The Ertebølle Fisheries of Denmark, 5400-4000 B.C.

by

Kenneth C. Ritchie

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

(Anthropology)

at the

University of Wisconsin – Madison

2010

The Ertebølle Fisheries of Denmark, 5400-4000 B.C.

submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy

By

Kenneth C. Ritchie

Date of final oral examination: April 12, 2010

Month and year degree to be awarded: May 2010

The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral

Committee:

T. Douglas Price, Professor of Anthropology, Chair

Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Professor of Anthropology

Sissel Schroeder, Associate Professor of Anthropology

Larry Nesper, Associate Professor of Anthropology

William Aylward, Associate Professor of Classics

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. Problem statement 10

1.2. Project results 11

2. Background

2.1. History of Ertebølle research in Denmark 16

2.2. The Ertebølle period in Denmark 19

2.2.1. Chronology 20

2.2.2. Settlement 22

2.2.3. Subsistence 23

2.2.4. Fishing technology 24

2.2.5. Other technology 31

2.2.6. Fishing before and after the Ertebølle period 34

2.2.7. Mesolithic fishing in other parts of Europe 36

2.3. Bone isotope studies of diet 42

2.4. Theoretical basis 49

2.5. Zooarchaeological quantification 60

3. Creating the Record

3.1. Deposition, preservation and recovery 66

3.1.1. Initial deposition 66

3.1.2. Post-depositional events 69

3.1.3. Excavation 72

3.2. Laboratory analysis 74

4. Materials

4.1. Sites analyzed for this project 78

4.1.1. Asnæs Havnemark 78

4.1.2. Dragsholm and Bøgebjerg 82

4.1.3. Fårevejle 88

4.1.4. Havnø 91

4.1.5. Jesholm I 92

4.1.6. Lollikhuse 93

4.1.7. Nederst 94

4.2. Sites from the literature 97

5. Results

5.1. Recovery and preservation 108

5.1.1. Differential recovery 108

5.1.2. Differential preservation 119

5.2. Intra-site variability 141

5.3. Regional differences 168

6. Discussion

6.1. The individual sites 178

6.2. Fishing technology 187

6.3. Seasonality 196

6.4. The social lives of fishing foragers 204

7. Conclusions and Future Opportunities for Research

7.1. Conclusions 207

7.2. Future research opportunities 210

8. Acknowledgements 212

9. Works cited 215

Appendix I: Notes on fish taxonomy and identification 242

Appendix II: Comparative collection prepared for the project 249

Appendix III: Summary data for analyzed fish assemblages 251

Appendix IV: Complete notes for analyzed assemblages 260

List of Figures

Figure

1. Map of Denmark with selected sites

2. An overview of Paleolithic/Mesolithic chronology

3. Bone harpoon

4. Leister reconstruction

5. Fishhooks from Nederst

6. Fishhooks from Asnæs Havnemark

7. Net float

8. Fish trap

9. Modern dugout

10. Tybrind Vig paddle

11. Core and flake axes from Dragsholm

12. Ground stone axe from Dragsholm

13. Bone tools from Dragsholm

14. Ertebølle pottery

15. Diet breadth model

16. High search/pursuit cost ratio

17. High pursuit/search cost ratio

18. Effect of changes in search costs

19. Effect of changes in pursuit costs

20. Correlation between NTAXA and NISP

21. Anguillidae ceratohyal measurement

22. Gadidae otolith measurement

23. Anguillidae cleithrum measurement

24. Vertebra measurement

25. Excavations at Asnæs Havnemark

26. Trench 3 at Asnæs Havnemark

27. Dragsholm and Bøgebjerg excavations

28. North wall of Trench 11 displaying clear stratigraphy

29. Excavations at Fårevejle

30. Horizontal distribution of fish remains in Trench 1 at Fårevejle

31. Western wall of Trench 1 at Fårevejle

32. Excavation in Trench 1 at Fårevejle

33. Excavation at Havnø in 2006

34. Almost underwater archaeology at Jesholm I

35. Human burial from Nederst

36. Dog burial from Nederst

37. Processing matrix samples through nested geologic screens

38. Relative percentages of fish types by screen size at Dragsholm

39. Relative percentages of fish types by screen size at Asnæs Havnemark

40. Relative percentages of fish types by screen size at Nederst

41. Relative abundance by level for Trench 11 at Dragsholm

42. Cod lengths Level 8 Dragsholm

43. Cod lengths Level 7C Dragsholm

44. Gadid lengths Level 8 Dragsholm

45. Gadid lengths Level 7C Dragsholm

46. Gadid lengths Level 7B Dragsholm

47. Gadid lengths from all levels combined

48. Flatfish sizes from Dragsholm (all levels)

49. Flatfish sizes from Level 7B Dragsholm

50. Flatfish sizes from Level 7CDragsholm

51. Flatfish sizes from Level 8 Dragsholm

52. Relative abundance by level for Trench 1 at Fårevejle

53. Relative abundance by level for Trenches 2 and 3 at Bøgebjerg

54. Relative abundance by level at Asnæs Havnemark

55. Cod sizes from all levels Asnæs Havnemark

56. Cod sizes from the Culture Layer Asnæs Havnemark

57. Cod sizes from the Shell Layer Asnæs Havnemark

58. Cod sizes from the Brown Surface Asnæs Havnemark

59. Cod sizes from the Grey Layer Asnæs Havnemark

60. Anguillidae size distribution at Asnæs Havnemark

61. Relative abundance by level at Lollikhuse

62. Relative abundance by level at Nederst skalydynge I

63. Relative abundance for Nederst skaldynge II

64. Relative abundance within Level 10 at Nederst

65. Relative abundance within Level 13 at Nederst

66. Relative abundance within Level 20 at Nederst

67. Relative abundance within the Shell at Nederst

68. Relative abundance within the Culture layer at Asnæs Havnemark

69. Relative abundance within Layer 7B at Dragsholm

70. Relative abundance within Layer 7C at Dragsholm

71. Relative abundance within Layer 8 at Dragsholm

72. Anguillidae size distribution at Nederst

73. Pleuronectidae size distribution at Nederst

74. Relative abundance for two squares at Norsminde

75. Relative abundance for three samples in the N-column at Ertebølle

76. Relative abundance (minus Syngnathidae) for three samples in the N-column at

Ertebølle

77. Percentages of fish by site

78. Relative abundance of Gadidae (larger fish) versus mesh-size

79. Relative abundance of Gadidae (larger fish) versus mesh-size using screen-test

results

80. NTAXA versus (Log) NISP for selected sites

81. Plot of Shannon index values

82. Plot of Shannon index values versus (Log) NISP

83. Hypothesized seasonal resource availability

List of Tables

Table

1. Key to fish families

2. Distribution of fish remains at Asnæs Havnemark

3. Distribution of fish remains at Dragsholm

4. Distribution of fish remains at Bøgebjerg

5. Distribution of fish remains at Fårevejle

6. Context information for samples from skaldynge II at Nederst

7. Context information for samples from skaldynge I at Nederst

8. Distribution of fish remains for skaldynge I at Nederst

9. Distribution of fish remains at Smakkerup Huse

10. Other Late Mesolithic sites with fish bones

11. Identified fish remains from the screen-test samples at Asnæs Havnemark

12. Identified fish remains from the screen-test samples at Dragsholm

13. Comparison by screen size for the screen test samples from Dragsholm

14. Comparison by screen size for the screen test samples from Asnæs Havnemark

15. Comparison by screen size for the screen test samples from Nederst

16. Results from Asnæs Havnemark by excavator

17. Results from Dragsholm by excavator

18. Results from Fårevejle by excavator

19. Weights from Asnæs Havnemark

20. Weights from Fårevejle

21. Weights from Bøgebjerg

22. Weights from Dragsholm

23. Examination of degree of completeness of vertebrae at Asnæs Havnemark

24. Examination of degree of completeness of vertebrae at Nederst

25. Examination of degree of completeness of vertebrae at Dragsholm

26. Expected versus actual presence Gadidae from Asnæs Havnemark

27. Expected versus actual presence Anguillidae from Asnæs Havnemark

28. Expected versus actual presence Pleuronectidae from Asnæs Havnemark

29. Expected versus actual presence of Gadidae elements from Dragsholm

30. Expected versus actual presence of Gadidae by level from Dragsholm

31. Expected versus actual presence of Gadidae elements from Dragsholm, otoliths

omitted

32. Expected versus actual presence of Pleuronectidae elements from Dragsholm

33. Expected versus actual presence of Pleuronectidae by level from Dragsholm

34. Expected versus actual presence of Anguillidae elements from Dragsholm

35. Expected versus actual presence of Gadidae elements from Fårevejle

36. Expected versus actual presence of Pleuronectidae elements from Fårevejle

37. Expected versus actual presence of Anguillidae elements from Fårevejle

38. Expected versus actual presence of Gadidae elements from Bøgebjerg

39. Expected versus actual presence of Pleuronectidae elements from Bøgebjerg

40. Expected versus actual presence of Gadidae elements from Nederst

41. Expected versus actual presence of Pleuronectidae elements from Nederst

42. Expected versus actual presence of Anguillidae elements from Nederst

43. Expected versus actual presence of Trachinidae elements from Nederst

44. Expected versus actual presence of Gadidae elements from Lollikhuse

45. Combined actual versus expected percentage values for Gadidae

46. Combined actual versus expected percentage values for Pleuronectidae

47. Combined actual versus expected percentage values for Anguillidae

48. Vertebra count by level for Trench 11 at Dragsholm

49. Relative abundance by level for Trench 11 at Dragsholm

50. Gadid sizes from Dragsholm

51. Pleuronectidae sizes from Dragsholm

52. Vertebra count by level for Trench 1 at Fårevejle

53. Relative abundance by level for Trench 1 at Fårevejle

54. Cod sizes at Fårevejle based on otoliths

55. Pleuronectidae sizes at Fårevejle based on first vertebrae

56. Vertebra count by level for Trenches 2 and 3 at Bøgebjerg

57. Relative abundance by level for Trenches 2 and 3 at Bøgebjerg

58. Vertebra count by level at Asnæs Havnemark

59. Relative abundance by level at Asnæs Havnemark

60. Cod sizes at Asnæs Havnemark based on otoliths

61. Anguillidae sizes by level at Asnæs Havnemark based on ceratohyal

62. Vertebra counts by level at Lollikhuse

63. Relative abundance by level at Lollikhuse

64. Vertebra counts by level at Nederst skaldynge I

65. Relative abundance by level at Nederst skaldynge I

66. Anguillidae sizes by level at Nederst

67. Pleuronectidae sizes by level at Nederst

68. Percentage of fish by family for sites on Jutland

69. Percentage of fish by family for sites on Zealand

70. NISP and NTAXA for selected sites

71. NTAXA for Ertebølle sites

72. Occurrence of Trachinidae

73. Ubiquity of Trachinidae at six sites

74. Evaluating technology and specialization versus generalization

75. Occurrence of Scombridae

76. Occurrence of Belonidae

77. Seasonality based on otolith growth rings for Nederst

78. Seasonality based on otolith growth rings for Norsminde

79. Seasonality of catch from 1885 fishery data (cod, flatfish, mackerel and garfish)

80. Seasonality of catch from 1885 fishery data (herring and eel)

1. Introduction

1.1 Problem statement

The Late Mesolithic Ertebølle period in Denmark (ca. 5400-4000 B.C.) has

attracted the interest of archaeologists and other researchers for a number of reasons

including: excellent conditions of preservation for organic materials that provide almost

unparalleled information on both past human societies and environmental conditions; an

archaeological record interpreted as showing a sedentary, complex society based on a

hunter-gatherer economy; and the continuation of this hunter-gatherer economy in

close proximity to nearby agriculturists for at least a thousand years before a sudden

transformation of society that rapidly led to the construction of monumental structures

that are some of the most impressive records of Early Neolithic cultures known in

Europe. One aspect of the Ertebølle culture that must be recognized is that it was

primarily a coastal adaptation with a focus on marine resources, especially fish.

Evidence for this includes site locations, animal remains recovered from sites,

technology (e.g., dugout canoes, fish hooks, harpoons, leisters, fish fences/traps) and

dietary studies using isotopic analyses of human (and sometimes dog) bones

(Andersen 1995, Enghoff 1994a, Fischer 1993, Fischer et al. 2007, Noe-Nygaard 1988,

Pedersen 1995, Richards et al. 2003, Tauber 1981). Because of the importance of fish

during the Ertebølle period, the recovery and analysis of archaeological fish remains

provides an excellent source of information about many aspects of culture. Despite the

exemplary archaeological record and long history of research, a number of questions

regarding the fishery of the Ertebølle period remain. While the types of fish that were

exploited are known, their relative contributions to subsistence, the seasonality of

exploitation and even the preferred methods of procurement are generally not well

understood. Compounding these knowledge lacunae, the information that is available

has often been generalized without due consideration for regional and temporal

differences. Finally, while the settlement pattern of the Ertebølle period has often been

described as mostly sedentary (e.g., Madsen et al. 1900, Price 2000, Rowley-Conwy

1983), markers for occupation of sites in every season and other evidence supporting

this claim remain elusive. This study of archaeological fish remains combines source

criticism (i.e., review of excavation and analysis methodology to assess the quality of

the data) with new laboratory analyses of fish bones to address these questions.

1.2 Project results

Identification of over 110,000 fish bones from 8 sites (Asnæs Havnemark,

Bøgebjerg, Dragsholm, Fårevejle, Havnø, Jesholm I, Lollikhuse and Nederst) is a

significant contribution from this study to our understanding of subsistence during the

Ertebølle period. Combined with previously published results, ca. 222,000 fish bones

from dozens of sites constitute an enormous data set available for investigations (see

map in Figure 1 for site locations). Consideration of how these data are converted into

archaeological interpretations is an important topic that must be explicitly examined

(and is, see below), but for now it is sufficient to report two major findings from this

project: fishing activities were more specialized in eastern than in western Denmark and

there is evidence that the fishery was considerably more dynamic than previously

acknowledged. Most sites in eastern Denmark display a marked dominance of fish from

the cod family (Gadidae, see Table 1 for fish families) in the recovered remains, while in

western Denmark the most common fish varies between sites and some sites (e.g.,

Bjørnsholm and Nederst) show a highly diversified fishery. Furthermore, where it is

possible to separate site deposits chronologically (especially Dragsholm, but also other

sites), there are often diachronic changes in the relative percentage of fishes and/or the

sizes of the fish most commonly captured. Examining changes through time during the

Ertebølle period by comparing different sites is complicated by dating issues, but even

here there appears to be at least some support for variability.

Questions about the comparability of data from different sites are

addressed by this project and represent an important advance in studies of Ertebølle

subsistence. Differential recovery is an issue of fundamental importance in the creation

of any excavated data set, but its full impact has seldom been recognized or addressed

with regard to Mesolithic fish remains. Many of the Ertebølle sites that have produced

fish remains were excavated without the use of screens to aid in the recovery of smaller

specimens. For this reason, they generally have fish bone assemblages with few

specimens and the representativeness of the samples is very much in question. These

sites are included here for the sake of completeness, but they do not form part of the

dataset that is used for quantitative analysis. Even where screens were used, the mesh

size of the screens is not always the same – raising doubts as to whether any

differences noted between sites are an artifact of different recovery techniques or real

variability in human activities. Experiments with recovery using various mesh-size

screens at three sites (Asnæs Havnemark, Dragsholm and Nederst) allow evaluation of

the impact of different methods of excavation on fish assemblages from Ertebølle sites.

Not surprisingly, smaller mesh-sizes lead to the recovery of smaller fish remains. Since

certain types of fish almost never grow to large size (e.g., herring and eel) these fishes

can contribute a significant percentage of the overall assemblage only on those sites

that were excavated with smaller mesh-size screens. This is especially important in light

of the fact that larger (3.5-4 mm) mesh screens were used on excavations in eastern

Denmark and smaller (0.5-2 mm) mesh was used on most excavations in western

Denmark. A second aspect of differential recovery that has not previously been

recognized in connection with fish bones from Ertebølle sites is the impact of excavator

bias. By comparing the results from different people at the same site, using the same

excavation techniques, it can be shown that the skill and experience of the excavator

affects the recovered assemblage. In general, better excavation technique results in the

recovery of a larger diversity of skeletal elements and more specimens from smaller fish

species.

Another important finding of this study is the importance of considering

intra-site variation in fish assemblages. Previous discussions of fish remains from

Ertebølle sites have treated the materials as if they came from undifferentiated deposits.

While summary data for entire sites are presented here, investigation of variation within

the deposits is also highlighted. With this approach, differences in fishing can be

observed either vertically (e.g., Dragsholm, Bøgebjerg and Fårevejle) or horizontally

(e.g., Norsminde and Nederst). Interpretation of the precise causes of the variability

requires consideration of site-specific contextual information, but recognizing Ertebølle

fisheries as dynamic rather than static phenomena presents interesting interpretative

opportunities. The importance of these findings will undoubtedly lead to more

comprehensive analysis and publication of results from other sites in the future.

Finally, creating faunal data is only significant for archaeology in so far as it

advances understanding of past human culture. To date, a failure to come to grips with

the methodological and theoretical challenges associated with interpreting fish bone

data has limited conclusions to post hoc, qualitative statements about the nature of

fishing. Diet breadth modeling introduced from the evolutionary framework of behavioral

ecology is used to generate predictions about why assemblages differ from each other.

Recognizing the factors that shift foraging behaviors between more generalized or

specialized strategies and the effect this has on other aspects of culture allows fish

bone data to contribute to cultural interpretations. While still incorporating environmental

variables, the effects of different technologies (fishing tools and watercraft) on foraging

decisions are emphasized by this approach. The seasonal subsistence cycle,

territoriality, and group social organization are other topics addressed by the results.

Ending the current torpor in the study of Ertebølle fishing through firmly grounded,

quantitative analyses of the rich data set that is available provides fresh insights into the

Late Mesolithic period in Denmark.

Family Examples English Dansk

Ammodytidae Hyperoplus/Ammodytes Sand-eel Tobis

Anguillidae Anguilla anguilla Eel Ål

Belonidae Belone belone Garfish Hornfisk

Callionymidae Callionymus lyra Dragonet Stribet fløjfisk

Carangidae Trachurus trachurus Atlantic horse mackerel Hestemakrel

Clupeidae Clupea harengus, Alosa sp. Herring, shad Sild, majfisk

Cottidae Myoxocephalus scorpius Bull-rout Almindelig ulk

Cyprinidae

Tinca tinca, Rutilus rutilus, Abramis

abramis

Tench, roach, common

bream Suder, skalle, brasen

Dasyatidae Dasyatis pastinaca Common stingray Pilrokke

Engraulidae Engraulis engrasicholus Anchovy Ansjos

Esocidae Esox lucius Pike Gedde

Gadidae

Gadus morhua, Melanogrammus

aeglefinus, Pollachius virens Cod, haddock, saithe Torsk, kuller, sej

Gasterosteidae Gasterosteus aculeatus 3-spined stickleback Trepigget hundestejle

Gobiidae Gobius niger Black goby Sort kutling

Lamnidae Lamna nasus Porbeagle Sildehaj

Moronidae Dicentrarchus labrax European sea bass Havbars

Percidae Perca fluviatilis, Sander lucioperca Perch, pike-perch Aborre, sandart

Pleuronectidae

Pleuronectes platessa, Platichthys flesus,

Limanda limanda Plaice, flounder, dab Rødspætte, skrubbe, ising

Rajidae Raja clavata Thornback ray Sømrokke

Salmonidae Salmo trutta, Coregonus sp., Salmo salar Trout, whitefish, salmon Ørred, laks, helt

Scombridae Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel Makrel

Scophthalmidae Psetta maxima, Scophthalmus rhombus Turbot, brill Pighvarre, slethvarre

Sparidae Spondyliosoma cantharus Black sea bream Havrude

Squalidae Squalus acanthias Spurdog Pighaj

Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp. Pipefish Tangnål

Trachinidae Trachinus draco Greater weever Almindelig fjæsing

Triakidae Galeorhinus galeus, Mustelus sp. Topeshark, smoothhound Gråhaj, glathaj

Triglidae Trigla lucerna, Eutrigla gurnardus Tub gurnard, grey gurnard Rød knurhane, grå knurhane

Xiphiidae Xiphias gladius Swordfish Sværdfisk

Zoarcidae Zoarces viviparus Viviparous eelpout Ålekvabbe

Table 1: Key to fish families found in Danish Mesolithic assemblages (see Appendix I for

more information).

Figure 1: Map of Denmark with selected sites from the text. (Numbers 1-7 show sites

that were analyzed for this project.) 1:Havnø 2:Jesholm I 3:Nederst 4:Asnæs

Havnemark 5:Bøgebjerg and Dragsholm 6:Fårevejle 7:Lollikhuse 8:Yderhede and

Østenkær 9:Bjørnsholm and Ertebølle 10:Lystrup Enge 11:Norsminde 12:Tybrind Vig

and Ronæs Skov 13:Møllegabet II 14:Smakkerup Huse 15:Vedbæk complex of sites.

2. Background

2.1 History of Ertebølle Research in Denmark

Stone Age archaeology can be said to have begun in Denmark, when

Christian Jürgensen Thomsen was hired to catalog and organize the collections of the

Danish Royal Commission for the Collection and Preservation of Antiquities (forerunner

to the National Museum) and created the three-age system of an early Stone Age,

intermediate Bronze Age and later Iron Age (Thomsen 1836). Although research on

prehistoric archaeology had begun earlier, it was the publication of his scheme that truly

began the process of dividing prehistory into sequential periods, defined on aspects of

material culture. Important as this early step was, it was left to subsequent researchers

to develop a modern, scientific archaeology (see Fischer and Kristiansen 2002 for a

more complete discussion of the development of Danish Stone Age archaeology,

including English translations of some of the seminal writings by important figures. The

information in this section is based on this source, except where specifically noted

otherwise). While recognizing the significance of the three-age system for organizing

archaeological information, it is also appropriate to mention a negative effect of its

introduction: the beginnings of a segmented approach to prehistory that led to an

overemphasis on typological traits and the boundaries between periods. It would take

many decades before archaeologists shifted their attention to the processes that

created the cultural variation revealed by the differences in material culture.

The formation of the Lejre Committee, later known as the First Kitchen

Midden Commission, marked a crucial stage for archaeology, defining it as an

independent research discipline and instituting the practice of interdisciplinary research

involving branches of the natural sciences. In the 1840-60s, the zoologist Johannes

Japetus Smith Steenstrup, geologist Johan Georg Forchhammer and archaeologist

Jens Jacob Asmussen Worsaae examined several shell midden sites in Denmark to

answer the question of whether they were natural or man-made occurrences. In addition

to concluding that the sites were indeed, anthropogenic, these investigations also set

new standards for excavation and documentation of the results. Equally significant was

the realization by Worsaae that the Stone Age could be further subdivided into an

earlier period (represented by the kitchen middens) and a later period (known from the

megalithic monuments and related materials). Steenstrup vehemently opposed this

division and publicly criticized Worsaae’s conclusions. Time has proven Worsaae’s

interpretation to be sound, but it is interesting that much of Steenstrup’s mistrust of it

was based on opposition to the concept of a progression from a simple to a more

advanced state – a critique of unilineal cultural evolution that would not sound out of

place in some theoretical discussions today.

In the latter part of the 19th century, after a renewed series of disputes

between professional archaeologists and others with an interest in the topic over the

subdivision of the Stone Age, a Second Kitchen Midden Committee was established

under the leadership of Sophus Müller. Some previously excavated shell midden sites

were revisited and new locations were also tested. The results were published in 1900

in Affaldsdynger fra Stenalderen I Danmark: undersøgte for Nationalmuseet, a volume

that remains an important reference work for Stone Age research over a century later

(Madsen et al. 1900). While confirming Worsaae’s interpretation, the investigations also

resulted in the recognition that some of the middens contained materials from both

earlier and later periods. These excavations also established the methodology of

digging in square meter units, subdivided into 10-20 cm levels, and rigorously tabulating

the artifacts recovered from each context. Unfortunately, Müller’s autocratic personality

caused many natural scientists to leave the National Museum, leaving it reliant on

external experts to perform this type of work.

This deficit in expertise continued until new leadership came to the National

Museum in the form of Therkel Mathiassen in the 1930s. Recognizing the importance of

the new science of palynology, he instigated a series of investigations specifically

focused on bog sites where ancient pollen can be preserved. This ultimately led to the

return of the natural sciences to the National Museum in the form of the bog-geological

laboratory. The other important impact of palynology on archaeology was the

introduction of an empirically-based ecological perspective to the study of prehistory.

Another contribution by Mathiassen was the initiation of an ambitious series of surveys

throughout Denmark aimed to expand the number of known sites to allow study of

settlement patterns. The results of surveys along the major inland waterways in central

Jutland led Mathiassen to define a distinctive inland Mesolithic culture named after one

of the rivers (Gudenå) along which it occurred, beginning a long-running debate over

whether inland and coastal sites were used by the same people or represented distinct

adaptations (Mathiassen 1937). The Third Kitchen Midden Committee was formed

during this period, with its most important product being the 1942 publication of the

results of excavations on Djursland peninsula, especially at Dyrholmen. These results

linked archaeological cultural units with changes in vegetation and sea-level and also

led to further subdivision of both the early and the later periods of the Stone Age. The

ecological approach to archaeology institutionalized the inclusion of natural science

research into archaeological investigations, while leading to some tension between

interpretations offered by the proponents of the various disciplines involved in the

research. Attempts to resolve this conflict by the integration of archaeological and

natural science perspectives, most notably by the research of Jørgen Troels-Smith in

the Åmose of Zealand, met with only limited success, and a period of limited progress in

Stone Age research followed.

The 1960s and 1970s saw a return to vigorous investigation of the Danish

Stone Age that has continued to the present day, in part inspired by researchers and

theoretical perspectives imported from abroad. A focus on economic processes inspired

new research into the Ertebølle and subsequent Neolithic periods through survey,

excavation, floral and faunal analyses, and archaeometry. Although some fish bones

had been identified from excavations as early as the 19th century, Inge Bødker Enghoff

expanded the number of fish bones identified from Ertebølle sites by an order of

magnitude and publicized the importance of heretofore discounted smaller fish species.

Excavation (and re-excavation) of shell midden sites by Søren H. Andersen and Erik

Johansen constituted a ‘Fourth Kitchen Midden Committee’ (Kristiansen 2002:25). As a

result of the new activity, ideas about mobility, settlement, subsistence and social

components of Stone Age cultures were reevaluated and, where necessary,

reformulated. One major advance that occurred was the recognition that the previously

discussed distinctive ‘Gudenå culture’ that existed along the inland riverways of Jutland

was in fact the result of repeated use of the same localities by multiple Mesolithic

cultures – including Ertebølle (Andersen 1971a). Another significant development was

the advent of underwater surveys and excavations of submerged Ertebølle sites (e.g.,

Fischer 1993). This has proven especially important for understanding fishing

technology through the recovery of organic artifacts that are only rarely recovered from

terrestrial sites (Andersen 1985). New survey projects on Zealand, initiated by T.

Douglas Price, focused on regional settlement systems.

This dynamic period of research continues, with insights accumulating

apace. New finds emerge from every season of excavation and new approaches to the

existing data alter our understanding of the period. It is now appropriate give a brief

overview of the archaeological evidence in order to understand the current state of

knowledge about the Ertebølle period.

2.2 The Ertebølle period in Denmark

Ertebølle is the final hunter-gatherer tradition in areas of modern day

Denmark, Southern Sweden and Northern Germany, dated to ca. 5400-4000 B.C. in

Denmark. The Ertebølle replaces the Kongemose culture in the middle of the Atlantic

climactic period, a time of complex interaction between isostasy and eustasy that made

for a dynamic coastal zone. During the Ertebølle period people experienced repeated

episodes of the sea intruding upon the land and then retreating; changes that were at

times so rapid that they would have been noticeable in an individual’s lifetime (C.

Christensen 1995, Donner 1995, Hede 2003, Schmölcke et al. 2006). On land,

Denmark was largely covered by climax forests of lime, oak and hazel (Aaby 1993).

The development of the Ertebølle culture from the preceding Kongemose

was influenced by changes in environmental conditions, but it was also at least partly in

response to the spread of Linearbandkeramik (LBK) farming groups through central

Europe around 5500 B.C. Evidence for contact with the subsequent farming groups that

emerged around 5000 B.C. (e.g., Rössen, Michelberg) includes T-shaped antler axes,

bone combs and rings, Danubian shaft-hole axes and (after 4600 B.C.) pottery (Arias

1999, Fischer 2003, Klassen 2002, Petersen 1984).

Ertebølle culture is not completely uniform throughout Denmark and eastern

and western groups can be distinguished based on the distribution of T-shaped antler

axes, bone combs and rings, Danubian shaft-hole axes, bone harpoon styles, bird-bone

points and pottery form and decoration (Klassen 2002, Petersen 1984, Prangsgaard

1992). The dividing line seems to be at the Great Belt channel separating Funen and

Zealand, although the demonstrated ability of Ertebølle people to cross the seas

suggests that this border should not be considered impermeable. Smaller regional

groupings can also be discerned (see below).

2.2.1 Chronology

The Ertebølle period in Denmark stretches from approximately 5400-4000

cal B.C., corresponding to about the second half of the Atlantic climatic period (see

Figure 2 for an overview of Paleolithic/Mesolithic chronology for Denmark, including

cultural, geological and ecological changes). The Ertebølle period is often divided into

early, middle and late phases (respectively labeled Trylleskov, Stationsvej and

Ålekistebro in the East), although previously (especially in western Denmark) a

dichotomous division between aceramic and ceramic periods (Dyrholmen I and

Dyrholmen II) was preferred. In addition to pottery, changes in blade production

techniques, projectile points, stone axes and other flint tool types are used to define the

sub-phases (Petersen 1984).

Figure 2: An overview of Paleolithic/Mesolithic chronology for Denmark (from

Johansson 1998).

2.2.2 Settlement

The Ertebølle culture is best known from the famous shellmiddens

(køkkenmøddinger in Danish) including the eponymous site on the Limfjord in northern

Jutland, but the shellmiddens are only known from northern and northeastern Denmark

– and even here other sites exist without the shell deposits (Andersen 2008). While

primarily a coastal culture, inland sites are also known – especially near rivers and

lakes. Many sites appear to have been occupied year-round, but special purpose sites

are also known (e.g., Agernæs, Aggersund and Ringkloster) (Andersen 1991, Møhl

1978, Richter and Noe-Nygaard 2003). The remains of domestic features are not

common on most sites; those found generally consist of pits and hearths built of stone

or clay, but the impoverished record may be misleading as other constructions of

perishable materials could easily disappear without leaving a trace. Three Danish sites

have features that have been interpreted as the remains of houses: Lollikhuse, Nivå and

Møllegabet (O. Jensen 2001, Skaarup 1995, Sørensen 1992). The structures were

slightly built and modestly sized (from ca. 2x3 m to 4x6 m), with room for perhaps one

or two families.

Coastal sites were usually placed at locations with good fishing possibilities,

especially at the mouths of estuaries or centrally located within them (Andersen 2007,

Fischer 1993, 2007). Preference seems to have been given to locations that faced onto

at least partially sheltered waters (not surprising, given the limited ability of dugout

canoes to manage in rough seas) although exposed coasts were also used. In his

analysis of shell midden placement, Andersen has noted that the largest middens are

spaced 9-15 km apart and often surrounded by smaller satellite middens (2007:34). Axe

styles have been used as markers of group territories on Zealand, with an estimate of 6-

8 groups for the whole of the island (Petersen 1984). Clusters of human burials (e.g.,

Nederst, Bøgebakken) have been interpreted as cemeteries (Larsson 1990, Price et al.

1995), surely a marker of strong attachment to a territory, but other researchers are not

convinced of the formal cemetery status (Meiklejohn et al. 1998). Recent publication of

evidence for cremation burials highlights the complex nature of Mesolithic mortuary

ritual (Petersen and Meiklejohn 2003).

2.2.3 Subsistence

The only domesticates unequivocally possessed by people of the Ertebølle

period were dogs, and while undoubtedly eaten on some occasions, the numerous dog

burials suggest they were more than just a food source. The vast majority of foods had

to have come from wild animals and plants.

Fish remains numbering in the millions have been encountered during

excavations on Ertebølle sites and shellfish are found in similarly astounding quantities

at some sites (Andersen 2008a). Initially characterized as a cod and flounder focused

fishery (Clark 1975), later researchers have emphasized the role of eel and other fishes

(Enghoff 1986, 1991, Smart 2003). Evidence from this project demonstrates the veracity

of the suggestion that fisheries varied regionally and an all-inclusive description of an

Ertebølle fishery in Denmark is not warranted (Enghoff 1994a:89). Fishing was not

restricted to the coast during this period, as freshwater fish are represented in some

assemblages even at coastal sites, but considering the totality of identified specimens

from Ertebølle sites, marine or brackish-water fish have been recovered in much greater

numbers (Enghoff 1986). Inland sites have generally produced much smaller fish bone

assemblages than coastal ones and some inland sites even have bones from fully

marine species (Enghoff 1994a). Finally, it should be noted that in addition to their role

as food, fish could sometimes provide raw materials for tools (Noe-Nygaard 1971).

Mammals, both marine and terrestrial, also played an important role in

subsistence. Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), red deer (Cervus elaphus) and wild pig

(Sus scrofa) were the most important food species, but a wide variety of other animals

are found in faunal assemblages (e.g., Bratlund 1991, Enghoff 2009, Hede 2005,

Richter and Noe-Nygaard 2003). Some animals were probably targeted more for their

furs than their food value (Richter 2005, Trolle-Lassen 1987), and widespread use of

antler for tools may have been part of the reason for cervid hunting. A noticeable

difference between eastern and western Denmark is the paucity of aurochs (Bos

primigenius) and moose (Alces alces) specimens in eastern assemblages during the

Ertebølle period, as these animals are believed to have already been extinct on the

islands by this time (Aaris-Sørensen 1998). Birds (especially waterfowl) were targeted

for food and may have also been hunted as a source of raw materials; the more fragile

nature of their bones may mean they were more important than their representation in

archaeological assemblages suggests (Noe-Nygaard 1987).

The role of plants in Ertebølle subsistence regimes is generally not well

known. Fruits (e.g., apple, hawthorn, raspberries), roots (e.g., sea beets), seeds (e.g.,

floating sweet grass) and other plant parts (e.g., reed stems), have been documented

from a few sites (especially Tybrind Vig, Halsskov and Smakkerup Huse), but even

when present, they are rare, and it is not clear if this is because of

preservation/recovery effects or because they played only a minor role in diets (see

Kubiak-Martens 1999 and 2002, Mason 2005, Perry 2005 for a complete listing of

species identified). Hazelnuts are a notable exception to the dearth of evidence for plant

use, as nutshells are recovered in considerable quantities from many Mesolithic

deposits. They may have been a food source that was easily procured by the young and

old who were not able to participate in other subsistence activities (e.g., hunting and

fishing). Different plant foods are available seasonally from the spring through fall, and

nuts may have been stored as a dietary supplement for the winter (Kubiak-Martens

1999). Considering the diversity of fish, mammals, birds and plants available to the

Ertebølle people, their resource base can be described as a rich one (while not

discounting the episodic shortages that would have inevitably occurred). Faced with

obtaining many different resources, the Ertebølle people developed a toolkit with its own

impressive diversity.

2.2.4 Fishing technology

The tools of the fisherman include both the implements used to capture fish

and the watercraft used to gain access to them or transport the catch back to camp.

Even when fishing is conducted from shore, watercraft greatly expand the number of

locations that can be reached and expand the potential catch (Ames 2002). Capture

technology is often divided into active (requiring participation of a fisherman) and

passive (unattended) methods; although for archaeological purposes this distinction

may be less useful in that many remains (hooks, nets, fences/weirs) could be from

active or passive fishing depending on how they were used (Brinkhuizen 1983, Rostlund

1952, Åhrberg 2007). Nevertheless, the following fishing implements will be presented

in generally descending order from active to passive usage.

Fish spears/leisters and bone harpoons are implements that indisputably

require wielding by a person to function. Ertebølle bone harpoons are the tip of thrusting

weapons presumably designed to detach from the shaft and remain lodged in the prey

while an attached line aids in recovery of the animal (see Figure 3). Harpoons were

likely intended to capture sea mammals such as seals or small whales but could also

have been employed against large fish, especially when they came in to shallow waters

to spawn (e.g., pike). Wooden prongs from leisters are found on many coastal sites and,

“are always numerous on Middle and Late Ertebølle sites with good preservation

conditions for organics,” (Andersen 1995:57). Two different prongs are recognized: a

short version for hard substrates and a longer one for softer substrates (Andersen

1985). A very well-preserved specimen recovered from Næbbet with a hazel shaft and

hawthorn prongs lashed together with vegetable fibers allows reconstruction of their

appearance (see Figure 4) (Skaarup 1995:399). Bone points that are commonly found

on Ertebølle sites have been hypothesized to be fastened in the center of the leister

(Andersen 1995), although this claim is disputed (Pickard and Bonsall 2007:178). The

total time to construct a fish spear is estimated to be less than four hours (Lindström

1996:142).

Figure 3: Bone harpoon (Andersen 1971b). Figure 4: Leister reconstruction

(Skaarup 1983).

Fishhooks are an active fishing method when used in angling and passive

when multiple examples are attached to a long-line that is deployed with floats and

weights and checked periodically. The absence of barbs on most or all Ertebølle

examples argues against their use in a long-line fishery. Until quite recently hooks were

thought to have been carved only from large mammal long bones, but finds of hook

preforms at the Asnæs Havnemark excavation in 2007 show that bird bones (e.g., ulnas

from swans, Cygnus sp.) could also be used (Ulrich Schmölcke personal

communication 2007). Based on experimental work, production time for a single

fishhook is estimated at about one and a half hours (Harm Poulsen personal

communication 2009). It has been suggested that composite hooks of wood and bone

were also used, but the evidence is inconclusive (Jønsson and Pedersen 1983). Hooks

have been recovered in many sizes ranging from ca. 2-5 cm in length and at least two

forms are apparent: a u-shaped bend with long shank variety and a rarer v-shaped

variety where the point extends almost as far up the shank to where the line is attached

(see Figure 5, far left for an example; also Figure 6 third row from the top, third from the

left). Different sizes and shapes of hooks would have been selected depending on the

intended catch. At least 77 hooks or preforms are known from the following Danish

sites:

Ertebølle - 5 (4 from Madsen, 1 from Andersen) (Madsen et al 1900:67-68, Andersen 1986:58) Bjørnsholm – 7 (Andersen 1993:83, Enghoff 1994a:84) Tybrind Vig – 6 (one with line still attached) (Andersen 1985:60-61) Kolind – 2 (1 with barb) (Mathiassen et al 1942:44) Dyrholmen – 1 (Mathiassen et al 1942:44) Nederst – 10 (Enghoff 1994a:84) (but only 6 are listed in case file and photographed) Aggersund – 1 (Andersen 1995:57) Smakkerup Huse – 6 (2 whole and 4 fragments) (Price and Gebauer 2005:117) Dragsholm – minimum 7 Sønderholm – 1 (with barb) (Jønsson and Pedersen 1983:180) Bloksbjerg - 1 (Westerby 1927:102-104) Mejlgård - 1 (Madsen et al 1900:67) Asnæs Havnemark – 31 complete or partial hooks and preforms (see Figure 6) Sølager – 1 (Skaarup 1973)

Ingvorstrup -1 (Niels Axel Boas personal communication2009)

Figure 5: Fishhooks from Nederst (photo courtesy of Niels Axel Boas).

Figure 6: Examples of fishhooks and 6 preforms from Asnæs Havnemark. (Drawn by K. Ritchie)

Nets can be produced in a variety of configurations depending on whether

they are intended to be used actively as seine or dip nets or passively as pound or gill

nets. Fishing with nets would be more or less selective for type of fish depending on the

style. Finds of knotted fibers that have been interpreted as possible portions of fishing

nets are known from Tybrind Vig and the German site of Friesack, but they are too

fragmentary to provide information about how they would have been employed

(Andersen 1985, Gramsch 1987). Stronger evidence for net fishing during the Ertebølle

period comes from finds of net floats (Møllegabet I – Figure 7; Tybrind Vig, Tågerup)

and perforated stones that were likely net sinkers (Vængesø and Kolind I), though the

ways in which the nets were employed is still not apparent (Andersen 1985, Karsten

and Knarrström 2003, Mathiassen 1948, Skaarup 1983). Construction time varies

depending on the overall size of the net and the size of the mesh, but some examples

are estimated to require as many as 2200 hours (Lindström 1996:139).

Figure 7: Net float (Skaarup 1983).

The most passive of the fishing methods for which there is archaeological

evidence from the Ertebølle period are fish fences and traps. While fish fences or weirs

can be used to facilitate spearing or dip netting, this is usually done in rivers (Rostlund

1952). The coastal and lacustrine locations of the Ertebølle finds likely means they were

used in conjunction with basket traps. Neolithic fish fences were often sturdily built and

could be impressively long, but the evidence suggests that Mesolithic constructions

were smaller and less robust (Pedersen 1997). The number of long, straight poles

required for construction of the fences has been construed as evidence for

management (coppicing) of hazel groves to provide raw materials (K. Christensen

1997). Numerous finds of sections of fences and whole or partial basket traps

demonstrate that this method was widely employed during the Mesolithic period,

although whether it was always a mainstay of the fishery as has been claimed is

debatable (Andersen 1995, Fischer 2007, Pedersen 1995, Enghoff 1994a).

Construction of each basket trap may have required 10-15 hours and the fences many

more depending on their height and length (Lindström 1996). Once built however, they

would have provided a relatively high-return on effort during their use-life.

Figure 8: Fish trap (Andersen 1995).

Dugout canoes and paddles can be seen as a part of fishing technology

even if they were not directly used to capture fish. By allowing access to offshore fishing

grounds and expanding the stretch of coastline that could be exploited from a

settlement, canoes increased the harvest of fish. How far Mesolithic people fished from

the coast is debated (e.g., Clark 1948, Coles 1971, Pickard and Bonsall 2004), but the

generally shallow near-shore waters of the Danish coast and large size of some of the

Gadidae specimens argue strongly that canoes were used to transport fishermen to

offshore fishing grounds. Canoes would also have been useful in setting and retrieving

nets and placing fish fences. In contrast with Neolithic examples that were hewn from

many types of trees, Mesolithic dugout canoes were constructed from lime tree trunks –

although this difference may be due to sampling bias as Mesolithic canoes are known

from coastal areas and Neolithic examples come from inland sites (C. Christensen

1990, Nielsen and Gebauer 2005). Estimates of canoe lengths range up to 10 m for one

example from Tybrind Vig and there is even evidence that some examples contained

hearths onboard (Andersen 1986). Experimental reconstruction of dugout canoes

suggests that two people might have produced one with about a week’s labor (see

Figure 9) (C. Christensen 1990:140). Paddles were made from a wider variety of wood

(including ash, oak, hazel, lime and willow) and are either of a heart-shaped or elliptical

form (C. Christensen 1990). Famous examples from Tybrind Vig were carved with

intricate patterns which may have been intended as markers of group identity (Figure

10) (Andersen 1986).

Figure 9: Modern dugout (photo Niels Axel Boas). Figure 10: Tybrind Vig paddle

(Andersen 1986).

2.2.5 Other technology

Many areas of Denmark are blessed with rich deposits of high-quality flint

which allowed flint-knapping technology to become highly evolved. Certainly the

numerous tool and debitage finds on Ertebølle settlements attest to the importance of

stone tools in the time before metal tools arrived. Chipped stone tools that are

commonly found include: transverse arrow points, axes, scrapers, knives, borers, burins

and blades (Figure 11). The quantities of flint debitage on sites can be enormous.

Figure 11: Core and flake axes from Dragsholm.

Ground stone axes

While rare, imported stone axes (e.g. Danubian shaft-hole axes, jadeite

axes) show that ground stone technology (traditionally associated with Neolithic

cultures) was already being used in the Late Mesolithic period in Denmark (Figure 12)

(Klassen 2002). While trade in the axes may have been of a ‘down-the-line’ nature, they

nevertheless demonstrate far-ranging contacts between Ertebølle and other peoples.

Figure 12: Ground stone axe from Dragsholm.

Bone and antler tools

Animals were a central focus in the lives of Ertebølle hunter-gatherers and

provided furs/skins, sinews, bones and antlers as raw material, in addition to meat.

Many different types of tools were fashioned from bone or antler materials including:

antler axes, awls, ulna ‘daggers’, fishhooks, pressure flakers, and bone points (Figure

13). Some pieces of worked bone feature intricate geometric engravings (Nash 1998).

Figure 13: Bone tools from Dragsholm.

Pottery

Ertebølle people adopted ceramic technology around 4600 B.C., producing

two types of pottery: pointed bottom vessels for cooking or storage (see Figure 14) and

lamps. Investigation of burned food remains on potsherds has shown small cod and

plants were part of the menu, and ongoing archaeometric investigations promise further

dietary details to come (Andersen and Malmros 1984, Heron et al. 2007)

Figure 14: Ertebølle pottery.

Shell beads

Personal decorations such as animal tooth pendants, amber and shell

beads demonstrate the importance placed on personal adornment during the Ertebølle.

At least one shell bead was recovered during the excavation at Fårevejle. Recently, a

new type of shell bead has been described from Havnø that features a grooved

circumference instead of a central hole for attachment (Andersen 2008b). During the

analysis of the Nederst fish materials an example of this type of bead was found,

making Nederst only the second site with such a find.

This brief overview does not cover all of the different classes of material

evidence that have been recovered from Ertebølle sites, nor does it give an exhaustive

treatment of the categories mentioned. Hopefully what it does accomplish is instill a

sense of a well-adapted, technologically-sophisticated people living in a bountiful

environment. Appreciating that Ertebølle people were not ‘poor savages’ merely

struggling to stay alive makes investigation of the decisions that shaped their lifestyles

all the more compelling.

2.2.6 Fishing before and after the Ertebølle period

Studying the Ertebølle fishery is best done with due consideration for the

fisheries of the preceding and subsequent cultures; unfortunately, much less information

is available with which to assess these periods. In Europe, evidence for the use of fish

dates back to at least the Upper Paleolithic, although finds of fish in Denmark from this

period are probably not archaeological (Clark 1948, Rosenlund 1976). During the early

part of the Mesolithic (Maglemose period: 9700-6400 B.C.) finds of fish bones on

settlement sites are known from several locations. The fish that were taken were

freshwater species such as pike and wels (Siluris glanis) (Rosenlund 1976), but this is

not surprising as for the most part the coast was far from modern day Denmark. Early

Mesolithic coastal settlement and exploitation of marine resources is probably

underestimated due to eustatic sea-level rise that has inundated the archaic shorelines

(Price 1987:242). During the Kongemose period of the middle Mesolithic (ca. 6400-5400

B.C.) sea-levels were rising quickly and, “the ‘Fishing Stone Age’ had begun,” (C.

Christensen 1995:15). Sites such as Vænget Nord, Stationsvej 19, Carstensminde, and

Villingebæk Øst A demonstrate that marine (and diadromous) fish were now the focus

of the fishery, although a minor freshwater component is present in some of the

assemblages (Enghoff 1994, Rosenlund 1976). Gadidae and Pleuronectidae appear to

be the favored prey, although this is based mainly on two sites on Zealand with

reasonably large assemblages. The Kongemose culture is not well understood in

general, due to the relatively limited number of known sites (especially those with good

organic preservation). Hopefully future excavations will reveal more about the

immediate forerunner of the Ertebølle period.

The Ertebølle period is the last Mesolithic culture in Denmark; it is followed

by the early Neolithic Trichterbecher (TRB) culture after 4000 B.C. While in some ways

subsistence seems to have changed gradually during the transition to the Neolithic (wild

plants and animals continue to be important resources and some coastal sites continue

to be used), isotopic evidence shows a more radical abandonment of marine resources

(Fischer et al. 2007, Richards et al. 2003, Tauber 1981 – see section 2.3 for a more

complete discussion of this topic). Debate rages as to possible explanations for this shift

away from marine resources (Fischer 2007, Hedges 2004, Liden et al. 2004, Milner et

al. 2004), and recent work suggests that it may not be as abrupt as sometimes

described (Price 2005, Price et al. 2007). Zooarchaeological investigations tend to

support the hypothesis that marine resources were largely abandoned during this

transitional period, as fish remains (excepting shellfish) are extremely scarce at Early

Neolithic sites. Bjørnsholm has the only published early TRB fish assemblage of any

size, and it is only 252 specimens (Enghoff 1991). Other sites that may contain Early

Neolithic fish remains include Norsminde (1 specimen), Fårevejle, Åkonge, Magleholm,

Muldbjerg I and Sølager; although dating of some of these assemblages is uncertain

(Enghoff 1989, 1994, 1995, Rosenlund 1976). In contrast with the lack of fish bone

material, fishing technology (in the form of fish fences and traps) is well-documented

and dated from the Early Neolithic period (Pedersen 1995, 1997). Underwater

archaeological investigations near the island of Nekselø have documented fish fences

(dated 3550-2950 B.C.) stretching nearly a quarter of a kilometer into the ocean in

waters that were originally up to 5 meters deep (Fischer 2007:60-61). The amount of

labor and materials required for such a construction was enormous; it is difficult to

imagine this commitment of effort without the expectation of large catches of fish in

return. Possible explanations for the conflicting evidence for early Neolithic fishing

include: lack of attention to recovering fish bones during excavation of Neolithic sites,

poor preservation at these sites and changes in how fish remains were discarded

(Enghoff 1995, Fischer 2007, Milner et al 2004). In addition to the enigma of why

archaeologists have found evidence for fishing structures but few fish remains from the

Neolithic is the puzzle of why people would abandon (if they did) a resource that had

contributed so much to their survival for generations.

2.2.7 Mesolithic fishing in other parts of Europe

One of the reasons that Denmark’s Late Mesolithic economy has received

so much attention is the extraordinary amount of information available (e.g., great

quantities of fish bones). Although nowhere as rich as the Danish record (both in

numbers of sites where fish bones have been recovered and in the total number of fish

bones), other coastal areas of Europe have also produced information about their

Mesolithic fisheries. Southern Sweden and Northern Germany are of particular interest

because of the presence of other Ertebølle groups.

In Scania, southwestern Sweden, it was during the Kongemose period that

the earliest traces of fixed fishing devices and fish bones documenting exploitation of

marine waters occur. “Herring totally dominates the finds, followed by plaice, cod, eel

and salmon species…people caught or perhaps more likely hunted large tuna out in the

Öresund,” (Andersson et al. 2004:91). Significant Ertebølle fish bone assemblages are

known from sites such as Tågerup and Skateholm (Karsten and Knarrström 2003,

Jonnson 1986). The number of species exploited increased, cod increased in

importance and more pelagic species such as saithe or pollock suggest that some

fishing may have been conducted in deeper waters (Andersson et al. 2004:117, Karsten

and Knarrström 2003:183). The remains of fish fences, basket traps, birch bark rolls

interpreted as net floats and stone net sinkers document some of the fishing technology

employed (Karsten and Knarrström 2003).

Norway is outside of the Ertebølle culture area, but does have evidence for

coastal occupations during the Late Mesolithic. In eastern Norway, “fish bones are

surprisingly few,” and, “the location of [the] sites, close to ancient seashores, should

indicate marine adaptation; yet the remains of terrestrial mammals dominate,” (Mansrud

2009:199). One exception to this fish bone scarcity would be Skoklefald by the Oslo

fjord, which produced a total faunal assemblage of 632 bones, 97% of which are fish,

dominated (81%) by herring but with minor contributions from cod, haddock and pollock.

The size of the bones indicates that many small fish were caught (Bjerck 2007:12-13).

Western Norway has better fish bone evidence. At Kotedalen the assemblage contained

97% marine species including cod, saithe and pollock, seal and otter in significant

numbers (Bjerck 2007:12). Just north of Kotedalen, on the coast, is the site of

Grønehelleren at the mouth of the Sognefjord. Here there are 233 bones from the

Mesolithic layers, dominated (58%) by fish (saithe, cod and pollock) (Bjerck 2007:15).

Still further north on the coast is the Skatestraumen area with more than 40 sites, the

osteological material being dominated by fish (Bjerck 2007:12). In the very far north of

Norway (near Varanger, Finnmark) is the site of Mortensnes Loc. 8/R12 with 4368 fish

specimens. The assemblage is dominated by cod, but with seven other species present

(Bjerck 2007:13).

Northern Germany is another region with Ertebølle culture settlement sites.

The fish remains here are especially interesting because until quite recently very few

had been recovered (Hartz et al. 2002). Recent fieldwork and laboratory analysis has

changed this dramatically, and now there are over 40,000 fish bones identified from

Middle and Late Mesolithic sites (Schmölcke 2009 personal communication). Three

concentrations of sites can be identified on the shores of the Baltic Sea: the western

side of Mecklenburg Bay, the eastern side of the bay (Wismar Bight) and the island of

Rügen further to the east. The sites of Grube-Rosenfelde LA 83 (4900-4800 B.C.),

Grube-Rosenhof LA 58 (4800-4500 B.C.) and Neustadt LA 156 (4500-4100 B.C.) lie on

the western side of Mecklenburg Bay and all date to the Ertebølle period. The Grube-

Rosenfelde assemblage (NISP = 207) is dominated by eel (72.5%) and cod, with

stickleback, flatfish, perch and sea trout also present. Grube-Rosenhof has a larger

assemblage (NISP = 3846) and is dominated by cod (72.2%) with eel, flatfish and

cyprinids also making substantial contributions (11 other fishes are present). The

Neustadt assemblage is dominated by cod (69%), with flatfish in second place. It is the

only German site where fishhooks have been recovered so far and is also of note

because it is the only Ertebølle assemblage that contains sturgeon remains (Sönke

Hartz personal communication 2009, Schmölcke et al. 2006:434). On the eastern side

of the bay, in and near the Wismar Bight, lie the sites of Jäckelberg–Huk (6300-6000

B.C.), Jäckelgrund–Orth (6000-5700 B.C.), Jäckelberg–Nord (5500-5100 B.C.),

Timmendorf–Nordmole I and Timmendorf–Nordmole II (5100-4800 B.C.). Jäckelberg–

Huk, dating to before the Ertebølle period and the incursion of saltwater into the bay, is

dominated by freshwater species (mostly perch, pike and cyprinids), while the later sites

contain mostly gadids, eel and flatfish in various combinations (with some additional,

mostly marine, species). Timmendorg-Nordmole I is of special interest for the remains

of conger eel (Conger conger), the only Ertebølle site where it has been identified. The

three sites in the area of the island of Rügen with sizable fish assemblages are Lietzow-

Buddelin, Parow-Sportboothafen, and Bergen-Breetzer Ort. The first site is dominated

by flatfish (48.2%) followed by perch (28.6%), while the second two sites produced

mostly perch bones (68.7 and 94.1%) (Schmölcke et al. 2006, Schmölcke et al. 2009,

Schmölcke personal communication 2009).

Dabki 9, a Late Mesolithic site on the eastern edge of the Ertebølle culture

area in Pomerania, Poland dating to 5250-4150 B.C., is the subject of ongoing

investigations, but earlier fish bone results show an assemblage with 44.1% pike, 20.9%

perch and 15.4% bream (Kabacinski et al 2009:552). One other area of the eastern

Baltic has produced sizable fish assemblages from the period, and here too the focus

was on freshwater species. In Estonia, “fishing during the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic

was centered on the exploitation of local waters: for millennia pike-perch were fished in

the estuary and bay of the Pärnu River,” and perch and pike were also taken (Kriiska

and Lõugas 2009:174).

Just west of the Ertebølle culture area in coastal areas of Germany, the

Netherlands and Belgium; the Late Mesolithic culture continued for a long period after

the arrival of LBK farmers just to the south. As in Southern Scandinavia, the stability of

the Mesolithic lifestyle has been hypothesized to be a result of a reliance on aquatic

resources. Isotopic analysis of human bones has confirmed that fishing (especially

freshwater species) and the collection of seafood was important, although actual fish

remains are infrequent (Arias 1999, Louwe Kooijmans 2007). Two exceptions are the

Polderweg and De Bruin sites that have produced good evidence for pike fishing

(Louwe Kooijmans 2007).

Moving northwards into the islands of Britain, Ireland and other islands of

the North Sea, fishing is also believed to have been very important for subsistence,

despite the relative scarcity of fish remains as evidence. Especially for southern Britain,

the explanation that is often given is that rising sea-levels have destroyed or submerged

the evidence in what should have been rich fishing grounds such as the lower Thames

estuary (Woodman 2000:247). In Scotland, where isostatic uplift has matched or

outpaced sea-level rise, some fish remains have been recovered from Mesolithic sites,

although only in modest quantities. In the east, at the site of Morton in Fife County, the

presence of turbot, haddock and large specimens of cod has led to the conclusion that

at least some of the fish were caught in deep, offshore waters from boats (Coles

1971:361). Mesolithic fishing in Scotland is best known from the shell midden sites on

Oronsay, a small island off the western coast. The sites of Cnoc Coig, Cnoc Sligeach,

Caisteal nan Gillean II and Priory all demonstrate a productive fishery; one that was

largely focused on catching saithe (Mellars and Wilkinson 1980). Otolith analysis

suggested that each midden represents a different season of fishing, but this claim is

now being challenged based on additional lines of evidence (Parks 2009). Further off

the coast of Scotland but to the north lie the Shetland Islands. Recent excavations at

the shell midden site of West Voe resulted in the recognition of a previously unknown

Mesolithic presence on the islands. Although fish remains are scarce, small fish, saithe,

herring, mackerel and shark or ray have been identified (Melton and Nicholson

2007:98).

Ireland represents another insular setting that presumably presented

excellent fishing opportunities for the inhabitants. Archaeologically, “large

concentrations of these pieces [flint tools] are found at key fishing locations on islands,

lakeshores, and river fords, possibly in the last instance associated with the building of

fish weirs,” (Woodman 2000:236) suggesting that fishing was important. The absence of

large mammals (other than wild pigs) has also been suggested as a reason for the

importance of marine resources in the Mesolithic, a hypothesis that has been supported

by isotopic analysis (Woodman 2000). Mesolithic fish remains are scarce, but two sites

shed some light on the topic. At Mount Sandel (occupied ca. 7000-6000 B.C.) in

Northern Ireland, salmon and eel remains have been recovered from a site near the

River Bann. At Ferriter’s Cove (5600-5700 BP), analysis of fish bones discovered during

archaeological excavations has shown evidence of fish species including wrasse,

whiting, tope and ray, suggesting that fishing took place during summer and autumn

(Woodman et al. 1999). The excavation of fishing structures near Dublin demonstrates

that considerable effort was expended in the pursuit of fish (McQuade and O’Donnell

2009).

Returning to the continent, in Brittany, on the French Atlantic coast, the

Late Mesolithic sites are interpreted as being the result of a sedentary population with

an economy based on marine resources. Shellfish, gilthead bream, labroids, scienids,

rays, sharks, cetaceans and seals have been identified in the faunal assemblages, and

stable isotope analysis shows that a significant portion of the protein in diet came from

marine sources, particularly at Hoëdic (Schulting 1998). Other large shell midden sites

include: Beg-an-Dorchenn, Beg-er-Vil and Téviec; there are two smaller ones at Saint-

Gildas with only shellfish remains. Of particular note is that at least four species of crabs

were exploited (Dupont et al. 2007:131). One exceptional fish find from Brittany is a fish

mandible with a carved quadrangular motif (Arias 1999:420-421). From other areas

bordering the Bay of Biscay, the sites of La Riera, Tito Bustillo, Los Canes, Laminak II,

Cueva de Amalda, all have fish assemblages that are dominated by salmonids (Zapata

et al. 2007:150). The Pico Ramos cave shell midden is interesting because of the

remains of cartilaginous fish. This suggests that fish remains may be scarce in this

region because of the poor preservation of sharks and rays, if they were common prey

(Zapata et al. 2007).

Continuing southwards along the Atlantic coast into the Cantabrian region,

researchers have claimed that despite the presence of shell middens and fish remains,

the settlement pattern is not consistent with an economy oriented towards the sea (most

major sites are a couple of kilometers from the coast) (Arias 1999:414). Eleven sites

have produced fish bone assemblages, but few have been studied in depth. Work in

progress at La Garma A and Asturian middens at Poza l’Egua,m El Aguila, Covajorno,

Colomba and Puerto de Vidiago II should reveal more information about the fisheries in

this region (Fano 2007:138-139). Finally, the shell middens in central and southern

Portugal contain numerous fish remains, especially meagre (Argyrosomus regius) and

gilthead (Sparus aurata); although large species such as sharks, rays and tuna are also

present (Arias 1999:409).

Given the diverse environmental and cultural contexts represented by the

assemblages discussed above, it is not surprising that it is difficult to generalize about

the nature of later Mesolithic fishing in Europe. Where freshwater species are the

majority of an assemblage, pike, perch and/or Cyprinidae are likely to dominate. For

sites near the North Sea with mostly marine or diadromous fish, eel, flatfish and

(especially) Gadidae are the common fishes. Further west and south (sites near the

Atlantic Ocean), eel, Salmonidae, sharks and rays seem more important. The presence

of tuna in assemblages from Portugal and Sweden, and large Gadidae at some sites

bordering the North Sea are strong evidence for offshore fishing, even if a deep-sea

Mesolithic fishery cannot be proven (Pickard and Bonsall 2004). Despite the occurrence

of fish fences and basket traps in several locations, it must be acknowledged that

multiple fishing technologies were employed by Mesolithic fishermen in varying

combinations. Looking at the evidence for fishing during the Late Mesolithic at coastal

sites outside of Denmark one fact in particular stands out: with the possible exception of

Northern Germany, fish remains are not as numerous on sites in other areas nor are

there so many sites that have produced fish assemblages. While the recent dramatic

increase in fish bones from Northern German sites offers reason for optimism that other

areas may experience a similar renaissance in fish bone studies, currently the region

that offers the best opportunity for understanding fishing during the Late Mesolithic is

Denmark (even if the results are not necessarily directly transferable to other areas).

2.3 Bone isotope studies of diet

Stable isotope analysis of bones has rapidly increased in importance as a

source of information on subsistence since its inception just a few decades ago.

Advantages of the method include a focus on individuals’ diets, examination of what

was eaten as opposed to what was discarded and the potential for recognition of dietary

components that are often discriminated against by preservation issues (i.e., plant

foods, but see below) (Lee-Thorp 2008). Examining diet at the individual (as opposed to

the family or larger group level) is usually not possible in traditional dietary analyses

(e.g., faunal studies) because refuse is deposited collectively. In the rare instances

where individual deposits are preserved (coprolites), the foods that are identified only

cover the most recent 24-48 hours. The issues of studying what was discarded versus

what was eaten and problems of differential preservation of materials raise doubts

about whether archaeological refuse can be deciphered into a complete picture of past

diet. In contrast, directly studying the composition of bones offers opportunities to ‘see’

past food consumption without the filters that can severely distort the archaeological

record. Isotopic studies are not without their own limitations and these will be described

more fully below.

The basis of the isotopic method for researching dietary questions is that,

“elements differ slightly in their nuclear mass as a result of differences in the number of

neutrons, leading to small but significant differences in their thermodynamic and kinetic

properties. Molecules containing the higher-mass, rarer isotope tend to accumulate in

the thermodynamically most stable component of a system—for instance, in the liquid

rather than gaseous phase—or are slower to react in mass-sensitive kinetic reactions,”

(Lee-Thorp 2008:927). In practice this means that it is possible to determine the trophic

level of food, what types of plants contributed to the diet, marine versus freshwater

versus terrestrial origins or other information about the food’s environment by examining

the isotopic ratio of one or more elements. “By convention, stable isotope ratios are

expressed in the δ notation, in parts per thousand (per mille or ‰) relative to an

international standard, as δxZ = (Rs/Rref − 1) × 1000, where R is the isotope ratio

(13C/12C, 15N/14N, 18O/16O, D/H or 34S/32S). For carbon isotopes, the standard is the

marine limestone PDB; oxygen and hydrogen isotopes may be expressed relative to

PDB or to Standard Mean Ocean Water (SMOW), depending on the material being

analysed; for nitrogen isotopes it is Ambient Inhalable Reservoir (AIR); and for sulphur

isotopes it is the Canyon Diablo Triolite meteorite (CDT). Negative values denote that

the sample has lower abundances of the heavier isotope than does the standard,” (Lee-

Thorp 2008:926). Bone is the most commonly examined archaeological material in

isotopic analysis due to preservation, but some other biological materials can be used

when present. Collagen (the organic part of bone) turns over regularly while apatite

(bone mineral) is more stable. Collagen breaks down more quickly than apatite, but it

appears that even when a large proportion of the original collagen molecules have

disappeared, the isotopic composition remains intact (Collins et al. 2002). On the other

hand, “bone apatite is vulnerable to the kinds of diagenesis that may frequently

influence isotope composition, while enamel remains relatively immune,” (Lee-Thorp

2008:931).

δ13C (carbon)

Stable isotopes of carbon were used in the first studies of diet through bone

chemical analysis and continue to be at the forefront of research. There are two topics

that are commonly addressed by carbon isotope studies: plant use and marine versus

terrestrial dietary focus. Plants are grouped into two major groups, depending on their

photosynthetic processes (a third group, succulents, is less commonly encountered)

and named after the number of carbon atoms that are initially fixed (C3 and C4) (Lee-

Thorp 2008). C3 plants are common, but C4 plants are generally limited to tropical

grasses (e.g., maize, millet, sugar cane). Because C3 plants are more depleted in 13C

than C4 ones, it is possible to determine what proportion of the diet came from each of

the two groups. Although of great interest in, for example, North America as a means to

study the spread of maize agriculture (Buikstra and Milner 1991, van der Merwe and

Vogel 1978), it is of little relevance for European Mesolithic studies. What is of interest

is the difference in 13C between marine and terrestrial food sources. Because the

source of carbon for the first links in marine food chains is mainly dissolved

bicarbonates that are enriched in 13C compared to atmospheric CO2, bone isotope

analyses that show more negative 13C values reveal a dominance of terrestrial foods in

the diet while more positive values point to marine foods (Lee-Thorp 2008). Terrestrial

plant δ13C values vary between -24 to -36 ‰ depending on environmental conditions,

with a global mean of -26.5 ‰ (Smith and Epstein 1971, O’Leary 1981, Farquhar et al.

1989). For marine resources there is some variability, but the mean is −20 ‰ (Smith

and Epstein 1971).

