. Anvil / grinding stone, no. 28135, site S3.


Site S3 (continued)No. 61 – plate 14. Anvil / grinding stone, no. 37434, site S3.No. 62 – plate 14. Anvil / grinding stone, no. *00003, site S3, similar tool: no. 22929.


Site S3 (continued)No. 63 – plate 15. Anvil / grinding stone (polisher), no. 46624, site S3.No. 64 – plate 15. Hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone, no. 900141, site S3, similar tools: nos. 34472, 39809-1, 49363.No. 65 – plate 15. Hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone, no. 02017, site S3, similar tools: nos. 02799, 20782.


Site S3 (continued)No. 66 – plate 16. Hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone, no. *00001, site S3, similar tool: no. 25026.No. 67 – plate 16. Hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone, no. 35878, site S3, similar tools: nos. 04494, 800290 (trench S6).


Site S3 (continued)No. 68 – plate 17. Hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone, no. 51459, site S3, similar tools: nos. 03820.


Plate 17 Stone tool present at site S3. Scale 1:2.


Site S3 (continued)No. 69 – plate 18. Oval axe, no. 49696, site S3.No. 70 – plate 18. Oval axe, no. 46606, site S3.No. 71 – plate 18. Thin butted oval axe, no. 31647, site S3.No. 72 – plate 18. Shaft-hole axe, no. 27556 + 51061, site S3.No. 73 – plate 18. Axe fragment, no. *00002 + *01, site S3 + site S41.No. 74 – plate 18. Axe fragment, no. 57510, site S3.


Site S3 (continued)No. 75 – plate 19. Axe fragment (tilted cutting edge), no. 10500, site S3.No. 76 – plate 19. Axe fragment (tilted cutting edge), no. 29245, site S3.No. 77 – plate 19. Axe fragment, no. 37868, site S3.No. 78 – plate 19. Scraper, no. 907999, site S3.No. 79 – plate 19. Retouched blade, no. 49914 + 50074, site S3.No. 80 – plate 19. Retouched tool fragment, no. Z-652-1, site S3.


Plate 19 Stone tools present at site S3. Scale 1:2 except nos. 78, 79, and 80 (scale 1:1).


Site S3 (continued)No. 81 – plate 20. Unknown tool (disc), no. 49096, site S3.No. 82 – plate 20. Refit of three flakes, nos. 16202 + 22068 + 23006, site S3.


Site S3 (continued)No. 83 – plate 21. Pendant (amber), no. 30134, site S3.No. 84 – plate 21. Pendant (amber), no. 17359 + 36699, site S3, artefact 17359 as a single artefact already published by Van der

Waals (1976): fig. 4.No. 85 – plate 21. Pendant (amber), no. 14609, site S3, published by Van der Waals (1976): fig. 4.No. 86 – plate 21. Pendant (amber), no. 907258, site S3.No. 87 – plate 21. Missing bead (amber), no. unknown (most likely lost), site S3, Van der Waals (1976): fig. 4.No. 88 – plate 21. Bead (amber), no. 907260, site S3.No. 89 – plate 21. Bead (amber), no. 913006, site S3, similar ornament: no. 41591.No. 90 – plate 21. Bead (amber), no. 26323, site S3, published by Van der Waals (1976): fig. 4.No. 91 – plate 21. Bead (amber), no. 907264, site S3.No. 92 – plate 21. Bead (amber), no. 23747, site S3, published by Van der Waals (1976): fig. 4, similar ornaments: nos. 39751,

907253.No. 93 – plate 21. Bead (amber), no. 907254, site S3.No. 94 – plate 21. Bead (amber), no. 54607, site S3, similar ornament: nos. 907218, 907223.No. 95 – plate 21. Bead (amber), no. 907265, site S3.No. 96 – plate 21. Bead fragment (amber), no. 907262, site S3, similar ornament: no. 907222, 908578.No. 97 – plate 21. Bead fragment (amber), no. 907261-1, site S3.No. 98 – plate 21. Bead fragment (amber), no. 907212, site S3, similar ornament: no. 907259.No. 99 – plate 21. Bead fragment (amber), no. 907566, site S3, similar ornaments: nos. 907567, 913005.No. 100 – plate 21. Bead fragment (amber), no. 907261-2, site S3, similar ornament: no. 907257-1.No. 101 – plate 21. Chip (amber), no. 907263, site S3, similar chip: no. 907255, 907257-2.No. 102 – plate 21. Chip (amber), no. Z-707-2, site S3 similar chip: no. Z-707-1.No. 103 – plate 21. Chip (amber), no. 907256, site S3, similar chip: no. 12635.


Plate 21 Amber ornaments present at site S3. Scale 1:1.


Site S3 (continued)No. 104 – plate 22. Pendant (sandstone), no. 19043, site S3, Van der Waals 1976): fig. 5.No. 105 – plate 22. Pendant (sandstone), no. 26729, site S3, Van der Waals 1976): fig. 5.No. 106 – plate 22. Pendant (sandstone), no. 17868, site S3, Van der Waals (1976): fig. 5.No. 107 – plate 22. Pendant (quartzitic sandstone), no. 34858, site S3.No. 108 – plate 22. Bead fragment (radiolarian rock or jet), no. 907214, site S3.No. 109 – plate 22. Unfinished pendant (quartzite), no. 25703, site S3, Van der Waals (1976): fig. 5.No. 110 – plate 22. Unfinished pendant (quartz), no. 25030, site S3.No. 111 – plate 22. Unfinished pendant (quartzitic sandstone), no. 25377, site S3.No. 112 – plate 22. Unfinished pendant (quartzitic sandstone or radiolarian rock), no. 23916, site S3, similar ornament: no. 41142

(sandstone).No. 113 – plate 22. Unfinished pendant (quartzitic sandstone), no. 16092, site S3.No. 114 – plate 22. Unfinished pendant (sandstone), no. Z-385-1, site S3.No. 115 – plate 22. Unfinished pendant (quartzitic sandstone), no. 39135, site S3.


Plate 22 Stone ornaments present at site S3. Scale 1:1.


Site S3 (continued)No. 116 – plate 23. Unfinished pendant (radiolarian rock), no. 29895, site S3.No. 117 – plate 23. Unfinished pendant (quartzitic sandstone), no. 01259, site S3, published by Van der Waals (1976): fig. 5.No. 118 – plate 23. Unfinished pendant (sandstone), no. 20887, site S3.No. 119 – plate 23. Unfinished pendant (sandstone or radiolarian rock), no. 26212, site S3.No. 120 – plate 23. Unfinished pendant (sandstone), no. 57521, site S3.No. 121 – plate 23. Unfinished pendant (sandstone), no. 01370, site S3, Van der Waals (1976): fig. 5.No. 122 – plate 23. Unfinished pendant (sandstone), no. 02829, site S3, published by Van der Waals (1976): fig. 5.No. 123 – plate 23. Unfinished pendant (quartzitic sandstone), no. 908572, site S3, similar ornament: no. 15726.


Plate 23 Stone ornaments present at site S3. Scale 1:1.


Site S4 (plate 24 - 30)No. 124 – plate 24. Hammerstone, no. G92-07603-1, site S4, similar tools: nos. 0173, 1215, G92-03328-1.No. 125 – plate 24. Anvil, no. G92-WP2-05534, site S4, similar tool: no. 0027.No. 126 – plate 24. Anvil, no. G92-03481-1, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-02517-1, G92-05499-1.


Site S4 (continued)No. 127 – plate 25. Anvil, no. G92-P030, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-01467, G92-03349-3.No. 128 – plate 25. Grinding stone (handstone), no. G92-02384, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-01475-1, G92-04407-1, G92-

WP2-999059,No. 129 – plate 25. Polisher, no. G92-02529-1, site S4.No. 130 – plate 25. Grinding stone (handstone), no. G92-WP2-999076, site S4, similar tool: no. G92-03351-1.


Site S4 (continued)No. 131 – plate 26. Grinding stone (netherstone), no. G92-04501, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-WP2-04495-2, G92-

WP2-04499-1.No. 132 – plate 26. Hammerstone / grinding stone, no. G92-02453-1, site S4.No. 133 – plate 26. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 1241, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-02355 (triangular cross-section), G92-

WP2-02547-3.


Site S4 (continued)No. 134 – plate 27. Hammerstone / anvil, no. G92-03361, site S4, similar tools: nos. 1800, 1901.No. 135 – plate 27. Hammerstone / anvil, no. G92-00319-1, site S4.


Site S4 (continued)No. 136 – plate 28. Anvil / grinding stone, no. G92-03561-2, site S4.


Site S4 (continued)No. 137 – plate 29. Anvil / grinding stone, no. G92-01453, site S4.No. 138 – plate 29. Anvil / grinding stone, no. G92-05561, site S4.No. 139 – plate 29. Axe fragment, nos. 1034 + G92-1563, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-00488-1, G92-01484-1, G92-WP2-03474

(flake).No. 140 – plate 29. Pendant (amber), no. G92-G1-7, site S4.


Plate 29 Stone tools and amber pendant present at site S4. Scale 1:2 except no. 140 (scale 1:1).


Site S4 (continued)No. 141 – plate 30. Hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone, no. G92-03561-1, site S4.


Trenches S21 – S24 (plate 31 - 32)No. 142 – plate 31. Hammerstone, no. 1185, trenches S21 – S24, similar tool: no. *06.No. 143 – plate 31. Anvil, no. *15, trenches S21- S24, similar tools: nos. *11, *12.No. 144 – plate 31. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 1350, trenches S21 – S24, similar tools: nos. *14, 262, 411, 831, 914.No. 145 – plate 31. Hammerstone / anvil / grinding stone, no. *02 (pebble), trenches S21 – S24, similar tool: no. 166 (cobble).No. 146 – plate 31. Axe fragment (flake), no. *08, trenches S21 – S24.


Plate 31 Stone tools present at trenches S21-S24. Scale 1:2.


Site S41 (plate 32).No. 147 – plate 32. Mace-head (Geröllkeule), no. 326 + *10, trenches S21 – S24.No. 148 – plate 32. Unknown artefact, no. 1372, trenches S21 – S24.No. 149 – plate 32. Pendant (jet), no. 2787, grave I, trenches S21 – S24, Van der Waals (1976): fig. 6.No. 150 – plate 32. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 990001, site S41.


Plate 32 Stone tools and pendant present at trenches S21-S24 (nos. 147, 148, and 149) and site S41 (number 150). Scale 1:2 except number 149 (scale 1:1). Adapted from Kielman 1986, fig. 46.


Site S51 (plate 33 – 34)No. 151 – plate 33. Anvil, no. 1354, site S51.No. 152 – plate 33. Grinding stone (handstone), no. 1776, site S51.


Site 51 (continued)No. 153 – plate 34. Grinding stone (polisher), no. 1856, site S51.No. 154 – plate 34. Hammerstone / anvil, no. 1349, site S51, similar tool: no. 1813.No. 155 – plate 34. Hammerstone / grinding stone (retouchoir / polisher), no. 1815, site S51.No. 156 – plate 34. Axe fragment, no. 1564, site S51.


Site S61 (plate 35)No. 157 – plate 35. Refitted bead fragment (amber), nos. *01 + 900363 + *02, site S61.No. 158 – plate 35. Anvil, no. *03, site S61.No. 159 – plate 35. Anvil / grinding stone, no. 036, site S61.


Plate 35 Amber ornament and stone tools present at site S61. Scale 1:2 except no. 157 (scale 1:1).

2.1 IntroductionThis catalogue chapter focuses on the presentation of the flint artefacts. Here a detailed description is given of all artefact types present at the different sites of the Swifterbant cluster. The choice was made to analyse the artefacts for each site separately and present them in a descriptive manner. A summary per site is presented in chapter 5 of the main book while interpretations and inter-site comparison is presented in chapter 6 of the main book. The methodology is addressed in chapter 3 of the main book, whereas the used typology and variables are dealt with in appendix 2 of the main book.

2.2 Artefact types and amounts

2.2.1 Total of all sitesThe large amount of stone and flint material was studied with different focus points to gain insight into various aspects of the material. Most artefacts have been stud-ied in full detail, others have been analysed to gain more technological insight or for reasons of quantity. The down side of this varied research is that data cannot always be fully compared with each other. The lithic artefacts from trenches S11-S13 have not been studied at all since they are currently still in the United States of America as part of a renewed research project of Bob Whallon.

A total amount of 52,110 flint artefacts have been studied1, weighing a total of 77,673.15 g. However, not all of these artefacts have been analysed with the same detail2. The examined artefacts are divided into two groups according to their length along the debitage axis; one group meas-uring less than 1 cm (< 1 cm) and one group measuring equal to or more than 1 cm (≥ 1 cm). The first group com-prises 14,876 pieces of flint, weighing 1,666.96 g. The sec-ond group is larger and is made up of 25,131 pieces with a total weight of 68,386.94 g. The artefacts ≥ 1 cm include 16,620 pieces of debitage material, 2766 tools, 837 bipolar

1 During the long research and excavation history at the differ-ent sites an additional group of artefacts was uncovered in the Swifterbant area. Unfortunately, it is no longer known to which site they originally belonged to. Therefore, they are discussed in the appendix.

2 For trenches S21-S24 a total of 12,103 pieces (weight 31,385.38 g) were only counted and weighted, not determined by artefact type.

pieces, 700 artefacts with visible use-wear traces, 4163 pieces of waste and 45 other artefacts.

2.2.2 Site S2

Total amountThe material from the three white finds bags labelled ‘G42’ and “G42: uitgeworpen grond” possibly originates from the earliest research done by Van der Heide and is presumably not the result of the ditch slope prospec-tion between parcels G41 and G42. This can be deduced by analogy with the working method applied at trenches S21-S24 (see main book section 2.7.7 and 2.7.8)

Given that some of the material was stored in white finds bags labelled ‘G42’ and “G42: uitgeworpen grond”, as with parcel H46 (see main book section 2.7.7 and 2.7.8), it may be deduced that this flint material possibly comes from the earliest research done by Van der Heide and is presumably not the result of the ditch slope inspections between parcels G41 and G42. This material, and that of the old excavations by Van der Heide3 (1964 and 1967) and by Van der Waals (1975 to 1979), combined with the 2004 campaign, are discussed together as they are part of the same site. For a detailed subdivision per excavation see main book appendix table 3.7. Due to incomplete doc-umentation the excavation method could not be retrieved for all campaigns. It is known that the successive cam-paigns from 1975 to 1979 resulted in at least 361 hand collected artefacts and 835 sieved artefacts but whether all soil was sieved is unknown. For 2004 it is certain that all the excavated soil was indeed sieved. It is possible that Van der Heide only retrieved material by hand collection for it seems that there are only three artefacts < 1 cm in his assemblage of flints.

All flint material together, S2 yielded 1027 artefacts ≥ 1 cm and 359 artefacts < 1 cm (table 2.1)4. The weight of the groups is 2228.7 g and 48.96 g respectively. The first group can be subdivided into 5 categories being 505 pieces of debitage material, 198 tools, 26 bipolar pieces, 65 arte-facts with visible use-wear traces and 233 pieces of waste.

3 Of the material with finds numbers 60000 it is certain they origin-ate from the earliest excavations.

4 The sample of 188 artefacts analysed by Raemaekers (1999: 35-37) appears to have been lost.

Chapter 2

Detailed analysis of the flint artefacts


These five categories form 33%, 16%, 4%, 7%, and 40% of the weight of the material when the artefacts < 1 cm are not included.

Raw material and alteration by fire On this site five different varieties of flint are found (table 2.2). Almost half of the material (49.0%) is fine-grained flint without bryozoans (FG). Fine-grained flint with bryozoans (FGB) is employed for 15.2% of the artefacts. Rarely used flint varieties are medium-grained flint with-out bryozoans (2.4%), coarse-grained flint (0.3%) and medium-grained flint with bryozoans (0.1%). One of the flake fragments defined as medium-grained flint may possibly be a coarser inclusion embedded in fine-grained flint. The artefact is rather small and appears to be more translucent and finer grained at the distal end.

This predominant use of fine-grained flint without bryozoans is attested for all artefact categories. It is par-ticularly used for tools and bipolar pieces. When the fine-grained flint with bryozoans is included, this dominance can be extended to the artefacts with visible use-wear traces as well. The percentage is the lowest for the waste material, which possibly may be explained by the high number of heat exposed artefacts. The link between heat exposure and the impediment of flint type determination is an obvious one. The low amount of heat exposed arte-facts within the set of bipolar pieces may have contrib-uted to the high percentages of fine-grained flint without bryozoans.

Up to 498 artefacts, which is 48 % of all artefacts ≥ 1 cm, suffer from heat exposure impeding the raw material

Total % % ≥ 1 cm Burnt % ← LB MB HB %↓Debitage material 505 36 49 232 46 13 167 52 46.6Flakes 107 7.7 36 17 16 3 12 2 Flake fragments 194 14.0 64 111 57 4 83 24 Total flakes 301 100 Blades 17 1.2 9 2 12 1 1 Blade fragments 164 11.8 91 99 60 4 71 24 Total blades 181 100 Rejuvenation pieces 10 0.7 1 10 1 Cores 13 0.9 2 15 2 Tools 198 14 19 66 33 3 53 10 13.3Scrapers 28 2.0 6 21 2 3 1 Borers 12 0.9 4 33 1 3 Rounded pieces 9 0.6 2 22 1 1 Trapezes 7 0.5 3 43 3 Transverse arrowheads 1 0.1 Tools on flake 23 1.7 6 26 6 Tools on blade 59 4.3 18 31 13 5 Tools on other blanks 7 0.5 2 29 2 Indet. tools 4 0.3 1 25 1 Indet. tool fragments 38 2.7 18 47 15 3 Retouched chips 10 0.7 6 60 6 Bipolar pieces 26 2 3 1 4 1 0.2Visible use-wear 65 5 6 19 29 2 17 3.8Waste 233 17 23 180 77 3 132 45 36.1Indet. fragments 78 5.6 56 72 2 40 14 Frost flakes 28 2.0 13 46 1 9 3 Potlids 110 7.9 110 100 82 28 Nodules 17 1.2 1 6 1 Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 1027 74 100 498 48 21 370 107 100.0 4% 74% 21% < 1 cm 359 26 224 62 7 140 77 3% 63% 34% Total 1386 100 722 52 28 510 184 4% 71% 25%

LB: lightly burnt artefacts, MB: medium burnt artefacts, HB: heavily burnt artefacts.


Chapter 2 Detailed analysis of the flint artefacts 119

definition of 339 pieces. One of these is quite exceptional (no. 6812). Half the flake fragment is discoloured grey to white while the other half is coloured brown to burgundy. Although it reminds one of Lousberg flint, this definition can presumably be ruled out. Scandinavian flint mani-fests this bi-coloured characteristic as well (pers. comm. M. Niekus 2008) and is a more likely source because the presence of northern flint is attested at all sites while that of southern flint is not (see main book section 5.3). Furthermore, as the artefact suffered heat damage the ori-ginal colours are unknown and may very well have been other than grey and red, the colours of Lousberg flint.

Damaged flake and blade fragments are three to five times more often burned than their undamaged counter-parts, which might be a natural result as burning leads to fragmentation. Rejuvenation pieces and cores are burned at equally low percentages as the undamaged flakes and blades. Of the 198 tools approximately 1/3 was exposed to fire. That an extreme large amount of the waste material is burned (77%) is mainly on the account of the large sum of potlids which make up almost half of the waste material. When they are excluded from the waste material the per-centage of burnt pieces is reduced to 57%.

Number FG B MG B FG MG CG Indet.Debitage material 505 Flakes 107 27 69 1 10Flake fragments 194 24 86 7 77Blades 17 1 13 1 2Blade fragments 164 20 60 5 1 78Rejuvenation pieces 10 3 5 1 1Cores 13 5 8 Tools 198 Scrapers 28 8 17 3Borers 12 2 8 2Rounded pieces 9 1 5 1 2Trapezes 7 1 4 2Transverse arrowheads 1 1 Tools on flake 23 5 15 3Tools on blade 59 14 28 5 12Tools on other blanks 7 2 4 1Indet. tools 4 2 1 1Indet. tool fragments 38 3 22 13Retouched chips 10 8 2Bipolar pieces 26 3 22 1Visible use-wear 65 20 33 2 10Waste 233 Indet. fragments 78 7 31 1 1 38Frost flakes 28 3 18 7Potlids 110 1 34 1 74Nodules 17 4 13 Total 1027 156 1 503 25 3 339 100% 15.2% 0.1% 49.0% 2.4% 0.3% 33.0%

Debitage material 505 16% 0% 48% 3% 0% 33%Tools 198 20% 56% 4% 21%Bipolar pieces 26 12% 85% 4%Visible use-wear 65 31% 51% 3% 15%Waste 233 6% 41% 1% 0% 51%Total 1027 156 1 503 25 3 339

FG B: fine-grained flint with bryozoans, MG B: medium-grained flint with bryozoans, FG: fine-grained flint without bryo-zoans, MG: medium-grained flint without bryozoans, CG: coarse-grained flint without bryozoans, Indet.: indeterminate type of flint.

Table 2.2 Division of raw material types of site S2.


Debitage materialThe largest category of finds is the debitage material. It makes up 36% of the total amount of artefacts and up to 49% of the material ≥ 1 cm. A division can be made into 301 flakes, 181 blades, 10 rejuvenation pieces and 13 cores.

The flakes can be divided into a group of intact pieces and a group of damaged or fragmented pieces. They consist of 107 and 194 pieces or 36% and 64% correspondingly. Of the intact flakes 72% is partially or fully covered with some kind of natural surface (table 2.3). This includes fresh, weathered or rolled cortex and glossy, windblown or coloured patina in different combinations. Up to 20% of the intact flakes (21) are decortication flakes. Just one flake is covered with a posterior glossy patina. Only 43% of the fragmented flakes show the same types of natural surface with the addition of heavily battered cortex or pseudo-cortex. Since these are fragments this coverage must be seen as the minimum presence of natural surface. Two fragments show a posterior gloss, one possibly the result of burning. Another burnt flake fragment is rather distinct since it is encrusted with a brownish, coarse-grained layer. It is unclear whether this is the result of burning or a prior alteration of some kind.

The measurements of the intact flakes are 10x6x1 mm for the minimum dimensions and 40x38x23 mm for the maximum dimensions. It must be stated that the max-imum thickness of 23 mm is exceptional. The flakes’ thicknesses cluster between 1 and 12 mm. Only one other flake, one of 16 mm thickness, exceeds the 12 mm range. Therefore, the average measurements, and the thickness in particular, are rather low at 17x15x4 mm. The length-width ratio has an average of 1.2 with a minimum and a maximum of 0.5 and 1.9 respectively. The averages of the length-thickness ratio and width-thickness ratio are 5.3 and 4.4 correspondingly.

The majority of the flakes are detached along a unidi-rectional debitage axis (95%). Only 16 pieces show traces of a bipolar debitage technique. One of them (no. 901179) might possibly be a fragmented bipolar piece instead of a bipolar flake; these two artefact types are not always easily distinguishable from each other. Two are partially detached along an internal fracture in the core body and two others are used or recently damaged. These two fea-tures also occur with a minority of the unidirectional flakes, 13 in total. One of the unidirectional flakes is actu-ally an obliquely detached blade. It has parallel edges and ridges but not a 2:1 length-width ratio. Up to 20

Natural surface coverage Posterior Number 0% % 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % Number %Debitage material 505 Flakes 107 30 28 24 20 12 21 72 1 1Flake fragments 194 111 57 47 12 7 17 43 3 2Blades 17 8 47 2 3 4 53 Blade fragments 164 117 71 26 16 2 3 29 2 1Rejuvenation pieces 10 4 40 4 1 1 60 Cores 13 4 6 2 1 100 Tools 198 Scrapers 28 20 71 5 1 2 29 1 4Borers 12 8 67 2 1 1 33 Rounded pieces 9 8 89 1 11 Trapezes 7 7 100 Transverse arrowheads 1 1 100 Tools on flake 23 12 52 7 2 1 1 48 Tools on blade 59 41 69 15 2 1 31 1 2Tools on other blanks 7 1 14 3 3 86 Indet. tools 4 4 100 Indet. tool fragments 38 27 71 7 2 1 1 29 Retouched chips 10 9 90 1 10 Bipolar pieces 26 6 23 13 6 1 77 Visible use-wear 65 48 74 15 1 1 26 3 5Waste 233 Indet. fragments 78 28 36 22 15 12 1 64 1 1Frost flakes 28 7 25 7 5 3 6 75 Potlids 110 81 74 13 5 2 9 26 Nodules 17 17 100 Total 1027 578 217 99 50 83 12 1 100% 56% 21% 10% 5% 8%

Table 2.3 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm of site S2.


more flake fragments may possibly originate from blades because they all show parallel edges and ridges but their limited length, shorter than wide, makes this uncertain. Some more special features occur such as a flake with two bulbs and three plunging flakes.

The group of blades consists of 17 intact specimens and 164 fragmented ones which is 9% and 91% respectively. A bit less than half of the intact blades (47%) show no traces of natural surface, while the rest (53%) are par-tially covered with weathered or rolled cortex and glossy, windblown or coloured patina present in different com-binations (table 2.3). None of them can be considered as decortication blades. Also 29% of the blade fragments have similar types of natural surface remnants with the addition of one blade showing fresh chalky cortex, another posterior gloss. A final fragment is fully covered with a mirror-like gloss which might be the result of heat damage.

The intact blades have minimum dimensions of 10x5x1 mm and maximum ones of 48x18x8 mm giving the average size of 28x11x4 mm (table 2.4). This results in a length-width ratio with a minimum and a maximum of 2.0 and 3.3 respectively. The average length-width ratio is 2.5, that of the length-thickness is 8.7 and of the width-thickness 3.6. The blade fragments present 31% proxi-mal-medial parts, 46% medial parts, and 23% distal parts. One blade was only broken laterally (siret fracture) while five blades showed a combination of perpendicular and lateral fractures.

The dominant debitage technique applied to detach blades is unidirectional (96%). The remaining 7 blades are characterised by bipolar debitage. With two of these the ventral face runs straight through the core, splitting the bipolar piece in halves. The unidirectional blades most often have parallel edges and ridges (64%), only a small number are produced less systematically and can rather be defined as irregular in shape (36%). The regu-lar blades, of which at least 39 have one central, parallel ridge and 68 have two parallel or converging ridges, imply systematic blade production; one blade even has multi-ple ridges. Their measurements also differ from the less systematically produced blades (table 2.5). Several more blades have interesting features. A double bulb of percus-sion is observed once (no. 1526) and three blades are pos-sibly damaged showing a few small retouches. It should also be mentioned that one regular blade (no. 2163) was found near the upper arm bone of the skeleton in grave VI.

The number of rejuvenation pieces is limited to ten. These include seven striking edge rejuvenation pieces, two plat-form rejuvenation pieces, and one core tablet. Only 4 striking edge rejuvenation pieces are fragmented. Up to six artefacts are partially covered with cortex or patina. The intact pieces have dimensions measuring between 10x7x2 mm and 40x23x6 mm. Noteworthy is that two fragmented striking edge rejuvenation pieces are longer (both 44 mm) and one is wider (29 mm) and thicker (7 mm) than the undamaged ones implying they were origin-ally larger than the current largest piece. Thus, all highest

Flakes Cores

L W T L W Tmin. 10 6 1 min. 10 15 7max. 40 38 23 max. 49 40 23

average 17 15 4 average 28 25 14st. dev. 6.4 6.4 3.4 st. dev. 10.9 7.6 5.6 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.5 0.8 1 min. 0.7 1.1 1.0max. 1.9 18.0 12.0 max. 1.6 6.1 4.7average 1.2 5.3 4.4 average 1.1 2.2 1.9

Blades Nodules L W T L W Tmin. 10 5 1 min. 19 10 3max. 48 18 8 max. 58 38 25average 28 11 4 average 36 23 14st. dev. 12.4 4.5 2.2 st. dev. 11.9 8.1 5.8 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 2.0 3.0 1.2 min. 1.1 1.6 1.1max. 3.3 16.0 7.0 max. 2.3 7.0 4.2average 2.5 8.7 3.6 average 1.6 3.0 1.9



measurements may be taken from the same fragmented striking edge rejuvenation piece (no. 0194). It could be considered a blade but because of its irregular shape the dimensions are somewhat out of proportion, especially the width. Noteworthy are four striking edge rejuvenation pieces that can be considered as a blade-rejuvenation combination. Their distal parts can be defined as striking edge rejuvenation pieces while the proximal half resem-bles a standard blade. Finally, both platform rejuvenation pieces were detached with a blow to the back of the core, i.e. opposite of the production plane. One of them is even more special since the striking platform is made up of two, large flake scars (no. 901112) possibly indicating the reorientation of the core.

The thirteen cores are unequally partitioned into three types: one core with two opposing striking platforms, one core with two crossed striking platforms, and eleven tested cores. All cores are rather irregular in shape and only have two, three or a handful of flake scars, mostly chipped off rather randomly. Their natural surface there-fore still covers large parts of the artefacts, approximately 25% to almost 100%. The largest core measures 49x40x23 mm. The smallest of all cores is the one with two opposing striking platforms (no. I, pl. 46). It measures only 10x15x9 mm. In spite of its size the numerous blade scars are quite regular. Of course, one might wonder what purpose such small blades were produced for. This might also ques-tion the definition as core. For the core with two crossed striking platforms the natural, existing surfaces were used as striking platforms (no. II, pl. 46). Two and four flake scars can be counted. The same technique is applied to most, if not all, of the tested cores. Old (frost) flake scars and battered surfaces are used without much prepar-ation. Of the eleven tested cores, seven have only two to five flake scars (no. III, pl. 46). These are often irregularly placed across the core. Not all attempts have resulted in well-proportioned flakes; internal fissures and frost dam-age hindered normal debitage. Furthermore, most of the detached flakes must have been very small, some even the size of chips. The remaining four cores all have special

appearances. One is comparable to the other tested cores but quite large (49x40x23 mm), presumably resulting in at least one or two good quality flakes (no. IV, pl. 46). Two cores are originally flakes from which other, smaller flakes have been chipped off. On one of these a distinct gloss covers the bulb of percussion and some of the ridges of the flake scars (no. V, pl. 46). It is unclear whether this is a posterior patina or the result of some sort of use or even hafting. Additionally, one of the edges is fully covered with minuscule retouches. The last core is the only one that is worked with the bipolar technique (no. VI, pl. 46). It cannot be defined as a bipolar piece yet given that only one striking ridge is present. The opposing ridge is bat-tered and hardly definable.

ToolsThe composition of tools on site S2 consists of 28 scrap-ers, 12 borers, 9 rounded pieces, 7 trapezes, 1 transverse arrowhead, 89 retouched pieces, 42 indeterminate tools or fragments thereof, and 10 retouched chips. Up to 76% of the tools are made of fine-grained flint with or with-out bryozoans. The exceptions are a rounded piece, five retouched blades, and an indeterminate tool which are made from medium-grained flint. Up to 41 tools could not be analysed on raw material type due to discoloura-tion as the result of heat exposure, i.e. calcination.

A total of 15 scrapers is intact and can be divided by type. The other 13 scrapers are fragments, all smaller or larger pieces of scraper fronts. Six scrapers and scraper fragments were exposed to heat resulting in two lightly burnt, three medium burnt, and one heavily burnt arte-facts. In three cases the heat exposure was so invasive that it prevented the flint type analysis. The blanks used are 3 flakes, 15 blades, and 10 flakes or blades or fragments thereof. The undamaged scrapers roughly group together in terms of their dimensions, except for one end scraper produced on a blade. The former measure between a min-imum of 12x11x2 mm and maximum of 32x20x6 mm (average 19x14x4 mm), while the latter measures 42x19x6 mm. The scraper fragments are all very alike measuring

Intact regular blades Intact irregular blades L W T L W Tmin. 39 13 3 min. 10 5 1max. 48 18 7 max. 38 17 8average 44 16 4 average 23 10 4st. dev. 3.7 2.1 1.9 st. dev. 9.7 4.1 2.4 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 2.4 6.9 2.6 min. 2.0 3.0 1.2max. 3.3 14.3 5.3 max. 3.0 16.0 7.0average 2.8 11.3 4.1 average 2.4 8.0 3.5

Table 2.5 Different measurement ratios of regular and irregular blades at site S2.


between 10x9x3 mm and 22x19x6 mm with an average of 14x14x4 mm.

The intact scrapers are defined as five single end scrap-ers, seven single end scrapers with retouched edges, two double end scrapers, and one round scraper. The scraper fronts of all single end scrapers are located distally and have a rectilinear, curved or lightly oblique appear-ance (nos. 1 – 5, pl. 36). On one of them the bulb is no longer present (no. 2). The fracture at the proximal end is retouched on the ventral face, as is the adjoining edge, resulting in a little point. In this way the appearance of a small borer tip is created and it even seems to be lightly rounded. With the scraper front on the opposing end, it is possible that it is no more than a hafting arrangement but it may equally be a combination tool. The seven sin-gle end scrapers with retouched edges also have distally located scraper fronts. These are generally rectilinear to lightly curved (nos. 6 – 7, pl. 36). One of these, namely the scraper produced on a rather large and regular blade, shows a bright gloss on both edges possibly as the result of usage (no. 7). Other delineations of the scraper fronts occur rarely. The first is more denticulated (no. 8, pl. 36) while the second shows a pointed front and a notch in the edge (no. 9, pl. 36). The bulb of percussion is chipped off from the third scraper of which the general appear-ance is more rounded and the edges are more intensely retouched (no. 10, pl. 36). The two double scrapers are clearly produced on blades and have a regular form (nos. 11 – 12, pl. 36). The largest of them shows gloss covering the small use-retouches on one edge. This is possibly the result of usage of the blade but whether this was prior to its use as or transformation into a scraper is unknown. The round scraper is not only different from the others by its type but it is the only one that is retouched ventrally (no. 13, pl. 37). Strictly speaking it should not be defined as round as a 6 mm section of the edge at the bulb is not retouched. However, the overall appearance and the con-trast to the other scrapers make it plausible nevertheless.

The fragmented scrapers are a combination of broken off scraper fronts and larger scraper fragments. Five have a rectilinear or curved scraper front, one is more rounded, two have a partial rounded scraper front, and one is den-ticulated (nos. 14 – 21, pl. 37). The latter might be a frag-ment of a double scraper because one or two retouches are visible at the fractured end. On one of the larger pieces a gloss is visible on the edge of the blade (no. 17). Furthermore, two fragments may be rounded scrapers of which one end is broken off (nos. 22 – 23, pl. 37). The final two have a hint of being double scrapers because one edge is retouched and curves inwards again (nos. 24 – 25, pl. 37 – 38).

The twelve borers can be subdivided into ten borers and two possible borers. They are all made from blades of which nine are missing a larger proximal or distal part, two are even missing their uttermost tip. The lack of the

tip does not hinder their definition but the fragmenta-tion might imply that double borers5 have not been rec-ognised. Indirectly the presence of double borers can be ruled out because none of the existing fragments fit or resemble any of the other fragments. Therefore the frag-mentation only influences the measurements. Current dimensions are between 22x12x4 mm and 49x15x6 mm with an average of 32x14x4 mm. The orientation of the retouched tips is divided almost evenly, five proximal, seven distal. The tips themselves measure between 2x1.5 mm and 3x3 mm (width and thickness). Four artefacts are burned, one lightly, the others moderately which obscures the flint type analysis in two cases. Of the ten borers, five have more or less straight retouched edges (no. 26 – 28, pl. 38), two have concave retouched edges (nos. 29 – 30, pl. 38) while the remaining three are positioned obliquely (no. 31 – 32, pl. 38). The tip of one of the borers is clearly rounded (no. 27). Of the oblique borers two are excep-tional. One is an obliquely detached blade with alternating retouches on both edges resulting in a point at the distal end (no. 31). The other is a laterally curved blade with dorsal retouches on one edge and ventral retouches on the other (no. 32). On the distal tip this is done the other way around. Noteworthy is the rounded tip with splintering. The definition of the two possible borers is problematic because of the lack of intense retouching (no. 33 – 34, pl. 38). The first tool shows retouches on both edges of the bulb, more clearly on the ventral face, less distinct on the dorsal face in combination with rounding (no. 33). The edge of the blade is covered with gloss indicating a prior, secondary or alternate use of the blade. Without use-wear analysis it cannot be ruled out the traces on the proxi-mal end may not be the result of hafting or even the use as a strike-a-light. The second possible borer is pointed and lightly oblique (no. 34). Its distal end is retouched ventrally as if to flatten it which may be some sort of hafting arrangement.

The collection of rounded pieces is made up of nine arte-facts of which four are blades with or without retouches on the edges (nos. 35 – 38, pl. 39). Nos. 36 and no. 37 are two of the few specimens with two rounded ends. The remaining five are all rather small artefact fragments of which one is a clear proximal end (no. 38, pl. 39). The activity that leads to the rounding off of the tip or other part of an artefact is under discussion. In the section on use-wear analysis this topic is discussed in more detail (see main book section 5.4).

Several other tools show the rounding off of a tip. These artefacts are described in their designated tool sec-tions and include a scraper (no. 2), three borers (nos. 27, 32, and 33), two retouched blades (no. 62 and no. 6390), and two indeterminate tools (nos. 67 and 68).

5 A double borer has two borer tips, one located proximally, the other located distally, just as with double scrapers.


The arrowheads are defined as seven trapezes and one transverse arrowhead. They are all produced on blades made from fine-grained flint. Due to burning the raw material of two trapezes can no longer be attested. All trapezes are of the asymmetrical type (nos. 39 – 45, pl. 39). Only two are undamaged, the others miss very small to larger parts of their body. They are all very much alike with abrupt, direct retouches on both edges. The undam-aged and lightly damaged artefacts6 measure between 14x9x2 mm and 17x9x2 mm resulting in an average of 15x11x3 mm. The transverse arrowhead is a borderline case as it measures 15x15x3 mm (no. 46, pl. 39). Yet it is set aside not only because it differs in length-width ratio but also for its retouches. One end has ventral retouches, the other dorsal.

The length-width ratio is calculated from the undam-aged and only lightly damaged examples. Of course it is more precise to use only undamaged artefacts for this pur-pose but that would result in only three specimens which is rather a limited number to calculate a proper ratio. The damaged pieces only miss a tip of 1 maximum 2 mm and stand aside from the fragmented ones which miss a sig-nificant part. The length-width ratio varies between 1.1 and 1.9, with 1.0 for the transverse arrowhead, resulting in an average of 1.3.

The large amount of retouched pieces is defined as 23 retouched flakes, 59 retouched blades, and 7 retouched rejuvenation pieces. One must bear in mind that some of them are lightly damaged or even fragmented. This implies that they might actually be parts of other tools. During the definition the criterion was that at least ½ of the artefact was still present7. If a larger part was missing, the artefact was defined as indeterminate tool fragment. Then again, even a retouched blade of which ¾ is present, the missing tip might have been the part that makes it into a borer or a scraper.

The retouched flakes generally are produced out of simple unidirectional flakes. One, however, is produced on a bipolar flake (no. 47, pl. 39), five are produced on plunging flakes of which at least three show remnants of the opposing striking platform (nos. 48 – 49, pl. 40), one is made on an obliquely detached blade (no. 50, pl. 40), and another may be a blade fragment (no. 51, pl.

6 For the measurement calculations of flakes and blades only fully intact specimens are chosen as these are plentiful. The fully intact specimens of trapezes and transverse arrowheads are often limited, thus nearly intact specimens are also taken into account. These nearly intact specimens only miss a smallest fragment of their tips, often limited to 1 mm and rarely 2 mm.

7 The estimation is based on the delineation of the edges of the tool. When the edges are already converging towards the distal end, an approximate length can be assessed. Therefore, it can be decided how much of the artefact remains. With regular blades, however, this is a bit more challenging. Here comparison with intact blades tells us how much is missing based on an evaluation of the overall length, width and thickness of the blade.