The δ13C values that are measured from the bones of consumers are not

the same as the foods they eat for a couple of reasons. “Carbon isotope ratios in bone

apatite should reflect sources of dietary energy, which is effectively the whole diet, while

collagen reflects mainly dietary protein,” (Price et al. 2007:212). There is an enrichment

of δ13C between diet and bone collagen of approximately 5 ‰ (van der Merwe and

Vogel 1978). The enrichment between diet and bone apatite averages 12 ‰, but varies

according to body mass and other biological factors (Ambrose and Norr 1993, Cerling

and Harris 1999, DeNiro and Epstein 1978, Krueger and Sullivan 1984; Lee-Thorp et al.

1989, Passey et al. 2005). There is an additional enrichment of 1-2 ‰ for each trophic

level of the food chain (Lee-Thorp 2008).

One of the first published studies to take advantage of the isotopic

differences in 13C between marine and terrestrial food sources was a study of skeletons

from the Danish Mesolithic (Tauber 1981). The sharp break at around 4000 B.C.

between more enriched (marine-based diet) collagen from Mesolithic skeletons and less

enriched (terrestrial-based diet) skeletons from the Neolithic pointed to a distinct shift in

subsistence that neatly coincided with observed changes in material culture.

Subsequent studies that have increased the sample of skeletons from Denmark and

expanded the geographical range to include Britain, northwestern France and Portugal

have generally confirmed the initial results showing very little dietary contribution from

marine resources after the onset of the Early Neolithic (Lubell et al. 1994, Richards and

Hedges 1999, Schulting and Richards 2001, Richards et al. 2003, although see Liden et

al. 2004 for contradictory evidence from Sweden). A less often discussed trend is an

increase in the contribution of marine foods from the early to the late Mesolithic,

culminating with all individuals, “younger than 5500 B.C. show[ing] a predominance of

marine resources in the diet,” (Price and Gebauer 2005:155). The dominance of marine

resources is seen even in Mesolithic samples from inland locations (Fischer et al. 2007).

It is important to note that very few Mesolithic or Neolithic samples represent a situation

where all foods came from either a marine or a terrestrial environment. Late Mesolithic

people with a marine-based diet have isotopic values that indicate up to 40 % of the

foods consumed by some individuals came from terrestrial sources, while some

Neolithic samples are consistent with approximately the same amount of marine-based

resources in a terrestrially-dominated subsistence regime (Price and Gebauer

2005:155).

Recent discussions have centered on the conflict between the

archaeological evidence for marine resource use in the Early Neolithic (i.e., shellfish

deposits, continuing use of coastal sites, stationary fishing structures) and the isotopic

evidence showing a switch to a terrestrial diet (Bailey and Milner 2002, Fischer 2007,

Hedges 2004, Milner et al. 2004). Suggested reasons for the discrepancy include

sample bias, the use of estuarine resources that incorporate a great deal of transported

terrestrial carbon, complications from variations in salinity and the effect of low protein

diets on collagen isotopes (Milner et al. 2004). In regards to the last point, it is

suggested that, “a diet dominated by plant food might include up to 20 percent of marine

protein without raising the δ13C values of bone collagen above -21 per mil,” (Milner et al.

2004:18). Research continues to understand the impact of variations in salinity on

isotopic values (Craig et al. 2006, Grupe et al. 2009), but it is already clear that it is

important to measure the local isotope signatures of marine and terrestrial resources in

order to make dietary inferences. Resources obtained from freshwater environments

seem to be especially confounding for dietary studies as, “the more freshwater food

there was in the diet, the more it hampers a possible marine isotope signature in human

bone collagen δ13C values,” (Fischer 2007:66). Lake size and the sources of carbon

both seem to affect the δ13C values from freshwater sources (Dufour et al. 1999, Post

2002). The role of diadromous fish complicates matters greatly, because of their

residence in both marine and freshwater environments (Fischer 2007). In light of the

many factors that affect carbon isotope measurements, and thus dietary interpretations,

analyses that combine multiple elements provide more robust interpretations.

δ15N (nitrogen)

Nitrogen is another element with staple isotopes that are useful in dietary

reconstructions. Although some variability in δ15N is the results of the source of the

nitrogen or environmental factors (Dufour et al. 1999, Katzenberg and Weber 1999, Liu

and Kaplan 1989, Richards and Hedges 1999), the most important factor is the trophic

level of the foods consumed, with a δ15N enrichment of 2-6 ‰ for each step up the food

chain (DeNiro and Epstein 1981, Minigawa and Wada 1984, Schoeninger and DeNiro

1984, Sealy et al. 1987). This is especially interesting where freshwater or marine

resources are a significant portion of the diet, as aquatic food chains tend to be much

longer than terrestrial ones. In situations involving marine resources, nitrogen isotopes

can reinforce the results of carbon isotope analyses and potentially indicate what types

of marine foods were consumed (Lee-Thorp 2008, Richards and Hedges 1999). In non-

maritime settings where carbon isotopes are mainly useful for distinguishing C3- from

C4-based diets, δ15N can help to determine the subsistence contribution of freshwater

fish (Dufour et al. 1999, Katzenberg and Weber 1999). Nitrogen isotope analysis is

complicated by, “variability in the diet tissue enrichment with protein level, dietary items,

or between species, and difficulties with determination of the appropriate (herbivore)

isotopic baseline,” (Reynard and Hedges 2008:1934).

Regarding the Late Mesolithic dataset, nitrogen isotope analyses have

tended to support the trend observed with the carbon results: lower δ15N values in

Neolithic skeletal samples compared to Late Mesolithic ones agree with a shift from

higher trophic level aquatic resources to terrestrial plants and herbivores, although with

exceptions. The low δ15N value of the individual from Tybrind Vig (8.5 ‰) is more in line

with a terrestrial diet, despite the coastal location with abundant evidence for marine

fishing, and bone samples from graves near the Vedbæk fjord suggest that shellfish or

small fish were the major source of protein for three out of five individuals, despite the

evidence for large specimens of cod in several faunal assemblages in the area (Enghoff

1994, Richards et al. 2003) Within the Mesolithic period, an increase in δ15N values

from the early to the later Mesolithic agrees with the carbon isotope results that show a

shift to more reliance on aquatic (especially marine) resources (Fischer et al. 2007).

Aside from dietary studies involving human bones, isotopic studies are also

proving useful in studies of the environments where resources were obtained. In

Northern Germany, on the Schlei estuary, differences in nitrogen isotope values

between the Viking period settlement of Hedeby and the nearby early medieval city of

Schleswig are interpreted as demonstrating that codfish were imported over longer

distances during the Viking period than afterwards (Grupe et al. 2009). A study of wild

and domesticated cattle (Bos primigenius and Bos taurus) from Danish sites has

demonstrated increasingly closed canopy forest coverage during the Mesolithic based

on values from wild cattle and a clear difference in habitat between wild and early

domestic cattle (with domestic cattle feeding in more open grassland areas) (Noe-

Nygaard et al. 2005). Further studies of environmental effects on bone isotope values

and measurements of local isotopic signatures offer increasingly refined interpretations

of human and animal behavior; adding to the number of elements included in isotopic

studies is another way to improve them.

δD (hydrogen)

Isotopes of hydrogen that are tightly bound into organic molecules are

beginning to be studies as an additional line of evidence for studies of dietary trophic

level (Lee-Thorp 2008). Studies of wild animals in Britain have been able to distinguish

between herbivores, omnivores and carnivores based on δD (Birchall et al. 2005).

Archaeological samples from Britain, Hungary and Peru have demonstrated that the

technique holds similar promise for the study of diet in ancient bones (Reynard and

Hedges 2008). Enrichment of δD from herbivores to omnivores is around 30-50 ‰, and

from omnivores to humans around 10-20 ‰ (Reynard and Hedges 2008:1938).

Hydrogen isotopes have the potential to reveal geographical origin information because

of variability in precipitation and may also prove useful as an independent indicator of

marine protein in the diet (Reynard and Hedges 2008). Further studies are needed to

confirm the efficacy of the technique and determine whether any biological or

environmental considerations have been overlooked.

δ34S (sulfur)

Another element with isotopes that are proving useful in distinguishing

marine from terrestrial foods in dietary studies is sulfur. Based primarily on local

geology, terrestrial and freshwater δ34S values range from ca. -20 to +20 ‰ compared

to a more uniform marine value of +20 ‰ (Krouse and Herbert 1988, Peterson and Fry

1987, Rees et al. 1978). In many (but not all) locations the enrichment of marine

isotopes distinguishes dietary food sources, although with the reservation that terrestrial

resources in coastal areas may incorporate marine sulfur from the ‘sea spray effect’

(McArdle et al. 1998). Although the technique has potential, not all of the sources of

variation have been identified. Results of animal bones studies from Danish shell

middens showed samples with the most negative δ34S values (indicating

terrestrial/freshwater diet) were the most enriched in 13C (pointing to a marine diet)

(Craig et al. 2006). Still, because sulfur isotopes do not seem to be strongly affected by

a trophic level effect, they may be a useful adjunct to studies using carbon and nitrogen

isotopes (Lee-Thorp 2008, Privat et al. 2007). Sulfur isotopes also offer some potential

for provenance studies of humans and animals (Katzenberg and Krouse 1989;

Rossman et al. 1998).

2.4 Theoretical basis

“All we can be sure of in interpreting any archaeological record is that the community

responsible for it was successful enough to leave a deposit, that it can have achieved

this only through a successful routine of acquiring food, and that, in other words, its

settlement pattern must at least have been consistent, with success in the food quest,”

(Clark 1983:295-296).

The point in history where the discipline of archaeology evolved from the

diversion of antiquarianism was when people began to realize that the recovery of

artifacts was not an end in itself, but only a means to understanding the past. Since

then, a great deal of thought and discussion has been devoted to constructing

frameworks for translating data produced from material evidence into information about

past human societies, a process that continues today (e.g., Binford 2001). While some

aspects of archaeological research have developed a multitude of theoretical

approaches, faunal analysis is dominated by behavioral ecology, an evolutionary, or

neo-Darwinian, approach to understanding human culture.

Behavioral ecology has its roots in the cultural ecology perspective

pioneered by Julian Steward, which attempted to explain relationships between society,

environment and technology (Steward 1955), modified by concepts borrowed from the

natural sciences. In an effort to focus on the core areas of culture, Steward paid

particular attention to subsistence, especially as it was affected by the environment.

Although hailed by some as a major advance in thinking about the past, the cultural

ecology approach came under fire from processualists (among others) because it aimed

to, “explain the origin of particular cultural features and patterns which characterize

different areas rather than to derive general patterns applicable to any cultural-

environmental situation,” (Steward 1955:36). Other objections raised include, “a strong

bias towards inductive argument…after-the-fact construction of explanations; a bias

toward equilibrium or homeostatic models; and the use of non-refutable hypotheses”

(Smith and Winterhalder 1981:3). Proponents of the behavioral ecology approach which

supplanted it noted that cultural ecology was flawed due to, “its implicit belief in the

importance of the group, as opposed to the individual, as the adaptive unit,” (Shennan

2002:140). While also seeking to achieve a better understanding of the relationship

between society, environment and technology, behavioral ecology proposes to improve

on cultural ecology by employing testable hypotheses, formulated in a hypothetico-

deductive manner, to search for nomothetic explanations of individuals’ behaviors.

Although behavioral ecology can address many types of activities (e.g.

mating, predator avoidance), when used by zooarchaeologists it most often relates to

resource procurement. Three different lines of inquiry within this topic are addressed by

the models: diet breadth (also called prey choice or optimal diet), habitat movement (or

patch choice) and time allocation (patch use/marginal value theory), but with the

realization that this division is a heuristic device and should not be taken as reflecting

actual partitioning in how these questions are perceived by the organism(s) in question

(Bird and O’Connell 2006, Winterhalder and Smith 2000). Examples of habitat

movement and time allocation modeling exist, but by far the most popular question in

optimal foraging research has been which foods are included in the diet under varying

circumstances (see Bird and O’Connell 2006, Kelly 1995, Shennan 2002, Winterhalder

and Smith 2000 for comprehensive surveys of archaeological studies of diet breadth).

To date, optimal foraging has made relatively few inroads into studies of fish remains

(some exceptions include: Aswani 1998, Barber 2003, Bliege Bird and Smith 2005, Bird

and Bliege Bird 2000, Broughton 2002, Lindström 1996, Sosis 2000). This project will

apply the diet breadth model as an aid in interpreting the fish bone assemblages of the

Danish Ertebølle period.

Evaluating diet breadth is a popular endeavor for zooarchaeologists

because diet breadth modeling aims to make specific predictions about what game

should be included in archaeological assemblages, based on knowledge of animal

behaviors and biology combined with information about human activities and

technology, which can then be compared against the actual record. Search costs

incurred while looking for game are contrasted with pursuit costs (also known as

handling costs) to determine whether a rational forager will pursue a particular type of

game when it is encountered or continue looking for a more highly valued target

species. Search costs are usually tied to resource density (low density equals high

search costs) while pursuit costs are a factor of both the cost to capture and process the

prey for consumption. Resources are ranked in descending order of rate of return

(usually energy gain minus energy cost, but see below), and new types are added to the

diet until the next addition would lower the overall return rate (see Figure 15 for a

graphic representation of this, from Winterhalder 1981:24).

Figure 15: Diet Breadth Model plotting decreasing average search costs versus

increasing average pursuit costs, as additional resource types are added to the diet.

Optimal diet breadth is marked by the arrow at the intersection of the two curves (after

Winterhalder 1981:24).

The change in search costs is a downward sloping curve because as more items are

included in the diet the chances of encountering some desired resource increase,

thereby reducing the cost incurred looking. Conversely, the pursuit curve slopes

upwards because as lower ranked resources are added to the diet the average cost of

capturing and processing resources increases. In archaeological cases it will be difficult

(or impossible) to accurately determine the return rates of individual resources for

ranking and to plot the two curves with a degree of precision that would allow

determination of specific numbers of resources in the diet, but by modeling how the

curves respond to changing conditions it is possible to predict expansion or contraction

of diet breadth.

Tests of the model have shown that, “while the diet breadth model seems to

give good predictions within plant resources and animal resources, it does not seem to

work so well between them, probably at least partly because energy is not the sole

criterion of value as far as food is concerned,” (Shennan 2002:147). It is likely that this

statement fails to consider that fishing is different in many ways from pursuit of other

animals, and it may be more reasonable to designate three categories: plants, fish and

other animals. For this project, use of the diet breadth model is restricted to the category

of fish resources, with an aim to characterize the nature of the fisheries at different sites.

Instead of focusing on whether (and when) specific fishes are incorporated into the diet,

the overall richness of the assemblage (number of types of fish) and the importance

(relative frequency within the assemblage) of the individual fishes will be used to

determine whether the fishery is more generalized or specialized.

There are a number of important points that must considered for this model

to be successfully applied. First, the currency used in evaluating the transaction is often

energy (calories), but this is not a given. Other nutritional factors can be substituted for

energy (e.g., fat, protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, trace minerals), and may prove to be

a more revealing limiting factor in some situations. Perhaps more intriguingly, recent

studies have sought to incorporate ideological factors (i.e., status) alongside

considerations of nutrition (e.g., Bird and Smith 2005, Hildebrandt and McGuire 2002,

Sosis 2000). Because of the large numbers of unknowns in regard to search, pursuit

and processing costs, attempting a very precise definition of returns would not be

justified. The currency for this project will be energy, with energy gain read from the

archaeological record in the form of relative abundance of remains from different types

of fish (with some consideration of size and calorie-yield), and costs estimated by time

requirements. Second, search and pursuit costs are not fixed, but depend on the

technology available to the forager, prey populations and environmental changes. This

introduces the difficulty of choosing an appropriate temporal scale for evaluation. In

ethnographic research, the unit of study is often an individual foraging expedition, but

this degree of resolution is rarely (if ever) possible to achieve with archaeological data.

Because of the multi-year accumulations of fish remains that are the record for this

project, diet breadth decisions can only be judged on a very broad basis: was the fishing

strategy more specialized or generalized? Related to the topic of temporal scale is the

question of the information available to the forager. Diet breadth models were originally

created using the tenets of games theory under the conditions of random searching in

an environment with randomly and evenly placed resources, but this is certainly not a

reasonable assumption for most cases of human foraging because it (among other

issues) ignores learning through experience. Part of the successful forager’s toolkit is

knowledge of animal characteristics combined with information garnered from past

forays and other foragers that allows efforts to be focused on places that are most likely

to result in encounters. Due to the long-term nature of the archaeological record being

studied, it must be accepted that random searching does not characterize much of the

foraging activities, as repeated fishing activities taught Ertebølle fishermen where (and

when) to concentrate their efforts. This is in some ways an advantage, as better

knowledge of conditions means that the choice of a specialized or generalized strategy

was the result of more rational, deliberate decision making and is thus more amenable

to modeling. The goals of a forager are a final important consideration, and one which is

often neglected in the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Maximizing returns and

minimizing risk are two goals that are often seen in opposition to each other. Solving

models for only one goal may create unrealistic behavioral expectations, but solving for

both simultaneously is often unfeasible. This study of diet breadth will assign

maximization as the goal, as the other resource groups would provide a margin of

safety to minimize the risk of absolute procurement failure. There is, however, another

kind of risk associated with resource procurement: that associated with danger to the

forager while out seeking food. For Mesolithic fishermen with dugout canoes, this was at

times a non-trivial risk. Maximization as a goal also makes sense from this perspective,

as the higher the rate of return, the less time of exposure to danger was necessary.

Having introduced the diet-breadth model and discussed some of the inherent

assumptions, now it is time to put the model into operation.

Modeling various configurations of the search and pursuit curves shows

that “an optimal forager with a high search-cost/pursuit-cost ratio will tend toward a

generalized diet breadth <Figure 16>. Conversely, a forager with a high pursuit-

cost/search-cost ratio will tend toward diet breadth specialization <Figure 17>. Any

factor which causes an increase in the search costs of an optimal forager will produce a

stepwise enlargement of its diet breadth. Conversely, a factor decreasing search costs

will lead to a restriction of diet breadth <Figure 18>. Any factor reducing pursuit costs of

the optimal forager will produce an enlargement of its diet breadth. Conversely, a factor

increasing pursuit costs of a forager will produce diet breadth specialization <Figure

19>,” (Winterhalder 1981:25, figures are added for illustration of the points).

Figure 16: High search/pursuit cost ratios Figure 17: High pursuit/search cost

ratios increase diet breadth (generalized diet). Decrease diet breadth (specialized diet).

Figure 18: Effect of changes in search costs. Figure 19: Effect of changes in pursuit

costs.

(Dashed grey line indicates the initial state, while arrows mark the new optimal diet

points)

With an understanding of how diet breadth is determined by comparison of

the search and pursuit curves and responds to changes in them, the next step in

applying the model is describing what factors affect the location of the curves. As

already noted, search costs are highly dependent on the density of prey. This is a rather

unremarkable observation. What is surprising is that, “a resource’s abundance alone

cannot be used to predict whether it will be utilized…the decision to include a resource

depends on the abundance of higher-ranked resources,” (Kelly 1995:86-87). An edible

and ubiquitous resource may be ignored unless search costs for more desirable

resources increase to the point that diet breadth expands to include it. Search costs

increase when target species are less abundant or environmental conditions make them

more difficult to locate. Species abundance varies over both the short and the long term.

Short term variations (i.e. diurnal movements or seasonal migrations) should play little

role in optimal breadth modeling in archaeological cases, unless a site was only

occupied on a seasonal basis (or fishing activities at a year-round site were seasonally

restricted) or for a very limited duration. Although determining the season of occupation

for Ertebølle sites remains a challenging endeavor, the sites that produced the

assemblages included in this study generally have many of the characteristics of base

camps (e.g., diverse toolkits) that were occupied for at least most of the year, so short

term fluctuations will be discounted when characterizing diet breadth (although

seasonality will play a role when discussing the details of the generalized and

specialized fisheries). Differences in species abundance that affect diet breadth will

therefore be considered to be the result of either longer term temporal, or spatial,

variability. For Ertebølle fishermen, environmental conditions (especially sea-levels, but

also water temperatures, salinity and coastline morphology) would have been the major

driver of increased search costs, at times or places making target species less

abundant and/or harder to find.

Search costs decrease when resources abound or as a result of favorable

conditions in the landscape, accumulated knowledge of prey locations, or improvements

in technology (i.e., faster transportation) that increase the likelihood of prey encounters.

Familiarity with prey species and their favored locations would obviously increase the

chances of encountering them, but it is difficult to assess variability in this factor during

the Ertebølle period for several reasons. First, it should be noted that marine fishing did

not begin in Denmark during the Ertebølle period. Sites such as Cartsensminde,

Stationsvej 19 and Vænget Nord show that already in the preceding Kongemose period

(6400-5400 B.C.) fishermen in Denmark were capturing many of the same species that

were the basis of the Ertebølle fishery (Enghoff 1994a, Rosenlund 1976). Some

knowledge of fish behavior was present at the start of the Ertebølle period, and while it

undoubtedly increased as fishing continued, it is also probable that in some groups

there were at times decreases as experienced fishermen were unexpectedly lost due to

accidents or other causes. The environmental variability that characterizes the period

also means that there must have been a continuing effort to upgrade the knowledge

base as prime fishing locations moved in response to environmental changes. Absent

any compelling evidence for increases in knowledge lowering search costs, this factor

will be treated as a constant. Improved technology in the form of dugout canoes is

another matter. While watercraft are also known from previous periods (at least from

paddles, which surely signify that boats were also present), more widespread availability

of canoes or improved performance are plausible ways in which technology could have

reduced search costs in some fisheries (C. Christensen 1990). In summary, the size of

fish stocks and environmental conditions could have either increased or decreased diet

breadth (through displacement of the search curve) depending on their nature, while

more or better canoes would have lowered the search curve and led to increased

specialization.

Pursuit has two components in the diet breadth model: capture costs and

processing costs. The process of capturing prey after it has been encountered during

the search phase can be more or less costly depending on the experience of the

fisherman, the nature of the prey, the timing of the encounter and perhaps most

importantly, the technology involved. The extent of a fisherman’s experience can be an

important factor in whether he is successful when fishing, but archaeological deposits

from settlements do not allow differentiation of individual forager efforts so this factor

must be treated as a constant. The specific type of fish pursued, when it is pursued and

how it is pursued are all interconnected variables, but the method of capture is the one

of interest for archaeological diet breadth modeling. As foragers adopt increasingly

sophisticated fishing technology, catching fish becomes easier. Whether costs decrease

is a complicated affair, balancing the benefits of increased efficiency in procurement

with the concomitant costs incurred fashioning the technology. For expensive tools,

greater efficacy may actually result in lower efficiency (Bird and O’Connell 2006:153).

Because tools can be made during periods when other foraging activities are not

possible (at night by the fire, during inclement weather, etc.) and by group members

who do not actively forage (e.g., young, old and infirm individuals), construction costs

are not generally included in diet breadth models even though they can be considerable

(over 2200 hours for a 100’x4.5’ gill net with ½” mesh size according to Lindström

1996:139). Accordingly, increased investment in fishing gear will lower the pursuit curve

and lead to an expansion of diet breadth. Fish hooks and spears require relatively little

time to make, while fish weirs/fences and nets require considerably more. According to

the diet breadth model, fisheries that rely more heavily on hooks and spears will be

more specialized while those that focus on nets and traps will be more generalized.

Interestingly, the degree of prey selectivity for the different implements predicted by

optimal foraging theory corresponds to that predicted by a combination of ecological

theory and fish behavior (Bowdler and McGann 1996:91, Enghoff 1994a:84).

Processing costs for resources range from almost zero for foods that are

eaten in their natural state to very high for foods that must undergo extensive

treatments to make them edible. The nature of the resource is the major determining

factor, but the purpose of the processing (i.e., immediate or delayed consumption) and

the technology involved can also be significant (Testart 1982). As the focus of this study

is fish, differences in processing costs between resource types can probably be

assigned minimal importance. There is of course, the potential to make fish preparation

a very time intensive activity (e.g., sushi). On a more pedestrian level, small fish may

require more processing per unit weight than larger fish if the aim is to provision with

pure meat portions (e.g., fillets), but there is little reason to believe this was the case in

the Mesolithic (Enghoff 1991:116). There are many ways to prepare fish for the table

that require little labor. Large and small fish can be eaten raw or boiled whole (or

eviscerated) with inedible parts trimmed away or skimmed off the surface of the pot,

avoided during consumption, or simply passed through the digestive tract. Direct or

indirect roasting with fire require similarly small commitments of effort. If the fish are

destined for delayed rather than immediate consumption processing costs can be

considerably higher. Depending on the desired length of storage, size and fat content of

the fish, storage conditions, technology available and climate; processing fish for

storage can run the gamut from simple air drying to elaborate procedures involving

precision butchery and careful salting and/or smoking. To date, there is no definitive

archaeological evidence that Mesolithic people had an elaborate gastronomic tradition

or stored fish for later consumption (although it seems almost indubitable they did this, if

only in the most rudimentary of fashions), so all things considered, it is probably

defensible to treat processing costs for different fish as a constant.

Taking into account both search and pursuit costs, what predictions can be

made about the Ertebølle fisheries? Environmental conditions will affect the catch in two

ways: determining the abundance of fish in an area and the difficulty of locating them. In

areas with large fish populations and/or where locating fish is easy, the search curve is

lower and a more specialized fishery will result. In areas with less favorable conditions,

a more generalized fishery will prevail. Changes in environmental conditions will lead to

more specialized or more generalized foraging depending on whether conditions are

becoming more or less favorable for fishing. Technology will have an effect on both

search and pursuit costs. Better transportation technology (canoes during the Late

Mesolithic) can lower search costs and reduce diet breadth. If instead of investing in

transportation technology a group devotes more resources to capture technology (i.e.,

nets and traps), pursuit costs will be low (or declining) and the fishery will be more

generalized.

Before turning to the question of how to compare these predictions with the

archaeological results, a few final thoughts on characterizing Ertebølle fisheries are in

order. First and most importantly, while it is convenient to refer to specialized or

generalized strategies to emphasize variability it must be remembered that the reality is

of fisheries that occur somewhere along a continuum between these two endpoints.

When characterizing an assemblage as representative of a specialized strategy, this is

only true in relation to the other assemblages with which it is compared. Second, finds

from archaeological sites show that multiple technologies were used at the same site

(e.g., excavations at Tybrind Vig produced evidence for fish traps, fish fences,

fishhooks, leister prongs and a net float), indicating that groups used a mix of

techniques in their fisheries (Andersen 1995, Pickard and Bonsall 2007). Different fishes

are best captured with different fishing gear, but seasonally variable fish behaviors and

environmental conditions also require flexibility. Because of the longer-term

accumulations that characterize the assemblages analyzed for this project, the overall

nature of the fishing strategy at a site is revealed, even though specific events may

deviate from this norm. How to quantify the assemblages in order to compare them with

each other is the next topic which must be addressed.

2.5 Zooarchaeological quantification

Identifying what factors affect diet breadth and how they are affected by it

allows archaeologists to make predictions about the effects on foraging societies of the

decision about whether to generalize or specialize. Having done this, it is necessary to

turn to the archaeological record to identify how this can be detected and what diet

breadth decisions were made. Excavation and laboratory identification of the resultant

materials are major undertakings in a faunal analysis, but their end product, while rich in

data, does not provide sufficient information for archaeologists with which to make

interpretations about the past. Primary data available from fish bone remains includes

the taxa present, the elements identified and any measurements taken to describe the

size of the elements. While somewhat informative in their own right (e.g., species lists),

these data are most useful when they are converted into a form that allows

interpretations about the use and importance of different fishes. Derived data that will be

used to compare the fishing strategies from various sites include the diversity and

heterogeneity of the assemblages, along with size/age estimates.

One of the simplest and most commonly used statistics in faunal analysis is

the number of taxa present (NTAXA). Although it is based on the species list of an

assemblage, it is not quite as straightforward as merely tallying the entries. One reason

for this is the necessity of selecting a single taxonomic level of specificity (i.e. species,

genus, family, order or class) to use (Lyman 2008). The choice of taxonomic level

involves a tension between trying to be as specific as possible to highlight differences

between contexts, while still including all (or most) of the data. Using Ertebølle fish

assemblages as an example, basing NTAXA on the species level may produce the

highest level of diversity in assemblages, but it may also omit certain types of fish (e.g.

sea trout or salmon) that are only identified to genus. Selecting genus as the level will

include these fish, but may exclude gadids, if they are only represented by vertebrae

and other non-species/genus diagnostic elements. Moving up the taxonomic ladder will

continually increase the inclusivity of identified specimens while decreasing the diversity

(NTAXA) of the assemblage. As an extreme example, class could be the chosen

taxonomic level: grouping specimens as either osteichthyes (bony) or chondrichthyes

(cartilaginous) fishes. Virtually all identifiable fish specimens could be assigned to one

of these categories, but assemblages could only have an NTAXA of zero, one or two –

providing little information for inter-site comparisons. There is no single ‘right’ answer to

what taxonomic level should be used; the decision depends on the research questions

to be addressed and the nature of the assemblages involved. Most importantly, the level

must be made explicit and it must be applied consistently. Based on the fishes

represented in the assemblages and their behavioural similarities and differences, the

family level is chosen as the appropriate taxonomic level for most of the analyses in this

study. (See Table 1 for a list of the families from Ertebølle assemblages and Appendix I

for a discussion of the members and other relevant information.)

There is a second, less obvious, issue involved in using NTAXA to compare

sites which involves the sizes of the assemblages. When dealing with less common

taxa, the greater the sample size, the more likely they are to be detected. Indeed, the

positive correlation between number of identified specimens (NISP) and NTAXA has

been repeatedly demonstrated (Lyman 2008; see Figure 20 for a graph of NTAXA

versus (Log) NISP for 22 Ertebølle assemblages). Using family rather than species as

groups for analyses and relying on relative abundances and diversity indices helps to

mitigate the impact of different sample sizes when comparing assemblages.

Figure 20: Correlation between NTAXA and (Log) NISP (N = 22, r = 0.55399, P = 0.0075).

Moving beyond taxonomic levels and sample size, a further complication of

using NTAXA as a means of comparing sites is that it says nothing about the degree of

overlap amongst taxa (Lyman 2008). Stating that two sites both have an NTAXA of five

may be quite misleading when seeking to compare the sites if one site has five

freshwater fishes and the other, five saltwater ones. The sites clearly have little in

common, despite sharing an NTAXA rating. This is not particularly significant when

analyzing diet breadth in terms of generalized versus specialized strategies, but it is

important to consider the actual fishes present when discussing other aspects of the

fisheries at the various sites.

Having established a measure of diversity (NTAXA), it is now possible to

begin to compare sites to see how the fish components of their faunal assemblages

differs, but further examples will illustrate why NTAXA may be even less satisfactory

than already discussed. Suppose two sites, each with three distinct contexts containing

fish as shown below:

Site A

Level 1: Gadidae, Clupeidae, Belonidae, Anguillidae, Triglidae

Level 2: Gadidae, Clupeidae, Belonidae, Anguillidae, Triglidae

Level 3: Gadidae, Clupeidae, Belonidae, Anguillidae, Triglidae

Site B

Level 1: Gadidae

Level 2: Gadidae

Level 3: Gadidae, Clupeidae, Belonidae, Anguillidae, Triglidae

Both sites have an NTAXA of five and are identical in family representation, but it is not

at all clear that the assemblages display the same diversity. One easily calculated

statistic that can help to illuminate the differences between the two sites is ubiquity, or

the frequency of occurrence of different taxa in different contexts (Lyman 2008).

Generating a ubiquity index, Site A has three out of three (100%) ubiquity for all five

families, while Site B has a three out of three (100%) index for Gadidae, but one out of

three (33.3%) for the other four families. Ubiquity can be a useful statistic, and will be

used in discussions of seasonality and fishing methods later, but since the sites from

the literature are not published in a level of detail that allows calculation of ubiquity for

their assemblages, its value for comparing sites is somewhat limited. A different

approach is needed.

Adding one more level of information (NISP) to the assemblages allows

comparison of the relative abundance of the different fishes. Calculation is very

straightforward, with the total number of specimens for each taxon divided by the total

number of specimens in the assemblage. Returning to Sites A and B, but adding

hypothetical NISP to the families produces the following information:

Site A

Level 1: Gadidae 100 specimens, Clupeidae 100 specimens, Belonidae 100 specimens,

Anguillidae 100 specimens, Triglidae 100 specimens

Level 2: Gadidae 100 specimens, Clupeidae 100 specimens, Belonidae 100 specimens,

Anguillidae 100 specimens, Triglidae 100 specimens

Level 3: Gadidae 100 specimens, Clupeidae 100 specimens, Belonidae 100 specimens,

Anguillidae 100 specimens, Triglidae 100 specimens

Site B

Level 1: Gadidae 100 specimens

Level 2: Gadidae 100 specimens

Level 3: Gadidae 900 specimens, Clupeidae 100 specimens, Belonidae 100 specimens,

Anguillidae 100 specimens, Triglidae 100 specimens

Site A now has an NISP of 1500, evenly divided among the 5 families and 3 contexts

(each layer has 33.3% of the total, and each family makes up 20% of the total in the

layer and for the site). Site B also has an NISP of 1500, but Levels 1 and 2 have 6.7%

of the total, while Level 3 has the remaining 86.7%, and Gadidae makes up 100% of the

total for the first two levels and 69% for Level 3, 73.3% for the assemblage as a whole

(the other families are each 7.7% of the total for Level 3 and 6.7% overall). Stating that

at two sites with equally large assemblages, Site B has 73.3% Gadidae and 6.7%

Clupeidae, Belonidae, Anguillidae and Triglidae and Site A has 20% for all five families

gives a clear indication of the difference between the assemblages. Clearly, relative

abundance communicates a great deal of information about an assemblage, but there is

one more measure that can be calculated to help compare multiple sites.

The Shannon-Wiener index (also called the Shannon-Weaver index or more

simply the Shannon index) is used to measure the diversity of an assemblage in terms

of its richness (NTAXA) and evenness of distribution (how equal the relative

abundances are) in one number that can be easily compared to the values from other

assemblages. It is calculated as:

H = Σ Pi (ln Pi)

where Pi is the relative abundance of the individual taxon, which is multiplied by the

natural logarithm of that relative abundance and then summed with the values for all of

the other taxa in the assemblage. The sum of the values is multiplied by negative one to

convert it to a positive number. Smaller values indicate that specimens are

predominantly from one or a few taxa, while larger values show that multiple taxa make

important contributions (Lyman 2008). For the assemblages from Sites A and B above

the calculations are:

Site A NISP Proportion ln P P(ln P)

Gadidae 300 0,200 -1,609 -0,322

Clupeidae 300 0,200 -1,609 -0,322

Belonidae 300 0,200 -1,609 -0,322

Anguillidae 300 0,200 -1,609 -0,322

Triglidae 300 0,200 -1,609 -0,322

Total 1500 -1,609

Shannon index = 1,609

Site B NISP Proportion ln P P(ln P)

Gadidae 1100 0,733 -0,310 -0,227

Clupeidae 100 0,067 -2,708 -0,181

Belonidae 100 0,067 -2,708 -0,181

Anguillidae 100 0,067 -2,708 -0,181

Triglidae 100 0,067 -2,708 -0,181

Total 1500 -0,950

Shannon index = 0,950

One important consideration when using the Shannon index to compare sites is that it is

dependent on the richness (NTAXA) of the assemblage, and thus can be affected by

the assemblage size as discussed above. Before relying on Shannon indices to discuss

inter-site variability, it is necessary to ensure that differences in the indices are not

caused merely by the sizes of the assemblages. This can be accomplished by plotting

NTAXA and the Shannon indices versus assemblage size (NISP, or more usually,

logarithmically transformed NISP) to check for correlations (Lyman 2008). This is not

necessary for Sites A and B that have equal NISP values, but will be done when

examining the archaeological assemblages. The next sections will discuss the origins of

the primary data and provide information about the contexts from which they came.

3. Creating the Record

3.1 Deposition, preservation and recovery

The first steps in the long chain of events leading up to the final conclusions

of this project began many millennia ago. The decisions made by people during the

Ertebølle period involving what fish were caught, how they were processed and

consumed, and the manner of disposal of the uneaten remains played an important role

in the creation of the archaeological data. Subsequent processes of erosion and

deposition, along with chemical and mechanical weathering of the bones also

significantly affected the fish assemblages long before the first trowel began excavating

the sites to expose the remains. Even the excavations altered the final product, as

decisions about where and how to excavate sites determined what would be recovered.

Collectively, these processes that describe the transition from fish swimming in the

ocean to the archaeological assemblage spread on the laboratory table are referred to

as taphonomy (Lyman 1994, Wheeler and Jones 1989).

3.1.1 Initial deposition

In regards to the initial deposition of archaeological materials analysts are

to some extent caught in a circular trap. While one goal of research is to understand the

processes that created the deposits, some assumptions about the nature of these

processes are inherent in the arguments constructed to interpret the data. As an

example: one goal of analyzing fish bones from archaeological sites is to gain

understanding about the ways in which fish were procured. The premise is that the

sizes and species of fish present in an assemblage are (at least partly) an artifact of the

technology used to catch them (i.e., fish traps catch a wide range of species and sizes

of fish, while hook and line fishing selects for size, and to some extent, species) (e.g.,

Greenspan 1998, Pickard and Bonsall 2004, Rick et al. 2001). However, an assemblage

that is interpreted as being largely the result of hook and line fishing because of low

taxonomic diversity and a predominance of larger fish is based on the intermediate

assumption that a representative sample of the fish that are caught are incorporated

into the deposits that are later recovered. This may be likely for activities that take place

at a home base site, but not so if they occur at a specialized procurement camp. If fish

traps were used at a specialized base camp to capture a diverse array of fish but only

selected individuals were returned to a home base, the assemblage from the home

base could end up with the signal for hook and line fishing without that technology being

a part of the fishery. The problem is further compounded if fishing technology is then

used as one line of evidence in classifying the nature of the site.

Another issue when comparing sites is chronological scale. This affects the

analysis in two regards. First, while all of the sites are from the Ertebølle period, this

covers a time span from ca. 5400-4000 B.C. Variations through time in the shapes of

projectile points and axes and other aspects of lithic technology, coupled with the

addition of pottery to the toolkit in the middle and late part of the period, provide

convincing proof that Ertebølle culture was not static (Andersen in press, Petersen

1984). In light of this, it is reasonable to ask if subsistence activities also changed, and if

so, the appropriateness of comparing deposits from earlier periods with later ones. The

short answer is that the presence or absence of change through time in fish

procurement remains an open question, although it appears present in at least some

assemblages (discussed in the Results section below). Concerning the sites included in

this project it can be seen that, with some exceptions, most of the fish material comes

from the middle or late parts of the Ertebølle period, even in sites with earlier

components (see individual site descriptions in the Materials section).

The second aspect of chronology concerns site formation: were materials

deposited over short or long periods of time, and did they accumulate steadily or

periodically (i.e., was the site used seasonally or year-round)? These questions are

especially important when seeking to answer questions about methods of capture and

processing. While a specialized subsistence strategy may provide distinctive signatures

in faunal remains (low taxonomic diversity), specialization may be confused with a more

generalist approach when multiple procurement/consumption episodes are

amalgamated into a single refuse deposit (Colley 1987:19). Similarly, seasonal markers

may prove misleading when it is assumed that all associated materials derive from the

same season in a deposit that spans many months (or even years). It is considered a

given that the assemblages used in this project were not created by singe-deposition

events, although there is some potential that some individual contexts could have been.

When characterizing the assemblages, noting their internal homogeneity (or lack

thereof) can illuminate whether the overall impression of the fishery is the result of a

consistent fishing strategy or an accumulation of many different ones. Again, careful

consideration of the nature of the deposits and explicit statements about the

assumptions used in interpretations are essential.

Certainly it is the case that deposits at many coastal Ertebølle sites are, at

least in part, outcast deposits. An advantage of these types of deposits is that the

materials seem not to display marked variation horizontally, so that samples from a few

areas of the site are more likely to capture an accurate picture of the overall situation.

Vertical variation is another story. Data from many sites are not published in a manner

that allows close examination of potential differences between layers. The shellmidden

sites of Fårevejle, Lollikhuse, Norsminde, Nederst, and to some extent, Ertebølle and

Bjørnsholm (the only ones with data available at a level of detail that allow study of

intra-site distributional variation) present a different challenge for analysis. While

shellmiddens themselves represent long-term accumulations of cultural material,

specific areas within the middens may represent very short-term events, even individual

meal deposits (Andersen 2004:402). This offers the potential for fine-grained

observations of fishing activities, but only if the relevant materials are kept separate

during excavation and analysis. Additionally, because shell middens accumulate

vertically and horizontally, samples should come from multiple layers and also multiple

areas of the site if the goal is examine possible changes over time. Because most of the

remaining well-preserved shell middens are protected areas, in many cases this will not

be possible – but archaeologists must use caution in assuming that the area that was

sampled is representative of the entire site. In the case of shell middens, this seems

more likely to not be the case. Analysis of fish remains from Nederst has shown that

different areas of the midden can have very different assemblages (see more about this

in the Results section), and this is also true of the material from Norsminde (Enghoff

1989:45). The Ertebølle, Bjørnsholm and Fårevejle shellmiddens suffer from a limited

sampling breadth, as in each case the fish remains were taken from a trench that

transected the midden in one location (Enghoff 1986 and 1991). Considering that the

trench excavated at Bjørnsholm was (mostly) one meter wide in a midden that was

estimated to extend over 325 meters in length (Andersen 1993), some skepticism is in

order as to the representativeness of the sample. More information about the extent of

excavation and nature of the individual sites and deposits appears below.

3.1.2 Post-depositional events

After initial deposition, the second stage of taphonomy concerns the long

interval up to the time of the bone’s ultimate recovery. Understanding this journey is an

essential, but exceedingly complicated, part of any faunal analysis. Not all of the bones

that were initially present are preserved or identifiable today. This can be true because

of the nature of the bones themselves (bones with a higher fat content and poorly

ossified specimens are less likely to preserve in an identifiable form), because of how

the fish were processed for consumption (with boiling or eating fish whole being

especially damaging to preservation potential), because of scavenging by dogs or other

animals, or due to environmental impacts (chemical or mechanical weathering) (Butler

and Schroeder 1998, Jones 1986, Lyman 1994, Nicholson 1992, 1993, 1996a, 1996b,

1998, Wheeler and Jones 1989). Even those bones that survive can be transported

from their original location by bioturbation or geological processes.

The extent to which differential preservation affects assemblages is

particularly vexing, in no small part because it involves negative evidence. Are certain

types of bones absent because they were not preserved or because they were never

deposited in the first place? Nicholson’s experimental studies of fishbone preservation

under varying conditions (1996a, 1996b, 1998) present an actualistic approach to this

question that is invaluable for the insights it offers, even if her ultimate conclusions

(attempts at quantifying archaeological fishbone are ‘frequently unhelpful’ and most

contexts should be described merely on the presence/absence of species) displays a

singular lack of optimism for scientific problem-solving and ignores a great deal of work

addressing the impact of differential preservation of faunal remains on interpretations

(e.g., Behrensmeyer 1991, Lyman 1991, Marean 1991, Marean and Spencer 1991,

Nichol and Wild 1984, Stiner 1992). Some of the results of Nicholson’s work are

predictable: fish bones often deteriorate more rapidly than other types of bones, even

from animals of the same size and weight (living in water in a state of neutral buoyancy,

fish skeletons do not have to withstand the same gravitational stresses that terrestrial

animals do, and thus are less robust) and gadid caudal vertebrae breakdown at a faster

rate than thoracic vertebrae (caudal vertebrae are smaller and less robust than thoracic

vertebrae from the same fish) (Nicholson 1996a). Other results are less obvious, or

even counter-intuitive: soil pH and drainage, while playing a role, may not be the

primary determinant of bone survivorship (microbial action may be the critical factor),

food preparation affects bones in different ways depending on the method (filleting

exposes bone immediately to destructive agents, hastening the start of decay, baking

seemed to have little effect, while boiling greatly increased the deterioration of bone), in

some cases, herring (with small, oily bones) survived in contexts where cod (with large,

low-fat bones) did not, and the appearance of bones was a poor predictor of collagen

preservation in them (Nicholson 1996a, 1996b, 1998). While some of these results may

have important implications for archaeological analysis, it is important to note that the

experiment ran over the course of seven years – whether some or all of these patterns

would hold up over thousands of years cannot be stated with certainty. A further study

by Nicholson attempted to determine if bone density was a good predictor of which

elements would survive, and again counter-intuitively, concluded that it was not. This

was not an actualistic study, instead attempting to measure the density of bones (using

water displacement as the volume measure) and then using the derived densities to

rank elements in a predicted survivorship ranking. When compared against the actual

proportions of elements from three archaeological sites in the United Kingdom, she

found no correlation between density and relative abundance. The shape of the bone

seemed to be the relevant factor in predicting which bones were more likely to survive

(Nicholson 1992). As the author herself acknowledges, there are serious potential

problems with her approach to measuring the volume of the bones (and by extension,

the derived density measures). Furthermore, bone density varies within elements. Given

that archaeological specimens are rarely whole elements, an average density value for

an element may bear little relationship to the actual density of the part that is usually

recovered. At the least, these studies suggest the importance of questioning

assumptions about taphonomic processes before accepting their implications.

Experimental archaeology is not the only path to exploring the effects of

differential preservation, and as seen in some of the other works cited in the paragraph

above, several researchers have approached the problem with inductive reasoning. By

examining patterns of relative abundance both between species and between individual

elements within the same species, inferences are drawn about the degree to which an

archaeological assemblage has been altered by taphonomic effects. Russ and Jones

(2009) develop a method of evaluating the survivorship of different skeletal elements in

their study of the fish remains from a Paleolithic cave site in the Apennine Mountains of

central Italy. The method identifies a minimum number of individuals (MNI) that must

have been present to account for the most common element in the assemblage for each

taxon (ignoring size) and then uses the number of each type of bone in a skeleton (e.g.,

every fish has two dentale) to predict the minimum number of each element that should

have originally been present. The actual number of that element is divided by the

predicted number to derive what proportion of the expected number was actually

identified. In this way it is possible to quantify which elements actually had the best

survivorship. In their study of Salmo trutta, some elements associated with the oral

region survived the best, with other cranial elements and vertebrae faring much worse

(Russ and Jones 2009: 157). Different taxa would be expected to vary in their elemental

survivorship rates based on element density and morphology, but in general it might be

expected that elements associated with the jaws, which experience more stresses,

would be more resilient. This general pattern was confirmed in the assemblages

analyzed for this project, although not for Pleuronectidae (see further discussion in

Section 5 Results).

Other approaches to evaluating differential preservation of the materials

include qualitative assessment, calculating the ratio of identified to the total amount of

fish bone, and quantifying the degree of vertebra fragmentation. Qualitative statements

about the condition of specimens can be an important source of information about how

well preserved an assemblage is, but are difficult to compare between assemblages

and (especially) between analysts. Examining the proportion of the bone that was

identifiable (either by count or by weight) offers some information about the condition of

the bones in a quantified manner, although it is a very rough characterization and

suffers from a number of methodological flaws (discussed more fully in the Results

section). For some assemblages that were analyzed for this project, an attempt was

made to characterize the condition of the vertebrae by assigning them to categories

depending on the degree of completeness. This approach has its own problems;

nonetheless, the results show that the identified vertebrae in these assemblages

generally survived in a fairly complete state, suggesting that preservation was relatively

good. As indicated in the beginning of this section on post-depositional processes, this

stage of taphonomy is complicated and difficult to assess. The more lines of evidence

that are introduced, the more confidence is created in the assessment of bone

survivorship.

3.1.3 Excavation

The decisions made by archaeologists about where and how to excavate

have an enormous impact on what faunal remains are recovered and can potentially

create a very significant bias in the results. At the broadest scale, which locations are

recognized as containing archaeological remains and determined to warrant excavation

depends on numerous factors. It is a certainty that not all of the places that originally

had Ertebølle settlements still survive with material evidence of this occupation today,

and it is almost as certain that not all of the surviving sites have been located. Even of

the known sites, not all have been subject to excavation. In short, the materials

available for analysis are a sample of a dataset of unknown size and their

representativeness is not assured. This limitation is certainly not unique to fish bone

analyses, nor is it reason to abandon them. Short of adopting a nihilistic philosophy of

epistemology (and abandoning archaeology altogether), the practical effects of

recognizing this sampling problem are restricted to encouraging further fieldwork and

remaining open to reinterpreting the existing evidence based on new finds. On a

narrower scale (that of the individual site) sampling questions have important

implications for representativeness, as discussed concerning chronology in the initial

deposition section above. Some sites have been excavated in their entirety (i.e.,

Norsminde), but this is rare. The more common situation of one or more trenches

sampling parts of the deposits requires due consideration of the nature of the site and

its probable extent in forming judgments about how well the sample represents the

whole. Information about the size of the excavations at the individual sites is given in the

site descriptions below, as well as an indication of the nature of the deposits.

How a site is excavated is as important as the decision of where to

excavate in regards to the representativeness of the sample. Regarding fish bone

assemblages, screening activities are probably the most important influence. Whether

matrix is screened and if so, if matrix is washed through or dry-screened, combined with

the decision of what mesh-size screens are used all factor into what fish bones will be

recovered from a site. Predictably, bones from smaller fishes (e.g., Clupeidae) are

recovered more frequently when smaller mesh-size screens are employed. Experiments

with different size screens to quantify the effects of differential recovery from two sites

are fully described under the individual site descriptions for Asnæs Havnemark and

Dragsholm in the Materials section, and the findings (including some data from Nederst)

are in the Results section. Briefly, bulk matrix samples were taken from the deposits at

the two sites and processed through a series of nested geologic screens to separate the

remains into 4, 2 and 1 mm fractions. Fish bones were sorted from each fraction and

identified, allowing an assessment of how using progressively smaller mesh-size

screens would have altered the overall assemblage (recovered with 4 mm mesh).

3.2 Laboratory analysis

Evaluating the ways in which initial deposition, subsequent preservation

and finally, excavation decisions and methods affect faunal assemblages is commonly

recognized as an important step in assessing factors that have altered the information

available for archaeological interpretation from that originally created by past human

societies. Less thought is generally given to the ways in which laboratory analysis of the

bones also affects the data. Proper identification of the bones depends upon the

comparative collection available (and to a lesser extent, other sources of information

such as published and online references), the skill of the analyst and decisions about

how to record identified specimens. When, where and how measurements of length and

weight are taken also determine what information is produced by the analysis.

As part of this project, the author developed a personal comparative

collection of some of the more common fish available in the North and Baltic Sea areas.

Currently, this consists of 47 individuals encompassing 39 different types of fish. The

fish were primarily obtained from commercial sources (fishmongers), with a few caught

by sport fishing (the author or his father). Most of the fish were obtained in Denmark,

although the pike and walleyed pike were caught in Wisconsin, and some of the fish

purchased from fishmongers may have come from some distance away from the study

area (e.g., anchovy and sardine). Preparation of the specimens involved boiling/soaking

in clean water, and manual removal of soft tissues. See Appendix II for a list of the

species in the author’s collection. Recognizing that this collection was not complete

either in regards to the range of species or to the size/age groups within species,

access to the comparative collection at the Archaölogisch-Zoologische Arbeitsgruppe of

the Archaölogisches Landesmuseum at Schoss Gottorf in Schleswig, Germany was

established to provide broader species coverage. The collection in Schleswig is

recognized as one of the largest and most complete comparative fish assemblages in

Northern Europe. Several multi-day trips to the museum allowed identification of some

of the more difficult specimens, not least because of the assistance of Dr. Ulrich

Schmölcke and Dr. Dirk Heinrich. Additional information on fish bone morphology,

taxonomy, biology and methods of identification came from published and electronic

resources (v. Busekist 2004, Cannon 1987, Casteel 1976, Enghoff 1994a, Härkönen

1986, Marine Fish Identification Portal 2009, Matsui 2007, Muus and Dahlstrom 1964

and 1967, Wheeler and Jones 1989).

Inter-analyst variation in the identification of fish bones is an especially

under-addressed problem; no doubt in part because of a lack of desire on the part of

practitioners to highlight the embarrassing fact that some identifications are erroneous.

One exception to the general silence on this topic comes from a study involving five

analysts considered experts in fish bone identification (three with PhDs in Anthropology,

one with a PhD in Zoology, and one PhD in Wildlife and Fisheries Biology) who

independently analyzed the same group of approximately 120 fish specimens (Gobalet

2001). Multiple types of variation are evident in the results of the identifications, but of

particular note are the inter-analyst discrepancies in the number of identified specimens

(from a low of 53 to a high of 69) and the number of species (from a low of 4 to a high of

18). Considering that many fish assemblages from Ertebølle sites are at least one to

two orders of magnitude larger than the one used in this study, the potential for analyst

bias to significantly skew results is certainly present. Fortunately, analysis of Ertebølle

period assemblages from Denmark has been conducted by relatively few individuals

(although the actual number is at least seven, the vast majority have been identified by

either the author or Inge B. Enghoff). Late Mesolithic assemblages from Northern

Germany and Southern Sweden have primarily been identified by Ulrich Schmölcke and

Leif Jonsson, respectively. Still, the possibility for error remains. Among the solutions

that Gobalet recommends is only accepting identifications when the comparative

methods and criteria of discrimination are explicitly discussed (2001). Appendix I

discusses the types of fish found in Ertebølle assemblages and the general and specific

issues involved in identifying their remains.

One group of fishes that deserves special attention consists of species that

have been identified in Mesolithic assemblages but are extremely rare or absent in

Danish waters today. Fish in this category include anchovy (Engraulis encrasicholus),

smoothhound (Mustelus sp.), common stingray (Dasyatis pastinaca), European sea

bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), black sea bream (Spondyliosoma cantharus) and

swordfish (Xiphias gladius) (Enghoff et al. 2007). There are two issues that their

presence raises. First, the existence of these species in archaeological assemblages,

outside of their current (more southerly) ranges, is often cited as supporting evidence

for warmer climactic conditions during the Late Mesolithic period (e.g., Enghoff 1991,

Enghoff et al. 2007). A second and less favorable result of acknowledging the presence

of species that are not currently indigenous to Danish waters is that it greatly expands

the list of potential species for identification purposes for all archaeological specimens.

No comparative collection can contain enough individuals to comprehensively document

the whole piscine fauna of the Atlantic Ocean and related waters and, even if one

existed, it is doubtful that an analyst could search out every possible match for an

element before identifying it. Part of faunal analysis is developing an understanding of

the geographical and chronological conditions that limit the number of potential species

to a manageable quantity. When some southerly species are identified the pool of

possible matches for other specimens increases, too. The result is that species

identifications often become somewhat less reliable, although this varies by family or

order by the number of members. In practice, this emphasizes the tension between

accuracy of identification and the level of taxonomic specificity chosen and supports the

selection of the family level as most appropriate.

Other than weights, metric data was only collected on a few selected

elements: Anguillidae ceratohyale and cleithra, Gadidae and Pleuronectidae first

vertebrae and Gadidae otoliths. Many other elements can be measured and other fishes

could have been included (Morales and Rosenlund 1979), but it was judged unlikely that

the greatly increased time required would have provided sufficient additional information

to justify the effort. Measurements were taken with a digital caliper accurate to 0.1 mm

in the locations as shown in Figures 21-24.

Figure 21: Anguillidae ceratohyal measurement. Figure 22: Gadidae otolith

measurement.

Figure 23: Anguillidae cleithrum measurement Figure 24: Vertebra measurement (not a first

vertebra).

4. Materials

4.1 Sites analyzed for this project

The assemblages that were analyzed for this project were selected either

because of the author’s participation in the excavations (Asnæs Havnemark,

Dragsholm, Fårevejle and Jesholm I – all under the direction of T. Douglas Price) or at

the request of the principle investigator (Bøgebjerg – T. Douglas Price, Havnø – Søren

H. Andersen, Lollikhuse – Søren A. Sørensen and Nederst – Niels Axel Boas).

Summary results for each site are presented in Appendix III and full results in Appendix

IV.

4.1.1 Asnæs Havnemark:

The fish remains from this site are from an excavation that took place in the

summer of 2007 under the direction of T. Douglas Price. Six excavators working for 5

weeks (from June 18th to July 20th) opened up a series of test pits and 3 trenches (see

Figure 25). Excavation of the trenches was carried out by means of shovel and trowel

(Figure 26), with the matrix being water-screened in the field through 4mm mesh-size

sieves. In addition to a large quantity of flint tools and debitage, Ertebølle and TRB

pottery as well as animal remains were recovered. Much of the animal bone was from

fish. Although squares were excavated according to natural layers, radiocarbon dates

indicate that the materials derive from a relatively short (approximately 300 year) time

span at the end of the Late Ertebølle and beginning of the Early TRB periods. Still,

materials from the layers were kept separate during excavation and analysis (see Table

2 for the distribution of fish remains by layer).

Figure 25: Excavations at Asnæs Havnemark (drawing courtesy of T. Douglas Price).

Square meters Weight (g) NISP

Trench 1

Culture layer 6 942 11808

Grey layer 2 106 1307

Other 1 28 228

Total 9 1076 13343

Trench 2

Culture layer 7 235 3538

Other 2 28 220

Total 9 263 3758

Trench 3

Culture layer 3 1116 17447

Shell 3 375 5612

Brown surface 2 422 4301

Total 8 1913 27360 Table 1: Distribution of fish remains by trench and level at Asnæs Havnemark.

The first column of the table (Square meters) refers to the number of individual squares

that produced fish bone material for that provenience and is not the same as the total

number of squares excavated. The culture layer was a very dark brown or black layer

that contained most of the finds (including fish bones). Underneath that, in some places,

was a continuation of the culture layer with a relatively high content of shells,

designated the shell layer. In Trench 1, the layer underneath the culture layer was

named the grey layer, while in Trench 3 the layer underneath the shell layer was the

brown surface. The contexts labelled ‘other’ include a few remains taken from a backdirt

pile from Trench 1 and a small sample of a second culture layer about a meter below

the first in Trench 2, discovered while cleaning the profile prior to making a section

drawing. This deeper culture layer was not otherwise excavated. The table makes clear

that the majority of the fish remains come from the culture layer.

Figure 26: Trench 3 at Asnæs Havnemark.

During the excavation of Trenches 1 and 2, it was quickly realized that

recovery of the large numbers of fishbones present would create an insurmountable

obstacle to excavation across an area broad enough to answer questions about the

nature of the site in the time available. The decision was made to take samples from

Trench 3 that would allow inferences about the nature of the unexamined deposits. In

light of this, it should be noted that while most of the squares in Trenches 1 and 2 have

samples taken by water-screening through 4 mm mesh-size screens, only selected

squares in Trench 3 have similar treatment. In addition to the 4 mm mesh-size water-

screening, experience from the site of Dragsholm had suggested the need for samples

that incorporated a smaller screen size to test the effects of differential recovery. To this

end, bulk samples of 2 liters (in one case, 5 liters – square 135 East, 133 North, culture

layer) were taken from several of the proveniences and washed through nested

geologic screens of 8, 4, 2 and 1 mm sizes. The 8 mm screen was used to quickly

remove larger stones and protect the more delicate faunal material; fish bone from this

fraction was immediately after combined with the 4 mm fraction for identification. The

matrix from the 2 and 1 mm fractions was sorted with the aid of a binocular microscope

(4-6x magnifications Nikon SMZ 800) to ensure complete recovery. Identification of the

1 mm fraction bones was done under 6-12x magnifications using a Wild Heerbrugg

binocular microscope. Although an attempt was made to identify as many elements as

possible in the 4 and 2 mm fractions, only vertebra were identified in the 1 mm fraction

(although stickleback dorsal spines, flounder dermal denticles and spurdog teeth were

also noted, but not included in the bone counts from these samples).

For the rest of the assemblage, sample weights were taken with an

electronic scale accurate to 1 gram, and for the larger samples, weights were taken for

the total non-vertebral elements, Gadidae vertebrae, Anguillidae vertebrae and the rest

of the identified vertebrae separately. Non-vertebral specimens were identified as to

type of fish, element, and where appropriate, side. Selected elements (some first

vertebrae, Anguillidae ceratohyal and Gadidae otoliths) were measured with an

electronic caliper accurate to 0.1 mm for use in size estimations. This same general

procedure was followed for all of the other assemblages, with a few exceptions and

variations. In all, 47,760 specimens were identified from Asnæs Havnemark, from 17

fish families.

4.1.2 Dragsholm and Bøgebjerg:

The recent excavations at the site of Dragsholm – those that produced the

fish bone assemblage presented in this report – were excavated over the course of

three summers (2002-2004) under the direction of T. Douglas Price. The first summer’s

campaign consisted of just one week in August, when a series of 5 test pits and one

trench (measuring 1x20 m) were put in to test the presence and preservation of

materials at the site (see Figure 27). Five personnel were involved in the excavation.

Because of time pressures excavation proceeded relatively rapidly, although water-

screening (with 4 mm mesh screen) was used to facilitate recovery of smaller artifacts

(i.e., fish bones). Not all squares and layers were screened, and none of the fish

materials from this trench (Trench 2) have so far been analyzed. Results from this first

season were very promising, with a large quantity of lithic and organic remains

recovered. Fish bone totaled 722 grams. (See Table 3 for a complete listing of fish

remains by trench and level for Dragsholm and Table 4 for Bøgebjerg, but note that

parts of some trenches were not excavated and/or screened to recover fish bones.)

Figure 27: Dragsholm and Bøgebjerg excavations. (Map by K. Ritchie)

Year Square meters Total weight ID weight NISP

Trench 2

Level 6 2002 1 2 0 0

Level 7A 2002 1 1 0 0

Level 7C 2002 10 693 0 0

Level 7D 2002 1 4 0 0

Level 9 2002 4 22 0 0

Total 17 722 0 0

Trench 3

Level 7 2003 2 3 0 0

Level 7A 2003 4 8 1 1

Level 7B 2003 3 23 0 0

Level 7C 2003 9 1300 358 2161

Level 7D 2003 6 497 2 9

Level 8 2003 5 395 76 356

Level 9 2003 1 14 0 0

Total 30 2240 437 2527

Trench 4

Level 7A 2003 4 133 0 0

Level 7B 2003 6 1573 249 1585

Level 7C 2003 6 401 1 5

Level 8 2003 1 5 0 0

Total 17 2112 250 1590

Trench 5

Level 7A 2003 3 62 0 0

Level 7B 2003 8 224 56 618

Level 7C 2003 7 859 160 1054

Level 8 2003 6 1308 118 662

Level 10 2003 1 1 0 0

Total 25 2454 334 2334

Trench 11

Level 6 2004 3 3 3 3

Level 7A 2004 10 78 78 459

Level 7B 2004 10 813 813 5357

Level 7C 2004 11 2696 2696 20887

Level 8 2004 10 1060 1060 5906

Total 44 4650 4650 32612 Table 3: Distribution of fish remains by trench and level at Dragsholm.

The stratigraphy within the deposits is rather distinct (see Figure 28),

representing a series of marine transgressions and regressions followed by later peat

development, re-deposition of fill when the drainage canal was dug and plowzone. Level

6, a sandy layer with a high content of rocks and archaeological materials, likely

contains materials eroded from higher areas during the final major marine

transgressions. Ceramic typology and the presence of cattle teeth suggest a Neolithic

date for the material, but in any case, very little fish bone was recovered from these

deposits. Levels 7A, 7B and 7C are sandy deposits distinguished from each other by

the particle size of the sands, iron oxidation marks, and color (probably resulting from

different inclusions in the sand such as charcoal). These deposits are also interpreted

as being affected by transgressions/re-deposition, although perhaps to a less extreme

extent than Level 6. Materials in these deposits date to the Late/Middle Ertebølle, based

on lithic typology and the presence of Mesolithic ceramics. The deepest level to produce

significant amounts of fish bone is Level 8, thought to be largely in situ outcast deposits.

Typologically, the materials date to the Middle Ertebølle period, a conclusion supported

by a radiocarbon date on red deer bone of 5019-5000 B.C. (AAR-8189) (Price 2004).

Figure 28: North wall of Trench 11 displaying clear stratigraphy.

Square meters Weight (g) NISP

Level 1 5 10 97

Level 2 1 <1 1

Level 3 2 60 372

Level 5 3 31 303

Level 7 6 161 1776

Other 4 3 43

Total 21 265 2592 Table 4: Distribution of fish remains by level at Bøgebjerg (Trenches 2 and 3 combined).

The deposits from Bøgebjerg seem to be somewhat earlier than those at

nearby Dragsholm (based on flint typology and the absence of ceramics), but still within

the Ertebølle period. Some of the same processes of transgression/regression with the

resultant erosion and re-deposition of materials undoubtedly took place here, although

layer descriptions are somewhat vaguer for these deposits. From the field notes: after

testing a few samples and recovering very little, Levels 1 and 2 were not screened

during excavation. Level 1 is described as decomposed gyttja and Level 2 a

decomposed peat. Level 3 is described as a very thin lens (or pockets) of fine sand

overlying the reddish-brown clay of Level 4, although the labels of the fish bone

samples indicate they came from Level 3 (none from Level 4). Level 5 is grayish- to

yellowish-brown sand with some silt mixed in. Level 6 contains coarse sand and gravel,

similar in some regards to Level 6 at Dragsholm, probably resulting from erosion and re-

deposition of other deposits. No fish bones were found in this layer. Finally, Level 7 is a

siltier layer, distinguished by the presence of shell (especially mussel). It contained the

majority of the fish bones found at the Bøgebjerg.

In 2003, another campaign of excavation was conducted with 11

excavators working over the course of 8 weeks (although not all participated for the

entire period at this site). A second series of 6 test pits was excavated to further define

the extent of the archaeological deposits and the site stratigraphy. Afterwards, Trenches

3, 4 and 5 (14, 20 and 16 square meters respectively) were excavated by hand (shovel

and trowel), with water-screening of the matrix from many of the proveniences. Again, a

large quantity of artifacts was recovered, including 6806 grams of fish bone. In a search

for materials and/or features from the part of the site that was dry land during the

periods of occupation, a series of 5 trenches (Trenches 6-10) were machine-excavated.

No fish bone material (and little material of any kind) was found in these trenches.

Approximately one hundred meters north of the site of Dragsholm, another site,

Bøgebjerg, was also excavated in 2003 (after testing with one trench in 2002). A series

of 6 trenches comprising over 140 square meters was excavated by machine and hand,

with water-screening of some of the deposits. A total of 265 grams of fish bone was

recovered, all of it from Trenches 2 and 3. This material has been analyzed, and is

included in the results section.

The final campaign at Dragsholm was in 2004, when 6 excavators worked

for about 2 weeks on Trench 11 – a 16 square meter area immediately north of Trench

5. This trench was extremely rich in fish remains (and other artifacts). A total of 4650

grams of fish bone was recovered. Of particular interest was the large number of

Gadidae otoliths recovered from this trench, especially concentrated in four square

meters of Level 8. In addition to the regular water-screening of matrix with 4 mm mesh,

13 small samples (approximately 10 liters total) were processed through nested

geologic screens to check for the presence of small bones that might be missed using

the 4 mm mesh. The samples were originally taken from Layer 7B, based on the

observation by the excavators that some areas of this layer seemed to be especially

rich in charcoal and smaller bones. Later, samples were taken from other layers for fine

screening. Unfortunately, the samples from layers other than 7B contained few fish

bones – limiting the potential for comparison. The samples were processed by drying,

then sifting through nested 8, 4, 2 and 1 mm geologic screens, with the bones from the

8 and 4 mm screens combined for analysis. Fish bones were picked from the various

fractions by visual inspection – with the 1 mm fraction done under 4-6x magnifications

using a binocular microscope (Nikon SMZ 800). Similar to the samples from Asnæs

Havnemark, identification of the 1 mm fraction bones was done under 6-12x

magnification using a Wild Heerbrugg binocular microscope, and an attempt was made

to identify as many elements as possible in the 4 and 2 mm fractions, but not in the 1

mm. Only vertebra were identified in the 1 mm fraction (although stickleback dorsal

spines, flounder dermal denticles and spurdog teeth were also noted, but not included in

the bone counts from these samples). Results of this screen-test experiment are

presented later. Dragsholm produced 40,502 identified specimens, from 18 families,

while the Bøgebjerg assemblage was 2592 specimens from 10 families.

4.1.3 Fårevejle:

Investigations at Fårevejle that produced the fish remains included in this

project were conducted in the summers of 2004 and 2005, again, under the direction of

Dr. T. Douglas Price. In 2004, 8 excavators working for 6 weeks opened up a trench 2

by 19 meters, with additional areas opened by machine to expose stratigraphy and

search for features outside of the shell midden (see Figure 29).

Figure 29: Excavations at Fårevejle (note that all elevations below 3.0 asm are the

same shade of grey). (Map by K. Ritchie)

Fish remains were recovered from 16 square meters: a total of 210 grams.

Deposits were hand excavated and water-screened through 4 mm mesh to recover

artifacts. Work was resumed in the summer of 2005, primarily focused on removing a 2

by 2 meter baulk that was left in place in the middle of Trench 1 in the first season. A

second trench (10 square meters) was opened 8 meters away, but very few fish

remains (about 8 grams total) were recovered in this area. Trench 1 provided an

additional 70 grams of fish bone material (site total, both seasons = 288 g). The midden

area in Trench 1 was separated into seven natural layers (and several sub-layers)

during excavation based on the color and texture of the matrix, the types and amount of

shell in the matrix, whether it was predominantly burnt, crushed or whole shell, and the

number and size of rocks (see Table 5 for a breakdown of where the fish remains came

from and Figure 31 for a section photograph). Levels 2-4 may be mostly Neolithic

deposits (based on ceramic typology), whereas Level 5 and below date to the Ertebølle

period. The distribution of fish bones within the midden was not uniform (nor was the

thickness of the midden or the individual levels). Figure 30 shows how the number of

fish bones varied in the midden on a North-South transect.

Square meters Weight (g) NISP

Trench 1

Level 2 1 <1 4

Level 3 3 14 127

Level 4 8 48 366

Level 5 10 88 953

Level 6 18 102 981

Level 7 11 25 209

Level 8 5 3 41

Other 2 <1 2

Total 58 280 2683

Trench 2 14 8 55 Table 5: Distribution of fish remains by level at Fårevejle.

Figure 30: Horizontal distribution of fish remains in Trench 1 at Fårevejle.

Fish remains recovered from earlier excavations at Fårevejle include one specimen

Anguillidae, 38 specimens Gadidae, and 8 specimens Pleuronectidae (Degerbøl

1945:146, Winge 1900:121, cited in Rosenlund 1976:31). The recent excavations and

analysis resulted in an assemblage of 2738 identified specimens from 12 different

families of fish.

Figure 31: Western wall of Trench 1 (108 and 109 North) at Fårevejle.

Figure 32: Excavation in Trench 1 at Fårevejle.

4.1.4 Havnø:

Havnø is a shell midden site on the eastern coast of the Jutland peninsula

that has been under excavation by Søren Andersen for the past several years (Figure

33). The site has both Mesolithic and Neolithic deposits; some of the fish remains may

date to the more recent period. In general, fish bones are not common in the midden

(although not all of the matrix was screened). The 114 samples analyzed for this project

included only 330 identified fish bones, limiting the potential discussion of the

assemblage. However, like Jesholm I, Havnø is notable for the wide variety of fishes

appearing in a small assemblage, with at least nine families represented. Five

specimens of Anguillidae and 2 of Pleuronectidae are recorded from excavations

conducted in 1888 and 1894 by the National Museum (Degerbøl 1945:133-146, Winge

1900:110, cited in Rosenlund 1976:32).

Figure 33: Excavation at Havnø in 2006.

4.1.5 Jesholm I:

Excavations at Jesholm I on the northern coast of the Djursland peninsula

took place over the course of three months in the spring of 2008 (Figure 34). Although

preservation of organic materials (wood and bone) was good, very few fish bones were

recovered during excavation. Outcast deposits were repeatedly sampled (approximately

10 liters at a time), using water-screening with 1.5 mm mesh-size screens, but

ultimately only 11 samples produced fish bones (and four additional specimens were

recovered without screening). A total of just 38 specimens were identified (an additional

18 vertebrae and two otoliths were recovered but not identified). The very small sample

size limits interpretation, but it is noteworthy that the assemblage includes

representatives of seven different families of fish. Typologically, the layers that

contained fish bone can be assigned to the Early Ertebølle period.

Figure 34: Almost underwater archaeology at Jesholm I.

4.1.6 Lollikhuse:

Lollikhuse is a shell midden site near Roskilde fjord in northern Zealand,

best known as the location of one of the rare Ertebølle house features. Excavated under

the direction of Søren Sørensen over the course of several seasons beginning in 1989,

the site has produced a large quantity of fish remains, a portion of which (2669

specimens representing 8 families) have been identified for this project. In all, 91

samples covering 36 square meters (in places divided into up to six 10 cm levels) have

been analyzed. The great majority of the fish remains come from outcast deposits, with

nine samples (93 specimens) coming from an area that may have been dry land when

they were deposited. The house feature at the site is dated typologically by flint artifacts

in the fill to the Early Ertebølle period, but other parts of the site also have Late

Ertebølle materials. At this point it is not possible to date the fish samples with more

precision than the extended Ertebølle period. The assemblage was recovered in the

field by dry-screening, using a 4.5 mm mesh-size (Søren A. Sørensen 1992 and

personal communication 2008).

4.1.7 Nederst:

The materials from this site are the results of excavations conducted over a

series of five seasons (1987-1992). While a final report has not been written, field notes

indicate that the site is a shell midden consisting of three distinct deposits (skaldynge

‘shell heap’ I, II and III). The result of an analysis of fishbone samples from skaldynge II

has been published in summary form (Enghoff 1994a), while samples from skaldynge I

were analyzed as part of this project. Skaldynge I was the largest of three areas,

estimated at 130x50 m. Both human and dog burials (see Figures 35 and 36) were

excavated from the area. Skaldynge II was the smallest of the three (45x20 m), but it

also contained human burials. Skaldynge III was discovered just north of skaldynge II,

with an estimated size of 75x35 m. In addition to the burials, notable finds include six

fishhooks and at least one fishhook preform. The numerous burials, rich material culture

and large fish bone assemblage make Nederst a very interesting Ertebølle site, but the

lack of publication makes interpretation of the results somewhat difficult. As will be

shown later in the Results section, the spatial heterogeneity of the fish assemblage at

Nederst is an important characteristic that warrants further investigation as more

information becomes available.

Figure 35: Human burial from Nederst (photo courtesy of Niels Axel Boas).

Figure 36: Dog burial from Nederst (photo courtesy of Niels Axel Boas).

The previously published assemblage (6476 specimens) from skaldynge II

was identified from 19 samples from 15 square meters covering four levels and four

features (see Table 6 for complete sample information). Although the results for the

individual contexts are not known, it is clear that the majority of the samples originate

from either the designated shell layers (S) or Level C5, reported as the culture layer with

some shell, a high charcoal content, many animal bones, and ceramics from both the

Ertebølle and Neolithic periods. Level C10 describes the areas around the stone and

clay-built fireplaces and is described as especially rich in charcoal particles. Level B lies

underneath the shell midden, and contains much gravel and some grayish materials

that are intrusive from the overlying culture layer. Materials from skaldynge II date from

the whole of the Ertebølle period and some part of the Neolithic, although more specific

dating of the contexts is not yet available. The majority of the fish bones are thought to

derive from the Mesolithic parts of the deposits. Recovery of fish bones was aided by

water-screening in the field using 6 mm mesh-size screens, with some samples

processed through 1.5 mm screens to test the effect of differential recovery.

X East North Level Other level Feature

3712 309 328 C5 S

3492 311 328 C5 S

3553 312 329 C5 S

3478 313 330 C5 S

3768 314 329 C5 S

3973 318 335 S

3872 318 337 C10 Stone fireplace

3907 319 336 C10 Stone fireplace

4000 321 335 S

3948 321 335 C5 S

4049 321 336 B

4025 323 336 S

3906 323 336 S

3886 323 336 C5 S

3922 324 336 S

3669 324 340 Trashpit

3433 324 340 Trashpit

4062 325 336 C10 S Stone fireplace

3915 C10 Stone fireplace Table 6: Context information for samples from skaldynge II at Nederst.

Fifteen samples from 12 square meters, covering 5 levels and one feature,

were analyzed from skaldynge I as part of this project (see Table 7 for specific sample

information and Table 8 for fish distribution by level – weights are not available). As with

the skaldynge II assemblage, most of the samples come from either the shell layers or

Level C10 (note that several samples have two layer designations, with the second

being shell). Additional levels include: Level C12, a culture layer in the shell midden with

crushed and whole shell (especially oysters), level C13, a mixture of fire-reddened

sand, burnt crushed shell and charcoal particles and Level C20, grey-black and brown-

black culture layer in the area of fireplaces, filled with charcoal particles and crushed

shell. Typological dating places most of the deposits in the Ertebølle period, with Level

C20 attributed to the Younger Ertebølle. The identified assemblage from skaldynge I at

Nederst consists of 13,779 specimens from 12 families.

X East North Level Other level Feature

108 199 299 Dog burial

4915 201 297 S

5110 202 298 C12

8484 251 290 C10

8813 251 290 C13 S

8502 252 289 C10 S

8594 252 289 C13

8492 252 290 C10

8566 252 290 C13

8769 252 297 C10 S

9110 256 300 C20 S

9483 257 303 S

9347 259 305 C20 S

9469 259 306 C20 S

9394 260 304 C10 S Table 7: Context information for samples from skaldynge I at Nederst.

Square meters NISP

Level 10 5 1931

Level 12 1 2034

Level 13 3 368

Level 20 3 3620

Shell 2 4969

Other 1 857

Total 15 13779 Table 8: Distribution of fish remains by level for skaldynge I at Nederst.

4.2 Sites from the literature

Previously published records of fish remains from coastal sites of the

Danish Ertebølle can be divided into three categories: 1) large, recently analyzed

assemblages from modern excavations published in considerable detail (i.e., Ertebølle,

Bjørnsholm, Norsminde and Smakkerup Huse), 2) recently done but small assemblages

(i.e., Ronæs Skov and Agernæs) or recently excavated and analyzed assemblages that

are only presented in summary form, and 3) the results of older excavations and/or

analysis, which in many cases include a very small number of specimens. All of these

sites offer information about fishing during the Ertebølle period, but the size and quality

of the data sets varies, necessitating different treatments.

The first group, which contains the most useful and comparable data, is

worth considering in some detail. As the locus classicus for the period, the shell midden

at Ertebølle, on the Limfjord in northern Jutland, seems an appropriate place to begin.

Excavations in the late 19th century produced a small, but impressively diverse (8

families) assemblage, including 25 Gasterosteidae specimens (Gasterosteus

aculeatus), a small fish that is usually only recovered with fine-mesh screening

(Degerbøl 1945:125-151, Winge 1900:81-82, cited in Rosenlund 1976:30). The site was

again excavated from 1979-84, under the direction of Søren H. Andersen and Erik

Johansen, with the fish bone material coming from a 1x29 m long trench transecting the

midden and a 20x20 cm column sample. The one meter width of the transecting trench

is an important fact when evaluating the representativeness of the sample, as the

overall length of the midden is estimated at 140 m (Anderson and Johansen 1986).

Another sampling issue is that the deposits were not systematically screened (except

for the N-column sample). Rather, when fish bones were noticed during excavation the

matrix in that area was collected as a bulk sample and the fish bones later sorted out in

the laboratory with the aid of a binocular microscope. Although the controlled recovery

allowed by working in the laboratory doubtless means that few (if any) bones were

missed from the matrix samples, because the taking of samples relied on observation

by the excavators that fish bones were present, it is not possible to be equally confident

that all of the fish bones from the trench itself were collected.

On a more positive note, fish bones are described as well or even

excellently preserved; suggesting that bone loss may be relatively low in the midden

deposits (Enghoff 1986:63). The N-column sample, divided into 27 samples by either

natural layers or arbitrary 5 cm levels, was completely screened (through mesh-sizes

down to 0.5 mm). For purposes of inter-site comparison, the 9462 specimen

assemblage taken from the trench is the basis of comparison, although the N-column

sample is used in the discussion of intra-site variability (Enghoff 1986). The site

stratigraphy is somewhat complex, but since the assemblage is only reported in

aggregate, knowledge of individual contexts is not a necessity (see Andersen and

Johansen 1986 for a complete discussion). The chronology of the site is revealed

through 26 radiocarbon dates spanning 700 years, all of them coming from the Late

Mesolithic period (Andersen and Johansen 1986:50). A total of 9462 specimens from 16

fish families were identified from the trench deposits (Enghoff 1986:66-67). Several

thousand more were identified from the N-column sample, although the exact number is

unclear because the bone counts were ‘adjusted’ to make all of the samples equivalent

to a 2 kg sample standard (Enghoff 1986:70).

Bjørnsholm is a second shell midden site on the Limfjord (approximately 8

km from Ertebølle) that was subject to both early and more recent excavations. First

excavated in the 1930s under the direction of H.C. Broholm, it was revisited under the

direction of Søren H. Andersen from 1985-91. The early excavation produced just

twelve fish bones (Esocidae, Cyprinidae and Anguillidae), but the more recent work has

proven that the site is in fact, rich in fish remains (Enghoff 1991, Rosenlund 1976). The

recently analyzed material comes from a 1x28 m long trench transecting the midden,

with three smaller trenches enlarging the width in a few places out to three meters

(although the smaller trenches were not fully excavated). Natural layers were

distinguished during excavation (and materials bagged separately) where possible, in

other areas arbitrary levels were set at 5 or 10 cm intervals (Andersen 1991:59). Fish

remains were recovered by sieving in the field with 2-3 mm mesh-size screens (both

wet- and dry-screening was done), with one square that was especially rich in fish

bones receiving special treatment. Square K was excavated in 5 cm layers which were

first sieved through the 2-3 mm screen in the field, then an approximately 2 kg sample

of the material that passed through this screen was put through a 0.6mm sieve to

examine the effects of differential recovery. Cyprinidae and Gasterosteidae were most

frequently missed by the field screen, with Anguillidae also being missed to a significant

degree. Because the entire matrix is reported as having been screened, the

assemblage can be confidently regarded as representative of the whole trench.

However, the narrow width of the trench (in a midden extending to 325 m in length)

does raise the question of whether it is representative of the entirety of the site deposits.

The fish bones from the midden are described as being homogenously distributed with

regard to species occurrence, but without information on specific contexts it is not

possible to evaluate the uniformity of relative abundances (Enghoff 1991:113).

Preservation of the bones is recorded as good, and only a few of them are burnt

(Enghoff 1991:106). Like the Ertebølle midden, Bjørnsholm is extensively radiocarbon

dated (28 datings), and covers an extended period (ca. 1500 years), although the great

majority of the fish remains come from the Mesolithic portion of the deposits, and most

of the archaeological material overall dates to the Late Ertebølle period (Andersen

1991:75). A total of 11,490 specimens were identified from 24 separate fish families in

the Mesolithic deposits (Enghoff 1991:107).

Norsminde is a third shell midden site on the Jutland peninsula, although

further south and on a small fjord along the eastern coast. Unlike the previous two sites,

Norsminde was unknown until recently, being first discovered by survey work in 1972.

The site was excavated from 1972-89 under the direction of Søren Andersen, and is

described as being completely excavated. Originally, the midden was oval-shaped and

30 m long, varying in width from 5-12 m (Andersen 1989). Fish remains were recovered

by two methods: hand collection of specimens that were noted during excavation

(without the use of screens) and screening of bulk samples in the laboratory. It is not

clear what portion of the overall assemblage is attributable to each of the methods, what

quantity of matrix was taken as bulk samples, nor the mesh-size used in screening them

(although some were processed through 0.5 mm mesh-size) (Enghoff 1989:42). The

distribution of fish bone in the midden is described as ‘uneven’, and despite the overall

dominance of Pleuronectidae in the assemblage, this is the result of a preponderance of

these fish in an approximately seven square meter area containing the ‘fish layer’ -

outside of this area the midden is actually dominated by Gadidae. Bone preservation is

described as highly variable, ranging from very poor to very good (Enghoff 1989:42-45).

Despite the extensive excavation of this midden, questions about sample size and the

method of recovery preclude absolute confidence in the representativeness of the

assemblage, although it is possibly quite good. On the subject of chronology,

Norsminde is another example of a site that has been extensively radiocarbon dated,

revealing a span of occupation for the midden proper that is ca. 700 years long,

covering the Late Ertebølle and Early Neolithic periods (Andersen 1989:29). Despite the

presence of considerable Neolithic-era materials, only a single fish bone was recovered

from deposits attributed to this period (Enghoff 1989:45). A total of 8921 specimens

(given as 9158 in Enghoff 1994a, when 237 dermal denticles from Platichthys flesus are

included, increasing the relative percentage of Pleuronectidae by 1%) were identified,

from 16 families (Enghoff 1989:42).

Smakkerup Huse is the fourth site that offers a large assemblage,

combined with recent excavation and detailed publication. It differs from the first three

sites both in geography (it is on the island of Zealand, not the peninsula of Jutland) and

the nature of the site (the fish remains come from outcast deposits, not from a shell

midden). Although likely discovered by construction activity in the early 20th century and

collected by avocational and professional archaeologists over the course of decades,

the site was not excavated until 1989, and then again in 1995-97. Excavation was

conducted with trowels and shovels, under the direction of T. Douglas Price, with the

majority of the matrix water-screened through 4 mm mesh-size screens. There is some

confusion surrounding the contexts containing identified fish bone, as Appendix XIII

(Price and Gebauer 2005:270) gives fish weights from an area of only 22 square

meters, all apparently from the location of the 1996 excavation, but the site NISP is

equal to the combined totals of the 1995, 1996 and 1997 excavations (Larsen 2000). It

seems likely that the fish bones actually have a more extensive horizontal distribution.

There is also a discrepancy between the total weights of the fish samples listed in

Appendix XIII and the total given in Table 2.3 (Price and Gebauer 2005:49). Vertically,

the fish remains come from 8 of the designated layers, with three of these making only

minor contributions (see Table 9). Layers 5 and 5G (grey sand with gravel or gyttja)

have the greatest weight of fish bones and are dated to the Late Ertebølle. Layer 27

(brown sandy gyttja) dates to the Middle Ertebølle, as does presumably, Layer 26

(although it is not separately described). Layer 13 dates to the Late Ertebølle, so it is

probably safe to assume that Layers 10 and 12 do as well (Price and Gebauer

2005:47). The fish bones are described as well-preserved, and only a few examples are

burnt (Larsen 2005:103). A total of 9332 specimens were identified, representing 11 fish

families (Larsen 2005:104).

Layer Square meters Weight (g)

5 13 752,9

10 1 0,5

12 1 15,0

13 1 0,3

17 6 99,8

26 8 532,3

27 17 389,1

5G 8 107,3

Total 55 1897,2 Table 9: Distribution of fish remains by level at Smakkerup Huse (Price and Gebauer 2005:270).

The second category of sites from the literature include those that are

published in detail but have very small assemblages (i.e., Agernæs and Ronæs Skov)

and those that are published only in summary form (i.e., Tybrind Vig, Nivågård,

Møllegabet II and the Mesolithic sites around the Vedbæk fjord) (Enghoff 1994a and

2009, O. Jensen 2001, Richter and Noe-Nygaard 2003, Trolle-Lassen 1984). Three

other shell midden sites on Jutland (Visborg, Vængesø III and Krabbesholm) have been

analyzed and are mentioned in the literature, but no information is available about the

nature of their assemblages (Enghoff et al. 2007). Agernæs, a Late Ertebølle hunting

station on the northern coast of the island of Fyn, was excavated under the direction of

Anders Jæger during 1985-89. Unfortunately, while carefully excavated and with

exquisite stratigraphical information available, only five fish specimens are recorded (3

Gadidae and one each Pleuronectidae and Squalidae) (Richter and Noe-Nygaard

2003:17). Ronæs Skov, an underwater Ertebølle site on the northwestern coast of Fyn,

was investigated during 1992-2004 under the direction of Søren Andersen. Excavation

techniques were exemplary, and matrix was screened using an effective mesh-size

down to 2-3 mm, but surprisingly few fish remains were recovered (Andersen 2009:23).

Of the 109 identified specimens, most are Gadidae, with Squalidae, Salmonidae,

Gasterosteidae and Pleuronectidae also present (Enghoff 2009:245). Tybrind Vig, the

famous underwater Ertebølle site just a few kilometers up the coast from Ronæs Skov,

was also excavated under the direction of Søren H. Andersen, in the period 1978-1988.

Excavated in a manner similar to Ronæs Skov, the fish assemblage has been only

minimally published, such that all that is currently known is that Gadidae dominate, with

Scophthalmidae, Pleuronectidae, Squalidae and Gasterosteidae described as common.

Other fish present include Cottidae, Anguillidae, Clupeidae, Scombridae, Salmonidae

and Zoarcidae (Trolle-Lassen 1984). The large number of fishing implements recovered

during excavation makes this an extremely interesting site for discussion of the

Ertebølle fishery, but until the assemblage is more fully published, its usefulness is

limited. Nivågård, one of a number of Mesolithic sites around the Nivå fjord in

northeastern Zealand, is another intriguing assemblage because of the associated

archaeological finds – in this case, remains of a hut structure (although actually located

at Nivå 10, it is less than 100 m distant from Nivågård). Excavations under the direction

of Ole Lass Jensen in 1992 produced a sizeable fish assemblage, but it is only reported

in summary form. Pleuronectidae are the dominant fish (60%), followed by Gadidae

(25%). Other fish mentioned as being present include Clupeidae, Ammotydiae,

Gasterosteidae, Esocidae, Percidae and Cyprinidae (O. Jensen 2001:124). Møllegabet

II is an underwater site that was excavated in 1990 and 1991 under the direction of Ole

Grøn and Jørgen Skaarup. The site is of special interest because of a feature

interpreted as a boat burial. Little information is available on the fish remains, but what

is published is that 95% of the bones were Gadidae, with Squalidae, Scombridae,

Pleuronectidae and Anguillidae also present (Grøn and Skaarup 1991). The final sites in

this second category include the Mesolithic sites in the area of the Vedbæk fjord in

northeastern Zealand, excavated under the direction of Eric Brinch Petersen and Peter

Vang Petersen during the period 1975-85. The sites include: Stationsvej 19,

Henriksholm B, Magleholm, Maglemosegård, Maglemosegårds Vænge and Vænget

Nord. The first and the last of these sites date to the Kongemose period, the rest are

from the Ertebølle period. Excavated with the use of 3.5 mm mesh-size screens, the

total number of identified specimens from the complex is an impressive 35,932.

Unfortunately, the assemblages are not published in detail, and the only information

available is relative abundances of the fishes (Enghoff 1994a).

The last group of sites consists of earlier excavations, where less

sophisticated recovery methods have likely resulted in severe biases in the fish

assemblages. This can be seen at some of the sites discussed above with both early

and later excavation campaigns. Many of these early excavations also produced very

few fish remains. Because of these limitations, the data must be considered somewhat

unreliable and can only play a limited role in forming cultural interpretations. Knud

Rosenlund deserves credit for his excellent work collecting and summarizing the data

(1976). Table 10 provides some basic information about the assemblages from these

sites.

Site Region NISP Ga

did

ae

Ple

uro

ne

ctid

ae

An

gu

illid

ae

Clu

pe

ida

e

Sco

mb

rid

ae

Be

lon

ida

e

Eso

cid

ae

Pe

rcid

ae

Cyp

rin

ida

e

Ga

ste

roste

ida

e

Sq

ua

lid

ae

Oth

er

Argusgrunden Lolland 11 7 4

Bjørnsholm N Jutland 12 4 7 1

Bloksbjerg NE Zealand 60 ? ? 60

Brabrand E Jutland 1 1

Drøsselholm W Zealand 3 3

Dyrholmen I E Jutland 1 1

Ertebølle N Jutland 186 8 18 39 6 11 2 77 25

Fannerup E Jutland 16 13 1 1 1

Fjellenstrup NE Zealand 0 ?

Fårevejle NW Zealand 47 38 8 1

Godsted Lolland 0 ?

Gudumlund N Jutland 0 ? ?

Havelse NE Zealand 69 26 35 ? 2 1 5

Havnsø N Zealand 2 2

Havnø N Jutland 7 2 5

Jordløse By N Zealand 1 1

Jordløse Mose N Zealand 0 ?

Kassemose NE Zealand 205 170 35

Klintesø N Zealand 98 80 8 8 1 1

Koholm Mose NE Zealand 0 ?

Kolding Fjord E Jutland 1 1

Kolind E Jutland 7 4 3

Mejlgård E Jutland 223 30 155 32 1 3 2

Mejlgård E Jutland 3 3

Mejlgård E Jutland 312 24 176 75 27 10

Mosegården X N Zealand 1 1

Muldbjerg W Zealand 224 111 110 3

Nekselø NW Zealand 21 19 2

Nivå NE Zealand 41 12 15 1 13

Norslund E Jutland 314 300 10 1 3

Ordrup Næs NW Zealand 174 14 150 10

Præstelyngen W Zealand 0 ? ? ? ? ?

Sakskøbing Lolland 0 ?

Saltpetermosen NE Zealand 890 1 2 110 740 13 24

Skellingsted W Zealand 0 ?

Sparregård Falster 104 10 94

Sølager N Zealand 3641 3400 100 27 18 74 21 1

Vedbæk Boldbaner NE Zealand 22 10 11 1

Vejleby NE Zealand 1359 500 850 1 8

Ølby Lyng NE Zealand 3864 3700 150 1 1 1 11

Total 11920 8359 1672 191 19 159 212 919 126 133 38 81 11

Table 10: Other Late Mesolithic sites with fish bones (from Rosenlund 1976). Note some

numbers are approximate and ‘?’ represents an indeterminate number of specimens.

Three Zealand sites from this category deserve special mention: Ølby Lyng

and Sølager because of the size of their assemblages, and Ordrup Næs because of its

proximity to the sites in northwestern Zealand that were analyzed for this project and the

unusual nature of its assemblage. Ølby Lyng is an Ertebølle culture site on the eastern

coast of Zealand, a few kilometers north of Køge. It was excavated in 1962 and 1963

under the direction of David Liversage. Although the recovery methods are not known,

the overwhelming dominance of Gadidae (ca. 3700 of ca. 3900 specimens) is a striking

characteristic of the assemblage. An interesting interpretation offered by the analyst is

that the disproportionately low number of head elements from Gadidae at the site

suggests drying of fish for storage (Møhl 1970:77). Gadidae also dominate the

assemblage at Sølager, a shell midden first investigated in the 19th century, then re-

excavated under Carsten Neergaard from 1901-07 (which produced the fish

assemblage in Table 10). Sølager lies at the mouth of the Roskilde fjord, where it meets

the Isefjord in northern Zealand. Ordrup Næs was excavated during 1937-39, under the

direction of C.J. Becker. It lies on the northern coast of Zealand, approximately 10-12

km north and west of Dragsholm, Bøgebjerg and Fårevejle, and contains artifacts from

the Ertebølle and Early Neolithic periods. Although the assemblage representativeness

is questionable due to the early date of excavation, it is interesting because it is

dominated by Scombridae, with a number of Belonidae specimens as well. These two

migratory species are only present in Danish waters during the warmer months, so the

fact that the assemblage is almost solely composed of these fish (there are also 14

Gadidae specimens) points to a highly seasonal fishery.

One final group of sites that deserves mention is the non-coastal

settlements. Ringkloster (located on the shore of Skanderborgsø in central Jutland) and

several inland sites on Zealand (including Drøsselholm, Jordløse Mose, Nøddekonge,

Præstelyngen, Trustrup, Vejkonge, Øgårde and Åkonge) have all produced some fish

remains, although the total number of specimens is generally lower than at the coastal

sites (Enghoff 1994a, 1994b, Rosenlund 1976).

Esocidae, Percidae and Cyprinidae are the most common fishes at the inland sites,

although migratory (Anguillidae and Salmonidae) and even marine (Gadidae and

Pleuronectidae) fishes have been identified at some inland sites. Based on

environmental considerations (i.e., winter flooding of site locations), fishing at the inland

sites is considered to have been a summer activity on Zealand (Enghoff 1994a).

Conversely, Ringkloster has been interpreted as being occupied during the

winter/spring (Rowley-Conwy 1994). Having introduced the sites and fish assemblages

that form the basis of the study, now it is time to turn to its results.

5. Results

5.1 Recovery and preservation

Before turning our attention to what the data generated by this project can

reveal about past human culture it is appropriate to examine the ways in which the

project has increased our understanding of the quality of the data and the ways in which

it may be distorted during the process of producing it. Differential recovery (due to

varying mesh-sizes used in screening and individual excavator bias) and differential

preservation are two areas of taphonomy that can be evaluated with the aid of the fish

bone data. Intra-site variation is another important topic that has not received enough

attention in fish bone studies of the Danish Ertebølle, but is critical to understanding

cultural dynamism.

5.1.1 Differential recovery

The question of whether to use screens to sift matrix and aid in the recovery

of smaller artifacts during excavations has largely been resolved in favor of their use,

although with the caveat that screening is not always possible (e.g., in peat deposits).

Less easily determined is what mesh-size is appropriate for the screens. Finer mesh

sizes produce more complete artifact recovery, but at the expense of slowing

excavation and thus limiting the area sampled. The effect of screen-size on recovery

rates is not a new topic in zooarchaeology (e.g., Casteel 1972, Clason and Prummel

1977, Payne 1972, Shaffer 1992, Thomas 1969), but the variability in sites and research

questions precludes formulaic prescriptions. Recent investigations have moved beyond

merely documenting the losses associated with larger mesh-sizes and started to focus

on the ways in which they alter the archaeological indices that are produced from fish

bone assemblages (Enghoff 2005, Gargett and Vale 2005, Nagaoka 2005, Olson and

Walther 2007, Vale and Gargett 2002, Zohar and Belmaker 2002). Species richness,

diversity, evenness, and population size/age structures are all affected when smaller

mesh-size screens recover the remains of smaller fish. Until now, the effects of mesh

size have not often been quantified for Ertebølle assemblages (see Enghoff 1991 for an

exception). Screen-test samples that were specially processed from two sites (Asnæs

Havnemark and Dragsholm) comprehensively address this question (Figure 37), while

materials from a third site (Nederst) are also relevant to the discussion.

Figure 37: Processing matrix samples through nested geologic screens.

As described under the individual site descriptions in the Materials section and below,

14 bulk samples totaling 31 liters were taken at Asnæs Havnemark and 13 samples

totaling approximately 10 liters were taken at Dragsholm for processing through nested

geologic screens for the purpose of evaluating the effect of mesh-size on the recovery

of fish remains. The screens separated the material into 4, 2 and 1 mm fractions, from

which the fish bones were sorted and identified. Some testing of the effects of mesh-

size was also done during the excavations at Nederst using 1.5 and 6 mm mesh-sizes

and this data is also included here. Tables 11 and 12 display the specimens that were

identified from the samples at Asnæs Havnemark and Dragsholm that are compared by

mesh-size in Tables 13 and 14; Table 15 shows the results from Nederst.

Gad

idae

An

gu

illi

dae

Sco

mb

rid

ae

Clu

peid

ae

Co

ttid

ae

Ple

uro

necti

dae

Gaste

roste

idae

Zo

arc

idae

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Tri

gli

dae

Go

bii

dae

Cyp

rin

idae

Salm

on

idae

Syn

gn

ath

idae

Sq

uali

dae

4mm vertebra 873 106 7 2 15 22 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

2mm vertebra 720 410 92 102 58 26 0 8 0 2 0 1 1 0 1

1mm vertebra 86 27 18 0 9 6 39 4 9 0 3 0 0 1 0

Total vertebra 1679 543 117 104 82 54 39 12 9 4 3 2 1 1 1

% ID vertebra 63,3% 20,5% 4,4% 3,9% 3,1% 2,0% 1,5% 0,5% 0,3% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Parasphenoid 23 2

Vomer (left half) 13

Vomer (right half) 12

Vomer (whole) 5 5

Mesethmoid 5

Frontal 1

Exoccipital 1

Prooticum 2

Pterotic 13 1

Sphenotic 17

Opisthotic 16

Basibranchial 1

Premaxillary 36

Maxillary 36 6 1 1

Dentary 21 4

Angular 46 8 1

Retroarticular 4

Quadrate 64 6 2 1

Palatine 17 1

Ectopterygoid 11 1

Preopercle 5 2

Opercle 15 1

Interopercle 7

Subopercle 1

Symplectic 13

Hyomandibular 14 5

Ceratohyal 11 11

Epihyal 13 4

Hypohyal 1

Interhyal 3

Urohyal 2

Epibranchial 6

Posttemporal 48 1

Supracleithrum 29 3

Cleithrum 16 2

Pharyngeal plate 6 1

Pharyngobranchial 4

Branchiostegal ray 5

Os anale 1

Dorsal spine/plate 5 1

Otolith 28

Total non-vertebra 565 55 0 2 14 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

NISP 2244 598 117 106 96 59 44 12 9 5 3 2 2 1 1

% NISP 68,1% 18,2% 3,6% 3,2% 2,9% 1,8% 1,3% 0,4% 0,3% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0%

Table 11: Identified fish remains from the screen-test samples at Asnæs Havnemark.

Gad

idae

An

gu

illi

dae

Plu

ero

necti

dae

Clu

peid

ae

Co

ttid

ae

Zo

arc

idae

Go

bii

dae

Sco

mb

rid

ae

Belo

nid

ae

Gaste

roste

idae

Tri

gli

dae

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Syn

gn

ath

idae

Sq

uali

dae

4mm vertebra 193 3 135 0 7 0 0 5 6 0 5 1 0 2

2mm vertebra 288 158 71 79 23 10 2 3 0 0 2 4 0 2

1mm vertebra 71 82 4 15 0 20 7 0 1 3 0 0 4 0

Total vertebra 552 243 210 94 30 30 9 8 7 3 7 5 4 4

% ID vertebra 45,8% 20,1% 17,4% 7,8% 2,5% 2,5% 0,7% 0,7% 0,6% 0,2% 0,6% 0,4% 0,3% 0,3%

Parasphenoid 4 1

Vomer (left half) 6

Vomer (right half) 11

Vomer (whole) 0 1 2

Mesethmoid 6

Prooticum 2

Sphenotic 4

Opisthotic 2

Premaxillary 31

Maxillary 11 1

Dentary 22 10

Angular 5 3 2

Retroarticular 1

Quadrate 15 2

Palatine 5

Ectopterygoid 4

Opercle 3

Interopercle 1

Symplectic 4

Hyomandibular 1

Ceratohyal 2

Epihyal 3 1

Hypohyal 1

Interhyal 1

Urohyal 1 1

Epibranchial 5

Posttemporal 25 3

Supracleithrum 11 2

Pharyngeal plate 2

Branchiostegal ray 4

Os anale 2

Dorsal spine/plate 2 1

Otolith 2

Total non-vertebra 186 8 19 2 1 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 1

NISP 738 251 229 96 31 30 9 8 17 5 7 5 4 5

% NISP 51,4% 17,5% 16,0% 6,7% 2,2% 2,1% 0,6% 0,6% 1,2% 0,3% 0,5% 0,3% 0,3% 0,3%

Table 12: Identified fish remains from the screen test samples at Dragsholm.

From Dragsholm, 1435 specimens were identified. Although they come

from all four levels of the site that produced most of the fish remains (Level 6 produced

only three identified specimens during the course of excavation and was not sampled

for this experiment), they are not evenly distributed between levels. Samples were

initially taken from Level 7B because excavators noted high concentrations of fish bone

in certain areas that also had high concentrations of small pieces of charcoal. It was

only near the end of the excavation that samples were taken from other levels for

comparison purposes – and these unfortunately failed to sample areas rich in fish bone

material. Level 7B produced 8 of the 13 samples and 1329 identified specimens, Level

7A had 2 samples and only 10 specimens, Level 7C had 2 samples and 80 specimens,

and Level 8 had 1 sample and 16 specimens. Since the results from the regular

excavation show differences between the levels (see section 5.2 Intra-site variability),

the summary screen test results should be seen as most relevant to Level 7B and are,

perhaps, not generally applicable. With this reservation in mind, a look at Table 13

reveals some interesting results.

Ga

did

ae

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

An

gu

illid

ae

Clu

pe

ide

a

Co

ttid

ae

Zo

arc

ida

e

Sc

om

bri

da

e

Be

lon

ida

e

Tri

glid

ae

Oth

er

Ide

nti

fie

d

Un

ide

nti

fie

d

4mm vertebra 193 135 3 0 7 0 5 6 5 3 357 37

% 4mm 54,1% 37,8% 0,8% 0,0% 2,0% 0,0% 1,4% 1,7% 1,4% 0,8% 9,4%

2mm vertebra 288 71 158 79 23 10 3 0 2 8 642 152

% 4 and 2mm 48,1% 20,6% 16,1% 7,9% 3,0% 1,0% 0,8% 0,6% 0,7% 1,1% 15,9%

1mm vertebra 71 4 82 15 0 20 0 1 0 14 207 138

% 4, 2 and 1mm 45,8% 17,4% 20,1% 7,8% 2,5% 2,5% 0,7% 0,6% 0,6% 2,1% 21,3%

Table 13: Comparison of identified and unidentified vertebrae by screen size for the

screen test samples from Dragsholm.

Table 13 displays the number of identified vertebrae for each fraction

individually, and the relative abundances cumulatively. That is to say, the row ‘% 4mm’

displays the results considering only the 4 mm fraction, ‘% 4 and 2mm’ combines the

results of these two fractions and ‘% 4, 2 and 1mm’ combines all three. Thus, the

relative abundances (percentages) display the results of an effective screen size of 4,

then 2 and finally 1 mm. Overall, the number of identified vertebrae was greatest from

the 2 mm fraction (642 or 53% of the total), followed by the 4 mm fraction (357 or 30%)

and the 1 mm fraction (207 or 17%). Clearly the use of 4 mm screens during excavation

meant that many fish bones were not recovered. What is even more interesting is the

effect on the relative abundances (see Figure 38). Gadidae and Pleuronectidae

percentages decline noticeably with a change from an effective screen size of 4 to 2

mm, and then slightly more with a change to an effective screen size of 1 mm.

Anguillidae move in the opposite direction, increasing their representation with smaller

mesh sizes. Clupeidae (both herring and shad), Zoarcidae and Gobiidae were only

recovered in the 2 and 1 mm fractions, while Syngnathidae (pipefish) and

Gasterosteidae (three-spined stickleback) were only detected with the 1 mm screen. As

a final note, the percentage of unidentified vertebrae more than doubles from the 4 mm

to the 1 mm effective mesh-size results.

Figure 38: Graph of relative percentages of fish types by screen size at Dragsholm.

With the experience from Dragsholm in mind, sampling during the

excavation at Asnæs Havnemark began almost immediately and covered a broader

range of contexts. Moreover, based on radiocarbon dating, the occupation seems to be

relatively short in duration and differences between levels seem to be fairly minor. For

all of these reasons, the summary results of the screen test can probably be considered

valid for most of the contexts at Asnæs Havnemark. Table 14 presents the results from

Asnæs Havnemark in the same format as Table 13 for Dragsholm.

Ga

did

ae

An

gu

illid

ae

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

Clu

pe

ida

e

Co

ttid

ae

Sc

om

bri

da

e

Ga

ste

ros

teid

ae

Oth

er

Ide

nti

fie

d

Un

ide

nti

fie

d

4mm vertebra 873 106 22 2 15 7 0 3 1028 48

% 4mm 84,9% 10,3% 2,1% 0,2% 1,5% 0,7% 0,0% 0,3% 4,5%

2mm vertebra 720 410 26 102 58 92 0 13 1421 244

% 4 and 2mm 65,0% 21,1% 2,0% 4,2% 3,0% 4,0% 0,0% 0,7% 10,7%

1mm vertebra 86 27 6 0 9 18 39 17 202 152

% 4, 2 and 1mm 63,3% 20,5% 2,0% 3,9% 3,1% 4,4% 1,5% 1,2% 14,3%

Table 14: Comparison of identified and unidentified vertebrae by screen size for the

screen test samples from Asnæs Havnemark.

Again, the 2 mm fraction produced the largest number of identified

vertebrae (1421 or 54% of the total), followed by the 4 mm fraction (1028 or 39%) and

the 1 mm fraction (202 or 8%). As at Dragsholm, a significant portion of the fish remains

present in the deposits were probably missed using 4 mm screens during excavation.

Considering relative abundances (see Figure 39), Gadidae show a fairly large

percentage decline with increasingly finer mesh sizes, while Anguillidae, Clupeidae,

Cottidae and Scombridae increase. In contrast with the results at Dragsholm,

Pleuronectidae are little changed, perhaps because they comprise only a small

percentage of the vertebrae. Syngnathidae (pipefish) and Gasterosteidae (three-spined

stickleback) would not have been detected at the site without the aid of the 1 mm mesh-

size screen. At Asnæs Havnemark the percentage of unidentified vertebrae more than

triples from the 4 mm to the 1 mm effective mesh-size results, although the levels are

somewhat lower than at Dragsholm.

Figure 39: Graph of relative percentages of fish types by screen size at Asnæs

Havnemark.

The excavations at Nederst also produced sets of fish remains divided by

screen size, although the site is not well-published and it is not possible to precisely

reconstruct the methodology that produced them from the case file. From the samples

that were analyzed in connection with this project, six contexts have assemblages from

both coarse (6 mm) and fine (1.5 mm) mesh screens. It is not known if the same

quantity of matrix was screened through both the coarse and the fine mesh screens, but

clearly more vertebrae were identified from the fine mesh fraction (see Table 15).

Similar to the pattern noted above, generally larger fish (i.e., Gadidae and

Pleuronectidae) decrease in relative abundance when smaller mesh-size screens are

used, while generally smaller fish (e.g., Anguillidae, Clupeidae and Zoarcidae) increase

(see Figure 40). Again, Gasterosteidae (three-spined stickleback) were only detected

with the use of small mesh-size screens. The percentage of unidentified vertebrae is

larger in the fine mesh than in the coarse mesh fraction, although it remains relatively

low in the Nederst assemblage.

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

An

gu

illid

ae

Ga

did

ae

Zo

arc

ida

e

Clu

pe

ida

e

Oth

er

Ide

nti

fie

d

Un

ide

nti

fie

d

Fine-mesh vertebrae 878 643 599 164 163 93 25 2565 227

% 34,2% 25,1% 23,4% 6,4% 6,4% 3,6% 1,0% 8,1%

Coarse-mesh vertebrae 316 432 59 138 18 6 5 974 29

% 32,4% 44,4% 6,1% 14,2% 1,8% 0,6% 0,5% 2,9% Table 15: Comparison of identified and unidentified vertebrae by screen size for the

screen test samples from Nederst.

Figure 40: Graph of relative percentages of fish types by screen size at Nederst.

The results from screen test experiments at Dragsholm, Asnæs Havnemark

and Nederst all point to the importance of considering excavation methods when

evaluating Ertebølle fish assemblages. The number of species that are identified

increases with finer mesh, as elements from smaller fish (e.g., Gasterosteidae,

Syngnathidae and Gobiidae) are not recovered at all with 4 mm mesh. Assemblage

diversity indices that consider relative abundances are also affected, as fish such as

Clupeidae, Anguillidae and Zoarcidae increase from very minor presences with 4mm

mesh to significant contributors with 2 or 1 mm mesh-sizes. Rather obviously, as the

relative abundance of smaller fish increases, the percentage of larger fish (e.g.,

Gadidae and Pleuronectidae) must decrease – even as their absolute abundances also

increase with smaller mesh screens. In general, the use of better recovery methods will

increase the size of an assemblage and change its proportional composition. What

cannot be generalized is the specific ways in which assemblages change in response to

screen size. It is, unfortunately, not possible to create algorithms to adjust the results of

excavation using coarse mesh screening to reflect what would have been recovered

using finer mesh without screen test samples from the specific contexts in question, as

it is not possible to assess whether the absence (or impoverishment) of smaller fish is

an artifact of recovery or actual conditions within the deposits. This research highlights

the importance of sampling to evaluate the effects of mesh-size decisions at future

excavations and using caution when comparing previously excavated assemblages

where this was not done. There is another aspect of differential recovery, excavator

bias, which can also be identified in fish bone assemblages, although solutions may be

harder to find.

The effect of excavator bias on archaeological assemblages is not often

addressed, at least partly because of the difficulty in doing so. The same context cannot

be excavated multiple times to evaluate the skill of the individuals doing the work.

Nonetheless, post hoc analysis can be conducted to search for patterns indicative of

systematic biases introduced by excavators. Fish bone assemblages are especially

amenable to such investigation in that over-representation of bones of large-sized fish

and/or elements that are distinctive in form can be the result of less experienced

excavators systematically missing smaller and/or less distinctive specimens (Heinrich

1994). Three sites that were analyzed as part of this project provide evidence that

supports excavator bias as a factor in recovery.

Asnæs Havnemark is a good test case to begin with because approximately

95% of the vertebrae are from two families: a larger-sized one, Gadidae (86%) and a

smaller-sized one Anguillidae (9%). Comparing the results of individual excavators (see

Table 16), marked discrepancies occur in the relative abundances of these two types of

fish. Excavators C, D and E were much more successful at recovering specimens of

large-sized fish (Gadidae). The over-representation of distinctive elements as a result of

excavator bias is displayed by the varying proportions of non-vertebra in the NISP

(Table 16, right-hand column). The reasoning behind using this value as a measure of

excavator bias is that while vertebrae are easily recognized by all excavators, other

elements (especially when only partially present) can be overlooked by individuals who

are not experienced at recognizing them. Once again, it appears that Excavators C, D

and E may have influenced the results, in this case by recovering many vertebrae while

missing other elements. (Note that gross NISP is not a good indicator of recovery rates,

as excavators sampled different numbers of contexts for fish bones.)

Excavator NISP Gadidae Anguillidae Non-vertebra %

A 28795 81% 13% 16%

B 2064 87% 6% 22%

C 9722 92% 4% 6%

D 2824 96% 1% 11%

E 570 96% 1% 5% Table 16: Results from Asnæs Havnemark by excavator (4 mm mesh-size water-

screening).

The results from Dragsholm and Fårevejle are more difficult to evaluate,

given that the vast majority of the bones come from either Gadidae or Pleuronectidae

(both generally larger-sized fish), but differences in the percentage of non-vertebra in

the NISP by excavator are again apparent (see Tables 17 and 18).

Excavator NISP Gadidae Anguillidae Non-vertebra %

A 7792 55% 1% 10%

B 6482 61% 1% 9%

I 10572 65% 2% 16%

J 3308 66% 1% 19%

K 2343 58% 1% 4% Table 17: Results from Dragsholm by excavator (4 mm mesh-size water-screening).

Excavator NISP Gadidae Anguillidae Non-vertebra %

A 587 58% 1% 16%

B 700 51% 4% 19%

D 335 68% 0% 8%

I 533 57% 2% 19%

J 519 43% 2% 10% Table 18: Results from Fårevejle by excavator (4 mm mesh-size water-screening)

The effects of differential recovery must be borne in mind when discussing

fish bone assemblages, although fortunately it is possible to begin to evaluate their

nature and extent. Screen mesh-size plays a major role in determining both how many

fish remains are recovered and the representation of smaller fish in the assemblage

(with finer mesh screens increasing both of these attributes). To aid in comparison of

assemblages, future excavations should incorporate sampling of the deposits to test the

effects of the mesh-size used in recovery. For the two sites on Zealand discussed here,

it is interesting to note that while some species were missed by coarser mesh screens,

relative abundance data suggests that the general nature of the assemblages was

accurately assessed by the excavation method employed (i.e., Gadidae dominate the

assemblages). The role of excavator bias in differential recovery is a thornier issue

because while it seems to be a factor, it is harder to quantify and mitigate. Ichthyo-

archaeologists can help by training other field archaeologists, but this approach will

have limited efficacy, as there are many archaeologists and teaching about the many

different elements (and which portions are likely to preserve) would take a prohibitive

amount of time. Having a trained faunal analyst responsible for field recovery is

probably the ideal situation, with bulk sampling in the field for later processing by a

trained analyst as a second choice. A third option is to focus on comparing the

vertebrae in assemblages (as opposed to NISP), although this does not address the

discrimination that seems to occur against smaller vertebrae. At a minimum, awareness

of these sources of bias means that they can be explicitly considered when discussing

fish remains. Differential recovery is not the only potential reason that an archaeological

assemblage will not be fully representative of the initially deposited fish remains;

differential preservation must also be evaluated.

5.1.2 Differential preservation

In most circumstances not all of the fish remains that are initially deposited

survive to be recovered during excavation. The size and robustness of the bone, type of

fish, and environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, soil type and hydrology) are three

important factors that determine how long a bone will survive after deposition. Similar to

the situation with excavator bias, post hoc analysis of results can point to patterns in the

data that are indicative of preservation biases. Three approaches are employed here in

an attempt to assess fish bone preservation at some of the sites analyzed for the

project: the ratio of unidentified to identified bone, the degree of completeness of

identified bones and the actual versus expected presence of different elements.

Comparing the amount of identified and unidentified fish bone is done by

weight, not specimen count, and should only be considered a rough approximation of

the nature of the assemblage. (Weights were taken with an electric scale, accurate to

the gram.) There are a number of issues that interfere with how much (and how

accurate) information this method can provide. The first and greatest weakness is that it

examines the assemblage from the perspective of those specimens that were

recovered. Fish bones that had completely disappeared, or were so fragmentary that

they were missed during excavation play no role in the analysis. Second, the

unidentified fraction of the assemblage involves some degree of uncertainty by

definition, meaning that is highly likely that some bone material comes from animals

other than fish. Finally, the amount of matrix adhering to the bones plays a role – some

of the very dirty bones include a significant amount of weight that is not from skeletal

materials (although this should affect both fractions, if not necessarily equally). Despite

these reservations, higher proportions of identified bones should indicate assemblages

that are better preserved. Tables 19-22 show the weights from the sites of Asnæs

Havnemark, Fårevejle, Bøgebjerg and Dragsholm.

Gross weight (grams) 3746

Shell, charcoal, stone, etc. 145

Net weight bone 3601

Unidentified bone fragments 352

Unidentified vertebrae 136

Identified vertebrae 2589

Identified non-vertebrae 524

Unidentified total 488 14%

Identified total 3113 86% Table 19: Weights from Asnæs Havnemark.

Gross weight (grams) 288

Shell, charcoal, stone, etc. 43

Net weight bone 245

Unidentified bone fragments 63

Unidentified vertebrae 0

Identified vertebrae 148

Identified non-vertebrae 34

Unidentified total 63 26%

Identified total 182 74%

Table 20: Weights from Fårevejle (unidentified vertebrae not weighed separately).

Gross weight (grams) 265

Shell, charcoal, stone, etc. 15

Net weight bone 250

Unidentified bone fragments 62

Unidentified vertebrae 5

Identified vertebrae 183

Identified non-vertebrae 0

Unidentified total 67 27%

Identified total 183 73% Table 21: Weights from Bøgebjerg (non-vertebra elements not weighed separately).

Gross weight (grams) 5253

Shell, charcoal, stone, etc. 869

Net weight bone 4384

Unidentified bone fragments 1620

Unidentified vertebrae 63

Identified vertebrae 2137

Identified non-vertebrae 564

Unidentified total 1683 38%

Identified total 2701 62% Table 22: Weights from Dragsholm.

The four tables show that the percentage of the weight of unidentified bone ranges from

a low of 14% at Asnæs Havnemark to a high of 38% at Dragsholm, with Fårevejle and

Bøgebjerg approximately halfway in between. The majority of the bone (by weight) was

identified at every site, although the high percentage of unidentified bone at Dragsholm

recommends further scrutiny of the assemblage. Another way in which to study the

preservation of an assemblage is to evaluate the completeness of the identified bones.

Evaluating bone preservation by completeness shares some weaknesses

with the identified/unidentified ratios, but also has some advantages. Like the ratio

method, examining completeness only takes into account specimens that were

recovered during excavation. However, because it deals only with identified fish

specimens bird and mammal bones cannot influence the results. Also, since it involves

counts rather than weights, dirty bones are less of a problem (although adhering matrix

can certainly reduce the potential for identifying bones). This method considers only

vertebrae, minimizing the impact of excavator bias, although mesh-size can still affect

the results by discriminating against more fragmentary specimens (all three sites here

were excavated with 4 mm mesh). A final consideration is that while the method

attempts to measure the degree of fragmentation of vertebrae, because it uses only

identified specimens there is certainly an element of bias towards a seeming higher

degree of fragmentation for those species that remain identifiable even with relatively

incomplete specimens (e.g., Scombridae).

Collecting the data was done during the normal course of identification for

all of the material from Asnæs Havnemark and Nederst and selected samples were re-

analyzed for Dragsholm. Vertebra specimens were assigned to one of three categories:

less than 50% complete, 50-75% complete, and more than 75% complete (neural and

haemal spines were not included in this assessment). There was unavoidably some

subjectivity in making these assignments, but because one analyst made all of the

decisions this is not thought to present a major source of error. The results from the

three sites are in good agreement, with the most complete vertebrae representing by far

the largest percentage of the identified specimens, followed by the second most

complete category, with the percentage of identified vertebra specimens that are less

than half complete representing only 5-12% of the total (see Tables 23, 24 and 25). The

high percentage of mostly complete vertebrae fits with the identified/unidentified ratios

in pointing towards relatively good preservation in the assemblages. Some intra-site

variability between species is worth noting, as well as inter-site differences.

<½ complete ½ - ¾ complete >¾ complete Total

Gadidae 1548 3936 25393 30877

Gadidae 5,0% 12,7% 82,2%

Anguillidae 164 344 3218 3726

Anguillidae 4,4% 9,2% 86,4%

Pleuronectidae 8 49 778 835

Pleuronectidae 1,0% 5,9% 93,2%

Cottidae 0 4 359 363

Cottidae 0,0% 1,1% 98,9%

Scombridae 47 119 325 491

Scombridae 9,6% 24,2% 66,2%

Totals 1767 4452 30073 36292

4,9% 12,3% 82,9%

Table 23: Examination of degree of completeness of vertebrae at Asnæs Havnemark.

<½ complete ½ - ¾ complete >¾ complete Total

Pleuronectidae 374 709 4499 5582

Pleuronectidae 6,7% 12,7% 80,6%

Anguillidae 166 397 1996 2559

Anguillidae 6,5% 15,5% 78,0%

Trachinidae 19 161 1782 1962

Trachinidae 1,0% 8,2% 90,8%

Gadidae 332 381 702 1415

Gadidae 23,5% 26,9% 49,6%

Clupeidae 16 242 544 802

Clupeidae 2,0% 30,2% 67,8%

Zoarcidae 0 15 206 221

Zoarcidae 0,0% 6,8% 93,2%

Totals 907 1905 9729 12541

7,2% 15,2% 77,6%

Table 24: Examination of degree of completeness of vertebrae at Nederst.

<½ complete ½ - ¾ complete >¾ complete Total

Gadidae 681 1305 3329 5315

Gadidae 12,8% 24,6% 62,6%

Anguillidae 9 21 76 106

Anguillidae 8,5% 19,8% 71,7%

Pleuronectidae 171 367 1489 2027

Pleuronectidae 8,4% 18,1% 73,5%

Cottidae 0 2 152 154

Cottidae 0,0% 1,3% 98,7%

Belonidae 38 25 117 180

Belonidae 21,1% 13,9% 65,0%

Scombridae 37 48 89 174

Scombridae 21,3% 27,6% 51,1%

Totals 898 1743 5135 7776

11,5% 22,4% 66,0% Table 25: Examination of degree of completeness of vertebrae at Dragsholm (select

samples).

At Asnæs Havnemark (Table 23), overall completeness is quite high,

although Scombridae are markedly more fragmented than the other fish. This may

relate to the high fat content of the bones or, as previously noted, may be a factor of

these bones being identifiable even with small fragments. The Nederst assemblage

(Table 24) has a slightly higher degree of fragmentation, with Gadidae being especially

affected. Clupeidae are also more likely to be at least partly broken, a reasonable

situation as the bones are rather fragile. The small number of bones falling in the less

than half complete category for Clupeidae may be due to lack of recovery, as the bones

are rather small even when whole. Dragsholm (Table 25) has a higher overall degree of

fragmentation than the other two sites. Again, Scombridae are more fragmented than

the other fishes. Dragsholm also had enough Squalidae to evaluate, although only two

categories were used: more and less than 50% complete. Of the 278 specimens, almost

60% were less than half complete. Squalidae vertebrae are fragile bones and also, like

Scombridae, are identifiable from small fragments. Comparing the three sites, Asnæs

Havnemark has the least fragmented vertebrae and Dragsholm has the most, with

Nederst occupying a middle position. Individual fishes vary in their tendency towards

fragmentation (or at least in the identifiability after fragmentation), although the degree

of fragmentation for each fish seems to be consistent between sites, with one exception.

The high degree of fragmentation of Gadidae at Nederst may be related to their low

relative abundance (ca. 12%) in the assemblage; perhaps suggesting a different

processing method at this site.

The third approach to examining differential preservation in the

assemblages focuses on the presence of specific skeletal elements within individual

species. First, an MNI figure is established for the specific type of fish based on the

most commonly represented element (for this, lefts and rights of paired elements are

treated as unique elements). Next, the MNI figure is multiplied by the number of

elements per fish (here, paired elements are combined) to derive an expected number

of elements. Finally, the actual number of elements identified is divided by the expected

number of that element to derive a percent presence (see Russ and Jones 2009 for a

more complete discussion of the method). (Note that when a paired element is the most

common element it may not have 100% presence because of an imbalance between

the numbers of left and right examples identified.) For example, at the site of Asnæs

Havnemark the minimum number of Gadidae present is 831, based on the count of first

vertebrae (see Table 26). Using 53 as the number of vertebrae per fish, 44043 is the

expected number of vertebrae (831 x 53). In fact, 32120 Gadidae vertebrae were

identified, meaning that there were only about 73% as many as would be expected.

Other elements are present at approximately 13 to 54% of their expected values. It is

worth emphasizing that the MNI figure is a minimum and its relationship to the actual

number of fish that contributed to the assemblage is unknowable.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 831 - - 1 831 100%

All vertebra 32120 - - 53 44043 73%

Parasphenoid 330 - - 1 831 40%

Otoliths 889 454 435 2 1662 53%

Angular 645 293 352 2 1662 39%

Quadrate 546 290 256 2 1662 33%

Maxillary 473 217 256 2 1662 28%

Premaxillary 457 233 224 2 1662 27%

Posttemporal 401 187 214 2 1662 24%

Supracleithrum 273 138 135 2 1662 16%

Dentary 236 131 105 2 1662 14%

Hyomandibular 210 111 99 2 1662 13%

Table 26: Expected versus actual presence of selected Gadidae elements from Asnæs

Havnemark.

Table 27 presents similar data for Anguillidae from Asnæs Havnemark.

Here, left ceratohyal is the most common element, making 48 the minimum number of

fish represented. Vertebrae are present at about 65% of their expected rate, with other

elements in the range of 8-92%. With the exception of parasphenoid and opercle at the

low end and vomer at the high end, approximately 20-40% of the expected numbers of

non-vertebra elements are actually present in the assemblage. Pleuronectidae values

are shown in Table 28, with vertebrae producing the estimate of the minimum number of

fish present. Other types of fish at Asnæs Havnemark occur in low numbers (especially

in regards to non-vertebra elements) that do not warrant calculation of expected

presence values.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 18 - - 1 48 38%

All vertebra 3580 - - 115 5520 65%

Vomer 44 - - 1 48 92%

Parasphenoid 4 - - 1 48 8%

Ceratohyal 90 48 42 2 96 94%

Cleithrum 40 17 23 2 96 42%

Anguloarticular 35 16 19 2 96 36%

Dentary 34 14 20 2 96 35%

Maxillary 21 12 9 2 96 22%

Quadrate 17 11 6 2 96 18%

Hyomandibular 17 10 7 2 96 18%

Opercle 9 3 6 2 96 9% Table 27: Expected versus actual presence of selected Anguillidae elements from

Asnæs Havnemark.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 28 - - 1 29 97%

All vertebra 855 - - 30 870 98%

Angular 2 2 0 2 58 3%

Quadrate 9 3 6 2 58 16%

Maxillary 2 1 1 2 58 3%

Premaxillary 0 0 0 2 58 0%

Posttemporal 3 1 2 2 58 5%

Supracleithrum 3 1 2 2 58 5%

Dentary 0 0 0 2 58 0%

Hyomandibular 4 1 3 2 58 7% Table 28: Expected versus actual presence of selected Pleuronectidae elements from

Asnæs Havnemark.

Based on the identified/unidentified weight ratios and completeness of

vertebrae values at Asnæs Havnemark, it would seem to be a site with good fish bone

preservation. How do the actual to expected values there compare with another site

such as Dragsholm, where preservation may not be as good? Tables 29, 32 and 34

give the values for Gadidae, Pleuronectidae and Anguillidae from the Dragsholm

assemblage.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 885 - - 1 1107 80%

All vertebra 19580 - - 53 58671 33%

Parasphenoid 226 - - 1 1107 20%

Otoliths 2140 1033 1107 2 2214 97%

Angular 407 208 199 2 2214 18%

Quadrate 437 222 215 2 2214 20%

Maxillary 426 212 214 2 2214 19%

Premaxillary 917 474 443 2 2214 41%

Posttemporal 319 157 162 2 2214 14%

Supracleithrum 241 119 122 2 2214 11%

Dentary 272 132 140 2 2214 12%

Hyomandibular 90 52 38 2 2214 4% Table 29: Expected versus actual presence of selected Gadidae elements from Dragsholm.

At Dragsholm, the minimum number of Gadidae is 1107, based on the right

otoliths. This may be problematic, in that a great number of otoliths were found

concentrated in just a few square meters in Level 8, where as elsewhere (and in other

levels) they were much less common. Table 30 shows that the Level 8 percent

presence values are much lower than the other levels because of the high estimate for

minimum number of fish represented by otoliths. The right-hand column in the table

shows the result of excluding otoliths from the calculations – percentages that are much

more in line with the other levels. Because of this information, the numbers for the site

as a whole were recalculated without otoliths, with the results presented in Table 31.

Gadidae 7B 7C 8 8 (-otolith)

Element % presence % presence % presence % presence

First vertebra 100% 100% 14% 100%

All vertebra 30% 44% 5% 37%

Otoliths 0% 14% 97%

Angular 16% 25% 4% 28%

Quadrate 14% 27% 4% 26%

Maxillary 20% 26% 4% 28%

Premaxillary 57% 48% 9% 63%

Posttemporal 11% 17% 4% 31%

Parasphenoid 10% 22% 6% 46%

Supracleithrum 5% 13% 3% 22%

Dentary 8% 16% 3% 23%

Hyomandibular 2% 6% 1% 4% Table 30: Expected versus actual presence of Gadidae by level from Dragsholm. The

right-hand column, ‘8 (-otolith)’ present the results for Level 8 with otoliths omitted.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 885 - - 1 885 100%

All vertebra 19580 - - 53 46905 42%

Parasphenoid 226 - - 1 885 26%

Otoliths

Angular 407 208 199 2 1770 23%

Quadrate 437 222 215 2 1770 25%

Maxillary 426 212 214 2 1770 24%

Premaxillary 917 474 443 2 1770 52%

Posttemporal 319 157 162 2 1770 18%

Supracleithrum 241 119 122 2 1770 14%

Dentary 272 132 140 2 1770 15%

Hyomandibular 90 52 38 2 1770 5% Table 31: Expected versus actual presence of selected Gadidae elements from

Dragsholm, otoliths omitted.

With otoliths excluded, first vertebrae become the most common element and the

minimum number of fish is 885. Lowering the minimum number of Gadidae has the

effect of increasing the percent presence of the other elements, though the changes are

not extreme. Comparing the results with Asnæs Havnemark, the percentages of non-

vertebra elements are similar, but slightly lower at Dragsholm (with the exception of

premaxillary and parasphenoid which are higher). The difference is in the percent

presence of vertebrae. First vertebrae are the most common element at both sites, so

they have values of 100%. All vertebrae on the other hand, have a presence of 73% at

Asnæs Havnemark and only 42% at Dragsholm. Many expected vertebrae appear to be

missing from the Dragsholm assemblage, either due to conditions of preservation or

recovery (many of the Gadidae at the site are small, so some vertebrae may not have

been recovered with the 4 mm screens). This matches well with the results showing a

higher degree of fragmentation of the identified vertebrae at the site. What about the

other fish at Dragsholm?

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 275 - - 1 308 89%

All vertebra 9228 - - 30 9240 100%

Angular 15 9 6 2 616 2%

Quadrate 35 22 13 2 616 6%

Maxillary 17 5 12 2 616 3%

Premaxillary 6 2 4 2 616 1%

Posttemporal 20 13 7 2 616 3%

Supracleithrum 11 7 4 2 616 2%

Dentary 8 4 4 2 616 1%

Hyomandibular 17 5 12 2 616 3% Table 32: Expected versus actual presence of selected Pleuronectidae elements from

Dragsholm.

Pleuronectidae are notably different from Gadidae in the much lower

percent presence of non-vertebra elements (see Table 32). Comparing the different

levels at the site shows that this is consistently true (see Table 33). Pleuronectidae

display a similar pattern at Asnæs Havnemark, and also at other sites (shown below,

Tables 36, 39 and 41), with non-vertebra elements always significantly under-

represented for this type of fish.