40). All these retouched flakes mostly have convex, rec-tilinear or concave edges covered with short, abrupt or semi-abrupt retouches (no. 52, pl. 40). These follow the natural curvature of the blank’s edge or are set on a frac-ture. Only two have a notched edge, and one has a den-ticulated edge (nos. 53 – 54, pl. 40). Most of the flakes are fragmented. The undamaged fraction measures between 13x12x1 mm and 45x24x7 mm which results in an aver-age of 30x20x5 mm. Only a few tools have special charac-teristics. Two fragments fit together forming a long flake. It is rather regular but the oblique distal end makes it too wide to be a blade (no. 55, pl. 40). The bulb of another flake is worked away by indirect, abrupt, short retouches (no. 56, pl. 40). Furthermore, one half of the distal frac-ture is retouched in a way which gives the impression of an unfinished transverse arrowhead. The retouched edges of flakes nos. 0617 and 60046 are converging towards the distal end. Unfortunately, the distal parts are broken off. Artefact no. 60121 is even more fragmented. These three fragmented flakes might originally have been some-thing totally different than a retouched flake (no. 57, pl. 40). Finally, two flakes have a scraper-like appearance of which flake no. 900654 is rather thick and the retouches give the retouched edge a rounded outline. The other (no. 900074) is a distal fragment of a plunging flake or blade of which the fracture is partially but intentionally retouched. Because of its thickness it has the appearance of a scraper although it cannot be defined as such as the retouched edge is not a well-developed scraper front. It might have been the intention to transform the fragment into a scraper, and it even may have been used as such, but “might have been” is not decisive enough.

The group of retouched blades is the largest of the tool groups. They can be subdivided into 44 backed blades, 10 denticulated blades, 4 notched blades, and 1 truncated blade. Of all the blades 11 can be defined as regular ones with one parallel ridge, 26 with two parallel ridges, and 4 with two converging ridges. A few of them are detached obliquely (no. 58, pl. 41). Five plunging blades occur, of which one detached a part of the opposite striking plat-form (no. 900771). The majority of the blades are broken, only 10% are complete. Up to 31% are proximal-medial parts, 37% are medial parts, and 22% are medial-distal parts. Due to this fragmentation it is impossible to say anything significant about the full length of these arte-facts. However, the blades can be compared to other blades like those with use-wear traces. Thus, the complete blades have average measurements of 35x12x4 mm while the fragments have an average of 27x14x4 mm. Finally, it was observed that on several of the blades use-wear traces in the form of gloss were visible, covered or not by (use-)retouches. Most backed blades, 35 to be precise, show retouches that are short and which do not alter the general shape of the straight edged blades (no. 59, pl. 41). These retouches can be located on one or two edges, dominantly dorsally but also ventrally. On three of these blades the


retouches continue along the edge covering the proximal or distal end, creating a curved to sharp tip. On artefact no. 6447 these ventral retouches removed the bulb. The latter is also one of the only blades with predominantly ventral retouches. The general shape of the straight edges of 7 other backed blades is lightly altered by the retouches (no. 60, pl. 41). On top of these, one blade merely has a half retouched fracture with some small use-retouches on the edges and a single blade has a lightly curved form (no. 0125) with alternating retouches on one edge. The 10 den-ticulated blades often show a combination of direct and indirect short retouches, on one or both edges (no. 61, pl. 41). The proximal tip of one of them (no. 6390) is lightly rounded off. A second blade also shows rounding on both corners of the earlier broken off distal tip (no. 62, pl. 41). Originally, this might have been a borer as both retouched edges appear to be converging. Another blade (no. 63, pl. 41) is one of the rare complete ones and does not only show retouches on the edge but also on the distal tip. Of the 4 notched blades 2 are broken in the notch perpen-dicular to the debitage axis. Artefact no. 900095 can be refitted with no. 900096, a backed blade (no. 64, pl. 41). Artefact no. 900001 is a distal blade fragment with two notches which is also retouched all the way around the distal tip. The only truncated blade (no. 65, pl. 41) is a rather large and regular plunging blade of 53x20x4 mm with, besides the truncation on the proximal end, small and irregular retouches on both edges.

The remaining retouched pieces are produced on 2 striking edge rejuvenation pieces, 2 indeterminate frag-ments, 2 nodules, and 1 bipolar piece. The retouches are short, can be direct or indirect and only in one case lightly alter the delineation of the edge of the artefact. One of the striking edge rejuvenation pieces (no. 60041) is rather large and plunging (57x21x8 mm), the other is smaller and is half a blade, half a rejuvenation piece (no. 66, pl. 42) (see main book 3.4). The retouched nodules are 41x18x12 mm and 52x26x8 mm. The smaller, retouched bipolar piece is regular (24x15x7 mm).

The final group of tools consists of 4 indeterminate tools, 38 indeterminate tool fragments and 10 retouched chips. The last two are no longer assignable to one type of tool or another, although the different morphology of the frag-ments and their retouched edges sometimes indicates a possible definition.

Of the four indeterminate tools, two are very similar (nos. 67 – 68, pl. 42). They are both produced on more or less regular blades and are of similar size being 29x12x3 mm and 31x13x2 mm. The edges near the distal end are converging and retouched, one artefact ventrally, the other dorsally but of both artefacts the tip is broken off. They might originally have been borers. After the tip was bro-ken off, the artefact must have been used, with or without further retouching of the tip, which resulted in the round-ing of the tip. The nature of this use is as yet unknown.

The other two might have been borers as well; both pos-sibly double ones (no. 69, pl. 42). Yet again, the tips have been broken off. On each blade one of these fractures is covered with short, abrupt retouches. The other tip of artefact no. 69 has a rather small bulge, but despite that it may have been useable as a borer. The edges of these four artefacts are lightly denticulated, only no. 60066 is heavily denticulated.

The indeterminate tool fragments have a wide var-iety of shapes. Yet, some are more alike than others and they can therefore be grouped together. The first group consists mostly of regular blade fragments with trunca-tion. Four may be fragments of trapezes (nos. 70 – 71, pl. 42), the other five are most likely tips of truncated blades because they are thicker and retouched less carefully (nos. 72 – 74, pl. 42). A second group also consists of blades but here the edges near the tips are retouched as if they were borers (nos. 75 – 76, pl. 42). Four of them have only one retouched edge; the other three have two retouched edges. Unfortunately, all tips, or even larger parts, are broken off. Two of this group are quite special. The first has, besides a few retouches on the dorsal face, a series of semi-abrupt retouches on the ventral face creating a curved edge (no. 75). The other is a proximal tip with alternating retouches which has the allure of a tanged artefact (no. 76). The last group of six fragments are tips of artefacts of which two might even be re-sharpening flakes of scrapers (no. 77, pl. 42). The remaining sixteen are fragments with no special characteristics or recognisable morphological features (no. 78, pl. 43). They are parts of flakes or blades with some sort of retouch, they may even be potlids detached from the tool’s edges.

Of the retouched chips8 60% have been exposed to heat. Their general appearance suggests that one might be a broken off borer point (no. Z-019-1), two might be broken off scraper fronts (nos. 6703, 901163) (no. 79, pl. 43) and one might even be a very small scraper (no. 80, pl. 43).

Bipolar piecesThe 26 bipolar pieces can be divided into 6 regular and 20 irregular specimens. They are exclusively made out of fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans. Heat dam-age prevented the flint type analysis of one artefact. Most of the bipolar pieces still have remnants of natural surface or have frost flake scars indicating they were made out of small nodules.

The regular pieces all have rather similar sizes between 18x14x4 and 25x21x13 mm and also have similar appear-ances (no. 81, pl. 43). On one of them a flake could be refitted (no. 82, pl. 43). The flake, however, did not present bipolar characteristics. Although the longitudinal curva-ture is straight, the distal end is a hinge.

8 Retouched chips are basically the same as the indeterminate tool fragments but with a limited length (< 1 cm).


The irregular bipolar pieces show larger variation rang-ing from 13x9x4 mm up to 38x334x16 mm. Their appear-ance is also very different, from long and thin (33x13x5 mm) or rectangular and thicker (25x21x11 m) to irregu-lar (18x17x9 mm). The depicted artefact is a good repre-sentative of these irregular pieces even if it is produced on a decortication flake (no. 83, pl. 43). Five of the bipolar pieces do not have one debitage axis but are reoriented a quarter turn for a second debitage axis resulting in two crossed axes (no. 84, pl. 43). The final piece is a bit of an exception not only because it was made from a large plunging flake but also because of its battered edges (no. 85, pl. 43).

Artefacts with visual use-wear tracesThese 65 artefacts are 4 flakes, 51 blades, 7 flake or blade fragments, 2 striking edge rejuvenation pieces (no. 86, pl. 44), and 1 nodule, all with visible use-wear traces. Up to 82% of the artefacts are made out of fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans. On their edges these artefacts present, in combination with each other or not, small, irregular use-retouches and gloss. The use-retouches vary from no more than three or four grouped together to a whole edge irregularly covered. The gloss shows equal degrees of differentiation, from only one small area on one edge to larger parts of both edges. The use of fine-grained flint is predominant; only two blades are pro-duced from medium-grained flint, one light-brown, the other darker brown. Due to heat damage or calcination 15% of the artefacts could not be analysed to raw material type. For comparative reasons average measurements are presented for the blades only. The intact blades measure 46x18x5 mm, the fragmented ones 33x15x4 mm.

It is notable that blades are preferred as blanks, espe-cially regular ones with parallel edges and mostly one or two, sometimes more, parallel ridges (75%) (nos. 87 – 88, pl. 44). A minority of the blades are irregular. Another point of interest is the high fragmentation rate; up to 88% of all the blades are incomplete. More than half of these are proximal-medial parts (53%), 37% are medial parts, and only 9% are medial-distal parts. Still, most fragments are rather large. As with the other blades on the site, plunging blades, double bulbs (no. 89, pl. 44), and refits occur (no. 90, pl. 44).

WasteThis group comprises 78 indeterminate fragments, 28 frost flakes, 110 potlids and 17 nodules. Up to six indeter-minate fragments may be flakes that have been detached along internal fissures. Unfortunately, the impact point is too indistinct to define them as flakes. Another four chunks show fissures and impact points on several sides indicating they are all fragments of shattered cores or nodules. Not only internal fissures distort conchoidal fractures, the larger inclusions in four indeterminate fragments could have triggered the same effect. Still, two

fragments appear to have been unsystematically tested for debitage in a minor way. Within the group of frost flakes and potlids five more artefacts have indistinct impact points. Whether these are the result of deliberate debitage or accidental battering during transport of the nodule remains unidentifiable. All seventeen nodules are covered with a combination of weathered to rolled cortex and (col-oured) wind gloss. Their dimensions range from 19x10x3 mm to 58x38x25 mm for the minimum and maximum measurements with an average of 36x23x14 mm. On one of the nodules a few chips are detached indicating acci-dental damage or minor testing.

< 1 cm: ChipsThe 359 chips belonging to this group make up 26% of the total flint material recovered from site S2. Compared to the artefacts ≥ 1 cm, they are studied in a limited way. Heat exposure and weight are, along with special features, the only aspects analysed.

The chips weigh between 0.01 g and 0.87 g. The total weight of 48.96 g results in an average of 0.14 g. If we con-sider that microchips may weigh between 0.01 and 0.05 g, then 27% of the material here may possibly be regarded as such. The number of artefacts per weight group shows a peak at 0.05 g and decrease afterwards (figure 2.1).

Of all the chips 62% or 224 pieces are exposed to heat. Medium exposure occurs most (63%), followed by heav-ily exposure (34%), and light exposure (3%). Besides the discolouration of all 77 heavily burnt chips, 96 more, all medium burnt chips, are discoloured as well.

No special characteristics or features have been observed. The only note made was that artefact no. 2166 was recovered near, or even between, the pelvis found in grave V and the forearm in grave VI.

Comparison with Deckers’ study from 1979In the article 1503 artefacts are mentioned consisting of 131 from Van der Heide’s excavations from 1964 and 1967 along with 549 artefacts found in situ and 823 retrieved from sieved soil. Although Deckers does not mention this, the artefacts not from Van der Heide’s excavations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Numbe

r

Weigth

Figure 2.1 Number of chips per weight class of site S2 (weight in 0.01 g).


must have come from excavations conducted by Van der Waals in 1975, 1977, and 1978. The 1979 excavation had not yet taken place. Deckers divides the material into 11 cores, 430 flakes, 520 blades, and 542 other pieces of flint material. In total, 141 artefacts with use-wear traces and 154 tools, such as trapezes, borers, scrapers and retouched flakes and blades, were defined. A piece by piece compari-son of Deckers’ typological list will not be carried out, only certain points of interest, general ideas and conclu-sions will be discussed.

The number of artefacts still present today is somewhat different than those of 1979. It appears that one more arte-fact was counted for the Van der Heide excavations and of the 1372 artefacts from the Van der Waals excavations only 1228 are present today. Furthermore, the 1979 excav-ation still needed to be executed and the extra 25 artefacts of the 2004 excavation were not yet known. Thus, at least 144 pieces are missing. Even more, the number may be as high as 188 artefacts, or even higher still, as the sam-ple of 188 artefacts analysed by Raemaekers (1999: 35-37) appears to have been lost, and may or may not be part of the 144 missing pieces counted here. The three empty finds bags found in the boxes may hint at the latter, yet provide no further information on the nature of the missing arte-facts. Luckily, Deckers included quite a few drawings into his article and now we at least have an idea of the tools that are missing (nos. 91 – 106, pl. 44 – 45)9. These seem to include trapezes, borers, rounded pieces, scrapers, and retouched flakes and blades. But the number of depicted tools is not in correspondence with the total number of missing pieces. This might imply that more tools, in com-bination with other artefacts, are lost to us. Unfortunately, a comparison to see what exactly is missing is rather diffi-cult since Deckers’ typological classification of flakes and blades, and other types of flint artefacts, differs from the one used by Raemaekers (1999), and the one used here10.

Deckers writes about the cores that they are residual and that only one of them has one platform and four of them have two opposing platforms. On the remaining cores natural surface and negative scars are present but Deckers does not see intentional flaking. In the paragraph on the four cores he states that “all have two opposite striking platforms with a width of 1 mm or less” (Deckers 1979: 148). This implies a striking ridge instead of a strik-ing platform. He sets the one core with one platform aside as a separate group since its platform is wider than 1 mm.

Deckers made a distribution curve of the lengths of both flakes and blades. The intact flakes mostly have lengths between 5 and 10 mm with a maximum length

9 As the material is missing, the debitage axis or presence or absence of a bulb could not be determined.

10 Deckers mentioned that “83 flakes are at least twice as long as they are wide” indicating that his division into flakes and blades is based on technological features and not measurements as is the case in this study.

of 48 mm, while the maximum length for an intact blade is 63 mm. Both these large artefacts must be part of the missing material as the maximum lengths of intact flakes and blades in this research are 40 and 48 mm respectively. His detailed analysis of the butts, indicating that edged platforms occur predominantly with flakes and plain plat-forms with blades, is useful and offers additional infor-mation to this study. On five flakes Deckers sees signs of secondary flaking on the proximal and distal end; a fea-ture he also mentions with the four cores. Yet, he does not identify any of them as pièce esquillée (ibid: 151). Neither does he talk about bipolar technique or bipolar pieces.

Three other aspects were discussed in the article. The flint material has remnants of heavy patina and smoothed cortex which makes Deckers conclude that the raw mater-ial was transported by ice. As the nearest source of raw material he suggests the boulder clay outcrops of Urk and Schokland (ibid: 148). The second point of interest is the discrepancy he sees between the size of the cores and the size of the flakes and blades. The flake negatives on the cores are too small to produce the flakes found on the site. Finally, there is no proof that the trapezes were produced using the microburin technique as defined by Brezillon (1972). According to Deckers there seems to be evidence of making trapezes using truncated blades as defined by Bastian (1962) (ibid: 153). These three aspects are corrob-orated in this research.

Finally, the spatial distribution of the flint artefacts shows no relation to any features on the site, neither ver-tically, nor horizontally. According to Deckers all flints seem to be evenly distributed throughout the occupation layer. Only when the material is plotted by weight are a cluster and a peripheral zone distinguishable. Tools do not cluster either, although specimens with convex and straight scraper fronts are differently distributed than the denticulated types. Even more, he mentions a flake in association with grave I and a flake and a blade with use-wear traces in grave VI. This association, but also the lack of flints in the other graves that are partially located within the main flint distribution area, make him assume that the graves were present on the site before the flint, and pottery, were deposited.

2.2.3 Site S3

Total amountThe total number of 25365 flint finds11 can be divided into 16171 artefacts ≥ 1 cm weighing 25,712.46 g and 9194 artefacts < 1 cm with a total weight of 1,176.14 g (tables 2.6 and 2.7). The larger material is split into 6 categories: 11147 pieces of debitage material, 1420 tools, 721 bipolar pieces, 468 artefacts with visible use-wear traces, 40 other artefacts and 2375 pieces of waste. The 40 other artefacts

11 Of the sample of 856 artefacts analysed by Raemaekers (1999: 37-41) 114 pieces appears to have gone missing over time.


are 38 fragments of polished flint axes and 2 possible tools. These categories form 51%, 9%, 12%, 4%, 1%, and 23% of the weight of the material when the artefacts < 1 cm are not included.

As with the stone material, the flint artefacts of S5 and S6 are studied together with those from S3 as they are excav-ation trenches on the same site. The trench labelled S5 runs from the site into the creek and trench S6 was dug to examine the relation between the core region of site S3 and the core region of site S6 (see main book figure 2.7).

Raw material and alteration by fire A wide selection of flint types could be discerned on this site (table 2.8). The dominant type by far is fine-grained flint of which the variety without bryozoans (62.3%) is represented more than the variety with bryozoans (17.2%). Medium- and coarse-grained flint types are very rare (1.5% and 0.1%). Again, the varieties without bry-ozoans occur more often than those with bryozoans. Of the 304 artefacts made out of medium- or coarse-grained flint, 27 are tools (9%); for the fine-grained flint types this is the same.

Up to 31% of the artefacts ≥ 1 cm are heat damaged and this prevented the flint type analysis of 3008 arte-facts. A quarter of both the debitage material and the

Total % % ≥ 1 cm Burnt %← LB MB HB % ↓Debitage material 11147 44 68.9 2798 25 299 1873 626 56.1Flakes 3824 15.1 47 561 15 108 324 129 Flake fragments 4362 17.2 53 1532 35 134 1048 350 Total flakes 8186 100 Blades 1061 4.2 41 146 14 20 94 32 Blade fragments 1522 6.0 59 491 32 31 367 93 Total blades 2583 100 Rejuvenation pieces 211 0.8 47 22 5 27 15 Cores 167 0.7 21 13 1 13 7 Tools 1420 6 8.8 345 24 42 238 65 6.9Scrapers 435 1.7 74 17 17 45 12 Borers 27 0.1 9 33 1 5 3 Rounded pieces 41 0.2 6 15 6 Trapezes 40 0.2 4 10 3 1 Transverse arrowheads 6 0.0 2 33 2 Tools on flake 205 0.8 29 14 4 18 7 Tools on blade 209 0.8 49 23 6 30 13 Tools on other blanks 53 0.2 13 25 10 3 Indet. tools 14 0.1 3 21 3 Indet. tool fragments 247 1.0 117 47 7 89 21 Retouched chips 143 0.6 39 27 7 27 5 Bipolar pieces 721 3 4.5 110 15 15 70 25 2.2Visible use-wear 468 2 2.9 89 19 12 62 15 1.8Polished axe fragm 38 0 0.2 7 18 7 Other tools 2 0 0.0 Waste 2375 9 14.7 1639 69 22 1228 389 32.9Indet. fragments 713 2.8 363 51 15 250 98 Frost flakes 392 1.5 101 26 6 68 27 Potlids 1162 4.6 1162 100 903 259 Nodules 108 0.4 13 12 1 7 5 Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 16171 64 100.0 4988 31 390 3478 1120 100.0 8% 70% 22% < 1 cm 9194 36 2670 29 289 1860 521 11% 70% 20% Total 25365 100 7658 30 679 5338 1641 9% 70% 21%




tools is burned. This percentage is lower for the other typological categories except for the waste material that is highly influenced by the presence of potlids. If these are excluded, the number drops to 39% which is still not in conformity with the other typological categories. As heat damage leads to fragmentation, it can be expected that the fragmented flakes and blades are more often burned than the intact specimens. Almost a quarter of the rejuvenation pieces are burned but only 13% of the cores.

Debitage materialThe bulk of the recovered artefacts is debitage material. It accounts for 44% of the artefacts and up to 69% of the material ≥ 1 cm. The debitage material can be divided into 8186 flakes, 2583 blades, 211 rejuvenation pieces, and 167 cores. It must be mentioned that for this site some aspects of the analysis have been undertaken in a slightly different

manner than with the rest of the sites. One of these differ-ences is the assessment of the natural surface coverage on the artefacts. In the beginning of the analysis only pres-ence or absence of cortex or patina on fragmented arte-facts was noted, not the estimated percentage.

Within the group of flakes, the damaged ones are slightly more numerous that the undamaged ones. The larger part of the intact flakes is still partially or fully covered with some kind of natural surface (table 2.9). This may be fresh, weathered or rolled cortex and glossy, windblown or col-oured patina in all sorts of combinations. Decortication flakes occur quite frequently. Posterior patina or pseudo-cortex is present but in low numbers. The same types of cortex and patina are visible on the fragmented flakes. A special kind of cortex is present on a handful of flakes. It is a granular cortex, possibly the result of burning. Also, a

S5 % % ≥ 1 cm S6 % % ≥ 1 cm Debitage material 19 48 47.5 62 45 55.9Flakes 8 20.0 67 14 10.2 40Flake fragments 4 10.0 33 21 15.3 60Total flakes 12 100 35 100Blades 1 2.5 14 11 8.0 41Blade fragments 6 15.0 86 16 11.7 59Total blades 7 100 27 100Rejuvenation pieces Cores Tools 5 13 12.5 10 7 9.0Scrapers 3 2.2 Borers 1 0.7 Rounded pieces 1 2.5 Trapezes Transverse arrowheads Tools on flake 1 2.5 3 2.2 Tools on blade 2 5.0 1 0.7 Tools on other Indet. tools Indet. tool fragments 1 2.5 2 1.5 Retouched chips Bipolar pieces 5 13 12.5 6 4 5.4Visible use-wear 3 8 7.5 11 8 9.9Polished axe fragm Other tools Waste 8 20 20.0 22 16 19.8Indet. fragments 5 3.6 Frost flakes 4 10.0 4 2.9 Potlids 2 5.0 11 8.0 Nodules 2 5.0 2 1.5 Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 40 100.0 100.0 111 81 100.0 < 1 cm 0 0 26 19 Total 40 100.0 137 100.0

Table 2.7 Total number of artefacts per typological category of site S3, divided by trench.


few artefacts have a mirror like or a waxy gloss. Whether this is also the result of heat exposure is unknown.

The measurements of the intact flakes range from 10x6x1 mm for the minimum dimensions to 62x47x27 mm for the maximum length, width and thickness. The maximum width of 47 mm is exceptional, more common are widths between 10 and 20 mm. Once beyond that their number lowers gradually as their width increases. The same applies to the thickness of 27 mm which is also larger than the usual 1 to 10 mm. The average meas-urements are 16x14x4mm. The length-width ratio at a

minimum and a maximum of 0.3 and 1.9 respectively result in an average of 1.2. The averages of the length-thickness ratio and width-thickness ratio are 5.5 and 4.7 correspondingly.

Most of the flakes were detached unidirectionally (92%). At least 641 flakes were detached using the bipolar technique. Some of these and a few others seem to be flakes splitting a (bipolar) piece in halves. Around 50 flakes are obliquely detached; some of them even have parallel edges and ridges. Still, they do not have a 2:1 length-width ratio. Up to 200 flakes or more are partially detached along an

Number FG B MG B CG B FG MG CG Indet.Debitage material 11147 Flakes 3824 772 1 1 2677 54 12 307Flake fragments 4362 693 2 1 2613 55 12 986Blades 1061 173 780 13 95Blade fragments 1522 247 2 916 14 5 338Rejuvenation pieces 211 45 1 135 2 28Cores 167 33 116 3 15Tools 1420 Scrapers 435 106 1 291 5 32Borers 27 6 14 7Rounded pieces 41 13 23 1 1 3Trapezes 40 12 23 1 4Transverse arrowheads 6 4 2Tools on flake 205 56 129 5 1 14Tools on blade 209 50 123 4 2 30Tools on other 53 9 34 1 9Indet. tools 14 3 10 1Indet. tool fragments 247 31 139 2 1 74Retouched chips 143 23 96 1 1 22Bipolar pieces 721 202 1 1 450 5 4 58Visible use-wear 468 91 330 12 1 34Polished axe fragm 38 1 23 13 1Other 2 2 Waste 2375 Indet. fragments 713 79 1 357 22 4 250Frost flakes 392 69 1 247 16 3 56Potlids 1162 52 1 465 10 2 632Nodules 108 19 77 2 10Total 16171 2785 8 6 10074 241 49 3008 100% 17.2% 0.0% 0.0% 62.3% 1.5% 0.3% 18.6%

Debitage material 11147 18% 0% 0% 65% 1% 0% 16%Tools 1420 22% 0% 62% 1% 0% 14%Bipolar pieces 721 28% 0% 0% 62% 1% 1% 8%Visible use-wear 468 19% 71% 3% 0% 7%Other 40 3% 63% 33% 3%Waste 2375 9% 0% 0% 48% 2% 0% 40%Total 16171 2785 8 6 10074 241 49 3008

FG B: fine-grained flint with bryozoans, MG B: medium-grained flint with bryozoans, CG B: coarse-grained flint with bryozoans, FG: fine-grained flint without bryozoans, MG: medium-grained flint without bryozoans, CG: coarse-grained flint without bryozoans, Indet.: indeterminate type of flint.



internal fracture in the core body. This can be a frost frac-ture, hertz cones or some other type of fracture. A small number of flakes have been damaged or broken recently. Some other special features like double bulbs, plunging flakes or very light gloss on the edges appear on three or four specimens.

The blades are, compared to the flakes, underrepresented. They only account for 10% of the material. Blade fragments are more numerous than intact ones. Approximately half of the undamaged blades and less of the damaged flakes are still partially, or fully, covered with natural surface (table 2.9). This may consist of weathered or rolled cor-tex and/or glossy, windblown or coloured patina. Fresh chalky cortex or pseudo-cortex occurs seldom. The same applies to posterior gloss or colour. At least 93 specimens can be considered decortication blades. Some of the dam-aged blades are also completely covered with a natural surface which is unfortunately no guarantee for them being decortication pieces. Only a handful of blades show special kinds of surface, best described as mirror-like gloss and some kind of a granular surface.

The intact blades have average measurements of 21x8x4 mm with a minimum of 10x1x1 mm and maximum of 65x30x20 mm (table 2.10). The resulting length-width ratios have a minimum of 2.0 and a maximum of 13.0 with an average of 2.7. The average of the length-thick-ness is 7.5 and of the width-thickness 2.9. The blade frag-ments represent 35% medial parts, 32% proximal-medial parts, and 29% distal parts. Only 36 blades are broken lat-erally (siret fracture) while 20 blades show a combination of perpendicular and lateral fractures (together 4%).

Predominantly a unidirectional debitage technique was applied (90%). The other 246 blades are detached in a bipolar way. In quite a few cases the ventral face runs straight through the core resulting in a split specimen. The unidirectional blades are more often irregular than regular in shape. The former may be described as less sys-tematically produced blades. In the study here, the length-width ratio determines the type of detachment. Still, large numbers of the blades have regular edges and parallel ridges, even their measurements differ from the less sys-tematically produced blades (table 2.11). Approximately 296 blades have parallel edges and one parallel ridge,

Natural surface coverage Posterior Number 0% % 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % indet. % Number %Debitage material 11147 Flakes 3824 1686 44 972 410 223 478 55 56 32 0.8Flake fragments 4362 2314 53 490 214 84 274 986 47 1 0.0Blades 1061 550 52 215 150 40 93 13 48 Blade fragments 1522 908 60 135 77 21 58 323 40 1 0.1Rejuvenation pieces 211 95 45 72 27 10 2 5 55 4 1.9Cores 167 23 14 57 59 21 5 2 86 Tools 1420 Scrapers 435 189 43 97 64 30 10 45 57 Borers 27 17 63 7 2 1 37 Rounded pieces 41 21 51 10 4 2 3 1 49 Trapezes 40 35 88 4 1 13 Transverse arrowheads 6 6 100 Tools on flake 205 90 44 49 23 10 25 8 56 Tools on blade 209 123 59 33 12 10 31 41 Tools on other 53 14 26 16 8 3 9 3 74 Indet. tools 14 6 43 2 2 3 1 57 Indet. tool fragments 247 168 68 38 26 6 8 1 32 Retouched chips 143 114 80 24 2 2 1 20 Bipolar pieces 721 199 28 347 127 36 12 72 Visible use-wear 468 260 56 128 49 10 16 5 44 22 4.7Other 40 1 3 17 6 2 12 2 97 Waste 2375 Indet. fragments 713 243 34 238 151 39 17 25 66 Frost flakes 392 73 19 74 53 49 130 13 81 Potlids 1162 733 63 188 94 42 95 10 37 1 0.1Nodules 108 3 7 74 24 100 Total 16171 7868 3213 1563 638 1335 1554 61 0.4 100% 49% 20% 10% 4% 8% 10%



414 have two parallel ridges, and 19 have three or more. Another 66 blades may be the result of systematic blade production but are too short to say this with absolute cer-tainty. Mostly the ridges are straight and parallel, con-verging ridges do not occur that often. Still, they all imply systematic blade production. As with the flakes, special features are present. Obliquely detached blades or very narrow and thin specimens occur, as do plunging blades. And a dozen or so blades have on a small portion of an edge a few retouches. In contrast to the artefacts with vis-ible use-wear traces, these few retouches on the blades may be the result of damage.

The small amount of rejuvenation pieces are divided into 2 crested pieces, 184 striking edge rejuvenation pieces, 12 platform rejuvenation pieces, 2 core tablet, and 11

production plane rejuvenation pieces. Somewhat more than half of the material is partially covered with natural surface. The character of these surfaces is very similar to that of the flakes and blades. The minimum and maximum dimensions of the intact artefacts range between 10x3x1 mm and 50x38x10 mm with an average of 21x13x6 mm. Several of the striking edge rejuvenation pieces can be described as blade-rejuvenation combinations. Their distal parts can be defined as striking edge rejuvenation pieces while the proximal half resembles a standard blade. Other pieces are detached obliquely.

The 167 cores form approximately 1% of the flint mater-ial. They are defined as 28 with one striking platform, 17 with two opposing striking platforms, 7 with two crossed striking platforms, 20 with multiple striking platforms, 80

Flakes Cores L W T L W Tmin. 10 6 1 min. 8 6 6max. 62 47 27 max. 55 56 46average 16 14 4 average 25 23 16st. dev. 6.1 5.4 2.8 st. dev. 9.6 8.9 7.9 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.3 0.7 0.8 min. 0.4 0.4 0.3

max. 1.9 21.0 18.0 max. 3.5 4.3 4.3average 1.2 5.5 4.7 average 1.1 1.8 1.6






tested cores, and 14 core fragments. The final core is so intensely covered with steps, hinges, and flake scars it sets itself apart from the others. The preference of fine-grained flint, especially without bryozoans, is manifest; only three medium-grained cores occur and 15 specimens could not be analysed due to heat exposure, i.e. calcination. Almost 90% of the cores are partially to almost fully covered with natural surface. Weathered and rolled cortex dominates, along with glossy, windblown or coloured patina. The dimensions of the intact cores vary largely from 8x16x13 mm to 55x37x22 mm. The overall minimum and max-imum measurements are 8x6x6 mm and 55x56x46 mm resulting in averages of 25x23x16 mm.

The cores with one striking platform have two or three, and seldom more, flake scars. On seven of the cores, the size of these scars is rather limited raising questions about their usability as blanks for tools. Yet, these artefacts are unmistakably cores; two of them even have very intensely worked striking edges. Five other cores, all rather small, are placed on an anvil when knapped. Their striking plat-form is still present, although in some cases it is more an accumulation of stacked steps and hinges, making a determination as bipolar piece incomplete.

The tendency of placing the cores on an anvil is even more visible with the second type of cores, those with two opposing striking platforms. A total of eight specimens were placed on an anvil to work down the striking plat-form; one platform is still present, the other is reduced to a larger or smaller striking edge or point. Even though these cores have been placed on an anvil, they cannot be considered true bipolar pieces; they are a transitional form between cores and bipolar pieces. The remaining cores have two, fully developed, striking platforms and a handful of detachments from both directions.

Of the few cores with crossed striking platforms two have a striking platform – striking ridge combination and one is produced on a flake. Each core only has a handful of detachments, often small. The grey medium-grained core is a bit larger than the others (38x37x26 mm) and also has somewhat larger flake scars.

The cores with multiple striking platforms are varied in dimensions ranging from 12x18x13 mm to 55x37x22 mm. This results in small cores with very small removals and larger cores with more and better organised, larger removals. Still, six cores have been placed on an anvil for bipolar flaking but also have a striking platform. Two cores are produced on a large and thick flake. Both are more or less elliptical shaped but only one has a crushed end (no. 38260). This is presumably not the result of repeated debi-tage attempts but more likely the result of some sort of use. The artefact resembles the two indeterminate tools on cores (see no. 221, pl. 56).

The final core is exceptional (no. VII, pl. 60). It shows some similarities to the possible hammerstone men-tioned below (see no. 245, pl. 60), yet it is different. The core measures 46x42x34 mm and is partially covered with

natural surface. Around the edges a combination of strik-ing ridges and platforms present themselves. Stacked steps and hinges together with battered edges give the impres-sion of endless pounding in futile attempts to detach good quality flakes. Especially because of the lack of random impact points, this artefact is believed to be a (appren-tice’s) battered core and not a hammerstone.

Almost none of the above mentioned cores show any sign of systematic debitage or well prepared and main-tained production planes. More than two or three remov-als per striking platform are therefore rather rare. The only exceptions are four cores with multiple striking plat-forms, all measuring 4 cm or more. The striking platforms of the above mentioned cores are often plain or consist of a natural surface. All these cores are rather ad hoc; still they have a more developed striking edge and more flake scars than the tested cores that mostly have only one or two detachments per debitage attempt. These attempts can be made on one surface but the nodule might also be tested from two opposing or even multiple sides. The variety is almost as wide as the cores are many. As with the other cores, these tested cores have almost no plat-form preparation and are therefore often made of natural surfaces. Some cores are rather small with evenly small flakes. One of these is artefact no. 24256. It has five lit-tle removals from two opposing platforms but measures by itself only 8x16x13 mm. It has the characteristics of a core except that its size is so small that no flakes of any decent dimensions can be removed. On some cores a large flake is detached to create a striking platform but then the debitage failed on this striking edge (no. 31855). In short, these tested cores are even more ad hoc.

Finally, the core fragments are pieces of different types of cores, some large, some small. Measuring between 11x9x4 mm and 30x39x12 mm they can have one or two remaining platforms or have a combination of a striking platform and a striking ridge.

ToolsThe largest collection of tools comes from site S3. They consist of 435 scrapers, 27 borers, 41 rounded pieces, 40 trapezes, 6 transverse arrowheads, 467 retouched pieces, 261 indeterminate tools or fragments thereof, and 143 retouched chips. Both fine-grained flint with (22%) and fine-grained flint without bryozoans (62%) are predom-inantly used for the production of tools. Exactly 27 tools are made out of medium- or coarse-grained flint, espe-cially retouched pieces and scrapers. Of 198 tools the raw material type could not be attested due to heat exposure.

The group of scrapers is mainly intact even though the num-ber of scraper fragments is considerable. Predominantly end scrapers occur, both single and double, whereas side and round scrapers are rare. About 17% of the artefacts are exposed to heat which is in 32 cases so extensive that it prevents the raw material analysis. The used blanks are


206 flakes, 73 blades, 97 flakes or blades or fragments thereof, 6 rejuvenation pieces, 16 cores, 1 indeterminate fragment, 17 frost flakes, 1 nodule, and 10 bipolar pieces. In 8 cases the blank could not be defined. The undam-aged scrapers have minimum and maximum dimensions of 8x7x2 mm and 41x30x14 mm. The overall average is 18x16x6 mm. The scraper fragments form a less compact group ranging from 8x5x2 mm to 30x21x10 mm with an average of 15x14x5 mm.

The 293 intact scrapers are typologically defined as 99 single end scrapers, 126 single end scrapers with retouched edges, 15 double end scrapers, 6 double end scrapers with retouched edges, 7 round scrapers, and 40 side scrapers. Thus, the end scrapers clearly outnumber the other types (84%).

The 99 single end scrapers are technologically very similar although their morphological appearance varies. This is presumably the result of the many different types of blanks used. Their scraper fronts are almost all located distally and dorsally. Several different delineations of the working edge occur such as rectilinear, curved, rounded, oblique or irregular (nos. 107 – 111, pl. 47). With the oblique delineation both left and right orientations occur. The location of the scraper front is irrelevant with scrap-ers produced on cores, bipolar pieces or frost flakes. Even so, the working edge of these artefacts is located on a tip or end of the blank morphologically speaking (no. 112, pl. 47). Furthermore, fifteen scrapers have their scraper front proximally; still it is located on the dorsal face. As with the other scrapers rectilinear, curved, rounded, and oblique fronts occur (nos. 113 – 116, pl. 47). Only two sin-gle end scrapers have a ventral working edge (no. 117, pl. 47). The final artefact has, besides a distal scraper front, an oblique proximal end forming a tip. This tip shows a few retouches and might be used as a borer (no. 118, pl. 47). One or two of the larger pieces are re-sharpened or re-shaped after their scraper front broke off. Presumably this was possible because of their larger size. It is a feature not encountered with the smaller scrapers.

The variety within the group of 126 single end scrapers with retouched edges is larger than in the above discussed group. Both scrapers with one and two retouched edges were found. Furthermore, the location of the retouched edge, left or right, may differ as well, yet both occur in equal numbers. The two types have rounded or angu-lar delineations of the scraper front (nos. 119 – 120, pl. 47). Measurements range from very small, like 8x10x4 or 12x8x4, to larger, like 23x24x8 mm or 27x19x9 mm. It also appears that the choice to retouch the left or right edge is largely determined by the overall shape of the blank. Although both flakes and blades are used as blanks, only one is produced on a larger, regular blade (no. 49653). Of the scrapers with one retouched edge only two proximal oriented specimens were found, one angular, the other irregular. The latter is a fragment of a scraper front, pos-sibly even a re-sharpening fragment, which is proximally

reworked into a new shape (no. 121, pl. 47). Additionally, roughly thirty scrapers with two retouched edges could be defined (nos. 122 – 125, pl. 47 – 48). The delineation of these is predominantly rounded, seldom angular, notched or denticulated. For all these scrapers, the scraper front is located distally and dorsally. Again, for the scrapers on cores, bipolar pieces, and frost flakes, this is irrelevant. A minority of the single end scrapers with retouched edges has proximal fronts of which the bigger half are rounded, others are rectilinear, curved, pointed or notched (nos. 126 – 130, pl. 48), a handful has alternate retouches (nos. 131, pl. 48) and only one has a ventral working edge (no. 132, pl. 48). A final piece has a rectilinear scraper front and retouches on both edges, still it is technologically very different from the others. The lateral retouches of one edge are located ventrally, like one would expect with a borer (no. 133, pl. 48). It might originally have been a borer or even a combination tool.

All the double end scrapers and double end scrapers with retouched edges have their scraper fronts located proximally – distally. The double end scrapers are almost all produced on blades and therefore mostly have a regu-lar appearance. The scraper fronts are rectilinear, curved and/or rounded (nos. 134 – 136, pl. 48). Two specimens are even quite small (no. 137, pl. 48). The last double scraper is exceptional because it is the only double scraper of which the proximal scraper front is located ventrally (no. 138, pl. 49). The double end scrapers with retouched edges have a variety of shapes and sizes, three are rather large and three are rather small (no. 139, pl. 49).

The round scrapers are the rarest type of scraper, only seven occur. None of them, however, are perfectly round. Mostly, they have a more oval shape (no. 140, pl. 49) and two are even a bit denticulated (no. 141, pl. 49). Two others are transitional forms between a round scraper and a double scraper with retouched edges and have a somewhat angular shape (no. 142, pl. 49). The final round scraper shows alternate retouches, mostly dorsally and less ventrally (no. 143, pl. 49).

The variety of shapes within the group of side scrap-ers is partly the result of the extent and delineation of the retouched edge and partly because of the diversity of the blanks used. A combination of flakes, blades, cores, bipolar pieces, and a small nodule was used. The scrapers can be divided into two groups, one with a limited extent of retouches, which is only the lateral edge, the other with retouches covering proximal, lateral and distal areas. These latter still have an un-retouched edge. Depending on the extent of the retouches and the delineation of the scraper front, one might argue that these scrapers are double scrapers with one retouched edge. Even more, when the un-retouched edge is oriented downwards some of the scrapers have the appearance of an end scraper with two retouched edges, especially the more angular ones. Still, for a typological analysis the debitage axis is deci-sive. Within both groups specimens with retouches on the


left edge and specimens with retouches on the right edge occur. Again, it must be stated that during the orientation of the artefacts, the proximal end is located at the top. The measurements of the side scrapers largely vary between 9x15x5 mm and 41x24x14 mm. Some have a rounded scraper front and are occasionally rather thick, others are curved or more angular (nos. 144 – 146, pl. 49). The larger and thicker pieces have invasive retouches which give them a similar appearance distinguishing them from the others.

The 142 fragmented scrapers are mostly scraper frag-ments and less often broken off scraper fronts. They are all retouched dorsally. Less than half of the scraper frag-ments have an intact scraper front but miss a part of their body12 and more than half have damaged scraper fronts or are smaller parts thereof. The specimens with intact, distal fronts mainly have rectilinear, curved, or rounded delineations, with a few being oblique or irregular. Up to 6 of these fragments might be double scrapers as two or three retouches are visible at the fractured end. It can-not be ruled out that more of these broken scrapers were originally double scrapers. At least two of the fragments have heavy gloss on the edges and one has a weathered to granulated surface. A limited number of fragmented scrapers have intact proximal fronts also with rectilinear, curved, or rounded delineations. Again irregular shapes occur rarely (no. 147, pl. 49). The latter might even be part of a double scraper whereas another has a remark-ably fresh chalky cortex. Of the scraper fragments with damaged scraper fronts the predominant part has distal fronts while proximal fronts are rare (nos. 148 – 149, pl. 49). Due to the heavy perpendicular and lateral fragmen-tations it was impossible to pronounce on the original shape of most of these fragments. Still, a handful might have been side scrapers or rounded scrapers (nos. 150 – 151, pl. 49). Of roughly thirty pieces the debitage axis could not be defined while the final few show evidence of alternate retouching (nos. 152 – 153, pl. 49).

On this site, it is not easy to make a distinction between borers and rounded pieces. Borers should have one or two clearly, retouched edges and may sometimes have a rounded tip. Several of the rounded pieces have some retouches on the edges and also present rounding at the tip. There seems to be a vague line between the two types and the intensity of the retouched edge(s) is used to set the two apart.

The 27 borers are mostly produced out of blades, only two flakes, three flake or blade fragments and one frost flake were used. Half of them are broken missing their tips or larger parts of their body. This means that double borers might have been overlooked. Still, none of the pieces fit together or even look alike. The smallest

12 In the catalogue, these are added to the intact scrapers with match-ing scraper fronts.

dimensions of the intact borers are 19x9x2 mm, the larg-est are 45x21x12 mm resulting in an average of 27x12x5 mm. The tips itself measure between 2x1.5 mm and 4x3.5 mm. The orientation of the borer tip is in 18 cases distal, 6 times proximal, twice lateral, and once indeterminate. A total of nine artefacts are burned, three heavily. The heat exposure prohibited the flint type analysis of eight speci-mens, the others are all made out of fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans. As the delineation of the retouched edges is rather varied, forming straight, convex or concave edges in all sorts of combinations, it is hard to group them morphologically. Technologically, however, they can be defined as two borers with one retouched edge (no. 154, pl. 50), seven with a ventral and dorsal edge (no. 155, pl. 50), four with two dorsal edges (no. 156, pl. 50), six with two ventral edges (no. 157, pl. 50), and eight with both ventral and dorsal retouches (no. 158, pl. 50). Rounding is visible on the tip of at least seven borers and is most pro-nounced on the illustrated specimen of the last discussed type (no. 159, pl. 50). A final borer might even be a double one (no. 160, pl. 50).

The set of 41 rounded pieces consists of 9 flakes, 21 blades, 2 flake or blade fragments, 1 crested blade, 2 rejuvenation pieces, 1 frost flake, 1 bipolar piece and 4 chips or small fragments. Only a limited number of six specimens show traces of heat exposure of which three were exposed so heavily that it prevented the raw material analysis. The undamaged pieces, 20 in total, have minimum and max-imum dimensions of 16x9x3 mm and 86x20x13 mm. The overall average is 29x13x6 mm. The maximum length is highly influenced by one specimen (86x12x9 mm). When this artefact is taken out of the equation, the average measurements drop to 26x13x5 mm. The broken rounded pieces form a less compact group ranging from 5x4x2 mm to 45x18x8 mm with an average of 19x11x4 mm.

The location of the rounding is predominantly dis-tal, only eleven artefacts have a rounded butt, and one is rounded both proximally and distally (nos. 161 – 170, pl. 50 – 51). In some cases the rounding is indistinct; in others it is well-developed and can cover up to 10 mm of the edge. In at least 15 cases there seems to be a relation-ship between the triangular cross-section of the artefact and the rounding of the lateral edges of the tip, mostly combined with the rounding of the dorsal ridge (no. 161, pl. 50). It appears that the rounding is most profound at the widest part of the tip. All of these features, together with the retouches sometimes seen on the edges of the tip, result in a resemblance with borers. Whether they were used in such a way can only be attested by use-wear analy-sis, yet their general morphology and wear hints at this. The remaining artefacts with distal rounding are flatter and are often rounded much less and only laterally (no. 162, pl. 50). Whether this is related to their general shape or whether this is the result of a different use or activity could not be established with certainty. It must be stated


that one of the proximally rounded artefacts is flat but has a distinct rounding of the dorsal ridge (no. 17259), in con-trast to the other artefacts with proximal rounding (no. 163, pl. 50) or the specimen with two rounded ends (no. 169, pl. 51). Three more artefacts with proximal rounding are special. The first one is special because it can both be interpreted as some kind of borer or a hafting arrange-ment (no. 165, pl. 50). The second is special because of the blank. It is a long and thin crested blade (86x12x9 mm) made from fine-grained flint with bryozoans (no. 166, pl. 51). The third one is particular because of the detachment of two burin spalls (no. 167, pl. 51).The last large rounded artefact has a bipolar piece as blank and shows a rather thick edge that is lightly rounded (no. 168, pl. 51). The four remaining rounded pieces are chips, thus < 1 cm, all broken off tips of larger rounded pieces (no. 170, pl. 51).

Other tools sometimes have a rounded tip or end as well. Because these are distinct tool types they are described with the other tools. They include nine borers (nos. 02593, 23397, 34442, 36294, 47429, 904668, 905062, 905098, 912561), some retouched flakes and blades, a blade from a polished flint axe (no. 905756), and two indeterminate tool types (nos. 31532, 34860).

The 46 arrowheads are a combination of 35 trapezes, 6 transverse arrowheads, and 5 trapeze or transverse arrow-head fragments. Almost all of the arrowheads are pro-duced on blades, only in ten cases is the blank either a flake or a blade fragment. The dominant flint type used is fine-grained flint, mostly without bryozoans. Only one trapeze is made out of a brownish yet translucent fine- to medium-grained flint (no. 25138). The six arrowheads that are exposed to heat could not be defined by flint type. With only one of them can the question be raised whether it is fine-grained flint or not. The surface of the artefact is grey and granulated with sparkles shimmering through the rough surface. It is one of the few artefacts that might be burnt quartzite (no. 906337) (see main book section 3.4).

The trapezes are defined as 32 asymmetric trapezes and 3 rectangular trapezes (nos. 171 – 189, pl. 52). In total 19 specimens are intact, 11 are lightly damaged, and 5 miss larger parts of their corners. All but one of them are tech-nologically alike with abrupt, direct retouches on both edges. The overall appearance and morphology varies a bit. The intact trapezes cluster between 10x8x1 mm and 20x16x3 mm. Only one specimen is larger, even if it is lightly damaged, with measurements up to 23x17x5 mm. Its length-width ratio is 1.4 which fits perfectly within the limits set by the other pieces. The minimum and maximum are 1.1 and 2.1 respectively with an average of 1.4. Even if the ratios are calculated with inclusion of the lightly damaged examples, as done with site S2, these numbers remain the same. The overall trapeze morph-ology is partially linked to this length-width ratio. Some, however, are different from the others. Two trapezes have

an almost triangular shape (nos. 24326, 913731) and one has a very asymmetrical orientation of both retouched edges (no. 900850). The final trapeze has not only the big-gest length-width ratio; it also is one of the two trapezes with a direct and indirect retouched edge (no. 901352).

Of the transverse arrowheads (nos. 190 – 192, pl. 53) one is a borderline case measuring 10x10x2 mm; it is also the smallest of the six (no. 902347). The others are indeed broader than long. Three transverse arrowheads are intact, the other three are lightly damaged. The meas-urements, with the largest specimens being 18x19x3 mm, result in a length-width ratio between 0.8 and 1.0 with an average of 0.9. Even if the group contains only six specimens, their variation is quite large ranging from almost rectangular, over irregular to regular with lightly concave edges.

The fragments are definitely trapeze or transverse arrowhead fragments as larger parts of both retouched edges are present (nos. 193 – 195, pl. 53). Furthermore, their measurements fall well within the limits set by the other pieces.

This large collection of 467 retouched pieces is a combin-ation of 205 retouched flakes, 209 retouched blades, and 53 other retouched pieces. They will all be discussed in three sections.

The retouched flakes are predominantly produced on unidirectional flakes. For only eight pieces a bipolar flake was used. A handful of the flakes show traces of bipolar flaking on the edges. None is, however, very pronounced. At least two flakes are obliquely detached blades, two might be blade fragments, and 35 are flake or blade frag-ments. Often the tools are characterised by marginally retouched edges or small retouches following the general curvature of the edge. These retouched edges can be con-vex, rectilinear or irregular depending on their natural delineation (nos. 196 – 198, pl. 53). A retouched concave delineation or denticulated, notched or truncated edges appear only a few times (nos. 199 – 202, pl. 53). The mor-phological variation within these groups is rather large as all kinds of differently shaped blanks were used. Yet, there often appears to be a relationship between the small size of the retouches and the limited size and thickness of the blanks. Therefore, larger abrupt or semi-abrupt retouches occur less often. The retouches are mostly produced on the dorsal face and often distally. Ventral retouches, in combination with dorsal retouches or not, occur 38 times. Several of these ventrally retouched pieces have a convex ventral face. So it appears that the choice to retouch either the ventral or the distal face may be related to the over-all shape of the blank. The larger part of the retouched flakes is fully intact. These specimens measure minimally and maximally between 10x6x1 mm, which is as small as some of the scrapers, and 42x35x16 mm resulting in an average of 19x16x5 mm. At least 19 flakes have regular retouches on one edge. Especially when these retouched


edges are located distally, the artefacts are transitional forms between retouched flakes and scrapers (see no. 200, pl. 53, no. 50889). In another 14 cases it might have been the intention to produce a scraper but this was not car-ried out fully. The same applies to two specimens with two retouched edges forming a point at the end. Whether it was the intention to produce a borer is unclear (nos. 33383, 907095). Finally, a set of 5 flakes have rounding at their tip. On one flake this is in combination with gloss on the ventral face.

The group of retouched blades is only a fraction larger than the group of retouched flakes. This assemblage comprises 178 backed blades, 17 denticulated blades, 3 notched blades of which 1 is broken, and 11 truncated blades. Most of these tools regular blades were used with parallel ridges. Up to 52 have one ridge, 4 have two con-verging ridges, 62 have two parallel ridges, and another 4 have three ridges. Only three are detached obliquely and four are plunging blades. One of these even detached a part of the opposite striking platform. The majority of the blades are broken, only 21% are intact. With the frag-ments, proximal-medial parts are most common (30%), followed by medial parts (25%), and medial-distal parts (18%). A single blade could not be determined. As only a limited number is intact the minimum and maximum measurements of 13x5x1 mm and 63x21x10 mm, as well as the average of 30x14x4 mm, is of little informa-tion. Also the fragments can give comparative informa-tion. Here the averages are 25x14x4 mm with minimums of 10x7x2 and maximums of 58x23x11 mm. Apparently most blades cluster in length below 50 mm, only a hand-ful measures around 60 mm. The backed blades mostly have short, abrupt to semi-abrupt lateral retouches that follow the general shape of the edge (no. 203, pl. 54). The working area is located on one or two edges, mostly on the dorsal face, less often on the ventral face. Combinations of one edge dorsally and the other ventrally retouched, or even alternate retouches on one or both edges, occur regularly as well. One of these blades even has a burin spall detached from its distal end (no. 908501). The burin spall scar is, however, covered with another fracture and some retouches. Another blade is missing its distal tip and may have been a borer (no. 28247). The remaining 58 backed blades also have retouches either on a proximal or distal end. As with the retouched flakes some of these blades are transitional forms between retouched blades and scrapers as the end is rounded (no. 204, pl. 54). In 17 cases the edges form a more pointed end (no. 205, pl. 54). With four of these it might have been the intention to produce a borer (nos. 21039, 28132, 34911-2, 901568). In total, nine of the backed blades have rounding at either the proximal or the distal end. Of the 17 denticulated blades 11 have one or two denticulated lateral edges (no. 206, pl. 54). As with the backed blades, no preference for one or two edges or dorsal, ventral or alternate retouches seems to exist; all appear regularly. The remaining 6 have

retouches on the distal or proximal end, like end scrapers have. Yet, they cannot be defined as such. Two of these also have denticulated edges (no. 207, pl. 54). Of the three notched blades one is broken above the notch, one is bro-ken just below the notch, and one shows three notches (no. 208, pl. 54). The eleven truncated blades frequently have a distal working edge that is straight, oblique, or even lightly concave (no. 209, pl. 55). The final three are rather small and have a proximal, oblique truncation. Whether it was the intention to transform these pieces even further into, for example, trapezes is unknown.

The third group consists of 13 retouched striking edge rejuvenation pieces, 10 retouched indeterminate frag-ments, 10 retouched frost flakes, 1 retouched nodule, 5 retouched cores, and 14 retouched bipolar pieces. Most of the retouched rejuvenation pieces are blades and they are almost all intact, measuring between 36x11x4 mm and 55x20x9 mm. With averages of 46x14x6 mm these are all rather large in relation to the unretouched blanks. The retouches which do not alter the general shape of the edges occur both dorsally and/or ventrally. A well-devel-oped gloss is also visible on both edges of the largest spec-imen (no. 210, pl. 55) and the retouches set on a distal fracture give another specimen a rectangular appearance. The indeterminate fragments, frost flakes and nodule all have measurements which fall within the range of the unaltered specimens. Only the nodule is rather small (19x17x6 mm) compared to the blanks which may very well have been the reason for its selection. Again, the short retouches mostly follow the natural curvature of the edges (nos. 211 – 212, pl. 55). Just a few thicker specimens have some (semi)abrupt retouches. For the retouched cores the same applies (no. 213, pl. 55). Because of this one of them even inclines towards a scraper (no. 214, pl. 55). It is not entirely sure that the flakes on the ‘ventral’ face of this artefact are genuine detachments or rather some sort of hafting arrangement. As with the unretouched cores, the combination of a striking platform and a striking ridge occurs here also, with three specimens to be pre-cise. Finally, of the retouched bipolar pieces it is often the lateral edge that is retouched, in the same way as a side scraper would be (no. 215, pl. 55). Yet, the retouched edges are less developed. One piece is very peculiar show-ing two notches at the edges (no. 216, pl. 55). Both the cores and the bipolar pieces all fall within the dimensional range set by the unretouched blanks.

The final group of tools are a combination of 14 indeter-minate tools, 247 indeterminate tool fragments, and 143 retouched chips. The latter two groups are fragmented in such a way they can no longer be assigned to a specific tool type. Some of the indeterminate tools are fragmented as well. This may seem a bit of a contradiction, still, their overall shape sets them aside from all other tools on the site.


The indeterminate tools comprise a collection of imple-ments of all sorts of shapes and dimensions. They are pre-dominantly produced out of blades, less often from flakes or other blanks. Two of the tools have a pointed shape giv-ing them the general appearance of some sort of project-ile point. The first is some sort of pointed blade (no. 217, pl. 56). The two retouched edges are direct, abrupt and straight. The current measurements are 33x11x4 mm but heat damaged the blade making it incomplete. It weighs 1.43 g and is made out of fine-grained flint. The second pointed tool also has two retouched edges but is more triangular in shape measuring 35x19x4 mm (no. 218, pl. 56). Both dorsal and ventral retouches are present on the burnt and damaged tool. The tip, however, is intact and is rounded off. Four other tools on blades are unfin-ished trapezes or poor attempts to produce them (no. 219, pl. 56). Another blade is presumably a re-sharpening removal. Whether it was detached using a bipolar tech-nique or whether it was used in a bipolar way after detach-ment is unclear (no. 220, pl. 56). The two remaining flakes and one blade have retouches all around their edges. Strictly speaking these should be defined as retouched removals but because their overall morphology varies so much from the other retouched flakes and blades, they are defined as indeterminate tools. Two cores have impact points around the edge but their definition as hammer-stones is uncertain as all impact points may be debitage attempts (no. 221, pl. 56). Two more tools are produced on cores (nos. 222 – 223, pl. 56 – 57). They are both ellip-tical in shape, are beset with smaller and larger flake scars forming a point at one end and have similar measure-ments of 56x30x24 mm and 59x22x20 mm. On the first the ridges of the blunted end are lightly crushed and are rounded off. The second tool is also rounded at the tip but has a small burin spall as well. Whether this is the result of use or is an attempt to narrow the tip is unclear. One might imagine these pointed tools to be strike-a-lights, large borers, or even small pestles.

The tool fragments are generally flake and blade frag-ments showing a part of a retouched edge but with no further characteristics or recognisable morphological fea-tures (no. 224, pl. 57). These often have short, abrupt or semi-abrupt retouches, mostly on the dorsal face. Some other artefacts have more specific features. At least 22 regular blades with one, two or three parallel ridges were recognised. A total of 39 fragments have a truncated edge. As the size and shape of most of them fall within the lim-its of both trapezes or transverse arrowheads and trun-cated blade fragments it is hard to set them apart (no. 225, pl. 57). A set of 25 fragments might be parts of scrapers (no. 226, pl. 57) while 9 fragments have the appearance of borers (no. 227, pl. 57). Furthermore, one fragment is largely covered with long, semi-abrupt retouches which makes it different from the others (no. 228, pl. 57). A second artefact with semi-abrupt to low retouches is covered bifacially and might be some sort of tool but these

retouches might also be the result of bipolar usage (no. 229, pl. 57).

The retouched chips are a collection of very small tool fragments measuring < 1 cm along the debitage axis. As with the larger tool fragments these might originally have been parts of any type of tool. Up to 17 may have been parts of trapezes, 18 may have been parts of scrapers, and 2 may be re-sharpening chips (nos. 902361 and 913785). One of the possible scraper fragments is exception-ally wide measuring 23 mm (no. 903277). All the other retouched chips fall within the minimum and maximum range of 3x5x1 mm and 9x17x6 mm. The remaining 106 are fragments with retouches that may have been part of retouched flakes and blades, or borers or some other artefact with retouches. As the retouched chips are basi-cally the same as the indeterminate tool fragments but with a limited length, they are included in the list of the indeterminate tool fragments and not depicted or listed by themselves.

Bipolar piecesThe large group of 721 bipolar pieces are defined as 159 regular pieces, 412 irregular pieces, 82 square shaped pieces, and 68 fragments (nos. 230 – 234, pl. 57 – 58). Most are made of fine-grained flint (62%) whereas 110 are exposed to heat. The presence of cortex and patina on most of the bipolar pieces proves that their current size is not that different from their original size as a nodule. They are made out of various blanks ranging from bipolar flakes, over all sorts of artefact fragments to indetermi-nate fragments.

The regular pieces (no. 230, pl. 57) show a differenti-ation in size from 14x6x3 mm to 41x30x19 mm with an average of 24x15x9 mm. This is presumably related to the fact that this is a large group. It was observed that the flake scars do not always cover both faces of the artefact. Sometimes the back of the artefact is still covered with cortex or patina. The lenticular cross-section is not as pro-nounced with every piece (no. 231, pl. 57).

Even more than the regular pieces, the irregular pieces have a wide variety of both shapes and sizes (no. 232, pl. 58). Some of these pieces have a more regular face and an irregular face (an estimated 30%). Other specimens are turned 90 degrees when the current debitage axis is no longer sufficient because of stacked steps or hinges. This reorientation sometimes gives them a square-like shape. The early detachment of flakes is often triggered by impurities in the flint or internal fissures. Their overall measurements range from 10x7x1 mm to 46x39x25 mm with an average of 24x19x9 mm. It was recorded that at least sixteen of the irregular pieces are definable as tested pieces; they only have one, two or three removals. One of the irregular bipolar pieces clearly shows that bipolar flakes do not need to be straight detachments but can also be rather curved (no. 233, pl. 58).


The square shaped pieces are all rather similar in appearance (no. 234, pl. 58), even if they measure widely between 10x13x3 mm and 38x37x18 mm. The average dimensions are 22x21x7 mm. At least seven of these are also reoriented by a quarter turn, a technique observed for all three types.

Artefacts with visual use-wear tracesThis group of 464 artefacts can be divided into 63 flakes, 359 blades, 26 flakes or blades, 11 striking edge rejuven-ation pieces, 1 core, 2 frost flakes, 1 potlid, and 1 bipolar piece. Both irregular use-retouches and gloss are present on one or two edges in varying degrees of intensity. As with the other flint material the two fine-grained types are used predominantly (90%). Medium- and coarse-grained flint was only used 13 times. Up to 19% of the specimens are burned which prevents the flint type definition of 34 artefacts. The intact flakes have minimum and maximum measurements of 12x8x2 mm and 53x30x11 mm (aver-age 25x18x5 mm). For the intact blades these are 13x5x1 mm and 69x26x14 mm respectively (average 42x16x5 mm). The fragmented blades may be small or large as well, ranging from 10x4x1 mm up to 64x23x10 mm (aver-age 29x14x4 mm). There seems to be a slight tendency to select blades with only a limited amount of cortex or patina. On the other hand, posterior gloss occurs more often than with the unused blank blades. Maybe this gloss might be the result of handling.

The dominance of blades is apparent and especially regular ones with parallel edges and one or two, seldom three, parallel ridges (79%). Noteworthy is the high frag-mentation rate of these blades. Up to 88% of all the blades are incomplete or fragmented. Medial parts occur the most (37%), proximal-medial parts are a bit less com-mon (33%) and medial-distal parts are rare (11%). Still, most fragments are rather large ranging up to 64x14x6 mm. As with the other blades on the site, plunging blades and oblique detachments occur as well. As the shape of the blanks is never altered by the use-retouches, it is con-sidered unnecessary to depict a specimen per blank type used. Therefore, only the most common types are shown; a blade, a flake, and a rejuvenation piece (nos. 235 – 237, pl. 58). All the blanks, that are not flakes or blades, are listed with this last specimen. If details are wanted, I refer to the database where specific artefacts can be looked up by find number. It must be noted that not all the blades are as regular or as large as the depicted one.

In combination with the use-wear traces, three arte-facts also show the rounding off of the proximal and/or distal end. The rounding is, however, in all three cases minor, yet visible to the naked eye.

Other artefactsThis site revealed a fair amount of finds which were not included as a separate type in the typological list. These

are 38 fragments of polished flint axes, one possible ham-merstone, and an old artefact.

The fragments of the polished axes can be defined as 23 flakes, 3 blades, 2 chips, 2 cores, 2 indeterminate frag-ments, 2 potlids, and even 1 scraper, 2 retouched flakes and a retouched blade (nos. 238 – 242, pl. 58 – 59). All the fragments show various sized areas of polish, from only a small part of the dorsal surface to (nearly) full coverage. The artefacts are mainly rather small, between 5x5x1 mm and 35x30x18mm. One exception is much larger measur-ing 58x32x7 mm (no. 47721). Even though the fragments come from different parts of the axe, i.e. the surface, the side or even the cutting edge13 (no. 238, pl. 58), their small size makes it impossible to pronounce upon the ori-ginal shape of the axe. Most fragments are flakes, or frag-ments thereof, but other types of debitage material occur as well (no. 239, pl. 59). One flake was possibly detached in a bipolar way, and was even used afterwards, also in a bipolar way (no. 240, pl. 59). Two other flakes were more deliberately altered, into a scraper (no. 241, pl. 59) and a retouched flake (no. 242, pl. 59), while a blade shows retouches in combination with a clear rounding off of the edge (no. 243, pl. 59). The artefact may even have been a borer.

The fragments are predominantly opaque grey, most with a tinge of brown or beige. The beige-grey collection is the largest one suggesting that the 21 pieces all came from one flint axe. The refit between an indeterminate fragment and the potlid may confirm this. A group of six artefacts have more or less the same colour but they are slightly more translucent. These may belong to the same flint axe although the gloss suggests otherwise. The brown-grey artefacts encompass only three pieces, of which two form a refit (no. 244, pl. 59), while five more have roughly the same brown-grey colour but are more translucent. Again, the polish suggests a different origin. Another blade has a slightly more brownish colour and might possibly be not from the same axe. The retouches near the tip and the rounded end make this a rather special axe fragment (no. 905756). Finally, two more fragments are mouse-grey and presumably belong to yet another flint axe. This brings the total of flint axes on this site to a minimum of three and a possible maximum of six different specimens.

Even though the definition as hammerstone is with some reservation, it is classified as such because of the many impact traces around the edges (no. 245, pl. 60). The many detached flakes make a definition as intensely bat-tered core also plausible. Still, it differs from the other cores found at the site, and even from the battered core mentioned above (no. VII, pl. 60). Even with similar

13 Whether this flake detached during use, as suggested by Beuker (2010: 235-236), or is a deliberate debitage detachment is hard to determine.


measurements (46x46x24 mm) the artefact differs from the battered core by its rather thin appearance and more random impact points around the edges. The use of an artefact as hammerstone can lead to the accidental removal of flakes and the random impact traces are pre-sumably the result of such usage. Still, in the light of theo-ries by Bamforth & Nyree (2008)14, Stapert (2007), and Sternke & Sörensen (2007) it cannot be ruled out that an apprentice tried to detach flakes with a poorer end result compared to the battered core which is the result of lesser skill. Or one might think it may even be a re-used core. However, the centripetal detachments are in accordance with the use as hammerstone and in sharp contrast to the other cores found on the site.

A final artefact would have been defined as a single end scraper with one retouched edge if it was not totally rounded and covered with patina. The rounding and pat-ina are presumably the result of exposure to the natural environment and possibly transportation as is the case with nodules. It was observed that miniscule pits, often seen in windblown patina, are absent.

WasteFrom this site a combination of 713 indeterminate frag-ments, 392 frost flakes, 1162 potlids and 108 nodules were retrieved. A few dozen indeterminate fragments are damaged by fire, covered with potlids or frost fissures. Some are even totally shattered or have bulbs on differ-ent faces. A minority have damaged edges as if some-one tried to detach some flakes. Discolouration by fire, mirror-like gloss and granulated surfaces also occur. The presence of indistinct impact points is frequent within the group of frost flakes. Still, the impact point is too vague to define them as flakes. The numerous potlids all suf-fered heat exposure, some more than others. It was noted that a few were retrieved from feature no. 11 which is a hearth. Here as well, the mirror-like gloss is noted on a handful of specimens. Not all nodules are totally covered with natural surfaces like weathered or rolled cortex com-bined with gloss, windblown patina or coloured patina. Potlids or frost flakes have been detached and a few speci-mens are lightly damaged. The nodules cluster between minimum measurements of 14x9x5 mm and maximum measurements of 59x45x34 mm, one specimen is larger measuring 102x82x45 mm. The average of all nodules is 34x24x14 mm. The large nodule weighs up to 478 g and is at least two or three times as large as all the other nodules.

14 This article forms the introduction to the issue of Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15 (1) completely dedicated to apprenticeship.

< 1 cm: ChipsThe 91940 chips form up to 36% of the flint material from site S3. As mentioned, only heat exposure, weight and special features are analysed.

The small artefacts weigh between 0.01 g and 2.21 g resulting in a total weight of 1151.37 g with an average of 0.13 g. It was observed that microchips may weigh between 0.01 g and 0.05 g, and thus an estimated 2363 pieces may be present at the site (26%). The number of artefacts per weight group increases gradually to the class of 0.05 g and decrease afterwards (figure 2.2).

Heat exposure is visible on 29% of the chips. Medium exposure occurs the most (70%), followed by heavily exposure (19%), and light exposure (11%). Besides the discolouration or calcification of all 521 heavily burnt chips, at least 939 more, all medium burnt chips, are dis-coloured as well.

Although it was not analysed systematically, it was observed that at least 23 chips come from medium-grained cores and 5 from coarse-grained cores. Specific types of flint, such as the beige-grey of the polished axes or the grey-white and brown-burgundy combination found on site S2, are attested in four and one chips respectively. Furthermore, mirror-like gloss and weathered, gran-ular surfaces are present as is the case with other debi-tage material. The possibility exists that some of these chips may be quartzite chips (see main book sections 3.4 and 5.3.2).

2.2.4 Site S4

Total amountThe combination of the material from the 1974 excavation with artefacts from several new excavation campaigns (2005-2007) leads to the analysis of 1484 artefacts ≥ 1 cm and 2218 artefacts < 1 cm (table 2.12), weighing respect-ively 2,659.52 and 115.96 g. Five categories of artefacts ≥ 1 cm are identified, specifically 918 pieces of debitage material, 163 tools, 52 bipolar pieces, 78 artefacts with vis-ible use-wear traces, 2 small fragments of polished flint axes, 1 unfinished pendant, and 270 pieces of waste. These

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Numbe

r

Weigth



categories form 57.9%, 10.6%, 7.4%, 6.6%, 0.1%, 0.2%, and 17.2% of the weight of the material when the artefacts < 1 cm are not included.

Raw material and alteration by fire For this assemblage five different types of flint were used (table 2.13). Fine-grained flint without bryozoans is applied most frequently (57.5%) while fine-grained flint with bryozoans is used considerably less (14.4%). Artefacts made from medium- and coarse-grained flint occur only sporadically (2.5%). It was observed that a blade with visible use-wear traces shows similarities to Rijckholt flint. It is one of the few artefacts with a ‘certain southern feel’ about them.

A great deal of the material was exposed to heat result-ing in the discolouration of 380 artefacts. This hinders

the raw material definition of approximately 26% of the objects. Most artefacts endured moderate heat exposure; fewest artefacts were exposed only lightly. Both flake and blade fragments are more often burned than the intact pieces. The rejuvenation pieces and cores are exposed less, although the overall number of the artefacts is too low to be considered significant. Roughly 1/3 of the tools show traces of heat damage. The same applies for the bipolar pieces while the artefacts with visible use-wear traces are burned somewhat less (27%). The high burning rate of the waste material is largely the result of the potlids. When these are not considered still 58% of the waste material appears to have been exposed to heat.

Number % % ≥ 1 cm Burnt % ← LB MB HB % ↓Debitage material 918 25 61.9 307 33 43 167 97 50.6Flakes 295 8.0 45 77 26 15 33 29 Flake fragments 363 9.8 55 151 42 20 78 53 Total flakes 658 100 Blades 88 2.4 40 14 16 2 9 3 Blade fragments 132 3.6 60 57 43 5 43 9 Total blades 220 100 Rejuvenation pieces 20 0.5 5 25 1 3 1 Cores 20 0.5 3 15 1 2 Tools 163 4 11.0 48 29 5 21 22 7.9Scrapers 49 1.3 15 31 1 10 4 Borers 3 0.1 2 67 1 1 Rounded pieces 10 0.3 Trapezes 6 0.2 Tools on flake 14 0.4 2 14 1 1 Tools on blade 24 0.6 6 25 2 1 3 Tools on other blanks 5 0.1 2 40 1 1 Indet. tools 5 0.1 1 20 1 Indet. tool fragments 44 1.2 20 45 1 8 11 Retouched chips 3 0.1 Bipolar pieces 52 1 3.5 18 35 6 5 7 3.0Visible use-wear 78 2 5.3 21 27 4 15 2 3.5Polished axe fragm 2 0 0.1 Pendant 1 0 0.1 1 100 1 0.2Waste 270 7 18.2 212 79 34.9Indet. fragments 101 2.7 70 69 2 35 33 Frost flakes 30 0.8 8 27 2 4 2 Potlids 133 3.6 133 100 2 84 47 Nodules 6 0.2 1 17 1 Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 1484 40 100.0 607 41 64 333 210 100.0 11% 55% 35% < 1 cm 2218 60 641 29 35 411 195 5% 64% 30% Total 3702 100 1248 34 99 744 405 8% 60% 32%




Debitage materialThis group is by far the largest of all the artefact groups. Debitage makes up only 25% of the total amount of arte-facts but within the group of artefacts ≥ 1 cm they reach a striking 62%. The 918 pieces can be defined as 658 flakes, 220 blades, and only 20 rejuvenation pieces and 20 cores.

The flakes are separated into 295 intact pieces and 363 broken ones. Of the first category 58% is still partially covered with natural surface (table 2.14). Most cortex is weathered or rolled, only one flake has fresh, chalky cor-tex. The cortex can occur in combination with glossy, windblown or coloured patina or not. No more than 47

flakes are covered for 75% or more with natural surface and they are therefore defined as decortication flakes. Posterior gloss occurs on three flakes only. Half of the damaged flakes also show remnants of the same types of natural surface. It must be noted that the coverage is only an indication since the artefacts are fragmented. One flake fragment is covered with fresh chalky cortex.

The intact flakes have minimum dimensions of 10x6x1 mm and maximum dimensions of 48x38x16 mm, yet most are smaller than 35x38x13 mm. The average dimensions are 17x15x4 mm; the average weight is 1.36 g. The length-width ratio varies between 0.4 and 1.9 resulting in an

Number FG B MG B FG MG CG Indet.Debitage material 918 Flakes 295 45 188 5 7 50Flake fragments 363 48 223 3 89Blades 88 18 60 2 2 6Blade fragments 132 17 75 3 1 36Rejuvenation pieces 20 5 10 1 4Cores 20 5 1 11 3Tools 163 Scrapers 49 14 29 6Borers 3 2 1Rounded pieces 10 4 5 1 Trapezes 6 1 5 Tools on flake 14 2 9 2 1Tools on blade 24 2 18 4Tools on other blanks 5 4 1Indet. tools 5 4 1Indet. tool fragments 44 9 1 20 1 13Retouched chips 3 3 Bipolar pieces 52 7 38 7Visible use-wear 78 19 50 1 8Other 3 1 2Waste 270 Indet. fragments 101 7 37 2 1 54Frost flakes 30 3 1 20 1 1 4Potlids 133 4 40 89Nodules 6 3 2 1Total 1484 213 3 854 22 12 380 100% 14.4% 0.2% 57.5% 1.5% 0.8% 25.6%

Debitage material 918 15% 0% 62% 2% 1% 20%Tools 163 20% 1% 61% 2% 17%Bipolar pieces 52 13% 73% 13%Visible use-wear 78 24% 64% 1% 10%Other 3 33% 67%Waste 270 6% 0% 37% 1% 1% 55%Total 1484 213 3 854 22 12 380




average of 1.2. The averages of the length-thickness ratio and width-thickness ratio are 5.5 and 4.8 correspondingly.

Most of the flakes are detached along a unidirectional debitage axis (93%). The remaining 46 flakes have been detached in a bipolar way. As ten of the unidirectional flake fragments have parallel edges and ridges they might be short blade fragments. One of the undamaged flakes is even an obliquely detached blade, giving it a slender outline but not a 2:1 length-width ratio. A total of seven flakes have such small retouches or are burned which makes it hard to tell whether they were used or recently damaged. Furthermore, two plunging flakes and one flake with a strong longitudinal curvature occur.

The collection of blades is made up of 88 complete pieces and 132 fragmented ones. Up to 57% of the intact blades are stripped of all natural surface. The remaining 38 pieces show remnants of weathered or rolled cortex and glossy, windblown or coloured patina or a combination thereof (table 2.14). Two blades have pseudo-cortex. Decortication blades, i.e. covered for up to 75% or more, occur 3 times. Of the damaged blades 52 have the same types of natural surface.

Only the measurements of the undamaged blades are calculated. The minimum dimensions are 10x2x1 mm and the maximum are 60x28x25 mm resulting in an aver-age size of 27x10x4 mm (table 2.15). Based on the length and width the intact blades fall into two clusters; a large group measuring between 10x2mm and 43x20 mm and a much smaller group measuring between 47x13 mm and 60x28 mm. Furthermore, a thickness of 10 mm or more is very rare and is often the result of bipolar flaking (see below). The length-width ratio has a minimum of 2.0 and a maximum of 5.4. The average length-width ratio is 2.7, the average of the length-thickness is 8.6, and that of the width-thickness is 3.3. It should be mentioned that one blade is not included in this calculation. It is a blade deriv-ing from a split bipolar piece. The blade fragments are 36% proximal-medial parts, 53% medial parts, and 11% distal parts.

The majority of the blades are detached with a unidi-rectional debitage technique (91%). The other 20 blades are detached by the bipolar technique. With at least three of these the ventral side runs straight through the core, splitting the bipolar piece through the middle. Two of these are rather thick (15 mm and 25 mm); another is


Natural surface coverage Posterior Number 0% % 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % indet. % Number %Debitage material 918 Flakes 295 124 42 63 34 16 47 11 58 2 1Flake fragments 363 187 52 12 9 7 5 143 49 1 0Blades 88 50 57 22 8 3 3 2 43 Blade fragments 132 80 61 12 3 3 2 32 40 2 2Rejuvenation pieces 20 7 35 5 1 7 65 Cores 20 9 8 1 2 100 Tools 163 Scrapers 49 23 47 14 7 2 3 53 Borers 3 2 67 1 33 1 33Rounded pieces 10 8 80 2 20 Trapezes 6 6 100 Tools on flake 14 4 29 8 1 1 71 Tools on blade 24 14 58 7 2 1 42 1 4Tools on other blanks 5 2 1 2 100 Indet. tools 5 3 60 1 1 33 Indet. tool fragments 44 33 75 5 5 1 25 Retouched chips 3 1 33 1 1 67 Bipolar pieces 52 16 31 28 7 1 69 1 2Visible use-wear 78 42 54 24 9 2 1 46 Other 3 2 67 1 33 2 67Waste 270 Indet. fragments 101 47 47 29 17 2 6 53 3 3Frost flakes 30 7 23 6 1 2 11 3 77 Potlids 133 86 65 23 9 4 10 1 35 Nodules 6 6 100 Total 1484 742 271 124 45 97 205 13 1 100% 50% 18% 8% 3% 7% 14%


split along an internal frost fissure. Most of the unidi-rectional blades and fragments thereof are quite regular, showing parallel edges and ridges (60%). Two parallel or converging ridges occurs most often (33%), one central, parallel ridge occurs a bit less (25%) and only 2% have three parallel ridges. Not only their general shape but also their measurements set them aside from the less system-atically or irregular produced blades (table 2.16). A set of seven blades was found together in the same quarter of a square metre in trench segment 2. Although these blades have rather sub-parallel edges, instead of parallel edges, and often have converging ridges, their lengths reach up to 60 mm (no. VIII - XIII, pl. 67). This makes them the largest from the site. Only one blade equals this length, a quite massive blade of 60x28x15 mm weighing 19.66 g (no. G92-04412). The production process of these seven

blades is very similar, they all are long and thin, yet some-what different from the more regular blades at the site. Even more, one blade shows a clear lip, a diffuse bulb, and a dihedral butt. Two others are made of medium-grained flint and form a refit together forming a sequence (no. VIII). Additionally, nine other blades are lightly damaged or have an indistinct gloss on the edges. These features are, however, not distinct enough to undeniably define them as use-wear traces. Finally, one blade has a triangu-lar cross-section. It is a possible burin spall but it can-not be ruled out that it is the result of detachment of a bipolar piece.