Pleuronectidae 7B 7C 8

Element % presence % presence % presence

First vertebra 100% 68% 100%

All vertebra 71% 100% 99%

Angular 1% 3% 1%

Quadrate 4% 4% 7%

Maxillary 1% 3% 0%

Premaxillary 0% 1% 1%

Posttemporal 1% 5% 0%

Supracleithrum 1% 2% 1%

Dentary 1% 1% 0%

Hyomandibular 0% 3% 3% Table 33: Expected versus actual presence of Pleuronectidae by level at Dragsholm.

Anguillidae were the third type of fish from Dragsholm that were present in

sufficient quantities to warrant calculation of percent presence values. Although

ceratohyal and vomer values are high at Dragsholm, all of the non-vertebra elements

have lower values than at Asnæs Havnemark (compare Table 27 with Table 34). This is

also true when comparing the values from Dragsholm with those of Fårevejle and

Nederst (see below, Tables 37 and 42). In general, while some individual specimens at

Dragsholm were very well preserved, overall conditions of preservation at Dragsholm do

not seem to be as good as at the other sites in the study.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 9 - - 1 9 100%

All vertebra 313 - - 115 1035 30%

Parasphenoid 0 - - 1 9 0%

Vomer 6 - - 1 9 67%

Ceratohyal 11 8 3 2 18 61%

Cleithrum 3 1 2 2 18 17%

Anguloarticular 0 0 0 2 18 0%

Dentary 2 0 2 2 18 11%

Maxillary 1 1 0 2 18 6%

Quadrate 2 0 2 2 18 11%

Hyomandibular 0 0 0 2 18 0%

Opercle 0 0 0 2 18 0% Table 34: Expected versus actual presence of selected Anguillidae elements from Dragsholm.

Regarding the other sites, the results for Gadidae, Pleuronectidae and

Anguillidae at Fårevejle are presented in Tables 35, 36 and 37. Gadidae and

Pleuronectidae values from Bøgebjerg appear in Tables 38 and 39. Nederst provided

values for Gadidae, Pleuronectidae, Anguillidae and Trachinidae – the only site with

enough of this type of fish to justify calculating percent presence (see Tables 40, 41, 42

and 43). Finally, Lollikhuse provides values only for Gadidae (Table 44).

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 29 - - 1 36 81%

All vertebra 1260 - - 53 1908 66%

Parasphenoid 18 - - 1 36 50%

Otoliths 39 22 17 2 72 54%

Angular 25 16 9 2 72 35%

Quadrate 23 9 14 2 72 32%

Maxillary 32 17 15 2 72 44%

Premaxillary 68 32 36 2 72 94%

Posttemporal 15 7 8 2 72 21%

Supracleithrum 10 4 6 2 72 14%

Dentary 16 7 9 2 72 22%

Hyomandibular 2 1 1 2 72 3% Table 35: Expected versus actual presence of selected Gadidae elements from Fårevejle.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 21 - - 1 32 66%

All vertebra 958 - - 30 960 100%

Angular 2 0 2 2 64 3%

Quadrate 7 4 3 2 64 11%

Maxillary 2 1 1 2 64 3%

Premaxillary 1 1 0 2 64 2%

Posttemporal 5 2 3 2 64 8%

Supracleithrum 7 4 3 2 64 11%

Dentary 1 1 0 2 64 2%

Hyomandibular 7 3 4 2 64 11% Table 36: Expected versus actual presence of selected Pleuronectidae elements from Fårevejle.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 1 - - 1 5 20%

All vertebra 44 - - 115 575 8%

Parasphenoid 5 - - 1 5 100%

Vomer 2 - - 1 5 40%

Ceratohyal 5 2 3 2 10 50%

Cleithrum 6 4 2 2 10 60%

Anguloarticular 0 0 0 2 10 0%

Dentary 3 1 2 2 10 30%

Quadrate 3 2 1 2 10 30%

Hyomandibular 2 1 1 2 10 20%

Opercle 0 0 0 2 10 0% Table 37: Expected versus actual presence of selected Anguillidae elements from Fårevejle.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 45 - - 1 45 100%

All vertebra 1319 - - 53 2385 55%

Parasphenoid 7 - - 1 45 16%

Angular 3 1 2 2 90 3%

Quadrate 2 1 1 2 90 2%

Maxillary 12 4 8 2 90 13%

Premaxillary 42 25 17 2 90 47%

Posttemporal 8 3 5 2 90 9%

Supracleithrum 5 2 3 2 90 6%

Dentary 9 2 7 2 90 10%

Hyomandibular 2 1 1 2 90 2%

Otoliths 0 0 0 2 90 0% Table 38: Expected versus actual presence of selected Gadidae elements from Bøgebjerg.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 15 - - 1 30 50%

All vertebra 897 - - 30 900 100%

Angular 1 0 1 2 60 2%

Quadrate 0 0 0 2 60 0%

Maxillary 4 2 2 2 60 7%

Premaxillary 0 0 0 2 60 0%

Posttemporal 1 1 0 2 60 2%

Supracleithrum 0 0 0 2 60 0%

Dentary 0 0 0 2 60 0%

Hyomandibular 2 0 2 2 60 3%

Table 39: Expected versus actual presence of selected Pleuronectidae elements from

Bøgebjerg.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 17 - - 1 33 52%

All vertebra 1237 - - 53 1749 71%

Parasphenoid 22 - - 1 33 67%

Otoliths 59 33 26 2 66 89%

Angular 29 19 10 2 66 44%

Quadrate 26 12 14 2 66 39%

Maxillary 51 29 22 2 66 77%

Premaxillary 53 30 23 2 66 80%

Posttemporal 23 12 11 2 66 35%

Supracleithrum 34 20 14 2 66 52%

Dentary 30 13 17 2 66 45%

Hyomandibular 6 1 5 2 66 9% Table 40: Expected versus actual presence of selected Gadidae elements from Nederst.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 158 - - 1 179 88%

All vertebra 5366 - - 30 5370 100%

Angular 21 5 16 2 358 6%

Quadrate 45 28 17 2 358 13%

Maxillary 65 24 41 2 358 18%

Premaxillary 37 20 17 2 358 10%

Posttemporal 12 5 7 2 358 3%

Supracleithrum 53 30 23 2 358 15%

Dentary 5 2 3 2 358 1%

Hyomandibular 18 8 10 2 358 5% Table 41: Expected versus actual presence of selected Pleuronectidae elements from Nederst.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 30 - - 1 34 88%

All vertebra 2423 - - 115 3910 62%

Vomer 26 - - 1 34 76%

Parasphenoid 5 - - 1 34 15%

Ceratohyal 59 34 25 2 68 87%

Cleithrum 35 19 16 2 68 51%

Anguloarticular 15 8 7 2 68 22%

Dentary 10 6 4 2 68 15%

Maxillary 0 0 0 2 68 0%

Quadrate 12 5 7 2 68 18%

Hyomandibular 9 5 4 2 68 13%

Opercle 5 4 1 2 68 7% Table 42: Expected versus actual presence of selected Anguillidae elements from

Nederst.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 60 1 60 100%

All vertebra 2003 40 2400 83%

Parasphenoid 15 - - 1 60 25%

Vomer 17 - - 1 60 28%

Angular 17 9 8 2 120 14%

Quadrate 29 17 12 2 120 24%

Maxillary 20 13 7 2 120 17%

Premaxillary 17 9 8 2 120 14%

Posttemporal 30 14 16 2 120 25%

Supracleithrum 8 5 3 2 120 7%

Dentary 13 9 4 2 120 11%

Hyomandibular 26 16 10 2 120 22% Table 43: Expected versus actual presence of selected Trachinidae elements from

Nederst.

Element No. Identified L R No. per fish Expected no. % presence

First vertebra 12 - - 1 12 100%

All vertebra 358 - - 53 636 56%

Parasphenoid 1 - - 1 12 8%

Otoliths 0 0 0 2 24 0%

Angular 6 3 3 2 24 25%

Quadrate 1 0 1 2 24 4%

Maxillary 5 2 3 2 24 21%

Premaxillary 12 7 5 2 24 50%

Posttemporal 2 1 1 2 24 8%

Supracleithrum 3 1 2 2 24 13%

Dentary 1 1 0 2 24 4%

Hyomandibular 0 0 0 2 24 0% Table 44: Expected versus actual presence of selected Gadidae elements from

Lollikhuse.

In order to facilitate comparisons the percentage values are collected into

tables: Table 45 for Gadidae, Table 46 for Pleuronectidae and Table 47 for Anguillidae.

Concerning Gadidae, it can be seen that Nederst has the highest overall percent

presence values, followed by Fårevejle. Lollikhuse and Dragsholm have the lowest.

Vertebrae are well represented at Asnæs Havnemark, Fårevejle and Nederst, less so at

the other three sites (with Dragsholm the lowest). In regards to specific elements,

maxillary, premaxillary and otoliths generally have the highest presence, while

hyomandibular has the lowest. As previously discussed, Pleuronectidae non-vertebra

elements are very poorly represented in the assemblages, although Nederst and

Fårevejle seem to fair somewhat better than the other sites. It is difficult to say that any

element (other than vertebrae) is well-represented, but quadrate seems to be the best

of the lot. Two of the sites were too low in Anguillidae elements for meaningful

calculations, but amongst the other four, Asnæs Havnemark and Nederst stand out for

having the highest percent presence values. Ceratohyal, vomer and cleithrum are the

best represented elements.

Unequivocal statements about conditions of preservation at individual sites

based on the percent presence data are not possible due to uncertainty about the

causes of variation. Differences in the processing of fish for consumption (and

especially in the disposal of waste) might have affected what bones were initially

deposited and differential recovery biases played a role in which bones were recovered

during excavation. Assuming that some of the variability is attributable to preservation,

the data would indicate that non-vertebra elements survive better from Gadidae and

Anguillidae than Pleuronectidae, but vertebrae generally have the best chances of

survival overall (this is a close call for Anguillidae). Asnæs Havnemark, Fårevejle and

Nederst have the best preservation, while Dragsholm, Bøgebjerg and Lollikhuse have

the worst. In the final analysis what seems indisputable is that not all of the bones of the

fish that were caught 6-7000 years ago are part of the archaeological data set, in part

because of post-depositional destruction. Although this is an utterly unsurprising

conclusion, it is worth stating explicitly.

Gadidae Asnæs Dragsholm Fårevejle Bøgebjerg Nederst Lollikhuse

Element % presence % presence % presence % presence % presence % presence

First vertebra 100% 100% 81% 100% 52% 100%

All vertebra 73% 42% 66% 55% 71% 56%

Otoliths 53% 54% 3% 89% 0%

Angular 39% 23% 35% 2% 44% 25%

Quadrate 33% 25% 32% 13% 39% 4%

Maxillary 28% 24% 44% 47% 77% 21%

Premaxillary 27% 52% 94% 9% 80% 50%

Posttemporal 24% 18% 21% 16% 35% 8%

Parasphenoid 40% 26% 50% 6% 67% 8%

Supracleithrum 16% 14% 14% 10% 52% 13%

Dentary 14% 15% 22% 2% 45% 4%

Hyomandibular 13% 5% 3% 0% 9% 0%

Table 45: Combined actual versus expected percentage values for Gadidae.

Pleuronectidae Asnæs Dragsholm Fårevejle Bøgebjerg Nederst Lollikhuse

Element % presence % presence % presence % presence % presence % presence

First vertebra 97% 89% 66% 50% 88%

All vertebra 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Angular 3% 2% 3% 2% 6%

Quadrate 16% 6% 11% 0% 13%

Maxillary 3% 3% 3% 7% 18%

Premaxillary 0% 1% 2% 0% 10%

Posttemporal 5% 3% 8% 2% 3%

Supracleithrum 5% 2% 11% 0% 15%

Dentary 0% 1% 2% 0% 1%

Hyomandibular 7% 3% 11% 3% 5%

Table 46: Combined actual versus expected percentage values for Pleuronectidae.

Anguillidae Asnæs Dragsholm Fårevejle Bøgebjerg Nederst Lollikhuse

Element % presence % presence % presence % presence % presence % presence

First vertebra 38% 100% 20% 88%

All vertebra 65% 30% 8% 62%

Ceratohyal 94% 61% 50% 87%

Vomer 92% 67% 40% 76%

Cleithrum 42% 17% 60% 51%

Anguloarticular 36% 0% 0% 22%

Dentary 35% 11% 30% 15%

Maxillary 22% 6% 0% 0%

Quadrate 18% 11% 30% 18%

Hyomandibular 18% 0% 20% 13%

Opercle 9% 0% 0% 7%

Parasphenoid 8% 0% 100% 15%

Table 47: Combined actual versus expected percentage values for Anguillidae.

The preceding topics, though varied in focus and approach, all address the

quality of the fish bone data – specifically, how well does the information provided by

excavation and analysis reflect the actual fisheries that were responsible for the

assemblages? The effect of screening with different mesh-sizes was shown to impact

the assemblages in two ways: smaller screen sizes increase the overall number of fish

bones recovered and larger screen sizes create a bias against smaller fish (and this is

reflected in the relative abundance of species). The absolute number of fish bones

recovered is not of fundamental importance (except in so far as larger samples are

more likely to contain species of fish that are sparsely represented; fish that are by

definition of only minor importance to subsistence). What is critical is that the samples

that are taken accurately represent the deposits. Screening studies from Asnæs

Havnemark, Dragsholm and Nederst have shown that using smaller mesh-size screens

during excavation would have increased the number of types of fish recovered and

changed the relative abundances of the assemblages. Fishes that were only recovered

with the smaller mesh-sizes include Gasterosteidae, Syngnathidae, Zoarcidae and

Gobiidae. These are quite small fishes, and even with the enhanced recovery

techniques occurred in very limited numbers. Based on the available information, their

economic importance at these three sites can be described as minimal. (See Enghoff

1986 and 1991 for descriptions of the assemblages from Ertebølle and Bjørnsholm,

where Gasterosteidae may have played a more important role. Jonsson 1986 also

reports that Gasterosteidae may have had some economic importance at Skateholm.)

Much more significant are the changes in relative abundance caused by the use of

smaller mesh-sizes, as generally small fishes such as Clupeidae and Anguillidae are

recovered in much greater numbers. Although the number of specimens for all fish

increased with the use of smaller mesh-sizes in the screening experiments at Asnæs

Havnemark and Dragsholm, relative abundances shifted away from larger fish (e.g.,

Gadidae and Pleuronectidae) towards the smaller ones (e.g., Anguillidae and

Clupeidae). This finding must be borne in mind when using data from other sites that

were excavated with larger mesh screens, although whether they would actually

experience analogous shifts with finer screening cannot be established. It should also

be remembered that while finer screening increased the abundance of smaller fishes,

the change was relatively modest and Gadidae remained the dominant fish in both

assemblages. Excavator skill as a source of recovery bias was also considered and

found to be potentially significant. Less skilled excavators tend to be better at recovering

larger specimens and elements that are easily recognized (i.e., vertebrae). Variations in

relative abundances between excavators due to the under-representation of smaller

vertebrae were not large (possibly because smaller fish were a minor part of the overall

assemblages), but still must be considered as a source of error. More worrisome is the

tendency of less-skilled excavators to overlook non-vertebra elements in the course of

excavation. In some instances, there is significant variation between the highest and

lowest recovery rates of these elements at a site. Using only vertebra counts to

calculate relative abundances (not NISP) may help to alleviate this problem, but for

other indices that rely on non-vertebra elements (e.g., actual versus expected presence)

this is not a possibility. The best option is for fish bone samples to be excavated by

archaeologists who are highly familiar with the materials to be recovered.

Differential preservation at the sites was examined by comparing the

weights of identified and unidentified fractions, tabulating the degree of fragmentation of

vertebrae and calculating the ratio of the actual to the expected presence of a number

of different types of elements. The weight of unidentified bone was a minority portion of

the overall assemblage weight in every instance, although at Dragsholm it approached

40%. Examining the degree of fragmentation revealed an intriguing difference between

Gadidae vertebrae at Nederst and those at Asnæs Havnemark and Dragsholm,

although overall the results indicated that vertebrae remained fairly complete in the

assemblages. This finding must be tempered by remembering that fragmentary

vertebrae may not have been identifiable, and thus would not be included. Finally, the

ratios of actual to expected presence showed that it is likely that a number of bones that

were initially deposited are now missing from the assemblages. This seems to be

especially true for non-vertebra elements of Pleuronectidae; another reason to compare

results using vertebrae when possible. Differences in ratios between sites attest that

conditions of preservation were not equal, with Dragsholm, Bøgebjerg and Lollikhuse

seemingly most affected by bone loss. It cannot be ruled out that some of the variation

may result from differences in initial deposition or differential recovery. In summary,

preservation and recovery can definitely influence archaeological fish assemblages and

should be considered when using data from them. In many instances the introduced

biases are not so great as to preclude the use of the fish data, but this should be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis and, where possible, allowances made for them.

Preservation at the sites that were analyzed for this project can be described as fairly

good and reasonable confidence that the identified assemblages are indicative of

prehistoric activities is justified. Having surveyed some of the issues with data quality in

a review of the methodological results, now it is time to describe some of the other

findings of the project that bear more directly on cultural interpretations.

5.2 Intra-site variability

Many Ertebølle sites are the result of either long-term or repeated

occupations that span centuries, but to date interpretations based on fish bones have

largely treated the Mesolithic components of sites as if they were uniform entities,

despite acknowledgement that both the quantity of fish bone and types of fish vary

between contexts at some sites (e.g., Enghoff 1989 and 1991). An appreciation of the

variation within assemblages can lead to a better understanding of the dynamic nature

of Ertebølle culture.

At Dragsholm the number of identified specimens varies considerably from

level to level, although this information by itself is not particularly informative as the

length of occupation represented by the deposits is uncertain. What is of interest are

some of the other changes that occur. Table 48 presents the counts of fish specimens

by level from Trench 11 and Table 49 presents this data transformed into relative

abundances (fishes that have values less than 0.5% in every level are omitted from the

table). Gadidae and Pleuronectidae are the two fishes of primary interest, as the others

are very minor components. Looking at the progression from Level 7B to 8 (younger to

older), Gadidae increase in abundance at the expense of Pleuronectidae (there is also a

slight decline in the combined abundance of the other species). Level 7A is an

exception to this pattern with a high percentage of Gadidae, but it is also a much

smaller sample than the others. The changes in relative abundance are shown

graphically in Figure 41.

Ga

did

ae

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

Co

ttid

ae

Sq

ua

lid

ae

Be

lon

ida

e

Sc

om

bri

da

e

An

gu

illid

ae

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Tri

glid

ae

Clu

pe

ida

e

Zo

arc

ida

e

Sa

lmo

nid

ae

Pe

rcid

ae

Es

oc

ida

e

Cy

pri

nid

ae

Ide

nti

fie

d

7A vertebra 290 86 13 6 1 0 2 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 408

7B vertebra 2509 1672 134 75 126 13 41 21 45 10 4 3 0 0 1 4653

7C vertebra 10956 5374 293 359 301 321 242 91 63 76 7 6 5 2 1 18096

8 vertebra 2292 786 34 28 26 55 15 13 5 3 2 1 0 1 0 3261 Table 48: Vertebra count by level for Trench 11 at Dragsholm.

Ga

did

ae

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

Co

ttid

ae

Sq

ua

lid

ae

Be

lon

ida

e

Sc

om

bri

da

e

An

gu

illid

ae

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Tri

glid

ae

7A vertebra 71% 21% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

7B vertebra 54% 36% 3% 2% 3% 0% 1% 0% 1%

7C vertebra 61% 30% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%

8 vertebra 70% 24% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% Table 49: Relative abundance by level for Trench 11 at Dragsholm.

Figure 41: Relative abundance by level for Trench 11 at Dragsholm.

By itself, the shift in abundance is an interesting finding, but it is even more intriguing

when combined with fish size information. Gadidae size estimations were based on

measurements of otoliths and first vertebrae. The otoliths in the assemblage were

identified to species and to side (left or right), then measured for maximum length and

width. In many cases, breakage prevented the measurement of a maximum length and

otoliths that were eroded were not measured at all. From a total of 2152 otoliths, 1524

are cod (Gadus morhua), 33 are saithe/pollock (Pollachius sp.), 7 are whiting

(Merlangius merlangus) and the remaining 588 are cod family, unspecified. Of the cod

otoliths, 787 were suitable for length measurements (728 from Level 8 and 59 from

Level 7C). Fish total length (TL) was estimated using otolith length (OL) by means of a

linear regression formula:

TL = -202.13 + 48.37(OL) (Härkönen 1986:90)

Fish weight (FW) was estimated from fish length (TL) by means of a different regression

formula:

FW = 0.0039621(TL)3.2375 (Olson et al. 2008:2817)

The lower half of Table 50 presents summary information derived from otolith lengths,

and Figures 42 and 43 present the size distributions graphically. Average sizes are

larger in Level 8 than 7C (by 2.8 cm or ca. 125 g) but more striking is the size of the

largest cod present: ca. 900 g in Level 7C versus over 2 kg in Level 8.

Unfortunately, comparisons with Levels 7B and 7A are not possible with this

approach because no otoliths were recovered from these levels. For this reason, a

second set of size estimates was calculated using the width of the posterior centrum of

first vertebrae. First vertebrae are more difficult to identify to species than otoliths and

so the following information includes measurements for all of the gadid first vertebrae

that were complete in the relevant dimension. Based on the information from the

otoliths, cod are by far the dominant species in the assemblage so any error introduced

by the presence of other species should be minimal. Weight estimates were based on

total length using the formula above, while total length was derived from measurements

of first vertebra width (W) using the formula:

TL = 87.3172(W)0.8260 (Enghoff 1983:89)

A total of 553 first vertebrae were measured (6 from Level 7A, 94 from Level 7B, 385

from Level 7C and 68 from Level 8) and the summary results are shown in the upper

half of Table 50. Figures 44-47 present the size distributions graphically for Levels 8,

7C, 7B and the whole assemblage (Level 7A had only six specimens and did not

warrant a graph). Average cod sizes ranged from 33 cm (ca. 330 g) in Level 7B to 41

cm (ca. 630 g) in Level 8. Very intriguingly, there is a progression of increasing average

sizes from Levels 7B through 8 (with Level 7A appearing out of step) which echoes the

progression of increasing relative abundance of Gadidae seen above. Not only do the

older layers have a higher proportion of Gadidae, but the fish are larger. This can also

be seen with the largest specimen from each of the layers, as successive layers show

an increasingly large ‘trophy’ fish (here, Level 7A fits with the other levels in this

pattern). Comparing Level 7B with Level 8, the weights of both the average and the

largest fish are approximately twice as heavy in the older layer. One final note on Table

50 is that it is satisfying to see the good agreement between the average sizes as

calculated for otoliths and first vertebrae in Levels 7C and 8, although the largest fish

sizes are greater with the first vertebra method.

Figure 44: Gadid lengths Level 8 Dragsholm. Figure 43: Cod lengths Level 8 Dragsholm.

Figure 45: Gadid lengths Level 7C Dragsholm. Figure 42: Cod lengths Level 7C Dragsholm.

Figure 46: Gadid lengths Level 7B Dragsholm.

Figure 47: Gadid lengths from all levels combined.

First vertebrae 7A 7B 7C 8

N = 6 94 385 68

Mean length (cm) 36,5 33,0 36,3 40,5

Std Dv 5,5 4,7 6,7 8,1

Median length 37 32 36 38

Smallest length 27 25 17 23

Largest length 44 50 57 64

Mean weight (g) 453 327 445 634

Small weight 169 126 41 107

Large weight 805 1222 1917 2761

Otoliths 7C 8

N = 59 728

Mean length (cm) 36,5 39,3

Std Dv 5,3 6,2

Median length 36 39

Smallest length 25 16

Largest length 45 58

Mean weight (g) 453 575

Small weight 130 32

Large weight 898 2051 Table 50: Gadid sizes from Dragsholm.

Having identified a change in Gadidae size that seems to correspond with the change in

relative abundance, it is natural to examine Pleuronectidae to see if they also differ in

size between levels. No otoliths from these fish were recovered so first vertebra

measurements provided the only way to estimate sizes. The maximum width (W) of the

posterior face of the first vertebrae were measured and used to estimate total length

(TL) with the regression formula:

TL = 69.7268(W)0.9068 (Enghoff 1989:46)

A total of 131 vertebrae were suitable for measurement (none from Level 7A, 29 from

Level 7B, 84 from Level 7C and 18 from Level 8). Table 51 shows the summary data

and Figures 48 through 51 show the size distributions by level and for the site as a

whole. Estimated average sizes are 28 cm in Levels 7B and 7C and 30cm in Level 8.

There are no published formulas for deriving weight from length for Pleuronectidae, but

using lengths and weights of comparative specimens a very rough estimate would be a

50-60 g difference in weight for the 2 cm difference in length. There is a range of 37-42

cm for the largest fish in each level, with Level 7C having the biggest specimen.

Although the average fish in Level 8 are slightly larger than the other two levels it is hard

to attach great significance to this given the relatively small difference in weight this

represents. Unlike Gadidae, the Pleuronectidae size estimates do not suggest much

change in the fishery. Anguillidae size estimates are available for only 14 elements, 12

of which are from Level 7C, so comparisons are not meaningful. It is however,

interesting to examine the results from other sites.

First Vertebra 7A 7B 7C 8

N = 0 29 84 18

Mean length (cm) 28,0 27,6 30,3

Std Dv 4,1 4,2 3,6

Median length 27,8 27,3 30,3

Smallest length 20,0 17,7 24,5

Largest length 37,5 41,8 37,0

Figure 48: Flatfish size from Dragsholm. Table 51: Flatfish sizes from Dragsholm.

Figure 49: Flatfish size from Level 7B Dragsholm. Figure 50: Flatfish size from Level

7C Dragsholm.

Figure 51: Flatfish size from Level 8 Dragsholm.

The vertebra counts from Fårevejle are presented in Table 52 and

converted to relative abundances in Table 53 (again omitting the fishes that are a very

minor component). Looking at the data graphically (Figure 52), the pattern is similar to

Dragsholm with increasing abundance of Gadidae and decreasing Pleuronectidae

progressing from younger to older layers. Level 5 is the only part of the graph that does

not fit the overall pattern. Based on ceramic typology, Levels 3 and 4 may contain

mostly Neolithic materials, which would mean that there is a clear increase in Gadidae

(and corresponding decrease in Pleuronectidae) with increasing age in the Mesolithic

levels. This conclusion must be qualified by the relatively small sample size for the

individual levels. Only 21 cod otoliths were available for size estimations and there is no

obvious patterning to size distribution within the midden (see Table 54 for the

estimates). It is noteworthy that the average size of the cod is 45 cm (ca. 1 kg) – much

larger than those at the nearby site of Dragsholm. Only 18 first vertebrae are available

for size estimates of Pleuronectidae and the results also do not show any size

progression between levels (see Table 55).

Gad

idae

Pleuronectidae

Angu

illidae

Belonidae

Clupeidae

Cyp

rinidae

Scombridae

Esocidae

Cottidae

Salm

onidae

Iden

tified

Level 3 vertebra 55 52 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 108

Level 4 vertebra 179 127 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 316

Level 5 vertebra 368 435 15 7 0 4 0 1 0 0 830

Level 6 vertebra 479 292 20 7 6 2 2 0 1 1 810

Level 7 vertebra 125 39 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 171

Level 8 vertebra 26 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35

Table 52: Vertebra count by level for Trench 1 at Fårevejle.

Gad

idae

Pleuronectidae

Angu

illidae

Belonidae

Clupeidae

Level 3 vertebra 51% 48% 0% 1% 0%

Level 4 vertebra 57% 40% 3% 0% 0%

Level 5 vertebra 44% 52% 2% 1% 0%

Level 6 vertebra 59% 36% 2% 1% 1%

Level 7 vertebra 73% 23% 2% 0% 1%

Level 8 vertebra 74% 26% 0% 0% 0% Table 53: Relative abundance by level for Trench 1 at Fårevejle.

Figure 52: Relative distribution by level for Trench 1 at Fårevejle.

East North Level OL (mm) TL (cm) Weight (g)

141 112 3 12,3 39 574

141 112 3 14,1 48 1098

140 112 4 13,2 44 807

141 113 4 16,1 58 1990

141 109 5 11,5 35 411

141 109 5 11,6 36 429

141 111 5 12,2 39 552

141 109 5 13,7 46 961

141 109 5 14,0 48 1063

141 109 5 16,3 59 2100

141 114 6 13,5 45 897

140 113 6 13,8 47 994

140 113 6 14,5 50 1248

140 112 7 10,4 30 242

140 112 7 13,2 44 807

140 112 7 17,4 64 2782

140 109 8 11,2 34 359

140 109 8 12,3 39 574

140 109 8 12,5 40 621

140 109 8 14,0 48 1063

140 112 8 15,2 53 1543 Table 54: Estimated cod sizes at Fårevejle based on otolith measurements.

East North Level W (mm) TL (cm)

141 112 4 4,2 26

140 112 4 4,8 29

141 112 4 4,9 29

141 112 4 5,2 31

141 110 5 3,4 21

141 109 5 3,9 24

141 111 5 4,6 28

141 109 5 4,7 28

141 109 5 4,9 29

141 111 5 5,0 30

140 109 5B 5,2 31

141 111 5 5,6 33

140 108 5 5,9 35

140 109 6 4,2 26

140 109 6F 4,9 29

141 111 6 5,2 31

140 112 7 4,5 27

140 112 7 4,5 27 Table 55: Estimated Pleuronectidae sizes at Fårevejle based on first vertebrae.

Based on the results from Dragsholm and Fårevejle it would be tempting to

hypothesize a general trend during the Ertebølle period of increasing Gadidae and

decreasing Pleuronectidae with increasing age of the deposits, but the results from

Bøgebjerg (just a hundred meters from Dragsholm and several kilometers from

Fårevejle) show that it is not that simple. Table 56 shows the vertebra counts by level

and Table 57 converts these to relative abundances, while Figure 53 displays the

information graphically. At Bøgebjerg, the deeper (older) deposits show the percentage

of Pleuronectidae increasing (although still remaining secondary to Gadidae). Size

information for Gadidae estimated from first vertebrae does not help (only 38 specimens

could be measured, and of these 20 come from Level 7), as Levels 1, 5 and 7 have

average weights of 400-500 g, while Level 3 (N = 5) has an average of 760 g. An

interesting observation, whose meaning is not clear, is the high proportion of Gadidae

first, second and third vertebrae in Levels 1 and 3: 37 of 70 and 106 of 234,

respectively. Remembering that Gadidae average 53 vertebrae, there is a clear

discrepancy here between the actual count and what would be expected, although the

small sample sizes warn against interpreting too much from this information.

Regardless, the reversal of the pattern of increasing Gadidae relative abundance with

depth seen at the first two sites is an interesting result.

G

ad

ida

e

Ple

uro

ne

ctid

ae

Be

lon

ida

e

Co

ttid

ae

An

gu

illid

ae

Scom

bri

da

e

Sq

ua

lid

ae

Tra

chin

ida

e

Clu

pe

ida

e

Ide

ntifie

d

Level 1 vertebra 70 16 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 92

Level 3 vertebra 234 46 2 7 1 0 0 4 0 294

Level 5 vertebra 153 114 8 9 6 2 2 1 0 295

Level 7 vertebra 852 721 91 38 13 18 10 4 2 1749

Table 56: Vertebra count by level for Trenches 2 and 3 at Bøgebjerg.

Ga

did

ae

Ple

uro

ne

ctid

ae

Be

lon

ida

e

Co

ttid

ae

An

gu

illid

ae

Sco

mb

rid

ae

Sq

ua

lid

ae

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Clu

pe

ida

e

Level 1 vertebra 76% 17% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%

Level 3 vertebra 80% 16% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Level 5 vertebra 52% 39% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Level 7 vertebra 49% 41% 5% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% Table 57: Relative abundance by level for Trenches 2 and 3 at Bøgebjerg.

Figure 53: Relative abundance by level for Trenches 2 and 3 at Bøgebjerg.

The results from Asnæs Havnemark are displayed in Tables 58 and 59 and

Figure 54. Radiocarbon dates suggest a relatively short duration of occupation (ca. 300

years) and the relative abundances show only a slight tendency for decreasing Gadidae

and increasing Anguillidae with increasing depth. (The deposits from the grey layer

have a high percentage of Gadidae but were collected exclusively by Excavators C and

D, both of whom produced an under-representation of smaller specimens. This context

is also impoverished in the percentage of the NISP comprised of non-vertebra

elements, suggesting that excavator bias may be appreciably distorting the results for

this layer).

Ga

did

ae

An

gu

illid

ae

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

Co

ttid

ae

Sc

om

bri

da

e

Clu

pe

ida

e

Tri

glid

ae

Be

lon

ida

e

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Sq

ua

lid

ae

Zo

arc

ida

e

Sa

lmo

nid

ae

Cy

pri

nid

ae

Sy

ng

na

thid

ae

Ide

nti

fie

d

Culture layer 24878 2261 637 358 222 107 82 34 21 25 4 7 1 0 28637

Shell 3636 687 64 97 150 44 10 2 7 5 3 1 0 0 4706

Brown surface 2608 611 116 34 62 16 14 2 5 0 10 5 7 0 3490

Grey layer 1116 43 26 6 9 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 1209

Table 58: Vertebra count by level at Asnæs Havnemark.

Ga

did

ae

An

gu

illid

ae

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

Co

ttid

ae

Sc

om

bri

da

e

Clu

pe

ida

e

Culture layer 87% 8% 2% 1% 1% 0%

Shell 77% 15% 1% 2% 3% 1%

Brown surface 75% 18% 3% 1% 2% 0%

Grey layer 92% 4% 2% 0% 1% 0%

Table 59: Relative abundance by level at Asnæs Havnemark.

Figure 54: Relative abundance by level at Asnæs Havnemark.

Cod otoliths were in good supply in the Asnæs Havnemark assemblage, so

they were used for size estimates using the same formulas as at Dragsholm. Table 60

presents summary data for the different levels and Figures 55 through 59 display size

distributions. It was not necessary to calculate values on first vertebrae, as all of the

levels at Asnæs Havnemark had reasonably large samples of otoliths. In line with the

homogeneity of the relative abundance numbers, both the average and the largest sizes

of cod are quite uniform between the levels.

Otoliths

Culture

layer Shell

Brown

surface

Grey

layer

N = 196 84 81 27

Mean length (cm) 32,8 33,7 33,9 32,6

Std Dv 6,4 6,2 6,8 8,1

Median length 32 32 25 31

Smallest length 20 21 20 20

Largest length 52 53 51 49

Mean weight (g) 320 350 356 314

Small weight 64 74 59 61

Large weight 1415 1496 1329 1175 Table 60: Estimated cod sizes at Asnæs Havnemark based on otoliths.

Figure 55: Cod sizes from all levels Asnæs Havnemark.

Figure 56: Cod sizes from the Culture layer. Figure 57: Cod sizes from the Shell layer.

Figure 58: Cod sizes from the Brown surface. Figure 59: Cod sizes from the Grey layer.

Anguillidae lengths (TL) were estimated from measurements of the ceratohyal (K) using

the regression formula:

TL = 345.2232(K)0.7460 (Enghoff 1986:69)

Table 61 displays the summary information by level and in total for the size estimates.

Figure 60 shows the size distribution for the whole assemblage graphically. Note that

there is very little difference between the levels for the average sizes.

All Culture Shell Brown

N = 79 42 13 24

Mean 61 62 59 62

StdDv 11 12 11 9

Median 60 62 60 60

Smallest 42 42 42 49

Largest 86 86 74 80 Table 61: Anguillidae sizes by level at Asnæs Havnemark based on ceratohyal.

Figure 60: Anguillidae size distribution at Asnæs Havnemark.

Asnæs Havnemark provides a good example of a site with relatively

homogenous deposits that is dominated by a single type of fish; Lollikhuse provides

another, albeit with a different fish. Tables 62 and 63 present the vertebra count and

relative abundance data for the site. Figure 61 illustrates the generally uniform relative

abundances, dominated in every level by Pleuronectidae. Level 0 is the most out of line

with the other levels, but this may be due mostly to a very small sample size (N = 39).

The uniform (and uncharacteristically high) abundances of Belonidae are an unusual

feature of this site, as this fish is usually a very minor component of assemblages. Size

estimates are only available for nine Anguillidae elements and provide no information on

intra-site variability.

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

Ga

did

ae

Be

lon

ida

e

An

gu

illid

ae

Clu

pe

ida

e

Sc

om

bri

da

e

Tri

glid

ae

Ide

nti

fie

d

0 23 13 3 0 0 0 0 39

10 146 11 4 6 3 0 0 170

20 70 17 11 4 0 0 0 102

30 1034 128 114 34 8 2 1 1321

40 268 80 23 16 0 4 0 391

50 37 11 3 0 0 2 0 53

60 47 6 7 2 0 1 0 63 Table 62: Vertebra counts by level at Lollikhuse.

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

Ga

did

ae

Be

lon

ida

e

An

gu

illid

ae

Clu

pe

ida

e

Sc

om

bri

da

e

Tri

glid

ae

0 59% 33% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%

10 86% 6% 2% 4% 2% 0% 0%

20 69% 17% 11% 4% 0% 0% 0%

30 78% 10% 9% 3% 1% 0% 0%

40 69% 20% 6% 4% 0% 1% 0%

50 70% 21% 6% 0% 0% 4% 0%

60 75% 10% 11% 3% 0% 2% 0%

Table 63: Relative abundance by level at Lollikhuse.

Figure 61: Relative abundance by level at Lollikhuse.

One additional site has fish bone information available at a level of detail

that allows close scrutiny of intra-site variation, and despite insufficient information

about the contexts, it is in some ways the most interesting. As part of this project, 14

samples from skaldynge I (shell heap I) at Nederst were analyzed and the results are

presented in Tables 64 and 65. One look at the graph in Figure 62 reveals that the

levels here show great variability (note that unlike at the other sites, progressing from

left to right on the graph does not necessarily signify increasing age of the deposits).

Figure 63 shows the summary results from skaldynge II, showing still another pattern of

relative abundances (data from Enghoff 1994a).

Le

vel

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

An

gu

illid

ae

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Ga

did

ae

Clu

pe

ida

e

Zo

arc

ida

e

Sc

om

bri

da

e

Co

ttid

ae

Sa

lmo

nid

ae

Sy

ng

na

thid

ae

Ide

nti

fie

d

10 1432 134 46 53 75 4 0 4 1 0 1749

12 681 595 224 156 185 3 9 0 2 0 1855

13 74 81 154 15 9 3 0 4 1 0 341

20 1003 544 1057 287 91 175 3 13 12 2 3187

Shell 2073 784 387 652 441 28 7 0 5 1 4378

Table 64: Vertebra counts by level at Nederst skaldynge I.

Le

ve

l

Ple

uro

ne

cti

da

e

An

gu

illid

ae

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Ga

did

ae

Clu

pe

ida

e

Zo

arc

ida

e

10 82% 8% 3% 3% 4% 0%

12 37% 32% 12% 8% 10% 0%

13 22% 24% 45% 4% 3% 1%

20 31% 17% 33% 9% 3% 5%

Shell 47% 18% 9% 15% 10% 1% Table 65: Relative abundance by level at Nederst skaldynge.

Figure 62: Relative abundance by level at Nederst skalydynge I.

Figure 63: Relative abundances for skaldynge II (Enghoff 1994a).

The differences in relative abundances between levels clearly show that the fishery was

not a uniform phenomenon, but a look within the levels provides even more proof of

this. Figures 64-67 illustrate the assemblages of the individual square meters within four

of the levels at Nederst (only one square from Level 12 was analyzed). It is readily

apparent that attempts to characterize levels with aggregate values serves to conceal

the true nature of individual contexts. Compare this situation with Figures 68-71,

showing the results by square for the Culture Layer at Asnæs Havnemark and three

layers from Dragsholm. Although not identical, almost any individual square meter at

Asnæs Havnemark or Dragsholm would give a reasonably accurate impression of the

level as a whole. Additional evidence for variability in the Nederst skaldynge I

assemblage comes from fish size estimates. Table 66 for Anguillidae and Table 67 for

Pleuronectidae, although suffering from small sample sizes in a few instances, show

that Level 10 in particular is distinguished by larger average fish sizes than the other

levels. (Figures 72 and 73 show the size distributions for Anguillidae and

Pleuronectidae.) Although many of the other sites have displayed some differences

between contexts, Nederst’s variability is much greater than any site seen so far. Two

previously analyzed and published sites, Norsminde and Ertebølle, suggest that this not

a unique occurrence.

Figure 64: Relative abundances within Level 10 at Nederst.

Figure 65: Relative abundances within Level 13 at Nederst.

Figure 66: Relative abundances within Level 20 at Nederst.

Figure 67: Relative abundances within the Shell at Nederst.

Figure 68: Relative abundances within the Culture layer at Asnæs Havnemark.

Figure 69: Relative abundances within Layer 7B at Dragsholm (squares with NISP < 10

omitted).

Figure 70: Relative abundances within Layer 7C at Dragsholm (squares with NISP < 10

omitted).

Figure 71: Relative abundances within Layer 8 at Dragsholm (squares with NISP < 10 omitted).

Level 10 Level 12 Level 13 Level 20 Shell

N = 4 10 3 16 14

Mean (cm) 63 49 56 49 50

StdDv 7 12 7 14 15

Median 64 44 56 46 50

Smallest 54 32 49 37 35

Largest 70 70 62 82 88 Table 66: Anguillidae sizes by level at Nederst.

Figure 72: Anguillidae size distribution at Nederst.

Level 10 Level 12 Level 13 Level 20 Shell

N = 30 20 2 20 46

Mean (cm) 27 22 25 23 25

Std Dev 3 4 5 5 5

Median 27 22 25 25 25

Smallest 22 13 21 14 15

Largest 33 30 28 34 52 Table 67: Pleuronectidae sizes by level at Nederst.

Figure 73: Pleuronectidae size distribution at Nederst.

Norsminde, like Nederst, was extensively excavated (completely in the case

of Norsminde), but the data is not published in a manner that allows comprehensive

investigation of intra-site variability (Enghoff 1989). Two squares (31/28 and 32/28) are

reported individually, and the relative abundances in these adjacent contexts indicate a

non-uniform assemblage (see Figure 74). Additionally, while the majority of the

assemblage comes from a limited area designated the ‘fish layer’ and is dominated by

Pleuronectidae, outside of this concentration the majority of the fish (783 out of 854

specimens) are Gadidae (Enghoff 1989:45). Again, the impression is of a site with

considerable differences between various parts of the midden.

Figure 74: Relative abundances for two squares at Norsminde (Enghoff 1989).

The shell midden at Ertebølle was sampled by a single, one meter wide

trench, limiting the potential to examine horizontal variation within the deposits. A

column sample was processed to recover fish remains, and this information is published

by levels, allowing a review of vertical differences in the assemblage (Enghoff 1986:70).

Most of the individual samples have few identified specimens, limiting their reliability,

but samples N13, 14 and 15 in the middle of the column are sufficiently large to warrant

closer examination. Figure 75 presents the relative abundances for these three

contexts, while Figure 76 presents the same three without three-spined stickleback

(Gasterosteidae) (this fish was highly concentrated in the N-column and its abundance

here is not considered representative for the site as a whole) (Enghoff 1986:68). Even

without Gasterosteidae, the three samples appear different, with a much higher

frequency of Cyprinidae in the lower samples.

Figure 75: Relative abundances for three samples in the N-column at Ertebølle (Enghoff

1986).

Figure 76: Relative abundances (minus Gasterosteidae) for three samples in the N-

column at Ertebølle (Enghoff 1986).

From the examples discussed above, it is clear that many assemblages

(especially shell middens) have substantial internal variability and this has implications

for both interpretation and future excavations. Whether the changing catches were a

result of environmental or cultural factors (or both) is difficult to ascertain, but regardless

of causation, the fact that fisheries in the same locations changed through time reveals

a previously unappreciated flexibility. It is not possible to say whether the variation

between levels at any of the sites is related to diet breadth changes by comparing

indices of richness or heterogeneity because in every instance NTAXA is significantly

correlated to NISP, but the results do show that Ertebølle fisheries were not a static

phenomenon.

Intra-site variability also has some important implications for excavation

strategies and sampling. Although there is no substitute for empirically establishing the

nature of individual site deposits, one general pattern can be proposed: outcast deposits

display more internal uniformity than shell middens. Further work is necessary to more

conclusively confirm or deny this, but the available evidence supports the statement.

Assuming that it is true, the representativeness of fish assemblages from single, narrow

trenches transecting shell middens is questionable (e.g., Bjørnsholm: sampled by a one

meter wide trench in a shell midden that stretches for over 325m) (Andersen 1991:59-

60). If at all possible, future shell midden excavations should emphasize collecting fish

samples from horizontally and vertically dispersed contexts in an attempt to capture a

more comprehensive picture of the fish assemblages. Conversely, when excavating

outcast deposits more emphasis can be placed on obtaining equivalent samples from

multiple levels. It may be a wise strategy to terminate the collection of fish remains from

parts of levels that are already well-sampled in order to concentrate resources on

increasing sample-sizes from under-represented contexts.

5.3 Regional differences

Perhaps the most important finding of this project is a real difference

between fisheries in the western and eastern parts of Denmark. Previously, although

regional variability in fish assemblages was recognized (Enghoff 1994a:89), the

distinction was not made between an eastern fishery largely focused on Gadidae (and

secondarily on Pleuronectidae) and a western fishery that is highly variable and not

easily categorized (see Figure 77 and Tables 68 and 69). Differential recovery has not

been discussed as a potential source of regional variation, despite the fact that all of the

assemblages in the East were recovered with coarse mesh-sizes, while those in the

West were collected using finer mesh-sizes. Figure 78 shows a plot of the percentage of

Gadidae at sites versus the mesh-size used during excavation. With the exception of

one site in the West dominated by Gadidae (Lystrup Enge) and two in the East

dominated by Pleuronectidae (Maglemosegårds Vænge and Lollikhuse), the correlation

between larger mesh-size and a high proportion of Gadidae in fish assemblages

appears quite strong. Fortunately, the screen-test results available from Dragsholm and

Asnæs Havnemark provide a good argument that the observed regional difference in

preferred fish is real, and not merely an artifact of differential recovery (Figure 79). Two

previously described sites (Ølby Lyng and Sølager) that are not included in Figure 77

because of probable differential recovery issues are nonetheless interesting as

additional examples of eastern sites that are heavily dominated by Gadidae.

Figure 77: Percentages of fish by site. First group is Jutland, second is Northwest

Zealand and the third is Northeast Zealand. Note that Østenkær and Jesholm are not

included because of small sample sizes, and for Stationsvej 19 all indeterminate flatfish

have been included as Pleuronectidae.

Bjø

rns

ho

lm (

1)

Ert

eb

ølle

(2

)

Ha

vn

ø

Je

sh

olm

I

Ly

str

up

En

ge

(4

)

Ne

de

rst

I

Ne

de

rst

II (

4)

No

rsm

ind

e (

3)

Yd

erh

ed

e (

4)

Øs

ten

kæ

r (4

)

NISP 11490 9462 330 38 9233 13779 6476 9158 523 11

Gadidae 10% 8% 4% 8% 74% 12% 23% 29% 2%

Pleuronectidae 1% 1% 8% 16% 23% 43% 21% 58% 52% 9%

Anguillidae 56% 17% 73% 11% 1% 19% 38% 8% 8% 18%

Cyprinidae 14% 67% P

Trachinidae 6% 5% 50% 17% 2% P 1%

Belonidae P 1% 3% P

Clupeidae P 1% 3% 3% 1% 6% 14% 3%

Scombridae 2% P P P P

Cottidae P P P 3% P P P 1%

Gasterosteidae 7% 1% P 1% P 1%

Squalidae P P 8% P P P 32%

Zoarcidae P P 1% P 2% 2% P 1%

Triglidae P P 3% P P 1%

Percidae P 3%

Esocidae P P P 45%

Salmonidae P P 3% P P 1% 27%

Sparidae 1%

Scophthalmidae P P P P P P

Carangidae P

Gobiidae P P P

Moronidae P P

Callionymidae P

Ammodytidae P P Table 68: Percentage of fish by family for sites on Jutland (P = rounds to 0%).

(1) Data from Enghoff 1991. (2) Data from Enghoff 1986. (3) Data from Enghoff 1989.

(4) Data from Enghoff 1994a and only published in summary form.

As

næ

s H

av

ne

ma

rk

Bø

ge

bje

rg

Dra

gs

ho

lm

Få

rev

ejle

Sm

ak

ke

rup

Hu

se

(5

)

He

nri

ks

ho

lm-B

(4

)

Lo

llik

hu

se

Ma

gle

ho

lm (

4)

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rd (

4)

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rds

Væ

ng

e (

4)

Sta

tio

ns

ve

j 1

9 (

4)

Væ

ng

et

No

rd (

4)

NISP 44461 2592 39067 2738 9332 10893 2669 650 12784 6324 4547 734

Gadidae 86% 55% 66% 58% 70% 51% 15% 69% 48% 23% 79% 44%

Pleuronectidae 2% 35% 25% 38% 18% 39% 70% 5% 46% 71% 46%

Anguillidae 9% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 3% P 2% 2% P 3%

Cyprinidae P P P 1% P P 1% 2% P

Trachinidae P P P P P

Belonidae P 4% 2% 1% 7% 1% 10% P 1% P

Clupeidae P P P P P P P P P P 4% P

Scombridae 1% 1% 1% P 1% 4% 1% 1% P P P P

Cottidae 1% 2% 1% P P P P P P

Gasterosteidae P P P

Squalidae P 1% 2% P 1% 3% P 22% P 1% P 4%

Zoarcidae P P P

Triglidae P P P P P P

Percidae P P P P P

Esocidae P P 1% P 1% P P 1% 1%

Salmonidae P P P P P P P P

Sparidae P

Scophthalmidae P P P P P P P* 1%

Carangidae

Gobiidae P

Moronidae

Callionymidae P

Ammodytidae

Table 69: Percentage of fish by family for sites on Zealand (P = rounds to 0%).

(4) Data from Enghoff 1994a and only published in summary form. Note that Stationsvej

19 has 15% indeterminate flatfish not shown here (it seems unlikely that all 15% are

Scophthalmidae, based on the results from all other sites in Denmark that are

dominated by Pleuronectidae). (5) Data from Larsen 2005.

Figure 78: Relative abundance of Gadidae (larger fish) versus mesh-size of screen used during recovery. (Ertebølle is plotted at 0.5 mm mesh, the smallest size used for sieving the N-column, although other areas that were recognized during excavation as being rich in fish bone were taken as bulk samples and hand-sorted under a stereo-microscope in the laboratory) (Enghoff 1986:63). Additionally, a screen size of 1.5 mm is plotted for Lystrup Enge, which is only described as being excavated with “fine-mesh sieving,” (Enghoff 1994a:69).

Figure 79: Relative abundance of Gadidae versus mesh-size of screen used during recovery substituting the screen-test results (with an effective 1 mm mesh size) for the regular assemblages from Asnæs Havnemark and Dragsholm.

Documenting the differences in the fisheries of the eastern and western

areas of Denmark by noting which species dominate the individual assemblages is a

step forward, but a more quantitative measure of difference is available with the

Shannon index of heterogeneity. Because of the data that are required for calculating

the index (precise relative abundances) and the choice to omit two sites with very small

assemblages (Havnø and Jesholm I), not all sites were included in this analysis

(although values were calculated for all sites with any published relative abundance

information and these are presented in section 6.2 below with the reservation that they

are only approximations because of the limitations of the data). The sites that were used

are listed in Table 70, along with their NISP and NTAXA (at the family level).

Bjø

rns

ho

lm

Ert

eb

ølle

Ne

de

rst

I

No

rsm

ind

e

Sm

ak

ke

rup

Hu

se

As

næ

s H

av

ne

ma

rk

As

næ

s S

cre

en

-te

st

Dra

gs

ho

lm

Dra

gs

ho

lm S

cre

en

-te

st

Få

rev

ejle

Bø

ge

bje

rg

Lo

llik

hu

se

NISP 11490 9462 13779 9158 9332 44461 3299 39067 1435 2738 2592 2669

NTAXA 24 17 11 16 11 15 14 16 13 12 10 8

Table 70: NISP and NTAXA for selected sites.

Figure 80: NTAXA versus (Log) NISP for selected sites.

Plotting NTAXA versus the logarithmically transformed NISP values shows there is not

a statistically significant correlation between the two (N = 12, r = 0.43704, P = 0.1554),

so use of the Shannon index is warranted (Figure 80). Figure 81 shows the Shannon

index values by site arranged from highest to lowest, with the western sites in blue and

the eastern sites in red.

Figure 81: Plot of Shannon index values. (Western sites are blue and eastern sites are

red.)

It is again necessary to test to see whether differences in the index values are driven by

assemblage size and this is done in Figure 82. It does not appear that the Shannon

index values are significantly correlated with (Log) NISP (N = 12, r = 0.26571, P =

0.4039), so the differences can be attributed to causes other than assemblage size.

Figure 82: Plot of Shannon index values versus (Log) NISP.

The association of higher index values with the western sites and lower

values with eastern ones is fairly distinct. The higher value for the Dragsholm screen-

test assemblage may be attributable to the fact that most of the samples come from

Layer 7B – which had more diverse and evenly distributed results than the other levels.

It is fair to say that the screen-test results are not representative of the site as a whole.

The Asnæs Havnemark screen-test samples have the second highest Shannon index of

the eastern sites, although the value is reasonably close to the rest of this group. The

NTAXA values for the western sites are similar or only slightly higher than the eastern

sites, but when relative abundances are factored in the eastern sites show less

heterogeneity. Greater heterogeneity is linked with a broader subsistence base, so the

results from calculating the Shannon index support the earlier impression of a

generalized fishing strategy in western Denmark and a more specialized strategy in

eastern Denmark.

One further difference between the eastern and western coastal sites

concerns the water salinity requirements of the fish that were caught. In the East,

saltwater species are by far the dominant portion of the assemblages (note that some

saltwater fish can tolerate varying degrees of brackishness such as the waters of

estuaries); however most of the eastern assemblages have a small freshwater

component (especially Esocidae and Cyprinidae) as well. In western Denmark this is

not the case: two sites on the Limfjord (Bjørnsholm and Ertebølle) have significant

amounts of Cyprinidae and lesser quantities of Percidae and Esocidae, but freshwater

species are otherwise almost completely absent from the western assemblages.

Diadromous fish tell a somewhat different story. Anguillidae are present in the

assemblage of every Danish site investigated so far, but with the exception of Asnæs

Havnemark, they are at most only a few percent of the total NISP for the eastern sites.

In contrast, on western sites, with the exception of Lystrup Enge, Anguillidae are never

less than 8% of the total. At Bjørnsholm and Havnø they are well over half of the total

identified fish bones. The significance of these observations is not immediately obvious,

but it is curious that the sites in the West with a broader diet breadth seem to have been

less likely to have taken advantage of freshwater fishes. It must be borne in mind that

on the whole, freshwater fishes were of only minor significance at the coastally located

settlements (with two exceptions). At inland locations they were the dominant type of

fish of course, but even here saltwater species could be found (i.e., Ringkloster)

(Enghoff 1994b). At a rough approximation, perhaps 5 % of the total number of fish

bones identified from all Ertebølle sites in Denmark came from exclusively freshwater

species (mostly from just two sites: Åkonge and Ertebølle). With the exception of the

Åmose on Zealand and the vicinity of the Limfjord in northern Jutland, freshwater lakes

and rivers do not seem to have been a focus of the Ertebølle fishery.

6. Discussion

Discovering the species, elements and size of the specimens that are

present in archaeological assemblages is an engaging and rewarding endeavor.

Analyses that inform about the ways in which these data are biased by taphonomic and

other factors also make important contributions to our knowledge. In the results sections

it was shown that fish bone assemblages differ between eastern and western Denmark,

and that at some sites, there is variation within an assemblage that most likely indicates

change through time. Ultimately, however, archaeologists are interested in how material

evidence reveals past human behavior, and for that we must turn to the specific

characteristics of the fish assemblages that can be used to generate cultural

interpretations.

6.1 The individual sites

Asnæs Havnemark

Excavations at Asnæs Havnemark revealed a site that was incredibly rich in

fish bones; so much so that they were only sampled from some of the units. Even so,

ca. 3.2 kg of fish bone material was recovered, all of which has been examined. The

total of 47,760 identified specimens makes it the largest Ertebølle assemblage analyzed

so far. Seventeen families of fish were identified, containing a minimum of 22 different

types of fish. Gadidae were represented by Gadus morhua, Melanogrammus

aeglefinus, Pollachius sp. and Merlangius merlangus, with Gadus morhua (cod) being

most common (at 75.1 %, with 5.1 % Merlangius merlangus, 1.0 % Pollachius sp., 0.4

% Melanogrammus aeglefinus and 18.4 % unspecified gadid – based on identifications

of 899 otoliths). Flatfish were represented by Platichthys flesus (although Pleuronectes

platessa and Limanda limanda may also be present) and Psetta maxima/Scophthalmus

rhombus. Clupeidae remains consisted of both Clupea harengus and Alosa sp.

(although only 13 Alosa vertebrae were identified). Preservation of the fish bones was

generally good, with over 95% of the identified vertebrae being more than half complete.

All of the skeletal elements seemed to have been discarded in the same location (ca.

14% of the NISP is non-vertebra), even though not all elements were recovered and

identified in equal proportions.

Gadidae dominate the assemblage with 86% of the total NISP, followed by

Anguillidae at 9%. Screen tests experiments on the effect of using smaller mesh-size

(NISP = 3299) increased the relative abundance of Anguillidae (to 18.2%) and some

other species, but Gadidae remained the dominant fish (68.1%) Freshwater fish are

very rare (only 8 Cyprinidae vertebrae), but diadromous fish include eel, shad, and

trout/salmon. These results are very much in accord with the site’s location far out on

the Asnæs peninsula with no significant bodies of freshwater in the vicinity. The rocky,

exposed shoreline near the site; dominance of Gadidae (including large individuals of

Gadus morhua and Melanogrammus aeglefinus); and recovery of numerous fishhooks

and preforms suggest that angling (probably offshore in boats) played a major role in

the fishery. This interpretation is supported by the very few Trachinidae specimens in

the assemblage (0.1 %), a fish that is often used as a marker of fishing with stationary

structures (see section 6.2 below). The presence of Callionymidae is of note as this fish

has only been identified in one other Ertebølle assemblage (Norsminde).

The approximately 18 kg of other animal bones from the site have not yet

been analyzed, but seal, red deer, roe deer, wild boar, dog, beaver, raptor and swan

have already been recognized by the excavators. It would be a mistake to assess the

relative importance of fish versus other animals based on the bone weights at this site,

as fish bones were only collected from some squares while all other animal bones were

retained during excavation. The fish bones represent a minimum of hundreds of

individuals, demonstrating that they were an important part of the diet.

Determination of the seasons of occupation for Asnæs Havnemark will

require completion of an analysis of the other faunal remains, but the fish offer some

initial insights (see more on this topic below in section 6.3). Summer occupation is

suggested by the presence of Scombridae and Belonidae, although both are rare (ca.

1% and 0.1%). The predominance of Gadidae in the assemblage (including large

individuals of Gadus morhua and Melanogrammus aeglefinus) may be evidence of a

winter fishery. Seal, swan, and deer bones support a fall/winter occupation, as this is

when these animals are most profitably hunted (Rowley-Conwy 1984).

Dragsholm

Excavations at Dragsholm produced an enormous quantity of fish bones

(ca. 12.2 kg), of which 40,502 specimens have been identified so far. All of the fish

remains from Trench 11 have been analyzed, along with samples from Trenches 3, 4

and 5. To date, eighteen fish families have been recognized in the material, including at

least 25 different fishes. Gadidae are represented by Gadus morhua, Pollachius sp.,

Merlangius merlangus, with Gadus morhua being the most common (70.1 %, with

Pollachius sp. at 1.5 %, Merlangius merlangus at 0.3 % and 27.3 % unspecified gadid -

based on the identification of 2152 otoliths). Many different flatfishes were recognized,

including: Platichthys flesus, Limanda limanda, Pleuronectes platessa and Psetta

maxima. Clupeidae included both Clupea harengus and Alosa sp., while Salmonidae

were represented by Coregonus sp. and Salmo sp. Preservation of the fish bones was

variable, ranging from very good to somewhat poor. Over 88% of the identified

vertebrae were more than half complete, but the relatively low ratio of vertebra identified

versus the number that would be expected based on the estimated minimum number of

fish suggests that more bones are ‘missing’ from this assemblage than at the other

sites. Almost 16.9% of the total NISP consists of non-vertebra elements, which supports

the conclusion that all fish remains were discarded in the same locations (even if not all

elements were equally affected by taphonomic factors).

Gadidae dominate the assemblage at 66.5 %, followed by Pleuronectidae

at 24.9 % and all other species at 8.6%, although this varies somewhat between levels.

Level 7B had the highest proportion of Pleuronectidae (36.1 %) and ‘other’ species

(10.2 %). Screening experiments testing the effect of smaller mesh size (NISP = 1435)

increased the proportion of ‘other’ species to 31.1% (especially Anguillidae at 16.0 %

and Clupeidae at 6.7 %), but the samples were mostly taken from Level 7B. Even with

smaller mesh-size screens, Gadidae remain the dominant type of fish at the site.

Freshwater fish (including Percidae, Esocidae and Cyprinidae) are very rare, evidenced

by only 11 specimens. Diadromous fish are also present (Anguillidae and Salmonidae)

but comprise just 0.9 % of the total. The location of Dragsholm on a narrow waterway

connecting the sheltered waters of the Lammefjord with the Kattegat provided

opportunities for fishing in a variety of environments. The many different types of fish in

the assemblage support exploitation of a variety of locations, although the dominance of

Gadidae (including individuals up to 64 cm in length) suggests that much of the fishing

may have been conducted out in the deeper waters of the Kattegat. The fish hooks

recovered from the site (one of which was 5 cm long) were likely part of this fishery.

Spear fishing in the shallow waters of the fjord would have been a productive way to get

flatfish and traps set in the passageway between the fjord and open sea would have

captured many of the migratory fishes. The relative scarcity of freshwater fish implies

there were no large bodies of fresh water in the vicinity; or if there were, they were not

important fishing locations.

Analysis of the 17.6 kg of other animal remains from Dragsholm is not

complete, but the excavators’ recognition of roe deer, red deer, wild pig, dog,

unspecified bird, and unspecified small and medium mammals shows a broad-based

hunting strategy. Although an impressive amount of mammal and bird bone was

recovered, when compared with the weight of fish bones it would seem to indicate that

fishing was a very important part of the subsistence regime. Based solely on the

number of otoliths from Trench 11, over a thousand Gadidae contributed to the deposits

at the site.

The presence of Scombridae and Belonidae specimens in reasonable

quantities (1.2 and 2.2% respectively) gives firm proof of summer occupations of the

site. Conversely, the dominance of Gadidae (including several large individuals) is

consistent with fishing in the cooler months of the year. The cervids and other mammals

may be further support for fall/winter occupations, although definitive statements

involving mammal and bird remains awaits completion of their analysis. In addition to

the faunal evidence, the wide range of tools and other material evidence recovered from

the site is consistent with a base camp that was occupied year-round.

Bøgebjerg

The site of Bøgebjerg lies approximately 100 meters north of Dragsholm

and offered many of the same environmental conditions to its inhabitants, although flint

typology and the absence of ceramics suggest that it may have been occupied slightly

earlier. It was not as rich in finds as Dragsholm (only 265 g of fish bones and ca. 550 g

of other animal bones), but provides an interesting point of comparison. All of the fish

remains have been analyzed and the 2,592 identified specimens document 10 families

of fish. Preservation of the fish bones was generally good. Non-vertebra elements are

not well represented at Bøgebjerg (only 4.8 % of the total NISP), possibly suggesting

some degree of off-site processing. Levels 1 and 3 have an unusually high proportion of

the first through third vertebra of Gadidae (52.9 and 45.3 % of the total Gadidae

vertebrae respectively), but the small sample size discourages attaching great

significance to this observation. Overall, Gadidae dominate the assemblage with 55.4 %

of the total, followed by Pleuronectidae at 35.4 %. As at Dragsholm, these percentages

vary somewhat by layer. The presence of Sparidae (one specimen) is notable, as this

family of fishes is generally found in more southerly waters today.

The ratio of fish bone to other animal bone (by weight) implies that fishing

was an important part of subsistence at the site, but both assemblages are fairly small.

No detailed information on the non-fish animal bones is available. Seasonality

information from the fish remains is similar to that noted above, with Belonidae (4.3 %)

and Scombridae (0.8 %) demonstrating spring/summer occupation while the dominance

of Gadidae (including large individuals up to 52 cm in length) suggests that fishing was

also conducted in the fall/winter.

Fårevejle

Only a few kilometers to the north of Dragsholm and Bøgebjerg, also on the

Lammefjord, lies the shell midden site of Fårevejle. Despite the presence of great

quantities of mollusk shells, other evidence of human activities was somewhat sparse in

the midden. Approximately 228 g of fish bones were recovered during excavation, all of

which have been examined. The 2,783 identified specimens encompass 12 families and

a minimum of 14 different types of fish. Gadidae are represented by Gadus morhua and

Pollachius sp.; flatfish by Psetta maxima/Scophthalmus rhombus and Platichthys flesus.

Preservation of the fish bones was generally quite good and the proportion (15.4 %) and

types of non-vertebra elements are in line with what would be expected if complete

skeletons were deposited in the midden. Again, Gadidae dominate the assemblage at

57.7 % followed by Pleuronectidae at 38.1 %, varying somewhat by layer. The presence

of a few Cyprinidae and Esocidae vertebrae indicates either that a body of freshwater

was nearby or the fjord had very low salinity in this location. The size of Gadidae at the

site is rather large (mean = 46.7 cm, with the length of 7 of the 25 individuals estimated

from otolith measurements being more than 50 cm) which is best explained by an

emphasis on hook-and-line fishing.

The ca. 1.4 kg of other animal bone recovered from the site is still awaiting

analysis, but the excavators’ noted roe deer, red deer, wild pig and unspecified bird

remains. Comparing the weights of fish and other animal bones implies that fishing was

not as important as other subsistence activities at this site; a point that is perhaps made

obvious by the extensive evidence for gathering shellfish. Growth-ring analysis of shells

from other middens has shown that gathering mollusks was primarily done during the

late winter or spring during the Ertebølle period (Milner 2002). Assuming this was also

the case at Fårevejle and adding the evidence for Gadidae fishing (with individuals up to

66 cm in length) and hunting of cervids, cool season occupation of the site is indicated.

Evidence for summer occupation is scarcer, as both Scombridae and Belonidae are

rare in the assemblage (0.1 and 0.6 % respectively). Fårevejle may be an example of a

resource extraction locale that was seasonally visited from other base camps on the

Lammefjord.