The small number of rejuvenation pieces comprise 19 striking edge rejuvenation pieces and 1 platform rejuven-ation piece. Most of them are fragmented. A total of 13


Flakes Cores L W T L W Tmin. 10 6 1 min. 12 15 7max. 48 38 16 max. 77 73 49average 17 15 4 average 31 27 16st. dev. 6.4 6.1 2.4 st. dev. 16.8 14.1 9.2 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.4 1.0 1.0 min. 0.4 0.6 1.0max. 1.9 20.0 23.0 max. 2.2 3.7 3.2average 1.2 5.5 4.8 average 1.2 2.1 1.8





specimens are partially covered with weathered or rolled cortex or some sort of patina. Of the undamaged strik-ing edge rejuvenation pieces five are blades. The measure-ments vary between 10x7x2 mm and 39x18x6 mm, with an average of 18x12x4 mm. Worth mentioning are the two blade-rejuvenation combinations of which the distal half can be defined as striking edge rejuvenation pieces and the proximal half resembles a standard blade. The only platform rejuvenation piece measures 10x13x6 mm.

The group of cores is defined as 1 core with one striking platform, 6 cores with two opposing striking platforms, 2 cores with two crossed striking platforms, 2 cores with multiple striking platforms, 1 core with centripetal flake scars, and 8 tested cores. The variety in types also asserts itself to the general morphology; they are all rather irregu-lar in shape and show more or less random shaped flake detachments. Almost no blade scars occur. Furthermore, not more than a handful of detachments are visible, some even quite small (no. G92-05569-1). This makes the dis-tinction between a true core and a tested core a gradual one. All the cores still have smaller or larger remnants of natural surface being weathered or rolled cortex and/or coloured or windblown patina. The cores cluster between 12x15x7 mm and 42x32x26, while two cores are larger measuring 71x55x20 mm and 77x73x49 mm. The aver-age measurements are 31x27x16 mm. On half of the cores the natural, existing surface was used as striking platform; the others show some form of minor preparation or the use of an existing flake scar from earlier detachments as striking platform. Although none of the cores have a len-ticular appearance, a few are worked in a bipolar way. This entails that they have opposing impact points and detach-ments along with the beginning of a striking ridge (no. G92-03515). Some special features were noted for some of the cores. The three cores with blade scars are all with two striking platforms, opposed or crossed. The blades occur in combination with flake scars implying they are “lucky shots” rather than the result of systematic blade debitage (no. G92/WP2-03473). For two of the tested cores flakes were used as blanks (nos. G92-02346-3 and G92-02409-1). Finally, the largest core is a tested nodule showing one big flake scar along a tested striking platform (no. G92-*001). The flake scar measures approximately 61x42 mm. The existence of larger nodules is proven by this artefact; whether these occur at the sites is a different matter.

ToolsThis find category consists of 163 tools, divided into 49 scrapers, 3 borers, 10 rounded pieces, 6 trapezes, 43 retouched pieces, 52 indeterminate tools or fragments thereof including 3 retouched chips. Fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans is most commonly used for these artefacts (80%). Exceptions are formed by two retouched flakes, one rounded piece, and one indetermi-nate tool fragment; all are made out of medium-grained

flint without bryozoans. The only artefact made of medium-grained flint with bryozoans is a retouched blade. As a result of heat damage 27 tools are discoloured and could not be analysed for raw material type.

The group of 49 scrapers can be divided into 36 end scrap-ers, 2 side scrapers, and 11 scraper fragments. A small number of 15 pieces were exposed to heat which in 6 cases was so intense it prevented the flint type analysis. Only a few types of blanks were used, being 32 flakes, 12 blades, 2 flakes or blades or fragments thereof, and 3 frost flakes. The overall appearance and the measurements of the scrapers are rather divergent. The minimum dimensions of the intact specimens are 11x9x2 mm, the maximum are 30x29x12 mm, which produces an average of 19x16x6 mm. All fragments, large or small, fall within this range.

The intact scrapers are defined as 11 single end scrap-ers, 22 single end scrapers with retouched edges, 3 double end scrapers, and 2 side scrapers. In all but three cases the scraper fronts of the single end scrapers are located distally and are mostly characterized by direct retouches forming a rectilinear, curved to rounded delineation. Only two scrapers have a somewhat denticulated delineation (no. 246, pl. 61) and four have alternating retouches (no. 247, pl. 61) of which one is notched (no. 248, pl. 61). The high morphological diversity of the scrapers is caused by the inconsistency of the blanks, especially the flakes (nos. 1531 and G92-00380-1, no. 249 – 250, pl. 61). Although they mostly have the same orientation and location of the scraper front, being distal end scrapers, it is hard to group them in more than twos, threes or fours. Two appear unfinished; whether it was the intention to produce a round scraper or a double one is unclear (no. 251, pl. 61). Three others are rather thick and retouched margin-ally (no. 252, pl. 61), ten have rounded to curved scraper fronts, of which four are nicely produced (no. 253, pl. 61), five are rather small (nos. G92-01463-1, G92-0596-1, no. 254 – 255, pl. 61), and a few are made on blades which are therefore a bit more regular (nos. 256 – 257, pl. 61). Of the latter, two have a few small retouches on the opposing end. These are, however, not developed enough to define them as double scrapers. Furthermore three double scrap-ers on blades (nos. 258 – 259, pl. 61) and two side scrap-ers occur (no. 260, pl. 61). One of the double scrapers is a definite borderline case (no. 1143). It is so small and thin, measuring 15x10x2 mm, that the functionality of it as a scraper can be questioned. However, it is very nicely pro-duced making it a model, but miniature, double scraper.

The fragmented scrapers are five broken off scraper fronts and six damaged scrapers of which two show heavy potlidding (no. 1634). Although the fragmentation and heat damage somewhat impede the analysis, it is proba-ble that three are rectilinear, distal scraper fronts (no. 262, pl. 62) and six scraper fronts have a curved to rounded delineation (no. 261, pl. 62). Two fragments might even be double scrapers (no. 263, pl. 62). The fractures show


several retouches on each side, suggesting a second scraper front was present at that end as well.

The three borers are all rather indefinite specimens. They all have triangular cross-sections and retouches on two or three edges but their distal tips are rather indistinct. The first is a blade of which both edges and central ridge are only lightly retouched resulting in a bit of a haphazard tip (G92/WP2-02396). The tip of the second borer is as indis-tinct as the first but the edges are retouched drastically (G92-02452). The tip also shows a very small burin spall. A larger burin spall is visible on the third borer together with a distinct rounding off of a part of the edge (no. G92-03503, no. 264, pl. 62). Still, both edges are covered with short but clear retouches. Although the three borers are morphologically a bit different, their dimensions are simi-lar ranging from 26x11x5 mm to 32x16x10 mm (average 29x13x7 mm).

The ten rounded pieces are a combination of six blades and four fragments or tips. The blades all have retouches here and there, which are more invasive in one case, but none is a distinct tool type. Their general appearance is rather flat; none of them has a clearly pronounced triangu-lar cross-section. Two blades have a rounded tip, of which one shows clear rounding at one end and edge in combin-ation with a rounded off opposing end (no. 265, pl. 62). Of the other four blades, three have rounded fractures (no. 266, pl. 62) and one also has a lightly rounded proximal end (no. G92/WP2-01547). The traces on this last artefact are very modest. The four fragments are larger or smaller artefact fragments with a rounded end. One of these is partially made up of a medium- to coarse-grained inclu-sion making it hard to identify the rounding.

Only one other tool shows the rounding off of a tip, namely one of the abovementioned borers (no. G92-03503). In addition, two artefacts with use-wear traces are rounded as well but on the edges (G92/WP2-02414-3 and G92/WP2-04507-1).

The only arrowheads found on this site are trapezes, six to be precise. The majority of these, namely four, are made on blades, one is made out of a flake or a blade, and another one is definitely made from a flake. All trapezes are, and some more convincing than the others, of the asymmet-rical type (nos. 267 – 272, pl. 62). Three of them are not damaged at all, one is damaged only lightly, and two are missing a larger part. All but one are very much alike with abrupt, direct retouches on both retouched edges. The exception is the one made from a flake (G92-00452-1, no. 267) which is retouched indirectly. Its general shape is also a bit different as it does not have two straight edges.

Of the undamaged and lightly damaged artefacts the smallest dimensions are 14x9x2 mm while the largest are 16x14x3 mm. This results in average measurements of 16x12x3 mm. The length-width ratio calculated for all

undamaged and lightly damaged trapezes varies between 1.1 and 1.8, with an average of 1.4. It should be mentioned that one of the fragmented tools is only missing its narrow side, implying that lengths up to 21 mm occur (no. G92-00259-1, no. 271).

The group of retouched pieces comprises 14 retouched flakes, 24 retouched blades, and 5 other retouched pieces. As said before, some of these are fragmented implying they originally may have been parts of other tools.

The retouched flakes are commonly produced on uni-directional flakes. However, two have characteristics of bipolar flakes, a third is a flake or proximal blade frag-ment. Most of these tools have rectilinear, concave or convex edges covered with short, abrupt or semi-abrupt retouches that follow the natural curvature of the blank (no. 273, pl. 62). However, some exceptions can be made. Not only have two flakes a slightly more irregular deline-ation (no. 32, pl. 62), one flake has a denticulated edge, another is truncated, and two flakes are faintly notched. One of the latter is lightly damaged near the notch mak-ing it less distinct (G92-02355, no. 276, pl. 62). More than half of these retouched flakes are intact. Their minimum and maximum dimensions vary between 13x11x2 mm and 39x30x11 mm leading to an average of 25x20x6 mm. Of the fragmented flakes two are only lightly damaged, and one proximal and two medial-distal fragments occur. Finally, one flake is broken laterally. Some remarks can be made. Of the truncated flake it is impossible to say whether it was the intension to transform it further into a trapeze or not (no. 274, pl. 62). Another tool has two bulbs (no. 275, pl. 62). One of the more irregular retouched flakes is detached obliquely (G92-02479-1). Since it is not detached perpendicular to the striking axis, it is not defined as a rejuvenation flake. Even more, it has certain characteristics of a bipolar flake, having two opposing impact points and a flat ventral face. It can, however, not be ruled out it was detached by two successive, opposing blows. And finally, three flakes have a scraper-like appear-ance but the retouched edges are not developed enough to be defined as scraper fronts. It appears there is a grad-ual shift of distally retouched flakes to distal end scrapers which makes it hard to designate the intermediate ones to one type or the other.

The collection of retouched blades is very homoge-neous. All but one are backed blades, the exception is a truncated blade. The blanks used are 17 regular blades with varying numbers of parallel ridges15. The remain-ing seven are rather irregular in shape and are less sys-tematically produced; one is even a plunging blade which detached a part of the opposite striking platform. Most of the blades are broken, only 36% is complete. Thus 27%

15 These 14 can be divided into 7 regular blades with one parallel ridge, 7 with two parallel ridges, 2 with oblique ridges, and 1 with multiple ridges.


are proximal-medial parts, 32% are medial parts, and 5% are medial-distal parts. The measurements of the intact blades are still of significance, even if they are only a hand-ful. The minimum length, width, and thickness is 8x8x2 mm, whereas the maximum dimensions are 49x21x8 mm. The average is 31x14x4 mm. This average is lowered by the truncated blade; it is the only undamaged speci-men measuring less than 20 mm in length. If this arte-fact is excluded the average dimensions rise to 34x14x5 mm. Almost all blades are characterised by direct, abrupt and/or indirect (semi-)abrupt retouches along the edges. The exceptions are made by the only truncated blade and three blades with retouches on the proximal or distal end. The truncated blade is very similar to the truncated flake found on the site although this specimen is smaller which makes it doubtful whether it can still be trans-formed into a trapeze (no. G92-01508-1, no. 280, pl. 63). The three other blades have the appearance of scrapers but are not developed enough to be defined as such. Two blanks are moderately irregular, the third is rather regu-lar and has a strong and bright gloss on its edge (no. G92-0580-1, no. 281, pl. 63), just as seen on two other backed blades (nos. G92-02496-1 and G92-05607). The remain-ing blades with retouched edges are mostly fabricated on long, more or less regular blades with parallel ridges (nos. G92-03399-1 and G92/WP2-02397, no. 278 – no. 279, pl. 63). Only a minority is produced less systematically. Besides retouches, gloss is visible on the larger blades and blade fragments.

The remaining retouched pieces are made from 1 striking edge rejuvenation piece, 2 indeterminate frag-ments, and 2 tested cores. These result in varying dimen-sions between 15x8x7 mm and 46x22x17 mm (average 29x17x12 mm). Most of the retouches are short and undeveloped making the pieces rather indistinct. Only the striking edge rejuvenation piece shows irregular yet very pronounced retouches (no. G92-03399-2, no. 282, pl. 63).

The final group of tools can be divided into 5 indeter-minate tools, 44 indeterminate tool fragments and 3 retouched chips. The two latter groups are all no longer assignable to one type of tool or another, although the dif-ferent morphology of the fragments and their retouched edges sometimes may suggest a possible definition.

The little set of indeterminate tools is rather varied. The first one is a flake or blade fragment broken through its notch (no. G92-04606-1, no. 283, pl. 63). The fracture is oblique and located ventrally but whether it is a micro-burin is doubtful. It is certainly not the most standard of all microburins. The second is made from a blade, dam-aged by fire, showing two edges with short, abrupt, direct retouches. It possibly may be an unfinished trapeze (no. G92-02365, no. 284, pl. 63). A similar tool is artefact no. G92/WP2-01538 (no. 285, pl. 63). It has the general shape of a trapeze but with extra retouches on its lateral edges.

The fourth artefact is a flake with three retouched edges which create three points or tips (no. G92/WP2-03477-1, no. 286, pl. 63). These tips may be used as borers although the artefact is rather thin. The fifth and final artefact is possibly a core or a tested fragment (no. G92-03386-1). The importance of it lies not in the definition as core or tested nodule but in the surface. Around the edge count-less impact points are present. It is unlike any other sur-face encountered elsewhere during the research. Although it looks a bit like pseudo-cortex, some of the marks are rather fresh implying the use as hammerstone.

The indeterminate tool fragments form the largest group with 44 artefact fragments. Some are more similar than others and can therefore be put together. Of course, all are smaller fragments of tools which cannot, with 100% certainty, be designated to a specific tool type. Yet, some fragments still have features or characteristics that might hint towards the original tool type. A set of nine have short, (semi-)abrupt, direct retouches on a proximal or distal end making them possibly parts of scrapers (no. 1295, no. 287, pl. 64). Another set of nine fragments have retouches on the edges as if they were retouched blades (no. 1799, no. 288, pl. 64). The third group of thirteen artefacts is indefinable, often because of damage, but of which some certainly are tips of artefacts. The remain-ing fragments are more special and less common. Four have short, abrupt and direct retouches creating a lightly oblique truncation as if they were trapezes. Two are proxi-mal fragments showing a notch adjacent to the bulb, one is a medial fragment showing a notch. Two blades and one flake have two converging retouched edges (no. 0005, no. 289, pl. 64). These might be borer fragments. And finally, three unique fragments; one is ventrally covered with low, invasive retouches producing somewhat of a tanged delin-eation (no. G92-02429-1, no. 290, pl. 64). The dorsal face is retouched as well. The second fragment shows semi-abrupt and long retouches on the dorsal face (no. G92-03333-2, no. 291, pl. 64). The third fragment is produced on a thin blade on which the two converging retouched edges make a thin and long tip (no. G92-01392, no. 292, pl. 64). It might be a borer although it is rather thin and is morphologically different from the other three borers present on the site. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out it is a poorly produced tanged artefact.

The three retouched chips are two proximal and one distal fragment of tools. They appear to be broken off tips or ends with short, abrupt and semi-abrupt retouches on both ventral and dorsal faces. None of them shows any sign of heat exposure.

Bipolar piecesThis set of 52 artefacts is defined as 9 regular, 31 irregular, 7 square specimens, and 5 fragments. The dominant flint type is fine-grained, especially without bryozoans. Only seven artefacts could not be identified because of heat exposure. Up to 69% of the bipolar pieces are still partially


covered with natural surface such as rolled or weathered cortex often in a combination with coloured, glossy or windblown patina. This indicates that their current size is not so different from their original size. Only one artefact is partially covered with a posterior blackish shine.

The regular pieces do not only present a minor vari-ation in production, their measurements are also rather varied. Most pieces have regular removals on both faces but two have removals on only one face. These two are quite similar, measuring 32x13x6 mm and 38x16x11 mm, with long blade scars running from one end to the other (no. 293, pl. 64). One or two blade scars are visible on the other seven regular pieces but they are outnumbered by the flake removals and are certainly not as long (no. 294 – 295, pl. 64). Their measurements vary between 17x10x6 mm and 28x19x14 mm.

The largest group is formed by the irregular pieces. The morphological variation is matched by the variation in dimensions. Measurements range from 17x10x6 mm to 38x21x12 mm. Some are elongated to rectangular, others are more square and thick, and still others are irregular in shape (nos. 296 – 298, pl. 64). Remarkable is a refit of three artefacts (no. 299, pl. 64). They were all defined as bipolar pieces, with both proximal and distal ripples on each face, yet two are detached from the third piece. Presumably latent ripples were created when hit upon from one end. With the blows from the opposing end, the pieces prob-ably detached resulting in two opposing ripples. On two pieces reorientation with a quarter turn is visible. As the original striking ridges in both cases show stacked steps and hinges this reorientation must have been an attempt to employ a new striking ridge in the hope of detaching more flakes. The smaller of the two has besides striking ridges also one striking platform (no. 300, pl. 64). It is a natural surface covered with windblown patina measur-ing 12x5 mm. Three artefacts are between a regular and irregular piece showing both long and short removals (nos. 301 – 302, pl. 65). And a final bipolar piece is split in half making it a bipolar flake (no. G92-00536-1).

The limited number of square shaped pieces also varies largely, especially in dimensions, ranging from 13x12x5 mm to 31x30x8 mm. In all cases their thickness is restricted with a maximum of 9 mm and their shape is square to rectangular (no. 303, pl. 65). The one made on a bipolar flake is a bit more irregular due to a detached flake and two other pieces were used in one way and reori-ented a quarter turn before they were used again (no. 304, pl. 65).

Finally, the fragments miss smaller to larger parts mak-ing typological assessment rather difficult. Still, most of them show smaller flake removals implying they origin-ally were irregular pieces. Only one shows evidence of reorientation (no. 305, pl. 65), the others are used in just one way.

Artefacts with visual use-wear tracesThis category encompasses 78 artefacts. The blanks are 12 flakes, 61 blades, 3 flake or blade fragments, 1 inde-terminate fragment and 1 frost flake. The edges of these artefacts are used resulting in small, irregular retouches and/or gloss. Both the retouches and the gloss vary in quantity and density. Fine-grained flint, with or with-out bryozoans, is used predominantly (90%), although at least three artefacts are opaque giving them a slightly medium-grained character. Only one artefact is produced on medium-grained flint. The heat damage interferes with a correct definition; still, it is dark-grey and has a bit of a quartzitic feel about it. Medium and heavy heat expo-sure prohibited the flint type analysis of two flakes and six blades. For comparative reasons, the average meas-urements of undamaged and damaged blades are given. These are 35x14x4 mm and 28x14x4 mm respectively.

The preferred blanks are obviously blades, as they make up 78% of the material. Furthermore, regular blades are in favour, particularly those with one, two, or three paral-lel ridges (84%) (nos. 0029 and G92-2497, no. 306 – 307, pl. 65), some even are plunging blades. The fragmenta-tion rate is considerable; up to 82% of all blades with vis-ible use-wear traces are broken. They can be divided into proximal-medial parts (33%), medial-distal parts (26%), and medial parts (23%).

All but two of the tools have unifacial retouches on the edges, alternating or not (nos. 0816, 0965, 1977, no. 308 – 309, pl. 65). One of the exception is artefact no. G92-02559-2, which is an indeterminate fragment showing bifacial traces on one edge. The opposing edge is worked unifacially suggesting a somewhat bipolar technique. The traces are, however, very minor, just as with the other tool (no. 310, pl. 65). Furthermore, the gloss on the artefacts is restricted to a fine band on the edges. In one case, the gloss on the ventral face covers a larger area of the blade’s face (no. G92-05488-1). An exceptional feature is the rounding off of two artefacts, a flake and a blade fragment (no. G92/WP2-04507-1, no. 311, pl. 66). Contrary to other artefacts the rounding is located on the lateral edge instead of on a tip or fractured end.

Other artefactsThis category combines all the artefacts that were not expected to be found in great numbers and therefore did not receive an artefact main- or subtype number. Here, they are listed and described separately.

The first set of special artefacts is two fragments of pol-ished flint axes. The first is a fragmented flake which is rather wide, measuring 18x21x2mm (no. 0303, no. 312, pl. 66). The flint is fine-grained without bryozoans and has a light grey colour with a tinge of beige. The opaque and lightly mottled or ‘cloudy’ colouration gives it a ‘southern feel’ although it cannot positively be defined as a known southern flint type. The second is a fragmented


blade measuring 15x7x2 mm (G92-01348-2, no. 313, pl. 66). It shows a light curvature and might even be detached from the side of the cutting edge. This flint is also fine-grained without bryozoans but is dark mouse-grey. The potlid on the blade fragment signifies medium heat dam-age which might have changed the colour slightly. Still, the two different shades of grey imply two different axes.

Another exceptional find is an unfinished pendant made out of flint that was found in the cultural layer, not a grave (G92-3503-2, no. 314, pl. 66). The artefact is a flat piece of weathered flint with dimensions like those of the flat, stone pebbles used for pendants. The object, measuring 39x14x6 mm, can be considered a nodule for it is totally covered in weathered cortex. In most places the chalk is worn off, showing patina underneath. Both surfaces are not smooth but show small, irregular pits. They would have the appearance of weathered frost flakes were it not that they show traces of chalk cortex. Within such a pit, on the extremity of one surface, a small, circular pit can be detected showing no traces of chalk. The nature of this pit has been under discussion; therefore, the pendant was not included in previous articles. Even with a microscope the traces are not to be read easily. They consist of small circu-lar scratches which are interpreted as traces of a drill. The perfect circularity of the pit, which differs significantly from the other frost flake-like pits on the flint artefact, make it stand out from the others and gives it an unnatu-ral feel, suggesting an interpretation as an unfinished pen-dant. The shallowness of the pit also pleads in favour of this interpretation. Flint is, just like quartz, not an ideal material to be perforated with flint drills. The perforation attempt was presumably, therefore, given up quickly.

WasteThis category combines 101 indeterminate fragments, 30 frost flakes, 133 potlids and 6 nodules. Of the indetermi-nate fragments two may possibly be fragments of a core or a shattered nodule and one is lightly battered or knapped upon. A handful of frost flakes have an impact point that is too indistinct to define them as flakes. It cannot be deter-mined whether the removal was accidental or deliberate. The nodules are all fully covered with (coloured) wind-blown patina or heavily rolled cortex or a combination thereof. Their smallest measurements are 27x18x13 mm and the largest are 42x32x24 mm resulting in an average of 33x25x20 mm.

< 1 cm: ChipsOf the smallest fraction of artefacts, 2218 were collected. They make up 60% of the total of artefacts recovered from the site and are made up of small flakes or blades or fragments thereof, but equally of other debitage mater-ial or even small pieces of waste. On top of the fact that they were analysed in a limited way, most of them were weighed in bulk and not separately. The 34 chips collected

in the 1974 excavation were weighed one by one, however, the weight of the remaining 2184 is registered per excav-ation unit. This results in a limited amount of information from this site.

A total of 156 chips were found as single chips in single excavation units. Therefore, these can give accurate weight information along with the 34 chips from the old excav-ation. The chips weigh between 0.01 and 0.95 g which results in an average of 0.11 g. The number of artefacts per weight class start high for weight class 0.01 g (25%), form a much smaller peak up to weight class 0.09 g, and then remain minimal for the other weight classes ranging between 1% and 4% (figure 2.3). It was noted that micro-chips may weigh between 0.01 and 0.05 g which results in a group of 41% due to the high number of chips within the first weight class. The group of 0.01 g clearly has a numer-ical superiority to all the other groups. Whether this is accurate or a misrepresentation by the research method applied, is unclear.

Most of the 2218 chips are not damaged by fire. This leaves 35 artefacts (6%) lightly exposed, 411 artefacts (64%) moderately exposed, and 195 artefacts (30%) heav-ily exposed to heat. On top of the discolouration or cal-cification of all 195 heavily burnt chips, at least 74 of the medium exposed chips are discoloured as well.

A few chips are recorded to have special characteristics or are found in special circumstances. One chip possibly is damaged or lightly retouched, another chip could be refitted to a flake fragment, a third was found in feature nr. 1, and 19 were found in the area around the head of the buried child.

Comparison with Deckers’ study from 1979At the time the article was written, only the small 1974 trench was excavated. Beside the intrusion of 2x2 m Deckers mentions two separate cultural layers in the west-ern part of the trench. A total of 189 artefacts were hand collected and 55 artefacts were recovered during siev-ing. Of these 244 flint artefacts only two were found in

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Num

ber

Weigth



the lower cultural layer16, that is a flake and a blade frag-ment with use retouch (Deckers 1979: 161). He divides the remaining part into 8 cores, 112 flakes, 76 blades and 46 other pieces of flint material. These include 20 tools such as borers, scrapers, and retouched flakes and blades. Blades and flakes with traces of use are limited to 13. At that time no trapezes had been discovered.

Today the material consists of 187 hand collected arte-facts and 55 sieved artefacts. Thus, two artefacts have been lost over time. However, from the drawings in the article, four tools could not be retraced (nos. 315 - 318, pl. 66).

The cores are equally divided between cores with one platform and cores with two platforms, with a total of eight. As with the material from S2, Deckers separates the cores based on the platform width of 1 mm. It is unclear how many cores have platforms thinner than 1 mm but there is at least one. Still, he does not mention the use of the bipolar technique.

The length of the intact flakes cluster between 10 and 19 mm, with a maximum of 36 mm, while the longest intact blade measures 47 mm. The edged platform is the dominant butt type for the flakes, with the blades this is a plain platform. For five flakes Deckers mentions sec-ondary flaking from two opposing sides and for one even from four sides. The large flake from a polished flint axe indicates the presence of flint axes on the site, and also on S3 (ibid: 161-162).

According to Deckers, the material was vertically evenly distributed throughout the cultural layer (ibid: 164). The lower cultural layer is presumably not men-tioned because only two flint artefacts were recovered. Horizontally the flint material is clustered within in the 17-18 m E-W (ibid: 164-165). This is the area towards the centre of the dune. Down the slope toward the creek the material is less dense. All flint categories follow this same pattern and Deckers even sees a possible clustering of retouched flakes around the hearth (ibid: 165).

2.2.5 Trenches S21-S24As for the other river dunes sites, the material from this dune is analysed as one because the current state of affairs does not allow a separation by site. Still, it may be argued that by separating the four trenches, and studying them individually, a functional diversity between the different areas may emerge. Unfortunately, the amount of material studied in detail proved to be too little to make a proper interpretation. To be complete, a separation of the flint artefacts per trench is given (see below).

The bulk of the material from parcel H46 is not studied in the same detail as the flint assemblages from the levee sites for various reasons. First of all, the artefacts were analysed last as they are the result of both Mesolithic and Neolithic habitation on the river dune and therefore deemed to be

16 New research in 2008 revealed this layer to be the hoe-field.

intermixed. In order to separate the Neolithic artefacts from the Mesolithic assemblage the dataset of the levee sites, which are the result of only Neolithic habitation, was needed. Secondly, the best comparative material for the artefacts of S21-S24 is the flint assemblage of S11-S13. It was always my hope to retrieve the material in the course of my four years as Ph.D. student. Unfortunately, this material is currently still in America as the result of renewed interest of Prof. Dr. B. Whallon. Thirdly, it appeared that even after having applied the Neolithic “dataset” on a sample of the intermixed material (see next section), a large overlap existed making it nearly impos-sible to separate the two assemblages. Had the material of S11-S13 been accessible, detailed comparison may have been of use to the analysis. Because of this, and as most of the artefacts had already been studied to some extent by Price, it was considered unessential to analyse all of them in detail again. Someday, when the assemblages of S11-S13 return from America, a joint detailed study between the material of S11-S3 and S21-S24 could take place and would probably be fruitful.

A sample of the flint assemblage of trenches S21-S24, con-sisting of 2085 artefacts ≥ 1 cm and 1564 artefacts < 1 cm, was analysed in detail to provide comparative data for the Neolithic dataset. It must be mentioned that the selec-tion focussed on flakes and blades impeding a compara-tive study between the different artefact categories (see table 2.18). The analysed artefacts comprise 1929 pieces of debitage material, 93 tools, 3 bipolar pieces, 1 polished axe fragment, 1 hammerstone, 6 artefacts with visible use-wear traces, and 52 pieces of waste, all deriving from the various trenches.

Total amountThe complicated excavation history on this river dune impedes the analysis of the recovered artefacts (table 2.17). The amount of objects and the surface of the excav-ated areas were not registered properly by at least one of the three excavation teams. Therefore, the total amount of artefacts that should be present in the finds boxes is unknown. This reoccurring intricacy in this whole research complicates matters but is in no way prevent-ing the analysis in itself. The only aspect that cannot be verified is whether all artefacts ever to be excavated are still present. Furthermore, an unknown number of arte-facts, and especially tools, were in the past taken to the museum in Lelystad. Although all the material should be registered, it is unclear which items and how many even-tually made it into the museum or back again.

Trench S21 was excavated in five phases (1962 – 1976) by three excavation teams. Ditch slope inspections may also have been conducted. The artefacts remaining today in the finds boxes are c. 6071 of which 1005 could be defined as 539 pieces of debitage material, 120 tools, 3 bipolar pieces,


11 artefacts with visible use-wear traces, 54 pieces of waste, and 278 chips. For this material two sets of numerations were used which might indicate two different methods of registration or the excavation by possibly two different teams. On the other hand, it is not unthinkable that two different excavation techniques might result in two differ-ent numeration systems as well, like 3D registered versus sieved material. One set has separate numbers per arte-fact; the other set has abbreviations per group of artefacts being S21-N, S21-ZA, and S21-ZZ. Furthermore, some material may have been collected from the ditch slope since the terms “S21 kavelsloot noord” and “S21 kavelsloot zuid” were used. Yet, it is more likely they originate from the early excavations conducted between 1962 and 1966 by Van der Heide (see main book sections 2.7.7, 2.7.8, and 3.3). Other artefacts were recovered from “grave A”, which presumably is grave XI as it is the only one on S21 excav-ated by the American team, while a separate bag con-tains material from an area of presumably 2 x 2 m with co-ordinates 11800N-6400W. Finally, another set of boxes contains the remaining 3173 artefacts coming from ditch slopes as well as excavations. It is unclear whether this material belongs to the third excavation team.

The second trench, S22, was excavated in four or five phases (1962 – 1976) (see main book section 2.7.8) by three excavation teams. Here also ditch slope inspections may have resulted in a certain amount of artefacts. Today c. 6046 artefacts remain, of which 1250 could be defined as 656 pieces of debitage material, 339 tools, 3 bipolar pieces, 40 artefacts with visible use-wear traces, 1 hammerstone, 96 pieces of waste, and 115 chips. Here also, groups of artefacts are numbered with abbreviations such as S22-E, S22-EA, and S22-W. Material in finds bags labelled “S22 bermsloot oost” and “S22 bermsloot west” may originate from ditch slope inspections, yet are more likely the result of early excavation (see above). Extra boxes containing 326 artefacts, presumably from ditch slopes as well as excavations, were found as well.

The remaining two trenches, S23 and S24, were excav-ated by the American team in only one phase (1976). On S23 a total of c. 4928 artefacts were recovered. These can be defined as 2003 pieces of debitage material, 448 tools, 26 bipolar pieces, 20 artefacts with visible use-wear traces, 893 pieces of waste, and 1537 chips. From trench S24 no artefacts remain today although “a number of lithic arte-facts were found in the sand” (Price 1981: 94).

All material S21 S22 S23 Unk. origin Total %Debitage material 539 656 2003 9 3207 44.5Flakes & blades 475 586 1855 8 2924 40.6Rejuvenation pieces 18 15 68 101 1.4Cores 46 55 80 1 182 2.5Tools 120 339 448 9 916 12.7Unspecified tools 82 283 447 9 821 11.4Microliths 38 56 1 95 1.3Bipolar pieces 3 3 26 32 0.4Visible use-wear 11 40 20 71 1.0Polished axe fragm 1 1 0.0Other 1 1 0.0Waste 54 96 893 4 1047 14.5Indet. fragments 19 23 377 2 421 5.8Frost flakes 8 24 97 1 130 1.8Potlids 26 40 407 1 474 6.6Nodules 1 9 12 22 0.3Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 727 1135 3391 22 5275 73.6 72% 91% 69% 88% < 1 cm 278 115 1537 3 1933 26.8 28% 9% 31% 12% Total 1005 1250 4928 25 7208 100.0Unspecified 3173 326 1315 4814 * Finds bags (white) 1893 4470 6363 Unspecified 926 926 ** Grand total 6071 6046 4928 2266 19311

* These artefacts can be divided in 421 artefacts < 1 cm and 4393 artefacts ≥ 1 cm.** These artefacts can be divided in 790 artefacts < 1 cm and 136 artefacts ≥ 1 cm.

Table 2.17 Total number of artefacts from trenches S21-S24.


Up to 2250 artefacts are designated to “site H46” and not to a specific trench. Furthermore, 16 artefacts could not be traced back to the original excavation because find numbers were lacking, illegible or faded out. These are 1 core, 9 retouched pieces, of which possibly 4 microliths, 3 artefact fragments, possibly flake fragments, and 3 chips. It must also be mentioned that some of the material was broken over the years, after excavation, as the result of storage in bulk and could no longer be refitted together. The find numbers of at least ten different artefacts have been found; numerous more fragments without any iden-tification number may belong to any number of other artefacts.

Thus, approximately 19300 flint artefacts are still pres-ent today from the excavations of trenches S21-S24 (table 2.17). A sample of 2085 artefacts has been studied in detail for comparative reasons (table 2.18).

Raw material and alteration by fire During the counting of the artefacts it was noted that the flint material was not different from that of all the other sites in the Swifterbant area. Most artefacts are made out of fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans in a wide variety of colours; only a handful is made of medium- or coarse-grained flint. Even more, it was observed that the flint with bryozoans contains a low to very low number of fossils that are very often of the small and thin kind. One might say this is the better type of flint with bryozoans

Table 2.18 Total number of artefacts per typological category of the sample of trenches S21-S24.

Sample Total % Burnt % ← LB MB HB % ↓Debitage material 1929 93 844 44 133 418 293 93Flakes 633 53 210 33 58 88 64 Flake fragments 563 47 378 67 42 208 128 Total flakes 1196 100 Blades 230 37 61 27 14 30 17 Blade fragments 389 63 162 42 12 83 67 Total blades 619 100 Rejuvenation pieces 43 14 33 2 5 7 Cores 71 19 27 5 4 10 Tools 93 4 28 30 7 14 7 3Scrapers 19 1 5 1 Borers 4 1 25 1 Combination tool 1 1 100 1 Rounded pieces 2 2 100 1 1 Microliths 24 4 17 2 1 1 Trapezes 1 Tools on flake 18 5 28 1 4 Tools on blade 15 7 47 2 2 3 Tools on other blanks 5 3 60 2 1 Indet. tools 3 3 100 2 1 Retouched chips 1 1 100 1 Bipolar pieces 3 0.1 1 33 1 0Visible use-wear 6 0.3 Polished axe fragm 1 Other 1 0.0 Waste 52 2 36 69 2 16 18 4Indet. fragments 19 9 47 1 4 4 Frost flakes 7 2 29 1 1 Potlids 25 25 100 11 14 Nodules 1 Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 2085 100 909 44 142 449 318 100 16% 49% 35% < 1 cm 1564 911 58 56 315 540 6% 35% 59% Total 3649 100 1820 50 198 764 858 11% 42% 47%



which is suggesting selective gathering of the mater-ial. It was also observed that a large number of heavily burnt artefacts, especially with the flakes and blades as these are the most numerous, are discoloured black. It appears they are covered with some sort of thin dirt layer or dark sand. As this layer cannot be washed away or be rubbed off, it must be some sort of discolouration due to post-depositional processes. Some of the artefacts have a

yellowish-brown discolouration; it is unclear whether this is post-depositional or not. Definitely post-depositional are the rust coloured spots as the effect of iron in the soil.

This image is not different for the sample of 2085 artefacts (table 2.19). The dominance of fine-grained flint with-out bryozoans (49%) over fine-grained flint with bryozo-ans (27%) is established, just as the very low numbers of

Sample Number FG B MG B FG MG CG Indet.Debitage material 1929 Flakes 633 244 1 284 4 3 97Flake fragments 563 97 272 2 3 189Total flakes 1196 Blades 230 58 138 1 33Blade fragments 389 76 1 213 2 97Total blades 619 Rejuvenation pieces 43 13 20 10Cores 71 33 27 11Tools 93 Scrapers 19 7 12 Borers 4 1 2 1Combination tool 1 1Rounded pieces 2 1 1 Microliths 24 1 20 1 2Trapezes 1 1 Tools on flake 18 12 5 1Tools on blade 15 3 8 1 3Tools on other blanks 5 2 2 1Indet. tools 3 2 1Retouched chips 1 1 Bipolar pieces 3 3 Visible use-wear 6 2 4 Polished axe fragm 1 1 Other 1 1 Waste 52 Indet. fragments 19 4 8 7Frost flakes 7 4 3 Potlids 25 2 7 16Nodules 1 1 Total 2085 563 2 1032 10 8 470 100% 27.0% 0.1% 49.5% 0.5% 0.4% 22.5%

Debitage material 1929 27% 0% 49% 0% 0% 23%Tools 93 29% 58% 2% 11%Bipolar pieces 3 100% Visible use-wear 6 33% 67% Polished axe fragm 1 100% Other 1 100% Waste 52 19% 36% 43%Total 2085 563 2 1032 10 8 470


Table 2.19 Division of raw material types of the sample of artefacts from trenches S21-S24.


medium- and coarse-grained flint (together 1%). These general percentages are greatly determined by the debitage material as this category forms up to 93% of the sample. For the tools even a greater part is made of fine-grained flint without bryozoans (table 2.20). This also applies for the artefacts with visible use-wear traces, although their low number influences these percentages.

The general observations regarding the heat expo-sure of the artefacts entail a remarkable aspect. Some of the fine-grained flint artefacts from trench S21 have a glossy appearance. It seems this may even be occurring more often on the tools than on the debitage material. Unfortunately, this sheen or gloss is not well pronounced making a definition as posterior patina doubtful. One artefact that may shed some light on the matter is nr. 153 from trench S21 (grave filling). The gloss on the flake appears to be the result of debitage after light heat expo-sure. No fissures or discolouration have occurred yet, but the new dorsal flake scars, and the ventral face, show a light gloss. This is also observed for artefacts nos. 159, 164, 170, 176 and 225. Whether this conclusion is also of application to all the other artefacts with this type of light gloss is uncertain but probable. The occurrence of matt and glossy surfaces is also observed for the bipolar piece. All this indicates the re-use of lightly heat exposed arte-facts and does not immediately need to imply conscious heat treatment. Whether this is the result of a Mesolithic event or whether this proves Neolithic habitation on this Mesolithic site cannot be established at this point.

Debitage materialDuring the general observations some notes about the debitage material were made. It was the impression that the flakes are generally rather small. For the blades this was noticed as well. Although the distinction between blades and bladelets was not made during this Ph.D. research, it was observed that many blades may be con-sidered bladelets. The blades are mostly small and thin, although large specimens occur occasionally, and these often have parallel edges with one or two parallel ridges. Some of the blades might be retouched but as the material was kept in bulk in large bags, and is in some cases recently damaged, this definition is uncertain. Furthermore, sev-eral plunging blades could be discerned, at least three in trench S21 and seven in trench S22. The number of decor-tication blades, or flakes, is very limited as well. The reju-venation pieces are subdivided for trench S21 into 14 striking edge rejuvenation pieces and 1 core tablet, and for trench S22 into 11 striking edge rejuvenation pieces, 1 core tablet, and 3 production plane rejuvenation pieces. The cores are a combination of flake and blade cores. For trench S21 three small, regular blade cores of approxi-mately 30 to 40 mm occur, four cores have a bipolar feel about them, yet they differ from the bipolar pieces found on the levee sites, and one is more or less centripetal.

Several cores are only tested and in some cases the strik-ing edge appears more crushed or retouched than worked for debitage. For trench S22, the same observations were made, one is a blade core, four are more or less bipolar, three are tested, and eleven cores have somewhat crushed or retouched edges.

An interesting aspect of trench S22 is the presence of two heavily discussed artefacts. Meiklejohn & Constandse-Westermann (1978: 87) do not consider the jet pendant from grave I in trench S22 (see main book section 4.2.5) as the only “probable grave goods” on parcel H46. They also mention, besides the “burial gifts” in graves V and IX on S2 (see main book section 4.2.2), those in grave VIII on S22. These last have been a topic of debate ever since their recovery. In the past, there was agreement that this man had been buried with two transverse arrowheads of which one was found near the throat and the other between the radius and ulna of the right arm (ibid: 58; de Roever, 1976: 217, 219). The nature of these pieces was, however, uncer-tain. De Roever (1976: 217, 219) questioned the nature of these finds as being grave goods and was also opposed to them being accidental grave filling because of the com-parative rarity of transverse arrowheads. This makes her conclude that the arrowheads were possibly responsi-ble for the death of the man. Deckers on the other hand, expressed his concern about the definition of these pieces in his article of 1982. Finally, Price (1981) only mentions the 1976 campaign in detail, so no information or confir-mation can be gathered from that article.

Thus, the recovery of two artefacts was of importance. Artefact no. 107, found between the radius and ulna of the right arm, was easily traced; artefact no. 108, found near the throat, could not be retrieved with certainty. Most surprisingly, it turned out that the presumed transverse arrowhead no. 107 was a simple blade without any modi-fications. Consequently, questions arose about the defin-ition of the second arrowhead. Unfortunately, no artefact with find number 108 was found among the numbered artefacts in the finds bag which included artefact no. 107, or in any other finds bag for that matter. Yet, four arte-facts out of the bag with individually numbered artefacts did not have a number and are therefore ideal candidates. Whether they were not numbered or whether their lac-quered number peeled off over time is beside the point. More important is that one of these is a blade just like artefact no. 107. Therefore this blade may very well be the second, presumed, arrowhead.

Because we can confirm the faulty definition of one of the pieces, Deckers’s disposition is plausible for the sec-ond artefact as well. On the analogy of the other graves and the insignificant character of the blades, the two arte-facts are considered not to be burial gifts. They most likely landed in the grave along with the grave filling. This line of reasoning can be supported by the large amount of arte-facts found in the filling of “grave A”, which is presumably


grave XI on S21 (see above) and by Price mentioning that the number of flint artefacts from the graves on S21 and S23, which were incorporated in the fill of the grave, were not in direct association with those burials (Price 1981: 85, 91).

The general analysis gave the impression that the flakes are rather small. This is confirmed by the analysis of the sample. The minimum and maximum measurements of the intact flakes, which are as common as fractured flakes, are 10x6x1 mm and 41x46x22 mm, with an aver-age of 16x14x3 mm. This image is also supported by the length-width ratio ranging from 0.4 to 1.9 (average 1.2). Lengthwise, the flakes cluster between 1 and 33 mm. The thickness of 22 mm is also exceptional; all flakes, except the one measuring 22 mm, are set between 1 and 15 mm. This one flake is in all aspects an exceptional flake, it measures 41x46x22mm and appears only to have been detached after three debitage attempts, i.e. three impact points.

Half of these intact flakes are still showing remnants of natural surface, mainly weathered or rolled cortex and/or glossy, windblown or coloured patina (table 2.20). Nearly fifty of these are 75% or more covered making them decortication flakes. Posterior gloss occurs in small amounts. The flake fragments are characterised with the same types of cortex and patina, yet less often than the intact flakes.

Nearly all flakes are detached in a unidirectional fash-ion; only 5 flakes are detached using the bipolar tech-nique. It was also observed that some of the flakes are actually blades that detached too early and therefore did not develop their full length. They have a regular appear-ance. Another handful of flakes are obliquely detached blades. More debitage mistakes are plunging flakes and double bulbs. On the other hand, a few flakes show clear striking edge abrasion and two other flakes have a lip.

The analysis of the blades resulted in the same impres-sion as with the flakes. The blades are mostly small and

Sample Natural surface coverage Posterior Number 0% % 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % Number %Debitage material 1929 Flakes 633 296 47 201 62 25 49 53 6 1Flake fragments 563 308 55 126 63 22 44 45 13 2Blades 230 130 57 55 31 6 8 43 3 1Blade fragments 389 276 71 61 40 5 7 29 5 1Rejuvenation pieces 43 21 49 11 8 3 51 Cores 71 12 17 27 23 7 2 83 3 4Tools 93 Scrapers 19 6 32 8 4 1 68 Borers 4 1 25 3 75 Combination tool 1 1 100 Rounded pieces 2 1 50 1 50 Microliths 24 21 88 3 13 2 8Trapezes 1 1 100 Tools on flake 18 6 33 8 3 1 67 1 6Tools on blade 15 11 73 1 2 1 27 Tools on other blanks 5 3 2 100 Indet. tools 3 1 33 1 1 67 Retouched chips 1 1 100 Bipolar pieces 3 2 67 1 33 Visible use-wear 6 4 67 1 1 33 1 17Polished axe fragm 1 1 100 Other 1 1 100 Waste 52 Indet. fragments 19 4 21 9 6 79 Frost flakes 7 1 1 5 100 Potlids 25 15 60 5 2 2 1 40 Nodules 1 1 100 Total 2085 1116 527 250 74 118 34 2 100% 54% 25% 12% 4% 6%

Table 2.20 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm from trenches S21-S24.


thin, and are often of a straight form with a central ridge. Large specimens occur occasionally and these often have parallel edges with one or two central ridges (6%). Less than half of the blades are intact (37%). These cluster between minimum and maximum dimensions of 10x2x1 mm and 40x17x12 mm (table 2.21). The average meas-urements of the intact blades are 20x8x3 mm. Only one blade is significantly larger measuring 78x30x10 mm. This large and wide specimen with parallel edges might be made of southern flint. The blade fragments, mainly proximal-medial parts and to a lesser extent medial-dis-tal and medial parts, have smaller or similar sizes. A few fragments measure up to 40-45 mm in length and these are all of the regular type with parallel ridges (table 2.22).

The minority of the intact blades are partially or fully covered with different types of cortex and patina. The

blade fragments are even covered less. The types of cortex and patina are similar to those of the flakes. Of the sample only 3% could be defined as decortication blades.

Nearly all of the blades is detached in a unidirectional way; only one blade is detached with the bipolar tech-nique (0.2%). Obliquely detached and plunging blades have been encountered, as well as a few double bulbs and the occasional lip. Some of the blades also appear to be retouched but, as the material was kept in bulk in large bags, and is in some cases recently damaged, this defin-ition is uncertain.

The rejuvenation pieces from the sample are subdivided into 38 striking edge rejuvenation pieces, 3 platform reju-venation pieces, 1 core tablet, and 1 production plane rejuvenation piece. Roughly half of them are partially still

Flakes Cores L W T L W Tmin. 10 6 1 min. 11 10 9max. 41 46 22 max. 45 54 47average 16 14 3 average 24 24 17st. dev. 4.9 5.4 2.2 st. dev. 6.8 7.9 6.9 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.4 1.0 1.0 min. 0.3 0.4 0.5max. 1.9 20.0 22.0 max. 2.5 3.9 3.8average 1.2 5.9 5.1 average 1.1 1.6 1.5

Blades L W Tmin. 10 2 1max. 78 30 10average 20 8 3st. dev. 7.5 3.3 2.0 LW LT WTmin. 2.0 2.2 1.0max. 7.5 28.0 9.0average 2.7 10.1 3.9

Table 2.21 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at trenches S21-S24.

Intact regular blades Intact irregular blades L W T L W Tmin. 15 4 1 min. 10 2 1max. 28 13 2 max. 40 17 12average 20 7 1 average 19 8 3st. dev. 4.6 2.2 0.5 st. dev. 6.6 3.0 1.9 LW LT WT LW LT WT

min. 2.1 7.5 2.5 min. 2.0 2.2 1.0max. 4.2 25.0 8.0 max. 7.5 28.0 9.0average 3.0 16.1 5.5 average 2.6 9.7 3.8

Table 2.22 Different measurement ratios of regular and irregular blades at trenches S21-S24.


covered with rolled or weathered cortex or some sort of anterior patina. The majority of the analysed artefacts are intact with measurements ranging from 12x6x1 mm to 40x32x11. The average is 22x13x5 mm. Nearly half of the intact striking edge rejuvenation pieces are blades. Two of these are blade-rejuvenation combinations and two others may have been detached using the bipolar technique. The impact point of the core tablet was located at the back of the core, i.e. opposite the production plane.

The cores from the sample are defined as 17 cores with one striking platform, 15 cores with two opposing plat-forms, 9 cores with two crossed striking platforms, 4 cores with multiple striking platforms, 17 tested cores, and 9 core fragments. Most of them are small (regular) blade cores while flake cores and cores showing both flake and blade negatives occur somewhat less. A handful of the cores have a bipolar feel about them, often one strik-ing platform is nearly reduced to a striking ridge; one is even more or less centripetal. It was also observed that some cores have somewhat crushed or retouched striking edges. The number of detachments is often limited, espe-cially for the tested cores, although some cores can reach up to four, five or six detachments per platform. The intact cores show a wide range of measurements from minimum dimensions of 11x10x9 mm to maximum dimensions of 45x54x47 mm. Yet the average measurements are rather small being 24x24x17 mm. Remnants of natural surface have been observed on the predominant part of the cores (81%) and reach up to nearly 100% for some of the cores.

ToolsA large number of tools were separated from the bulk of the material during previous years of research. Certain types were carefully stored, like microliths, while other types were gathered together in one large bag. The lat-ter are in the current study not specified by type. Yet, it was observed these are mainly retouched pieces and scrapers. There is also a large possibility that a number of tools is missing. From trench S21 two bags which sup-posedly should contain microliths were found empty and from trench S22 there was one bag of missing microliths. The bags should contain approximately 35 artefacts. It is unclear where they are now, as they could not be traced in the museum. According the labels on the bags, it con-cerns A-points, B-points, needle-shaped points, triangles, and trapezes. However, it was discovered that the bag “retouched pieces” also contained some microliths and in one of the empty microlith bags a borer was found.

Also for the tools only a limited number has been ana-lysed in detail. As these are even lower in number within the studied sample than the debitage material, 93 instead of 1929 pieces, the following characteristics and meas-urements should be regarded as indicative and not as representative.

The tools from the sample are 19 scrapers, 4 borers, 1 com-bination tool, 2 rounded pieces, 24 microliths, 1 trapeze, 38 retouched pieces, and 4 indeterminate tools or smaller fragments. Of these 28 are burned. The raw material used is mainly fine-grained flint without bryozoans, whereas fine-grained flint with bryozoans is used sparsely. Only two tools are produced out of medium-grained flint without bryozoans.

The few scrapers analysed are not of the ‘classic’ end scraper type, focussed on scraper fronts at the end, like the typical end scrapers on the levee sites, but concentrate the working surface on the side of the blank. Yet, they can-not be considered side scrapers as the scraper front always starts at the distal end but does not include the full width or surface of the distal end. They are mainly produced out of flakes and most of them are intact, as only three are bro-ken or damaged. Their minimum and maximum meas-urements of 12x10x4 mm and 47x29x15 mm (average 26x18x7 mm) are thus indicative, as far as the measure-ments of 16 artefacts can be considered as representative.

The four borers are nearly all damaged or broken, yet they are presumably produced on both flakes and blades. The intact specimen measures 49x13x4 mm. This is a double borer while the other ones only have one borer tip.

The combination tool is defined as a scraper-borer and is produced on a blade. As the proximal part has been bro-ken off, the current measurements of 38x14x5 mm are only indicative.

The rounded pieces are produced on a flake and a blade. Both are intact and measure 16x19x7 mm and 24x7x2 mm respectively. The tool produced on a flake was found in the grave fill of trench S21 and was only lightly retouched and lightly rounded. The tool produced on a blade has parallel edges and two parallel ribs.

The 24 microliths are defined as two A-points, four B-points, one C-point, one D-point, three crescents, three triangles, and ten microlith fragments. The intact specimens measure between 9x3x1 mm and 24x7x2 mm, yet most have lengths between 15 mm and 21 mm. Nearly all are made from blades of fine-grained flint without bryozoans.

The only trapeze is rectangular and is also made from a blade of fine-grained flint without bryozoans. The tool measures 17x12x3 mm and is intact. This results in a length-width ratio of 1.4.

The retouched pieces are a combination of 18 retouched flakes, 15 retouched blades, 4 indeterminate fragments with retouch and one retouched core.


All except one of the retouched flakes are produced on unidirectional flakes. The singular specimen is pro-duced on a bipolar flake. Most of these tools have small, and somewhat irregular, retouches that follow the nat-ural curvature of the blank; on four tools the retouches are a bit larger. Dorsal retouches occur nearly always, while ventral retouches are very limited. More than half of these retouched flakes are intact. Their minimum and maximum dimensions vary between 17x12x3 mm and 35x34x13 mm leading to an average of 23x20x7 mm. Most of the fragmented flakes miss their proximal part.

The retouched blades are nearly all backed blades whereas one is truncated, and another is notched. At least four of them are produced on a regular blade whereas none show gloss on their edges. However, during the observations of the bulk of the material, this character-istic was attested. Half of the retouched blades are intact with minimum and maximum measurements of 12x3x1 mm and 33x16x6 mm leading up to an averages of 23x9x3 mm. The ones that are broken nearly all lack their prox-imal part. All except one of these fragmented tools fall within the measurements set by the intact specimens. The exception is a medial-distal fragment of 36x15x6 mm. Almost all blades are characterised by direct, abrupt and/or indirect (semi-)abrupt retouches along the edges. The truncated blade with its straight truncation and the notched blade form the exceptions.

The remaining retouched pieces are made from 4 inde-terminate fragments, and 1 core. These have rather simi-lar dimensions between 24x14x8 mm and 34x28x11 mm (average 28x20x10 mm). The retouches can both be small and somewhat indistinct to a bit larger and more regular.

The remaining tools are 3 indeterminate tool frag-ments and 1 smaller indeterminate tool fragment, i.e. retouched chip. Their only diagnostic feature is the pres-ence of retouches, yet a clear typological definition is hard to make.

Bipolar piecesOf the bipolar pieces that have been found on the site, some are different from those retrieved at the levee sites. For example, three pieces have a combination of a striking ridge and a striking platform, and may be seen as bipolar cores. Such types are on the levee sites more of an excep-tion than the rule. The three bipolar pieces are all intact and produced out of fine-grained flint with bryozoans. Only one shows remnants of patina. This is also the only regular bipolar artefact; the two others are of the irregu-lar type. Their measurements range from 19x13x5 mm for the minimum dimensions to 27x14x11 mm for the max-imum dimensions (average 23x13x8 mm). The remain-ing bipolar pieces have only been quickly scanned and it appears some of them are very similar to the material on the levee sites.

Artefacts with visual use-wear tracesThese artefacts are classified by Price as “utilized flakes and blades” (Price 1981: 89) and were recognised in the past but there might be more of them than the currently presented number since some of them are presumably defined as retouched pieces. The line between the one and the other is for every researcher different.

It was noted that most of them are blades and that flakes occur less. Both retouches and gloss may be pres-ent, although not always together.

Other artefactsThe two artefacts not included in the standard typological list for flint artefacts are a hammerstone and a polished flint axe fragment. The first is made out of grey coarse-grained flint and is only for a small part still covered with rolled cortex. The raw material is between coarse-grained flint and fine-grained quartzite which might have resulted in its selection as hammerstone. Originally it was a round nodule but it is broken in half forming a plano-convex artefact of 72x48x32 mm weighing 126.23 g. The original weight might have been between c. 250g and 300 g, a weight in correspondence to 30% of the stone hammer-stones at the sites. The convex edge is covered with impact traces and small and larger flake scars. The hammerstone is possibly broken as the result of impact and usage.

The second artefact is a proximal flake fragment of a polished flint axe. The artefact measures 18x13x1 mm and is produced out of a grey coloured fine-grained flint without bryozoans. The dorsal face is totally polished and shows striation marks. It was recovered from the erosion layer of trench S23.

WasteThis material combines 491 indeterminate fragments, 129 frost flakes, 473 potlids and 22 nodules. Only a small part of them have been studied in detail. One of the indetermi-nate fragments possibly shows some small retouches and the only nodule that was analysed, which is totally covered with rolled cortex, measures 82x54x51 mm. These meas-urements are quite large compared to the cores, yet, indi-cates the availability of such large nodules.

< 1 cm: ChipsEven though 1933 chips were attested, their number com-pared to the artefacts ≥ 1 cm is very low. The low percent-age of chips is especially discernible in trench S22 where they comprise of only 9% of the assemblage. For trench S21 this is 28% and for trench S23 this is even 31%, per-centages more comparable to some of the other (levee) sites. In theory, all the soil of the excavation should have been sieved, but there is no way of verifying this.

The chips weigh between 0.01 g and 0.95 g resulting in an average of 0.14 g. The best represented group are the chips weighing 0.07 g. The graph (figure 2.4) shows that the number of artefacts per weight class start low for


weight class 0.01 g, steadily grows to a peak at 0.07 g, and then gradually diminishes again.

Nearly half of the chips show no traces of heat expo-sure (42%). The ones that are exposed are mainly heavily burned (59%), medium exposure occurs less often (35%) while light exposure is the rarest (6%). On top of the dis-colouration or calcification of all 540 heavily burnt chips, at least 81 of the medium exposed chips are discoloured as well.

It should also be mentioned that one of the chips shows a mirror-like gloss. However, the artefact is too small to determine the nature of this gloss.

Comparison with Price 1981As Price points out (1981: 81), the 1962 and 1966 cam-paigns of Van der Heide resulted in pottery sherds, flint artefacts, a number of hearths, and several graves. Both excavations of Van der Waals in 1971 and 1973 resulted in additional artefacts, more hearths, and several new graves. For his 1976 campaign, Price mentions in the text 428 “flaked stone artifacts” at S22 (ibid: 84) and 2369 flint artefacts at S23 (ibid: 92). However, there are also several tables incorporated in the article. Table 1 representing the “lithic artifacts” on S22 and S23 presumably only shows the flint material. This can not only be deduced from the typological composition17, but also from the fact that in the list of lithic artefacts S22 counts 428 artefacts, S23: EL counts 2895 artefacts, and S23: DS counts 2367 artefacts18. Additionally, it appears that in the text the rocks are men-tioned separately. Table 2, representing retouched and uti-lized artefacts, shows the totals of 428, 2895, and 2369. Therefore, it is presumed that the 2367 artefacts in table 1 are incorrect as 2369 occurs much more frequently in the text and tables. He is also unclear about the number

17 In the typological list another writing error is observed, making it very likely the number of artefacts in the text is the correct amount.

18 Abbreviation S23: EL stands for ‘erosion layer’ and S23: DS stands for ‘dune sand’.

of artefacts incorporated in the grave fillings of graves XI and XII on respectively S21 and S23 (ibid: 85, 91).

The 5692 flint artefacts mentioned in Price’s article can only partially be compared to the material from the finds boxes. First of all the amount of flint artefacts do not correspond. As Price mentions 5264 artefacts for S23, it may be clear that at least 336 artefacts are no longer available. Whether these are in the museum or lost over time is unclear. Second, this absence of material compli-cates typological comparison. The same accounts for the analyses in bulk. Still, some aspects still can be pointed out. The amount of ‘shatter’ defined by Price comprises roughly 40% of the artefacts at S22 and even 55% at S23. It may be clear that his definitions are different from the ones used in this analysis as ‘waste’ only takes up 8% and 18% respectively. Another example can be deduced from the results of the analysed sample. Even though artefacts from S21, S22 and S23 are combined in the analyses, it is clear flakes outnumber the blades (66% versus 34%). In Price’s table 1 this was not the case. It was indeed observed during the quick scan of the material that several of the artefacts labelled as blades, would be defined as flakes in this analysis. It appears the artefacts were not measured but judged by appearance and the debitage axis was not taken into account.

The tool composition is even harder to compare, as almost none have been studied in this analysis. Price mentions, besides a whole series of scrapers, retouched pieces, and borers, a collection of different types of microliths such as A-, B-, and C-points, needle shaped and lancette points, but also triangles, trapezes, and backed blades. He also mentions, among other tools, a surface retouched point and pieces esquillées. On top of that, De Roever (1976: 215) even mentioned a Neolithic knife.

2.2.6 Site S41

Total amountThree bags with different amounts of flint finds were col-lected at this site. Both early ditch slope inspections as well as a ditch slope registration in 1978 may have led to the discovery of these artefacts. Unfortunately, no fur-ther information could be retrieved about the number of phases or the circumstances in which this occurred. Relying on the labelling of the finds bags, the material was gathered from both sides of the ditch.

The artefacts are dividable into a small group of arte-facts < 1 cm and a larger group of artefacts ≥ 1 cm. These groups weigh 0.38 g and 416.19 g respectively. The arte-facts ≥ 1 cm are defined as 31 pieces of debitage, 4 tools, 2 bipolar pieces, 1 artefact with visible use-wear traces, and 19 pieces of waste (table 2.23). These categories form 21.1%, 2.1%, 3.5%, 0.2%, and 73.1% of the weight of the material when the artefacts < 1 cm are not included.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Numbe

r

Weigth

Figure 2.4 Number of chips per weight class of trenches S21-S24 (weight in 0.01 g).


Raw material and alteration by fire For all but one of the artefacts fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans was used (table 2.24). The variety without bryozoans was used for 54% of the artefacts and the variety with bryozoans for 26% of the artefacts. The bipolar piece made of medium-grained flint takes up 2%. Heat exposure prevented flint type analysis for ten arte-facts and form the remaining 18%.

Of the artefacts ≥ 1 cm 44% or 25 pieces are exposed to heat (table 2.23). Moderate exposure clearly occurs more often than light or heavy exposure. The two artefacts < 1 cm are both burned.

Debitage materialThe flakes are predominantly detached by using a unidi-rectional debitage technique; on only one flake was the bipolar technique applied (5%). Most of the flakes have remnants of natural surface like cortex or patina (table 2.25). One intact flake is fully covered and thus defined as decortication flake. The dimensions of the intact flakes are rather small, rarely exceeding 2 cm of length. Their minimum measurements are 12x10x2 mm and their max-imum measurements are 26x27x13 mm. This results in

an average of 18x18x5 mm. None of the fractured flakes exceed the dimensions of the intact ones.

The blades are also mainly unidirectionally detached. Again one specimen is the result of the bipolar debitage technique (11%). Two of the blades are regular with two parallel edges and a parallel ridge. One of these even has a lip at the butt. The presence of cortex and patina occurs less often than for the flakes and no decortication blades could be defined. The intact blades cluster between 21x9x2 mm and 27x11x5, one blade is larger measuring 40x16x3 mm. The average measurements are 27x11x5 mm and the average length-width ratio for the intact blades is 2.4.

The three cores are somewhat different. One is small (23x22x15 mm), has two opposing striking platforms and many stacked steps. The original nodule must have been small as well since half of the core is still covered with coloured and windblown patina. The second core is also rather small (31x34x10 m) and is actually a thick, plung-ing flake showing flake detachments in two opposing directions. The last core is a very large flake (60x40x13 mm) of which several flakes have been chipped off at the distal end. Although it can be considered a tested core, the use-retouches on the edge of the artefact make it plausible

Total % % ≥ 1 cm Burnt % LB MB HB % ↓

Debitage material 31 53 54 15 48 3 10 2 60Flakes 12 20 63 5 42 1 2 2 Flake fragments 7 12 37 6 86 6 Total flakes 19 100 Blades 5 8 56 1 20 1 Blade fragments 4 7 44 2 50 1 1 Total blades 9 100 Cores 3 5 1 33 1 Tools 4 7 7 1 25 1 4Scrapers 2 Borers 1 2 1 100 1 Tools on blade 1 2 Bipolar pieces 2 3 4 Visible use-wear 1 2 2 Waste 19 32 33 9 47 1 7 1 36Indet. fragments 7 12 4 57 1 2 1 Frost flakes 3 5 Potlids 5 8 5 100 5 Nodules 4 7 Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 57 97 100 25 44 5 17 3 100 20% 68% 12% < 1 cm 2 3 2 100 1 1 50% 50% Total 59 100 27 46 6 18 3

22% 67% 11%




Number FG B FG MG Indet.Debitage material 31 Flakes 12 4 4 4Flake fragments 7 4 3Blades 5 3 2 Blade fragments 4 1 2 1Cores 3 3 Tools 4 Scrapers 2 1 1 Borers 1 1 Tools on blade 1 1 Bipolar pieces 2 1 1 Visible use-wear 1 1 Waste 19 Indet. fragments 7 2 4 1Frost flakes 3 1 2 Potlids 5 1 3 1Nodules 4 1 3 Total 57 15 31 1 10 100% 26% 54% 2% 18%

Debitage material 31 26% 48% 26%Tools 4 25% 75% Bipolar pieces 2 50% 50% Visible use-wear 1 100% Waste 19 26% 63% 11%Total 57 15 31 1 10

FG B: fine-grained flint with bryozoans, FG: fine-grained flint without bryozoans, MG: medium-grained flint without bryozoans, Indet.: indeterminate type of flint.


Natural surface coverage Posterior Number 0% % 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % Number %Debitage material 31 Flakes 12 2 17 4 4 1 1 83 Flake fragments 7 3 43 1 1 2 57 Blades 5 4 80 1 20 1 20Blade fragments 4 1 25 2 1 75 Cores 3 1 2 100 Tools 4 Scrapers 2 1 1 100 Borers 1 1 100 Tools on blade 1 1 100 Bipolar pieces 2 1 1 100 Visible use-wear 1 1 100 Waste 19 Indet. fragments 7 1 14 1 5 86 Frost flakes 3 2 1 100 Potlids 5 3 60 1 1 40 Nodules 4 4 100 Total 57 15 11 13 2 16 1 2 100% 26% 19% 23% 4% 28%



that the detached distal flakes are the result of some sort of use or it may simply indicate a different event.

ToolsThe two scrapers have matching measurements of 20x15x5 and 22x16x6 mm. The smallest is a side scraper with short, direct retouches (no. 319, pl. 68); the other is a single end scraper with one retouched edge and a distal scraper front (no. 320, pl. 68).

The borer is an irregular shaped frost flake with retouches on the ventral face forming a tip at one end (no. 321, pl. 68). It is between a borer and a retouched flake as the tip is rather thin and the retouches more or less follow the edges of the blank. The artefact measures 25x16x9 mm.

The retouched blade is a distal blade fragment of 23x15x4 mm with small retouches on the dorsal face of the left edge (no. 322, pl. 68).

Bipolar piecesOf these two specimens one is made of fine-grained flint and the other of medium-grained flint, both without bry-ozoans. The first is of the regular type with blade-like detachments measuring 37x18x8 mm (no. 323, pl. 68). The second is irregular with flake removals and measures 33x29x12 mm (no. 324, pl. 68). Both were originally flake removals themselves.

Artefacts with visual use-wear tracesThe only artefact belonging to this group is a proximal-medial blade fragment (no. 327, pl. 68). It is one of the three regular blades found at the site and shows paral-lel edges and two converging ridges. Even fractured, it is longer than most of the unretouched blades (24x9x2 mm). Both use-retouches and gloss are visible on the edges.

WasteThe second largest group of material found at the site comprises seven indeterminate fragments, three frost flakes, five potlids, and four nodules. Nine of all of them

Total % % ≥ 1 cm Burnt %← LB MB HB % ↓Debitage material 83 38 55 17 20 3 8 6 36Flakes 22 10.1 39 3 14 2 1 Flake fragments 35 16.1 61 10 29 1 7 2Total flakes 57 100 Blades 5 2.3 22 Blade fragments 18 8.3 78 4 22 4Total blades 23 100 Cores 3 1.4 Tools 27 12 18 8 30 1 4 3 17Scrapers 13 6.0 4 31 1 2 1Trapezes 2 0.9 Tools on flake 2 0.9 Tools on blade 5 2.3 1 20 1 Indet. tools 1 0.5 Indet. tool fragments 2 0.9 2 100 1 1Retouched chips 2 0.9 1 50 1Bipolar pieces 3 1.4 2 1 33 1 2Visible use-wear 12 6 8 1 8 1 2Waste 27 12 18 20 74 16 4 43Indet. fragments 10 4.6 5 50 5 Frost flakes 2 0.9 1 50 1 Potlids 14 6.5 14 100 10 4Nodules 1 0.5 Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 152 70 100 47 31 4 30 13 100 9% 64% 28% < 1 cm 65 30 36 55 2 21 13 6% 58% 36% Total 217 100 83 38 6 51 26 7% 61% 31%




are exposed to heat preventing flint type analysis of two artefacts. The four nodules measure between 32x28x9 mm and 72x42x19 mm, with an average of 53x38x24 mm, and are fully covered with weathered or rolled cortex and patina.

< 1 cm: ChipsThe two artefacts < 1 cm are both burned. One of them has a rougher surface than the other artefacts but the heat damage, i.e. calcination, prevented the flint type analysis. The surface is weathered and granular with sparkles glint-ing through. This is one of those artefacts that might pos-sibly be something other than fine-grained flint (see main book section 3.4).

2.2.7 Site S51

Total amountThe artefacts from this site are from the 1978 excavation. Part of the material was hand collected19, the other part was the result of sieving20. Unlike the other sites, not all the soil was sieved. Only small probes of every square metre were washed over meshes (see main book sections 2.5.3 and 2.7.15). The small collection of 217 artefacts consists of a group ≥ 1 cm, namely 152 pieces weighing 228.47 g, and a group < 1 cm, being 65 pieces with a weight of 7.1 g combining to a total weight of 235.57 g of flint artefacts

19 The hand collected material is numbered by 4 digits and starts with 1036 and ends with 2865. These artefacts are in the database desig-nated to site S51.

20 The sieved material is numbered from 900,000 onwards and is in the database designated to the site labelled as S51*. A small part is numbered from 990,000 onwards. The reason for this is unknown.

Number FG B FG MG CG Indet.Debitage material 83 Flakes 22 3 19 Flake fragments 35 6 23 1 5Blades 5 5 Blade fragments 18 2 12 4Cores 3 2 1 Tools 27 Scrapers 13 3 8 2Trapezes 2 1 1 Tools on flake 2 2 Tools on blade 5 1 4 Indet. tools 1 1 Indet. tool fragments 2 2Retouched chips 2 1 1Bipolar pieces 3 2 1Visible use-wear 12 1 9 1 1Waste 27 Indet. fragments 10 2 4 4Frost flakes 2 1 1Potlids 14 1 3 1 9Nodules 1 1 Total 152 25 93 2 2 30 100% 16.4% 61.2% 1.3% 1.3% 19.7%

Debitage material 83 16% 72% 1% 11%Tools 27 26% 52% 4% 19%Bipolar pieces 3 67% 33%Visible use-wear 12 8% 75% 8% 8%Waste 27 15% 30% 4% 52%Total 152 25 93 2 2 30

FG B: fine-grained flint with bryozoans, FG: fine-grained flint without bryozoans, MG: medium-grained flint without bryozoans, CG: coarse-grained flint without bryozoans, Indet.: indeterminate type of flint.



Natural surface coverage Posterior Number 0% % 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % Number %Debitage material 83 Flakes 22 11 50 7 1 1 2 50 Flake fragments 35 20 57 12 2 1 43 Blades 5 2 40 3 60 1 20Blade fragments 18 10 56 4 4 44 Cores 3 0 1 2 100 Tools 27 Scrapers 13 8 62 4 1 38 1 8Trapezes 2 2 100 Tools on flake 2 1 50 1 50 Tools on blade 5 3 60 2 40 1 20Indet. tools 1 0 1 100 Indet. tool fragments 2 2 100 Retouched chips 2 1 50 1 50 Bipolar pieces 3 0 2 1 100 Visible use-wear 12 9 75 2 1 25 Waste 27 Indet. fragments 10 4 40 5 1 60 Frost flakes 2 1 50 1 50 Potlids 14 12 86 1 1 14 Nodules 1 0 1 100 Total 152 86 45 15 2 4 3 2 100% 57% 30% 10% 1% 3%


Flakes Cores L W T L W Tmin. 11 7 1 min. 23 12 9max. 43 31 10 max. 28 27 13average 17 14 3 average 25 19 11st. dev. 9.1 5.6 2.3 st. dev. 2.5 7.6 2.1 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.5 2.3 2.2 min. 0.9 1.8 1.3max. 1.8 15 3.1 max. 2.3 3.1 2.7average 1.2 7.2 6.2 average 1.5 2.5 1.8

Blades L W Tmin. 20 8 2max. 45 17 9average 33 13 5st. dev. 9.2 3.7 2.7 LW LT WTmin. 2.1 4.1 1.1max. 3.7 10 4.7average 2.7 8 3.2



for site S51. The artefacts ≥ 1 cm are separated in 83 pieces of debitage, 27 tools, 3 bipolar pieces, 12 artefacts with visible use-wear traces, and 27 pieces of waste (table 2.26). These categories form 47%, 22%, 4%, 11%, and 16% of the weight of the material when the artefacts < 1 cm are not included.

Raw material and alteration by fire The artefacts ≥ 1 cm are mostly made out of fine-grained flint without bryozoans (61.2%) (table 2.27). Fine-grained flint with bryozoans is used for 16.4% of the material. A flake fragment and a blade with visible use-wear traces are made out of medium-grained flint while coarse-grained flint is recognised with one trapeze and a potlid. The flake fragment is greyish-beige, the blade is brown, and the trapeze is dark grey. The original colour of the potlid could not be determined due to heat exposure and calcination or discolouring. Only the texture of the artefact makes it possible to define the raw material as coarse-grained flint. The different colours and textures make it probable that none of these medium- or coarse-grained artefacts come from the same nodule of raw material. For the tools this means that all analysable artefacts except the trapeze are made from fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans.

Up to 30 artefacts or 19.7% of the material is burned and discoloured. This prevents the flint colour or type recog-nition. On top of these, 17 more artefacts show traces of heat exposure or damage. This brings the total of lightly fire damaged pieces to 9%, the medium damaged pieces to 64%, and the heavy damaged pieces to 28% (table 2.26). Divided per category this gives the following results. Of the intact flakes and blades only 14% of the flakes are burned. Of the fragmented flakes and blades 29% and 22% respectively show traces of heat damage. No cores are burned. Up to 30% of the tools show traces of burn-ing whereas the 74% of burnt pieces of the waste category are related to the high number of potlids. If the latter are excluded the number drops to 46%.

Debitage materialThis group of artefacts can be divided into 57 flakes, 23 blades, and 3 cores. They will be discussed and analysed per category.

Within the group of flakes, the damaged ones are the most numerous (61%). A large part of both the flakes and flake fragments are partially or fully covered with natural sur-face (table 2.28). The diversity of it is quite large, some-times combining glossy, windblown or coloured patina with each other or with different types of cortex21. Two flakes can be considered decortication pieces as they are covered for up to 75% or more. Still, they both are

21 For artefact fragments the percentage of natural surface is the min-imal coverage since a part of the artefact is missing.

rather small (11x17x2 mm and 13x8x5 mm). The intact flakes have average measurements of 17x14x3 mm with a minimum of 11x7x1 mm and a maximum of 43x31x10 mm. Yet, these large measurements are the result of two large flakes, 40x22x3 mm and 43x31x10. When these are excluded the maximum measurements are 25x22x6 mm and the average measurements drop to 15x13x3 mm. The length-width index varies between 0.5 and 1.8 with an average of 1.2. For the length-thickness index the average is 7.2 and for the width-thickness this is 6.2.

All flakes are chipped off using the unidirectional debi-tage technique. Four of these do not show a smooth ven-tral surface but are detached along a frost fissure or other internal fracture. Two flakes have a recently damaged edge and two other flakes are possibly used. Of the intact pieces two can be defined as plunging flakes. Several of the flake fragments are possibly blade fragments since they show parallel edges and ridges. Nevertheless, the remaining part is considered to be not long enough for a positive identification as blade. They comprise four proximal, two medial, and one distal fragment.

With 18 versus 5 pieces, the blade fragments are more numerous (78%) than the undamaged blades. The fragments are mainly medial-distal parts, to a lesser extent proximal-medial parts, and rarely medial parts. Approximately half of the intact and broken blades are partially covered with coloured, glossy or windblown pat-ina and/or rolled or weathered cortex (table 2.28). None of the blades is totally covered so no decortication pieces are defined. The five undamaged blades have minimum measurements of 20x8x2 mm, maximum measurements of 45x17x9 mm and an average of 33x13x5 mm (table 2.29). This results in an average length-width index of 2.7, an average length-thickness index of 8.0 and an average width-thickness index of 3.2.

All blades are detached in a unidirectional way. Only one of them shows small retouches or splintering on the distal tip. Whether this is the result of use, accidental damaging or possibly the result of bipolar debitage tech-nique is unknown. The ventral side shows no other char-acteristics of bipolar debitage. More than half (57%) of the blades are produced by a systematic blade technique. Six have parallel edges and a parallel ridge, another six even have two parallel ridges. One distal blade fragment of each group can be defined as a plunging blade. Finally, one medial-distal blade fragment shows parallel edges and two converging ridges. In total, four blades or blade fragments might possibly be used. One shows a light gloss on the edges, the others have small retouches from their edges. These are so little, irregular and few that it is clear they were not made deliberately but might be the result of use or accidental damage.

Only three cores were recovered at the site. It concerns 1 core with one striking platform, 1 with multiple striking


platforms and 1 tested core. They are all worked rather irregularly without any core preparation. In all cases an existing surface was used as striking platform. On all three cores natural surfaces are still present. The minimum and maximum measurements of the cores are 23x12x9 mm and 28x27x13 mm correspondingly with an average of 25x19x11 mm. The length-width index varies between 0.9 and 2.3 and has an average of 1.5 while the averages of the length-thickness index and the width-thickness index are 2.5 and 1.8 respectively.