Lollikhuse

Further east on the island of Zealand, on the shores of the Roskilde fjord, is

the shell midden site of Lollikhuse. Fish bone samples from earlier phases of excavation

were analyzed for this project, but subsequent excavation has produced an unknown

quantity of fish material that awaits examination. From the part of the assemblage

analyzed, 2,668 identified specimens indicate the presence of 8 families of fish. One

family (Squalidae) is recognized only on the basis of three dorsal spines; given the lack

of other skeletal elements and the fact that Squalidae spines have been identified as

tools (Noe-Nygaard 1971), it may not be part of the fishery at this site. Preservation of

the bones was only fair, and many specimens were unidentifiable due to a hard, thick

encrustation of matrix. Only 3.6% of the identified specimens were non-vertebrae, which

is the lowest proportion yet observed. Pleuronectidae dominate the assemblage at

70.4%, followed by Gadidae at 15.1 %. No freshwater fish were identified, but migratory

fish are present (Anguillidae). It is surprising that eel represent only 3 % of the

assemblage, as this was the major fishery in the Roskilde fjord in historic times

(Drechsel 1890). The proportion of Belonidae (9.9 %) is the highest recorded from any

Ertebølle site and demonstrates an emphasis on fishing in the spring and early summer.

The presence of Scombridae supports this observation, although they are present in

much smaller quantities (0.9 %). Neither Gadidae size estimates nor information on the

rest of the faunal material is available, precluding inferences about other seasons of

occupation.

Havnø

Moving to the Jutland peninsula, a small assemblage was examined from

the shell midden site of Havnø on the Mariager fjord. With only 330 identified

specimens, strong statements about the nature of the fishery conducted by the site’s

inhabitants are probably not warranted, but the diverse nature of the assemblage (9

families present) is remarkable considering its size. Anguillidae were the most common

fish (at 72.7 %) and combined with the Salmonidae specimens (3.3%) demonstrate that

diadromous fish were important. Spring or summer occupation of the site is indicated by

the presence of 11 Belonidae specimens, although other seasons of occupation cannot

be excluded. The Havnø excavations have produced a large mammal and bird

assemblage that awaits analysis, but no information is yet available.

Nederst

Three different shell-heaps are present at this site in the middle of the

Djursland peninsula in central Jutland, located on the former Kolind fjord. Samples from

skaldynge II were identified by Inge B. Enghoff and given summary publication (1994a).

From this area of the site 6,476 specimens were identified, with Anguillidae (38 %),

Gadidae (23 %), Pleuronectidae (21 %) and Clupeidae (14%) being the most common

fishes. The relatively high percentage of herring and the absence of freshwater species

were notable features of the assemblage (Enghoff 1994:82).

Samples from skaldynge I were analyzed for this project, resulting in the

identification of a further 13,779 specimens. Preservation of the fish bones was

generally good, with over 93% of the identified vertebrae being more than half complete.

Both the proportion of non-vertebra elements (10.8 % of the total NISP) and types of

elements identified support the interpretation that complete skeletons were deposited in

the midden. Many of the fish bones from Nederst were burned (6.1 % of the identified

vertebrae), although the majority of the burned bones were concentrated in one square

(201 East 297 North). Of the ten families of fish from skaldynge I, Pleuronectidae (43.3

%), Anguillidae (19.3 %), Trachinidae (16.8 %) and Gadidae (12.4 %) were the most

important. The lack of a single dominant type of fish and the high relative abundance of

multiple fishes suggests a generalized fishing strategy; perhaps emphasizing the use of

stationary fishing structures that were unselective in their catch. The large number of

Trachinidae bones (the highest proportion of any Ertebølle assemblage) is also

evidence for the use of fish fences and traps. As in skaldynge II, no freshwater fishes

were identified, although diadromous fishes (Anguillidae and Salmonidae) are present.

Of special note is the Pleuronectidae individual estimated to have been 52 cm long; the

largest Mesolithic example of this fish to date.

Numerous fish remains from Nederst have not yet been examined and the

other classes of faunal material have received little analysis. Comprehensive publication

of the site is still in process. Because of these limitations it is difficult to discuss

seasonality or site function. Scombridae are present in the material but scarce (0.2%)

and there are no specimens from Belonidae. Gadidae are a fairly minor component of

the assemblage and consist mostly of small individuals (the largest is 45 cm). Summer

may have been the primary season of occupation and/or fishing activity, but this is by no

means definitive.

Jesholm I

Excavations at Jesholm I on the northern coast of the Djursland peninsula

produced surprisingly few fish bones considering the presence of numerous sharpened

or otherwise worked pieces of wood that are interpreted as the remains of fishing

structures. Other animal bones and flint artifacts were recovered in some quantity,

indicating that the excavation trenches did sample outcast deposits, but despite water-

screening of numerous samples (with 1.5 mm mesh-size screens) only a handful of fish

bones were recovered. The 38 identified specimens include elements from 8 families; a

level of diversity in a small assemblage that is as impressive as that at Havnø. No

Scombridae or Belonidae are present, but with so few identified fish bones statements

about seasonality of occupation are not justified.

6.2 Fishing technology

One of the first questions that arises with any discussion of subsistence

resources is how they were obtained. For the Ertebølle period, there is solid

archaeological evidence for fishing by means of traps, nets, spears/leisters and hooks

(e.g., Andersen 1995, Pedersen 1995). Because almost all of the components of fishing

gear were made from organic materials, they are only occasionally preserved. This

means that while we have convincing proof that all of these methods were practiced it is

not possible to judge which techniques were preeminent based on the scattered

remains that have been recovered. Instead, clues to the fishing methods employed

come from the fish assemblages that were captured by them. It has become accepted

wisdom that, “the main fishing tool used by the Ertebølle fishermen was a stationary,

self-fishing trap, which was left in place near the coast for a period of at least one night,”

based on the species richness of fish assemblages, the behaviors of these species and

the size of the fish (Enghoff 1994a:83-84, emphasis in the original). It is worth

investigating each of these supporting lines of evidence in turn.

The relatively high species richness of Ertebølle assemblages has been

interpreted as meaning that they represent, “an uncritical sample of whatever fish was

present in the local coastal waters,” (Enghoff 1994a:83, emphasis in original), and thus

reflect the use of untended traps. While intuitively appealing in some regards, this

reasoning relies upon a few untested assumptions. The first of these is that the number

of species found in an assemblage is a significant portion of the local fish fauna.

Unfortunately, we have only two means of knowing what the local fauna would have

been: analogy (with modern or historic data obtained under different environmental

conditions than those of the Late Atlantic period and also potentially altered by heavy

commercial fishing activities) or from sub-fossil fish remains (which, in this area and this

period, come from archaeological deposits). A second reservation (already raised

during the introduction of NTAXA) is that the presence or absence of a particular type of

fish carries the same amount of information regardless of how many specimens are

actually present. Table 71 shows the number of taxa (at the family level) present at

many Ertebølle sites. The first row includes every taxon present at the site, while the

second row includes only those that are present in quantities greater than 1%.

Jutland NW Zealand NE Zealand

Bjø

rns

ho

lm

Ert

eb

ølle

Ha

vn

ø

Je

sh

olm

I

Ly

str

up

En

ge

Ne

de

rst

I

Ne

de

rst

II

No

rsm

ind

e

Yd

erh

ed

e

Øs

ten

kæ

r

As

næ

s H

av

ne

ma

rk

Bø

ge

bje

rg

Dra

gs

ho

lm

Få

rev

ejle

Sm

ak

ke

rup

Hu

se

He

nri

ks

ho

lm-B

Lo

llik

hu

se

Ma

gle

ho

lm

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rd

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rds

Væ

ng

e

Sta

tio

ns

ve

j 1

9

Væ

ng

et

No

rd

24 17 9 8 15 10 11 16 13 4 15 10 16 12 11 17 8 10 16 15 11 11

6 4 7 8 2 6 6 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 Table 71: NTAXA for Ertebølle sites, first row includes all taxa and the second only

those that are present greater than 1 %. (Note that Østenkær has NISP 11 and Jesholm

I NISP 38, so all taxa are greater than 1 %.)

It is clear from the data in Table 71 that there are many types of fish at most

of the sites, but it is equally clear that many of them are only present in trace amounts.

Some fishes are present with just one specimen out of the thousands identified for that

site (e.g., Callionymidae at Asnæs Havnemark and Sparidae at Bøgebjerg). Relying on

NTAXA data as the basis for behavioral interpretations without consideration of relative

and absolute abundances is likely to result in misleading conclusions.

The role of fish behaviors as support for concluding that fish traps were the

preferred method of capture in the Ertebølle fishery stems from two observations: all but

one of the fish species in the assemblages are found at least occasionally in coastal

waters and greater weever (Trachinus draco, family Trachinidae) occurs on many of the

sites’ species lists. While agreeing that most of the species discussed spend some or all

of their lives in coastal waters, the relevance of this to discussions of method of capture

is unclear. It does rule out an exclusive deep-sea fishery. The Trachinidae evidence is

more intriguing and warrants further scrutiny. The reasoning behind using Trachinidae

as proof of fishing by self-fishing traps is that, “the greater weever lies buried in the

bottom sediment during the day and swims around during evening and particularly

during night,” (Enghoff 1994a:84). However, more recent fisheries biology research has

shown that, “for lesser weever [Echiichthys vipera] in the North Sea…the diel rhythm in

food intake, with high ingestion from midnight until noon, and low ingestion in the

afternoon and evening, appears to be similar among the two species [Echiichthys vipera

and Trachinus draco ],” (Bagge 2004:942). Trachinidae may be predominantly a

nighttime feeder, but they also feed (and are vulnerable to capture) at other times during

the day. Because of this, the presence of a few Trachinidae bones in an assemblage

cannot be taken as evidence for a nocturnal fishery. Instead of relying on mere

presence/absence data of Trachinidae, if relative abundances are considered a more

nuanced picture is revealed (see Table 72).

Jutland NW Zealand NE Zealand

Bjø

rns

ho

lm

Ert

eb

ølle

Ha

vn

ø

Je

sh

olm

I

Ly

str

up

En

ge

Ne

de

rst

I

Ne

de

rst

II

No

rsm

ind

e

Yd

erh

ed

e

Øs

ten

kæ

r

As

næ

s H

av

ne

ma

rk

Bø

ge

bje

rg

Dra

gs

ho

lm

Få

rev

ejle

Sm

ak

ke

rup

Hu

se

He

nri

ks

ho

lm-B

Lo

llik

hu

se

Ma

gle

ho

lm

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rd

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rds

Væ

ng

e

Sta

tio

ns

ve

j 1

9

Væ

ng

et

No

rd6% 5% 50% 17% 2% P 1% P P P P P

Table 72: Occurrence of Trachinidae - cited as evidence for the use of stationary fishing

structures.

First, note that Trachinidae are present in only 12 of 22 assemblages (55%), making

general statements about the Ertebølle fishery based on this one species suspect.

Using a ubiquity index to evaluate the six assemblages which have the requisite level of

detail available shows an even weaker basis for using the presence of Trachinidae to

characterize the overall fishery; with the exception of Nederst, they are present in only

about one third or less of the contexts at these sites (Figure 73). Using the presence of

mostly low numbers of Trachinidae bones in a few contexts at some sites as evidence

for an overall preference for trap fishing during the Ertebølle period is an unwarranted

generalization.

Site Total contexts Trachinidae contexts Ubiquity % Trachinidae vertebra Total vertebra % vertebra

Asnæs Havnemark 23 8 35% 33 38423 0,1%

Asnæs screen-test 14 3 21% 9 2651 0,3%

Bøgebjerg 21 6 29% 12 2468 0,5%

Dragsholm 59 19 32% 155 32468 0,5%

Dragsholm screen-test 13 3 23% 5 1206 0,4%

Fårevejle 72 10 14% 15 2317 0,6%

Lollikhuse 90 0 0% 0 2574 0,0%

Nederst 15 14 93% 2041 12291 16,6%

Table 73: Ubiquity of Trachinidae at six sites.

If instead of characterizing the Ertebølle fishery as a whole, the goal is to

describe individual site or regional fisheries, the Trachinidae evidence becomes more

convincing. Returning to the information in Table 72, Bjørnsholm, Havnø and Nederst

have considerable percentages of Trachinidae in their assemblages and might be good

candidates for fisheries that were heavily reliant on stationary fishing structures

(Jesholm I also has a high percentage of Trachinidae, but a total NISP of only 38).

These are precisely the assemblages that have the highest indices of heterogeneity (the

Shannon index for Havnø is 1.09, but it is a very small assemblage and this value may

not be reliable), an unsurprising result, given that fish traps are a mostly non-selective

method of fishing that catch a diverse array of fishes. The eastern sites, where Shannon

indices are lower, have few or no specimens of Trachinidae. Exactly as would be

expected, where fisheries are more specialized, the evidence for fish trap usage is

lowest. This is not to suggest that fish traps were not widely used during the Ertebølle

period, merely that they were not universally the most important means of procuring

fish. What is the evidence for the relative importance of the other methods of fishing?

The remains of fish spears or leisters are a frequent find at sites with

favorable conditions of preservation and may be even more common if the bone points

that are part of many tool inventories are a spear component as has been suggested

(Andersen 1995). The two styles of leister prongs found at Tybrind Vig (short for hard

substrates and long for soft substrates) are evidence for a sophisticated spear fishery

(Andersen 1985). Furthermore, it has been suggested that the clay hearths found in

some dugout canoes may have been for the purpose of maintaining fires to attract fish

at night, a practice that is well-known ethnographically (Rostlund 1952:295). Exactly

how the fish were captured after they approached the canoe is not known, but spearing

would certainly have been one option. This is in line with the ethnographic record which

shows that, “in traditional fisheries harpoons and leisters were generally used for

subsistence fishing only in conjunction with other techniques and gear, such as poisons,

lures, ground baits, weirs and barriers, which concentrate the fish,” (Pickard and Bonsall

2004:3, emphasis added). Anadromous and catadromous fishes (e.g., Salmonidae and

Anguillidae) are particularly vulnerable to spear fishing when they are concentrated in

rivers and streams. Marine fishes such as Pleuronectidae that occupy waters conducive

to spear fishing (e.g., shallow lagoons, fjords and littoral zones) during parts of the year

could also have been preferred prey for this method (Olson 2008:31, Olson and Walther

2007:9). Because significant quantities of a fish could be taken by spearing only at

specific times and locations depending on the behavior of the fish, heavy reliance on

spearing would produce a narrow diet-breadth (specialized fishery) unless it was

possible to target multiple fishes at different times during the year and the remains

ended up in the same deposits.

“Nets have been portrayed as the most efficient type of fishing gear and

their manufacture as evidence for a specialized fishing economy. The use of nets

requires skill, investment of time both in terms of manufacture and maintenance, and

considerable raw materials,” (Pickard and Bonsall 2004:3). There are many types of

nets, and they may be used both actively (e.g., seine nets, dip nets) and passively (e.g.,

pound nets, gill nets). Depending on the type of net, where and when it is employed, net

fishing can be either selective or non-selective for the fishes it catches. Generally, net

fishing catches a broad variety of fishes, with the only selection occurring in the size of

the fish caught based on the mesh-size of the net. The evidence for Ertebølle net-

fishing in Denmark consists only of net-weights and net-floats; without more information

about what types of nets were used detailed discussion of this fishery is not possible.

The final fishing technique for which there is archaeological evidence is

hook-and-line fishing. Although fishhooks can be employed passively when they are

employed en masse on set-lines, the absence of barbs on most or all of the Ertebølle

examples argues against the use of this technique as the fish could free themselves

before the set-line was retrieved. The preferred method of using the fishhooks must

have been active angling by the fishermen. Use of fishhooks is a selective fishing

method, with the fishes caught being largely determined by hook size, bait and fishing

location (and depth). Many fishes can be caught with hooks on at least some occasions,

but the method is more favorable for certain fishes, especially Gadidae. It has been

observed that, “at Scandinavian sites there is a clear co-occurrence of gadidae (cod,

ling, saithe, and related species) and bone fishhooks,” (Pickard 2002, cited in Pickard

and Bonsall 2004). The explanation of this co-occurrence is that, “for cod, which

seasonally stay in coastal waters, but not often in the immediate vicinity of the shore,

methods such as hook and line fishing would be more efficient,” (Olson et al.

2008:2819-2820). Even until the mid-20th century, hand-lining with baited hooks was a

preferred method for catching codfish (Kurlansky 1997). Cod are a gregarious fish, so

when a school is found many individuals can be captured without exhausting the fishing

location. Because they are voracious feeders that readily take the hook and congregate

in large numbers, Gadidae hook-and-line fishing in favorable locations offered the

potential for enormous returns.

Returning to diet breadth modeling, it will be remembered that greater

investment in fishing technology will lower the pursuit curve, thus expanding the number

of species in the diet and creating a more generalized fishing strategy. Stationary fishing

structures require the highest investment of resources. Fishes that were likely targeted

by these structures were eel, cyprinids (perhaps as by-catch in the eel fishery), and

Trachinidae, although many other fishes could also be taken (Enghoff 1986, 1994a).

Nets were another expensive technology, but without better information about the types

of nets that were used it is difficult to specify what they targeted. To the extent that they

capture all fish in the area where they are employed (that are larger than the net mesh-

size), they represent an unselective fishing technique. Spears require relatively little

investment and are selective in the fish they capture. Flatfish may have been

particularly targeted by spearfishing (Olson and Walther 2007). Hook-and-line fishing is

similarly inexpensive to employ and selective in its application. Gadidae and Cottidae

are fish that are especially likely to have been taken on fishhooks (Enghoff 1994a:84,

Pickard and Bonsall 2004). Table 74 presents the Shannon index values for the various

sites along with the most common fish in the assemblage and the percentage of

Trachinidae. The sites in italics are only published in summary form (with relative

abundances rounded to the nearest integer), so the Shannon index values should be

considered approximate. Higher Shannon index values indicate a more generalized

fishery. Trachinidae values are included because this fish is often cited as evidence for

the use of stationary fishing structures. The greater the abundance of Trachinidae in the

assemblage, the more reliance on stationary structures in the fishery can be inferred.

Examining the table, it is clear that in the lower part of the chart (where lower Shannon

index values indicate a more specialized fishery) Gadidae and Pleuronectidae are the

most common fishes. This agrees with the expectation that these fish are most often

taken with fishhooks and spears: low investment technologies. The scarcity of

Trachinidae specimens in these assemblages also argues against a strong reliance on

stationary fishing structures. Moving up the table into the more generalized fisheries, the

most common type of fish shifts away from Gadidae and Pleuronectidae to eel,

Cyprinidae and Trachinidae; the species that are targeted by stationary fishing

structures. The increasing abundance of Trachinidae in the assemblages supports the

importance of stationary structures in the fishery. With the exception of Lystrup Enge

(where a specialized fishery focused on Gadidae), the sites on Jutland reflect a strategy

of high investment in unselective fishing technology coinciding with a wide diet breadth.

On Zealand (and Bornholm), less investment in capture technology was made, but the

fisheries were more selective. This resulted in a narrower diet breadth as the fishers

focused on taking Gadidae, and secondarily Pleuronectidae. The fact that Gadidae are

almost always the most common fish when diet breadth is narrow is a striking result. It

strongly suggests that cod (and other members of the family) were the highest ranked

resource in the fish category and other types of fish were only targeted when Gadidae

were not available in sufficient numbers. In fact, at the five sites with the most

generalized fishing strategies Gadidae are the second most common species at only

one site (Nederst skaldynge II where they are 23% of the total), and are otherwise

ranked third or fourth in abundance (maximum 12% of the total NISP). Further evidence

comes from other lands bordering the North and Baltic seas where (excepting

assemblages consisting of mostly freshwater species) Gadidae are often the most

abundant fish (see section 2.2.7). The primacy of codfish only fails in Brittany and areas

to the south. The southern distribution limit of cod today is in the middle of the Bay of

Biscay; as they cannot tolerate waters that are too warm (Marine Species Identification

Portal, Muus and Dahlstrøm 1964). With the warmer temperatures of the Atlantic period

climatic optimum, it is easy to imagine this boundary being somewhat farther north,

meaning cod were simply not available at the southern sites.

Lowering the pursuit curve through better capture technology is not the only

path to a narrow diet breadth; it can also result from high search costs. Since there is no

evidence that canoes were better or more common in eastern Denmark, differences in

transportation technology did not create the difference in diet breadth. Environmental

conditions could also have affected the search curve. If, for example, fish were more

abundant or easier to find in eastern Denmark the search curve would be lower and diet

breadth narrower. In regards to Gadidae, this may in fact have been the case. In recent

times, the highest commercial catches of cod and their spawning grounds are located in

the eastern and southern parts of the Kattegat (Vitale et al. 2008). Furthermore,

research has shown that cod prefer rough (rocky or gravelly) bottoms (Wieland et al.

2009), meaning the sandier western parts of the Kattegat were less desirable. Ertebølle

fishermen in western Denmark may not have had the luxury of specializing in fishing for

Gadidae and so turned to other fishes to meet their needs.

Shannon Common Trachinidae Region

Jesholm 1,56 Trachinidae 50% Jutland

Nederst I 1,52 Flatfish 17% Jutland

Bjørnsholm 1,52 Eel 6% Jutland

Nederst II 1,51 Eel 2% Jutland

Yderhede 1,26 Flatfish 1% Jutland

Norsminde 1,12 Flatfish <1% Jutland

Ertebølle 1,09 Cyprinid Jutland

Havnø 1,09 Eel 5% Jutland

Bøgebjerg 1,05 Gadidae <1% Zealand

Henriksholm 1,04 Gadidae <1% Zealand

Vænget Nord 1,04 Flatfish Zealand

Dragsholm 1,00 Gadidae <1% Zealand

Smakkerup 0,97 Gadidae Zealand

Lollikhuse 0,95 Flatfish Zealand

Fårevejle 0,89 Gadidae Zealand

Maglemosegård 0,88 Gadidae <1% Zealand

Magleholm 0,83 Gadidae Zealand

Maglemosegårds Vænge 0,78 Flatfish Zealand

Lystrup Enge 0,65 Gadidae Jutland

Stationsvej 19 0,65 Gadidae Zealand

Asnæs Havnemark 0,60 Gadidae <1% Zealand

Grisby 0,42 Gadidae Bornholm Table 74: Evaluating technology and specialization versus generalization.

6.3 Seasonality

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Cod

Mackerel

Eel

Small whales Small whales

Harp seal

Grey seal pups

Fur animals Fur animals

Land mammals

Swans Swans

Ducks Ducks

Hazel nuts

Acorns

Fruits

Plants

Cockles

Mussles

Oysters

Figure 83: Hypothesized seasonal resource availability (redone from Rowley-Conwy

1984).

Faunal studies and seasonality questions are inextricably linked for

Ertebølle research. The first reason is that faunal data provides much of the evidence

for what periods of the year sites where occupied (from the presence of migratory

animals, tooth eruption patterns, long-bone epiphysis fusion, growth rings in mollusk

shells, otolith growth rings and the hypothesized optimal timing of exploitation of

individual resources – see Figure 83) (Carter 2009, Enghoff 1994a, Milner 2002,

Rowley-Conwy 1984, 1993). The second is that understanding subsistence economy (at

least the animal-based part of it, which is what we have the most material evidence for

at Ertebølle sites) requires knowledge of when individual resources were procured. Fish

remains have provided crucial information for the first topic (e.g., Enghoff 1987, 1989,

1991, 2009, Larsen 2005), and as evidence about a major food source, are intimately

involved in the second.

Discerning the timing of site occupation provides information about the

nature of the site (e.g., resource extraction camp versus home base) and in aggregate

reveals much about the overall settlement pattern (degree of residential mobility). Fish

remains have contributed to site seasonality studies because of the presence of

migratory species such as mackerel and garfish (Scombridae and Belonidae) that are

present in Danish waters for only a part of the year and through growth ring analysis of

otoliths. Although somewhat equivocal, the optimal season of exploitation for some

types of fish can also contribute seasonality information.

Scombridae (in the form of Scomber scombrus) may remain present in

Danish waters during the winter months, but do so near the bottom in deep waters

where they remain largely inactive and inaccessible. In April-May they re-enter coastal

waters and resume feeding, spawn in June-July, and then retreat from coastal areas in

August-September in preparation for another winter’s dormancy or migration (Muus and

Dahlstrøm 1964:140). Because they are available only from April until September (with

Mesolithic technology), their presence in assemblages proves that fishing took place

during these months. Table 75 shows that Scombridae are present at 17 out of the 22

sites. Four of the sites that do not have Scombridae have relatively few identified fish

remains (N = 523 or less). It is fair to say that almost all of the coastal Ertebølle sites

have evidence for summer activities.

Bjø

rns

ho

lm

Ert

eb

ølle

Ha

vn

ø

Je

sh

olm

I

Ly

str

up

En

ge

Ne

de

rst

I

Ne

de

rst

II

No

rsm

ind

e

Yd

erh

ed

e

Øs

ten

kæ

r

As

næ

s H

av

ne

ma

rk

Bø

ge

bje

rg

Dra

gs

ho

lm

Få

rev

ejle

Sm

ak

ke

rup

Hu

se

He

nri

ks

ho

lm-B

Lo

llik

hu

se

Ma

gle

ho

lm

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rd

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rds

Væ

ng

e

Sta

tio

ns

ve

j 1

9

Væ

ng

et

No

rd

2% P P P P 1% 1% 1% P 1% 4% 1% 1% P P P P

Table 75: Occurrence of Scombridae - seen as markers for warm season occupation at

Danish sites.

Where Scombridae are part of the fish assemblage, it can be stated that

they were used as fishing locations during the summer on at least one occasion.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to know much more than this from presence/absence

data. Looking at the relative abundance data from Table 75, it is clear that Scombridae

are usually only a minor component of the assemblages where they are present. Ordrup

Næs (introduced in section 4.2) represents one possible exception, with Scombridae

and Belonidae comprising the majority of the assemblage, although it was excavated in

the 1930s and there are only ca. 174 identified bones from the site (Rosenlund 1976).

Based on the low relative abundances of Scombridae at most sites, it is not possible to

make a strong argument that most assemblages are primarily the result of summer

fishing, although at least some fishing took place then.

Belonidae (in the form of Belone belone) are another type of fish that are

used as a marker of warm-season activity in the assemblages in which they are

present. Their migratory pattern is similar to Scombridae, entering coastal waters in

April-May, spawning in May-June and retreating from Danish waters again in the fall

(Muus and Dahlstrøm 1964:88). Though present at 14 of the 22 sites (see Table 76),

they are also generally a minor component of the assemblages (although Lollikhuse and

Smakkerup Huse are two sites where they are somewhat common). Again, summer

fishing activity is indicated at more than half of the sites, but it is not possible to say that

most of the fishing took place then, based on the relative abundances of these two

migratory species.

Bjø

rns

ho

lm

Ert

eb

ølle

Ha

vn

ø

Je

sh

olm

I

Ly

str

up

En

ge

Ne

de

rst

I

Ne

de

rst

II

No

rsm

ind

e

Yd

erh

ed

e

Øs

ten

kæ

r

As

næ

s H

av

ne

ma

rk

Bø

ge

bje

rg

Dra

gs

ho

lm

Få

rev

ejle

Sm

ak

ke

rup

Hu

se

He

nri

ks

ho

lm-B

Lo

llik

hu

se

Ma

gle

ho

lm

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rd

Ma

gle

mo

se

gå

rds

Væ

ng

e

Sta

tio

ns

ve

j 1

9

Væ

ng

et

No

rdP 1% 3% P P 4% 2% 1% 7% 1% 10% P 1% P

Table 76: Occurrence of Belonidae - seen as markers for warm season occupation at

Danish sites.

Another line of evidence for seasonality of catch comes from growth-ring

analysis of fish otoliths. Fish otoliths grow continually over the life of the fish by the

deposition of aragonite to the outer surfaces of the otolith. The appearance of the

deposits varies, with opaque bands forming during periods of rapid growth of the fish

and more translucent ones forming during slower growth periods. Because the period of

rapid growth occurs when water temperatures are warmer and food more abundant, a

cross-section of the otolith can reveal the season of capture (and also the age) of the

fish (Van Neer et al. 2004). To date, five Danish Mesolithic sites have been studied with

growth-ring analysis in an attempt to understand the seasonality of fishing. The analysis

was done by E. Steffensen at the Danish Institute for Fisheries and Marine Research

(Enghoff 1994a). Table 77 presents the data from 99 Gadidae otoliths from the site of

Nederst (skaldynge II), and Table 78 presents the results from 158 Gadidae and 58

Pleuronectidae otoliths from Norsminde. Additionally, 11 Gadidae otoliths were

analyzed from both Ertebølle and Bjørnsholm (with September as the inferred season of

capture) and 20 cod otoliths were analyzed from Maglemosegård (although described

as poorly preserved, traces of a summer zone are found on the edges of 13 of them)

(Enghoff 1994a:80-81).

Season: Winter/spring Summer Summer/autumn Autumn Winter

Cod 2 75 1 1 9

Saithe 8 3

Total 2 83 1 1 12

% 2% 84% 1% 1% 12% Table 77: Seasonality based on otolith growth rings for Nederst (based on data from

Enghoff 1994a:80).

Season: Winter/spring Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Cod 46 49 12 25

Saithe 6 13 4 3

Gadidae 52 62 16 28

% 33% 39% 10% 18%

Flounder 1 36 15 4

Plaice 2

Pleuro. 1 38 15 4

% 2% 66% 26% 7%

Total 1 52 100 31 32

% 0% 24% 46% 14% 15% Table 78: Seasonality based on otolith growth rings for Norsminde (based on data from

Enghoff 1994a:81).

Two questions are relevant with regards to the otolith seasonality data: how

reliable is the information provided and does it support the claim that most fishing took

place during summer? Concerning the reliability of otolith seasonality data, there is

good reason to question how accurate the results are. Along with the presentation of the

Danish data the author notes, “The transition from rapid summer growth to slow winter

growth does not happen simultaneously in all individuals of a fish population. In recent

cod from southern Kattegat and the Belts, Denmark, the hyaline winter zone may start

to form in September in some individuals, and the opaque summer zone may start to

form as early as February (E. Steffensen, personal communication),” (Enghoff

1994a:80). Furthermore, another study analyzing sections of recent Pleuronectidae

specimens from the North Sea found that, “during almost all months of the year opaque

and hyaline otoliths can be found within the plaice population, be it in different

frequencies,” (Van Neer et al. 2004:460). Similar results were found with haddock

otoliths. In addition to the season (month) of capture; place of capture and fish age also

affect the ratios of opaque to hyaline otoliths and there is even variation from year to

year in otherwise similar samples of modern specimens, meaning that in archaeological

contexts which are not clearly single deposition events with large samples and 100%

representation of one of the two types of outer band, the possibility for assigning definite

seasonality of capture is almost nonexistent (Van Neer et al. 2004:461-462). While

these results are discouraging, it should be emphasized that they concern optical

analysis of growth rings to determine season of capture. Recent work with stable

isotope signatures offers the potential for more satisfactory seasonality data, as the

incremental growth of the otoliths is a real and useful phenomenon – the difficulties lie in

unlocking the information stored in them. The six cod otoliths from Norway that were

studied using the new stable isotope technique to discern seasonality of capture all

displayed signals consistent with fish that were caught in winter or early spring

(Hufthammer et al. 2009). Given the many difficulties involved with optical growth ring

analysis, the probability that the archaeological assemblages are not single deposition

events, and the small size of three out of five samples, statements about the seasonality

of fishing that produced the assemblages are not definitive based on this evidence. As a

final note, it should be pointed out that even if the data were considered more reliable,

the two large otolith assemblages (from Nederst and Norsminde) would actually reveal

fishing occurring during much of the year (Tables 77 and 78). Again, stable isotope

analysis should produce more convincing data in the future, and to that end it is

fortuitous that over 2400 gadid otoliths are available from Dragsholm and another 900

from Asnæs Havnemark.

The presence of migratory species has been shown to provide only limited

seasonality information and the extant analyses of otolith growth rings are at least

somewhat inconclusive – how then, can seasonality information be obtained for these

Ertebølle assemblages? The answer lies in an examination of the non-migratory fish in

the assemblages and information about their behaviors and optimal seasons of

exploitation. Fishes such as Anguillidae, Pleuronectidae, Trachinidae and Cyprinidae

rest in a state of hibernation during the winter and are difficult to obtain (Bagge

2004:941, Olson 2008:32). Conversely, in southern Sweden, “cod was captured mainly

in fall and winter, and to a lesser extent during spring and summer” (Olson 2008:35).

There is some differentiation between adult and juvenile Gadidae given that, “small

cods occupy shallow waters at most seasons of the year. Larger cod are active in

deeper waters some distance away from the shore,” (Olson 2008:32) and, “adult cod

and haddock are known to enter sea lochs and frequent shingle or rocky shores at

various times of the year to feed, and are commonly angled from the shore in winter,”

(Pickard and Bonsall 2004:7). A look at the 19th century fishery data for Denmark lends

support to the warm season/cold season division of fish catches, although with the

caveat that fishing techniques were not the same in the Ertebølle period and the 19th

century AD (see Tables 79 and 80). As expected, plaice, sole, turbot, mackerel, garfish,

and herring were mostly caught in the period from April to September, while cod were

mostly caught from October to March. Eel are an interesting case in that the season of

capture relies on the fishing method, with spearing being mostly conducted during the

cooler months and the rest of the fishery taking place in the warm months (Drechsel

1890, Moustgaard 1987). Returning to the Ertebølle evidence, the eastern sites that are

characterized as more specialized fisheries have evidence for cool season fishing in the

predominance of Gadidae in many of the assemblages, including many adult

specimens. They also have evidence for warm season fishing from many of the other

fishes (e.g., Scombridae, Pleuronectidae and Belonidae). For the western sites that

display a more generalized fishery, the evidence for cool season fishing is much less,

with Gadidae generally comprising only a small part of the various assemblages and

represented by mostly juvenile individuals (Enghoff 1994a:74-75).

Cod Plaice Sole Turbot Mackerel Garfish

January 11% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%

February 11% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0%

March 12% 8% 3% 2% 0% 0%

April 7% 10% 46% 22% 0% 7%

May 5% 15% 32% 35% 1% 62%

June 2% 21% 11% 24% 49% 24%

July 1% 16% 4% 7% 38% 5%

August 1% 10% 1% 4% 11% 2%

September 6% 8% 2% 1% 1% 0%

October 15% 4% 1% 1% 0% 0%

November 16% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%

December 13% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% Table 79: Seasonality of catch from 1885 fishery data (Drechsel 1890).

Herring (pound net) Herring (other nets) Eel (hand net) Eel (other net) Eel (spear) Eel (hook)

January 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 0%

February 1% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0%

March 27% 1% 0% 0% 14% 0%

April 37% 3% 1% 5% 11% 2%

May 21% 3% 9% 16% 2% 7%

June 8% 1% 22% 23% 2% 16%

July 2% 2% 27% 28% 2% 41%

August 0% 10% 19% 14% 1% 32%

September 1% 57% 12% 7% 0% 5%

October 1% 16% 10% 5% 1% 6%

November 1% 6% 0% 2% 10% 0%

December 1% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% Table 80: Seasonality of catch from 1885 fishery data (Drechsel 1890).

Using fish remains to get information about the seasonality of site use

remains an elusive goal. Otolith growth ring analysis by optical means has been shown

to be largely unreliable for archaeological specimens, but future studies focused on

staple isotope analysis have the potential to unlock the information from this resource.

Behavioral characteristics of the fishes that are present in the assemblages currently

offer the best seasonality information. Where Gadidae are present in large numbers,

especially adult specimens, they provide an argument for fishing during the cooler

months of the year, while many other fishes indicate warm season activities. Thus, the

specialized fisheries of eastern Denmark show evidence for year-round fishing, while

the generalized ones in western Denmark appear more focused on warm-season

fishing.

Why the people of western Denmark did not concentrate on fishing in the

cooler parts of the year is an important question. On the one hand, it may simply be that

the main prey species that is amenable to winter fishing (Gadidae) was generally scarce

in the fishing grounds near to the known settlements on Jutland (as discussed above).

On the other hand, it may have been resource abundance rather than scarcity that

influenced the decision. Although complete faunal analyses of many sites that are

included in this project have not been conducted, some general facts are known about

animal populations that may be important. Aurochs and moose are still available on

Jutland during the Ertebølle period, but extinct in the East (Aaris-Sørensen 1998).

Several other large and medium mammal species also went extinct during the Atlantic

or early Sub-boreal periods on the eastern islands (Aaris-Sørensen 1980). Studies of

roe deer populations have shown a decrease in body-size on the Danish islands from

the Boreal to the Atlantic periods, but no similar diminution occurred in Jutland. No

single cause for the body-size reduction of the insular deer population has been

established, but limited food supply (possibly as a result of the spread of climax forest)

is suggested as a possible factor (P. Jensen 1991). It should also be noted that Jutland

is at least three times the size of Zealand and while not all land is equally productive,

the enormous disparity in land mass certainly implies that more terrestrial fauna were

available on Jutland. Since land mammals are seen as being especially important to

subsistence during the fall and winter (see Figure 83), it may be that not enough

terrestrial animals were available in the East to meet their winter subsistence needs and

so they relied more heavily on aquatic resources. This is only a hypothesis, and needs

to be tested with further faunal analysis and more comprehensive diet breadth modeling

that attempts to incorporate all animal resources.

6.4 The social lives of fishing foragers

“Included in the strategies of maintaining a fishery as a basis for subsistence, and as

part of the daily life in a coastal foraging society, technology, social organization,

ideology and environment must interplay. Any changes that may occur within these

intertwined factors will always have an impact on the other parts of the interplay,” (Olson

2008:38)

Moving from the subsistence data available from the remains of past meals

to a greater understanding of the community organization, ideology and other aspects of

the social lives of the people who prepared and consumed those meals is a difficult

task, but one worth undertaking (e.g., Miracle 2002, Olson 2008). Even if we cannot

know the full details about these topics, increased knowledge about how the groups

provisioned themselves offers some insights into the rest of their culture. At the simplest

of levels, “the production and maintenance of fishing implements confirm, apart from the

well developed fishing strategies, and skilled craftsmanship, that fishing was, to a large

extent, on the peoples’ minds, even when not fishing,” (Olson 2008:38). In eastern

Denmark, the evidence for fishing in all seasons suggests that fish was not just on the

mind but in the belly throughout the year. Beyond simply satisfying hunger, fishing may

have involved striving for prestige through the capture of spectacularly large individuals

(as it does today). Bringing a meter long cod (or even larger tuna or swordfish) into

camp must surely have caused more of a commotion than a mess of 10 cm long roach,

even if the latter were able to contribute an equivalent amount of food. Conversely,

mass catches of fish of any size could have been important for provisioning feasts to

mark important dates on the calendar and/or social aggregations. Brian Hayden has

proposed that the ability to generate food surpluses sufficient for feasting may have

been the mechanism of aggrandizement amongst complex hunter-gatherers that

eventually necessitated the adoption of domesticated plants and animals (1995). The

imported groundstone axes may be the material markers of social connections to other

regions, maintained by feasting and controlled by individuals and groups who aspired to

wealth and power (Klassen 2002). The prevalence of these axes in eastern Denmark

stresses the importance of maritime exchange as they, “probably arrived in Denmark by

boat across the Baltic,” (Fischer 2003:411). If so, this means that building and owning

watercraft was not just an aid to subsistence pursuits, but also a means to acquiring

prestige. The impressive size of some of the canoes and the effort sometimes devoted

to decorating paddles certainly imply that these were important and highly-valued

possessions.

The allocation of labor to other maritime technologies required

organizational decisions that would have provided another opportunity for individuals to

differentiate themselves. Creation of fishing nets may have consumed hundreds of

person-hours in preparation time before the first fish was brought ashore with them

(Lindström 1996). Constructing fish fences and traps may have required an even longer

term planning horizon, if the coppicing of hazel groves years in advance to provide raw

materials is included in the production process (K. Christensen 1997, Pedersen 1995).

Where seasonal runs of fish were exploited (e.g., Anguillidae, Belonidae and

Salmonidae), preparations included monitoring fishing grounds for the appearance of

fish and scheduling the labor necessary to capture and process a briefly available, but

abundant catch. Coordinating the efforts necessary to construct the required

implements, employ them and then distribute the proceeds required a managerial

function that directed the entire population of a settlement.

Other aspects of labor were also affected by the type of fishing strategy

chosen by a group. Specialized fisheries, to the extent they relied on active hook-and-

line fishing away from shore, would have different labor requirements than a fishery

focusing on more passive techniques such as fish traps. Once a fish trap is emplaced

almost anyone can perform the chore of emptying the baskets one or more times a day,

but paddling a dugout canoe on the sea is a job for fit adults (or at a minimum

adolescents). Net fishing conducted with seine nets would have placed similarly high

demands on group members in their prime, especially if conducted with the aid of

watercraft. Taking dugout canoes out on the seas also carried an element of risk, as

sudden changes in weather could easily doom a small craft. Strong social bonds to a

larger community could help to ameliorate the risk of losing a family’s primary provider

at sea.

Another consideration for foragers that depended on fishing for a large part

of their diet was the importance of, “access to the areas where abundant catches could

be expected… efforts to maintain these rights must also have been included in the

fisheries,” (Olson 2008:38). The evidence for increased territoriality in the Late

Mesolithic (Petersen 1984) is very likely tied to the strengthening of intra-group bonds to

promote a united front in defending these (and other) rights against encroachment from

other groups. The prevalence of interpersonal violence seen on Late Mesolithic

skeletons is probably symptomatic of the increased conflict brought about by

competition for control of the most desirable resource procurement locations

(Meiklejohn et al. 1998). Since the easiest way to control fishing grounds was to occupy

the shore locations in the vicinity, reliance on fishing would have provided an incentive

to increased sedentism. The fact that so many Ertebølle sites are situated on the coast,

have evidence for multiple seasons of occupation and are often in good fishing

locations, is further evidence that maintaining access to areas where many fish could be

caught was an important consideration when groups decided where to settle. One effect

of the predominance of coastal settlements is that the Ertebølle people were primarily

connected by maritime, linear lines of communication, increasing the distance over

which social networks could be maintained (Ames 2002, Andersen 2008, Yesner 1980).

While by no means an exhaustive list; centrality to everyday life, the

potential for garnering prestige, the probable necessity of a managerial function for

coordinating fishing-related activities and an increase in territoriality are all ways that a

subsistence regime emphasizing fishing would have affected the social lives of its

practitioners. The fisheries of western Denmark that were heavily reliant on stationary

fishing structures were especially challenged by organizing labor to build the structures

and then dividing the catch amongst those involved. In eastern Denmark, the maritime

lines of communication of an insular population and the potential prestige of capturing

large Gadidae were probably more important social considerations. If the hypothesis

that terrestrial mammal populations were inadequate to meet the needs of the people

on Zealand is true, conflicts over access to fishing grounds would have been especially

fierce.

7. Conclusions and Future Opportunities for Research

7.1 Conclusion

The addition of over 110,000 identified fish bones to the Ertebølle dataset is

a major contribution of this project. By increasing the geographical coverage of Zealand,

the new assemblages allow more meaningful comparisons between the fisheries of

eastern and western Denmark. The previously recognized regional differences between

Danish Ertebølle groups have largely involved stylistic elements of tool design or

articles of personal adornment. While important as markers of group identity and inter-

group contact, they do not prove fundamental behavioral variability in the same way that

the fishery differences do: regional subsistence variability gets to the core of Ertebølle

culture. A comparison of fish assemblage heterogeneity (with NTAXA and Shannon

index values) demonstrates that sites in eastern Denmark had a narrower diet breadth

than those in the west. Furthermore, the specialized fisheries in the east were almost

always focused on Gadidae. An emphasis on hook-and-line fishing, especially during

the cooler months of the year, is a probable corollary of the overall dominance of

Gadidae and the large size of some of the individual specimens at the eastern sites.

This is a distinctly different interpretation than the warm-season, stationary structure-

focused fishery that has previously been proposed as the model for the Danish

Ertebølle, based largely on the results of assemblages from shell midden sites on

Jutland.

While discovering accurate generalizations (e.g., Anguillidae are present in

virtually all assemblages, freshwater species are a minor component of the Ertebølle

fishery) is a useful endeavor, so is the recognition of variability. This is especially so in

the case of the Late Mesolithic fisheries of Denmark, where the variability is regionally

patterned. The focus on Gadidae on the islands of eastern Denmark may be partly a

response to the more limited opportunities for hunting mammals during the late fall to

early spring. If so, access to good fishing grounds would have been particularly

important for group survival and would have been incentive to remain permanently in

prime locations. Competition for particular locations promoted territorial claims and

could have provided the incentive for violent confrontations between rival groups

(Yesner 1980:731-732).

Non-violent competition may have been an important part of life for

Ertebølle society, as individuals or groups sought to increase their status relative to

other members of society. Garnering prestige through the capture of impressive fish

specimens or provisioning of feasts with hefty catches of fish would have helped to

distinguish aggrandizers. Control of long-distance social networks or the managerial

functions necessitated by an increasingly complex economy would have distinguished

certain elements of society.

Finally, as discussed in the introduction when reviewing reasons why this

period is popular amongst archaeological researchers, the Ertebølle culture is important

as the ultimate hunter-gatherer tradition in Denmark that was supplanted by the Early

Neolithic farming culture through a process of indigenous adoption (Price 2000). “The

last hunters were the first farmers,” (Price and Gebauer 1995:8). Because of this, it is

necessary to understand Late Mesolithic culture in order to study how and why these

hunter-gatherers eventually chose to adopt the use of domesticated plants and animals.

Examining changes in subsistence between the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic is

one important way this can be done. The changes can be described as occurring either

gradually or abruptly depending on which aspects of subsistence are emphasized (i.e.,

use of wild resources or marine versus terrestrial foods) (Richards et al. 2003, Rowley-

Conwy 2004). It seems increasingly clear that an explanation of the transition that

focuses solely on a critical shortage of resources (e.g., Larsson 1990, Rowley-Conwy

1984) overlooks critical social changes that had already begun during the Late

Mesolithic. The difference in the Ertebølle fisheries of eastern and western Denmark

argue against resource shortage as a driving force in the transition to agriculture,

because different sites reflect reliance on different resources that would not have been

equally affected by environmental changes. Furthermore, the changes through time

identified in some of the assemblages show that Ertebølle fisheries were able to

respond to shifts in resource availability by targeting different species. Although

subsistence is a critically important part of culture, it is also necessary to consider how it

impacts other areas of life. Gathering prestige may have been as important a part of a

fishing expedition as gathering food.

The complex nature of Ertebølle subsistence is confirmed by closer

examination of the contribution made by fishes. Multiple fishing strategies were

employed to provide a substantial and reliable source of food, and differences in the

focus of fishing show that Ertebølle fishermen carefully reflected on both subsistence

requirements and local conditions when planning their activities. Any thoughts about a

people passively accepting whatever bounty of the sea happened to appear before

them are untenable, as the evidence shows a deliberate and sophisticated exploitation

of the marine environment. Excavation, identification, quantification and interpretation of

ancient fish bones require a great commitment of resources, but with proper attention to

method and theory the archaeological payoff is commensurate with the costs incurred.

7.2 Future research opportunities

Most archaeological projects are as important for the questions generated

as the answers provided and this one is no exception. From a methodological

standpoint, the findings discussed here highlight the need for comprehensive sampling

to evaluate what bones are missed because of the mesh-size chosen for screening

operations. Investigating the effects of screen-size on assemblages from different types

of sites and in different regions may allow for corrections to be made to previously

obtained results so that it is possible to compare them without fear that differential

recovery is significantly biasing the results. The extents to which excavator skill and

experience affect field recovery of fish bones also deserve more study. Taphonomy is a

subject that can always use more attention. Experimental work with bone degradation

under different conditions and innovative statistical analyses of archaeological

assemblages both hold out promise for a better understanding of the effects of

differential preservation.

The intra-site variation noted in some of the assemblages begs for further

investigations within existing collections and on newly discovered sites to better

understand its nature and extent. Comparison with Ertebølle assemblages outside of

Denmark will also prove interesting in this regard and for evaluating regional variation

on a broader scale. Having recognized differences in the fish fauna, another obvious

direction for future research is expanding investigations to include other types of

subsistence resources (e.g., mammals, birds and plants). Expanding diet breadth

modeling to incorporate the full range of subsistence resources will allow better

predictions of foraging behavior to compare against the archaeological record.

Experimental work with prehistoric fishing technologies can provide useful information

about potential costs and benefits to improve foraging models.

Archaeometric research continues to complement traditional faunal analysis

in the quest to better understand past diets and environments. Isotopic analysis of

otoliths is an especially promising area of research for fish bone studies as it offers the

potential for definitive season of catch data. Otoliths and other skeletal elements can

also be analyzed with this technique to provide information about past environmental

conditions and fish migrations. Additional human and bone isotope studies will continue

to enhance our understanding of the temporal and geographical variability in diets and

environment. I aim to pursue these topics in the near future to attempt to resolve some

of the questions that were raised by this project.

Other promising lines of archaeological chemistry work include residue

analysis of potsherds and flint tools to enable us to see the relationship between fish

bones and other classes of material evidence. These studies may also shed light on the

poorly understood processing and preparation of marine foods. Comparisons between

assemblages can always be improved by additional dating work (especially direct dating

of fish specimens and fishing technology). Better chronological control can also help to

link changes in archaeological materials with changes in environmental conditions.

As always, some of the most exciting future information is likely to come

from techniques that are not yet developed. Of course, new excavations and analysis of

curated but unexamined collections will also provide important data. Regardless of the

techniques employed, Ertebølle studies in general and fish bone analyses in particular

will remain dynamic areas of research for years to come.

8. Acknowledgements

A project of this magnitude cannot be completed without the support and

assistance of many individuals. Although it is probably not possible to name every one

of them, I would nonetheless like to try to thank some. If I have overlooked anyone it is

inadvertent and not due to a lack of gratitude for the help.

First and foremost I would like to thank my wife Lone for her companionship

and support during the excavation, analysis and writing phases of this project. I also

thank her for many engaging discussions on prehistory and the time she spent reading

and commenting on various drafts of this paper. Although not as actively engaged in the

archaeological work as Lone, I am also grateful to the rest of my family for their

unwavering support and encouragement during the long process. I especially

appreciate all of you listening to my complaints when I was frustrated and feeling like I

would never finish.

My debt of gratitude to Doug Price is enormous and on many levels. I will

never forget the spring day in 2002 when he stopped me in the hallway to ask if I

wanted to take part in his excavations that summer. It opened a doorway into Danish

and Mesolithic archaeology that has taken my life down a path I had never anticipated.

In addition to allowing me to participate on his excavations over the course of five

summers, he trusted me with the task of examining the fish bones recovered. I am also

grateful for his friendship and guidance during the process of bringing this project to

fruition. The final result is much better because of his participation.

Sissel Schroeder deserves many thanks for bringing me into the graduate

program at the University of Wisconsin, supporting my studies there, and guiding my

research along the way. I thank the other faculty and staff at the UW for teaching me

about archaeology (and a few other topics) and helping me to negotiate the sometimes

winding road to finishing my degree. My gratitude extends to the faculty and staff of the

UW-La Crosse and the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center for getting my started on

my career as an archaeologist.

I want to thank Jens Nielsen for being a kind and patient mentor as I tried to

learn about Danish prehistory and how archaeology is conducted in Denmark. More

than that, I am grateful for his friendship and the many great experiences I had because

he was so welcoming to the American graduate students who invaded his life. I also

thank the other fine people at the Kalundborg Museum who welcomed us and helped

make the excavations possible. Thanks to Egon ‘Columbus’ Iversen for his many

contributions as an avocational archaeologist and his help obtaining some of the harder

to get fish for my comparative collection. I am very much in the debt of my fellow

excavators for making life in the field and at the summer house enjoyable, for many

stimulating conversations, and of course, for their perseverance and patience in picking

thousands upon thousands of fish bones from the screens so that I had the material to

examine. And thanks to the Nisse for keeping watch over us.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Søren H. Andersen for

generously sharing his knowledge of the Danish Mesolithic and for allowing me to

examine the fish bones from Havnø. I want to acknowledge the good folks at the

Conservation Department out at Moesgård who were always happy to see me and

share their laboratory space (and microscopes) with me. I had many a good

conversation out there; some were even about archaeology. I thank Niels Axel Boas

and Djurslands Museum for allowing me to excavate at Jesholm I and giving me access

to the fish bones from Nederst. The Danish Fishery Museum there also provided me

with great information about the history of fishing in Denmark. Thanks to Søren A.

Sørensen for permission to look at the fish bones from Lollikhuse and answering all of

my questions about the assemblage. The people at the Zoological Institute in

Copenhagen were very welcoming during my visits and answered many questions,

especially Knud Rosenlund and Inge B. Enghoff.

Finally, and certainly not least, I want to thank the Center for Baltic and

Scandinavian Archaeology at Schloss Gottorf, Schleswig, Germany for allowing me

access to their excellent comparative collection, the extraordinary hospitality on my

visits there, and funding support during the final stages of writing. I especially thank

Ulrich Schmölcke and Dirk Heinrich for sharing their knowledge of fish identification with

me and being as excited as I am about fish.

Once again, a huge ‘thank you’ to all, and I hope you see your contribution

in the final product. It has been a long road, but I am a better person at the end of it.

Ken Ritchie

Århus, Denmark

January 2010

9. Works cited

Aaris-Sørensen, Kim

1980 Depauperation of the mammalian fauna of the island of Zealand during the Atlantic

period. Vidensk. Meed. Dansk Naturh. Foren. 142:131-138.

1998 Danmarks Forhistoriske Dyreverden: Om skovelefanter, næsehorn, bisoner,

urokser, mammuter og kæmpehjorte. Gyldendals, Værløse, Denmark.

Ahlström, Torbjörn

2003 Mesolithic Human Skeletal Remains from Tågerup, Scania, Sweden. In Mesolithic

on the Move, edited by L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler and A.

Åkerlund, pp.478-484. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Ambrose, S. H. and L. Norr

1993 Experimental evidence for the relationship of the carbon isotope ratios of whole

diet and dietary protein to those of bone collagen and carbonate. In Prehistoric

human bone: archaeology at the molecular level edited by J. B. Lambert and G.

Grupe, pp.1–37. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Ames, Kenneth

2002 Chapter 2: Going by Boat: The Forager-Collector Continuum at Sea. In Beyond

Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement

System, edited by B. Fitzhugh and J. Habu, pp.19-52. Kluwer Academic, New

York.

Amorosi, Thomas, James Wollett, Sophia Perdikaris and Thomas McGovern

1996 Regional zooarchaeology and global change: problems and potentials. World

Archaeology 28(1):126-157.

Andersen, Søren H.

1971a Gudenaakulturen. Hostebro Museum Årsskrift 1970-71:14-32.

1971b Ertebøllekulturens harpooner. KUML 1971:73-126.

1985 Tybrind Vig: A Preliminary Report on a Submerged Ertebølle Settlement on

the West Coast of Fyn. Journal of Danish Archaeology 4:52.70.

1986 Mesolithic dugouts and paddles from Tybrind Vig, Denmark. Acta Archaeologica

57:87-106.

1989 Norsminde: A “Køkkenmødding” with Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic

Occupation. Journal of Danish Archaeology 8:13-40.

1991 Bjørnsholm. A Stratified “køkkenmødding” at the Central Limfjord, North Jutland.

Journal of Danish Archaeology 10:59-93.

1995 Coastal adaptation and marine exploitation in Late Mesolithic Denmark – with

special emphasis on the Limfjord region. In Man and the Sea in the Mesolithic,

edited by A. Fischer, pp.41-66. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2001 Oldtiden i Danmark: Jægerstenalderen. Sesam, Denmark.

2004 Danish Shell Middens Reviewed. In Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours,

edited by A. Saville, pp.393-412. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh.

2007 Shell Middens (“Køkkenmøddinger”) in Danish Prehistory as a reflection of the

marine environment. In Shell Middens of Atlantic Europe, edited by N. Milner, O.

Craig and G. Bailey, pp.31-45. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2008a Shell Middens (“Køkkenmøddinger”): The Danish Evidence. In Early Human

Impacts on Megamolluscs, edited by A. Antczak and R. Cipriani, pp.135-156.

BAR International Series 1865, Oxford.

2008b Perlepynt. Skalk 2:16-17.

2009 Ronæs Skov: Marinarkæologiske undersøgelser af kystboplads fra Ertebølletid.

Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, Højbjerg, Denmark.

Andersen, Søren H. and Erik Johansen

1986 Ertebølle Revisited Journal of Danish Archaeology 5:31-61.

Andersen, Søren H. and Claus Malmros

1984 Madskorpe på Ertebøllekar fra Tybrind Vig. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og

Historie 78-95.

Andersson, Magnus, Per Karsten, Bo Knarrström and Mac Svensson

2004 Stone Age Scania. Riksantikvarieämbetets Forlag Skrifter No. 52, Malmö,

Sweden.

Antczak, Andrzej and Roberto Cipriani

2008 Early Human Impact on Megamolluscs. BAR International Series 1865, Oxford.

Arias, Pablo

1999 The Origins of the Neolithic Along the Atlantic Coast of Continental Europe: A

Survey. Journal of World Prehistory 13(4): 403-464.

Aswani, Shankar

1998 Patterns of marine harvest effort in southwestern New Georgia, Solomon Islands:

resource management or optimal foraging? Ocean and Coastal Management

40:207-235.

Bagge, Ole

2004 The biology of the greater weever (Trachinus draco) in the commercial fishery of

the Kattegat. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61:933-943.

Bailey, Geoff and Nicky Milner

2002 Coastal hunter-gatherers and social evolution: marginal or central? Beyond

Farming 4(1):1-22.

Barber, Ian

2003 Sea, Land and Fish: Spatial Relationships and the Archaeology of South Island

Maori Fishing. World Archaeology 35(3):434-448.

Barrett, James H.

1993 Bone Weight, Meat Yield Estimates and Cod (Gadidae): a Preliminary Study of the

Weight Method. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3:1-18.

1997 Fish trade in Norse Orkney and Caithness: a zooarchaeological approach.

Antiquity 71:616-638.

Behrensmeyer, Anna K.

1991 Terrestrial vertebrate accumulations. In Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in

the fossil record, edited by P. Allison and D. Briggs, pp.291-335. Plenum Press,

New York.

Binford, Lewis

2001 Constructing Frames of Reference. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

Birchall, J., T.C. O’Connell, T.H.E. Heaton, R.E.M. Hedges

2005 Hydrogen isotope ratios in animal body protein reflect trophic level. Journal of

Animal Ecology 74:877-881.

Bird, Douglas W. and Rebecca Bliege Bird

2000 The Ethnoarchaeology of Juvenile Foragers: Shellfishing Strategies among

Meriam Children. Journal of Anthropological Anthropology 19:461-476.

Bird, Douglas W. And James F. O’Connell

2006 Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:143-

188.

Bird, Rebecca Bliege, and Smith, Eric A.

2005 Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology

46(2):221-248.

Bjerck, Hein

2007 Mesolithic coastal settlements and shell middens (?) in Norway. In Shell Middens

in Atlantic Europe, edited by N. Milner, O. Craig and G. Bailey, pp.5-30. Oxbow

Books, Oxford.

Bowdler, Sandra and Sally McGann

1996 Prehistoric Fishing at Shark Bay, Western Australia. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer

Fishing Strategies, edited by M. Plew, pp.84-113. Boise State University, Boise.

Bratlund, B.

1991 The Bone Remains of Mammals and Birds from the Bjørnsholm Shellmidden.

Journal of Danish Archaeology 10:97-104.

Brinkhuizen, Dick

1983 Some notes on recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear from Northwestern

Europe. Palaeohistoria 25:7-54

Broughton, Jack M.

2002 Prey spatial structure and behavior affect archaeological tests of optimal foraging

models: examples from the Emeryville Shellmound vertebrate fauna. World

Archaeology 34(1):60-83.

Buikstra, Jane E. and George R. Milner

1991 Isotopic and archaeological interpretations of diet in the central Mississipi valley.

Journal of Archaeological Science 18:319–29.

v. Busekist, Jörg

2004 “Bone Base Baltic Sea”, a computer supported identification system for fish

bones. Version 1.0 for MS-Windows CD-ROM. http://www.bioarchiv.de, University

of Rostock, Germany.

Butler, Virginia and Roy Schroeder

1998 Do Digestive Processes Leave Diagnostic Traces on Fish Bones? Journal of

Archaeological Science 25:957-971.

Cannon, Debbi Yee

1987 Marine Fish Osteology: A Manual for Archaeologists. Archaeology Press, Burnaby,

B.C.

Carter, Richard

2009 One pig does not a winter make. New Seasonal evidence at the Early Mesolithic

sites of Holmegaard and Mullerup and the Late Mesolithic site of Ertebølle in

Denmark. In Mesolithic Horizons, edited by S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren

and P. Woodman, pp.115-121. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Casteel, Richard W.

1972 Some Biases in the Recovery of Archaeological Faunal Remains. Proceedings of

the Prehistoric Society 38:382-388.

1976 Fish Remains in Archaeology. Academic Press, London, New York, San

Francisco.

Cerling, T. E. and J.M. Harris

1999 Carbon isotope fractionation between diet and bioapatite in ungulate mammals

and implications for ecological and paleoecological studies. Oecologia 120:247–

263.

Christensen, Charlie

1990 Stone Age dug-out boats in Denmark: Occurrence, age, form and reconstruction.

In Experimentation and Reconstruction in Environmental Archaeology, edited by

D. Robinson, pp. 119-142. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

1995 The littorina transgressions in Denmark. In Man and Sea in the Mesolithic, edited

by A. Fischer, pp.15-22. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Christensen, Kjeld

1997 Træ fra fiskegærder – skovbrug i stenalderen. In Storebælt i 10.000 år, edited by

L. Pedersen, A. Fischer and B. Aaby, pp.147-156. A/S Storebæltsforbindelsen,

Copenhagen.

Clark, Grahame

1948 The Development of Fishing in Prehistoric Europe. The Antiquaries Journal 28:45-

85.

1975 The Earlier Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

1983 Coastal Settlement in European Prehistory with Special Reference to

Fennoscandia. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R.

Willey, edited by E.Z. Vogt and R. M. Leventhal. University of New Mexico Press

and Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA.

Clason, A.T. and W. Prummel

1977 Collecting, Sieving and Archaeozoological Research. Journal of Archaeological

Science 4:171-175.

Coles, J.M.,

1971 The early settlement of Scotland: excavations at Morton, Fife. Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society 38:284–366.

Colley, S.M.

1987 Fishing for Facts. Can We Reconstruct Fishing Methods from Archaeological

Evidence? Australian Archaeology 24:16-26.

Collins, M. J., Nielsen-Marsh, C. M., Hiller, J., Smith, C. I., Roberts, J. P., Prigodich, R. V.,

Wess, T. J., Csap, J., Millard, A. R., and Turner-Walker, G.

2002 The survival of organic matter in bone: a review. Archaeometry 44:383–94.

Craig, O.E. Craig, R. Ross, Søren H. Andersen, Nicky Milner, G.N. Bailey

2006 Focus: sulphur isotope variation in archaeological marine fauna from northern

Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:1642-1646.

Degerbøl, M.

1945 Subfossile Fisk fra Kvartærtiden i Danmark. Vidensk. Medd. Bind 106,

Copenhagen.

DeNiro, M. J. and S. Epstein

1978 Influences of diet on the carbon isotope distribution in animals. Geochimica et

Cosmochimica Acta 42:495–506.

1981 Influence of diet on the distribution of nitrogen isotopes in animals. Geochimica et

Cosmochimica Acta 45:341-351.

Donner, Joakim

1995 The Quaternary History of Scandinavia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Drechsel, C. F.

1890 Oversigt over vore Saltvandsfiskerier. Danskfiskerimuseum, Grenaa.

Dufour, E., H. Bocherens and A. Mariotti

1999 Palaeodietary implications of isotopic variability in Eurasian lacustrine fish.

Journal of Archaeological Science 26:617–627.

Dupont, Catherine, Rick Schulting and Anne Tresset

2007 Prehistoric shell middens along the French Atlantic façade: the use of marine and

terrestrial resources in the diets of coastal human populations. In Shell Middens in

Atlantic Europe, edited by N. Milner, O. Craig and G. Bailey, pp.123-135. Oxbow

Books, Oxford.

Enghoff, Inge B.

1983 Size Distribution of Cod (Gadidae) and Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) (Pisces,

Gadidae) from a Mesolithic Settlement at Vedbaek, North Zealand, Denmark.

Vidensk Meedr dansk naturh. Foren. 144:83-97.

1986 Freshwater Fishing from a Sea-Coast Settlement, the Ertebølle locus classicus

Revisited. Journal of Danish Archaeology 5:62-76.

1989 Fishing from the Stone Age Settlement of Norsminde. Journal of Danish

Archaeology 8:41-50.

1991 Mesolithic Eel-fishing at Bjørnsholm, Denmark, Spiced with Exotic Species.

Journal of Danish Archaeology 10:105-118.

1994a Fishing in Denmark during the Ertebølle Period. International Journal of

Osteoarchaeology 4:65-96.

1994b Freshwater fishing at Ringkloster, with a supplement of marine fishes. Journal of

Danish Archaeology 12:99-106.

1995 Fishing in Denmark during the Mesolithic Period. In Man and Sea in the Mesolithic,

edited by A. Fischer, pp.67-74. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2005 Viking Age fishing in Denmark, with particular focus on the freshwater site Viborg

methods of excavation, and smelt fishing. Proceedings of the 13th Meeting of the

ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group in October 4th – 9th, Basel/August 2005,

edited by H.H. Plogmann.

2009 Dyreknogler fra Ronæs Skov-bopladsen. In Ronæs Skov: Marinarkæologiske

undersøgelser af kystboplads fra Ertebølletid, Søren H. Andersen, pp.243-271.

Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, Højbjerg, Denmark

Enghoff, Inge B., Richard MacKenzie and Einar Eg Nielsen

2007 The Danish fish fauna during the warm Atlantic period (ca. 7000-3900B.C.):

Forerunner of Future Changes? Fisheries Research 87:167-180.

Eriksson, Gunilla and Ilga Zagorska

2003 Do dogs eat like humans? Marine isotope signals in dog teeth from inland

Zvejnieki. In Mesolithic on the Move, edited by L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K.

Knutsson, D. Loeffler and A. Åkerlund, pp.160-168. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Fano, Miguel A.

2007 The use of marine resources by the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies of

Cantabrian Spain: the current evidence. In Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe,

edited by N. Milner, O. Craig and G. Bailey, pp.136-149. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Farquhar, G. D., J.R. Ehleringer and K.T. Hubick

1989 Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annual Review of Plant

Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 40:503–537.