The core with one striking platform shows both blade and flake scars but all are rather small since the core itself only measures 23x17x13 mm. The core is possibly bro-ken in half. The core with multiple striking platforms is worked haphazardly and bears only flake scars. One or two flake scars are also visible on the tested core along with several very small flake scars which are actually not more than mere chips. This artefact appears to be worked from two opposing sides. Whether this is the result of successive unidirectional or of bipolar percussion is unknown because one of the original striking platforms has been broken off. Therefore it cannot be determined if it was a platform or a ridge.

ToolsOn site S51 a total of 27 tools have been uncovered and they can be defined as 13 scrapers, 2 trapezes, 7 retouched pieces, and 5 indeterminate tools or fragments thereof. It has been mentioned that the majority is made of fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans (78%); the excep-tion is the trapeze.

Of the 13 scrapers only 4 are intact and can be defined by type; the remaining 9 are scraper fragments. Heat dam-age is visible on four artefacts. One is lightly exposed, two medium and one is heavily exposed with potlidding as the result. This heat exposure prevents the raw material analy-sis of two artefacts. The used blanks are two flakes, four blades, six flake or blade fragments, and one indeterminate blank. The intact scrapers measure between 13x12x5 mm and 17x18x5 mm with an average of 15x16x6 mm. The fragments show measurements between 9x11x5 mm and 16x14x3 mm which results in an average of 12x12x4 mm.

The intact scrapers are defined as three single end scrapers with retouched edges and one double end scraper. The three single end scrapers have rounded scraper fronts which are located distally (nos. 326 – 328, pl. 69). The double end scraper (no. 329, pl. 69) has a rectilinear and a rounded scraper front. Maybe in an attempt to make the artefact thinner, a bipolar flake has been chipped off from the ventral face after the edges were retouched.

The scraper fragments are all broken off scraper fronts. Four of them have similar appearances for they are all parts of regular blades with a rectilinear to curved scraper front (nos. 330 – 33, pl. 69). Besides their similar over-all appearance and measurements their limited thickness

of 3-4 mm is notable as well. This thinness is related to the limited thickness of the used blank, namely a blade. The question is whether the scrapers can sustain as much pressure while being used as their thicker counterparts. Maybe this is the reason for their breakage. It cannot be ruled out either that they were used for a different activ-ity. Three others can also be grouped. Their scraper front is rounded and is generally thicker (nos. 334 – 336, pl. 69). Two of these might be made on blades of which one has several more retouches near the fracture as if it was the intention to create a round or double scraper (no. 334). The final two are only partial scraper fronts which makes it more difficult to define the delineation (nos. 337 – 338, pl. 69). One appears to be rounded, the other rectilinear.

The only two arrowheads are trapezes (nos. 339 – 340, pl. 69). Both are asymmetrical and made out of regular blades. As mentioned above, one is manufactured out of coarse-grained grey flint (no. 339). Another notable elem-ent of this object is the retouch. One retouched edge has both direct and inverse retouches. The artefact meas-ures 18x14x3 mm. The other trapeze (no. 340) is more standardised showing only direct, abrupt retouches. It is fabricated out of fine-grained brownish flint with bryo-zoans and measures 17x11x3 mm. The average of the two length-width ratios (1.3 and 1.5) is 1.4.

The retouched pieces are defined as two retouched flakes and five retouched blades which all have minor edge alter-ations. One blade has endured medium heat exposure. Short, abrupt or semi-abrupt retouches cover some parts of the dorsal or ventral edges of the tools. The two flakes have strongly varying dimensions of 10x13x2 mm and 25x33x8 mm (nos. 341 – 342, pl. 2). The smallest possibly has several retouches on the distal end as well. Because of the damage on this distal end the purposefulness of these retouches is, however, questionable.

Three of the five blades are produced on regular blades with parallel edges and two parallel ridges and are of approximately equal size (average 41x18x4 mm) (nos. 343 – 345, pl. 2). The other two are more irregular in shape, one is chipped off lightly obliquely (no. 21, pl. 2), the other is a rather wide plunging blade with a retouched edge (no. 348, pl. 2). These five blades often have retouched edges and broken off distal ends. The exception is artefact no. 900070 (no. 346). It has alternate retouches at its distal tip. Maybe the intention was to produce a borer but the retouched tip is unfinished. The edges of this tool are not worked deliberately; the retouches are presumably the result of use. Finally, one of the blades (no. 345) has a fea-ture observed on several more retouched blades. On the ventral face of the proximal end an approximately 1 cm long band of retouch is observed.

The final group of tools include 1 indeterminate tool, 2 indeterminate tool fragments and 2 retouched chips. The


indeterminate tool is triangular shaped and made out of the proximal end of a flake or blade (no. 348, pl. 70). The proximal tip is retouched abruptly from the ventral side. This tip appears to have been broken off and this frac-ture is retouched from the dorsal side. The tool meas-ures 13x13x4 mm. Both indeterminate tool fragments are burned. One might even be the tip of a blade with a denticulated end (no. 349, pl. 71). Both retouched chips are the tips or parts of retouched edges. One is part of a pointed edge, the other part of a rounded edge.

Bipolar piecesThe three bipolar pieces are defined as two regular and one irregular specimen. Two are made out of fine-grained flint without bryozoans; the final one is moderately exposed to heat preventing the analysis of the raw mater-ial type. All three are still partially covered with cortex and/or patina suggesting their current size is similar to their original size. The regular pieces measure 20x11x8 mm and 23x15x10 mm (no. 350, pl. 3); the irregular piece

is somewhat longer and measures 32x16x10 mm (no. 351, pl. 3).

Artefacts with visual use-wear tracesThis group consists of 12 artefacts showing gloss and/or small, often irregular retouches on the edges. The use of fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans is dominant here (83%). All but two are blades: four with parallel edges and one parallel ridge, four with parallel edges and two parallel ridges, and one with parallel edges and two con-verging ridges (nos. 352 –353, pl. 3). The remaining blade is less regular (no. 354, pl. 3). Finally, a flake and a flake or blade fragment show traces as well (no. 355, pl. 3). Of all blades one is plunging, one has a double bulb, and one has two notches as on a striking edge rejuvenation piece or crested blade.

It is the extent of the retouch distribution which sets the retouched blades aside from the blades with visible use-wear traces. Of course, this determination is subjec-tive since blades can be used without leaving any visible

Number % % ≥ 1 cm Burnt % ← LB MB HB % ↓Debitage material 621 33.8 78.2 74 12 9.3Flakes 311 16.9 70 29 9 8 14 7Flake fragments 133 7.2 30 23 17 1 11 11Total flakes 444 100 Blades 47 2.6 39 2 4 2Blade fragments 73 4.0 61 17 23 4 5 8Total blades 120 100 Rejuvenation 20 1.1 1 5 1 Cores 37 2.0 2 5 1 1Tools 20 1.1 2.5 4 20 0.5Microliths 1 0.1 Rounded pieces 1 0.1 Tools on flake 2 0.1 1 50 1Tools on blade 1 0.1 1 100 1 Tools on other blanks 2 0.1 Indet. tool fragments 3 0.2 1 33 1 0.1Retouched chips 10 0.5 1 10 1 Bipolar pieces 1 0.1 0.1 Visible use-wear 4 0.2 0.5 Waste 148 8.1 18.6 53 36 6.7Indet. fragments 73 4.0 23 32 15 8Frost flakes 47 2.6 3 6 1 2Potlids 27 1.5 27 100 17 10Nodules 1 0.1 Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 794 43 100 131 16 13 68 50 16.5 10% 52% 38% < 1 cm 1043 57 201 19 13 103 85 6% 51% 42% Total 1837 100 332 18 26 171 135 8% 52% 41%




trace to the naked eye. The blade made from medium-grained flint has a wider extent of retouched edge than the others. Still, these retouches are not considered to have been produced deliberately.

WasteThe waste material can be divided into 10 indeterminate fragments, 2 frost flakes, 14 potlids and 1 nodule. One of the indeterminate fragments has two impact points indi-cating possible debitage attempts. The nodule measures 39x27x16 mm and is totally covered with coloured patina and windblown gloss.

< 1 cm: ChipsThis group of artefacts consists of 65 chips which make up 30% of the flint material found at the site. Compared to the above described artefacts, they are analysed in a limited way. Only heat exposure and weight are noted. Special features are described as well.

The smallest chip weighs 0.01 g and the heaviest 0.81 g with a resulting average of 0.11 g. Microchips may weigh between 0.01 and 0.05 g, mostly between 0.01 and 0.03 depending on thickness. For this site this would mean that 32% of all chips might be defined as such. The num-ber of artefact per weight class is rather limited as only a small set of chips is present compared to the other sites. A high start and a peak at 0.05 g are visible. The groups of 0.06 g and heavier have progressively fewer chips (figure 2.5).

In total 29 chips show no traces of burning, 2 are lightly exposed to heat, 21 are moderately burned and 13 heavily burned which brings the total of burnt pieces to 36 (55%). Of the 21 medium burnt chips, 9 are discoloured to grey.

Because of the limited dimension raw material was not analysed to the subtype. Nevertheless, the grain of the flint can mostly be defined and a chip of coarse-grained flint was noted. It is greyish-brown and not like any other of the medium- or coarse grained artefacts on the site.

Number FG B FG MG CG Indet.Debitage material 621 Flakes 311 48 254 9Flake fragments 133 22 96 1 14Blades 47 5 39 1 2Blade fragments 73 12 51 1 9Rejuvenation 20 4 16 Cores 37 7 30 Tools 20 Microliths 1 1 Rounded pieces 1 1 Tools on flake 2 1 1Tools on blade 1 1Tools on other blanks 2 2 Indet. tool fragments 3 1 1 1Retouched chips 10 9 1Bipolar pieces 1 1 Visible use-wear 4 1 2 1 Waste 148 Indet. fragments 73 16 48 9Frost flakes 47 21 23 1 2Potlids 27 17 10Nodules 1 1 Total 794 137 592 5 1 59 100% 17.3% 74.6% 0.6% 0.1% 7.4%

Debitage material 621 16% 78% 0% 5%Tools 20 5% 70% 5% 20%Bipolar pieces 1 100% Visible use-wear 4 25% 50% 25% Waste 148 25% 60% 1% 14%Total 794 137 592 5 1 59

FG B: fine-grained flint with bryozoans, FG: fine-grained flint without bryozoans, MG: medium-grained flint without bryozoans, CG: coarse-grained flint without bryozoans, Indet.: indeterminate type of flint.



Visually, it mostly resembles the greyish-beige flake frag-ment but it feels coarser.

Comparison with Deckers’ study from 1979Since only one excavation campaign was conducted on this site all the material is incorporated in Deckers’ study. He speaks of 225 artefacts of which 79 were found in situ and 146 were the result of sieving the soil. It must be noted that not all the soil was sieved limiting the per-centage of chips compared to other sites. This does, how-ever, not change the fact that of both the hand collected material and of the sieved material 4 pieces are missing. Of the depicted tools, three could actually not be identi-fied within the current material. Deckers defines the arte-facts as 4 cores, 84 flakes, 61 blades, and 76 other pieces of flint material. The number of tools is limited to 41 of which 27 show traces of use.

When describing the cores, Deckers does not men-tion the number of platforms per core. The point of inter-est to him is the blade and blade-like negatives on two cores (Deckers 1979: 165). Sadly, cores are not included in the drawings of site S51 and therefore it is not possible to work out whether this blade core is one of the miss-ing pieces or not. The given measurements (35x10 mm) however do not correspond to any of the remaining cores. The smaller dimensions of the flake scars on the two other cores make Deckers wonder about the usability of the produced flakes.

As no specific information is given on the lengths of the flakes or blades, the spatial analysis is the only remain-ing subject to be discussed. Vertically, Deckers sees a rather homogeneous distribution. His description of the horizontal distribution is a bit unclear. He sees two con-centrations in the western part of the trench when cer-tain weight classes are plotted. However, these maps are not included in the article so comparison is impossible. The map of the distribution of the total amount of flint artefacts does show several square metres with high per-centages of flint but these appear to form three clusters. Of course, one might wonder what distribution pattern we are looking at since the site is only a fragment of what

it used to be and considering the low number of flints in general.

2.2.8 Site S61

Total amountThis 1979 excavation yielded 1837 artefacts of flint which were collected in two different ways. During the excav-ation 636 pieces were hand collected and afterwards another 1201 artefacts were recovered from the sieved soil. All these artefacts can be divided into two groups. The first group consists of 1043 artefacts < 1 cm weigh-ing 86.16 g. The second group comprises a total of 794 artefacts ≥ 1 cm with a weight of 1997.73 g that combine 621 pieces of debitage, 20 tools, 1 bipolar piece, 4 artefacts with visible use-wear traces and 148 pieces of waste (table 2.30). These categories form 63.4%, 2.8%, 0.2%, 0.6%, and 33.0% of the weight of the material when the artefacts < 1 cm are not included.

Raw material and alteration by fireApproximately 75% of all artefacts on this site are made out of fine-grained flint without bryozoans (table 2.31). Fine-grained flint with bryozoans is used for 137 pieces (17%). Only 5 artefacts are made out of medium-grained flint and 1 from coarse-grained flint. The medium-grained artefacts consist of a grey flake fragment, a blade with a dark-grey to black and light-grey combination, a brown-ish dark-grey blade fragment, a very light-grey to white frost flake, and an artefact with visible use-wear traces showing a dark-grey to black and light-grey combination. Although this latter does not fit together with the blade, they are very likely from the same core. The whitish frost flake shows a combination of medium and coarse-grained areas. These coarse-grained areas may very well be inclu-sions but because of the uniformity of the colour this can-not be confirmed. The only coarse-grained artefact is a peculiar one. It is beige and for 25% covered with weath-ered chalky cortex. The rest of the surface is covered with patina which slightly altered the appearance. This altered appearance resembles Valkenburg flint although it is most likely not. A few flakes have been chipped off at one end, revealing a small area of an unweathered but opaque flint type dissimilar from Valkenburg flint.

A total of 59 pieces have changed colour as the result of burning. This prevents the determination of the flint type or original flint colour. Besides these 59 artefacts, another 72 artefacts show traces of burning (table 2.30). This brings the total of burnt artefacts ≥ 1 cm up to 131 (17%) of which 10% is burned lightly, 52 % is burned moderately, and 38% is burned heavily. The analysis of the artefacts displaying heat damage shows the fol-lowing percentages per category. Of all intact flakes and blades 9% and 4% respectively is burned; of the flake and blade fragments 17% and 23% correspondingly is burned. Rejuvenation material and cores are burned in

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Numbe

r

Weigth



equally low amounts (6% and 5% respectively). Three out of the fourteen tools (21%) show traces of heating which is a large number compared to the undamaged debitage material. An even larger amount of the waste material is burned (36%). This number is high because almost half of the material is comprised of potlids. If this category is excluded the number lowers to 18%, which corresponds to the other categories.

Debitage materialThe 621 pieces of debitage material consist of 444 flakes, 120 blades, 20 rejuvenation pieces and 37 cores. They will be discussed per category.

Most of the 444 flakes are intact (70%) and of these up to 67% show remnants of natural surface like glossy or coloured patina or cortex (table 2.32). A total of 57 or 18% may be defined as decortication flakes as they are covered for up to 75% or more. Of the flake fragments 61% is still partly or fully covered with a natural surface. This is of course the minimum presence of natural sur-face as these are fragments. One of these even has a rather fresh, chalky cortex. Only five flakes are covered with a posterior, glossy patina. The undamaged flakes have mini-mum measurements of 10x6x1 mm and maximum meas-urements of 42x37x23 mm with the average of 15x15x4

mm. The length-width index varies between 0.4 and 1.9 with an average of 1.1. The average of the length-thickness index is 5.3 and the width-thickness index is 5.

Most flakes are detached unidirectionally but four flakes are clearly bipolar (1%). A total of 27 flakes are partially or fully detached along an internal fracture within the core or have an overall angular appearance, as if they originate from a core that split in several pieces along internal fractures. The platform is often formed by a rolled and partially shiny cortex showing fracture cones. Some of them have one or more sides with bulbs while one might be an accidental flake or fragment as it is totally covered with sides that are broken along inter-nal fractures. Several more flakes show traces of the same rolled and battered cortex. Up to six flakes and fragments show recent damage or have such small and/or irregu-lar retouches that they are not considered as intentional modification. Some flakes are defined as such because of their overall dimensions but are actually or presumably blades or blade fragments. One of these is an obliquely detached blade; another detached a part of the opposing striking platform. Three more flake fragments have the general appearance of blades like parallel edges and one or two central ridges but are defined as flakes because of their limited measurements. The last blade-like flake frag-ment is possibly the distal end of a plunging blade. An

Natural surface coverage Posterior Number 0% % 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % Number %Debitage material 622 Flakes 311 101 32 94 44 15 57 68 5 2Flake fragments 133 52 39 41 19 4 17 61 1 1Blades 47 15 32 11 7 3 11 68 2 4Blade fragments 73 30 41 19 10 5 9 59 Rejuvenation 20 9 45 6 3 1 1 55 1 5Cores 37 4 11 13 16 4 89 Tools 20 Microliths 1 1 100 Rounded pieces 1 1 100 1 100Tools on flake 2 1 50 1 50 1 50Tools on blade 1 1 100 Tools on other blanks 2 1 50 1 50 Indet. tool fragments 3 1 33 1 1 67 Retouched chips 10 7 70 1 1 1 30 Bipolar pieces 1 1 100 Visible use-wear 4 1 25 1 1 1 75 Waste 148 Indet. fragments 73 29 40 28 11 4 1 60 1 1Frost flakes 47 23 49 10 5 5 4 51 Potlids 27 19 70 4 1 2 1 30 1 4Nodules 1 1 100 Total 794 295 232 118 45 104 13 2 100% 37% 29% 15% 6% 13%



exceptional piece (no. 281) is a plunging flake. They often occur more on blades than on flakes but this is a nicely formed piece. The dorsal side is almost fully covered with a white and windblown patina. The distal end comprises a natural striking platform with two flake detachments which is likely to be exhausted. Another exceptional flake (no. 837) might be defined as a production plane rejuven-ation piece. The dorsal and ventral ends are formed by two opposing striking platforms. It is not sure whether this overall shape, being a rejuvenation piece, was intended; therefore the artefact is defined as a flake.

The 120 blades are for the largest part broken (61%). Of both the undamaged as the damaged blades more as half of the material shows remnants of natural surface, 67% and 59% respectively. For the fragments this is the mini-mum presence as it is impossible to predict the percent-age of cortex or patina on the parts that have been broken off. Posterior glossy patina covers only two undamaged blades, one half, and one fully. The measurements of the intact blades are as followed. The minimum and max-imum measurements are 10x3x1 mm and 52x23x15 mm correspondingly (table 2.33). The average dimensions are 22x8x4 mm. The length-width index has an average of 3.0 with variations from 2.0 up to 10.7 while the averages of the length-thickness index and the width-thickness index are 8.3 and 3.1 respectively.

Most blades are quite irregular in shape and can rather be defined as less systematically produced blades; only sometimes parallel edges and ridges occur (25%).

A total of 17 blades have one central, parallel ridge and 13 even have two parallel ridges. This implies systematic blade debitage. Of all the blades seven are clearly plung-ing blades. Three other blades depict special features. One blade (no. 61) has slightly damaged edges, presumably accidental but this could also be from usage. The second blade (no. 609) has slender dimensions and a triangular cross-section. It is twisted and might be interpreted as a burin spall. The last exceptional blade (no. 341) has no two natural feather-like edges but has an old flake scar or burin spall running down the side. None of the blades show bipolar features.

The rejuvenation pieces can be divided into 9 striking edge rejuvenation pieces, 5 platform rejuvenation pieces, 1 core tablet and 5 production plane rejuvenation pieces. Only one of these artefacts is fragmented. For the undamaged pieces the minimum and maximum dimensions range between 11x7x1 mm and 33x33x13 mm. This results in an average of 21x17x6 mm. Of the striking edge rejuvenation pieces three are half blade, half rejuvenation piece and one is partially covered with rolled cortex and Hertzian cones (no. 929). The ventral face is partly detached along an internal fracture. Another artefact worth mentioning is a platform rejuvenation piece (no. 675). The intention was presumably to chip off an old striking platform by a blow from the back side. Unfortunately, only part of the striking platform was detached, along with some of the artefact’s weathered cortex, resulting in a platform rejuvenation piece instead of a core tablet. Also one of the production

Flakes Cores L W T L W T

min. 10 6 1 min. 15 12 6max. 42 37 23 max. 45 40 35average 15 15 4 average 30 27 18st. dev. 5.5 6.2 3.6 st. dev. 7.1 6.3 6.8 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.4 0.8 1.0 min. 0.6 0.6 0.8max. 1.9 24 17 max. 2.5 3.5 3.1average 1.1 5.3 5.0 average 1.2 1.9 1.7

Blades

L W T

min. 10 3 1max. 52 23 15average 22 8 4st. dev. 10.4 4.6 3.1 LW LT WTmin. 2.0 1.1 0.4max. 10.7 16.0 7.0average 3.0 8.3 3.1



plane rejuvenation pieces is rather atypical (no. 340). Only a part of the side was detached. Small notches are visible on the feather termination. It is uncertain whether these are intentional or accidental.

The large group of cores is defined as 8 cores with one striking platform, 4 with two opposing striking plat-forms, 2 with two crossed striking platforms, 3 with mul-tiple striking platforms and 20 tested cores. Most of these cores are not easily defined for they are rather irregu-lar and knapped unsystematically. Besides detachments from the striking platform other frost flake scars and isol-ated, randomly positioned flakes have been chipped off. The majority of the cores still have remnants of natural surface such as cortex or patina. The striking platform is often a naturally formed surface like a frost flake scar or a surface with patina. When the platform is newly cre-ated it can sometimes be of the facetted type. The cores have minimum measurements of 15x12x6 mm and max-imum measurements of 45x40x35 mm which results in an average of 29x26x18 mm. The length-width index varies between 0.6 and 2.5 and has an average of 1.2. The aver-ages of the length-thickness index and the width-thick-ness index are 1.9 and 1.7 respectively.

All but one of the cores with one striking platform have an irregular overall look. The one exception is a small core with rather systematic debitage of small, irregular blades and flakes (no. 496). Both the striking platform and the back of this core are natural surfaces with patina. Half of the other cores also show natural surfaces as striking plat-forms while the other half has facetted platforms. Two of these cores have, beside flake scars, irregular blade scars while only one shows predominantly blades (no. 816). Noteworthy is that its striking platform is just being renewed resulting in little flakes positioned centripetally on the platform. Presumably this cannot be considered as debitage for the detachments are small and very irregu-lar. Finally, one core is made from a flake on which dis-tally small and thin blades have been detached (no. 333). Because of the limited thickness of the blank the blades might have the appearance of burin spalls, i.e. triangular cross-section and very thin and long appearance.

Of the four cores with two opposing platforms all have at least one well defined platform with systematic debi-tage; the opposing platform is often used unsystemati-cally. The same applies for the two cores with two crossing platforms and the three cores with multiple platforms. The latter all have three striking platforms. Only one of these cores shows two regular blade scars (no. 854); all others just have flake scars.

The last group consists of cores, or large flakes or even indeterminate fragments, with a limited number of flake scars from one to several striking platforms. They all have in common that they are only tested and not “worked” systematically. Seven of these cores are worth mention-ing. One is a thin rejuvenation flake which is tested at

the distal end (no. 687). The flakes that detached must have had the appearance of burin spalls; this because of the limited thickness of the artefact. A second thin flake shows only one or two small detachments and a frost frac-ture (no. 285). It might be the result of a shattered core. A third core is still partly covered with weathered cortex and shows approximately five flakes scars detached in a randomly fashion (no. 858). Although most scars have an impact point, it cannot be ruled out that they are (all) natural. A fourth core was, after it was worked from one striking platform, possibly positioned on an anvil (no. 369). Since only chips were detached and no decent sized flakes the definition as bipolar debitage is uncertain. The same applies to two other tested cores (nos. 188 and 294). As no other characteristics of bipolar production are pres-ent, like a striking ridge, it cannot be ruled out that the opposing impact traces are the result of the reorientation of the core.

ToolsOnly a limited number of tools were recovered from this site. They can be divided into 1 microlith fragment, 1 rounded piece, 5 retouched pieces and 13 larger and smaller indeterminate tool fragments. All but one of the tools that could be analysed for raw material type are made of fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans (73%); the remaining tool is coarse-grained, this is the rounded piece. The exposure to heat prevented the rest of the tools from being analysed by flint type.

The microlith fragment (no. 900939) is a small pointed tip, measuring 10x5x2 mm (no. 358, pl. 72). One edge is unaltered, the other is characterised by a retouched edge that clearly has an angle like triangles do. As no other microlith types have this feature, it is presumably a tri-angle fragment. It must be noted that the tip is not fully retouched.

The rounded piece is somewhat exceptional (no. 359, pl. 72). It is the only artefact on this site made from coarse-grained flint. The colour is beige and the artefact is totally opaque. Up to 25% of the surface is covered with a weath-ered chalky cortex while the other 75% is covered with patina and slightly changed colour. The overall shape is lenticular and it reminds me of a briquette or bikkel. One tip is lightly rounded. At the other end several chips or small flakes have randomly been chipped off.

The retouched pieces measuring ≥ 1 cm are produced on two flakes, one blade and two frost flakes. They are partially covered with short, abrupt or semi-abrupt retouches, always applied on one edge only. The retouches do not alter the general shape of this edge. Only the two retouched flakes are intact; they measure 18x32x6 mm and 25x17x5 mm. The latter (no. 544) has both short and a few longer semi-abrupt retouches which gives the edge


a scraper front-like appearance (no. 360, pl. 72), a fea-ture less pronounced in one of the retouched frost flakes (no. 827). The retouched blade (no. 063) is only a proxi-mal fragment but it shows short, abrupt retouches on the dorsal face of the left edge (no. 361, pl. 72). This proxi-mal retouch is an occasionally recorded feature with both retouched blades and blades with visible use-wear traces.

Of the larger indeterminate tool fragments two are men-tionable. They both have a truncation of short, abrupt retouches; one on the proximal end (no. 148) and one on the distal end (Z-008-1). This gives them the general appearance of truncated blades or transverse arrowheads (no. 362 – 363, pl. 72). The rest of the indeterminate tool fragments measure < 1 cm along the debitage axis and are therefore defined as retouched chips. Most of them are fragments of larger tools of which the original shape cannot be reconstructed. The other three may be micro-lith fragments and two may be re-sharpening retouches. Unfortunately, their lack of more distinctive characteris-tics makes it hard to substantiate this.

Bipolar piecesTypologically speaking, only one bipolar piece was recovered from this site. Technologically speaking, pos-sibly three were found. The only true bipolar piece is rather irregularly shaped (no. 364, pl. 72). One end has indeed a striking point while the opposing end is a strik-ing platform. The flake scars nevertheless indicate straight detachment typical to the bipolar technique. The artefact measures 24x16x12 mm and is made of fine-grained flint with bryozoans. The other two pieces are the two tested cores mentioned above (nos. 188 and 294). Technically speaking they are possibly tested in a bipolar way mean-ing that they rested on an anvil when they were struck. Unfortunately, because they are only tested pieces, they lack other characteristics of bipolar pieces like a striking ridge or lenticular shape. Even more, it cannot be ruled out the detachments are not the result of the reorienta-tion of the core.

Artefacts with visual use-wear tracesThese artefacts, comprising flakes and frost flakes, show small (irregular) retouches and gloss in different pro-portions and intensities (no. 365, pl. 72). Even the frost flake collected from the sieved material was used, and not damaged by the sieving procedure, as one might think; the notched side is covered with gloss as well. It must be noted though that the alterations are minor. The other frost flake is the only artefact with visible use-wear traces made out of medium-grained flint (25%). The two ‘classic’ flakes are intact and measure 29x20x4 mm and 31x25x7 mm respectively. Thus at this site no regular blades are used for this artefact type.

WasteUp to 148 artefacts are defined as waste material. They con-tain 73 indeterminate fragments, 47 frost flakes, 27 pot-lids and 1 nodule. Several of the indeterminate fragments are possibly parts of shattered cores or nodules. Others have some small flakes chipped off from one or more sides but none of these systematically. This also applies to a few frost flakes. The nodule measures 38x25x18 mm and is almost totally covered with a natural surface made up of rolled cortex and coloured, windblown patina. Only a few chips are detached as the result of accidental damage or minor testing.

Chips: < 1 cm This group consists of 1043 artefacts and make up 57% of the flint artefacts. They are analysed in a limited way. Two aspects were noted being traces of burning and weight. If any special characteristics presented themselves, they were recorded as well. As mentioned above chips are defined as detachments with a length along the debitage axis smaller than 1 cm. On this site these include small flakes, blades or fragments thereof but also small irregu-lar, angular pieces which may be the result of shattered cores and nodules or even internal cracks. As with a large part of the debitage or waste material some of these chips also bear remnants of natural surfaces such as rolled cor-tex and/or patina.

The total weight of the chips is 86.16 g with an average of 0.08 g. The minimum is 0.01 g and the maximum is 1.13 g for a chip. The number of artefacts per weight class starts very high for the smallest class, i.e. 0.01 g, and diminishes progressively in number as the classes increase in weight (figure 2.6). As it was noted that microchips may weigh between 0.01g and 0.05 g, their number might run as high as 584 pieces or 56%.

Of the 1043 pieces of flint only a limited number is burned (19%). In total 842 chips show no traces of burn-ing, 13 are lightly exposed to fire, 103 are moderately burned and 85 are heavily exposed. Since the material is rather small it is not always possible to distinct internal cracks produced by light burning from those which are the result of debitage or existing internal cracks, especially

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Numbe

r

Weigth



because reddish discolouration, a characteristic of minor heat exposure, does not always manifests itself.

All the chips but one come from fine-grained flint with or without bryozoans. The only exception is a speckled grey medium-grained chip.

2.2.9 Sites S80-S84The eventful research history at sites S80-S84 is addressed in section 2.7.18 of the main book. Here it is sufficient to say the flint material is the result of several ditch slope inspections and minor excavations.

The only material not included in the analysis below is the material from 1993. Flint artefacts and pottery were retrieved from the north-eastern ditch at parcel H2. Later that year, another ditch slope inspection was performed at the site revealing more flint and pottery, along with stone artefacts, large pieces of wood, and charcoal (Jordanov 2005: 4, 11). The pottery was defined as Swifterbant pot-tery and a food crust sample was dated to 5180±44BP (ibid: 4, 11). Additionally, three charcoal samples were analysed as well (see main book section 2.8). The other material comprises 10 pieces of flint, presumably 3 scrap-ers and 7 flakes, 4 pieces of stone, and 15 potsherds. A

planned test trench could not be excavated due to rising groundwater.

Total amountThe material found in the Swifterbant area is not limited to the known sites. The whole area is covered with find spots and during ditch slopes inspection, ground work or coring campaigns more artefacts, and new sites, can be expected. This also applies to this group of parcels.

On the long river dune, extending over parcels G20 and H1-H4, several sites have been discovered in the past. Whether these are separate find locations on the higher tops of the dune or whether these artefacts form one large blanket of archaeological finds over the whole length of the dune is currently unknown. As the tops of the dune are not all at the same level, some sites may not have been detected yet.

Still, the material from the different locations on this dune will be discussed together for a number of reasons. First of all, the argument mentioned above, whether these sites are separate localities or form one large blanket of finds. Second, the material of all sites remained subject to disturbance and possible admixture with more recent finds as it was not covered immediately or soon after

S80 S81 S82 TotalDebitage material 52 7 49 108Flakes 21 6 21 48Flake fragments 3 10 13Total flakes 24 Blades 8 8 16Blade fragments 3 4 7Total blades 11 Rejuvenation pieces 3 4 7Cores 14 1 2 17Tools 6 2 10 18Scrapers 2 1 1 4Microliths 1 1 2Tools on flake 2 2Tools on blade 3 3Tools on other blanks 1 2 3Indet. tool fragments 2 2Retouched chips 1 1 2Visible use-wear 1 1Waste 23 4 17 44Indet. fragments 7 2 7 16Frost flakes 9 4 13Potlids 4 1 5 10Nodules 3 1 1 5Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 81 13 77 171 < 1 cm 2 60 62 Total 83 13 137 233

Table 2.34 Total number of artefacts per typological category of sites S80-S82 separately.


deposition, so it is presumed to be mixed anyway. Third, no spatial information or coordinates of the archaeo-logical material remain today either. It is also unknown whether the Bell Beaker material found on parcel H4 was collected together with older material or whether the older material was collected from a different layer (see main book section 2.7.18). Therefore, it was chosen to list them separately in the typological table (table 2.34) but to discuss them as one group. Researchers interested in the separate finds can always consult the database where the artefacts are listed by site.

The flint artefacts, found in 1959 on parcel H422, have only been mentioned by Van der Heide (1959) and have not been described yet in any of the Swifterbant publications; therefore the site has not yet received an S number. It was suggested (see main book section 2.7.18) to designate

22 The find is registered as ZO 1959 / XII. The find numbers are 15-18, 21-22, and 27-38.

the find spot as site S80. The small group of artefacts recovered from site S81 are all ≥ 1 cm. Of the 137 flint artefacts retrieved from site S82, the two small trenches produced 131 pieces and the coring survey resulted in 6 artefacts. Of two artefacts from the coring survey the precise find location is not known. It was also noted that the artefacts recovered from the trenches are not all from the same layer. The only nodule found at the site was recovered from the plough zone. Still, it must somehow be related to the site since there is a total lack of flint in the soil of the Swifterbant area.

The material is dividable into a group of 171 artefacts ≥ 1 cm and a group of 62 artefacts < 1 cm. The first group has a total weight of 854.01 g and is defined as 108 pieces of debitage material, 18 tools, 1 artefact with use-wear traces, and 44 pieces of waste (table 2.34). The second group only weighs 6.37 g. These categories form 41.7%, 6.8%, 0.4%, and 51.2% of the weight of the material when the artefacts < 1 cm are not included.

Number FG B FG MG Indet.Debitage material 108 Flakes 48 7 34 2 5Flake fragments 13 2 10 1Blades 16 14 2Blade fragments 7 2 4 1Rejuvenation pieces 7 1 3 3Cores 17 5 12 Tools 18 Scrapers 4 1 2 1 Microliths 2 2 Tools on flake 2 2 Tools on blade 3 3 Tools on other blanks 3 1 1 1Indet. tool fragments 2 1 1Retouched chips 2 2 Visible use-wear 1 1 Waste 44 Indet. fragments 16 4 11 1Frost flakes 13 1 12 Potlids 10 1 4 5Nodules 5 1 4 Total 171 28 120 3 20 100% 16% 70% 2% 12%

Debitage material 108 16% 71% 2% 11%Tools 18 17% 67% 6% 11%Visible use-wear 1 100% Waste 44 16% 70% 14%Total 171 28 120 3 20

FG B: fine-grained flint with bryozoans, FG: fine-grained flint without bryozoans, MG: medium-grained flint without bryozoans, Indet.: indeterminate type of flint.

Table 2.35 Division of raw material of sites S80-S82.


Raw material and alteration by fire The use of fine-grained flint is nearly exclusive at the sites (table 2.35). Only three artefacts from site S80, two flakes and a scraper, are made out of grey medium-grained flint. One of the flakes and the scraper are both opaque and might come from the same nodule, the second flake is more translucent and is between fine- and medium-grained flint. For all the other artefacts that could be analysed by raw material type fine-grained flint without bryozoans was preferred over fine-grained flint with bry-ozoans. It was observed that the fine-grained flint with bryozoans mostly has a low number, and limited dimen-sions, of fossils. Finally, a flake and a flake fragment come from the same grey opaque fine-grained core.

The number of artefacts ≥ 1 cm showing heat damage is rather low (table 2.36). Moderate heat exposure occurs most often, whereas heavy and light exposures occur grad-ually less. This heat damage prevented the flint type analy-sis of 20 artefacts, possibly obscuring medium- or coarse grained flints. Even more, a handful of removals have

been partially detached along an internal fissure indicat-ing the presence of frost fissures and latent Hertzian cones in the cores.

Debitage materialThe debitage material, the largest group of artefacts, con-sists of 61 flakes and 23 blades or fragments thereof, 7 rejuvenation pieces, and 17 cores. No bipolar pieces have been detected.

With 26% the flakes form not only the predominant part of the debitage material but also of the whole assemblage. The majority of the flakes is intact (79%) and of these 65% show remnants of a natural surface like rolled and weathered cortex often in combination with glossy, wind-blown or coloured patina (table 2.37). Up to 10% of the intact flakes may even be defined as decortication flakes; they are for 75% or more covered with anterior patina or cortex. The frequency of natural surfaces on the flake fragments is less; the percentage drops to 46%. Even full coverage does not result in the definition as decortication

Total % % ≥ 1 cm Burnt % ← LB MB HB % ↓Debitage material 108 46.4 63 20 19 4 8 8 51Flakes 48 20.6 79 8 17 2 3 3 Flake fragments 13 5.6 21 1 8 1 Total flakes 61 100 Blades 16 6.9 70 4 25 3 1 Blade fragments 7 3.0 30 2 29 1 1 Total blades 23 100 Rejuvenation pieces 7 3.0 4 57 1 3 Cores 17 7.3 1 6 1 Tools 18 7.7 11 3 17 3 8Scrapers 4 1.7 Microliths 2 0.9 Tools on flake 2 0.9 Tools on blade 3 1.3 1 33 1 Tools on other blanks 3 1.3 1 33 1 Indet. tool fragments 2 0.9 1 50 1 Retouched chips 2 0.9 Visible use-wear 1 0.4 1 Waste 44 18.9 26 16 36 1 11 4 41Indet. fragments 16 6.9 5 31 5 Frost flakes 13 5.6 1 8 1 Potlids 10 4.3 10 100 6 4 Nodules 5 2.1 Subtotal ≥ 1 cm 171 74 100 39 23 5 22 12 100 13% 56% 31% < 1 cm 62 26 37 60 7 17 13 19% 46% 35% Total 233 100 76 33 12 39 25 16% 51% 33%


Table 2.36 Total number of artefacts per typological category and number of burnt and unburnt artefacts of site S80-S82.


Natural surface coverage Posterior Number 0% % 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % Number %Debitage material 108 Flakes 48 17 35 18 7 1 5 65 5 10Flake fragments 13 7 54 3 1 2 46 Blades 16 3 19 6 4 1 2 81 1 6Blade fragments 7 3 43 4 57 1 Rejuvenation pieces 7 3 43 4 57 Cores 17 3 18 2 10 1 1 82 2 12Tools 18 Scrapers 4 4 100 Microliths 2 1 50 1 50 Tools on flake 2 1 1 100 Tools on blade 3 3 100 Tools on other blanks 3 2 1 100 Indet. tool fragments 2 2 100 Retouched chips 2 1 1 100 Visible use-wear 1 1 100 Waste 44 Indet. fragments 16 5 31 3 6 2 69 Frost flakes 13 2 15 1 2 2 6 85 Potlids 10 3 30 4 1 1 1 70 Nodules 5 5 100 Total 171 53 52 32 10 24 9 5 100% 31% 30% 19% 6% 14%

Table 2.37 Percentage of natural surface on artefacts ≥ 1 cm of sites S80-S82.

Table 2.38 Different measurement ratios of different artefact types at sites S80-S84.

Flakes Nodules L W T L W Tmin. 10 6 1 min. 27 22 16max. 33 35 13 max. 76 50 49average 19 17 4 average 50 37 32st. dev. 6.1 6.2 2.4 st. dev. 22.7 11.3 12.5 LW LT WT LW LT WTmin. 0.6 2.1 1.5 min. 1.0 1.1 1max. 1.8 19.0 13.0 max. 1.6 2.1 1.4average 1.2 5.3 4.5 average 1.3 1.6 1.2

Blades L W Tmin. 12 4 1max. 44 22 8average 27 12 5st. dev. 8.4 4.6 2.1 LW LT WTmin. 2.0 3.8 1.4max. 3.0 14.0 5.0average 2.4 7.1 3.0


pieces since they are only fragments. It was noted that one artefact has fresh, chalky cortex and another has pseudo-cortex instead of the common rolled or weathered type. The same applies for the patina since anterior windblown or coloured patina occur most often and posterior patina appears only five times.