Fischer, Anders

1993 Stenalderbopladser i Smålandsfarvandet: En teori afprøvet ved

dykkerbesigtigelse. Miljøministeriet, Skov- og Naturstyrelsen, Copenhagen.

1995 Man and Sea in the Mesolithic. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2003 Trapping up the rivers and trading across the sea – steps towards the

Neolithisation of Denmark. In Mesolithic on the Move, edited by L. Larsson, H.

Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler and A. Åkerlund, pp.405-413. Oxbow Books,

Oxford.

2007 Coastal fishing in Stone Age Denmark – evidence from below and above the

present sea level and from human bones. In Shell Middens of Atlantic Europe,

edited by N. Milner, O. Craig and G. Bailey, pp.54-69. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Fischer, Anders and Kristian Kristiansen

2002 The Neolithisation of Denmark: 150 years of debate. J.R. Collis, Dorset, UK.

Fischer, Anders, Jesper Olsen, Mike Richards, Jan Heinemeier, Arny E. Sveinbjörnsdottir, and

Pia Bennike

2007 Coast-inland mobility and diet in the Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic: evidence

from stable isotope values of humans and dogs. Journal of Archaeological Science

34:2125-2150.

Gargett, Robert and Deborah Vale

2005 There’s something fishy going on around here. Journal of Archaeological Science

32:647-652.

Gebauer, Anna Birgitte and T. Douglas Price

1992 Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

Gobalet, Kenneth W.

2001 A Critique of Faunal Analysis; Inconsistency among Experts in Blind Tests. Journal

of Archaeological Science 28:377-386.

Gramsch, Bernhard

1987 Ausgrabungen auf dem mesolitischen Moorfundplatz bei Friesack, Bezirk

Potsdam. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam

21:75-100.

Greenspan, Ruth L.

1998 Gear Selectivity Models, Mortality Profiles and the Interpretation of Archaeological

Fish Remains: A Case Study from the Harney Basin, Oregon. Journal of

Archaeological Science 25:973-984.

Grupe, Gisela, Dirk Heinrich and Joris Peters

2009 A brackish water aquatic foodweb: trophic levels and salinity gradients in the

Schlei fjord, Northern Germany, in Viking and medieval times. Journal of

Archaeological Science 36:2125-2144.

Grøn, Ole and Jørgen Skaarup

1991 Møllegabet II – A Submerged Mesolithic Site and a “Boast Burial” from Ærø.

Journal of Danish Archaeology 10:38-50.

Hartz, Sönke, Dirk Heinrich and Harald Lübke

2002 Coastal Farmers – the Neolithisation of northern-most Germany. In The

Neolithisation of Denmark, edited by A. Fischer and K. Kristiansen, pp.321-340.

Hayden, Brian

1995 A New Overview of Domestication. In Last Hunters-First Farmers: New

Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, edited by T.D: Price and

A.B. Gebauer, pp.243-299. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New

Mexico.

Hede, Signe Ufeldt

2003 Prehistoric settlements and Holocene relative sea-level changes in northwest

Sjælland, Denmark. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 50:141-149.

2005 The Finds: Mammal, Bird and Amphibian Bones. In Smakkerup Huse: A Late

Mesolithic Coastal Site in Northwest Zealand, Denmark, edited by T.D. Price and

A.B. Gebauer, pp.91-102. Aarhus University Press, Århus.

Hedges, Robert E.M. and Linda M. Reynard

2007 Nitrogen isotopes and the trophic level of humans in archaeology. Journal of

Archaeology Science 34:1240-1251.

Heinrich, Dirk

1994 The fish remains from Durankulak/Bulgaria and from some other sites: Are they

biased by the excavator? Papers presented at the 6th Meeting of the I.C.A.Z. Fish

Remains Working Group, Neumünster.

Heron, Carl, Oliver Craig, Marcus Forster, Ben Stern and Søren H. Andersen

2007 Residue analysis of ceramics from prehistoric shell middens in Denmark. In Shell

Middens of Atlantic Europe, edited by N. Milner, O. Craig and G. Bailey, pp.78-85.

Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Hildebrandt, William R. And Kelly R. McGuire

2002 The Ascendance of Hunting during the California Middle Archaic: An Evolutionary

Perspective. American Antiquity 67(2):231-256.

Hufthammer, Anne K., Hans Høie, Arild Folkvord, Audrey Geffen, Carin Andersson, Ulysses S.

Ninnemann

2009 Seasonality of human site occupation based on stable oxygen isotope ratios of

cod otoliths. Journal of Archaeological Science (2009).

Härkönen, Tero

1986 Guide to the Otoliths of the bony fishes of the Northeast Atlantic. Danbiu Aps,

Hellerup, Denmark.

James, Stephen R.

1997 Methodological Issues Concerning Screen Size Recovery Rates and Their Effects

on Archaeofaunal Interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:385-397.

Jensen, Ole Lass

2001 Kongemose- og Ertebøllekultur ved den fosille Nivåfjord. In Danmarks

Jægerstenalder – Status og Perspektiver, edited by O.L. Jensen, S. Sørensen and

K.M. Hansen, pp.115-130. Hørsholm Egns Museum, Hørsholm, Danmark.

Jensen, Ole Lass, Søren Sørensen and Keld Møller Hansen

2001 Danmarks Jægerstenalder – Status og Perspektiver. Hørsholm Egns Museum,

Hørsholm, Danmark.

Jensen, Philip

1991 Body Size Trends of Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) from Danish Mesolithic

Sites. Journal of Danish Archaeology 10:51-58.

Johansson, Axel Degn

1995 The Ertebølle Culture in South Zealand, Denmark. In Man and the Sea in the

Mesolithic, edited by A. Fischer. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

1998 Ældre Stenalder I sydlige Norden. SDA John Petersen, Farum, Denmark.

Jones, Andrew K.G.

1986 Fish bone survival in the digestive system of the pig, dog and man: some

experiments. In Fish and Archaeology, edited by D. Brinkhuizen and A. Clason,

pp.53-61. BAR International Series No. 294, Oxford.

Jonsson, Leif

1986 Fish Bones in Late Mesolithic Human Graves at Skateholm, Scania. BAR

International Series No. 294, Oxford.

Jønsson, Bente and Lisbeth Pedersen

1983 Sønderholm: En østsjællansk boplads fra Ertebøllekulturen – kendt, glemt og

genfundet. Antikvariske Studier 6:173-185.

Kabacinski, J., Dirk Heinrich and Thomas Terberger

2009 Dabki revisited: new evidence on the question of the earliest cattle in Pomerania.

In Mesolithic Horizons, edited by S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P.

Woodman, pp.548-555. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Karsten, Per and Bo Knarrström

2003 The Tågerup Excavations. Berlings Skogs, Trelleborg, Sweden.

Katzenberg, M.A. and H.R. Krouse

1989 Application of stable isotope variation in human tissue to problems of identification.

Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal 22:7-19.

Katzenberg, M.A. and A. Weber

1999 Stable isotope ecology and palaeodiet in the Lake Baikal region of Siberia.

Journal of Archaeological Science 26:651-659.

Kelly, Robert L.

1992 Mobility/sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures and Effects. Annual

Review of Anthropology 21:43-66.

1994 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Klassen, Lutz

2002 The Ertebølle Culture and Neolithic continental Europe: traces of contact and

interaction. In The Neolithisation of Denmark, edited by A. Fischer and K.

Kristiansen, pp.321-340. J.R. Collis, Dorset, UK.

Kriiska, Aivar and Lembi Lõugas

2009 Stone Age settlement sites on an environmentally sensitive coastal area along the

lower reaches of the River Pärnu (south-western Estonia), as indicators of

changing settlement patterns, technologies and economies. In Mesolithic

Horizons, edited by S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman,

pp.167-175. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Kristiansen, Kristian

2002 The Birth of Ecological Archaeology in Denmark. In The Neolithisation of

Denmark, edited by A. Fischer and K. Kristiansen, pp.9-32. J.R. Collis, Dorset, UK.

Kristiansen, Kristian and Carsten Paludan-Müller

1978 New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen.

Krouse, H.R. and M.K. Herbert

1988 Sulphur and carbon isotope studies of food webs. In Diet and Subsistence:

Current Archaeological Perspectives, edited by B.V. Kennedy and G.M. LeMoine,

G.M., pp. 315-322. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary.

Krueger, H. W. and C.H. Sullivan

1984 Models for carbon isotope fractionation between diet and bone. In Stable Isotopes

in Nutrition, edited by J. F. Turnlund and P. E. Johnson, pp.205–222. ACS

Symposium Series 258, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

Kubiak-Martens, Lucyna

1999 The plant food component of the diet at the late Mesolithic (Ertebølle) settlement

at Tybrind Vig, Denmark. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8:117-127

2002 New evidence for the use of root foods in pre-agrarian subsistence recovered from

the late Mesolithic site at Halsskov, Denmark. Vegetation History and

Archaeobotany 11:23-31.

Kurlansky, Mark

1997 Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World. Penguin, New York.

Larsen, Charlotte Sedlacek

2000 En palaeoøkologisk rekonstruktion af den sen atlantiske kystboplads Smakkerup

Huse, Saltbaek Vig, NV-Sjaelland, Danmark, baseret på fiskeknoglemateriale.

Unpublished manuscript, Geological Institute: University of Copenhagen.

2005 Chapter 6: The Finds: Fish Bones and Shell. In Smakkerup Huse: A Late

Mesolithic Coastal Site in Northwest Zealand, Denmark, edited by T.D. Price and

A.B. Gebauer, pp.103-114. Aarhus University Press, Århus.

Larsson, Lars

1990 The Mesolithic of Southern Scandinavia. Journal of World Prehistory 4(3):257-

309.

Lee-Thorp, J.A.

2008 On Isotopes and Old Bones. Archaeometry 50(6):925-950.

Lee-Thorp, J. A., J.C. Sealy and N.J. van der Merwe

1989 Stable carbon isotope ratio differences between bone collagen and bone apatite,

and their relationship to diet. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:585–599.

Liden, Kerstin, Gunilla Eriksson, Bengt Nordqvist, Anders Götherström and Erik Bendixen

2004 ”The wet and the wild followed by the dry and the tame” – or did they occur at the

same time? Diet in Mesolithic-Neolithic southern Sweden. Antiquity 78:23-33.

Lillie, M.C. and K. Jacobs

2006 Stable isotope analysis of 14 individuals from the Mesolithic cemetery of

Vasilyevka II, Dnieper Rapids region, Ukraine. Journal of Archaeological Science

33:880-886.

Lillie, M., M.P. Richards and K. Jacobs

2003 Stable isotope analysis of 21 individuals from the Epipalaeolithic cemetery of

Vasilyevka III, Dnieper Rapids region, Ukraine. Journal of Archaeological Science

30:743-752.

Lindström, Susan

1996 Great Basin Fisherfolk: Optimal Diet Breadth Modeling the Truckee River

Aboriginal Subsistence Fishery. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Fishing Strategies,

edited by M.G. Plew, pp.114-79. Boise State University, Boise.

Liu, K. and I.R. Kaplan,

1989 The eastern tropical Pacific as a source of 15N-enriched nitrate in seawater off

southern California. Limnology and Oceanography 34(5):820–830.

Louwe Kooijmans, Leendert P.

1980 Archaeology and Coastal Change in the Netherlands. In Archaeology and Coastal

Change, edited by F.H. Thompson, pp.106-133. Society of Antiquaries, London.

2007 The Gradual Transition to Farming in the Lower Rhine Basin. Proceedings of the

British Academy 144:287-309.

Lubell, David, Mary Jackes, Henry Schwarcz, Martin Knyf and Christopher Meiklejohn

1994 The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Portugal: Isotopic and Dental Evidence of

Diet. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:201-216.

Lyman, R. Lee

1991 Taphonomic problems with archaeological analysis of animal carcass utilization

and transport. In Beamers, bobwhites and blue-points: tributes to the career of

Paul W. Parmalee, edited by J. Purdue, W. Klippel and B. Styles, pp.125.138.

Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers vol. 23, Springfield.

1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2008 Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Madsen, A.P., S. Müller, C. Neergaard, C. Petersen, E. Rostrup, K. Steenstrup, & H. Winge

1900 Affaldsdynger fra Stenalderen i Danmark Undersøgte for Nationalmuseet. C.A.

Reitzel, Copenhagen.

Mansrud, Anna

2009 Animal bone studies and the perception of animals in Mesolithic society. In

Mesolithic Horizons, edited by S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P.

Woodman, pp.198-202. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Marean, Curtis

1991 Measuring the post-depositional destruction of bone in archaeological

assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:677-694.

Marean, Curtis and L. Spencer

1991 Impact of carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological measures of element

abundance. American Antiquity 56:645-658.

Marine Species Identification Portal

2009 The Marine Species Identification Portal is an initiative of ETI BioInformatics in the

Key to Nature programme (a project in the EC e-contentPlus Programme).

http://species-identification.org

Mason, Sarah

2005 Chapter 4: The Finds: Wood and Other Plant Remains. In Smakkerup Huse: A

Late Mesolithic Coastal Site in Northwest Zealand, Denmark, edited by T.D. Price

and A.B. Gebauer, pp.80-83. Aarhus University Press, Århus.

Mathiassen, Therkel

1935 Blubber Lamps in the Ertebølle Culture? Acta Archaeologica VI:139-152.

1937 Gudenaa-kulturen. En mesolitisk Inlandsbebyggelse i Jylland. Aarbøger for

Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1937:1-186.

1948 Danske Oldsager i Ældre Stenalder. København.

Mathiassen, Therkel, Magnus Degerbøl and J. Troels-Smith

1942 Dyrholmen: En Stenalderboplads paa Djursland. Det Kongelige Danske

Videnskabernes Selskab, Copenhagen.

Matsui, Akira

2007 Fundamentals of Zooarchaeology in Japan and East Asia. Kansai Process

Limited, Kyoto-shi, Japan.

McArdle, M., N.P. Liss, P. Dennis

1998 An isotopic study of atmospheric sulphur at three sites in Wales and at Mace

Head, Eire. Journal of Geophys. Res. Atmos. 103:31079-31094.

McCartan, Sinéad B., Rick Schulting, Graeme Warren and Peter Woodman.

2009 Mesolithic Horizons. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

McQuade, Melanie and Lorna O’Donnell

2009 The excavation of Late Mesolithic fish traps remains from the Liffey estuary,

Dublin, Ireland. In Mesolithic Horizons, edited by S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G.

Warren and P. Woodman, pp.889-894. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Meiklejohn, Christopher, Erik Brinch Petersen and Verner Alexandersen

1998 The Later Mesolithic Population of Sjælland, Denmark, and the Neolithic

Transition. In Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest, edited by M. Zvelebil, L.

Domanska and R. Dennell, pp.203-212. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

Mellars, Paul and M.R. Wilkinson

1980 Fish Otoliths as Indicators of Seasonality in Prehistoric Shell Middens: the

Evidence from Oronsay (Inner Hebrides). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society

46:19-44.

Melton, Nigel D. and Rebecca A. Nicholson

2007 A Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic midden at West Voe, Shetland. In Shell Middens

in Atlantic Europe, edited by N. Milner, O. Craig and G. Bailey, pp.94-100. Oxbow

Books, Oxford.

Milner, Nicky

2002 Incremental Growth of the European Oyster Ostrea edulis. BAR International

Series 1057, Oxford.

Milner, Nicky, Oliver Craig and Geoffrey Bailey

2007 Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Milner, Nicky, Oliver Craig, Geoff Bailey, K. Pedersen and Søren H. Andersen

2004 Something fishy in the Neolithic? A re-evaluation of stable isotope analysis of

Mesolithic and Neolithic coastal populations. Antiquity 78:9-22.

Minagawa, M. and E. Wada

1984 Stepwise enrichment of 15N along food chains: further evidence and the relation

between δ15N and animal age. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 48:1135-1140.

Miracle, Preston

2002 Mesolithic Meals from Mesolithic Middens. In Consuming passions and patterns of

consumption, edited by P. Miracle and N. Milner. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Miracle, Preston and Nicky Milner

2002 Consuming passions and patterns of consumption. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Morales, Arturo and Knud Rosenlund

1979 Fish Bone Measurements: An Attempt to Standardize the Measuring of Fish

Bones from Archaeological Sites. Steenstrupia, Copenhagen.

Moustgaard, Poul H.

1987 At vove for at vinde: Dansk fiskeri skildret af A.J. Smidth 1859-63. Dansk

Fiskerimuseum, Grenaa.

Muus, Bent J. and Preben Dahlstrøm

1964 Havfisk og Fiskeri. G.E.C. Gads Forlag, Copenhagen.

1967 Europas Ferskvands fisk. G.E.C. Gads Forlag, Copenhagen.

Møhl, Ulrik

1970 Oversigt over Dyreknoglerne fra Ølby Lyng. En østsjællandsk kystboplads med

Ertebøllekultur.Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighet og Historie 1970:43-77.

1978 Aggersund-bopladsen Zoologisk Belyst: Svanejagt som Årsag til Bosættelse?

Kuml 1978:57-75.

Nagaoka, Lisa

2005 Differential recovery of Pacific Island fish remains. Journal of Archaeological

Science 32:941-955.

Nash, George

1998 Exchange, Status and Mobility: Mesolithic portable art of southern Scandinavia.

BAR International Series 710, Oxford.

Nichol, R.K. and C.J. Wild

1984 “Numbers of Individuals” in Faunal Analysis: the Decay of Fish Bone in

Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:35-51.

Nicholson, Rebecca A.

1992 An Assessment of the Value of Bone Density Measurements to Archaeological

Studies. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 2:139-154.

1993 A Morphological Investigation of Burnt Animal Boneand an Evaluation of its Utility

in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:411-428.

1996a Fish bone diagenesis in different soils. Archaeofauna 5:79-91.

1996b Bone degradation, Burial Medium and Species Representation: Debunking the

Myths, An Experiment-based Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science

23:513-533.

1998 Bone Degradation in a Compost Heap. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:393-

403.

Nielsen, Jens and Anna Birgitte Gebauer

2005 Dugout Canoes. In Smakkerup Huse, A Late Mesolithic Coastal Site in Northwest

Zealand, Denmark, edited by T.D. Price and A. B. Gebauer. Aarhus University

Press, Aarhus.

Noe-Nygaard, Nanna

1971 Spurdog Spines from Prehistoric and Early Historic Denmark: An unexpected raw

material for precision tools. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 21:18-

33.

1987 Taphonomy in archaeology with special emphasis on man as a biasing factor.

Journal of Danish Archaeology 6:7-62.

1988 δ13C-values of dog bones reveal the nature of changes in man’s food resources

at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, Denmark. Chemical Geology (Isotope

Geoscience Section) 73:87-96.

Noe-Nygaard, Nanna, T. Douglas Price and Signe U. Hede

2005 Diet of aurochs and early cattle in southern Scandinavia: evidence from 15N and 13C stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:855-871.

O’Connor, T.P.

1996 A critical overview of archaeological animal bone studies. World Archaeology

28(1):5-19.

O’Leary, M.

1981 Carbon isotope fractionation in plants. Phytochemistry 20:553–567.

Olson, Carina

2008 Neolithic Fisheries: Osteoarchaeology of Fish Remains in the Baltic Sea Region.

Theses and Papers in Osteoarchaeology No. 5, Stockholm.

Olson, Carina, Karin Limburg and Mikael Söderblom

2008 Stone Age fishhooks – how were they dimensioned? Morphology, strength test,

and breakage pattern of Neolithic bone fishhooks from Ajvide, Gotland, Sweden.

Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2813-2823.

Olson, Carina and Yvonne Walther

2007 Neolithic cod (Gadidae) and herring (Clupea harengus) fisheries in the Baltic Sea,

in the light of fine-mesh sieving: a comparative study of subfossil fishbone from the

late Stone Age sites at Ajvide, Gotland, Sweden and Jettböle, Åland, Finland.

Environmental Archaeology 12(2):175-185.

Paludan-Müller, Carsten

1978 High Atlantic Food Gathering in Northwest Zealand, Ecological Conditions and

Spatial Representation. In New Directions in Danish Archaeology, edited by K

Kristiansen and C. Paludan-Müller, pp.120-157. National Museum, Copenhagen.

Parks, Rachel

2009 Seasonal resource scheduling in the Mesolithic and Neolithic of Scotland. In

Mesolithic Horizons, edited by S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P.

Woodman, pp.521-526. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Passey, B. H., T.F. Robinson, L.K. Ayliffe, T.E. Cerling, M. Sponheimer, M.D. Dearing, B.L.

Roeder and J.R. Ehleringer

2005 Carbon isotope fractionation between diet breadth, CO2, and bioapatite in different

mammals. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1459–1470.

Payne, S.

1972 Partial recovery and sample bias: the results of some sieving experiments. In

papers in economic prehistory, edited by E. Higgs, pp.49-64. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Pedersen, Lisbeth

1995 7000 years of fishing: stationary fishing structures in the Mesolithic and afterwards.

In Man and the Sea in the Mesolithic, edited by A. Fischer, pp.75-86. Oxbow

Books, Oxford.

1997 De satte hegn i havet. In Storebælt i 10.000 år, edited by L. Pedersen, A. Fischer

and B. Aaby, pp.124-143. A/S Storebæltsforbindelsen, Copenhagen.

Pedersen, Lisbeth, Anders Fischer and Bent Aaby

1997 Storebælt i 10.000 år. A/S Storebæltsforbindelsen, Copenhagen.

Perdikaris, Sophia

1999 From chiefly provisioning to commercial fishery: long-term economic change in

Arctic Norway. World Archaeology 30(3):388-402.

Perry, David

2005 Chapter 4: The Finds: Wood and Other Plant Remains. In Smakkerup Huse: A

Late Mesolithic Coastal Site in Northwest Zealand, Denmark, edited by T.D. Price

and A.B. Gebauer, pp.79-80. Aarhus University Press, Århus.

Petersen, Erik Brinch and Christopher Meiklejohn

2007 Historical Context of the Term ‘Complexity’ in the South Scandinavian Mesolithic.

Acta Archaeologica 78(2):181-192.

2003 Three cremations and a funeral: aspects of burial practice in Mesolithic Vedbæk.

In: Lars Larsson et al. (eds), Mesolithic on the Move, 485–93. Oxford.

Petersen, Peter Vang

1984 Chronological and Regional Variation in the Late Mesolithic of Eastern Denmark.

Journal of Danish Archaeology 3:7-18.

Peterson, B.J. and B. Fry

1987 Stable Isotopes in Ecosystem Studies. Annual Review Ecological Systems 18:293-

320.

Pickard, Catriona and Clive Bonsall

2004 Deep-sea Fishing in the European Mesolithic: Fact or Fantasy? European Journal

of Archaeology 7(3):273-290.

2007 Late Mesolithic coastal fishing practices: the evidence from Tybrind Vig, Denmark.

In On the Road: Studies in Honor of Lars Larsson, edited by B. Hårdh, K. Jennbert

and D. Olausson, pp.176-183. Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.

Plew, Mark G.

1996 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Fishing Strategies. Boise State University, Boise.

Poulsen, Rene Taudal, Andrew B. Cooper, Poul Holm and Brian R. MacKenzie

2007 An abundance estimate of ling (Molva molva) and cod (Gadidae) in the

Skagerrak and the northeastern North Sea, 1872. Fisheries Research 87:196-207.

Post, D.M.

2002 Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: models, methods, and

assumption. Ecology 83:703-718.

Prangsgaard, K.

1992 Introduktion af keramik i den yngre Ertebølle-kultur i Sydskandinavian. LAG 3:29-

52. Moesgård, Århus.

Price, T. Douglas

1987 The Mesolithic of Western Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 1(3):225-305.

2000 The Introduction of Farming in Northern Europe. In Europe’s First Farmers, edited

by T.D. Price, pp.260-300. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2004 Beretning for udgravning af udsmidslag fra Ertebølle of tidlig neolitikum i Juli-

August 2002 og 2003. Odsherred Museum, Denmark.

Price, T. Douglas and Gary Feinman

1995 Foundations of Social Inequality. Plenum Press, New York.

Price, T. Douglas and Anne Birgitte Gebauer

1995 Last Hunters-First Farmers. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

2005 Smakkerup Huse, A Late Mesolithic Coastal Site in Northwest Zealand, Denmark.

Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, Denmark.

Price, T. Douglas, Anne B. Gebauer and Lawrence H. Keeley

1995 The Spread of Farming into Europe North of the Alps. In Last Hunters-First

Farmers, edited by T.D. Price and A.B. Gebauer, pp.95-126. School of American

Research Press, Santa Fe.

Privat, Karen L., Tamsin C. O’Connell, Robert E.M. Hedges

2007 The distinction between freshwater- and terrestrial-based diets: methodological

concerns and archaeological applications of sulphur stable isotope analysis.

Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1197-1204.

Rees, C.E., W.J. Jenkins and J. Monster

1978 The sulphur isotopic composition of ocean water sulphate. Geochimica et

Cosmochimica Acta 42:377-381.

Reitz, Elizabeth and Elizabeth Wing

1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renouf, M.A.P.

1991 Sedentary Hunter-Gatherers: A Case for Northern Coasts. In Between Bands and

States, edited by S. A. Gregg, pp.89-107. Center for Archaeological

Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Occasional Paper No. 9,

Carbondale, IL.

Reynard, Linda M. and Robert E.M. Hedges

2008 Stable hydrogen isotopes of bone collagen in palaeodietary and

palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:1934-

1942.

Richards, Michael P., T. Douglas Price and Eva Koch

2003 Mesolithic and Neolithic Subsistence in Denmark: New Stable Isotope Data.

Current Anthropology 44(2):288-295.

Richards, Michael P. and Robert E.M. Hedges

1999 Stable Isotope Evidence for Similarities in the Types of Marine Foods Used by

Late Mesolithic Humans at Sites Along the Atlantic Coast of Europe. Journal of

Archaeological Science 26:717-722.

Richards, Michael P. and P.A. Mellars

1998 Stable isotopes and the seasonality of the Oronsay middens. Antiquity 72:178-

184.

Richter, Jane

2005 Selective hunting of pine marten, Martes martes, in Late Mesolithic Denmark.

Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1223-1331.

Richter, Jane and Nanna Noe-Nygaard

2003 A Late Mesolithic Hunting Station at Agernæs, Fyn, Denmark: Differentiation and

Specialization in the late Ertebølle-Culture, heralding the Introduction of

Agriculture? Acta Archaeologica 74:1-64.

Rick, Torben C., Jon M. Erlandson and Rene L. Vellanoweth

2001 Paleocoastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspectives

from Daisy Cave, California. American Antiquity 66(4):595-613.

Ringrose, T.J.

1993 Bone Counts and Statistics: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:121-

157.

Rosenlund, Knud

1976 Catalogue of subfossil Danish vertebrate – fishes. Zoologisk Museum,

Copenhagen.

Rossman, A., B. Kornexl, G. Versini, F. Pichlmayer and G. Lamprecht

1998 Origin assignment of milk from alpine regions by multielement stable isotope ratio

analysis (Sira). La Rivista di Scienza dell’Alimentazione 27:9-21.

Rostlund, Erhard

1952 Freshwater Fish and Fishing in Native North America. University of California

Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Rowley-Conwy, Peter

1983 Sedentary hunters; the Ertebølle example. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in

Prehistory, edited by G. Bailey, pp.111-126. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

1984 The laziness of the short-distance hunter: the origins of agriculture in western

Denmark. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:300-324.

1993 Season and Reason: The Case for a Regional Interpretation of Mesolithic

Settlement Patterns. In Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic

and Mesolithic of Eurasia, edited by G.L. Peterkin, H.M. Bricker and P. Mellars,

pp.179-188. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association

Number 4, Washington, D.C.

1994 Meat, Furs and Skins: Mesolithic Animal Bones from Ringkloster, a Seasonal

Hunting Camp in Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 12:87-98.

1998 Cemeteries, Seasonality and Complexity in the Ertebølle of Southern Scandinavia.

In Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest, edited by M. Zvelebil, L. Domanska

and R. Dennell, pp. 193-202. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

2004 How the West was Lost: A reconsideration of agricultural origins in Britain, Ireland,

and Southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45:S83-113.

Russ, Hannah and Andrew K.G. Jones

2009 Late Upper Palaeolithic fishing in the Fucino Basin, central Italy, a detailed

analysis of the remains from Grotta di Pozzo. Environmental Archaeology

14(2):155-162.

Schoeninger, M. and M. DeNiro

1984 Nitrogen and carbon isotopic composition of bone collagen from marine and

terrestrial animals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 48:625-639.

Schmölcke, Ulrich, Elisabeth Endtmann, Stefanie Klooss, Michael Meyer, Dierk Michaelis,

Björn-Henning Rickert and Doreen Rößler

2006 Changes of sea level, landscape and culture: A review of the south-western Baltic

area between 8800 and 4000B.C.. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and

Palaeoecology 240:423-438.

Schmölcke, Ulrich, Glykou, Aikatrina, Heinrich, Dirk

2009 Faunal development in the southwestern Baltic area. Berichte der Römisch-

Germanischen Kommission 88:241-253.

Sealy, J.C., N.J. Van der Merwe, J.A. Lee-Thorp and J.L. Lanham

1987 Nitrogen isotope ecology in southern Africa: implications for environmental and

dietary tracing. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 51:2707-2717.

Shaffer, B.S.

1992 Quarter Inch Screening: Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal

Remains. American Antiquity 57:129-136.

Shennan, Stephen

2002 Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural

Evolution. Thames and Hudson, London.

Simms, Steven R.

1987 Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-Gatherer Foraging. BAR International Series 381,

Oxford.

Skaarup, Jørgen

1973 Hesselø-Sølager: Jagtstationen der südskandinavischen Trichterbecherkultur.

Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen.

1983 Submarine stenalderbopladser I det sydfynske øhav. Antikvariske Studier 6:137-

161.

1995 Hunting the hunters and fishers of the Mesolithic: twenty years of research on the

sea floor south of Funen, Denmark. In Man and the Sea in the Mesolithic, edited

by A. Fischer, pp.397-401. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Smart, David J.Q.

2003 Later Mesolithic Fishing Strategies and Practices in Denmark. BAR International

Series No.1119, Oxford.

Smith, Bruce and Eric A. Winterhalder

1981 New Perspectives on Hunter-Gatherer Socioecology. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging

Strategies: Ethnographic and Archaeological Analyses, edited by B. Winterhalder

and E. Smith, pp.1-12. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Smith, B. N., and S. Epstein

1971 Two categories of 13C/12C ratios for higher plants. Plant Physiology 47:380–384.

Sosis, Richard

2000 Costly signaling and torch fishing on Ifaluk atoll. Evolution and Human Behavior

21:223-244.

Stafford, Michael

1999 From Forager to Farmer in Flint. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.

Steward, Julian

1955 Theory of culture change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Stiner, Mary

1992 Overlapping species “choice” by Italian Upper Pleistocene predators. Current

Anthropology 33:433-451.

Street, Martin, Michael Baales, Erwin Cziesla, Sönke Hartz, Martin Heinen, Olaf Jöris, Ingrid

Koch, Clemens Pasda, Thomas Terberger, and Jürgen Vollbrecht

2001 Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research in Reunified Germany. Journal of World

Prehistory 15(4):365-453.

Sørensen, Søren

1992 Lollikhuse – a Dwelling Site under a Kitchen Midden. Journal of Danish

Archaeology 11:19-29.

Tauber, H.

1981 13C evidence for dietary habits of prehistoric man in Denmark. Nature 292:332-

333.

Testart, Alain

1982 The Significance of Food Storage among Hunter-Gatherers: Residence Patterns,

Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23(5):523-537.

Thomas, D.H.

1969 Great Basin Hunting Patterns: A Quantitative Method for Treating Faunal

Remains. American Antiquity 34:392-401.

Thomsen, Christian Jürgensen

1836 Ledetraad til nordisk Oldkyndighed. S.L. Møllers, Copenhagen.

Trolle-Lassen, Tine

1984 A preliminary report on the archaeological and zoological evidence of fish

exploitation from a submerged site in Mesolithic Denmark. C.N.R.S. Centre de

Recherches Archéologiques. Notes et Monographies Technigues 16, 133-143.

1987 Human exploitation of fur animals in Mesolithic Denmark – a case study.

Archaeozoologia 1(2):85-102.

Vale, Deborah and Robert Gargett

2002 Size Matters: 3mm Sieves do not Increase Richness in a Fishbone Assemblage

from Arrawarra I, an Aboriginal Shell Midden on the Mid-north Coast of New South

Wales, Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:57-63.

van der Merwe, N. J. and J. C. Vogel

1978 13C content of human collagen as a measure of prehistoric diet in Woodland North

America. Nature 276:815–816.

Van Neer, W., A. Ervynck, L. Bolle and R. Milner

2004 Seasonality Only Works in Certain Parts of the Year: the Reconstruction of Fishing

Seasons through Otolith Analysis. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology

14:457-474.

Vitale, F., P. Börjesson, H. Svedäng and M. Casini

2008 The spatial distribution of cod (Gadidae L.) spawning grounds in the Kattegat,

eastern North Sea. Fisheries Research 90:36-44.

Westerby, Erik

1927 Stenalderbopladser ved Klampenborg. Nogle Bidrag til Studiet af den mesolitiske

Periode. Copenhagen.

Wheeler, A. and A. K. G. Jones

1989 Fishes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wieland, Kai, Eva Maria Fenger Pedersen, Hans J. Olesen, Jan E. Beyer

2009 Effect of bottom type on catch rates of North Sea cod (Gadus morhua) in surveys

with commercial fishing vessels. Fisheries Research 96:244-251.

Willis, Lauren, Metin Eren and Torben Rick

2007 Does butchering fish leave cutmarks? Journal of Archaeological Science 35:1438-

1444.

Winge, Herluf

1900 Knogler af Dyr. In Affaldsdynger fra Stenalderen i Danmark, Madsen et al.,

Copenhagen.

Winterhalder, Bruce

1981 Optimal Foraging Strategies and Hunter-Gatherer Research in Anthropology:

Theory and Models. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies, edited by B.

Winterhalder and E. Smith, pp.13-35. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Winterhalder, Bruce and Eric Alden Smith

1981 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty-Five.

Evolutionary Anthropology 51-72.

Woodman, Peter

2000 Getting back to basics: transitions to farming in Ireland and Britain. In Europe’s

First Farmers, edited by T.D. Price, pp.219-259. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Woodman, Peter, Elizabeth Anderson and Nyree Finlay

1999 Excavations at Ferriter’s Cove, 1983-95: last foragers, first farmers in the Dingle

Peninsula. Wordwell, Bray, Ireland.

Yesner, David

1980 Maritime Hunter-Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current Anthropology

21(6):727-750.

Zapata, Lydia, Nicky Milner and Eufrasia Rosello

2007 Pico Ramos cave shell midden: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition by the Bay of

Biscay. In Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe, edited by N. Milner, O. Craig and G.

Bailey, pp.150-157. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Zohar, Irit and Miriam Belmaker

2005 Size does matter: methodological comments on sieve size and species richness in

fishbone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:635:641.

Zvelebil, Marek

1996 The Agricultural Frontier and the transition to farming in the circum-Baltic region.

In The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, edited by D.

R. Harris. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

2006 Mobility, contact, and exchange in the Baltic Sea basin 6000–2000 B.C.. Journal

of Anthropological Archaeology 25:178-192.

Zvelebil, Marek, Lucyna Domanska and Robin Dennell

1998 Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

Aaby, B.

1993 Flora. In Digging into the Past, edited by S. Hvass and B. Storgaard, pp.24-27.

Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, Århus.

Åhrberg, Eva Schaller

2007 Fishing for storage: Mesolithic short term fishing for long term consumption. In

Shell Middens of Atlantic Europe, edited by N. Milner, O. Craig and G. Bailey,

pp.46-53. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Åkerlund, Agneta

2000 Separate Worlds? Interpretation of the Different Material Patterns of the

Archipelago and the Surrounding Mainland Areas of East-Central Sweden in the

Stone Age. European Journal of Archaeology 3(1):7-29.

Appendix I Notes on fish taxonomy and identification

(Except where noted, this information is from: Muus and Dahlstrøm 1964, 1967; Marine Species

Identification Portal.)

Gadidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Cod (Gadidae), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), pollack (Pollachius pollachius), saithe

(Pollachius virens), ling (Molva molva) and whiting (Merlangius merlangus)

Other members of this family that occur in Danish waters

Poor cod (Trisopterus minutes), Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarki), blue whiting

(Micromesistius poutassou), tadpole-fish (Raniceps raninus), hake (Merluccius merluccius),

torsk (Brosme brosme)

Elements that are commonly used to distinguish between members of this family include otolith,

vomer, parasphenoid, maxillary, premaxillary, dentary and first or second vertebrae (Enghoff

1994). In attempts to separate elements from these species, it is generally necessary for the

specimen to be mostly complete and undamaged. Because of this, in many cases the majority

of specimens can only be assigned to the family Gadidae, severely limiting the ability to quantify

differences in the species composition of gadid remains between sites. Size information is

normally provided from measurements of otoliths or first and second vertebrae, although other

elements are also potentially useful for this purpose (Enghoff 1994a, Härkönen 1986, Morales

and Rosenlund 1979).

Pleuronectidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Flounder (Platichthys flesus), plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) and dab (Limanda limanda)

Other members of this family that occur in Danish waters

Halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), long rough dab (Hippoglossoides platessoides), lemon

sole (Microstomus kitt), and witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus)

Elements of these fish that can be used to distinguish species include dermal denticles (only

present in flounder), urohyal, frontal, and pteroticum (Enghoff 1994a). Size information is

derived from measurements of the first vertebra or os anale (Enghoff 1994a).

Halibut, which can be amongst the largest of flatfishes (Denmark’s record is 5.3 kg), is curiously

absent from Ertebølle assemblages in Denmark (although one vertebra has been identified from

a Kongemose site – Carstensminde), despite the belief that they were once much more

common in the Kattegat than they are today (Drechsel 1890:194; Purnell et al. 2004).

Scophthalmidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Turbot (Psetta maxima) and brill (Scophthalmus rhombus)

Other members of this family that occur in Danish waters

Norwegian topknot (Phrynorhombus norvegicus) and topknot (Zeugopterus punctatus)

Two other families of the order Pleuronectiformes are present in Danish waters today, but

have not been identified from Ertebølle sites:

Bothidae

Scaldfish (Arnoglossus laterna)

Soleidae

Common sole (Solea solea) and solenette (Buglossidium luteum)

The absence of sole is especially interesting, as they have been of some commercial

importance dating back to at least the 1800s (Drechsel 1890).

Because of the very small number of Scophthalmidae recovered, they are included with

Pleuronectidae for quantification purposes.

Anguillidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Eel (Anguilla anguilla)

Size estimates can be made based on dentale, cleithrum, and ceratohyal (Enghoff 1994).

Cyprinidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Common bream (Abramis brama), tench (Tinca tinca), roach (Rutilus rutilus) and rudd

(Scardinius erythrophthalmus), crucian carp (Carassius carassius), white bream (Blicca

bjoerkna)

Other members of this family that occur in Danish waters

This is a large family of fishes, however only the species listed above are likely to have been

exploited by humans because of the small size of the other members.

Species specific elements include the basioccipital and pharyngeal bone, and sometimes, the

opercle (Enghoff 1994a). Fish size estimates for tench can be derived from measurement of the

opercle. For roach, it can be derived from measurement of the first and second vertebrae – but

as these are not species specific elements, in most cases size estimates for cyprinids must

come from comparison with comparative specimens of known size (Enghoff 1994a).

Triglidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Grey gurnard (Eutrigla gurnardus) and tub gurnard (Trigla lucerna)

Although often difficult to distinguish between elements of the two species (dorsal plates are an

exception), there are fortunately no other members of the family likely to be present. It seems

that grey gurnard is more common where species identification is possible.

Cottidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Bull-rout (Myoxocephalus scorpius)

Other members of this family that occur in Danish waters

Fatherlasher (Taurulus bubalis) and Norway bullhead (Micrenophrys lilljeborgii)

Salmonidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Sea trout (Salmo trutta), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and whitefish (Coregonus sp.)

While whitefish are somewhat distinct, trout and salmon are very difficult to separate based on

osteological evidence. In any case, all three species are uncommon, even in the assemblages

where they are present.

Clupeidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Herring (Clupea harengus), shad (Alosa alosa and Alosa fallax)

Other members of this family that occur in Danish waters

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus)

Engraulidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicholus)

Belonidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Garfish (Belone belone)

Syngnathidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Pipefish (Syngathidae sp.)

Gasterosteidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), fifteen-spined stickleback (Spinachia

spinachia)

Other members of this family that occur in Danish waters

Nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius)

Esocidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Pike (Esox lucius)

Zoarcidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Viviparous eelpout (Zoarces viviparous)

Siluridae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Wels (Siluris glanis)

The order of Perciformes is a very large group of fishes, comprised of multiple suborders,

families and genera. Members of this group that are of interest archaeologically for the Danish

Ertebølle include: gobiids, dragonets, mackerel, Atlantic horse mackerel, perch, pike-perch,

sand-eels, weever, black sea bream, swordfish and European sea bass. Generally speaking, it

is possible to distinguish elements of these fish from each other with little difficulty, but this is

less true when other members of the order that are potentially present are included.

Gobiidae

Fish of the goby family, are represented by many genera, and many species within those

genera. They are rare in Danish Mesolithic assemblages, so reporting them at the level of family

(at least for quantification) is appropriate. The author’s gobiid identifications compared favorably

with Gobius niger, although it should be noted that the specimen in the collection at the

Landesmuseum in Schleswig that was used for comparison is an archaeological example from

the Viking age site of Hedeby (aka Haithabu).

Callionymidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Dragonet (Callionymus lyra)

Scombridae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

Carangidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Atlantic horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus)

Percidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Perch (Perca fluviatilis), zander (Sander lucioperca), ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua)

Ammodytidae

Sand eel (any of a number of members of the genera Ammodytes and Hyperoplus)

Trachinidae

Identified in Ertebølle assemblages

Greater weever (Trachnius draco)

Sparidae

Black sea bream (Spondyliosoma cantharus)

Xiphiidae

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)

Moronidae

European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax)

A final group of fish to be included would be the non-bony fishes (the class Chondrichthyes)

that are nevertheless sometimes identified in archaeological assemblages, either from ossified

skeletal elements, teeth, dermal denticles or tail spines. With the exception of spurdog (Squalus

acanthias, family Squalidae), elements from these fish are quite rare on Mesolithic sites. Other

sharks that are found include porbeagle (Lamna nasus), topeshark (Galeorhinus galeus) and

smoothhound (Mustelus sp.), while rays consist of thornbacks (Raja clavata) and common

stingrays (Dasyatis pastinaca). Spurdog are relatively easily recognized by their distinctive

vertebrae and dorsal spines. The other fish of this class are so uncommon that they are of little

consequence for assemblage quantification, with the exception of generating NTAXA. It might

be efficient to consider the entire class together, but family is useful for so many of the other fish

that it might be used for the sake of uniformity (with smoothhound and topeshark in Triakidae,

porbeagle in Lamnidae, spurdog in Squalidae, thornback rays in Rajidae and common stingray

in Dasyatidae).

Appendix II

Comparative collection prepared for the project

English Danish

1. Anarhichas lupus Wolffish Havkat

2. Anguilla anguilla Eel Ål

3. Belone belone Garfish Hornfisk

4. Centrolabrus exoletus Rock cook Småmundet gylte

5. Chimaera monstrosa Ghost shark Havmus

6. Clupea harengus Herring Sild

7. Coregonus sp. Whitefish Helt

8. Ctenolabrus rupestris Goldsinny wrasse Havkaruds

9. Dicentrarchus labrax Sea bass Havbars

10. Engraulis encrasicolus Anchovy Ansjos

11. Esox lucius Pike Gedde

12. Esox lucius Pike Gedde

13. Eutrigla gurnardus Grey gurnard Grå knurhane

14. Eutrigla gurnardus Grey gurnard Grå knurhane

15. Gadus morhua Cod Torsk

16. Gadus morhua Cod Torsk

17. Gadus morhua Cod Torsk

18. Limanda limanda Dab Ising

19. Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock Kuller

20. Merlangius merlangus Whiting Hvilling

21. Merlangius merlangus Whiting Hvilling

22. Merlangius merlangus Whiting Hvilling

23. Microstomus kitt Lemon sole Rødtunge

24. Molva molva Ling Lange

25. Myoxocephalus scorpius Bullrout Almindelig ulk

26. Osmerus eperlanus Smelt Smelt

27. Pholis gunnellus Butterfish Tangspræl

28. Platichthys flesus Flounder Skrubbe

29. Pleuronectes platessa Plaice Rødspætte

30. Pollachius pollachius Pollock Lubbe

31. Psetta maxima Turbot Pighvarre

32. Salmo salar Salmon Laks

33. Salmo trutta Sea trout Ørred

34. Sander vitreus Walleyed pike cf. Sandart

35. Sardina pilchardus Sardine Sardin

36. Scomber scombrus Mackerel Makrel

37. Sebastes marinus Redfish Rødfisk

38. Sparidae Sea bream Dorade

39. Spinachia spinachia 15 spined stickleback Tangsnarre

40. Squalus acanthias Spurdog Pighaj

41. Syngnathus sp. Pipefish Tangnål

42. Trachinus draco Greater weever Fjæsing

43. Trachnius draco Greater weever Fjæsing

44. Trachurus trachurus Horse mackerel Hestemakrel

45. Trachurus trachurus Horse mackerel Hestemakrel

46. Trigla lucerna Tub gurnard Rød knurhane

47. Zoarces viviparous Eelpout Ålekvabbe

Appendix III

Summary data for analyzed fish

assemblages

Gadid

ae

Anguill

idae

Ple

uro

nectidae

Cott

idae

Scom

bridae

Clu

peid

ae

Triglid

ae

Belo

nid

ae

Squalid

ae

Tra

chnid

ae

Zoarc

idae

Salm

onid

ae

Cyprinid

ae

Calli

onym

idae

First vertebra 831 18 28 22 0 5 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Other vertebra 31763 3591 830 475 444 162 106 40 30 32 18 13 8 1

Total vertebra 32594 3609 858 497 444 167 110 41 30 33 18 13 8 1

Angular 645 35 2 5

Branchiostegal ray 38

Ceratohyal 76 90

Cleithrum 168 40 1

Cranium, unsp. 1 1

Dentale 236 34 3 4

Dorsal spine/plate 14 10

Ectopterygoid 76 6

Epibranchial 55

Epihyal 39 25

Exoccipital 21

Frontal 4

Hyomandibular 210 17 4 2

Hypohyal 5

Interhyal 13

Interopercle 10

Maxillary 473 21 2 10 2

Mesethmoid 25

Opercle 31 9 19 1

Opisthotic 9

Os anale 7

Otolith 889

Palatine 54 1

Parasphenoid 330 4 8 3

Pharyngeal plate 13 1

Pharyngobranchial 5

Postcleithrum 2

Posttemporal 401 3 2 1

Premaxillary 457 3

Preopercle 22 16

Prooticum 4

Pterotic 53

Quadrate 546 17 9 11 2 1

Retroarticular 9

Sphenotic 71

Subopercle 2

Supracleithrum 273 3 17

Supraoccipital 3

Symplectic 72

Urohyal 2 4

Vomer (left half) 72

Vomer (right half) 64

Vomer (whole) 43 44 1 1

Total non-vertebra 5509 340 40 104 0 4 26 4 10 1 0 0 0 0

Total 38103 3949 898 601 444 171 136 45 40 34 18 13 8 1

Identified fish specimens from Asnæs Havnemark.

Gadid

ae

Ple

uro

nectidae

Belo

nid

ae

Cott

idae

Anguill

idae

Scom

bridae

Squalid

ae

Tra

chnid

ae

Clu

peid

ae

Sparidae

First vertebra 45 15 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other vertebra 1289 890 103 50 20 20 15 12 2 1

Total vertebra 1334 905 103 56 20 20 15 12 2 1

Angular 3 1

Branchiostegal ray 1

Cranium, unsp. 1

Dentary 9 8 1

Hyomandibular 2 2

Maxillary 12 4

Mesethmoid 1

Os anale 3

Palatine 1

Parasphenoid 7

Posttemporal 8 1

Premaxillary 42

Pterotic 1 1

Quadrate 2

Sphenotic 1

Supracleithrum 5

Symplectic 1

Vomer (left half) 2

Vomer (right half) 3

Vomer (whole) 1

Total non-vertebra 102 13 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1436 918 111 57 20 20 15 12 2 1 Identified fish specimens from Bøgebjerg.

Gadid

ae

Ple

uro

nectidae

Belo

nid

ae

Squalid

ae

Cott

idae

Scom

bridae

Anguill

idae

Tra

chnid

ae

Triglid

ae

Clu

peid

ae

Zoarc

idae

Salm

onid

ae

Perc

idae

Esocid

ae

Cyprinid

ae

First vertebra 885 275 15 31 9 7 4 3

Other vertebra 19059 9169 660 680 498 458 307 148 136 88 14 11 5 4 2

Total vertebra 19944 9444 675 680 529 458 316 155 140 91 14 11 5 4 2

Angular 407 15 2

Basibranchial 3

Branchiostegal ray 20

Ceratobranchial 1 1

Ceratohyal 53 11 1

Cleithrum 34 2 3

Cranium, unsp. 8 1

Dentale 272 8 190 2 1

Dorsal spine/plate 42 7

Ectopterygoid

Epibranchial 36

Epihyal 23

Exoccipital 2 1

Frontal 3 2

Hyomandibular 90 17 2

Hypohyal 3 2

Interhyal 4

Interopercle 1

Maxillary 426 17 2 1 1

Mesethmoid 5

Opercle 9 1 1 1 1

Opisthotic 2

Os anale 52

Otolith 2142

Palatine 21 9

Parasphenoid 226

Pharyngeal plate 7

Pharyngobranchial 4 2

Posttemporal 319 20 1

Premaxillary 917 6 1

Preopercle 16 1 2

Prootic 3 14

Pterotic 6 21

Quadrate 437 35 1 2

Retroarticular 1

Sphenotic 27

Supracleithrum 241 11 2 1

Supraoccipital 1

Symplectic 3

Urohyal 19 1

Vomer (left half) 105

Vomer (right half) 123

Vomer (whole) 31 25 6

Total non-vertebra 6021 276 190 42 11 0 26 9 10 14 0 0 0 0 0

Total 25965 9720 865 722 540 458 342 164 150 105 14 11 5 4 2

Identified fish specimens from Dragsholm.

Gadid

ae

Ple

uro

nectidae

Anguill

idae

Belo

nid

ae

Clu

peid

ae

Cyprinid

ae

Esocid

ae

Cott

idae

Scom

bridae

Squalid

ae

Salm

onid

ae

First vertebra 29 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other vertebra 1244 939 46 15 8 7 2 2 2 0 1

Total vertebra 1273 960 47 15 8 7 2 2 2 0 1

Angular 25 2

Ceratohyal 5 5

Cleithrum 12 5 6

Dentale 16 1 3 2 1

Dorsal spine/plate 1

Ectopterygoid 2 2

Epibranchial 2

Epihyal 1 2 1

Hyomandibular 2 7 2

Hypohyal 1 1

Interhyal 1

Maxillary 32 2

Opercle 1

Os anale 22

Otolith 39

Palatine 2

Parasphenoid 18 4 5

Pharyngeal plate 1

Pharyngobranchial 2

Postcleithrum 3

Posttemporal 15 5

Premaxillary 68 1

Pterotic 3

Quadrate 23 7 3

Retroarticular 1

Supracleithrum 10 7

Symplectic 5

Urohyal 7

Vomer (left half) 7

Vomer (right half) 10

Vomer (whole) 4 4 2

Total non-vertebra 307 83 27 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Total 1580 1043 74 17 8 7 3 2 2 1 1 Identified fish specimens from Fårevejle.

An

gu

illid

ae

Ple

uro

ne

ctid

ae

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Ga

did

ae

Sa

lmo

nid

ae

Be

lon

ida

e

Clu

pe

ida

e

Zo

arc

ida

e

Co

ttid

ae

First vertebra 4 1

Other vertebra 175 19 15 13 11 11 9 2 1

Total vertebra 179 20 15 13 11 11 9 2 1

Angular 6 1

Ceratohyal 11

Cleithrum 17

Dentale 4 1

Epihyal 2

Frontal 4

Hyomandibular 4

Maxillary 1

Opercle 3

Os anale 3

Palatine 1

Parasphenoid 3

Posttemporal 1

Quadrate 3

Vomer (whole) 4

Total non-vertebra 61 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Total 240 26 16 14 11 11 9 2 1

Identified fish specimens from Havnø.

Tra

ch

inid

ae

Ple

uro

ne

ctid

ae

An

gu

illid

ae

Ga

did

ae

Sq

ua

lid

ae

Clu

pe

ida

e

Co

ttid

ae

Tri

glid

ae

Total vertebra 14 5 3 2 3 1 1 0

Basipterygium 1

Cleithrum 1

Epihyal 1

Maxillary 1

Opercle 3

Preopercle 2

Total non-vertebra 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

Total 19 6 4 3 3 1 1 1

Identified fish specimens from Jesholm I.

Ple

uro

nectidae

Gadid

ae

Belo

nid

ae

Anguill

idae

Scom

bridae

Clu

peid

ae

Squalid

ae

Triglid

ae

First vertebra 43 12 3

Other vertebra 1790 358 262 68 24 13 1

Total vertebra 1833 370 265 68 24 13 0 1

Angular 6

Ceratohyal 3

Cleithrum 9

Dentale 1

Dorsal spine/plate 3

Maxillary 5

Os anale 44

Parasphenoid 1

Posttemporal 2

Premaxillary 12

Pterotic

Quadrate 1

Supracleithrum 3

Urohyal 3

Vomer (whole) 2

Total non-vertebra 47 33 0 12 0 0 3 0

Total 1880 403 265 80 24 13 3 1 Identified fish specimens from Lollikhuse.

Ple

uro

nectidae

Anguill

idae

Tra

chin

idae

Gadid

ae

Clu

peid

ae

Zoarc

idae

Scom

bridae

Cott

idae

Salm

onid

ae

Gaste

roste

idae

First vertebra 158 30 60 17 32 1

Other vertebra 5266 2432 1981 1231 786 221 30 21 21 4

Total vertebra 5424 2462 2041 1248 818 221 30 22 21 4

Angular 21 15 17 29

Branchiostegal ray 14

Ceratohyal 2 59 8 1

Cleithrum 3 36 7 8

Dentale 5 12 13 30

Ectopterygoid 31 1

Epibranchial 7

Epihyal 10 13 4 14

Frontal 7 4

Hyomandibular 18 9 26 6

Hypohyal 4 2

Interhyal 4

Interopercle 2

Maxillary 65 20 51

Mesethmoid 4 3

Opercle 5 42 7

Os anale 69

Otolith 2 59

Palatine 32 9 21

Parasphenoid 1 5 15 22

Pharyngeal plate 5

Pharyngobranchial 12 3

Postcleithrum 1

Posttemporal 12 30 23

Premaxillary 37 17 53

Prootic 21

Pterotic 4

Quadrate 45 12 29 26

Sphenotic 7

Subopercle 1

Supracleithrum 53 8 34

Symplectic 4

Urohyal 67

Vomer (left half) 10

Vomer (right half) 9

Vomer (whole) 46 26 17 2

Total non-vertebra 543 199 271 454 21 0 0 0 0 0

Total 5967 2661 2312 1702 839 221 30 22 21 4

Identified fish specimens from Nederst skaldynge I.

Appendix IV

Complete notes for analyzed assemblages

Årby Sb 365 Asnæs Havnemark

125E 128N Culture Layer Trench 1 21June2007 VLS Weight: <1g Cod family 1 vertebra C 125E 131N Culture Layer Trench 1 22June2007 KJG Weights: <1g otoliths, 2g fragments no ID, 1g vertebra no ID, 1g non-vertebra, 14g cod, <1g other vertebra Cod family 1 basioccipital 5 first vertebra 13 second vertebra 13 third vertebra 116 vertebra C (2 burnt) 31 vertebra B 10 vertebra A 2 otoliths 1L 2R posttemporal 1R supracleithrum (burnt) 1R ectopterygoid 1R quadrate 1L ceratohyal 1R pterotic Flatfish 1 first vertebra (3.9mm) 3 vertebra C Eel 1 vertebra C Bull-rout 2 vertebra C Gurnard 1 vertebra C Unidentified 6 vertebra C (1 burnt) 6 vertebra B 126E 131N Culture Layer Trench 1 Partial square, western half 25June2007 KJG Weights: 1g vertebra no ID, 3g fragments no ID, 3g non-vertebra, 29g cod, <1g other vertebra Cod family 3 basioccipital 13 first vertebra 26 second vertebra (1 burnt) 11 third vertebra 220 vertebra C 65 vertebra B 24 vertebra A 2 parasphenoid (1 fragment) 1L dentary 3R maxillary (1 fragment) 1L 2 whole vomer (2 whole are burnt) 2L 1R premaxillary 1L 1R quadrate (2 fragment) 2L 2R angular (1 burnt) 1R posttemporal Flatfish 7 vertebra C 1 vertebra B Eel 3 vertebra C Bull-rout 1 vertebra C 1 vertebra B Gurnard 2 vertebra C Unidentified 4 vertebra too dirty 3 vertebra C 2 vertebra B (nothing identifiable, so not kept separate)

125E 132N Culture Layer Trench 1 22June2007 TLS Weights: 6g otoliths, 24g fragments no ID, 13g non-vertebra, 5g vertebra no ID, 129g cod, 5g other vertebra Cod family 23 basioccipital 52 first vertebra (1 burnt) 72 second vertebra (2 burnt) 57 third vertebra 1276 vertebra C 306 vertebra B 97 vertebra A 9L 9R premaxillary (3 fragment) 2L 2R dentary 4L 1R 1 whole vomer (3 burnt) 9L 7R maxillary (2 frag. 5 burnt) 8 parasphenoid (2 frag. 2 burnt) 1L 1R cleithrum 2L 3R hyomandibular 7L 7R posttemporal (2 burnt) 12L 16R angular (2 frag. 1 burnt) 2R supracleithrum (1 burnt) 8L 9R quadrate (2 burnt) 1 mesethmoid 1L opercle 1L palatine (burnt) 1L pteroticum 1L interhyal 1 R opisthotic 89 otoliths & 15 fragments Flatfish 4 first vertebra (3.3, 4.2, 4.2, 5.4mm) 4 vertebra B 30 vertebra C (includes at least one turbot) 1 ectopterygoid (burnt) Eel 2 first vertebra 11 vertebra C (1 burnt) 1 vertebra B 1R anguloarticulare 1R cleithrum 1L ceratohyal (1.9mm) Bull-rout 1 first vertebra (4.1mm) 13 vertebra C 1 parasphenoid 1L preopercle 1 supracleithrum Mackerel 1 vertebra B 1 vertebra A Spurdog 2 vertebra C 1 dorsal spine Garfish 2 vertebra C 1 fragment dentary Trout/salmon 1 vertebra B Gurnard 1 first vertebra 6 vertebra C 1 vertebra B 1R opercle 1R posttemporal (grey gurnard) Weever 2 vertebra C Unidentified 29 vertebra too dirty 8 vertebra C 18 vertebra B 125E 132N Culture Layer Trench 1 25June2007 TLS Bag 2 Weights: 2g otoliths, 4g non-vertebra, 2g fragments no ID, 1g vertebra no ID, 31g cod, 1g other vertebra Cod family 4 basioccipital 13 first vertebra 28 second vertebra 17 third vertebra 309 vertebra C (1 burnt) 86 vertebra B 30 vertebra A 6L 1R quadrate 1 parasphenoid 2L dentary 1L 2R hyomandibular 1L cleithrum 2L 2R posttemporal 1L sphenotic 1L pterotic 1L 4R premaxillary (1 frag. 1 burnt) 1L 2R ceratohyal 5L 8R angular 2L 2R maxillary (1 burnt) 1L 3R 1 whole vomer (the whole one is burnt) Flatfish 6 vertebra C 1 urohyal (burnt) Eel 5 vertebra C 1 vertebra B 1L quadrate 1R ceratohyal (2.5mm) Mackerel

2 vertebra C Garfish 2 vertebra C 1 vertebra B Unidentified 3 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra C 3 vertebra B 125E 132N Grey below culture layer Trench 1 25June2007 TLS Weights: 2g fragments no ID, <1g vertebra no ID, 1g non-vertebra, 11g cod, <1g other vertebra Cod family 4 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 7 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 87 vertebra C (1 burnt) 40 vertebra B 12 vertebra A 5 otoliths 1L 1R angular 1L 2 whole vomer 2L posttemporal 1L quadrate Flatfish 2 vertebra C 2 vertebra B Eel 1 vertebra C Mackerel 1 vertebra C 1 vertebra B 1 vertebra A Bull-rout 2 vertebra C Gurnard 1 vertebra C Unidentified 6 vertebra C 126E 132N Culture Layer Trench 1 26June2007 TLS Weights: 1g fragments no ID, 5g non-vertebra, 6g cod, <1g other vertebra Cod family 1 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 18 vertebra C 1 vertebra B 1L dentary 2R supracleithrum 2L maxillary 2L angular (1 >3kg fish) 5 parasphenoid 1R eiphyal 1R ceratohyal 2L quadrate (1 burnt) 1R premaxillary (1 fragment) Mackerel 1 vertebra B (fairly large) Eel 1 vomer 125E 133N Culture Layer Trench 1 25June2007 VLS 1 of 3 Weights: 1g otoliths, 6g non-vertebra, 8g fragments no ID, 12g vertebra no ID, 131g cod, 5g other vertebra Cod family 24 basioccipital 31 first vertebra 44 second vertebra (1 burnt) 45 third vertebra 1289 vertebra C 190 vertebra B 57 vertebra A 2R preopercle 2 parasphenoid (3 fragments) 2L 3R premaxillary (1 burnt) 5L 5R angular 7L 4R quadrate 3L 1R maxillary (1 frag. 4 burnt) 1L vomer 1L dentary 2L cleithrum 2L 1R hyomandibular 2R posttemporal 1R ceratohyal 1L ectopterygoid 1R symplectic 1L exoccipital 1 supraoccipital Flatfish 1 first vertebra (4.0mm) 40 vertebra C 1 vertebra B Eel 43 vertebra C 2 vertebra B 1L ceratohyal (3.2mm) 1 parasphenoid

Bull-rout 17 vertebra C (1 burnt) 1 vertebra B Mackerel 1 vertebra C 2 vertebra B 1 vertebra A Spurdog 1 vertebra A 1 dorsal spine (possibly used) Gurnard 1 vertebra C Unidentified 74 vertebra too dirty 11 vertebra C 19 vertebra B 125E 133N Culture Layer Trench1 26June2007 VLS 2 of 3 Weights: 2g otoliths, 10g non-vertebra, 13g fragments no ID, 8g vertebra no ID, 119g cod, 4g other vertebra Cod family 20 basioccipital 48 first vertebra 71 second vertebra 39 third vertebra 1127 vertebra C 209 vertebra B 56 vertebra A 1R hypohyal 7L 4R premaxillary 4 parasphenoid 15L 17R angular 3L 12R maxillary (1 burnt) 1L 4R hyomandibular 4L 5R quadrate 2L 1R 1 whole vomer 1L 1R dentary 1L 2R supracleithrum 4L 6R posttemporal 2 mesethmoid 1L 1R ceratohyal 1R cleithrum (1 fragment) 1L 1R sphenotic 1R pterotic 1R palatine 1L ectopterygoid Flatfish 25 vertebra C Eel 1 basioccipital 43 vertebra C (2 burnt) 5 vertebra B 1 vertebra A 1L dentary 1R quadrate 1 vomer Bull-rout 1 first vertebra (4.1mm) 8 vertebra C 1L maxillary Mackerel 1 vertebra B 1 vertebra A Garfish 1 vertebra C Weever 1 vertebra C Herring 1 vertebra Cyprinid 1 vertebra C Shad 1 vertebra C Unidentified 62 vertebra too dirty 12 vertebra C 20 vertebra B 125E 133N Culture Layer Trench 1 27June2007 VLS 3 of 3 Weights: 10g otoliths, 14g vertebra no ID, 23g fragments no ID, 21g non-vertebra, 322g cod, 9g eel, 11g other vertebra Cod family 46 basioccipital (1 burnt) 108 first vertebra 148 second vertebra 115 third vertebra 3322 vertebra C (2 burnt) 524 vertebra B 141 vertebra A 145 otoliths and 19 fragments 10L 8R premaxillary (1 fragment) 1L 1R 7 whole vomer 16L 12R maxillary (9 burnt) 5L 5R dentary (3 frag. 2burnt)

15L 20R angular (1 fragment) 10L 12R quadrate (2 burnt) 9 parasphenoid (4 fragments) 1 epibranchial 3L 1R epihyal 2L 3R ceratohyal 5L 3R hyomandibular 4L 2R posttemporal 2L 3R supracleithrum 5L 4R cleithrum (2 fragments) 6L 1R sphenotic 2L 1R symplectic 1L 2R opercle 1L 2R ectopterygoid 2 mesethmoid 1R palatine 1R preopercle 2L pterotic 1L exoccipital Flatfish 84 vertebra C (1 burnt) 14 vertebra B 3 vertebra A Eel 2 basioccipital 216 vertebra C (6 burnt) 28 vertebra B 12 vertebra A 1 vomer 1L anguloarticulare 1R cleithrum 1L 1R epihyale (1 burnt) 2R ceratohyal (2.4, 1.4mm) Garfish 19 vertebra C 2 vertebra B 2 vertebra A Bull-rout 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (3.4mm) 50 vertebra C 1 vertebra B 1R angular 1L opercle Herring 2 vertebra C Trout/salmon 2 vertebra C Mackerel 21 vertebra C 7 vertebra B 3 vertebra A (all but two are small) Weever 1 vertebra C Eelpout 1 vertebra C Spurdog 2 vertebra C 8 vertebra A Gurnard 17 vertebra C Shad 2 vertebra C Unidentified 94 vertebra too dirty 28 vertebra C 48 vertebra B 125E 133N Grey below culture layer Trench 1 28June2007 VLS Weights: 3g non-vertebra, <1g cod Cod family 1 first vertebra 4 parasphenoid 2R premaxillary 1L 1R ceratohyal (1 frag.) 1L 1R angular 1 R cleithrum Spurdog 1 dorsal spine (definitely used) 125E 133N Grey below culture layer Trench 1 28June2007 VLS Weights: 4g otoliths, 6g fragments no ID, 3g vertebra no ID, 3g non-vertebra, 77g cod, 4g other vertebra Cod family 7 basioccipital 28 first vertebra 34 second vertebra 32 third vertebra 765 vertebra C 108 vertebra B 43 vertebra A 41 otoliths & 5 fragments 4L premaxillary (2 fragment) 3L quadrate 1L 1R maxillary 1L ceratohyal 2L 1 whole vomer 3 parasphenoid 5L 4R angular (1 fragment) 1L 2R dentary 1L opercle 1L hyomandibular

3L sphenotic Flatfish 1 first vertebra (3.3mm) 15 vertebra C 6 vertebra B Eel 35 vertebra C (6 burnt) 7 vertebra B Bull-rout 4 vertebra C Gurnard 3 vertebra C Spurdog 1 vertebra A Mackerel 6 vertebra C (1 penultimate) 1 vertebra B (all small) Garfish 2 vertebra C 1 vertebra B Eelpout 1 vertebra C Unidentified 15 vertebra too dirty 7 vertebra C 11 vertebra B Back-dirt cultural layer with shells Trench 1 JN Weights: 27g fragments and shell no ID, 2g vertebra no ID, 1g non-vertebra, 25g cod, <1g other vertebra Cod family 3 basioccipital 7 first vertebra 8 second vertebra 16 third vertebra 164 vertebra C 12 vertebra B 2 otoliths 1 parasphenoid 1L premaxillary 1L epihyal 1L 1R maxillary 1R sphenotic Flatfish 4 vertebra C Eel 1 first vertebra 3 vertebra C Mackerel 1 vertebra C (fairly large) Spurdog 1 vertebra A Bull-rout 1 vertebra C Unidentified 8 vertebra too dirty 136E 131N Culture Layer Trench 2 28June2007 LRA Weight: <1g vertebra no ID, 1g cod Cod family 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 5 vertebra C (2-3 burnt?) 3 vertebra B 1 otolith Unidentified 1 vertebra C 134E 132N Culture Layer Trench 2 22June2007 KCR Weights: 3g fragments no ID, <1g vertebra no ID, <1g non-vertebra, 2g cod, <1g other vertebra Cod family 2 basioccipital (1 burnt) 2 first vertebra 1 second vertebra (burnt) 1 third vertebra (burnt) 26 vertebra C (10 burnt) 4 vertebra B 1 vertebra A 1L 1R dentary 1L1R posttemporal 1 parasphenoid 3L premaxillary (1 burnt) 1R cleithrum

Flatfish 3 vertebra C Herring 2 vertebra C (1 burnt) Bull-rout 2 vertebra C Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra C 135E 132N Culture Layer Trench 2 25June2007 KCR Weights: 1g otoliths, 5g fragments no ID, <1g vertebra no ID, 3g non-vertebra, 15g cod, 1g other vertebra Cod family 4 basioccipital 5 first vertebra 12 second vertebra 9 third vertebra 176 vertebra C 33 vertebra B 9 vertebra A 6 otoliths & 5 fragments 3 parasphenoid (1 fragment) 1L 1R angular 5L 3R posttemporal 2L 1R vomer 1L dentary 1R epihyal 1L ectopterygoid 3L 4R quadrate 2L 2R maxillary 3L 2R premaxillary (1 fragment) 3L 3R supracleithrum 1L palatine 1R symplectic Flatfish 8 vertebra C Eel 1 basioccipital 10 vertebra C 1 vertebra A 3 vomer 1L 1R dentary 1L 1R eiphyale 1R cleithrum Bull-rout 1 basioccipital 7 vertebra C Weever 1 vertebra C Spurdog 3 vertebra A Unidentified 3 vertebra C 1 vertebra B 136E 132N Culture Layer Trench 2 25June2007 LRA Weights: 1g otoliths, 3g fragments no ID, <1g vertebra no ID, 3g non-vertebra, 12g cod, 2g other vertebra Cod family 3 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 9 second vertebra 11 third vertebra (1 burnt) 150 vertebra C 34 vertebra B 9 vertebra A 13 otoliths & 5 fragments 1L epihyal 1L pterotic 1R vomer 1R interhyal 2R premaxillary 3 parasphenoid (1 fragment) 1R symplectic 1L 1R dentary 1L 1R maxillary 1R angular 1L 1R posttemporal 1L 3R supracleithrum (1 frag.) 1L 9R quadrate 1 epibranchial 1L opercle 2L ectopterygoid 1R hyomandibular Flatfish 8 vertebra C Eel 1 basioccipital 18 vertebra C 6 vertebra B 1 vertebra A 1R hyomandibular Trout/salmon 1 vertebra A (probable)

Weever 2 vertebra C Bull-rout 3 vertebra C Spurdog 2 dorsal spines 134E 133N Culture Layer Trench 2 25June2007 KCR Weights: <1g otoliths, 2g bone fragments no ID, <1g vertebra no ID, 3g non-vertebra, 10g cod, 1g other vertebra Cod family 2 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 3 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 99 vertebra C 21 vertebra B 1 vertebra A 7 otoliths & 2 fragments 1 parasphenoid 1L dentary 1L supracleithrum 1L 1R angular 1L palatine 2L 1R premaxillary 2L 2R posttemporal 2L 1R quadrate 1L 2R maxillary (2 burnt) 1L hyomandibular 1L 2R 1 whole vomer (whole is whiting) 1R ceratohyal Flatfish 1 first vertebra (3.9mm) 4 vertebra C Eel 7 vertebra C 2 vertebra B 1L ceratohyal (2.6mm) Spurdog 2 vertebra A Herring 1 vertebra C Bull-rout 2 vertebra C (burnt?) Garfish 1 first vertebra (burnt?) Weever 2 vertebra C Unidentified 3 vertebra C 3 vertebra B 135E 133N Culture Layer Trench 2 26June2007 KCR Weights: 3g otoliths, 12g non-vertebra, 7g fragments no ID, 45g cod, 5g other vertebra Cod family 20 basioccipital 20 first vertebra 21 second vertebra 21 third vertebra 534 vertebra C 114 vertebra B 35 vertebra A 38 otoliths & 5 fragments 5L 3R dentary (1 frag.) 6 parasphenoid (1 frag.) 9L 6R premaxillary (3 frag.) 8L 13R posttemporal 3L 1R hyomandibular 9L 10R quadrate (1 frag.) 1L cleithrum (1fragment) 5L 5R angular (1 frag.) 6L 4R supracleithrum 1R supracleithrum haddock 3L 2R vomer 7L 7R maxillary 1L palatine 4 branchiostegal ray 1L exoccipital 1L interopercle 1L 2R retroarticular 1L preopercle 1 supraoccipital 2L sphenotic 1L pterotic 1 loose tooth Flatfish 1 first vertebra (3.1mm) 39 vertebra C 2 vertebra B 1R quadrate 1 os anale Eel 40 vertebra C (6 burnt?) 7 vertebra B 1R quadrate 1L 2R dentary 2 vomer 1R ceratohyal (1.7mm) 2L cleithrum 1L maxillary (in 2 pieces) Bull-rout

2 first vertebra (2.9, 3.5mm) 14 vertebra C 1 parasphenoid 1L preopercle 1R subopercle 1L posttemporal Weever 1 first vertebra 11 vertebra C 1R quadrate Spurdog 2 vertebra C 2 dorsal spines (both used?) Gurnard 3 vertebra C 1 dorsal spine Herring 1 vertebra C Mackerel 1 vertebra B 1 vertebra A Garfish 2 vertebra C Unidentified 8 vertebra C 8 vertebra B 136E 133N Culture Layer Trench 2 26June2007 LRA Weights: 6g otoliths, 21g non-vertebra, 17g fragments no ID, 2g vertebra no ID, 79g cod, 6g other vertebra Cod family 25 basioccipital 44 first vertebra 49 second vertebra 45 third vertebra 826 vertebra C 160 vertebra B 66 vertebra A 74 otoliths & 9 fragments 5L 11R angular 17L 17R premaxillary (6 frag.) 14L 12R quadrate 9L 13R posttemporal 2L 3R cleithrum (2 frag.) 2 branchiostegal rays 1 mesethmoid 1L 2R opercle 3 epibranchial 1R exoccipital 1L 2R palatine 1R interopercle 2L ectopterygoid 16 parasphenoid (5 frag.) 4L 1R hyomandibular 4L 5R dentary 4L 4R 4 whole vomer 9L 6R supracleithrum 16L 17R maxillary (1 burnt) 1R pteroticum 2L symplectic 3L 1R sphenotic 2L interhyal 1L 2R epihyal 1R ceratohyal Flatfish 4 first vertebra (4.1, 3.4, 5.2, 4.3mm) 48 vertebra C 4 vertebra B 1R quadrate 1L angular Eel 62 vertebra C 14 vertebra B 7 vertebra A 1L dentary 2L 2R ceratohyal (3.4, 2.4, 2.8, 2.0mm) 1 vomer 1L quadrate 4R cleithrum Mackerel 2 vertebra C 1 vertebra B Trout/salmon 1 vertebra C Spurdog 1 vertebra C 2 vertebra B 2 vertebra A Bull-rout 2 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (3.8mm) 20 vertebra C 1L maxillary 1L quadrate Gurnard 2 vertebra C 1R quadrate 1 dorsal plate (grey gurnard) Unidentified 10 vertebra C 7 vertebra B 134-136E 131-132N Layer 15 T6 28June2007 KCR Weight: <1g Cod family

2 vertebra C 1L posttemporal Flatfish 1 fragment os anale North end of Trench 2 2.0x0.3m bottom of trench, culture layer #2 29June2007 KCR Weights: 5g fragments no ID, <1g vertebra no ID, 4g non-vertebra, 14g cod, 1g other vertebra Cod family 2 basioccipital 7 first vertebra 13 second vertebra (1 burnt) 6 third vertebra 88 vertebra C 28 vertebra B 17 vertebra A 5L 4R dentary (3 frag.) 1L 2R ectopterygoid (1 burnt) 1L 1R vomer 1L 1R quadrate 1L 2R posttemporal (1 burnt) 1 epibranchial 1L 1R ceratohyal 1L symplectic 7 parasphenoid (5 frag.) 5L 5R premaxillary (1 fragment, 1 burnt) 1L 1R cleithrum (1 frag.) 3L supracleithrum 1L 4R maxillary 1L 1R angular 1L epihyal 1L interopercle 1L pterotic Flatfish 11 vertebra C Eel 2 vertebra C (1 burnt) 1 vertebra B Bull-rout 1 vertebra C Gurnard 1 non-vertebra element, unnamed, but matched with part from comparative collection 1 dorsal spine Unidentified 2 vertebra C 3 vertebra B 122E 136N Brown Shell Trench 3 17July2007 LRA selectively picked Weights: 8g otoliths, <1g fragments no ID, 3g non-vertebra, 2g cod, <1g other vertebra Cod family 1 basioccipital 3 first vertebra 1 third vertebra 8 vertebra C 3 vertebra B 1 vertebra A 74 otoliths & 6 fragments 1R pharyngeal plate 4 parasphenoid 1L 1R premaxillary 2R maxillary 2R angular Eel 1 vertebra C 1 vertebra B Bull-rout 2 vertebra C 123E 136N Shell Trench 3 12July2007 KJG Weight: 2g Cod family 1 fourth vertebra (16.0mm) 124E 135N Culture Layer Trench 3 11July2007 KCR (270gram sample from 144liters) Weights: 2g otoliths, 41g non-vertebra, 25g fragments no ID, 12g vertebra no ID, 147g cod, 2g flatfish, 7g eel, 3g other vertebra Cod family 40 basioccipital 57 first vertebra 62 second vertebra 65 third vertebra 48 fourth vertebra 43 fifth vertebra 6 sixth vertebra 1697 vertebra C (2 burnt, at least 1 haddock) 229 vertebra B 91 vertebra A 20 otolith and 7 fragments 7L 12R dentary (4 fragments, 4 and 2 fragments burnt) 6L 7R 2 whole vomer (4 burnt) 16L 24R premaxillary (1 fragment, 7 and 1 fragment burnt) 27L 47R angular (2 burnt) 34 parasphenoid (7 fragments, 5 burnt) 2 interhyal

13L 10R cleithrum (4 fragments, 3 burnt) 7L 2R ceratohyal (1 burnt) 2L 3R epihyal (2 burnt) 19L 13R supracleithrum (5 burnt) 5L 1R palatine 27L 18R quadrate (2 fragments, 1 burnt) 23L 27R maxillary (8 burnt) 23L 22R posttemporal (2 burnt) 13L 12R hyomandibular (3 frag.) 2 pharyngeal plates 5 epibranchial (1 burnt) 1 pharyngobranchial 1L 1R opercle 1L interopercle 1L 1R preopercle 6L 4R pterotic 1L 1R exoccipital 2L 1R sphenotic 4 branchiostegal rays 8 symplectic 2 retroarticular 3L 5R ectopterygoid (3 burnt) Flatfish 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (4.9 & 3.3mm) 41 vertebra C 1 vertebra B 1 os anale Eel 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 230 vertebra C 36 vertebra B 12 vertebra A 4 vomer (1 burnt) 3L 3R ceratohyal (3 burnt) (2.5, 2.2, 2.1, 3.0, 1.9 and 2.6mm) 2L 1R anguloarticulare (1 burnt) 2R opercle 1R epihyale 2L hyomandibular 1L dentale 3L 2R cleithrum 1R maxillary Mackerel 23 vertebra C 5 vertebra B 2 vertebra A Bull-rout 3 first vertebra (3.9, 4.0,1 no measure) 34 vertebra C 6 supracleithrum 3L 2R opercle 3L 3R preopercle (3 burnt) 2 parasphenoid 1 vomer Gurnard 4 vertebra C 1R maxillary Herring 11 vertebra C Trout/salmon 1 vertebra C Spurdog 1 vertebra C 1 vertebra B 3 vertebra A Eelpout 1 vertebra C Shad 1 vertebra C Dragonet 1 vertebra C Unidentified 103 vertebra too dirty 50 vertebra C 17 vertebra B 124E 135N Culture Layer Trench 3 11July2007 KCR remaining 4/5ths of sample Weights: 3g otoliths, 142g non-vertebra, 95g fragments no ID, 577g cod, 9g flatfish, 41g eel, 11g other vertebra, 50g vertebra no ID Cod family 150 basioccipital 212 first vertebra 206 second vertebra 231 third vertebra 172 fourth vertebra (at least 1 haddock) 6893 vertebra C (includes 5

th and 6

th vertebra) 1175 vertebra B

397 vertebra A (2 calcined) 52 otoliths and 26 fragments 1L 4R 2 whole vomer whiting 14L 18R 8 whole vomer cod 7L 3R 5 whole vomer gadid 19L 13R dentary cod 1L 3R dentary whiting 20L 20R dentary gadid (3 frag.) 51L 37R premaxillary gadid 126L 131R angular (1 frag.) 117L 104R quadrate 45L 44R hyomandibular (6 frag.) 74L 75R maxillary (1 frag.) 54L 55R supracleithrum 65L 71R posttemporal

117 parasphenoid (5 frag.) 33 epibranchial 4L 4R pharyngeal plate 3 pharyngobranchial 33L 29R cleithrum (47 frag.) 13L 16R ceratohyal (7 frag.) 6L 7R epihyal 16L 19R sphenotic 30 symplectic 1 postcleithrum 8L 6R preopercle (8 frag.) 11L 16R ectopterygoid 8L 14R palatine 14 branchiostegal rays 10 mesethmoid 4 retroarticular 1L supracleithrum haddock 6L 6R opercle 3L interopercle 5L 5R exoccipital 11 pterotic 37L 34R premaxillary cod (1 calcined) 1L cleithrum haddock (large) Flatfish 1 basioccipital 5 first vertebra (3.2, 3.8, 4.7 5.3 and 3.6mm) 206 vertebra C (1 burned) 11 vertebra B 2 vertebra A 1 vomer 1 fragment dentary 2L 4R quadrate 2R hyomandibular 1L 1R maxillary 1L 1R supracleithrum 1R posttemporal 3 os anale (2 fragments) 4 ectopterygoid 1R palatine Eel 9 basioccipital 4 first vertebra 1268 vertebra C 155 vertebra B 88 vertebra A 15 vomer 6L 5R hyomandibular 6L 1R quadrate 5L 8R anguloarticulare 4L 3R epihyale 3L 5R dentale 2L 1R frontale 1L 3R opercle 20L 13R ceratohyal (2.0, 2.0, 1.8, 1.6, 1.3, 1.4, 1.4, 1.7, 1.6, 1.4, 1.5, 2.9, 2.9, 3.2, 3.0, 2.0, 2.3, 2.5, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.2, 1.9, 2.1 and 9 no measure) 6L 8R cleithrum 2 parasphenoid 6L maxillary Mackerel 99 vertebra C (all but 2 very small) 51 vertebra B 18 vertebra A Garfish 4 vertebra C Spurdog 4 vertebra C 4 vertebra B 16 vertebra A 3 dorsal spines Herring 2 first vertebra 72 vertebra C 9 vertebra B 3 vertebra A 2 prooticum Eelpout 2 vertebra C Trout/salmon 2 vertebra C 3 vertebra A Bull-rout 7 basioccipital 8 first vert (3.4, 2.3, 3.1, 2.5, 2.5, 2.4, 2.4mm and 1 no measure) 147 vertebra C 1 vertebra B 2R dentary 2L premaxillary 1R angular 4L 4R quadrate 3L 4R maxillary 1 parasphenoid 5L 5R opercle 2L 2R subopercle 1L 3R preopercle 1L 2R supracleithrum 1R circumorbital element (?) Gurnard 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (3.1mm) 39 vertebra C 2 vertebra B 1L quadrate 1R maxillary 3 parasphenoid 1 pharyngeal plate 1R cleithrum 3 dorsal spines 3 dorsal plates (grey gurnard) Unidentified 435 vertebra too dirty 152 vertebra no ID C 149 vertebra no ID B 124E 135N Shell Trench 3 17July2007 KCR 24liters Weights: 11g otoliths, 51g non-vertebra, 21g fragments no ID, 10g no ID vertebra, 2g flatfish, 17g eel, 187g cod, 6g other vertebra

Cod family 45 basioccipital 90 first vertebra 76 second vertebra 77 third vertebra 77 fourth vertebra 60 fifth vertebra 30 sixth vertebra 2727 other vertebra C (2 burnt) 244 vertebra B (3 burnt) 159 vertebra A 23L 9R dentary (8 burnt, 4 fragments) 11L 5R 4 whole vomer (2 burnt) 21L 26R premaxillary (5 fragments, 21 and 2 fragments burnt) 45 parasphenoid (5 frag., 4 burnt) 35L 37R angular (5 fragments, 3 burnt) 32L 41R maxillary (24 burnt) 38L 33R quadrate (3 burnt) 15L 24R supracleithrum (9 burnt) 10L 16R cleithrum (10 fragments, 8 and 2 fragments burnt) 2L 6R ceratohyal (2 burnt) 3L 1R epihyal 3L 5R palatine (3 burnt) 25L 33R posttemporal (29 burnt) 21L 18R hyomandibular (2 fragments, 5 burnt) 1 interhyal (burnt) 4 epibranchial 1 pharyngobranchial 5L 6R pterotic (2 burnt) 1L 4R sphenotic (2 burnt) 2L 2R opercle (2 burnt) 6 mesethmoid (1 burnt) 5 branchiostegal rays (3 burnt) 11 symplectic (1 burnt) 5 L 2R ectopterygoid (4 burnt) 1L 1R preopercle (1 burnt) 1L exoccipital (burnt) 158 otoliths and 21 fragments 1L 5R opisthotic 1R cleithrum (haddock, large) Flatfish 2 first vertebra (4.3 and 3.5mm) 59 vertebra C (2 burnt) 1 vertebra B 2 vertebra A 1R supracleithrum 1L 1R posttemporal 1 urohyal 1L quadrate Eel 6 basioccipital 4 first vertebra 615 vertebra C (10 burnt, 1 calcined) 58 vertebra B (2 burnt) 30 vertebra A (1 calcined) 1L hyomandibular 1 parasphenoid 1 R quadrate (burnt) 1L 3R dentale (2 fragment, 2 burnt) 1L 1R anguloarticulare (1 burnt) 2L 1R epihyale (1 burnt) 1L opercle 6 vomer (3 burnt) 1L 4R cleithrum (3 burnt) 7L 8R ceratohyal (10 burnt) (2.7, 2.8, 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 1.3, 2.7, 1.4, 1.8, 2.3, 2.0, 1.4, 1.4 and 2 no measure) 2L 3R maxillary (3 fragments) Mackerel 114 vertebra C (1 penultimate) 35 vertebra B 6 vertebra A Bull-rout 1 basioccipital 3 first vertebra (2.7, 3.1, 3.1) 93 vertebra C 1L premaxillary 3 parasphenoid 2L angular 1L quadrate 1L opercle 5 supracleithrum 2L 2R preopercle (1 frag. 3 burnt) 1 R subopercle Gurnard 1 first vertebra (4.0mm) 9 vertebra C 2 dorsal plates (grey gurnard) Weever 7 vertebra C Herring 3 first vertebra 35 vertebra C 6 vertebra B Garfish 2 vertebra C Trout/salmon 1 vertebra C 1 vertebra A Spurdog 5 vertebra C 20 vertebra A Eelpout 3 vertebra C Unidentified 76 vertebra too dirty 59 vertebra C 31 vertebra B 124E 135N Shell Trench 3 19July2007 KCR selectively picked

Weight: 3g non-vertebra Cod family 2 parasphenoid 1L angular (much >3kg fish) 124E 135N Shell Trench 3 19July2007 KCR selectively picked Weights: <1g otoliths, <1g fragments no ID, 3g non-vertebra, 19g cod Cod family 2 third vertebra (large) 17 vertebra C (large) 3 otoliths (fairly small) 1L 2R premaxillary (large) 2 parasphenoid (large) 124E 135N Brown Surface Trench3 19July2007 KCR 96liters Weights: 10g otoliths, 72g non-vertebra, 43g fragments no ID, 5g flatfish, 19g eel, 285g cod, 13g no ID vertebra, 5g other vertebra Cod family 33 basioccipital 53 first vertebra 74 second vertebra (3 burnt) 78 third vertebra (2 burnt) 84 fourth vertebra (3 burnt) 55 fifth vertebra (3 burnt) 14 sixth vertebra 2000 other vertebra C (36 burnt, includes haddock) 201 other vertebra B (3 calcined, 2 burnt) 246 other vertebra A (5 burnt) 24L 18R dentary (2 fragments, 4 burnt) 39 parasphenoid (10 fragments) 6L 8R 2 whole vomer (3 burnt) 23L 25R premaxillary (9 fragments and 23 burnt) 20L 13R supracleithrum (1 fragment, 15 burnt) 4L 4R ceratohyal (2 fragments) 1L 3R epihyal (2 burnt) 1L 2R hypohyal (3 burnt) 17L 33R maxillary (21 burnt) 25L 37R angular (2 frag. 23 burnt) 32L 25R quadrate (20 burnt) 22L 22R posttemporal (23 burnt) 12L 8R hyomandibular (6 burnt) 11L 13R cleithrum (16 burnt) 5 epibranchial (3 burnt) 1L pharyngeal plate 2R opercle (burnt) 5L 2R palatine (6 burnt) 1L 2R interopercle (1 burnt) 3L 2R sphenotic (3 burnt) 6 branchiostegal rays (all burnt) 3 mesethmoid (2 burnt) 12 symplectic (3 burnt) 6L 4R pterotic 1L 3R exoccipital 7L 11R ectopterygoid (15 burnt) 4 interhyal (4 burnt) 1 postcleithrum 1L 1R opisthotic 1 basibranchial 1R cleithrum (haddock, medium) 84 otoliths, 23 fragments Flatfish 1 basioccipital 6 first vertebra (4.3, 3.7, 4.9, 3.8, 4.3 and 4.5mm) 109 vertebra C (5 burnt, 2 ultimate) 1 vertebra A 1L angular 1L 1R hyomandibular 1 os anale (burnt) 1 ectopterygoid (burnt) Eel 8 basioccipital 5 first vertebra 580 vertebra C (23 burnt) 16 vertebra B 8 vertebra A 9 vomer (6 burnt) 6L 7R anguloarticulare (8 burnt) 4L 8R dentale (10 burnt) 1L 1R hyomandibular (2 burnt) 3L 2R quadrate (burnt) 1L frontale (burnt) 1L 1R opercle (2 burnt) 2L 7R epihyale (6 burnt) 5L 2R cleithrum (4 burnt) 3L 5R maxillary 12L 12R ceratohyal (16 burnt) (3.1, 2.9, 2.0, 2.5, 2.7, 1.9, 1.6, 2.6, 2.5, 2.2, 2.8, 1.9, 1.9, 1.9, 1.6, 2.1, 2.6, 1.9, 1.9, 2.1, 2.1, 2.1, and 2.3mm) Mackerel 52 vertebra C 10 vertebra B 12 vertebra A Garfish 2 vertebra C Bull-rout 2 first vertebra (3.6, 3.9mm) 30 vertebra C 1L dentary 1 supracleithrum 1L 1 R hyomandibular 2R opercle (1 burnt) 1R posttemporal Spurdog 3 vertebra A Trout/salmon

5 vertebra C Herring 1 first vertebra 6 vertebra C Weever 1 basioccipital 4 vertebra C Gurnard 1 first vertebra (3.6mm) 13 vertebra C 1 ventral spine 1 dorsal spine 1 dorsal plate Eelpout 10 vertebra C Shad 9 vertebra C Cyprinid 7 vertebra C Unidentified vertebra 57 too dirty 69 vertebra C (1 burnt) 26 vertebra B 125E 135N Shell Trench 3 03July2007 TDP selectively picked Weights: 5g otoliths, 5g fragments no ID, 4g non-vertebra, 55g cod, <1g other vertebra Cod family 2 basioccipital 6 first vertebra 3 second vertebra 7 third vertebra 159 vertebra C 13 vertebra B 3 vertebra A 38 otoliths & 1 fragment 2 branchiostegal rays (2 burnt) 1R interhyal 1R angular 4 parasphenoid 1R sphenotic 1R opercle 1L 1R dentary 1L 1R ceratohyal 1R cleithrum 1L 1R maxillary 1L 2R posttemporal Flatfish 2 vertebra C Eel 4 vertebra C 2 vertebra A (1 burnt) 1L dentary 1L epihyal Bull-rout 1R supracleithrum Mackerel 1 vertebra C Unidentified 2 vertebra C 130E 135N Culture Layer Trench 3 02July2007 LRA (all fish bones picked) Weight: <1g fragments no ID, <1g vertebra no ID, 1g non-vertebra, 2g cod Cod family 2 third vertebra 13 vertebra C 2 vertebra B 1 vertebra A 2 fragments otoliths 1L 1R premaxillary 1 parasphenoid 1R angular Eel 1L anguloarticulare Bull-rout 1L maxillary Unidentified 1 vertebra C 134E 135N Culture Layer Trench 3 03July2007 KCR Weights: 3g otoliths, 9g non-vertebra, 10g fragments no ID, 1g vertebra no ID, 56g cod, 3g other vertebra Cod family

10 basioccipital 20 first vertebra 32 second vertebra 39 third vertebra 689 vertebra C (5 burnt) 100 vertebra B 42 vertebra A 37 otoliths & 4 fragments 1 supraoccipital 1L 1R ectopterygoid 1R pterotic 1R opercle 6 parasphenoid (3 frag.) 4L 5R dentary (2 burnt) 5L 5R maxillary (4 burnt) 7L 9R premaxillary (2 frag., 2burnt, 2 calcined) 3L 7R posttemporal (2 burnt) 4L 6R quadrate (3 burnt) 3L 2R vomer (3 burnt) 3L 3R supracleithrum (3 burnt) 3L 1R cleithrum (1 frag.) 3L 2R angular 1L interhyal (burnt) 1L hypohyal 1R hyomandibular 1 branchiostegal ray 2R sphenotic 2 epibranchial 1R pharyngeal plate 1L 1R symplectic (1 burnt) 2R palatine (2 burnt) 1L epihyal Flatfish 24 vertebra C (5 burnt) 2 vertebra B Eel 1 first vertebra 20 vertebra C (4 burnt) 4 vertebra B 2 vertebra A 1R dentary (in 2 pieces) 1 vomer 1L ceratohyal (2.5mm) 1R angular Spurdog 6 vertebra C 6 vertebra A Mackerel 2 vertebra C 2 vertebra B 1 vertebra A Bull-rout 6 vertebra C 1R opercle 1L quadrate 1R angular (burnt) Herring 2 vertebra C 2 prooticum Gurnard 1 vertebra C Garfish 3 fragments dentary Unidentified 2 vertebra too dirty 10 vertebra C 12 vertebra B Årby 365 Asnæs Havnemark Geologic Screen Samples 121E 134N Feature A7 Upper Layer Trench 3 18July2007 VLS 2 liters 2mm Cod family 1 first vertebra (4.1mm) 3 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 2 fifth vertebra 70 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 5 other vertebra Eel 2 basioccipital 19 other vertebra Herring 13 vertebra Bull-rout 5 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 18 vertebra 121E 134N Feature A7 Lower Layer Trench 3 19July2007 VLS 2 liters 2mm Cod family 2 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 1 sixth vertebra 32 other vertebra

Eel 1 basioccipital 17 other vertebra Herring 3 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 1 other vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 8 vertebra 125E 135N Shell Trench 3 04July2007 LRA 2 liters 2mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 2 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 37 other vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Eel 34 vertebra Herring 4 vertebra Bull-rout 6 vertebra Mackerel 5 vertebra Unidentified 18 vertebra 125E 133N Culture Layer Trench 1 25June2007 VLS 2 liters 2mm Cod family 3 first vertebra (3.8, 2.8, 2.3mm) 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 2 fourth vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 40 other vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra Eel 20 vertebra Herring 1 first vertebra 3 vertebra Bull-rout 6 vertebra Mackerel 5 vertebra Unidentified 24 vertebra 124E 135N Brown Surface Trench 3 18July2007 KCR 2 liters 2mm Cod family 1 first vertebra (3.1mm) 1 fourth vertebra 27 other vertebra 1R otoliths Flatfish 1 vertebra Eel 2 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 58 other vertebra Herring 3 vertebra Mackerel

9 vertebra Bull-rout 3 vertebra Unidentified 18 vertebra 124E 135N Shell Trench 3 17July2007 KCR 2 liters 2mm Cod family 3 basioccipital 3 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 4 fourth vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 113 other vertebra Flatfish 6 vertebra Eel 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 75 other vertebra Herring 1 first vertebra 15 other vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 11 other vertebra Mackerel 15 vertebra Trout/salmon 1 vertebra Unidentified 32 vertebra 124E 135N Culture Layer Trench 3 06July2007 KCR 2 liters 2mm Cod family 2 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (3.7, 2.3mm) 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 3 fourth vertebra 2 fifth vertebra 71 other vertebra Flatfish 4 vertebra Eel 1 basioccipital 39 other vertebra Herring 7 vertebra Bull-rout 8 vertebra Mackerel 9 vertebra Unidentified 24 vertebra 136E 133N Culture Layer Trench 2 25June2007 LRA 2 liters 2mm Cod family 1 second vertebra 2 fourth vertebra 19 other vertebra Eel 8 vertebra Herring 11 vertebra Bull-rout 3 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra 125E 132N Culture Layer Trench 1 22June2007 TLS 2 liters 2mm

Cod family 2 first vertebra (4.3, 3.5mm) 2 third vertebra 2 fourth vertebra 1 sixth vertebra 35 other vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra Eel 1 first vertebra 9 other vertebra Herring 4 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 11 vertebra 135E 133N Culture Layer Trench 2 29June2007 KCR 5 liters 2mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 33 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 2 other vertebra Eel 20 vertebra Herring 1 first vertebra 15 other vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Bull-rout 6 vertebra Unidentified 7 vertebra 134E 135N Culture Layer Trench 3 02July2007 KCR 2 liters 2mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (3.6mm) 3 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 13 other vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra Eel 1 vertebra Herring 1 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra 135E 132N Culture Layer Trench 2 25Jun2007 KCR 2 liters 2mm Cod family 8 vertebra Eel 5 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Unidentified

2 vertebra 136E 132N Culture Layer Trench 2 24June2007 LRA 2 liters 2mm Cod family 1 fourth vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 11 other vertebra Eel 7 vertebra Herring 2 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 134E 133N Culture Layer Trench 2 25June2007 KCR 2 liters 2mm Cod family 1 second vertebra 6 other vertebra Eel 4 vertebra Herring 5 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 124E 135N Shell Trench 3 17July2007 KCR 2 liters 4mm Cod family 6 basioccipital 4 first vertebra (5.7, 4.6, 4.4, 4.6mm) 6 second vertebra 6 third vertebra 3 fourth vertebra 4 fifth vertebra 3 sixth vertebra 180 other vertebra 3L 3R otoliths (1 fragment) 4L premaxillary 1 parasphenoid 1L supracleithrum 1L 2R epihyal 3L 2R posttemporal 1L palatine 5L 5R quadrate 4L 2R angular 3L 3R vomer 1R cleithrum Flatfish 6 vertebra Eel 25 vertebra Bull-rout 2 vertebra Gurnard 1 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra too dirty 4 other vertebra 46 vertebra fragments 72 other fish fragments 11 fragments mammal/bird 125E 132N Culture Layer Trench 1 22June2007 TLS 2 liters 4mm Cod family 1 first vertebra (3.8mm) 5 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 2 fourth vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 35 other vertebra 1L 2R angular 1L maxillary 2L quadrate 1L premaxillary Eel 2 vertebra Unidentified

16 vertebra fragments 3 other fish fragments 17 fragments mammal 124E 135N Culture Layer Trench 3 06July2007 KCR 2 liters 4mm Cod family 4 basioccipital 6 first vertebra (5.2, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 4.8, 7.4mm) 3 second vertebra 5 third vertebra 4 fourth vertebra 5 fifth vertebra 4 sixth vertebra 74 other vertebra 1L 1R posttemporal 2L 1R premaxillary 1L dentary 1L supracleithrum 1R maxillary 2R quadrate 2R hyomandibular 2L 3R angular Flatfish 4 vertebra Eel 17 vertebra Bull-rout 2 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra (very small) Unidentified 4 vertebra too dirty 1 small vertebra 33 vertebra fragments 18 other fish fragments 3 fragments mammal 121E 134N Feature A7 Upper Layer Trench 3 18July2007 VLS 2 liters 4mm Cod family 2 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (4.3mm) 6 second vertebra 7 third vertebra 4 fourth vertebra 2 fifth vertebra 1 sixth vertebra 53 other vertebra 2L vomer 1R dentary 1 parasphenoid 2L premaxillary 1L posttemporal 2L quadrate 2L 3R angular 1L hyomandibular Eel 1 vertebra 1 vomer Bull-rout 1 vertebra 1L posttemporal Unidentified 2 vertebra 23 vertebra fragments 17 other fish fragments 27 fragments mammal 136E 132N Culture Layer Trench 2 24June2007 LRA 2 liters 4mm Cod family 2 first vertebra (7.3, 5.6mm) 1 fourth vertebra 4 other vertebra 1R otolith 1L quadrate 1R posttemporal Flatfish 1 vertebra Eel 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 3 vertebra fragments 3 other fragments 1 third phalanx (small roe deer?) 135E 132N Culture Layer Trench 2 25June2007 KCR 2 liters 4mm Cod family 5 vertebra 1L maxillary Eel 1 vomer Unidentified

3 fragments fish bone 1 fragment mammal 124E 135N Brown Surface Trench 3 18July2007 KCR 2 liters 4mm Cod family 5 basioccipital 3 first vertebra (7.1, 5.4, 5.1mm) 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 3 fourth vertebra 3 fifth vertebra 72 other vertebra 2L & 1 fragment otoliths 1L 1 whole vomer 1R dentary 1 parasphenoid 3L 3R premaxillary 2L angular 1R supracleithrum 1L posttemporal 2L 1R maxillary 2L quadrate Flatfish 3 vertebra Eel 36 vertebra 1R 1(? - dirty) ceratohyal (2.5mm) Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 1 other vertebra 1R preopercle Garfish 1 vertebra Mackerel 3 vertebra Unidentified 11 vertebra too dirty 4 other vertebra 1 quadrate 34 vertebra fragments 102 other fish fragments 5 fragments mammal 134E 135N Culture Layer Trench 3 02July2007 KCR 2 liters 4mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 fourth vertebra 17 other vertebra 1 otolith fragment 1L angular 1L premaxillary 1R posttemporal Eel 1 vertebra Unidentified 7 vertebra fragments 2 other fish fragments 134E 133N Culture Layer Trench 2 25June2007 KCR 2 liters 4mm Cod family 1 fifth vertebra 6 other vertebra 1L otolith (eroded) 1L maxillary Bull-rout 1R angular Unidentified 3 other fish fragments 1 fragment mammal 136E 133N Culture Layer Trench 2 25June2007 LRA 2 liters 4mm Cod family 2 first vertebra (5.6mm, no measure) 1 second vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 19 other vertebra 1 vomer 1L supracleithrum 1L angular Eel 1 vertebra Bull-rout 3 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra fragments 9 other fish fragments 1 fragment mammal 1 fish scale

125E 135N Shell Trench 3 04July2007 LRA 2 liters 4mm Cod family 2 basioccipital 3 first vertebra (12.4, 6.2, 5.1) 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 6 fourth vertebra 2 fifth vertebra 2 sixth vertebra 72 other vertebra 2L 1R otoliths 3L 1R maxillary 2L premaxillary 1R 1 whole vomer 1L dentary 1 parasphenoid 1R supracleithrum 1L 1R quadrate 1L 1R angular 1R cleithrum 3L hyomandibular 1R palatine 1L opercle Flatfish 3 vertebra Eel 5 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Mackerel 2 vertebra Cyprinid 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 19 vertebra fragments 29 other fish fragments 135E 133N Culture Layer Trench 2 29June2007 KCR 5 liters 4mm Cod family 3 basioccipital 2 third vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 42 other vertebra 1L premaxillary 2L dentary 1L 2R vomer 1 parasphenoid 1L 2R posttemporal 1L 2R quadrate 2R maxillary 2L angular 2L 1R supracleithrum Flatfish 2 vertebra 1 os anale Eel 2 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra fragments 19 other fish fragments 1 fragment charred nutshell 121E 134N Feature A7 Lower Layer Trench 3 19July2007 VLS 2 liters 4mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (4.2mm) 1 third vertebra 3 fourth vertebra 36 other vertebra 1L 1R premaxillary 1L 2R posttemporal 1 parasphenoid 2R angular Flatfish 1 vertebra Eel 2 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra 15 vertebra fragments 12 other fish fragments 11 fragments mammal 125E 133N Culture Layer Trench 1 25June2007 VLS 2 liters 4mm Cod family 2 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (5.6, 4.4mm) 3 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 4 fourth vertebra 2 fifth vertebra 75 other vertebra 1L 1R & 1 fragment otoliths 1L 3R premaxillary

1 parasphenoid 1 vomer 1R hyomandibular 2R quadrate 2R angular 5L 1R maxillary 1R posttemporal Flatfish 2 vertebra Eel 4 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 2 other vertebra 1R maxillary Unidentified 3 vertebra too dirty 1 other vertebra 23 vertebra fragments 23 other fish fragments 12 fragments mammal/bird

Bøgebjerg Notes Final 57E 291N Layer 1 Trench 2 23July2003 AR Cod family 1 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 2 other vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 2 vertebra fragments 1 other fragment 57E 292N Stratum 1 Kulturlag Trench2 28July2003 Cod family 1 second vertebra 6 other vertebra 2L premaxillary 58E 289N Stratum 1 Cod family 1 fragment vertebra (cf) 1 parasphenoid 58E 296N Layer 5 Trench 2 08August2003 NN Cod family 3 first vertebra (4.9, 8.5, 5.0mm) 1 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 9 other vertebra 1R maxillary Flatfish 5 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra 9 vertebra fragments (1 burnt) 58E 296N Layer 7 Shell Trench 2 19August2003 NN Cod family 1 first vertebra (6.7mm) 2 other vertebra 1L angular Unidentified 1 vertebra 58E 297N Layer 7 Shell Trench 2 18August2003 LRA Cod family 1 basioccipital 9 first vertebra (6.5, 6.3, 7.5, 5.5, 5.3, 4.6, 4.8, 6.0, 5.3mm) 1 second vertebra 10 third vertebra (1 burnt) 264 other vertebra (3 burnt) 2R premaxillary 1R dentary 1L maxillary 1L quadrate Flatfish 1 basioccipital 5 first vertebra (5.9, 5.5, 4.3mm, 2 no measure) 204 other vertebra (2 burnt) 1L maxillary 1R hyomandibular Eel 6 vertebra Garfish 21 vertebra (2 burnt) Mackerel 3 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 13 other vertebra Family Sparidae 1 vertebra

Unidentified 11 vertebra 58E 298N Stratum 5 Trench 2 7August2003 LRA Cod family 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (4.7, 5.4mm, 1 burnt) 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 75 other vertebra (6 burnt) 1 parasphenoid Flatfish 62 vertebra (4 burnt) 1R maxillary Eel 3 vertebra Mackerel 2 vertebra Spurdog 2 vertebra Garfish 3 vertebra Bull-rout 6 vertebra Unidentified 10 vertebra 58E 298N Stratum 7 Shell Trench 2 19August2003 LRA Cod family 6 basioccipital 5 first vertebra (8.1, 5.0, 5.4, 4.5mm, 1 no measure) 9 second vertebra (1 burnt) 7 third vertebra 265 other vertebra (1 calcined) 1L maxillary 1L 1R hyomandibular 1L premaxillary 1R angular 1 symplectic 1L palatine Flatfish 5 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (4.2, 4.0mm) 285 other vertebra 1R hyomandibular 1R maxillary Eel 3 vertebra Garfish 40 vertebra Herring 2 vertebra (1 calcined) Mackerel 11 vertebra Bull-rout 4 first vertebra 9 vertebra Weever 1 vertebra Spurdog 4 vertebra Unidentified 29 vertebra 58E 299N Layer 7 Shell Trench 2 19August2003 Cod family 1 basioccipital 4 first vertebra (8.1, 7.9, 4.8mm, 1 no measure) 4 second vertebra 4 third vertebra 161 other vertebra 1L premaxillary Flatfish 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (4.7, 4.4mm) 169 other vertebra (2 burnt)

1 os anale (in two pieces) 1R posttemporal 1R angular 1 investing bone (flounder) Eel 3 vertebra Spurdog 2 vertebra Mackerel 3 vertebra Garfish 13 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 10 other vertebra Weever 2 vertebra Unidentified 6 vertebra 58E 300N Stratum 5 Trench 2 14August2003 LRA Cod family 3 basioccipital 4 first vertebra (4.8, 4.7, 5.7, 5.2mm) 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 47 other vertebra (8 burnt) 2L premaxillary 1R angular 1L sphenotic 1L pterotic Flatfish 1 first vertebra (no measure) 46 other vertebra (2 burnt) Eel 3 vertebra (1 burnt) Garfish 4 vertebra (2 burnt) Bull-rout 3 vertebra Weever 1 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 58E 300N Shell lag Trench 2 18August2003 Cod family 3 first vertebra (4.0, 5.8, 4.9mm) 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 51 other vertebra Flatfish 1 basioccipital 31 vertebra 1 os anale 1L maxillary 1R pterotic (flounder) Eel 1 vertebra Garfish 10 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Spurdog 3 vertebra (one of these is in two pieces) Weever 1 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 43 vertebra fragments 9 other fragments

58E 300N Lag under skallag Trench 2 20August2003 Cod family 1 third vertebra 21 other vertebra Flatfish 8 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Spurdog 2 vertebra Unidentified 5 vertebra fragments 58E 301N Layer 7 Shell Trench 2 15August2003 LRA Cod family 2 basioccipital 1 third vertebra 38 other vertebra 1R supracleithrum Flatfish 15 vertebra Garfish 7 vertebra Spurdog 1 vertebra 1 half vertebra Unidentified 4 vertebra 59E 289N Stratum 1 Trench 3 24July2003 ECS Cod family 1 first vertebra (5.1mm) 3 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 5 other vertebra 1L premaxillary Flatfish 2 vertebra Weever 2 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra fragments 59E 289N Layer 1 12August2003 Cod family 1 basioccipital 3 first vertebra (7.0, 4.4, 5.6mm) 11 second vertebra 9 third vertebra 19 other vertebra 1R vomer Flatfish 1 first vertebra (5.6mm) 9 other vertebra (2 burnt) Garfish 1 vertebra Bull-rout 2 vertebra Weever 1 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 10 vertebra fragments 4 other fragments 59E 289N Layer 3 Trench 3 13August2003 Cod family 6 first vertebra (6.7, 5.7, 7.5mm, 3 no measure) 28 second vertebra 32 third vertebra 71 other vertebra (3 burnt) 1L 2R dentary 6L 4R premaxillary (2 fragments) 1L 2R 1 whole vomer 1R supracleithrum

1L 2R posttemporal 1L 4R maxillary (1 burnt) 1 parasphenoid 1 mesethmoid Flatfish 4 first vertebra (5.6, 6,2mm, 2 no measure) 23 other vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra 1 dentary fragment Bull-rout 4 vertebra Weever 4 vertebra Unidentified 12 vertebra (1 calcined, 1 burnt) 60E 289N Layer 1 Trench 3 06August2003 Cod family 4 second vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 2 vertebra fragments 60E 289N Stratum 3 Trench 3 08August2003 ECS Cod family 4 first vertebra (8.7, 5.7mm, 2 no measure) 16 second vertebra (1 burnt) 20 third vertebra 57 other vertebra (1 burnt) 12L 11R premaxillary (1 burnt) 1L 4R dentary (1 burnt) 1L vomer 4 parasphenoid 1L 3R maxillary 2L 3R posttemporal (1 burnt) 2L 1R supracleithrum 1R quadrate 1 branchiostegal ray Flatfish 19 vertebra (1 burnt) 1 os anale Eel 1 vertebra Bull-rout 3 vertebra 1L dentary Unidentified 8 vertebra 61E 289N Stratum 2 contact with glacial till 8 Trench 3 29July2003 ECS Cod family 1 second vertebra 69E 282N Kulturlag Cod family 1 second vertebra 69E 282N Lagdelt sand under kulturlag Cod family 1 fourth vertebra 74E 288N Gyttje under skallag Trench 3 2003 Spurdog 1 half vertebra 74E 288N Gyttje under skallag Trench 3 2003 Garfish 6 dentary fragments

74E 288N Gyttje under skallag Trench 3 2003 Garfish 1 dentary fragment Burned nutshell 58E 298N Stratum 5 1 fragment hazelnut 58E 299N Layer 7 Shell 8 fragments hazelnut 60E 289N Stratum 3 2 fragments 58E 300N Stratum 5 7 fragments hazelnut 57E 291N Layer 1 1 fragment hazelnut 59E 289N Stratum 1 1 fragment 58E 300N Lag under skallag 3 fragments 58E 300N Shell lag 2 fragments, 1 fragment acorn 58E 301N Layer 7 Shell 4 fragments 58E 297N Layer 7 Shell 7 fragments hazelnut

Dragsholm Fish Notes

Trench 3 128E 120N Layer 7a Trench 3 16July2003 TLS Garfish 1 dentary 128E 120N Layer 7c Trench 3 16July2003 TLS Weights: 10g bone fragments, 15g charcoal, shell, etc., 3g non-vertebra, 22g cod, 6g flatfish, 7g other vertebra, 2g no ID Cod family 2 basioccipital 4 first vertebra 2 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 181 other vertebra 1L premaxillary 1R quadrate 1L dentary 1L 1R posttemporal 1L maxillary 1L angular 1R prefrontal Flatfish 2 basioccipital 73 other vertebra 1L investing bone Mackerel 2 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra 1R premaxillary Weever 6 vertebra 1R dentary 1L 1R hyomandibular 1L maxillary 1R investing bone 1L opercle 1R posttemporal 1R supracleithrum Garfish 30 vertebra 4 dentary fragments Spurdog 29 vertebra 1 dorsal spine Unidentified 11 vertebra 128E 120N Layer 7d Trench 3 17July2003 TLS Cod family 1 third vertebra 4 other vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra 1R angular (flounder) Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 128E 120N Layer 7c/8 Trench 3 21July2003 TLS Cod family 1 second vertebra 11 other vertebra Flatfish 3 vertebra 128E 120N Layer 8 Trench 3 17July2003 TLS Weights: 10g bone fragments, 14g charcoal, shell,, etc, 3g non-vertebra, 13g cod, 1g flatfish, <1g other vertebra Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 8 second vertebra

11 third vertebra 87 other vertebra 1L angular 1R posttemporal 3 parasphenoid 1L 2R premaxillary 1R quadrate 1R cleithrum Flatfish 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 23 other vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Garfish 4 vertebra 7 dentary fragments Spurdog 2 vertebra 1 dorsal spine 128E 126N Layer 7c sample Trench 3 23July2003 CF Weights: 12g bone fragments, 4g charcoal, stone and some shell, 3g non-vertebra, 11g cod, 2g flatfish, 1g other vertebra Cod family 1 basioccipital 8 first vertebra 12 second vertebra 11 third vertebra 81 other vertebra 1L 1R supracleithrum 3L 2R premaxillary 2L 1R 2 fragments dentary 3 parasphenoid (2 fragments) 2L 2R maxillary 1R otolith (broken) 1L palatine 2L vomer 1L epihyal 2L 2R posttemporal 1L ceratohyal 4L 4R angular 1L hyomandibular Flatfish 3 first vertebra 33 other vertebra 1 os anale (1 fragment) Weever 2 vertebra Bull-rout 7 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Gurnard 1 dorsal spine Garfish 5 vertebra 1 dentary fragment Unidentified 2 vertebra 128E 126N Layer 7c/8 Trench 3 23July2003 CF Bag 1 Weights: 5 large pieces oyster shell and sand – 28g, 15g bone fragments, 101g cod, 17g flatfish, 6g other vertebra, 1g no ID Cod family 12 basioccipital 36 first vertebra 56 second vertebra 59 third vertebra 741 other vertebra (2 sets of 2 fused) 1, 2, 3, and other vertebra from the same fish – better preserved and chocolate brown color Flatfish 5 basioccipital 12 first vertebra (4.8, 4.7, 4.7, 6.0, 4.7, 4.7, 5.1, 4.6, 4.1, 4.5mm, 2 no measure) 275 other vertebra (3 vertebra turbot) Eel 1 vertebra Garfish 31 vertebra Mackerel 18 vertebra Weever 5 vertebra

Gurnard 3 vertebra Bull-rout 9 vertebra Spurdog 4 vertebra Unidentified 23 vertebra 128E 126N Layer 7c/8 Trench 3 23July2003 CF Cod family 3 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 17 other vertebra 1 parasphenoid 1L 1R dentary 1L angular 1R posttemporal 1L ceratohyal Flatfish 1 first vertebra 17 other vertebra Gurnard 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 128E 126N Layer 7c/8 Trench 3 23July2003 CF Weights: <1g bone fragments (9 medium-sized pieces), 1 shark tooth Cod family 7 vomer (1 = 2 halves) 4L 6R angular 7L 6R maxillary 1R palatine 11L 7R quadrate 2L 6R posttemporal 17L 21R premaxillary (1 fragment) 2L 4R dentary 1R ceratohyal 1L hyomandibular 1L sphenotic Flatfish 1L angular 1L maxillary 4L 1R quadrate 1R pterotic Spurdog 1 dorsal spine 128E 126N Layer 7c/8 Trench 3 23July2003 CF Weights: 36g bone fragments, 15g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 1 first vertebra (very small) 1 second vertebra 8 other vertebra 1 pharyngeal plate 4L 6R premaxillary (1 fragment) 1 pharyngobranchial 7L 2R dentary (1 fragment) 5L 3R angular 1R palatine 2L opercle 2L 6R ceratohyal 1L 2R vomer 3L 1R posttemporal 8L 13R supracleithrum 8L 3R quadrate 5L 5R cleithrum 2L 1R maxillary 2L 4R 2 fragments hyomandibular 13 parasphenoid (8 fragments) 3 epibranchial 1 branchiostegal ray 1L preopercle 2R lower hypohyal 1L epihyal 2L pterotic Flatfish 1 first vertebra 11 other vertebra (2 ultimate) 1 vomer 1L 1R supracleithrum 1R hyomandibular 5 os anale (4 fragments) Eel 1 first vertebra 2 vertebra Garfish 3 dentary fragments Eelpout 1 vertebra Unidentified

1 vertebra

128E 126N Layer 8 sample Trench 3 23July2003 CF Weights: 12g bone fragments, 5g charcoal, stone and shell, 4g non-vertebra, 8g cod, 2g flatfish, <1g other vertebra, 1g no ID Cod family 1 basioccipital 4 first vertebra 5 second vertebra 5 third vertebra 59 other vertebra 1R 1 whole vomer 1L 1R ceratohyal 1R hyomandibular 3 parasphenoid 6L 3R premaxillary 2L 5R dentary 1L palatine 1L 3R posttemporal 2L 2R quadrate 3R supracleithrum 2L angular 1L 5R maxillary 1R cleithrum 1L symplectic 1R epibranchial Flatfish 3 first vertebra 42 other vertebra (1 ultimate, burnt) 2 prootic 1R supracleithrum 1R hyomandibular 1R quadrate Eel 1 first vertebra 3 vertebra 1R ceratohyal (2.6mm) Gurnard 3 vertebra Weever 2 vertebra 1R ceratohyal Mackerel 5 vertebra Garfish 4 vertebra 1 dentary fragment Spurdog 5 vertebra Bull-rout 1R supracleithrum Unidentified 4 vertebra 1-2 non-vertebra Trench 4

140E 130N Layer 8 Trench 4 16July2004 KCR Weights: 24g bone fragments, 9g charcoal, sand and shell, 6g non-vertebra, 32g cod, 8g flatfish, 7g other vertebra Cod family 3 basioccipital 9 first vertebra 9 second vertebra 10 third vertebra 337 other vertebra 8 parasphenoid 3L 3R premaxillary 1L 1R dentary 1R vomer 5L 1R quadrate 1L 3R angular 1L 2R posttemporal 3L 2R supracleithrum 1L ceratohyal 1L preopercle Flatfish 5 first vertebra 121 other vertebra 1R quadrate 1 os anale 1R premaxillary 2 investing bones 1R maxillary Gurnard 7 vertebra Eel 3 vertebra Bull-rout 9 vertebra

Mackerel 4 vertebra Garfish 26 vertebra 3 dentary fragments Spurdog 49 vertebra 3 dorsal spines (use wear?) Unidentified 15 vertebra 140E 130N Layer 8b Trench 4 17July2004 KCR Weights: 39g bone fragments, 10g charcoal, sand and shell, 49g cod, 9g flatfish, 9g other vertebra, 8g non-vertebra, 2g no ID Cod family 3 basioccipital 14 first vertebra 7 second vertebra 13 third vertebra 437 other vertebra 1R vomer 4 parasphenoid 2L 1R dentary 2L 2R premaxillary 3L 2R maxillary 1L 2R quadrate 2L 1R angular 1L 3R posttemporal 3L 2R supracleithrum 3L 2R hyomandibular 2 branchiostegal rays 3L 2R ceratohyal 1L 1R preopercle 1R sphenotic Flatfish 131 vertebra (including 2 ultimate) 1L 1R hyomandibular 1 os anale Gurnard 3 vertebra Trout/salmon 1 vertebra Weever 7 vertebra Garfish 2 first vertebra 30 other vertebra 5 dentary fragments Mackerel 17 vertebra Spurdog 61 vertebra Unidentified 19 vertebra 140E 130N Layer 8k (no shell) Trench 4 18July2004 KCR Weights: 13g bone fragments, 5g sand and charcoal, 15 g cod, 4g flatfish, <1g other vertebra, <1g no ID, 4g non-vertebra Cod family 2 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 4 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 92 other vertebra 2 branchiostegal rays 2L 1R ceratohyal 1R preopercle 1R maxillary 1 parasphenoid 2R dentary 1L posttemporal 1R hyomandibular 1R supracleithrum Flatfish 1 first vertebra 34 other vertebra 1L dentary (flounder) 1R opercle 1L supracleithrum Bull-rout 2 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Herring 1 vertebra Spurdog

5 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 5 vertebra (4 eroded, 1 other species?) 1 supracleithrum 140E 130N Layer 9 (rust) Trench 4 18July2004 KCR Cod family 2 vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Spurdog 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra (too dirty) Trench 5

121E 115N Layer 8 Trench 5 19August2003 KCR 27L 33R 8 fragments otoliths 121E 115N Layer 8 Trench 5 21August2003 KCR 7L 9R 2 fragments otoliths 124E 115N Layer 7b Trench 5 08August2003 ERS Cod family 2 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 20 other vertebra 1L premaxillary 1R maxillary Flatfish 12 vertebra Spurdog 7 vertebra Bull-rout 2 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra 124E 115N Layer 7b transition Trench 5 13August2003 ERS Weights: 15g bone fragments, 3g charcoal, sand and stone, 4g non-vertebra, 17g cod, 11g flatfish, 6g other vertebra, 2g no ID Cod family 2 basioccipital 13 first vertebra 12 second vertebra 22 third vertebra 207 other vertebra 1R posttemporal 1L 1R supracleithrum 1R angular 2L 2R quadrate 1L dentary 1 parasphenoid 3L maxillary 4L 2R premaxillary Flatfish 2 basioccipital 7 first vertebra 202 other vertebra 1 vomer 1L quadrate 1R maxillary Eel 1 vertebra 1 ceratohyal (2.5mm) Gurnard 4 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 7 other vertebra Spurdog

22 vertebra 1 dorsal spine Mackerel 2 vertebra Garfish 28 vertebra 13 dentary fragments Unidentified 18 vertebra (1 burnt) 124E 115N Layer 7c grey Trench 5 14August2003 CF Weights: 22g bone fragments, 13g charcoal, sand and shell, 4g non-vertebra, 31g cod, 8g flatfish, 3g other vertebra, 2g no ID Cod family 5 basioccipital 13 first vertebra 6 second vertebra 9 third vertebra 263 other vertebra 3L 1R premaxillary 2L 1R supracleithrum 2 parasphenoid 1R vomer 1L hyomandibular 2L ceratohyal 1L 1R maxillary 2L 4R angular 3L 6R quadrate 1 pharyngobranchial Flatfish 1 basioccipital 3 first vertebra 100 other vertebra (2 burnt, 1 calcined) 1 os anale (2 fragments) Spurdog 5 vertebra Eel 2 vertebra Mackerel 6 vertebra (2 burnt) Garfish 10 vertebra 5 dentary fragments Unidentified 4 vertebra 124E 115N Layer 7c shell Trench 5 14August2003 CF Weights: 17g bone fragments, 4g charcoal and sand, 4g non-vertebra, 31g cod, 9g flatfish, 4g other vertebra, 2g no ID Cod family 5 basioccipital 13 first vertebra 6 second vertebra 15 third vertebra 334 other vertebra 1 whole vomer 1L 3R premaxillary 2L 2R dentary 2L posttemporal 1L maxillary 1L 2R angular 1L ceratohyal 1L preopercle 2L quadrate 1L 1R hyomandibular Flatfish 2 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 150 other vertebra 1 os anale Eel 1 vertebra Weever 1 first vertebra 1 other vertebra Spurdog 12 vertebra Bull-rout 2 vertebra Mackerel 8 vertebra Garfish 16 vertebra 5 dentary fragments

Unidentified 7 vertebra 124E 115N Layer 8 Trench 5 20August2003 CF Weights: 40g bone fragments, 29g charcoal, shell and sand, 33g cod, 9g flatfish, 4g other vertebra, 4g non-vertebra, 3g no ID Cod family 8 basioccipital 16 first vertebra 38 second vertebra 31 third vertebra 244 other vertebra 6L 6R premaxillary 1 parasphenoid 2L 2R dentary 1L angular 2L 1R supracleithrum 3L 4R maxillary 1L 3R quadrate 1R palatine 2L 4R posttemporal Flatfish 2 basioccipital 4 first vertebra 156 other vertebra 1 piece ultimate vertebra fan 1R hyomandibular 1L quadrate Eel 1 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 13 other vertebra Mackerel 2 vertebra Spurdog 2 vertebra Garfish 24 vertebra 1 dentary fragment Gurnard 1 vertebra Pike 1 vertebra Unidentified 18 vertebra 1 supracleithrum Trench 11

121E 117N Layer 7a Trench 11 15July2004 CF (‘screen test’) Weights: 12g bone fragments, 12g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 3 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 17 second vertebra 10 third vertebra 80 other vertebra (1 calcined) 1R dentary 1R vomer 1L 1R supracleithrum 4 parasphenoid 1R angular 1L 2R posttemporal 1L 2R quadrate 6L 6R premaxillary (1 medium to large, all the rest are small) Flatfish 2 first vertebra 51 other vertebra (1 burnt, 1 calcined) 1R hyomandibular 1 os anale Eel 2 vertebra (sent to Anders Fischer June 2007) Herring 1 vertebra Spurdog 3 vertebra Bull-rout 8 vertebra Weever 6 vertebra Gurnard

3 vertebra Garfish 1 dentary fragment Unidentified 8 vertebra 121E 117N Layer 7b (bottom) Trench 11 07July2004 CF 7 bone fragments Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 121E 117N Layer 7b Trench 11 09July2004 CF 14 bone fragments Cod family 1 second vertebra 3 other vertebra 1R angular 1R maxillary Flatfish 3 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 121E 117N Layer 7c below first 5cm, lighter oxidized Trench 11 CF 1 of 3 (note included: not screened for fishbone. Level 8 panned out in mid-layer so split off 7c top, 7c mid, 7c/8 lower, probably not ideal) Weights: 3g bone fragments, 1g sand and nutshell, 3g non-vertebra, 13g cod, 1g flatfish, <1g other vertebra, <1g no ID Cod family 2 basioccipital 5 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 93 other vertebra 4 parasphenoid 1L 1R supracleithrum 1L 1R sphenotic 3L premaxillary (1 fragment) 1L posttemporal 1R maxillary 2L 1R quadrate 2L angular 2L cleithrum Flatfish 1 first vertebra (5.3mm) 14 other vertebra 1L quadrate 1 os anale (3 fragments) Mackerel 1 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Spurdog 5 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 121E 117N Layer 7c top 5cm dark above shell Trench 11 14July2004 CF 2 of 3 Weights: ca. 1g total Cod family 1 third vertebra 7 other vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra

121E 117N Layer 7c/8 lower level Trench 11 14July2004 CF 3 of 3 Weights: <1g two fragments burnt nutshell, 2g bone fragments, 1g non-vertebra, 8g cod, 1g flatfish, <1g other vertebra, <1g no ID Cod family 1 basioccipital 3 first vertebra 3 second vertebra 5 third vertebra 44 other vertebra 1L 1R premaxillary 1L supracleithrum 2R maxillary 1R dentary 1L hyomandibular 1L epihyal 1L cleithrum Flatfish 1 first vertebra (5.9mm) 17 other vertebra (1 burnt) Garfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 122E 117N Layer 6 Trench 11 30June2004 CF Cod family 1 vertebra 122E 117N Layer 7a Trench 11 30June2004 CF Weights: 2g charcoal (mostly hazelnut), 4g bone fragments, 6g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 2 third vertebra 33 other vertebra 1L 1R posttemporal 2L angular 1R premaxillary 1L maxillary Flatfish 14 vertebra 2 os anale 1 urohyal Bull-rout 1 vertebra Spurdog 1 dorsal spine Unidentified 1 vertebra (eroded) 122E 117N Layer 7b Trench 11 09July2004 CF Weights: 10g bone fragments, 12g vertebra Cod family 1 basioccipital 3 first vertebra 19 second vertebra 14 third vertebra (1 calcined) 76 other vertebra 9L 7R premaxillary 2L 3R maxillary 1L 1R dentary 1L 1R vomer 1L 1R supracleithrum 2 parasphenoid 1L posttemporal 2R angular 1L quadrate Flatfish 1 basioccipital 3 first vertebra 48 other vertebra 1L quadrate Gurnard 3 vertebra Spurdog 1 vertebra 1 dorsal spine Garfish 1 first vertebra 4 other vertebra Bull-rout 6 vertebra Unidentified 8 vertebra

122E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 09July2004 CF (‘screen test’) Weights: 29g bone fragments, 18g charcoal and shell, 25g cod, 7g flatfish, 3g other vertebra Cod family 9 basioccipital 30 first vertebra (1 burnt) 43 second vertebra 51 third vertebra 254 other vertebra 5L 5R 2 fragments otolith 26L 20R 2 fragments premaxillary 3L 5R dentary 4L 4R posttemporal 9L 6R angular 3L 7R quadrate 5L 11R supracleithrum 3L 7R maxillary 4L 3R 3 whole vomer 14 parasphenoid 1L hyomandibular 1R ceratohyal 1R preopercle 1 epibranchial Flatfish 8 first vertebra (4.7, 4.5, 3.9, 5.0, 4.1, 3.1mm 2 no measure) 1 basioccipital 131 other vertebra 1 urohyal 1 os anale fragment 1L 1R pterotic (flounder) 1L maxillary 1R supracleithrum 1R dentary 1L quadrate 1L posttemporal Spurdog 8 vertebra 1 dorsal spine Trout/salmon 1 vertebra Garfish 10 vertebra 3 dentary fragments Mackerel 10 vertebra Eel 10 vertebra (9 vertebra, cleithrum and ceratohyal sent to Anders Fischer June 2007) 1R cleithrum (2.1mm) 1L ceratohyal (2.3mm) Bull-rout 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 16 other vertebra 2R preopercle Gurnard 4 vertebra 1 dorsal spine plate (grey gurnard) Weever 1 vertebra Cyprinid 1 vertebra Herring 1 prooticum Unidentified 17 vertebra 122E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 13July2004 CF #1 Weights: 60g bone fragments, 42g charcoal, shell and stone, 17g non-vertebra, 49g cod, 14g flatfish, 4g other vertebra, 2g no ID, 3g otolith Cod family 8 basioccipital 28 first vertebra 62 second vertebra 48 third vertebra 448 other vertebra (1 calcined) 9 parasphenoid (2 fragments) 23L 25R premaxillary (2 fragments) 4L 6R dentary 5L 7R 1 whole vomer 16L 13R quadrate 1 pharyngeal plate 1R epihyal 1R ceratohyal 1R sphenotic 1L preopercle 2 interhyal 3 epibranchial 10L 11R posttemporal 11L 12R supracleithrum 2L hyomandibular 2R cleithrum 1L 1R palatine 8L 9R maxillary 18L 12R angular 1L opercle 13L 14R 6 fragments otoliths Flatfish 7 basioccipital 8 first vertebra (6.3, 5.0, 5.5, 4.0, 4.4, 4.5, 4.4mm, 1 no measure) 218 other vertebra (1 burnt) 2 os anale 1L palatine