The intact flakes have minimum and maximum meas-urements of 10x6x1 mm and 33x35x13 mm resulting in an average of 19x17x4 mm. The thickness of 13 mm is exceptional and occurs only once; all other flakes cluster between 1 mm and 9 mm. The length-width index varies between 0.6 and 1.8 with an average of 1.2. The average of the length-thickness index is 5.3 and of the width-thick-ness index 4.5.

All but one of the flakes were detached using the unidi-rectional debitage technique; the one flake was detached by the bipolar technique (2%). One of the intact flakes does not show a smooth ventral surface but is partially detached along a latent internal fracture. This artefact is covered for up to 25% with a natural surface which clearly shows more Hertzian cones. Another flake is pos-sibly a pseudo-flake, i.e. a fragment that is accidentally chipped off, and five flakes are obliquely detached blades. Furthermore, one flake has a double bulb, another is a thick plunging flake, two flake fragments are recently damaged, and a final flake fragment shows one or two retouches at the fractured end implying it might be part of a tool. However, the alteration is not invasive enough for the artefact to be defined as tool fragment.

The blades are less numerous than the flakes; they only form 10% of the assemblage. The larger part of the blades is intact (70%), whereas the majority of both the intact blades and the blade fragments is still covered, partially or fully, by natural surfaces like cortex or patina (table 2.37). Of the intact blades two specimens are defined as decor-tication blades. It was also recorded that one blade has fresh, chalky cortex and two others have posterior patina.

The intact blades have minimum measurements of 12x4x1 mm and maximum measurements of 44x22x8 mm (table 2.38). This results in an average of 27x12x5 mm. The length-width index varies between 2.0 and 3.0 show-ing an average of 2.4. The averages of the length-thick-ness index and the width-thickness index are 7.1 and 3.0 respectively. The broken blades are mainly medial-distal parts (57%) and to a lesser extent proximal-medial parts (43%). No medial parts have been observed.

The unidirectional debitage technique was the only one applied. Most of the blades are produced less system-atically and are irregular in shape. Only one blade is of the regular type, with three parallel ridges; three others are more or less regular with sub-parallel edges and a fairly central ridge that hold the middle between the two types. Some uncommon features are observed as well. Two blades are detached obliquely, one specimen is a plung-ing blade which detached a part of the opposing platform,

and a final specimen is partially detached along a latent internal fissure.

The handful of rejuvenation pieces may be defined as 5 striking edge rejuvenation pieces and 2 production plane rejuvenation pieces. The first type is a combination of three flakes and two blades, the latter consists of one flake and one blade. Only one of the striking edge reju-venation pieces is broken. All the others measure between 15x8x2 mm and 29x21x10 mm which results in an aver-age of 21x13x6 mm. The thickness of 10 mm is an excep-tion as all the others measure between 2 and 7 mm. It is one of the production plane rejuvenation pieces that measures 10 mm. It is actually a thick flake (15x21x10 mm) but the stacked steps indicate the need to renew the striking edge and production plane. A few small retouches are visible on one of the edges as well. Finally, a very light posterior gloss is present on one of the striking edge reju-venation pieces.

The cores form a wide variety of types with 5 cores with one striking platform, 3 cores two opposing striking plat-forms, 2 cores with two crossed striking platforms, 1 with multiple striking platforms, and 6 tested cores. They are mostly rather small with dimensions clustering between 18x14x10 mm and 28x49x30 mm. Two cores are some-what larger measuring 37x12x34 mm and 38x33x19 mm which results in an overall average of 25x26x20 mm. Most of the cores still have remnants of rolled or weathered cortex or different kinds of patina indicating their current size is not that different from their original size. This is also supported by the limited set of detachments which are often not more than two or three per striking plat-form. These detachments are mainly flakes (no. XV, pl. 74). Only twice, when blades occur, are these in combin-ation with flakes (no. XVI, pl. 74). The most exceptional is a core with five nicely positioned and rather regular but small blade negatives (no. XVII, pl. 74). From the oppos-ing direction and on a different face five flake scars are detached. Systematic production of large, regular blades was, however, not observed. The striking platforms are nearly always plain or natural indicating a minimum of core preparation.

ToolsThe small group of tools is defined as 4 scrapers, 2 micro-liths, 8 retouched pieces, and 4 indeterminate tool frag-ments. All but one of the tools are made of fine-grained flint, the exception is a medium-grained scraper. Only three specimens are exposed to heat (17%), two of the retouched pieces and one indeterminate tool fragment.

The set of scrapers, classified as one end scraper and three end scrapers with retouched edges, all show remnants of cortex or patina. The used blanks are two flakes, one blade, and a frost flake. All scrapers are intact and three of


them cluster between minimum and maximum measure-ments of 27x18x4 mm and 31x20x11 mm. One scraper deviates from this image and measures 22x32x8 mm. The overall average measurements are 27x22x8 mm.

The first end scraper is produced on a flake and although it is by definition on technological grounds an end scraper, its overall shape, being wider than long (22x32x8 mm), is that of a side scraper (no. 366, pl. 73). The three end scrapers with retouched edges are all pro-duced on a different blank. The first is made from a flake (no. 367, pl. 73) and bears short, abrupt to semi-abrupt, irregular retouches. These are located distally and on both lateral edges forming a more or less rectilinear scraper front. The second scraper, produced on a blade, is a more typical end scraper with two retouched edges (no. 368, pl. 73). The scraper front is located distally and has a rather irregular yet pointed shape. The third is a somewhat uncommon specimen, first of all because the used blank is a frost flake, second because the fairly rounded delinea-tion of the working edge is created by alternate retouches (no. 369, pl. 73).

The two microliths are an A-point and a B-point. The first, measuring 24x6x2 mm, is produced on a blade (no. 370, pl. 73) of which both edges are retouched, one more inva-sive that the other. The second is rather small (13x4x1 mm), yet also produced on a blade. This B-point is not the most typical one and the light damage on the work-ing edge contributes to this hesitant definition (no. 371, pl. 73).

The retouched pieces are a combination of two retouched flakes, three retouched blades, and three other retouched pieces. The retouched flakes have short, abrupt to semi-abrupt retouches on the dorsal face following the natural curvature of the flake. On one of the two the retouches are quite intense making the tools something between a retouched flake and a scraper (no. 372, pl. 73). They are intact measuring 17x15x4 mm and 36x19x6 mm (average 27x17x8 mm).

The three retouched blades, all intact, have strong affil-iations to microliths; still, they are not classic microlith types, i.e. backed bladelets. The first two are very slender (12x4x1 mm and 13x4x1 mm) and have a retouched lat-eral edge, in both cases with rather small retouches. One of them is also retouched ventrally (no. 373, pl. 73). The third blade (20x11x1 mm) has an oblique truncation, as some microliths have, but the remainder of the edge, is retouched as well (no. 374, pl. 73).

The remaining retouched pieces are produced out of two frost flakes and a core. The first two have short, abrupt to semi-abrupt retouches following the natural curvature of the blank. These measure 23x12x8 mm and 31x21x12 mm. The retouches on one of them are rather intense cre-ating an artefact between a retouched flake and a scraper. The blank of the retouched core is actually a thick frost

flake of which several removals have been detached using the ventral face as a platform (no. 375, pl. 73). The adja-cent edge is ventrally covered with semi-abrupt retouches. The dimensions of this tool are 36x37x15 mm.

The remaining tools are two larger indeterminate tool fragments, measuring 11x10x3 mm and 12x8x7 mm, both with one retouched edge, and two smaller indeterminate retouched chips of 8x6x3 mm and 8x16x3 mm. The latter is characterised by short, abrupt, regular retouches and appears to be a fragment of a rounded scraper front.

Artefacts with visual use-wear tracesThe only specimen is a medial blade fragment with use-retouches and possibly gloss measuring 36x20x3 mm. The blade differs largely from the main part of the blades found at the site as it is wide and regular with two parallel ridges (no. 376, pl. 73).

WasteThe second largest group of artefacts at the site are a col-lection of 16 indeterminate fragments, 13 frost flakes, 10 potlids, and 5 nodules. Of the indeterminate fragments one has a battered edge, another shows two or three small retouches. One of the frost flakes is part of a shat-tered core; Hertzian cones occur often on the other frost flakes as well. Several of the potlids could not be defined by raw material type due to the heavy heat exposure, yet most are presumably flint. Only one has a rougher surface implying it may be a coarser grained flint type, or even a quartzite artefact. The five nodules, fully covered with rolled or weathered cortex combined or not with gloss, windblown or coloured patina, have wide-ranging meas-urements. Three form a rather tight cluster of minimum and maximum measurements between 27x22x16 mm and 40x35x33 mm, the remaining two measure 73x50x49 mm and 76x47x36 mm. Together their average measurements are 50x37x32 mm. The raw material type of the nodules is most likely all fine-grained, yet one of these is hard to define. It is not even entirely sure whether the definition as flint is correct or whether it is some sort of quartzite. The patina obscures what possibly may be interpreted as quartz veins.

Chips: < 1 cm This category consists of 62 artefacts and makes up 26% of the flint assemblage. The only variables analysed are heat exposure and weight. The chips are by definition smaller than 1 cm along the debitage axis.

Together the 62 chips weigh 6.37 g which results in an average of 0.10 g. The lowest weight is 0.01 g while the heaviest specimen weighs 0.77 g. The number of artefacts per weight class is progressive until 0.03 g, after that the number gradually diminishes in general, yet this is not a straight line (figure 2.7). Observations revealed that microchips may weigh between 0.01 g and

0.05 g, meaning that 29 artefacts, or 47% of all chips, may be microchips.

The majority of the chips are damaged by heat (60%). Most frequently moderate exposure occurs, observed with 17 chips, whereas 13 chips are heavily exposed, and 7 are only lightly exposed. Moderate heat exposure changed the colour of three chips, and combined with the heavy exposed chips, this would have made raw material analy-sis, if it would have been examined for this type of arte-fact, impossible.

Still, it was observed that all but one of the chips come from fine-grained flint with or without bryozo-ans. The exception is a medium-grained grey chip that is most likely flint, although it highly resembles very fine- grained quartzite.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Numbe

r

Weigth

Figure 2.7 Number of chips per weight class of sites S80-S82 (weight in 0.01 g).

Catalogue of the flint artefacts


Key: Number – plate number. Tool type, find number, site, original publication with number of figure, list of similar tools.Some of the drawings taken from old publications are reworked for conformity to the new drawings.

Triangle, black: bulb of percussion and butt presentTriangle, black and white: only bulb of percussion or butt presentTriangle, white: Bulb of percussion and butt absent but debitage axis clear

Site S2 (plate 36 – 46)Tools:No. 1 – plate 36. Distal end scraper (rectilinear), no. 60026, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 9.No. 2 – plate 36. Distal end scraper (curved), no. 0128, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 6.No. 3 – plate 36. Distal end scraper (curved), no. 60009, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 8.No. 4 – plate 36. Distal end scraper (oblique), no. 900013, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 3.No. 5 – plate 36. Distal end scraper (oblique), no. 901136, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 6.No. 6 – plate 36. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (rectilinear), no. 901184, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 4, similar

tools: nos. 1217, 900349.No. 7 – plate 36. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (curved), no. 900049, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 11.No. 8 – plate 36. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (denticulated), no. 901058, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 7.No. 9 – plate 36. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (notched), no. 901097, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 9.No. 10 – plate 36. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (rounded), no. 5741, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 5.No. 11 – plate 36. Double end scraper, no. 60027, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 11.No. 12 – plate 36. Double end scraper, no. 900896, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 10.

183Catalogue of the flint artefacts, plates

Plate 36 Flint tools present at site S2. Scale 1:1.


Site S2 (Tools continued)No. 13 – plate 37. Round scraper, no. 60004, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 9.No. 14 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (rectilinear), no. 900114, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 2, similar tool: no. 901100.No. 15 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (curved), no. 2141, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 12.No. 16 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (curved), no. 6103, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 1.No. 17 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (curved), no. 1208, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 11.No. 18 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (rounded), no. 900168, site S2.No. 19 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (rounded), no. 901087, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 8.No. 20 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (rounded), no. 900777, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 2.No. 21 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (denticulated), no. 60028, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 6.No. 22 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (rounded), no. 900257, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 8.No. 23 – plate 37. Scraper fragment (rounded), no. 901206, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 1.No. 24 – plate 37. Scraper fragment, no. 0822, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 10.


Site S2 (Tools continued)No. 25 – plate 38. Scraper fragment, no. 900058, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 12.No. 26 – plate 38. Borer (straight), no. 1563, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 4, similar tools: nos. 0736, 6448.No. 27 – plate 38. Borer (straight), no. 7566, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 14.No. 28 – plate 38. Borer (straight), no. 5304, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 12.No. 29 – plate 38. Borer (concave), no. 0013, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 1.No. 30 – plate 38. Borer (concave), no. 901394, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 5.No. 31 – plate 38. Borer (oblique), no. 1118, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 11, similar tool: no. 900458.No. 32 – plate 38. Borer (oblique), no. 0207, site S2.No. 33 – plate 38. Possible borer (or hafting), no. 0772, site S2.No. 34 – plate 38. Possible borer, no. 901356, site S2.


Site S2 (Tools continued)No. 35 – plate 39. Rounded piece, no. 900988, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 14.No. 36 – plate 39. Rounded piece, no. 6232, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 13. Also published by Woltinge et al. (2008): fig. 2.No. 37 – plate 39. Rounded piece, no. 901265, site S2, Woltinge et al. (2008): fig. 2.No. 38 – plate 39. Rounded fragment, no. 901366 , site S2, similar tools: nos. 60010, 900153 (chip), 900413 (chip), 901067 (chip),

901217.No. 39 – plate 39. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 900878, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 5.No. 40 – plate 39. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 901267, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 8.No. 41 – plate 39. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 901144, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 13.No. 42 – plate 39. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 900125, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 10.No. 43 – plate 39. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 901171, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 7.No. 44 – plate 39. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 901061, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 6.No. 45 – plate 39. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 901170, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 5.No. 46 – plate 39. Transverse arrowhead, no. 5255, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 4.No. 47 – plate 39. Retouched flake (bipolar), no. 60040, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 12.


Site S2 (Tools continued)No. 48 – plate 40. Retouched flake (plunging), no. 60053, site S2, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 7, similar tool: no. 900074.No. 49 – plate 40. Retouched flake (plunging), no. 5523, site S2, similar tools: nos. 1218 (is also notched), 8535.No. 50 – plate 40. Retouched flake (oblique), no. 60042, site S2.No. 51 – plate 40. Retouched flake (flake or blade fragment), no. 901286, site S2.No. 52 – plate 40. Retouched flake (convex), no. 60046, site S2, similar tools: nos. 0617, 8134, 60079, 60098, 900654, 900975,

901220.Not illustrated: retouched flake: nos. 900788 (rectilinear), 901117 (concave), site S2.No. 53 – plate 40. Retouched flake (notched), no. *003, site S2, also see no. 49.No. 54 – plate 40. Retouched flake (denticulated), no. 7541, site S2.No. 55 – plate 40. Retouched flake (refitted), nos. 0410 + 1510, site S2.No. 56 – plate 40. Retouched flake, no. 900093, site S2.No. 57 – plate 40. Retouched flake (fragment), no. 60121, site S2.


Site S2 (Tools continued)No. 58 – plate 41. Backed blade (oblique), no. 0727, site S2, similar tools: nos. 7117, 60054, 900972, 901055, 901086.No. 59 – plate 41. Backed blade, no. 2251, site S2, similar tools: nos. 0044, 0125, 0732, 5560, 5672, 5818, 5927, 7515, 7584,

60012, 60047, 60050, 60059, 900069, 900096, 900137, 900237, 900307, 900579, 900720, 900857, 900994, 901077, 901142, 901216, 901409, *001, 900110 (tip), 900348 (tip), 6447 (no bulb).

No. 60 – plate 41. Backed blade (altered), no. 6420, site S2, similar tools: nos. 6153, 60044, 900023, 900476, 900968, 901029.No. 61 – plate 41. Denticulated blade, no. 60002, site S2, similar tools: nos. 0184, 8490, 60031, 60036.No. 62 – plate 41. Denticulated blade (rounding), no. 6712, site S2, similar tool: no. 6390.No. 63 – plate 41. Denticulated blade, no. 901183, site S2, similar tools: nos. 0949, 60049.No. 64 – plate 41. Notched blade (refitted), nos. 900095 + 900096, site S2, similar tools: nos. 900001, 900771, 900854..No. 65 – plate 41. Truncated blade, no. 0105, site S2.


Site S2 (Tools continued)No. 66 – plate 42. Retouched rejuvenation piece, no. 0220, site S2, similar artefacts: nos. 60041 (rejuvenation piece), 8045

(indeterminate fragment), 900531 (indeterminate fragment), 1037 (nodule), 1984 (nodule), 60068 (bipolar piece).

No. 67 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool, no. 0223, site S2.No. 68 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool, no. 0336, site S2.No. 69 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool, no. 60039, site S2, similar tool: no. 60066.No. 70 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool fragment (trapeze?), no. 900035, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 8, site S2.No. 71 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool fragment (trapeze?), no. 900553, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 6, site S2, similar tools: nos.

900927, 901284.No. 72 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool fragment (truncated blade?), no. 60025, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 1, site S2, similar tool: no.

901172.No. 73 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool fragment (truncated blade?), no. 60063, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 3, site S2.No. 74 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool fragment (truncated blade?), no. 900673, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 7, site S2, similar tool:

no. 6897.No. 75 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool fragment (borer?), no. 5803, site S2, similar tools: nos. 0097, 0121, 0233.No. 76 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool fragment (borer?), no. 0073, site S2, similar tools: nos. 7640, 8494.No. 77 – plate 42. Indeterminate tool fragment, no. 901218 (scraper front?), site S2, similar tools: nos. 900038 (scraper front?),

5678 (tip), 900152 (tip), 900923 (tip), 901012 (tip).


Site S2 (Tools continued)No. 78 – plate 43. Indeterminate tool fragment, no. 0101, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 3, site S2, similar tools: 0083, 1280, 1805,

6513, 7261, 7286, 7295, 8284, 900047, 900421, 900653, 900926, 901188, 901195, G89-253.No. 79 – plate 43. Retouched chip, no. 901163, site S2, similar tools: nos. 6703, 900143, 900506, 900662, 900791, 900921,

901110, Z-019-1.No. 80 – plate 43. Retouched chip, no. 901059, site S2.No. 81 – plate 43. Regular bipolar piece, no. 7711, site S2, similar artefacts: nos. 5279, 5361, 60024, 901080.No. 82 – plate 43. Regular bipolar piece with refitted flake, no. 900073 + 900715, site S2.No. 83 – plate 43. Irregular bipolar piece, no. 60124, site S2, similar artefacts: nos. 0344, 0900, 1789, 5340, 5768, 5805, 5969,

60021, 60087, 60088, 60107, 190002, 900167.No. 84 – plate 43. Irregular bipolar pieces (crossed), no. 7662, site S2, similar artefacts: nos. 5454, 6117, 7789, 60114.No. 85 – plate 43. Irregular bipolar piece, no. 901257, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 2, site S2.


Site S2 (Tools continued)No. 86 – plate 44. Artefact with visible use-wear traces (rejuvenation piece), no. 5514, site S2, similar tool: no. 6468.No. 87 – plate 44. Artefact with visible use-wear traces (blade), no. 0269, site S2, similar tools: nos. 0952, 1231, 1288 (irregular),

6362, 6653, 7167, 7194, 7452, 7635, 8485, 8519, 8525, 60008, 60013, 60033, 60055, 60062, 900080, 900741, 900985, 901128.

No. 88 – plate 44. Artefact with visible use-wear traces (blade), no. 901098, site S2, similar tools: nos. 0015, 0834, 0851, 0870, 0978, 1071, 1124, 1192, 1224, 1291, 2138, 5367, 5529, 5596, 5878, 6577, 6730, 7075, 7816, 8497, 60007, 60014, 60029, 60030, 60045, 60051, 901050, 901114 (irregular), 901157, 901158, 901266, similar tools on flakes or flake / blade fragments: nos. 0525, 1838, 6263 (fragment), 6780, 901036, 901298 (fragment).

No. 89 – plate 44. Artefact with visible use-wear traces (blade), no. 1498, site S2.No. 90 – plate 44. Artefact with visible use-wear traces (blade), no. 0232 + 2099, site S2.Not illustrated: artefact with visible use-wear traces (core), no. 901258, site S2.No. 91 – plate 44. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 1, site S2. No. 92 – plate 44. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 2, site S2.


Site S2 (Tools continued)No. 93 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 3, site S2.No. 94 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 9, site S2.No. 95 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 29 – 11, site S2.No. 96 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 2, site S2.No. 97 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 3, site S2.No. 98 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 14, site S2.No. 99 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 13, site S2.No. 100 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 31 – 4, site S2.No. 101 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 30 – 7, site S2.No. 102 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 5, site S2.No. 103 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 15, site S2.No. 104 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 4, site S2.No. 105 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 33 – 10, site S2.No. 106 – plate 45. Lost tool, Deckers (1979): fig. 32 – 10, site S2.


Site 2 Debitage material:No. I – plate 46. Core with two opposing striking platforms, no. 60069, site S2.No. II – plate 46. Core with two crossed striking platforms, no. 190012, site S2.No. III – plate 46. Tested core, no. 190007, site S2, similar cores: nos. 0093, 2142, 5784, 60089, 190020, 900590.No. IV – plate 46. Tested core, no. 8531, site S2.No. V – plate 46. Tested core, no. 60001, site S2, similar core: 900079.No. VI – plate 46. Tested core, no. 7537, site S2.


Plate 46 Flint debitage material present at site S2. Scale 1:1.


Site S3 (plate 47 – 60)Tools:No. 107 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper (rectilinear), no. 982622, site S3, similar tools (intact): nos. 02259, 14200, 14894,

39036, 39346, 49288, 49824, 900838, 901899, 903210, 904329, 905786, 906398, 907275, 908171, 908502, 911848, 912598, 912907, 980210, similar tools (fragmented): nos. 13582, 28338, 34990, 39344, 40809, 40924, 900969, 901408, 902877 (double?), 903135, 903246, 903296, 906556 (double?), 907986, 912715, 914139 (double?), 981707, 982436.

No. 108 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper (curved), no. 903115, site S3, similar tools (intact): nos. 17283, 37789-1, 38160, 38368, 39718, 43825, 50028, 911001, similar tools (fragmented): nos. 37759, 39279-1, 39901, 39962, 40558, 40716, 901706, 902637, 903347, 904968 (double?), 983747, 983844.

No. 109 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper (rounded), no. 906906, site S3, similar tools (intact): nos. 02428, 02535, 21746, 39156, 47834, 47342, 47315, 47905, 49025, 49755, 49933, 50818, 904033, 904039, 904771, 905541, 906438, 909988, 912924, 982527, 982615, similar tools (fragmented): nos. 00081, 13327, 30069, 37753, 37837, 40165, 40552, 50036, 902670, 904969, 905854 (double?), 909256 (double?), 980202, 980514, 981875, 000189 (trench S6).

No. 110 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper (oblique), no. 903697 (left), site S3, similar tools (intact): nos. 46212 (right), 901192 (right), 901406 (left), 904330 (right), 906905 (right), 909147 (left), 913351 (left), similar tools (fragmented): nos. 19009 (left), 910960 (right).

No. 111 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper (irregular), no. 903116, site S3, similar tools (intact): nos. 13321, 19441, 42474, 47223, 906098, 912807, 980151, 982295, similar tools (fragmented): nos. 904980, 901979, 911683.

No. 112 – plate 47. Single end scraper, no. 15841, site S3, similar tools: nos. 04606, 25804, 28357, 32086, 35308, 36136, 44287, 47888, 50045, 900209, 980296.

No. 113 – plate 47. Proximal single end scraper (rectilinear), no. 982330, site S3, similar tools (intact): nos. 33741, 912249, similar tools (fragmented): nos. 901780, 909557, 982150.

No. 114 – plate 47. Proximal single end scraper (curved), no. 910957, site S3, similar tools (intact): nos. *6, 13156, 28712, 34913, 39061, similar tools (fragmented): nos. 04459, 09935, 903871.

No. 115 – plate 47. Proximal single end scraper (rounded), no. 903373, site S3, similar tools (intact): nos. 12924, 906181, similar tools (fragmented): nos. 16026, 47924, 903431, 903801.

No. 116 – plate 47. Proximal single end scraper (oblique), no. 913741 (right), site S3, similar tools: nos. 04991 (left), 12672 (left).No. 117 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper with ventral scraper front, no. 980446, site S3, similar tool: no. 42447.No. 118 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper with proximal tip, no. 912148, site S3.No. 119 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper with one retouched edge (rounded), no. 50145 (right), site S3, similar tools: nos.

13570 (left), 19084 (left), 28250 (left), 31602 (left), 36963 (left), 39409 (left), 43651 (left), 45875 (left), 44632 (left), 47891 (left), 906071 (left), 906339 (left), 906707 (left), 911244 (left), 911758 (left), 912827 (left), 913536 (left), 914114 (left), 981390 (left), 982601 (left), 983421 (left), 983466 (left), 983800 (left), 02300 (right), 12958 (right), 13534 (right), 14838 (right), 15730 (right), 19343 (right), 19946 (right), 31894 (right), 38898 (right), 39632 (right), 903603 (right), 904912 (right), 906484 (right), 906550 (right), 909952 (right), 911253 (right), 911567 (right), 911819 (right), 912004 (right), 912483 (right), 912982 (right), 914117 (right), 982737 (right).

No. 120 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper with one retouched edge (angular), no. 39338 (left), site S3, similar tools: nos. 13440 (left), 13513 (left), 39003 (left), 49651 (left), 49653 (left, blade), 908314 (left), 980179 (left), 981161 (left), 983541 (left), 000797 (trench S6) (left), 16259 (right), 20201 (right), 39897 (right), 902883 (right), 905933 (right), 906424 (right), 909160 (right), 911741 (right), 913232 (right), 980140 (right), 982479 (right), similar tools (fragmented: no. 38375 (right).

No. 121 – plate 47. Proximal single end scraper with one retouched edge (irregular), no. 912084 (left), site S3, similar tool: no. 907569 (right).

No. 122 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper with two retouched edges (round), no. 39912, site S3, similar tools: nos. 15803, 15450, 19880, 38444, 38570, 40350, 47564, 47984, 48530, 902316, 904240, 905914, 909090, 912554, 980445, 982186, 983798, 983833, 700058 (trench S6).

No. 123 – plate 47. Distal single end scraper with two retouched edges (angular), no. 902336, site S3, similar tools: nos. 15242, 19496, 902484, 907907, 908044, 909307, 913029.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 124 – plate 48. Distal single end scraper with two retouched edges (notched), no. 15822, site S3.No. 125 – plate 48. Distal single end scraper with two retouched edges (denticulated), no. 25588, site S3.No. 126 – plate 48. Proximal single end scraper with two retouched edges (rounded), no. 42421, site S3, similar tools: nos. 00376,

09572, 27037, 32747, 49634, 55460, 902156, 909178, 912121.No. 127 – plate 48. Proximal single end scraper with two retouched edges (rectilinear), no. 04991, site S3.No. 128 – plate 48. Proximal single end scraper with two retouched edges (curved), no. 39392, site S3, similar tools: nos. 13514,

25931, 907739.No. 129 – plate 48. Proximal single end scraper with two retouched edges (pointed), no. 909556, site S3.No. 130 – plate 48. Proximal single end scraper with two retouched edges (notched), no. 01850, site S3.No. 131 – plate 48. Single end scraper with two retouched edges (alternate), no. 16804, site S3, similar tools: nos. 02266, 40812,

46020, 980293, 981073.No. 132 – plate 48. Distal single end scraper with retouched edges and ventral scraper front, no. 908434, site S3.No. 133 – plate 48. Proximal single scraper with retouched edges (on former borer?), no. 02013, site S3.No. 134 – plate 48. Double scraper (rectilinear), no. 913557, site S3, similar tools: nos. 34884, 982095.No. 135 – plate 48. Double scraper (curved), no. 901392, site S3, similar tools: nos. 16396, 911385, 980138.No. 136 – plate 48. Double scraper (rounded), no. 902583, site S3, similar tools: nos. 42483, 901822, 903143, 914109.No. 137 – plate 48. Double scraper (small), no. 902281, site S3, similar tool: no. 909843.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 138 – plate 49. Double scraper (dorsal and ventral), no. 18412, site S3.No. 139 – plate 49. Double scraper with retouched edges (small), no. 27883, site S3, similar tools: nos. 19079 (large), 903028

(large), 903432 (small), 905850 (small), 909803 (large).No. 140 – plate 49. Round scraper (oval), no. 45882, site S3, similar tool: no. 912648.No. 141 – plate 49. Round scraper (denticulated), no. 49958, site S3, similar tool: no. 35767.No. 142 – plate 49. Round scraper (angular), no. 38465, site S3, similar tool: no. 909247.No. 143 – plate 49. Round scraper (alternating), no. 19371, site S3.No. 144 – plate 49. Side scraper (rounded), no. 38673 (left), site S3, similar tools: nos. 19806 (left), 906099 (left), 908695 (left),

909705 (left), 911711 (left), 913529 (left), 980521 (left), 980889 (left), 980892-1 (left), 982336 (left), 42906 (right), 902087 (right), 902426 (right), 905629 (right), 905760 (right), 906891 (right), 907268 (right), 907351 (right), 908694 (left), 911765 (right), 913347 (right), Z/09979.

No. 145 – plate 49. Side scraper (curved), no. 14381 (left), site S3, similar tools: nos. 13076 (left), 13421 (left), 31912 (left), 35804 (left), 36905 (left), 47795 (left), 48462 (left), 42901 (left), 983441 (left), 39450 (right), 40853 (right), 982680 (right).

No. 146 – plate 49. Side scraper (angular), no. 901455 (left), site S3, similar tools: nos. 913168 (left), 983988 (left), 908389 (right).No. 147 – plate 49. Scraper fragment (irregular), no. 39062, site S3.No. 148 – plate 49. Scraper fragment (distal), no. 50178, site S3, similar tools: nos. 04116, 01611, 14136, 14161, 15420, 16163,

17105, 19604, 38240, 39342, 40359, 44179, 44234, 44565, 47414, 47916, 50041, 900787, 900933, 902317, 905150, 905652, 905932, 906351, 907094, 908690, 980847, 980900, 982793.

No. 149 – plate 49. Scraper fragment (proximal), no. 902315, site S3, similar tools: nos. 19899, 39803, 900210, 901914, 905137, 909506, 912744, 983853.

No. 150 – plate 49. Scraper fragment (side?), no. 16011, site S3, similar tools: nos. 01193, 16424, 901395, 902734, 910516, 981375.

No. 151 – plate 49. Scraper fragment (rounded?), no. 28427, site S3, similar tool: no. 913510.No. 152 – plate 49. Scraper fragment, no. 46360 (indeterminate), site S3, similar tools: nos. 00308, 01183, 02000, 13067, 13728,

15224, 15561, 35260, 35319, 39706, 46052, 47496, 47738, 48195, 902203, 902220, 902348, 904451, 904465, 906258, 907914, 908971, 909387, 909948, 912820, 980844, 981482.

No. 153 – plate 49. Scraper fragment (alternate), no. 47615, site S3, similar tools: nos. 47715, 907152.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 154 – plate 50. Borer (straight, one edge dorsal), no. 912561, site S3, similar tool: no. 905098.No. 155 – plate 50. Borer (oblique, one edge ventral, one edge dorsal), no. 905241, site S3, similar tools: nos. 02593, 09007,

21576, 24098, 39451, 907306.No. 156 – plate 50. Borer (straight, both edges dorsal), no. 36294, site S3, Woltinge et al. (2008) fig. 3, similar tools: nos. 34442,

901827, 907328.No. 157 – plate 50. Borer (straight, both edges ventral), no. 23397, site S3, similar tools: nos. 16219, 25785, 34754, 47429, 911534.No. 158 – plate 50. Borer (straight or concave, both edges dorsal, one or two edges ventral), no. 904668, site S3, similar tools: no.

34907, 904206, 913012-2, 981818, 203 (trench S6),No. 159 – plate 50. Borer (straight, both edges dorsal, one or two edges ventral, plus profound rounding), no. 905062, site S3.No. 160 – plate 50. Borer (concave, both edges dorsal and ventral), no. 912786.No. 161 – plate 50. Rounded piece (distal), no. 26082, site S3, Woltinge et al. (2008) fig. 2-8, similar tools: nos. 17096, 17708,

33474, 41087, 46765, 47082, 47350, 50631, 52240, 906638, 912590, 913324, 980890, 10010 (trench S5).No. 162 – plate 50. Rounded piece (distal), no. 22590, site S3, Woltinge et al. (2008) fig. 2-4, similar tools: nos. 15281, 33369,

39935, 49982, 911433, 912057, 980288, 981967.No. 163 – plate 50. Rounded piece (proximal), no. 15719, site S3, Woltinge et al. (2008) fig. 2-5, similar tools: nos. 17259, 18271,

905057, 911541, 911852. No. 164 – plate 50. Rounded piece (proximal), no. 31487, site S3, Woltinge et al. (2008) fig. 2-3.No. 165 – plate 50. Rounded piece (proximal), no. 981590, site S3, Woltinge et al. (2008) fig. 2-7, similar tool: no. 902345.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 166 – plate 51. Rounded piece (proximal), no. 34741, site S3.No. 167 – plate 51. Rounded piece (proximal), no. 31375, site S3, Woltinge et al. (2008) fig. 2-6.No. 168 – plate 51. Rounded piece (bipolar piece), no. 40128, site S3.No. 169 – plate 51. Rounded piece (proximal and distal), no. 43313, site S3.No. 170 – plate 51. Rounded piece (chip), no. 981097, site S3, similar tools: nos. 903369, 908323, 983494.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 171 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze (dorsal and ventral retouches), no. 901352, site S3, similar sized tool: no. 43021 (both

sides dorsal).No. 172 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 38183, site S3.No. 173 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 913751, site S3.No. 174 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 907149, site S3, similar tools: nos. 900472, 904928.No. 175 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 905142, site S3, similar tool: no. 911063.No. 176 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 900177, site S3.No. 177 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 39529, site S3, similar tools: nos. 44331, 983949.No. 178 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze (triangular), no. 24326, site S3.No. 179 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 903612, site S3, similar tools: nos. 37272, 907270.No. 180 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 908409, site S3, similar tool: no. 47665.No. 181 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 900623, site S3, similar tools: nos. 905094, 906379.No. 182 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze (triangular), no. 913731, site S3.No. 183 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 900850, site S3, similar tool: no. 40560.No. 184 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 980530, site S3, similar tool: no. 50157, 907357.No. 185 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 913417, site S3.No. 186 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 909999, site S3, similar sized tool: no. 904622 (dorsal and ventral retouches).No. 187 – plate 52. Asymmetric trapeze, no. 911220, site S3.No. 188 – plate 52. Rectangular trapeze, no. 980344, site S3.No. 189 – plate 52. Rectangular trapeze, no. 906174, site S3, similar tool: no. 39025.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 190 – plate 53. Transverse arrowhead, no. 903611, site S3, similar tools: nos. 902347, 906337.No. 191 – plate 53. Transverse arrowhead, no. 31177, site S3.No. 192 – plate 53. Transverse arrowhead, no. 16177, site S3, similar tool: no. 900307.No. 193 – plate 53. Arrowhead fragment, no.25327, site S3.No. 194 – plate 53. Arrowhead fragment, no. 905172, site S3, similar tool: no. 40116.No. 195 – plate 53. Arrowhead fragment, no. 04750, site S3, similar tool: no. 25138.No. 196 – plate 53. Retouched flake (convex), no. 25239, site S3, similar tools with dorsal retouches: nos. 03897, 05554, 12902,

13281, 13528, 14088, 14785, 16091, 18571, 19196, 19586, 20625, 21541, 24450, 31186, 31817, 34377, 34635, 34879, 35306, 37872, 37995, 39075, 39744, 40223, 45078, 46852, 47016, 47613, 47621, 48202, 48865, 50586, 50607, 50890, 51174, 51573, 51983, 53143, 900117, 900778, 900828, 901403, 902520, 902762, 903238, 905243, 905342, 906261, 906684, 906872, 906881, 906902, 906985, 907139, 907164, 907773, 908064, 908172, 908999, 909272, 909501, 909554, 909836, 910180, 910882, 911134, 911492, 911754, 912246, 912816, 912910, 912985, 913299, 913362, 980200, 980494, 981075, 981077, 981319, 982092, 982605, 982692, 983178, 983383, 700001 (trench S6), similar tools with ventral retouches: nos. 00475-1, 01993, 15898, 17334, 36245, 43486, 48601, 900469, 902339, 902584, 908315, 909572, 909804, 910903, 912999, 981761, 983515, similar tools with both ventral and dorsal retouches: nos. 12624, 12960, 44652, 49893, 904654, 981446, 983831, 800021 (trench S6).

No. 197 – plate 53. Retouched flake (rectilinear), no. 20635, site S3, similar tools with dorsal retouches: nos. 16906, 21818, 22887, 27066, 32420, 39091, 40081, 40405, 46099, 46834, 47708, 49746, 56617, 56671, 901077, 901974, 903879, 905140, 905152, 907095, 908073, 908168, 908281, 908602, 909087, 909786, 910955, 910956, 911879, similar tools with ventral retouches: nos. 01571, 25955, 33677, 36426, 37123, 42669, 55869, 905929, 909305, 909339, 911233, similar tools with both ventral and dorsal retouches: no. 13768, 40044.

No. 198 – plate 53. Retouched flake (irregular), no. 00495, site S3, similar tools: nos. 03064, 12947, 15268, 16309, 24731, 24830, 30400, 31042, 31492, 32120, 33383, 35311, 48905, 49638, 50949, 53357, 54470, 55870, 900805, 902771, 904044, 908432, 912282, 913348, 913565, 914100, 982438.

No. 199 – plate 53. Retouched flake (concave), no. 906244, site S3, similar tools: nos. 22886-2, 43461, 980135.No. 200 – plate 53. Retouched flake (denticulated), no. 50889, site S3, similar tools: nos. 26934, 40009, 40034, 50174, 000666

(trench S6).No. 201 – plate 53. Retouched flake (notched), no. 36215, site S3, similar tools: nos.31287, 980178, 174-2 (trench S5).No. 202 – plate 53. Retouched flake (truncated), no. 904734, site S3, similar tools: nos. 16502, 24727.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 203 – plate 54. Backed blade, no. 22802, site S3, similar tools: nos. 00887, 01425, 02367, 02456, 09331, 12554, 13431, 13657,

13827, 15639, 16156, 16480, 16653, 16658, 19413, 19493, 20940, 21051, 21987, 23958, 24289, 25076, 26533, 27811, 28247, 28268, 28342, 28829, 28986, 30119, 31501, 32030, 32225, 32288, 32946, 33041, 34482, 34746, 35964, 35999, 37207, 38987, 39724, 40177, 40581, 42146, 44352, 44595, 45380, 45817, 46363, 48118, 48863, 49441, 49855, 49863, 49956, 52411, 52511, 52908, 53506, 55962, 56397, 57680, 900970, 901391, 901457, 902349, 902432, 902463, 903312, 903429, 903607, 903627, 903963, 904551, 904641, 904643, 904757, 905139, 905639, 905720, 906463, 907573, 907781, 907815, 908267, 908675, 908968, 909799, 911203, 911701, 911722, 911946, 912203, 912611, 913297, 980129, 980173, 980291, 981044, 982090, 982093, 982334, 982740, 982859, 983180, 983884, 983935, Z-020-1, Z-039-1, Z/14598, 06984 (trench S5),

No. 204 – plate 54. Backed blade (rounded), no. 39573, site S3, similar tools: nos. 05430, 13834, 18983, 19122, 34876, 35004, 39084, 39963, 51272, 52164, 52219, 901201, 901811, 902852, 903268, 903790, 904913, 906096, 907646, 908501, 908533, 908599, 909127, 912183, 912248, 912318, 912480, 912481, 913311, 913421, 913507, 913617, 914110, 980712, 981321, 981640, 982091, 982144, 982202, 982332, 983036, 983312, 983749, 114 (trench S5),

No. 205 – plate 54. Backed blade (pointed), no. 47904, site S3, similar tools: nos. 18747, 19127, 21039, 22498, 28132, 32725, 34911-2, 37382, 52172, 901484, 901568, 902560, 904537, 905545, 905790, 908954.

No. 206 – plate 54. Denticulated blade, no. 27455, site S3, similar tools: nos. 18519, 22079, 29030, 32247, 39427, 39453, 43126, 47942, 911184, 980509.

No. 207 – plate 54. Denticulated blade, no. 911729, site S3, similar tools: nos. 15463, 15854, 39705, 905163, 912965.No. 208 – plate 54. Notched blade, no. 904756, site S3, similar tools: nos. 52386, 900896, 000717 (trench S6).


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 209 – plate 55. Truncated blade, no. 911718, site S3, similar tools: nos. 15613, 33170, 39321, 42473, 44605, 900471, 903067,

906414, 911179, 913455, 983108.No. 210 – plate 55. Retouched striking edge rejuvenation blade, no. 17055, site S3, similar tools: nos. 02294, 16565, 19949,

21488, 35009, 39731, 55786, 55805, 907570, similar tools on flakes: nos. 35522, 980413, 982259.No. 211 – plate 55. Retouched indeterminate fragment, no. 21259, site S3, similar tools: nos. 01191, 12231, 16763, 26335, 38815,

46723, 49992, 912082, 912542.No. 212 – plate 55. Retouched frost flake, no. 30455, site S3, similar tools: nos. 01624, 15481, 19503, 20859, 31247, 50142, 55558,

904972, 981234.Not illustrated: retouched nodule: no. 912983.No. 213 – plate 55. Retouched core, no. 900113, site S3, similar tools: nos. 30141, 34918, 37379.No. 214 – plate 55. Retouched core, no. 37961, site S3.No. 215 – plate 55. Retouched bipolar piece, no. 23774, site S3, similar tools: nos. 01861, 02512, 16260, 24280, 24385, 27007,

34726, 36259, 39064, 900204, 982470, 983681.No. 216 – plate 55. Retouched bipolar piece, no. 56021, site S3.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 217 – plate 56. Indeterminate tool, no. 41862, site S3.No. 218 – plate 56. Indeterminate tool, no. 907578, site S3.No. 219 – plate 56. Indeterminate tool, no. Z/10698, site S3, similar tools: nos. 905391, 907580, 911273.No. 220 – plate 56. Indeterminate tool, no. 900176, site S3.Not illustrated: indeterminate tool: nos. 39671, 41863, 907620.No. 221 – plate 56. Indeterminate tool, no. 20446, site S3, similar tool: no. 27068.No. 222 – plate 56. Indeterminate tool, no. 34860, site S3.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 223 – plate 57. Indeterminate tool, no. 31532, site S3.No. 224 – plate 57. Tool fragment, no. 12822, site S3, similar tools: nos. 00209, 00914, 09271, 09941, 11564, 13037, 14160, 16428,

16507, 16672, 16865, 17591, 18702, 18956, 19015, 19217, 19898, 20035, 21846, 21928, 23372, 25009, 26395, 27610, 28128, 28698, 29040, 30929, 31457, 31746, 31883, 32085, 32249, 33329, 33403, 34181, 34483, 34999, 36339, 36374, 36574, 36725, 37086, 38191, 38941, 39278, 39335, 39585, 39609, 39798, 40900, 41478, 44054, 44620, 45475, 46093, 46423, 46590, 46699, 47559, 47740, 48147, 48934, 50655, 55548, 55577, 55746, 56480, 56487, 56645, 56655, 57099, 57141, 900473, 900714, 900839, 900968, 900986, 901188, 901520, 901823, 901977, 902232, 902282, 902405, 902636, 902662, 902669, 902710, 902740, 902870, 902937, 902968, 903182, 903267, 903327, 904054, 904153, 904918, 904963, 905110, 905126, 905481, 905606, 905745, 906187, 906356, 906879, 907588, 907755, 907816, 907931, 908125, 908257, 908439, 908499, 908637, 908962, 909099, 909582, 909727, 909824, 910906, 911049, 911254, 911459, 911551, 911734, 911742, 911918, 912150, 912699, 913025, 913303, 913515, 913570, 913576, 913767, 914028, 914040, 980348, 980418, 980469, 981045, 981927, 982143, 982505, 982791, 982918, 983038, 983161, 983204, 983369, 983378, 983482, 983601, 983745, 983857, 983886, 983963, 983987, Z-11241, 700020 (trench S6), 700043 (trench S6), similar tools on retouched chips: nos. 01630, 13019, 13088, 22768, 43757, 900643, 900663, 900720, 900783, 901040, 901109, 901448, 901839, 902221, 902605, 903039, 903127, 903201, 903245, 903302, 903479, 903761, 903811, 904319, 904477, 904695, 904867, 905039, 905298, 905593, 905714, 905796, 905883, 906294, 906316, 906559, 906649, 907125, 907203, 907289, 907674, 907722, 907759, 907819, 907820, 907834, 907873, 907951, 908545, 908791, 909075, 909173, 909283, 909509, 909551, 909560, 909609, 909781, 909839, 909844, 909969, 910894, 911214, 911443, 911652, 911678, 911773, 911856, 912065, 912326, 913234, 913275, 913367, 913408, 913425, 913599, 913643, 913674, 913825, 913893, 913955, 914147, 980008, 980021, 980253, 980533, 980623, 980627, 980781, 980993, 981082, 981094, 981388, 981670, 981990, 982086, 982115, 982150, 982524, 982634, 982835, 983095, 983349, 983400, 983483, 983637, Z/11156, Z-039-2.

No. 225 – plate 57. Tool fragment (truncation), no. 45271, site S3, similar tools: nos. 13683, 16079, 17066, 18864, 34502, 36968, 39068, 39490, 47753, 49281, 52481, 54525, 900924, 901957, 903762, 904655, 904922, 905154, 905907, 907659, 907705, 908940, 909263, 909463, 911011, 911452, 912593, 912818, 912892, 980447, 980448, 982394, 982404, 982561, 982586, 982744, 983430, 983974, similar tools on retouched chips (trapezes): nos. 34950, 40859, 901112, 902681, 902684, 903320, 903638, 906112, 908476, 911467, 911523, 912151, 912944, 913376, 913605, 981771, 982973.

No. 226 – plate 57. Tool fragment (scraper?), no. 34877, site S3, similar tools: nos. 13799, 14595, 18045, 24407, 25174, 29269, 29971, 30963, 31367-2, 33528, 34279, 34946, 40619, 47800, 47874, 48942, 900243, 901469, 902397, 907676, 908041, 911555, 911949, 913652, similar tools on retouched chips: nos. 21705, 51577, 900458, 901006, 901820, 902717, 902773, 902882, 903046, 903277, 903460, 903708, 907091, 909723, 909837, 913568, 913784, Z-039-3.

No. 227 – plate 57. Tool fragment (borer?), no. 909647, site S3, similar tools: nos. 900198, 907973, 907132, 908124, 909667, 909726, 913587, 980522, 168-1 (trench S5).

No. 228 – plate 57. Tool fragment, no. 903175, site S3.No. 229 – plate 57. Tool fragment, no. 38858, site S3.No. 230 – plate 57. Regular bipolar piece, no. 12977, site S3, similar tool: nos. 00102, 00211, 00428, 00574, 00743, 00828, 00849,

01116, 01540, 01890, 02137, 02292, 03117, 04445, 06673, 08474, 11139, 12280, 12747, 12876, 13350, 13396, 13455, 13489, 14154, 14642, 14895, 15596, 15840, 15914, 16678, 16884, 17103, 17832, 17979, 18104, 18221, 18487, 19185, 19193, 19345, 19689, 20086, 20243, 20252, 20867, 21311, 21896, 22899, 25954, 29361, 29387, 30256, 31037, 31266, 31732, 31820, 32161, 32846, 33340, 33585, 33906, 34910, 35228, 36123, 37714, 38250, 38443, 38713, 39187, 39408, 40829, 42587, 42750, 43152, 46211, 46432, 47234, 47241, 47302, 47630, 47652, 47671, 47723, 47771, 47894, 47982, 48311, 48605, 48645, 48808, 49075, 49472, 50247, 50576, 52421, 52853, 55895, 900305, 901456, 901546, 901770, 902288, 902359, 902850, 904971, 905053, 905058, 907007, 908165, 909254, 909490, 909796, 909949, 910110, 910517, 910910, 911192, 911243, 911561, 911732, 911762, 912697, 912843, 980510, 981639, 981656, 981758, 982089, 982537, 983255, 168-5 (trench S5), 05938 (trench S5), 700037 (trench S6), 800128 (trench S6).

No. 231 – plate 57. Regular bipolar piece, no. 03172, site S3, similar tools: nos. 00829, 02066, 11911, 12551, 21384, 30888, 31725, 33021, 34312, 34649, 40041, 42949, 43161, 44457, 48631, 51266, 55545, 905863, 909484, 911222, 912906, 913298.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 232 – plate 58A. Irregular bipolar piece, no. 01349, site S3, similar tools: nos. 00213, 00296, 00337, 00480, 00602, 00672,

00946, 00954, 00979, 01115, 01173, 01487, 01548, 01685, 01733, 02409, 02477, 02696, 03443, 05599, 06194, 08036, 08411, 09513, 09769, 09770, 10361, 11562, 12139, 12654, 13135, 13319, 13436, 13504, 13573, 13590, 13610, 13625, 13855, 13928, 14012, 14018, 14199, 14292, 14379, 14400, 14491, 14493, 14588, 14797, 14815, 14885, 15007, 15109, 15607, 15715, 15722, 15774, 15846, 15927, 15943, 16095, 16135, 16238, 16472, 16499, 16536, 16557, 16607, 16663, 16922, 17010, 17025, 17047, 17219, 17260, 17304, 17496, 17513, 17585, 17626, 17877, 18151, 18155, 18308, 18392, 18518, 18729, 18879, 19126, 19132, 19201, 19344, 19971, 20298, 20398, 20733, 20759, 21305, 21561, 21775, 21809, 21829, 22023, 22386, 22849, 22891, 22897, 22975, 23096, 23129, 23130, 23220, 23407, 23587, 24557, 24968, 25477, 25667, 25670, 26122, 28288, 28697, 29022, 29139, 29643, 29710, 29994, 30153, 30310, 30338, 30651, 30966, 31044, 31251, 31652, 31706, 31762, 31800, 31878-2, 32272, 32500, 32504, 32634, 32686, 32738, 32924, 33008, 33081, 33083, 33143, 33173, 33230, 33415, 33418, 33461, 33498, 33579, 33743, 33962, 34088, 34163, 34220, 34292, 34718, 34838, 34923, 35455, 35606, 36322, 36395, 36784, 36823, 37287, 37314, 37669, 37870, 37876, 38162, 38766, 38787, 38929, 39032, 39162, 39164, 39185, 39193-1, 39203, 39205, 39220, 39251, 39289, 39393, 39474, 39508, 39546, 39768, 40094, 40269, 40288, 40931, 41076, 41090, 41377, 41597, 41993, 42008, 42138, 42162, 42312, 42838, 43158, 43236, 43369, 43527, 43799, 43833, 44056, 44184, 44650, 45942, 46116, 46147, 46288, 46297, 46398, 46399, 46497, 46967, 46987, 47014, 47070, 47083, 47137, 47148, 47173, 47176, 47203, 47283, 47301, 47303, 47380, 47396, 47449, 47464, 47500, 47505, 47545, 47600, 47789, 47791, 47817, 47964, 47992, 48010, 48079, 48305, 48313, 48319, 48372, 48375, 48405, 48463, 48495, 48503, 48559, 48577, 48587, 48637, 48638, 48686, 48712, 48738, 48780, 48916, 49115, 49123, 49156, 49217, 49221, 49253, 49313, 49434, 49453, 49494, 49843, 49960, 50114, 50149, 50152, 50177, 50284, 50315, 50411, 50437, 50440, 50608, 50779, 51009, 51027, 51164, 51395, 52182, 54314, 55209, 55228, 55318, 55319, 55351, 55373, 55408, 55417, 55477, 55585, 55586, 55587, 55630, 55688, 55733, 55920, 55944, 55994, 56048, 56082, 56098, 56310, 56319, 56605, 56711, 900153, 900174, 900175, 901162, 901451, 901452, 902412, 902480, 903693, 904486, 904501, 905930, 906069, 906072, 906097, 906283, 906489, 906610, 906611, 906969, 907138, 907154, 907162, 907278, 907281, 907352, 907360, 907598, 907657, 907903, 907962, 908159, 908160, 908313, 909303, 909383, 910880, 910952, 911241, 911712, 911714, 911771, 911815, 911818, 911999, 912184, 912293, 912334, 912476, 912646, 912647, 912710, 912783, 912830, 913621, 980001, 980300, 980409, 980516, 980693, 980891, 981225, 981449, 981521, 981615, 981634, 981756, 982018, 982196, 982603, 982913, 983746, 983767, 983815, 168-4 (trench S5), 174-5 (trench S5), 03186 (trench S5), 000578 (trench S6), 700065 (trench S6), 800133 (trench S6), 800151 (trench S6).

No. 233 – plate 58A. Irregular bipolar piece, no. 981591, site S3.No. 234 – plate 58A. Square shaped bipolar piece, no. 49652, site S3, similar tools: nos. 00808, 02001, 02434, 02479, 02911, 03272,

03402, 09133, 13730, 15140, 15474, 16131, 16846, 16972, 20824, 20875, 21081, 21224, 22875, 24259, 24284, 26865, 30330, 31402, 32127, 32402, 33490, 34054, 34587, 34647, 34872, 34932, 35259, 35488, 35803, 35936, 35976, 35984, 36049, 36547, 37526, 38617, 42453, 42714, 43832, 43942, 43999, 45265, 46305, 47434, 47691, 47887, 48149, 48191, 49320, 49608, 49830, 49869, 50127, 50168, 52919, 55604, 55965, 900830, 902076, 902200, 904495, 908170, 908969, 909250, 909285, 911234, 911705, 913349, 914099, 980137, 980364, 980508, 980694, 981275, 983311.

Not illustrated: fragmented bipolar pieces: nos. 00614, 01231, 01549, 12561, 13314, 13339, 13452, 13603, 13724, 14211, 14465, 15009, 15120, 15497, 16725, 17019, 18055, 18122, 19367, 19892, 22387, 24471, 24716, 28696, 28777, 30559, 31360, 33564, 33835-1, 34804, 34882, 34966, 36651, 39232, 39887-1, 40554, 46483, 47820, 47872, 48234, 48346, 48589, 49310, 50782, 52305, 54205, 55790, 56782, 57257, 901458, 902449, 903604, 905369, 912781, 913031, 913278, 913285, 913450, 980513, 980518, 981048, 981395, 981916, 981969, 982783, 982861-2, 983162, 983542.


Plate 58A Flint tools present at site S3. Scale 1:1.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 235 – plate 58B. Artefact with visible use-wear traces (blade), no. 37374, site S3, similar tools: nos. *9, 02003, 02186, 02476,

03283, 03538, 04311, 04505, 04773-2, 04997, 09634, 10297, 12452, 12522, 12552, 12685-1, 13227, 14423, 14668, 14680, 14708, 14818, 15130, 15309, 15471, 15503, 15716, 16129, 16190, 16305, 16315, 16317, 16320, 16336, 16501, 16657, 16693, 16761, 16787, 17459, 17497, 17623, 17628, 17637, 17786, 17938, 18281-1, 18295, 18397, 18558, 18676, 18697, 19113, 19731, 19826, 19998, 20020, 20196, 20362, 20702, 21412, 21847, 21920, 21956, 21992, 22116, 22211, 22438, 22463, 22539, 22896, 23063, 23065, 23128, 23727, 24153, 24184, 24409, 24436, 24655, 24820, 25122, 25182, 25313, 25563, 25675, 25683, 25996, 26048, 26325, 26327, 28514, 28517, 28737, 28894, 28939, 29090, 29261-2, 29389, 29531, 29613, 30066, 30584, 30628, 30694, 30728-1, 31138, 31170, 31240, 31783, 31803, 32008, 32029, 32180, 32298, 32417, 32989, 33097, 33119, 33511, 33931, 34214, 34384, 34439, 34523, 34813, 34867, 34895, 34928, 35251, 35258, 35427, 35577, 35953, 36121, 36298, 36320, 36662, 36694, 36720, 36742, 36951, 37257, 38001, 38013, 38168, 38762, 38977, 38979, 39018, 39183, 39407-1, 39431, 39571, 39952-1, 39952-2, 40059, 40117, 40167, 40173, 40365, 40456, 40479, 40549, 40692, 40881, 40928, 41022, 41031, 41049, 41079, 41175, 41255, 41312, 41450, 41475, 41542, 41552, 41615, 41720, 41723, 41749, 42518, 42578, 42632, 42891, 43006, 43140, 43333, 44205, 44478, 45039, 45068, 45376, 45563, 46035, 46703, 46823, 46961, 47485, 47497, 47797, 47973, 48119, 48343, 48822, 48922, 49516, 49643, 49763, 49810, 49981, 50039, 50049, 50216, 50331, 50412, 50414, 50510, 50700, 50708, 50800, 50975, 50999, 51101, 51122, 51189, 51293, 51307, 51466, 51809, 51830, 52120, 52220, 52396, 52491, 52748, 52926, 53011, 53240, 53291, 53446, 53525, 53801,

54249, 55245, 55470, 55649, 55701, 55922, 56196, 56228, 56344, 56349, 56377, 56483, 56529, 56771, 56779, 56929, 57091, 57369, 900112, 900246, 900880, 901066, 901088, 901447, 901825, 902037, 902040, 902074, 902096, 902384, 902626, 902631, 902661, 902685, 902709, 902813, 903063, 903289, 903609, 903618, 903672, 903719, 903793, 904233, 904640, 904658, 904741, 905146, 905620, 905841, 906050, 906418, 906466, 907153, 907331, 907332, 907597, 908126, 908967, 909126, 909676, 909800, 910284, 911044, 911137, 911224, 911237, 911437, 911554, 911704, 911862, 911863, 911866, 912015, 912018, 912032, 912290, 912452, 912861, 912948, 913420, 913618, 913757, 980181, 980186, 980226, 980329, 980363, 980520, 980650, 980775, 981199, 981312, 981665, 981844, 981905, 981973, 982017, 982138, 982861-1, 983177, 983409, 983910, 983916, 983955, 700018 (trench S6), 800094 (trench S6), 002 (trench S5), 006 (trench S5), 000345 (trench S6), 000410 (trench S6), 000658 (trench S6), 000795 (trench S6), 168-2 (trench S5).

No. 236 – plate 58B. Artefact with visible use-wear traces (flake), no. 21086, site S3, similar tools: nos. 01269, 02605, 02913, 04323, 12559, 12831, 13196, 13317, 13370, 14157, 15999, 16162, 16167, 16629, 16671, 17842, 18394, 19056, 20078, 21123, 21843, 22990, 22996, 23939, 25560, 30086, 31094, 31465, 31513, 33391, 36927, 37604, 38650, 39497, 40493, 42000, 50306, 51734, 52092, 52909, 56524, 900240, 902861, 903031, 903702, 906285, 908641, 909041, 909382, 909456, 911004, 911200, 912438, 912812, 913415, 980171, 982137, 982188, 982752, 983911, 800060 (trench S6), 800177 (trench S6), similar tools on flake or blade fragments: nos. 03986, 13517, 18018, 39326, 39802, 40757, 53544, 900881, 901390, 902353, 904312, 908035, 909415, 909452, 909553, 911005, 980791, 982222, 982618, 982765, 982864, 983353, 983950.

No. 237 – plate 58B. Artefact with visible use-wear traces (other blank), no. 18292, site S3, similar tools: nos. 16712, 17034, 18496, 23976, 25228, 25249, 36693, 38854, 40481, 43328, 46340, 47576, 52090, 908692, 909056, 000579 (trench S6), 000644 (trench S6), 800015 (trench S6).

No. 238 – plate 58B. Polished flint axe fragment (flake), no. 47068, site S3.


Plate 58B Flint tools present at site S3. Scale 1:1.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 239 – plate 59. Polished flint axe fragment (flake), no. 56652, site S3, similar artefacts: nos. *5, 16058, 16548, 46685, 47061,

47179 (blade), 48531-2, 52425, 905718, 907133, 907221 (blade), 908173 (blade), 908785 (chip), 908981, 911256, 911334, 911804 (chip), 911871, 912074, 912525, 912927, 980511, 981031, 981283, 981307, 981325, 981977.

Not illustrated: polished flint axe fragment (undetermined fragment), nos. 49779, 48531-1, site S3.Not illustrated: polished flint axe fragment (potlid), nos. 48531-2, 911274, site S3.No. 240 – plate 59. Polished flint axe fragment (retouched flake), no. 910109, site S3.No. 241 – plate 59. Polished flint axe fragment (scraper), no. 47812, site S3.No. 242 – plate 59. Polished flint axe fragment (retouched flake), no. 47721, site S3.No. 243 – plate 59. Polished flint axe fragment (retouched blade), no. 905756, site S3.No. 244 – plate 59. Polished flint axe fragment (core), no. 47059 + 47450, site S3.


Site S3 (Tools continued)No. 245 – plate 60A. Hammerstone, no. 50954, site S3.

Site S3 Debitage material:No. VII – plate 60B. Centripetal core (battered), no. 55783, site S3.


Plate 60A Flint tool present at site S3. Scale 1:1.

Plate 60B Debitage material present at site S3. Scale 1:1.


Site S4Tools:No. 246 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (denticulated), no. G92-02467, site S4, similar tool: no. G92/WP2-00456.No. 247 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (alternating), no. G92-03521-1, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-01524, G92-P014.No. 248 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (alternating, notched), no. G92-03349-1, site S4.No. 249 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (pointed), no. 1531, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 7.No. 250 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (irregular), no. G92-00380-1, site S4, similar tool: no. G92-02348-1.No. 251 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (unfinished?), no. G92-00610-1, site S4, similar tool: no. G92-07617-1.No. 252 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (marginal retouches), no. no. G92/WP2-03434, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92/WP2-01473,

G92/WP2-03514-1.No. 253 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (rounded to curved), no. G92/WP2-01417-1, site S4, similar tools: nos. 1616, G92-00475-1,

G92-00518-1, G92-01409-1, G92-01464-1, G92-02551, G92-06596-1, G92-P010, G92/WP2-02496-1.No. 254 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (small), no. G92-01463-1, site S4, similar tools: nos. 1283, G92-03462-1.No. 255 – plate 61. Distal end scraper (small), no. G92-00596-1, site S4, similar tool: no. G92-02398-1.No. 256 – plate 61. Distal end scraper, no. G92-01439-1, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-01484, G92-03452-1.No. 257 – plate 61. Distal end scraper, no. G92/WP2-01474, site S4.No. 258 – plate 61. Double end scraper, no. G92-02335-1, site S4.No. 259 – plate 61. Double end scraper, no. 1143, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 4, similar tool: no. G92-03473.No. 260 – plate 61. Side scraper (curved), no. G92-00503-1, site S4, similar tool: no. G92-02495-1.


Site S4 (Tools continued)No. 261 – plate 62. Scraper fragment (curved to rounded), no. 1634, site S4, similar tools: nos. 900010, 900026, G92-01466, G92-

03396, G92/WP2-01494-1, No. 262 – plate 62. Scraper fragment (rectilinear), no. 0393, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-01606-1, G92-03577.No. 263 – plate 62. Scraper fragment (double?), no. G92/WP2-03494-1, site S4, similar tool: no. G92-01419-2.No. 264 – plate 62. Borer (straight, one edge dorsal, one edge ventral), no. G92-03503, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-02396

(oblique, both edges ventral), G92-02452 (straight, both edges dorsal).No. 265 – plate 62. Rounded piece, no. G92-04578-1 (double), site S4, similar tool: no. 0001 (single).No. 266 – plate 62. Rounded piece, no. G92/WP2-*009, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-04488-1, G92/WP2-01547, G92-sp23-1.Not illustrated: Rounded piece (small fragment): G92-01338-1, G92-03368-4, G92-03669-1, G92/WP2-02538.No. 267 – plate 62. Asymmetric trapeze, no. G92-0452-1, site S4.No. 268 – plate 62. Asymmetric trapeze, no. G92-0538, site S4.No. 269 – plate 62. Asymmetric trapeze, no. G92-3471-2, site S4.No. 270 – plate 62. Asymmetric trapeze, no. G92-3549-1, site S4.No. 271 – plate 62. Asymmetric trapeze, no. G92-0259-1, site S4.No. 272 – plate 62. Asymmetric trapeze, no. G92-2494-1, site S4.No. 273 – plate 62. Retouched flake, no. G92-04471, site S4, similar tools: nos. 0953 (scraper-like), G92-00324 (denticulated),

G92-00563-1 (scraper-like), G92-03518-1, G92-04569-1, G92-05587-1, G92/WP2-00533 (scraper-like).No. 274 – plate 62. Retouched flake (truncated), no. G92-01548, site S4.No. 275 – plate 62. Retouched flake (double bulb), no. G92-02383-1, site S4.No. 276 – plate 62. Retouched flake (notched), no. G92-02355, site S4, similar tool: no. G92-03514-2.


Site S4 (Tools continued)No. 277 – plate 63. Retouched flake (irregular), no. G92/WP2-02479-1, site S4, similar tool: no. G92-00444.No. 278 – plate 63. Backed blade, no. G92/WP2-02397, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-01369-1, G92-01378-2, G92-01491, G92-

02402-1, G92-02476, G92-02496-1, G92-03433-1, G92-04324, G92-05607, G92/WP2-01475-4, G92/WP2-03537.

No. 279 – plate 63. Backed blade, no. G92-03399-1, site S4, similar tools: nos. 1264, G92-00348-1, G92-00537-1, G92-01356-1, G92-01366-1, G92-02348-2, G92-03507, G92-04421-1, G92-06612-1.

No. 280 – plate 63. Truncated blade, no. G92-01508-1, site S4.No. 281 – plate 63. Backed blade (with visible gloss), no. G92-0580-1, site S4.No. 282 – plate 63. Retouched rejuvenation piece, no. G92-03399-2, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-01442 (indeterminate

fragment), G92-05464-1 (indeterminate fragment), 1337 (tested core), G92-01359-1 (tested core).No. 283 – plate 63. Indeterminate tool, no. G92-04606-1, site S4.No. 284 – plate 63. Indeterminate tool, no. G92-02365, site S4.No. 285 – plate 63. Indeterminate tool, no. G92/WP2-01538, site S4.No. 286 – plate 63. Indeterminate tool, no. G92/WP2-03477-1, site S4.Not illustrated: indeterminate tool, no. G92-03386-1, site S4.


Site S4 (Tools continued)No. 287 – plate 64. Indeterminate tool fragment (scraper?), no. 1295, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 10, similar tools: nos. G92-

01318-1, G92-01408-2, G92-01443-1, G92-03506-2, G92/WP2-02438-1, G92/WP2-02546-1, G92/WP2-02547, G92/WP2-03535-1.

No. 288 – plate 64. Indeterminate tool fragment (retouched blade?), no. 1799, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 12, similar tools: nos. G92-01377-1, G92-02563-1, G92-03397-2, G92-03506-1, G92-04349-1, G92-04389-1, G92/WP2-03478-1, G92/WP2-04476-1.

Not illustrated: indeterminate tool fragment, nos. 900052, G92-00369-1, G92-00464-1, G92-01358-1, G92-02561, G92-03342-1, G92-03418-2, G92-04378-1, G92-06454-2, G92-07473-1, G92-999066, G92/WP2-02458-1, G92/WP2-04494.

Not illustrated: indeterminate tool fragment (truncated), nos. G92-01378-1, G920-8597-1, G92/WP2-02459-1, G92/WP2-05537.

Not illustrated: indeterminate tool fragment (notched), nos. 1009, G92-04402, G92-06369.No. 289 – plate 64. Indeterminate tool fragment (borer?), no. 0005, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 35 – 1, similar tools: nos. 0363,

G92-00309-1.No. 290 – plate 64. Indeterminate tool fragment, no. G92-02429-1, site S4.No. 291 – plate 64. Indeterminate tool fragment, no. G92-03333-2, site S4.No. 292 – plate 64. Indeterminate tool fragment, no. G92-01392, site S4.Not illustrated: retouched chips, nos. G92-00450-1, G92-03369-1, G92-03579-1.No. 293 – plate 64. Regular bipolar piece, no. G92/WP2-4478, site S4, similar tool: no. GIA92-7494.No. 294 – plate 64. Regular bipolar piece, no. G92-06505, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-00460, G92-02398-2, G92-02501-1.No. 295 – plate 64. Regular bipolar piece, no. 1969, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92/WP2-00548-1, G92-P007.No. 296 – plate 64. Irregular bipolar piece, no. 0270, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-00536-1, G92-00453, G92-00472-1, G92-

01512, G92-01532, G92-02439-1, G92-02495-2, G92-03521-2, G92-04450-4, G92-04596-1, G92/WP2-02507-1.No. 297 – plate 64. Irregular bipolar piece, no. G92/WP2-01456, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-00464-2, G92-02517, G92-03397-1.No. 298 – plate 64. Irregular bipolar piece, no. G92-02378-1, site S4, similar tools: nos. G92-00159, G92-02532-1, G92-03431, G92-

05602-1, G92/WP2-02477.No. 299 – plate 64. Irregular bipolar pieces (refit), no. G92/WP2-03500 + G92-01342 + G92/WP2-02507-2, site S4.No. 300 – plate 64. Irregular bipolar piece, no. G92-02504-1, site S4, similar tool: no. G92/WP2-05534-1.


Site S4 (Tools continued)No. 301 – plate 65. Irregular bipolar piece, no. 0265, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 35 – 4.No. 302 – plate 65. Irregular bipolar piece, no. 1825, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 35 – 6, similar tool: no. G92/WP2-02504.No. 303 – plate 65. Square shaped bipolar piece, no. 0184, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 35 – 11, similar tools: nos. G92-01278-1,

G92-01375-1, G92/WP2-02508-1, G92/WP2-03458.No. 304 – plate 65. Square shaped bipolar piece, no. 0911, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 35 – 10, similar tool: no. G92-04607-1.No. 305 – plate 65. Bipolar piece fragment, no. 1640, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 35 – 9, similar tools: nos. G92-00396, G92-01603,

G92-02518-1, G92-04359-1.No. 306 – plate 65. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 0029, site S4, similar tools: nos. 0717, 1381, G92-00465-2, G92-

00509-1, G92-01359-2, G92-01473-2, G92-02368-1, G92-02373-1, G92-03333-1, G92-03375-1, G92-03418-1, G92-03462-2, G92-03499-1, G92-03516, G92-03542, G92-05488-1, G92-P002, G92/WP2-03503-1, G92/WP2-03544-1, G92/WP2-05456, G92/WP2-05533-1, G92/WP2-05534-2.

No. 307 – plate 65. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. G92-2497, site S4, similar tools: nos. 0012, 0125, 0186, 0233, 0276, 0563, 1118, G92-02315, G92-02359, G92-02439-1, G92-03354, G92-03368-1, G92-03399-3, G92-03474, G92-08586, G92/WP2-02454-1, G92/WP2-02506-1, G92/WP2-03499, G92/WP2-03547-1.

No. 308 – plate 65. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 0816, site S4, similar tools: nos. 0078, 1932, 1977, G92-00385, G92-00463-1, G92-00465-1, G92-01299-1, G92-01463-2, G92-01473-1, G92-01488-2, G92-01514, G92-01578-1, G92-02333, G92-02417-1, G92-02508-1, G92-03555-1, G92-04399-1, G92-P003-1, G92/WP2-00546-1, G92/WP2-02457, G92/WP2-02476, G92/WP2-02533, G92/WP2-02546-2, G92/WP2-03508-1.

No. 309 – plate 65. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 0965, site S4, similar tools: nos. 0807, G92-02367-1, G92-03408-1, G92-03471-1, G92-04409-1.

No. 310 – plate 65. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 1977, site S4, similar tool: no. G92-02559-2.


Site S4 (Tools continued)No. 311 – plate 66. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. G92/WP2-04507-1, site S4, similar tool: no. G92/WP2-02414-3.No. 312 – plate 66. Polished flint axe fragment, no. 0303, site S4.No. 313 – plate 66. Polished flint axe fragment, no. G92-01348-2, site S4.No. 314 – plate 66. Unfinished pendant (flint), no. G92/WP2-3503-2, site S4.No. 315 – plate 66. Lost tool, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 2.No. 316 – plate 66. Lost tool, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 1.No. 317 – plate 66. Lost tool, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 5.No. 318 – plate 66. Lost tool, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 34 – 3.


Site S4Debitage material:No. VIII – plate 67. Blade, no. G92-02415-1 + 2415-2, site S4.No. IX – plate 67. Blade, no. G92-02415-3, site S4.No. X – plate 67. Blade, no. G92-02415-4, site S4.No. XI – plate 67. Blade, no. G92-02415-5, site S4.No. XII – plate 67. Blade, no. G92-02415-6, site S4.No. XIII – plate 67. Blade, no. G92-02415-7, site S4.No. XIV – plate 67. Core with multiple striking platforms, no. 1251, site S4, Deckers (1979): fig. 35 – 7.


Plate 67 Debitage material present at site S4. Scale 1:1.


Site S41No. 319 – plate 68. Side scraper (irregular), no. G44-04.No. 320 – plate 68. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (rounded), no. G44-03.No. 321 – plate 68. Borer (straight), no. G44-34.No. 322 – plate 68. Backed blade, no. G39-01.No. 323 – plate 68. Regular bipolar piece, no. G44-12.No. 324 – plate 68. Irregular bipolar piece, no. G44-17.No. 325 – plate 68. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. G39-02.


Site S51No. 326 – plate 69. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (rounded), no. 900009, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 15.No. 327 – plate 69. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (rounded), no. 1221, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 9.No. 328 – plate 69. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (rounded), no. 1241, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 3.No. 329 – plate 69. Double end scraper, no. 1585, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 13.No. 330 – plate 69. Scraper fragment (curved), no. 900120, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 1.No. 331 – plate 69. Scraper fragment (rectangular to curved), no. 900118, S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 14.No. 332 – plate 69. Scraper fragment (curved), no. 1353, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 4.No. 333 – plate 69. Scraper fragment (curved), no. 900060, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 5.No. 334 – plate 69. Scraper fragment (rounded), no. 990017, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 7.No. 335 – plate 69. Scraper fragment (rounded), no. 1209, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 6.No. 336 – plate 69. Scraper fragment (rounded), no. 900027, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 8.No. 337 – plate 69. Scraper fragment (rounded), no. 900067, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 10.No. 338 – plate 69. Scraper fragment (rectangular), no. 990008, S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 2.No. 339 – plate 69. Trapeze, no. 900011, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 1.No. 340 – plate 69. Trapeze, no. 1285, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 2.


Site S51 (continued)No. 341 – plate 70. Retouched flake, no. 900035, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 12.No. 342 – plate 70. Retouched flake, no. 1231, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 11.No. 343 – plate 70. Backed blade, no. 1263, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 6.No. 344 – plate 70. Backed blade, no. 2379, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 4.No. 345 – plate 70. Backed blade, no. 900070, site S51.No. 346 – plate 70. Backed blade, no. 2249, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 9.No. 347 – plate 70. Backed blade, no. 1374, site S51.No. 348 – plate 70. Indeterminate tool, no. 1333, site S51, redrawn version of Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 3.


Site S51 (continued)No. 349 – plate 71. Indeterminate tool fragment, no. 900001, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 37 – 11, similar tool: 1319.No. 350 – plate 71. Regular bipolar piece, no. 2040, site S51, similar tool: no. 1408.No. 351 – plate 71. Irregular bipolar piece, no. 900004, site S51.No. 352 – plate 71. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 1332, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 10, similar tools: nos. 900109,

900102, 900089.No. 353 – plate 71. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 2749, site S51, similar tools: nos. 1081, 1280, 2222, 900043.No. 354 – plate 71. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 1076, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 5.No. 355 – plate 71. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 1320, site S51, Deckers (1979) fig. 36 – 8, similar tools: no. 900019. No. 356 – plate 71. Lost tool, site S51, Deckers (1979): fig. 37 – 16.No. 357 – plate 71. Lost tool, site S51, Deckers (1979): fig. 36 – 7.


Site S61No. 358 – plate 72. Microlith fragment, no. 900939, site S61.No. 359 – plate 72. Rounded piece, no. 163, site S61.No. 360 – plate 72. Retouched flake, no. 544, similar tool: no. 156, site S61.No. 361 – plate 72. Retouched blade, no. 063, site S61.Not illustrated: Retouched frost flake: no. 827, similar tool: no. 901071, site S61.No. 362 – plate 72. Indeterminate tool fragment, no. 148, site S61.No. 363 – plate 72. Indeterminate tool fragment, no. Z-008-1, site S61.Not illustrated: indeterminate tool fragment (possible microlith), no. 813.No. 364 – plate 72. Irregular bipolar piece: no. 008, site S61.No. 365 – plate 72. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 520, site S61, similar tools: nos. 187, 941, 900666.


Sites S80-84Tools:No. 366 – plate 73. Distal end scraper (rounded), no. 30, site S80.No. 367 – plate 73. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (rectilinear), no. 06, site S81.No. 368 – plate 73. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (rounded), no. 21-31, site S80.No. 369 – plate 73. Distal end scraper with retouched edges (rounded), no. 015, site S83.No. 370 – plate 73. A-point, no. 33, site S80.No. 371 – plate 73. B-point, no. 033-1, site S83.No. 372 – plate 73. Retouched flake, no. 013, site S83, similar tool: no. 039.No. 373 – plate 73. Backed blade, no. 005, site S83, similar tool: no. 023.No. 374 – plate 73. Backed blade, no. 024-1, site S83.No. 375 – plate 73. Retouched core, no. 29, site S80, similar tools: nos. 002, 053 (both on frost flakes).Not illustrated: indeterminate tool fragments: nos. 21-32, 21-33, site S80, no. 07, site S81, 060-1, site S83.No. 376 – plate 73. Artefact with visible use-wear traces, no. 021, site S83.


Plate 73 Flint tools present at sites S80-S84. Scale 1:1.


Sites S80-84 Debitage material:No. XV – plate 74. Core with one striking platform, no. 049, site S83, similar artefacts (with one, two or more striking platforms):

16, 28, 21-35, 21-36, 21-37, 21-38, 21-39, 21-40, 21-41, 21-42, 21-43, 21-44, 21-65, site S80, 13, site S81.No. XVI – plate 74. Core with one striking platform, no. 018, site S83.No. XVII – plate 74. Core with one striking platform, no. 027, site S80.


Plate 74 Debitage material present at sites S80-S84. Scale 1:1.

Swifterbant Stones. The Neolithic Stone and Flint Industry at Swifterbant (the Netherlands)....

Documents

Transcript of Swifterbant Stones. The Neolithic Stone and Flint Industry at Swifterbant (the Netherlands)....