1L pterotic (flounder) 1L quadrate 1 pharyngobranchial Herring 2 vertebra Eel 5 vertebra 1 urohyal 1R quadrate Garfish 4 vertebra 5 dentary fragments Spurdog 16 vertebra Mackerel 17 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 7 other vertebra Weever 9 vertebra Unidentified 28 vertebra 7 non-vertebra 122E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 13July2004 CF #2 Weights: 14g bone fragments, 6g charcoal, stone and shell, 9g non-vertebra, 17g cod, 6g flatfish, 3g other vertebra, 2g no ID Cod family 1 basioccipital 10 first vertebra 14 second vertebra 15 third vertebra 109 other vertebra 6 parasphenoid (2 fragments) 6L 4R premaxillary 4L 3R dentary 4L 4R vomer 1 epibranchial 2L 1R angular 1L 1R (in two ½s) cleithrum 1R hyomandibular 1 branchiostegal ray 1R epihyal 1R hypohyal 1R ceratohyal 4L 2R maxillary 1L 2R quadrate 1L 1R supracleithrum 1L 3R posttemporal 1 interhyal Flatfish 3 basioccipital 3 first vertebra (5.1, 4.6, 4.1mm) 65 other vertebra 1 os anale 1L pterotic (flounder) 1L quadrate 2 urohyal 1L angular 1R cleithrum Eel 3 vertebra Spurdog 2 vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra Mackerel 14 vertebra (7 burnt) Herring 1 vertebra Weever 1 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 1 other vertebra Unidentified 7 vertebra 2 non-vertebra 122E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 13July2004 CF #3 Weights: 20g bone fragments, 6g charcoal, stone and sand, 7g non-vertebra, 22g cod, 7g flatfish, 2g other vertebra, 2g no ID Cod family

8 basioccipital 11 first vertebra 20 second vertebra 26 third vertebra 138 other vertebra (2 burnt) 5L 9R premaxillary (2 fragments) 5 parasphenoid 1L 1R ceratohyal 2L 2R dentary 1L hyomandibular 2L 1R quadrate 3L 4R angular 5L 3R supracleithrum 2L 1R vomer 2L 2R maxillary 3L 2R posttemporal Flatfish 3 first vertebra (5.5, 5.3, 5.2mm) 107 other vertebra (3 burnt) Bull-rout 5 vertebra Spurdog 1 vertebra Garfish 3 vertebra Mackerel 3 vertebra Gurnard 1L frontal (grey gurnard) Unidentified 5 vertebra 123E 116N Layer 7a Trench 11 07July2004 BO Weights: 2g charcoal and stone, 3g vertebra and non-vertebra, 3g bone fragments Cod family 1 third vertebra 21 other vertebra 1L premaxillary (very small) 1L vomer Flatfish 1 first vertebra 2 other vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra (eroded) 123E 116N Layer 7b Trench 11 07July2004 BO Weights: 87g bone fragments, 24g charcoal, sand and stone, 12g non-vertebra, 25g cod, 13g flatfish, 6g other vertebra, 3g no ID Cod family 12 basioccipital 38 first vertebra 48 second vertebra 59 third vertebra 307 other vertebra (2 burnt) 3L 1R supracleithrum 1 parasphenoid 41L 29R premaxillary 1 branchiostegal ray 2L hyomandibular 3L 5R dentary 10L 6R 1 whole vomer 6L 6R quadrate 4L 7R angular 12L 8R maxillary 7L 10R posttemporal 1R epihyal Flatfish 18 first vertebra (4.7, 4.7, 4.6, 5.2, 6.4, 5.5, 5.8, 4.6, 4.3, 4.3, 3.2, 4.3, 5.6mm, 5 no measure) 1 basioccipital 254 other vertebra (5 burnt, 1 calcined) 1 vomer 2 os anale 1L supracleithrum Eel 1 first vertebra 13 vertebra Mackerel 4 vertebra Garfish 1 first vertebra 15 other vertebra 5 dentary fragments Spurdog 8 vertebra Herring 1 vertebra Weever

1 first vertebra 9 other vertebra Gurnard 6 vertebra Bull-rout 3 first vertebra 36 other vertebra (1 calcined) 1R angular Eelpout 2 vertebra Whitefish 2 vertebra Unidentified 27 vertebra 123E 116N Layer 7c Trench 11 09July2004 BO 3 pieces charcoal, 3 bone fragments Cod family 1 third vertebra 1 other vertebra 1R supracleithrum Flatfish 1 first vertebra 2 other vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 123E 116N Layer 7c Trench 11 09July2004 BO 14 bone fragments Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 5 other vertebra 2 parasphenoid 1L 1R premaxillary Spurdog 2 dorsal spines (use wear?) Flatfish 1 os anale 123E 116N Layer 7c Trench 11 09July2004 BO Weights: 116g bone fragments, 94g charcoal, shell and stone, 26g non-vertebra, 95g cod, 28g flatfish, 15g other vertebra, 5g no ID, 2g otolith Cod family 47 basioccipital 101 first vertebra 113 second vertebra 119 third vertebra 1551 other vertebra (1 burnt, 1 calcined) 6L 9R 2 fragments otolith 4 branchiostegal rays 21 parasphenoid (4 fragments) 18L 12R dentary (1 fragment) 63L 65R premaxillary 46L 43R quadrate 38L 49R maxillary 24L 22R angular 12L 11R supracleithrum 15L 22R 2 whole vomer 3L 2R hyomandibular 2L 4R ceratohyal 19L 19R posttemporal 1L 1R epihyal 7 epibranchial 2R sphenotic 2R opercle 1L 1R cleithrum 2L exoccipital 2 mesethmoid Flatfish 23 first vertebra (5.2, 5.1, 3.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.0, 3.3, 5.8, 4.9, 3.7, 4.4, 3.7, 5.3, 2.8, 4.3, 3.8, 4.1, 4.0mm, 5 no measure) 12 basioccipital 665 other vertebra (6 burnt, 1 calcined) 7 os anale (1 fragment) 2L supracleithrum 3R maxillary 2L 1R quadrate 4 vomer 3 urohyal 2L 1R pterotic (flounder) 1R premaxillary 1 palatine 1 investing bone 2L posttemporal 1R pterotic (not flounder) Mackerel 73 vertebra (2 burnt) Garfish 44 vertebra 3 dentary fragments

Spurdog 76 vertebra 2 dorsal spines (1 fragment) Eel 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 56 other vertebra 4L 1R ceratohyal (1.8, 2.1, 2.4, 2.0, 2.1mm) 1L maxillary Herring 16 vertebra 4 prooticum Bull-rout 2 basioccipital 8 first vertebra 103 other vertebra 1R opercle Weever 1 first vertebra 11 other vertebra Gurnard 9 vertebra 2 dorsal plates (grey gurnard) Shad 3 vertebra Eelpout 4 vertebra Pike 1 vertebra Perch 2 vertebra Unidentified 61 vertebra 22 non-vertebra 123E 116N Layer 7c Trench 11 14July2004 BO 8 bone fragments Cod family 2 basioccipital 1R angular 1L dentary 1 parasphenoid 1L premaxillary Flatfish 1 vertebra 123E 116N Layer 7c Trench 11 14July2004 BO Weights: 143g bone fragments, 86 charcoal, shell, sand and stone, 30g non-vertebra, 163g cod, 42g flatfish, 8g other vertebra, 7g otolith, 8g no ID Cod family 57 basioccipital 100 first vertebra 126 second vertebra (1 burnt) 154 third vertebra (2 burnt) 2098 other vertebra (11 burnt) 27L 22R 7 fragments otolith 16 parasphenoid 8L 6R hyomandibular 18L 31R dentary 25L 28R posttemporal 22L 14R supracleithrum 35L 30R quadrate 31L 32R angular 38L 34R maxillary 24L 18R 2 whole vomer 44L 64R 4 fragments premaxillary 6L 5R epihyal 2 mesethmoid 4L 1R ceratohyal 4 branchiostegal rays 1L 1R preopercle 1L 4R palatine 1L 1R opercle 6 epibranchial 1 ceratobranchial 2 pharyngeal plates 1 pharyngobranchial 5L 6R sphenotic 2 basibranchial 1L retroarticular 2R opisthotic 2L 1R 6 fragments cleithrum Flatfish 30 first vertebra (1 burnt) (4.9, 4.7, 5.5, 5.0, 3.9, 4.2, 3.4, 4.8, 4.4, 3.8, 5.8, 4.3, 5.5, 5.4, 4.7, 6.2, 3.3, 4.0, 3.2, 4.0, 3.9, 3.6mm, 8 no measure) 20 basioccipital 927 other vertebra (1 turbot, 3 ultimate, 15 burnt) 4 vomer 2L 3R pterotic (flounder) 2R pterotic 1L 4R maxillary 2L 2R angular 1L 1R quadrate 4L 2R posttemporal 5 os anale (5 fragments) 1L supracleithrum 1L palatine 5 urohyal 1R hyomandibular

1L pharyngobranchial Eel 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 65 other vertebra (3 burnt) 1 vomer 1L cleithrum (3.3mm) 1R quadrate Spurdog 48 vertebra 1 dorsal spine (2 fragments) Mackerel 52 vertebra (8 burnt) Herring 2 first vertebra 15 other vertebra 5 prooticum Garfish 2 first vertebra 40 other vertebra 6 dentary fragments Trout/salmon 1 vertebra Pike 1 vertebra Weever 22 vertebra Gurnard 2 first vertebra 18 other vertebra 1 dorsal ray 1L opercle 2 dorsal plates (grey gurnard) Bull-rout 2 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 32 other vertebra 1R maxillary 1R quadrate Eelpout 2 vertebra Perch 2 vertebra Unidentified 83 vertebra 49 non-vertebra 123E 116N Layer 8 Trench 11 13July2004 BO Weights: 28g charcoal, shell and stone, 37g bone fragments, 22g otoliths, 36g cod, 6g other vertebra (including flatfish), 12g non-vertebra Cod family 9 basioccipital 13 first vertebra 43 second vertebra 35 third vertebra 255 other vertebra 80L 90R 24 fragments otolith 5 parasphenoid 15L 18R 3 fragments premaxillary 3L 7R vomer 10L 7R dentary 7L 13R maxillary 9L 8R posttemporal 5L 5R quadrate 8L 9R angular 3L 2R supracleithrum Flatfish 1 first vertebra (no measure) 77 other vertebra 1 vomer 2 os anale 1L premaxillary (flounder) Spurdog 2 vertebra 1 dorsal spine Mackerel 8 vertebra Garfish 4 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Gurnard 2 vertebra Unidentified 20 vertebra

123E 116N Layer 8 Trench 11 14July2004 CF 11 bone fragments Cod family 1 parasphenoid 1L 1R premaxillary 123E 117N Layer 6 Trench 11 02July2004 BO Cod family 1 parasphenoid 123E 117N Layer 7a Trench 11 02July2004 BO 4 bone fragments, 2 burnt hazelnut shell fragments Flatfish 1 os anale 123E 117N Layer 7a Trench 11 06July2004 BO Weights: 4g bone fragments, 1g charcoal and stone, 7g fishhook in container, 5g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 3 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 2 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 41 other vertebra Flatfish 8 vertebra (1 calcined) 1R pharyngobranchial Spurdog 1 vertebra 1 dorsal spine (usewear?) Bull-rout 4 vertebra Unidentified 4 vertebra 123E 117N Layer 7b Trench 11 05July2004 BO 15 pieces charcoal, 4g bone fragments Cod family 2 vertebra 8L 4R premaxillary 1L 1 whole vomer 2L angular 1L quadrate 1L 2R maxillary Flatfish 1 first vertebra 1 other vertebra Garfish 1 dentary fragment 123E 117N Layer 7b Trench 11 05July2004 BO Weights: 55g bone fragments, 14g stone, charcoal and sand, 2g no ID, 25g cod, 11g flatfish, 3g other vertebra, 7g non-vertebra Cod family 6 basioccipital 15 first vertebra 44 second vertebra 46 third vertebra 269 other vertebra 16L 10R premaxillary 9L 4R maxillary 1L 1R supracleithrum 3L 1R dentary 1L 2R 1 whole vomer 2 parasphenoid 2L 3R posttemporal 4L 6R angular 6L 4R quadrate 1R opercle Flatfish 14 first vertebra 190 other vertebra 1L angular 1L quadrate 1 os anale 1 urohyal 1L palatine 1R maxillary Garfish 13 vertebra 1 dentary fragment Eel

2 vertebra Herring 1 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Spurdog 4 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 16 other vertebra Gurnard 7 vertebra Unidentified 23 vertebra 123E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 14July2004 BO 11 pieces burnt hazelnut shell Weights: 3g bone fragments and nutshell, 5g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 2 vertebra 6 parasphenoid 2R premaxillary 1L dentary 1R angular Flatfish 2 vertebra 1 urohyal 1 os anale Spurdog 3 dorsal spines Unidentified 1 vertebra (very small) 123E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 15July2004 LRA 1 bone fragment Cod family 1R maxillary 1 parasphenoid 123E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 15July2004 LRA Weights: 1g bone fragments, 11g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 1 basioccipital 4 first vertebra 2 second vertebra 6 third vertebra 48 other vertebra 1R posttemporal 1R maxillary 1R angular Flatfish 16 vertebra (1 calcined) Garfish 4 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 124E 116N Layer 6 Trench 11 30June2004 LRA Cod family 1 vertebra 124E 116N Layer 7a Trench 11 01July2004 LRA Cod family 2 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra (eroded)

124E 116N Layer 7b Trench 11 05July2004 LRA Unidentified 2 vertebra fragments 2 other fragments 124E 116N Layer 7b Trench 11 05July2004 LRA Cod family 1 third vertebra 1 other vertebra 1L premaxillary Flatfish 2 vertebra (1 calcined) Garfish 2 dentary fragments 124E 116N Layer 7b Trench 11 05July2004 LRA Weights: 34g fragments, 20g cod, 12g flatfish, 4g other vertebra Cod family 6 basioccipital 21 first vertebra 27 second vertebra 40 third vertebra 270 other vertebra (2 burnt, 1 calcined) 1 mesethmoid 1 supraoccipital Flatfish 2 basioccipital 7 first vertebra (6.6, 4.8, 3.5, 3.8, 3.5mm, 2 no measure) 250 other vertebra (4 burnt, 1 calcined) Eel 8 vertebra (7 sent to Anders Fischer June 2007) Mackerel 3 vertebra Garfish 2 first vertebra 15 other vertebra Herring 1 first vertebra 2 vertebra 1 prooticum Spurdog 24 vertebra Gurnard 2 first vertebra 12 other vertebra Weever 1 first vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra (broken) 11 vertebra Eelpout 2 vertebra Unidentified 35 vertebra (1 calcined) 124E 116N Layer 7c (top) Trench 11 09July2004 LRA Weights: 24g fragments, 8g non-vertebra, 6g other vertebra, 39g cod, 7g flatfish Cod family 11 basioccipital 15 first vertebra 7 second vertebra 17 third vertebra 354 other vertebra (1 burnt) 1L 1R otolith 1L 1 whole vomer 10L 8R 1 fragment premaxillary 9 parasphenoid 4L supracleithrum 3L 4R dentary 3L 2R posttemporal 1L 6R angular 1L 5R quadrate 1L 1R prefrontal 2R hyomandibular 1L preopercle 1L maxillary 1R cleithrum Flatfish 5 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 122 other vertebra 1L maxillary 3 os anale (4 fragments) 1R hyomandibular

1R investing bone Eel 6 vertebra 1 vomer Mackerel 18 vertebra Garfish 20 vertebra 4 dentary fragments Herring 4 vertebra Spurdog 41 vertebra 5 dorsal spines (2 with usewear?) Gurnard 3 vertebra 1L frontal Shad 2 vertebra Bull-rout 4 vertebra Unidentified 18 vertebra 124E 116N Layer 7c Trench 11 09July2004 LRA Unidentified 1g fragments 124E 116N Layer 8 Trench 11 12July2004 LRA Weights: 3g non-vertebra, 13g cod, 3g flatfish, <1g other vertebra, 13g fragments Cod family 2 basioccipital 8 first vertebra 14 second vertebra 7 third vertebra 110 other vertebra 2L 1R 2 fragments otolith 3L 3R premaxillary 5 parasphenoid 1L 3R angular 2L quadrate 1L 1R maxillary 2L 1R supracleithrum 1L 3R vomer 3L 3R posttemporal 1 epibranchial 1 dentary fragment 1L 1R hyomandibular Flatfish 2 first vertebra 51 other vertebra (1 burnt) 1 fragment os anale Eel 1 vertebra 1 vomer (5.0mm) (sent to Anders Fischer June 2007) 1R dentary Mackerel 1 vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra Pike 1 vertebra Trout/salmon 1 vertebra Bull-rout 3 vertebra Unidentified 9 vertebra 124E 116N Layer 8 Trench 11 12July2004 LRA Cod family 1 vertebra 1L 1R otolith 124E 116N Layer 8

77g otolith 304L 277R 96 fragments 124E 117N Layer 7a Trench 11 01July2004 LRA Weights: 4g bone fragments, 1g charcoal, 4g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 1 first vertebra 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 24 other vertebra 1R angular Flatfish 4 vertebra Spurdog 2 vertebra 124E 117N Layer 7b Trench 11 02July2004 LRA Weights: 32g cod, 17g flatfish, 32g fragments, 8g non-vertebra, 6g other vertebra, 3g charcoal Cod family 3 basioccipital 30 first vertebra 32 second vertebra 39 third vertebra 397 other vertebra (5 burnt) 14L 11R premaxillary 9L 2R maxillary 2L 4R quadrate 3L 8R angular 2L 2R posttemporal 1R supracleithrum 2L 3R vomer 6 parasphenoid 1L 3R dentary 1R epihyal Flatfish 15 first vertebra (4.3, 5.5, 4.4, 5.3, 4.4, 5.5, 6.8, 4.0, 5.1, 5.2, 3.9mm, 4 no measure) 1 basioccipital 345 other vertebra (3 burnt, 2 calcined) 1 urohyal 2R quadrate Eel 4 vertebra Mackerel 4 vertebra Spurdog 9 vertebra 3 dorsal spines Garfish 42 vertebra 15 dentary fragments Trout/salmon 1 vertebra Gurnard 11 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 17 other vertebra (1 burnt, 1 calcined) Cyprinid 1 vertebra Unidentified 37 vertebra (1 burnt) 1 maxillary 1L quadrate 124E 117N Layer 7b Trench 11 02July2004 LRA 2 vertebra fragments 124E 117N Layer 7b Trench 11 02July2004 LRA 9 bone fragments Cod family 1 vertebra 3L premaxillary 1R vomer 1R maxillary 1R angular 1L quadrate Flatfish 1 urohyal 124E 117N Layer 7b Trench 11 05July2004 LRA Flatfish

1 fragment os anale Herring 1 vertebra 124E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 06July2004 LRA 1 small mammal ulna? Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra 124E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 06July2004 LRA 5 bone fragments Cod family 1 vertebra 1L premaxillary 3 parasphenoid 124E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 07July2004 LRA Weights: 75g charcoal, shell and stone, 130g fragments, 48g flatfish, 142g cod, 10g other vertebra, 21g non-vertebra Cod family 50 basioccipital 103 first vertebra 94 second vertebra (1 calcined) 144 third vertebra 1615 other vertebra (1 calcined) 15L 16R 4 fragments otolith 1L epibranchial 1L 1R palatine 2L 1? hyomandibular 10L 16R maxillary 10L 5R posttemporal 7L 11R supracleithrum 13L 16R quadrate 26L 17R angular 8L 17R vomer 14 parasphenoid 7L 8R dentary 47L 32R premaxillary 1 interhyal 1 basibranchial Flatfish 7 basioccipital 19 first vertebra 923 other vertebra 2R maxillary 4 vomer 2L 1R quadrate 1 investing bone (flounder) 1L supracleithrum 1L 2R posttemporal 1 urohyal 1R pterotic (flounder) Eel 13 vertebra 1 ceratohyal (1.5mm) 1R cleithrum (2.3mm) 1 vomer Mackerel 49 vertebra Garfish 2 first vertebra 52 other vertebra 7 dentary fragments Spurdog 24 vertebra 3 dorsal spines Herring 2 vertebra Gurnard 5 vertebra Weever 9 vertebra Bull-rout 2 first vertebra 26 other vertebra (1 burnt) 1R maxillary Unidentified 114 vertebra (6 basioccipital) 124E 117N Layer 8 27g otolith 103L 99R 51 fragments 124E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 08July2004 LRA

Weights: 12g bone fragments, 17g charcoal, shell and stone, 11g all vertebra, 3g non-vertebra Cod family 2 basioccipital 3 first vertebra 10 second vertebra 16 third vertebra 59 other vertebra 1L 1R dentary 2L 2R maxillary 1L 6R premaxillary 1L 1R vomer 2 parasphenoid 2L 1R supracleithrum 3L 3R posttemporal 1L 1R angular 1L 5R 1? quadrate Flatfish 2 first vertebra 42 other vertebra 1L upper hypohyal Spurdog 2 vertebra Garfish 3 vertebra Gurnard 3 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Unidentified 8 vertebra 1 shark tooth 124E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 08July2004 LRA Cod family 1 second vertebra Spurdog 1 vertebra 125E 116N Layer 7a Trench 11 01July2004 KCR 1 fragment burnt hazelnut shell 1 bone fragment Cod family 3 vertebra 1R quadrate 1R angular 125E 116N Layer 7b Trench 11 06July2004 KCR Weights: 54g bone fragments, 24g sand, charcoal and stone, 4g non-vertebra, 16g cod, 10g flatfish, 3g other vertebra, 1g no ID Cod family 6 basioccipital 22 first vertebra 13 second vertebra 11 third vertebra 255 other vertebra (2 calcined) 1L 1 whole vomer 1L posttemporal 4L 2R dentary (1 calcined) 4L 1R angular 2L 7R premaxillary 1R supracleithrum 2L 1R hyomandibular 1L 2R quadrate 4 parasphenoid 1R ceratohyal 2L maxillary 1 epibranchial Flatfish 5 basioccipital 8 first vertebra (3.7, 4.7, 5.7, 6.0, 3.6, 3.6mm, 2 no measure) 234 other vertebra (1 ultimate, 2 burnt, 2 calcined) 1L angular Eel 1 basioccipital 4 other vertebra 2 vomer 1L ceratohyal (2.5mm) 1R dentary Mackerel 1 vertebra Garfish 21 vertebra 19 dentary fragments Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 22 other vertebra Herring 2 vertebra Weever

8 vertebra Spurdog 15 vertebra 3 dorsal spines Unidentified 16 vertebra 125E 116N Layer 7c incomplete Trench 11 07July2004 KCR Weights: 27g bone fragments, 14g charcoal, sand and shell, 3g non-vertebra, 12g cod, 9g flatfish, 2g other vertebra, <1g no ID Cod family 4 basioccipital 7 first vertebra 4 second vertebra 12 third vertebra 230 other vertebra (3 burnt) 3L 3R premaxillary 3R dentary 1R supracleithrum 6L 2R maxillary 1L hyomandibular 1L palatine 1L 3R quadrate 2L angular Flatfish 4 basioccipital 8 first vertebra (4.7, 4.2, 4.8, 4.1mm, 4 no measure) 216 other vertebra (3 burnt, 1 calcined, 3 fused) 1R quadrate 1R prootic 1 ceratobranchial Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 21 other vertebra Herring 1 vertebra Eel 10 vertebra (1 calcined) Gurnard 2 vertebra Spurdog 7 vertebra Mackerel 2 vertebra Weever 1 first vertebra 8 other vertebra Garfish 11 vertebra 18 dentary fragments Unidentified 15 vertebra 125E 117N Layer 7a Trench 11 01July2004 KCR Cod family 1 first vertebra 1 third vertebra 9 other vertebra (1 burnt) 1R premaxillary Flatfish 4 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Spurdog 1 dorsal spine Unidentified 3 vertebra fragments 125E 117N Layer 7b Trench 11 05July2004 KCR Weights: 71g bone fragments, 32g charcoal, shell, stone and sand, 8g non-vertebra, 19g cod, 14g flatfish, 3g other vertebra, 3g no ID Cod family 1 basioccipital 26 first vertebra 21 second vertebra

24 third vertebra 298 other vertebra (2 burnt) 1 parasphenoid 12L 2R 1 fragment premaxillary 2L 4R vomer 1L 1R dentary 7L 1R angular 3L 1R supracleithrum 5L 2R maxillary 5L 1R posttemporal 4L 5R quadrate 1R palatine 1L 1R ceratohyal 1R hyomandibular 2 epibranchial 1L cleithrum Flatfish 11 first vertebra (4.7, 4.3, 3.8, 4.5, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, 4.3, 4.7, 4.4mm, 1 no measure) 1 basioccipital 256 other vertebra (6 burnt) 2 os anale 1L 2R quadrate 2L posttemporal 1R dentary Eel 2 first vertebra 6 other vertebra Bull-rout 2 first vertebra 17 other vertebra 1L angular Garfish 12 vertebra 23 dentary fragments Spurdog 14 vertebra 1 dorsal spine Herring 2 vertebra Gurnard 4 vertebra Weever 2 vertebra Unidentified 38 vertebra 125E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 12July2004 KCR Weights: 88g bone fragments, 37g charcoal, shell and stone, 18g non-vertebra, 73g cod, 41g flatfish, 12g other vertebra, 6g no ID, 3g otolith Cod family 28 basioccipital 41 first vertebra 32 second vertebra (1 calcined) 38 third vertebra 1062 other vertebra (6 burnt, 1 calcined) 11L 5R otolith 10 parasphenoid (3 fragments) 15L 16R premaxillary (3 fragments) 2 branchiostegal rays 9L 7R dentary 9L 11R angular 3L 7R 7 whole vomer 11L 6R posttemporal 2L 6R supracleithrum 6L 5R maxillary 3L ceratohyal 9L 8R quadrate 1R palatine 8L 6R hyomandibular 1R epihyal 2L 1R cleithrum 1L sphenotic 2L 3R preopercle 2L symplectic 1L pharyngeal plate 1R pterotic Flatfish 10 basioccipital 7 first vertebra (5.2, 4.5, 6.5, 4.4, 4.9, 4.4mm, 1 no measure) 759 other vertebra (7 burnt) 2 vomer 1 os anale (1 fragment) 1R dentary 1R premaxillary 1R angular 1L 1R quadrate 2R hyomandibular (flounder) 1L 1R hyomandibular (dab) 1R palatine 1L pterotic (flounder) 1 exoccipital 2L posttemporal Herring 7 vertebra 1 prooticum Eel 1 first vertebra 21 other vertebra 1R ceratohyal (2.0mm) Spurdog 44 vertebra 1 dorsal spine Garfish 53 vertebra 15 dentary fragments Mackerel

48 vertebra (5 burnt) Bull-rout 2 first vertebra 20 other vertebra 1R supracleithrum Weever 14 vertebra Gurnard 7 vertebra 1 basioccipital (grey gurnard) Perch 1 vertebra Whitefish 1 vertebra Unidentified 44 vertebra 28 non-vertebra 125E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 14July2004 KCR Weights: 109g bone fragments, 109g charcoal, shell and stone, 22g non-vertebra, 84g cod, 36g flatfish, 2g otolith, 7g other vertebra, 8g no ID, 2g otolith Cod family 20 basioccipital 42 first vertebra 46 second vertebra 53 third vertebra 1168 other vertebra (3 burnt) 3L 9R 2 fragments otolith 3L 10R dentary 18L 20R premaxillary 6 parasphenoid 16L 13R maxillary 1L 2R ceratohyal 8L 15R angular 11L 13R posttemporal 15L 16R quadrate 3L 6R supracleithrum 8L 6R vomer 5L 7R hyomandibular 2L 2R 1 fragment cleithrum 7 epibranchial 3L 4R sphenotic 1R epihyal 1R opercle 1R interopercle 2L 1R pterotic 1 pharyngeal plate Flatfish 19 first vertebra (4.9, 4.3, 4.1, 4.1, 4.5, 4.3, 4.4, 3.9, 3.7, 3.9, 4.4, 4.9, 5.0, 5.2, 5.1, 4.2, 5.0, 4.2mm, 1 no measure) 15 basioccipital 859 other vertebra (9 burnt) 2 os anale 6 vomer 2L 1R dentary 3L 1R quadrate 1R supracleithrum 3L 2R angular 2 urohyal 2L 2R hyomandibular 3L palatine 1R upper hypohyal 3R posttemporal 1R premaxillary 1R pterotic (flounder) 1R pterotic (plaice) 1L preopercle Eel 38 vertebra 1 vomer Spurdog 44 vertebra Herring 19 vertebra 2 prooticum Garfish 1 first vertebra 21 other vertebra 1 dentary fragment Mackerel 50 vertebra Trout/salmon 1 vertebra Bull-rout 23 vertebra Weever 13 vertebra Gurnard 6 vertebra Eelpout 1 vertebra

Unidentified 81 vertebra 46 non-vertebra 125E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 15July2004 KCR Weights: 37g bone fragments, 30g charcoal, shell and stone, 7g non-vertebra, 25g cod, 3g flatfish, 2g other vertebra, 1g otolith, <1g no ID Cod family 3 basioccipital 14 first vertebra 24 second vertebra 30 third vertebra (2 burnt) 182 other vertebra (1 burnt) 3L 3R 6 fragments otolith 3L 2R 1 whole vomer 15L 10R premaxillary 4L 4R dentary 1 branchiostegal ray 6 parasphenoid 1L sphenotic 6L 4R supracleithrum 6L 8R posttemporal 1L 1R palatine 1L 3R maxillary 3L 2R angular 2L ceratohyal 2L 1R hyomandibular 1 epibranchial 5L 5R quadrate 1L cleithrum Flatfish 3 first vertebra (5.0, 4.7mm, 1 no measure) 75 other vertebra (1 burnt) 1 os anale Garfish 1 vertebra Spurdog 1 vertebra Eelpout 2 vertebra Eel 6 vertebra (4 burnt) Weever 1 first vertebra 2 other vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 7 other vertebra Unidentified 7 vertebra 125E 117N Layer 8 96g otolith 312L 373R 106 fragments 126E 116N Layer 7b/c Trench 11 05July2004 22 pieces charcoal (<1g), 3g bone fragments, 5g vertebra Cod family 2 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 32 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 29 other vertebra Gurnard 1 vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra Spurdog 3 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 126E 116N Layer 7c Trench 11 08July2004 TB Flatfish 1 os anale

126E 116N Layer 8 Trench 11 13July2004 TLS 6 fragments burnt hazelnut shell, 16 bone fragments (3g) Cod family 7 parasphenoid 1L premaxillary 1L angular 1L maxillary 1L supracleithrum 126E 117N Layer 7b/c Trench 11 05July2004 TB Flatfish 1L hyomandibular Unidentified 1 vertebra 126E 117N Layer 7b/c Trench 11 05July2004 TB 3 bone fragments 126E 117N Layer 7b/c Trench 11 06July2004 TB 27 pieces charcoal (mostly hazelnut shell) Weights: 5g bone and charcoal, 3g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 16 other vertebra 1L posttemporal Flatfish 1 first vertebra 17 other vertebra Spurdog 1 dorsal spine Gurnard 1 vertebra Garfish 5 vertebra 126E 117N Layer 7b/c Trench 11 06July2004 TB 10 fragments burnt hazelnut shell, many fragments bone Flatfish 1R cleithrum 126E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 06July2004 TB 1 bone fragment Cod family 1 parasphenoid 126E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 06July2004 TB Weights: 56g bone fragments, 44g charcoal, sand and shell, 8g non-vertebra, 54g cod, 30g flatfish, 13g other vertebra, 5g no ID Cod family 7 basioccipital 18 first vertebra 26 second vertebra 32 third vertebra 755 other vertebra 1R otolith (in with non-vertebra) 5L 1R premaxillary (1 fragment) 2L 3R supracleithrum 1L 1R posttemporal 1 pharyngobranchial 1R palatine 1R ceratohyal 2 epibranchial 1 branchiostegal ray 6L 3R quadrate 6L angular 1L 3R maxillary 1L vomer 1R dentary 1 parasphenoid 3L 1R hyomandibular 1L epihyal Flatfish 7 basioccipital 5 first vertebra (5.0, 7.2, 4.5, 5.1mm, 1 no measure) 548 other vertebra (1 calcined) 1 investing bone 1L palatine 1L quadrate 1 vomer 1 os anale 1L posttemporal

Eel 16 vertebra Herring 5 vertebra Garfish 2 first vertebra 42 other vertebra 7 dentary fragments Spurdog 66 vertebra 4 dorsal spines Mackerel 19 vertebra Trout/salmon 1 vertebra Weever 1 first vertebra 10 other vertebra Bull-rout 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 23 other vertebra Whitefish 1 vertebra Gurnard 5 vertebra Unidentified 64 vertebra 126E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 12July2004 TB Weights: 10g bone fragments, shell and charcoal, 7g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 1 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 50 other vertebra 2L otolith Flatfish 1 first vertebra 16 other vertebra 1R pterotic (flounder) Eel 1 vertebra Gurnard 1 vertebra Spurdog 1 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra 4 dentary fragments Bull-rout 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 126E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 12July2004 TB 9 pieces charcoal (1 hazelnut), 5 bone fragments Cod family 2 vertebra 1L otolith 126E 117N Layer 8 36g otolith 108L 131R 12 fragments 126E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 12July2004 TB Weights: 30g bone fragments, 20g charcoal, shell and stone, 2g non-vertebra, 37g cod, 4g flatfish, 1g other vertebra, 1g no ID Cod family 5 basioccipital 21 first vertebra 36 second vertebra

39 third vertebra 254 other vertebra 3R dentary 1R supracleithrum 1L 3R premaxillary 1 branchiostegal ray 1L palatine 1R posttemporal 2L 2R maxillary 5 parasphenoid 1R 1 whole vomer 2L 1R angular Flatfish 4 first vertebra (5.6, 6.3, 5.4mm, 1 no measure) 76 other vertebra 1 os anale 1L quadrate Bull-rout 6 vertebra Mackerel 10 vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra Spurdog 3 vertebra Unidentified 17 vertebra 126E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 13July2004 TB 4 bone fragments Cod family 1R premaxillary 1R dentary 1 parasphenoid 127E 116N Layer 7a Trench 11 0July2004 TLS Weights: 1g bone fragments, 3g vertebra and non-vertebra Cod family 1 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 16 other vertebra Garfish 1 dentary fragment 127E 116N Layer 8 Trench 11 27July2004 KCR (ca. 12 liters) Weights: 9g bone fragments, shell and sand, 11g vertebra, 2g otolith Cod family 5 first vertebra 4 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 70 other vertebra 2L 7R otolith Flatfish 23 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Garfish 1 first vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra 127E 117N Layer 7a Trench 11 01July2004 TLS Cod family 1 third vertebra 5 other vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 127E 117N Layer 7c Trench 11 12July2004 TLS 2g bone fragments Flatfish 1L maxillary (turbot) 1L premaxillary (turbot) 1investing bone (turbot) Unidentified

1 head bone (turbot?) 127E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 12July2004 TLS 1 fragment burnt hazelnut shell, 1 bone fragment Cod family 2 vertebra 1 parasphenoid 127E 117N Layer 8 Trench 11 12July2004 TLS 3 pieces charcoal (2 hazelnut shell), 13 bone fragments Cod family 2 first vertebra 1 other vertebra 3 parasphenoid 1R premaxillary 1L dentary Dragsholm Geologic Screen Samples Fish Notes

1mm Samples The non-vertebra elements were not systematically analyzed, only some were noted. All the Chenopodium seeds appeared to be charred. Many of the dermal denticles appeared burned or calcined. 122E 116N Layer 7B Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 1mm 11 dermal denticles flounder, several Chenopodium seeds, 3 vertebra cod family (1 calcined), 1 first vertebra eel, 3 other vertebra eel, 1 vertebra eelpout, 2 vertebra no ID (too dirty, eroded), 2 vertebra no ID 122E 116N Layer 7C Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 1mm Many Chenopodium seeds, a few other possible seeds, a few snails, 1R otolith cod family, 2 dermal denticles flounder, 2 teeth spurdog, 1 first vertebra herring, 2 other vertebra herring, 2 first vertebra eel, 2 other vertebra eel, 1 vertebra eelpout, 2 vertebra cod family, 1 vertebra no ID (eroded), 3 vertebra no ID (very small), 1 vertebra no ID 123E 116N Layer 7B Black Sand Trench 11 07July2004 BO 1mm A few Chenopodium seeds, a few other possible seeds, bits of charcoal and bone fragments 67 dermal denticles flounder, 1 basioccipital eel, 7 other vertebra eel, 1 vertebra Gasterosteus, 4 vertebra cod family, 10 vertebra no ID (too dirty, eroded), 2 vertebra no ID 2 dermal denticles, 5 teeth spurdog, 1 basioccipital cod family, 2 other vertebra cod family, 2 vertebra eel, 3 vertebra no ID (eroded) 124E 116N Layer 7B Black Spots Trench 11 05July2004 LRA 1mm Only a few Chenopdium seeds, several other charred seeds, 32 dermal denticles, 5 teeth spurdog, 1L premaxillary torsk, 1 urohyal eel, 9 vertebra eel (2 burned, 2 calcined), 1 first vertebra cod family, 10 other vertebra cod family, 2 vertebra herring, 3 vertebra eelpout, 2 vertebra Gobius, 14 vertebra no ID (too dirty, eroded), 14 vertebra no ID (1 calcined) Several Chenopodium seeds, several other possible seeds, 43 dermal denticles (2 calcined), 8 teeth spurdog, 1 vertebra Sygnathidae, 7 vertebra eelpout, 16 vertebra cod family, 4 vertebra herring (1 calcined), 1 first vertebra eel, 11 other vertebra eel (2 burnt), 1 vertebra flatfish, 2 vertebra Gobius, 6 vertebra no ID (eroded), 12 vertebra no ID (2 calcined) 125E 116N Layer 7B Trench 11 06July2004 KCR 1mm Several Chenopodium seeds, a few other possible seeds, 2 dermal denticles flounder, 1 Gasterosteus dorsal spine, 1 vertebra eelpout, 2 vertebra no ID (eroded) 127E 116N Layer 7A Bottom Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 1mm Several Chenopodium seeds, a couple of other seeds, 1 Gasterosteus dorsal spine 127E 116N Layer 7B Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 1mm Several Chenopodium seeds, 1 vertebra herring, 1 vertebra cf. Gobius (dirty)

127E 116N Layer 7C Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 1mm Several Chenopodium seeds, several small snails, 1 dermal denticle flounder, 1 basioccipital eel, 3 vertebra flatfish, 4 vertebra no ID (too dirty, eroded), 1 vertebra no ID 127E 116N Layer 8 Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 1mm Many Chenopodium seeds, 2 other possible seeds, 1R otolith (cf cod family?), 1 vertebra eel (burnt) 121E 117N Layer 7A Trench 11 15July2004 CF 1mm 3 dermal denticles flounder 123E 117N Layer 7B Black Sand Trench 11 06July2004 BO 1mm A few possible burnt seeds, 81 dermal denticles flounder (3 calcined), 1 ceratohyal eel, 1R premaxillary cod family, 9 teeth spurdog, 2 vertebra Sygnathidae, 1 fragment (<½) vertebra spurdog, 1 basioccipital eel, 5 first vertebra eel (2 calcined), 18 other vertebra eel (1 calcined), 1 vertebra garfish, 1 vertebra Gasterosteus, 16 vertebra cod family, 3 vertebra herring, 3 vertebra eelpout, 13 vertebra no ID (too dirty, eroded), 10 vertebra no ID (1 burnt, bagged separately) 124E 117N Layer 7B Trench 11 02July2004 LRA 1mm 1 dermal denticle flounder, 2 Gasterosteus dorsal spines, 1 vertebra cod family, 2 vertebra herring, 3 vertebra no ID (too dirty, eroded), 1 vertebra no ID (ultimate?) Several Chenopodium seeds, a few other possible seeds, 37 dermal denticles flounder, 2 Gasterosteus dorsal spines, 3 teeth spurdog, 2 first vertebra eel, 11 other vertebra eel (1 calcined, 1 burnt), 4 vertebra cod family, 1 vertebra Gobius, 2 vertebra eelpout, 1 vertebra Sygnathidae, 12 vertebra no ID (too dirty, eroded), 11 vertebra no ID 125E 117N Layer 7B Trench 11 05July2004 KCR 1mm Many Chenopodium seeds, some other possible seeds, 9 dermal denticles flounder, 2 first vertebra eel (1 calcined), 2 other vertebra eel, 1 (<½) vertebra pighaj, 1 vertebra Gasterosteus, 1 vertebra Gobius, 11 vertebra cod family (including 1 basioccipital, 1 burnt), 2 vertebra eelpout, 8 vertebra no ID (too dirty, eroded), 3 vertebra no ID 2mm Samples 122E 116N Layer 7B Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 2mm Cod family 1 first vertebra 8 other vertebra 1L 2R dentary 1L vomer 1L premaxillary 1R interopercle 2 parasphenoid 1L 1R posttemporal 1 epibranchial Flatfish 1 vertebra 1 ectopterygoid 1L quadrate Eel 5 vertebra 2R anguloarticular Herring 3 vertebra Spurdog 1 fragment (<½) vertebra Eelpout 1 vertebra Weever 1 vertebra Unidentified 5 vertebra too dirty, eroded 4 vertebra 122E 116N Layer 7C Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 2mm Cod family

2L otolith (10.5/4.3, 10.7/4.4mm) 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 2 other vertebra 1 branchiostegal ray 1L 1R posttemporal 1L palatine 1R dentary 1R maxillary Flatfish 1 vertebra (ultimate) Eel 1 basioccipital 6 vertebra (1 burnt) Herring 1 prooticum Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 4 vertebra 123E 116N Layer 7B Black Sand Trench 11 07July2004 BO 2mm Cod family 1 first vertebra 2 second vertebra 19 other vertebra 1 mesethmoid 1L 3R dentary 1L 1R vomer 2L posttemporal 1R angular 1R opercle 2R quadrate 2L 2R maxillary 1L 1R supracleithrum 2L premaxillary Flatfish 6 vertebra 1 urohyal 2 ectopterygoid 1 os anale Eel 13 vertebra (3 burnt) 1 vomer Herring 2 first vertebra 3 other vertebra Eelpout 4 vertebra Bull-rout 2 vertebra Gurnard 1 vertebra Shad 1 vertebra Unidentified 22 vertebra 124E 116N Layer 7B Black Spots Trench 11 05July2004 LRA 2mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 8 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 92 other vertebra (3 burnt) 5R dentary 2L 2R vomer 2R epihyal 1L 1R palatine 1L hyomandibular 1R supracleithrum 1 pharyngeal plate 3 mesethmoid 1L symplectic 2 epibranchial 4L 5R premaxillary 1L 1R angular 2L 3R posttemporal 2L 1R maxillary (1 burnt) 3L 1R quadrate Flatfish 2 first vertebra 22 other vertebra (1 burnt) 1R supracleithrum 1 vomer 1R maxillary 1 ectopterygoid 1R angular Eel 4 first vertebra (1 burnt) 68 vertebra (7 burnt, 2 calcined)1L ceratohyal (1.8mm) 1R epihyal Herring

4 first vertebra 24 other vertebra Spurdog 1 vertebra (and two fragments <½) 1 dorsal spine Stickleback 1 dorsal spine Garfish 1 dentary fragment Mackerel 2 vertebra Bull-rout 9 vertebra Eelpout 3 vertebra Shad 3 vertebra Weever 1 first vertebra 1 other vertebra Goby 2 vertebra Unidentified 17 vertebra too dirty, eroded 45 vertebra 125E 116N Layer 7B Trench 11 06July2004 KCR 2mm Cod family 6 vertebra 1L 1R posttemporal 1R hypohyal Flatfish 1 basioccipital 1 other vertebra Eel 2 vertebra Herring 1 vertebra Spurdog 1 vertebra Unidentified 4 vertebra 127E 116N Layer 7A Bottom Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 2mm Cod family 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 127E 116N Layer 7B Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 2mm Cod family 1 vertebra Eel 1 vertebra Spurdog 2 fragments (<½) vertebra 127E 116N Layer 7C Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 2mm Cod family 3 vertebra 1R posttemporal 1L opisthotic 1R quadrate Eel 1 vertebra

Herring 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 127E 116N Layer 8 Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 2mm Cod family 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra no ID 121E 117N Layer 7A Trench 11 15July2004 CF 2mm Cod family 2 vertebra (1 very small second) Flatfish 1 vertebra Eel 1 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra 123E 117N Layer 7B Black Sand Trench 11 06July2004 BO 2mm Cod family 1 first vertebra (burnt) 4 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 47 other vertebra 2L 1R dentary 2L 1R posttemporal 4L 1R premaxillary 2L 2R quadrate (1 fragment) 3L supracleithrum 1 parasphenoid 1R opercle 1L interhyal 1L sphenotic 1L epihyal 1 pharyngeal plate Flatfish 12 vertebra 1R quadrate 1 vomer Eel 32 vertebra (1 burnt, 1 calcined) 1 urohyal 1L anguloarticular Herring 1 first vertebra 22 other vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra 1 parasphenoid Weever 1 vertebra Eelpout 2 vertebra Unidentified 9 vertebra too dirty, eroded 13 vertebra 124E 117N Layer 7B Trench 11 02July2004 LRA 2mm Cod family 1 first vertebra 4 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 41 other vertebra (1 burnt) 1L 1R palatine 1R posttemporal 1R symplectic 1L dentary 1L retroarticular 2R vomer 1R premaxillary Flatfish 11 vertebra 1L posttemporal Eel 1 basioccipital 13 other vertebra

Herring 1 first vertebra 4 other vertebra Stickleback 1 dorsal spine Bull-rout 6 vertebra Eelpout 4 vertebra Unidentified 17 vertebra too dirty, eroded 11 vertebra 125E 117N Layer 7B Trench 11 05July2004 KCR 2mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (4.1mm and no measure) 1 third vertebra 27 other vertebra 1 branchiostegal ray 1 mesethmoid 2L 1R dentary 3L supracleithrum 1R quadrate 1R symplectic 1L opercle 2L 3R posttemporal 1R vomer 2R maxillary (1 fragment) 1R sphenotic Flatfish 13 vertebra (1 burnt) 1L 1R posttemporal 1L supracleithrum Eel 10 vertebra (1 burnt) Herring 9 vertebra (1 burnt) 1 prooticum Spurdog 1 fragment (<½) vertebra Bull-rout 4 vertebra (1 burnt) Gurnard 1 vertebra Unidentified 16 vertebra 4mm Samples 122E 116N Layer 7B Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 4mm Cod family 2 first vertebra (5.0mm, no measure) 2 second vertebra 1 other vertebra 1R premaxillary Flatfish 1 basioccipital 3 other vertebra Unidentified 18 fragments 122E 116N Layer 7C Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 4mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 2 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 6 other vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 23 fragments 123E 116N Layer 7B Black Sand Trench 11 07July2004 BO 4mm Cod family

1 first vertebra 1 third vertebra 6 other vertebra 1 epibranchial Flatfish 6 vertebra 1L angular Spurdog 1 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Garfish 1 dentary fragment Gurnard 1 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 39 fragments 124E 116N Layer 7B Black Spots Trench 11 05July2004 LRA 4mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 4 second vertebra 6 third vertebra 70 other vertebra 1L symplectic 1 branchiostegal ray 1 mesethmoid 2L dentary 5L 3R premaxillary 1R supracleithrum 1L posttemporal 1 epibranchial 1L vomer 1L quadrate 1R opisthotic Flatfish 8 first vertebra (4.9, 4.0, 4.1, 3.8, 4 no measure) 52 other vertebra (1 burnt) 1 urohyal Eel 2 vertebra 1L ceratohyal (1.9mm) Spurdog 2 fragments (<½) vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra 2 dentary fragments Mackerel 2 vertebra Weever 1 vertebra (burnt) Gurnard 1 vertebra Bull-rout 2 vertebra Unidentified 26 vertebra 229 fragments 125E 116N Layer 7B Trench 11 06July2004 KCR 4mm Cod family 8 vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 2 other vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 4 vertebra 15 fragments 127E 116N Layer 7A Bottom Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 4mm

Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 6 fragments (plus 1 stone and 1 charcoal) 127E 116N Layer 7B Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 4mm Unidentified 4 fragments 127E 116N Layer 7C Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 4mm Cod family 2 basioccipital 11 other vertebra 1 parasphenoid 1L sphenotic Flatfish 5 vertebra 1 os anale Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 26 fragments 127E 116N Layer 8 Trench 11 27July2004 KCR 4mm Cod family 10 vertebra Flatfish 3 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 18 fragments (mostly/all vertebra, fairly eroded and broken) 121E 117N Layer 7A Trench 11 15July2004 CF 4mm Cod family 1 vertebra 1R posttemporal Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 8 fragments 123E 117N Layer 7B Black Sand Trench 11 06July2004 BO 4mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 10 other vertebra 1 branchiostegal ray 1L 3R vomer 1L premaxillary Flatfish 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 15 other vertebra (1 burnt) Mackerel 1 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Gurnard 3 vertebra (including 1 ultimate) Unidentified 4 vertebra 56 fragments 124E 117N Layer 7B Trench 11 02July2004 LRA 4mm Cod family 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 15 other vertebra (2 burnt) 1L supracleithrum 1R quadrate 1R premaxillary (burnt)

Flatfish 2 vertebra Bull-rout 1 first vertebra Garfish 2 dentary fragments Gurnard 1 dorsal spine Spurdog 1 fragment (<½) vertebra Unidentified 5 vertebra 34 fragments 125E 117N Layer 7B Trench 11 05July2004 KCR 4mm Cod family 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (4.1mm, no measure) 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 17 other vertebra 2R vomer 2L premaxillary 1R maxillary 1L quadrate 2R angular 1L sphenotic Flatfish 1 first vertebra 30 other vertebra Eel 1 basioccipital Spurdog 1 vertebra 2 fragments (<½) vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra (1 fragment) Bull-rout 3 vertebra (1 burnt) Garfish 4 dentary fragments Unidentified 8 vertebra 80 fragments

Fårevejle Fish Notes Final

140E 107N Layer 3 Trench 1 27July2004 TB 2 non-vertebra fragments, probably not fish bone 141E 107N Layer 4 Trench 1 12August2004 TB Cod family 1 vertebra 141E 107N Layer 5 Trench 1 12August2004 TB Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 141E 107N Layer 5 Trench 1 13August2004 TB Cod family 2 vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 3 vertebra fragments 8 non-vertebra fragments 141E 107N Layer 6 Trench 1 17August2004 TB Cod family 1 second vertebra 140E 108N Layer 5 Trench 1 14July2005 CF Cod family 1 third vertebra 11 vertebra 1R dentary 1L quadrate Flatfish 1 first vertebra (5.9mm) 9 other vertebra 1R posttemporal 1 os anale Eel 2 vertebra (?) 1L cleithrum (2.5mm) 140E 108N Layer 5-6B Trench 1 15July2005 CF Cod family 1 first vertebra (5.7mm) 1 other vertebra 1 parasphenoid 1 vomer Flatfish 2 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra 140E 108N Layer 6B Trench 1 15July2005 CF Cod family 2 third vertebra 5 other vertebra 1R premaxillary Flatfish 3 vertebra

Unidentified 1 vertebra 140E 108N Layer 6C Trench 1 15July2005 TLS Cod family 2 vertebra 1L retroarticular 1R maxillary 2L 1R premaxillary Flatfish 1 vertebra Trout/salmon 1 vertebra 140E 108N Layer 6A1 Trench 1 18July2005 CF Cod family 3 vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra 140E 108N Layer 6A2 Trench 1 18July2005 CF Cod family 3 vertebra Flatfish 3 vertebra 140E 108N Layer 6C2 Trench 1 19July2005 CF Unidentified Several fragments 140E 108N Layer 7 Oyster Trench 1 20July2005 CF Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 third vertebra 1 other vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra 140E 108N Layer 7 Trench 1 21July2005 CF Cod family 1 vertebra 1 parasphenoid Unidentified 1 vertebra 140E 108N Layer 7(B?) Trench 1 22July2005 CF Cod family 1L otolith Flatfish 1 vertebra Eel 1 vertebra 140E 108N Layer 8 Trench 1 22July2005 CF Flatfish 1 vertebra 141E 108N Layer 5 Trench 1 14July2005 TLS Cod family 2 vertebra 1R maxillary Flatfish 6 vertebra

Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 141E 108N Layer 6D Trench 1 15July2005 TLS Cod family 3 vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra 141E 108N Layer 7 Trench 1 20July2005 TLS Cod family 13 vertebra 1R dentary 2R angular Flatfish 6 vertebra 141E 108N Layer 7B Trench 1 21July2005 TLS Cod family 1 third vertebra 3 other vertebra Below Midden Trench 1 01August2005 CF Cod family 1 vertebra 140E 109N Layer 4 Trench 1 13July2005 KCR Cod family 1 second vertebra 4 other vertebra Flatfish 3 vertebra 140E 109N Layer 5B Trench 1 18July2005 KCR Cod family 1 second vertebra 23 other vertebra 1R posttemporal 2L angular 1L 1R quadrate 1 symplectic 1R ectopterygoid Flatfish 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (5.2mm) 47 other vertebra 1L hyomandibular 2L 1R quadrate 1 vomer (turbot/brill) 1L hypohyal Eel 2 vertebra 1L quadrate 1R ceratohyal (4.6mm) Cyprinid 1 first (?) vertebra 1 other vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra (eroded) 140E 109N Layer 6 arbitrary Trench 1 15July2005 KCR Cod family 1 first vertebra (no measure) 2 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 11 other vertebra 1L 1R dentary 1L vomer 1R otolith 1L 2R angular 1R supracleithrum Flatfish 2 first vertebra (4.2mm, 1 no measure) 27 other vertebra (1 turbot) 1R hyomandibular 1 vomer Eel

1 basioccipital 1 other vertebra 1R cleithrum (2.0mm) Herring 1 vertebra 140E 109N Layer 6F Trench 1 20July2005 KCR Cod family 1 vertebra 1 parasphenoid 140E 109N Layer 6F Trench 1 20July2005 KCR Weights: 7g fragments, 9g identified Cod family 1 basioccipital (>3kg fish) 1 first vertebra (7.4mm) 1 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 34 other vertebra 1R angular 1L 1R dentary 1R quadrate 1L 2R premaxillary 5 parasphenoid 2R vomer 1R cleithrum 1R ceratohyal 1 symplectic Flatfish 1 first vertebra (4.9mm) 45 other vertebra 4 os anale 1 urohyal Eel 1 vertebra 1 vomer Garfish 2 vertebra 140E 109N Layer 7 Trench 1 20July2005 KCR Cod family 1L otolith (broken, >½) 140E 109N Layer 8 Trench 1 22July2005 KCR Cod family 1 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 7 other vertebra 3L 2R otolith Flatfish 6 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 141E 109N Layer 4 Trench 1 12July2005 LRA Flatfish 2 vertebra 141E 109N Layer 5 Trench 1 15July2005 LRA Cod family 1 first vertebra (in 2 pieces) 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 44 other vertebra 4L 4R otoliths 1L 1R maxillary 4L 2R premaxillary 1L dentary 2R quadrate 2 symplectic 2R vomer 1R cleithrum 1 epibranchial Flatfish 3 first vertebra (4.9, 4.7, 3.9mm) 84 other vertebra 1L maxillary 2 vomer 2 urohyal 1 parasphenoid 1L posttemporal 1R epihyal 1 ectopterygoid 1 os anale 1R supracleithrum 1L 1R hyomandibular 2L quadrate Eel 6 vertebra

Garfish 2 vertebra Pike 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra (eroded) 2 non-vertebra 141E 109N Layer 6E Trench 1 18July2005 LRA Cod family 3 basioccipital 4 first vertebra (9.2, 9.6, 6.9, 5.3mm) 106 other vertebra 2L dentary 2 parasphenoid 3L 4R premaxillary 4L 2R maxillary 1L 1R supracleithrum 2L vomer 2L 1R posttemporal 1L ceratohyal 1R hyomandibular 4L 1R angular 1L 1R quadrate 2L 1R cleithrum 1R hypohyal 1L palatine Flatfish 95 vertebra (1 turbot) 3 urohyal 3L 1R supracleithrum 1 vomer 1R angular 3L pterotic (flounder) 1R epihyal Eel 9 vertebra 1L quadrate 1L 1R hyomandibular Herring 2 vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Mackerel/Horse mackerel(?) 2 vertebra Pike 1 tooth Cyprinid 2 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 141E 109N Layer 6F Trench 1 20July2005 LRA Cod family 2 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (7.0, 6.1mm) 1 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 103 other vertebra (2 fused) 5L 4R premaxillary 1L dentary 3L 3R maxillary (2 fragments) 1L supracleithrum 3L angular 1R posttemporal 1L 1R quadrate 1R palatine 1 symplectic 2 postcleithrum 1R cleithrum 1L ceratohyal Flatfish 50 vertebra (1 turbot) 1L premaxillary (flounder?) 2 os anale 1L hyomandibular 1L posttemporal Eel 4 vertebra Herring 3 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra 141E 109N Layer 6F Trench 1 20July2005 LRA Cod family

1R maxillary Flatfish 1 vertebra 141E 109N Layer 7 Trench 1 21July2005 LRA Cod family 12 vertebra 1R maxillary 1 parasphenoid Flatfish 7 vertebra Eel 1 vertebra 1 vomer (very large) 141E 109N Layer 7 Trench 1 21July2005 LRA (2

nd bag)

Cod family 1 vertebra 141E 109N Layer 7 Trench 1 22July2005 LRA Bag #2 Cod family 4 vertebra 1 parasphenoid 1R premaxillary 1L quadrate 140E 110N Layer 6 Trench 1 09August2004 TLS Cod family 1 second vertebra 5 other vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 140E 110N Layer 7 Trench 1 10August2004 TLS Cod family 3 second vertebra 1 other vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra (turbot) 141E 110N Layer 4 Trench 1 23July2004 TLS Weights: 1g fragments, <1g no ID, 7g cod family, 1g flatfish, 1g non-vertebra Cod family 2 first vertebra (7.1, 5.6mm) 2 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 61 other vertebra 1R otolith 1R maxillary 1R angular 1L ectopterygoid Flatfish 22 vertebra 1L dentary Eel 1L 1R cleithrum 1R epihyal Unidentified 1 vertebra (eroded) 141E 110N Layer 5 Trench 1 26July2004 TLS Cod family 2 first vertebra (5.8, 5.2mm) 2 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 99 other vertebra 3R premaxillary 2R quadrate 1L cleithrum 1L angular 3L 1R maxillary Flatfish 1 first vertebra (3.4mm) 54 other vertebra Eel 1 vertebra Garfish

3 vertebra Cyprinid 1 vertebra (Rutilus?) Unidentified 2 vertebra (eroded) 18 vertebra fragments 140E 111N Layer 6 Trench 1 09August2004 CF Weights: 2g fragments, 6g cod family, 2g flatfish, <1g other, 1g non-vertebra Cod family 6 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 71 other vertebra 1L quadrate 2R premaxillary 1R posttemporal 1R dentary 1 epibranchial 1L pharyngeal plate Flatfish 26 vertebra 1 os anale Eel 3 vertebra 1L cleithrum (2.0mm) Garfish 1 vertebra 140E 111N Layer 8 Trench 1 10August2004 CF Cod family 1 third vertebra 2 other vertebra Unidentified 2 non-vertebra fragments 141E 111N Layer 2 Trench 1 20July2004 CF Cod family 3 vertebra 1R premaxillary Unidentified 7 vertebra fragments 1 non-vertebra fragment 141E 111N Layer 3 Trench 1 29July2004 CF Cod family 1R premaxillary 141E 111N Layer 4 Trench 1 26July2004 CF Flatfish 3 vertebra 1 os anale Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 5 non-vertebra fragments 141E 111N Layer 4 Trench 1 28July2004 CF Cod family 1 third vertebra 3 other vertebra Flatfish 12 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 3 vertebra fragments 141E 111N Layer 5 Trench 1 28July2004 CF Cod family 1 first vertebra (no measure) 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 63 other vertebra 1L 1R supracleithrum 2L 3R premaxillary (1 fragment) 1L 1R posttemporal 1L 1R cleithrum 1R otolith Flatfish 2 first vertebra (5.0, 4.6mm) 129 other vertebra (1 turbot) 4 os anale (2 fragments)

1R maxillary (turbot) 1 ectopterygoid 1L 1R supracleithrum 2 parasphenoid Eel 4 vertebra 1R dentary Garfish 1 vertebra 2 dentary fragments Cyprinid 1 vertebra Unidentified 6 vertebra (eroded) 141E 111N Layer 5 Trench 1 28July2004 CF Cod family 2 vertebra 1R premaxillary Flatfish 1 first vertebra (5.6mm) 37 other vertebra 1 os anale 2R hyomandibular Unidentified 1 vertebra (eroded) 141E 111N Layer 6 Trench 1 29July2004 CF Weights: 1g fragments, <1g no ID, 1g cod family, 1g flatfish, <1g non-vertebra Cod family 1 third vertebra 5 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra (5.2mm) 17 other vertebra 1 opercle 1 os anale (1 fragment) Unidentified 1 vertebra (eroded) 7 vertebra fragments 141E 111N Layer 7 Trench 1 29July2004 CF Cod family 1 first vertebra (no measure) 1 other vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Eel 1R ceratohyal (2.3mm) Unidentified 1 vertebra 2 vertebra fragments 3 non-vertebra fragments 141E 111N Layer 8 Trench 1 30July2004 CF Cod family 2 vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 1 non-vertebra fragment 132E 112N Layer 2 Trench 2 20July2005 PN Cod family 1L posttemporal Flatfish 1 vertebra 132E 112N Layer 2 Trench 2 21July2005 PN Cod family

1 first vertebra (5.8mm) 1 third vertebra 3 other vertebra 1R premaxillary Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra (gurnard/weever?) 132E 112N Oyster Trench 2 03August2005 CF Unidentified 1 fragment vertebra (cf. cod family) 133E 112N Last Oysters to Floor Trench 2 04August2005 CF Cod family 1 vertebra 140E 112N Layer 3 Trench 1 11August2004 BO Cod family 2 vertebra Flatfish 1 basioccipital 3 other vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra fragments 140E 112N Layer 4 Trench 1 11August2004 BO Cod family 14 vertebra 1L vomer 1 pharyngobranchial 1 interhyal 1L cleithrum 1L otolith Flatfish 2 vertebra 1R hyomandibular Eel 1 vertebra Cyprinid 1 first vertebra 140E 112N Layer 4 Trench 1 11August2004 BO Cod family 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (8.2, 8.6mm) 2 third vertebra 46 other vertebra 1 pharyngobranchial 1 postcleithrum 1R cleithrum 1L ceratohyal 2L premaxillary 2L 1R maxillary 1L 1R posttemporal 1R quadrate 1R supracleithrum 1 vomer 1R epihyal Flatfish 1 first vertebra (4.8mm) 29 other vertebra 1R angular 1 parasphenoid Eel 5 vertebra 1 parasphenoid 1L ceratohyal (2.0mm) 140E 112N Layer 6 Trench 1 12August2004 BO Cod family 7 vertebra 1 parasphenoid 1L premaxillary 1L vomer 1L angular 1R ceratohyal Flatfish 1 vertebra Eel 1 parasphenoid 1R ceratohyal (2.1mm) Unidentified

8 vertebra fragments 4 non-vertebra fragments 140E 112N Layer 7 Trench 1 13August2004 BO Weights: 6g fragments, <1g no ID, 7g cod family, 1g flatfish, <1g other vertebra, 3g non-vertebra Cod family 3 basioccipital 4 third vertebra 65 other vertebra 3L 1R otolith 4L 3R premaxillary 1L dentary 2 parasphenoid (1 fragment) 2L maxillary 1R quadrate 1L 1R supracleithrum Flatfish 3 first vertebra (4.5, 4.5mm, no measure) 14 other vertebra (1 turbot) 5 os anale (2 fragments) Eel 1 first vertebra 1 other vertebra 1R dentary 1L ceratohyal (3.1mm) Herring 2 vertebra Bull-rout 1 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 140E 112N Layer 8 Trench 1 13August2004 BO Cod family 2 first vertebra (9.2, 8.2mm) 2 second vertebra 7 other vertebra 1R otolith Flatfish 1 vertebra 141E 112N Layer 3 Trench1 23July2004 BO Weights: 3g fragments, 5g cod family, Cod family 2 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (8.6mm, no measure) 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 46 other vertebra (2 fused) 3L 1R otolith 3L premaxillary (2 fragments) 1L 3R vomer 1L angular 3R quadrate 1L posttemporal 1L maxillary Flatfish 48 vertebra Eel 1L dentary Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 52 vertebra fragments 141E 112N Layer 4 Trench 1 28July2004 BO Cod family 1 second vertebra 27 other vertebra 1R 1 whole vomer 2L 1R premaxillary 2 parasphenoid 1R posttemporal 1R cleithrum 1L hyomandibular Flatfish 3 first vertebra (5.2, 4.9, 4.2mm) 39 other vertebra 1L 1R cleithrum Eel 2 vertebra 1 parasphenoid Pike

1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra (broken, worn) 141E 112N Layer 4 Trench 1 27July2004 BO Cod family 1 vertebra (small) 1 otolith fragment Flatfish 1 os anale 1 cleithrum Unidentified 5 non-vertebra fragments 141E 112N Layer 5 Trench 1 29July2004 BO Eel 1 parasphenoid Unidentified 2 non-vertebra fragments 141E 112N Layer 5 Trench 1 29July2005 BO Cod family 1 third vertebra 6 other vertebra 1R dentary Flatfish 1 first vertebra (no measure) 21 other vertebra (1 burnt) 1 cleithrum 2R posttemporal Eel 1 parasphenoid 1L cleithrum (1.3mm) 141E 112N Layer 6 Trench 1 30July2004 BO Cod family 2 vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra 141E 112N Layer 7 Trench 1 30July2004 BO Cod family 1 vertebra 141E 112N Layer 8 Trench 1 30July2004 BO Unidentified 2 non-vertebra fragments 132E 113N 410/404 Trench 2 26July2005 PP(?) Flatfish 1 vertebra 133E 113N Crushed Shell Above Oysters Trench 2 05August2005 CF/TLS Cod family 1 vertebra 2 vertebra fragments 133E 113N Midden Bottom of Pit to N Trench 2 09August2005 KCR(?) Cod family 1 vertebra 140E 113N Layer 5 Trench 1 10August2004 KCR Cod family 3 first vertebra (9.4, 8.2, 6.7mm) 4 second vertebra 5 third vertebra

83 other vertebra 1L 3R premaxillary 1R dentary 1L 1R posttemporal 1R maxillary 2L angular 1R supracleithrum 2L otoliths Flatfish 30 vertebra (2 turbot) 1R quadrate Eel 1R quadrate Spurdog 1 dorsal spine Unidentified 2 vertebra (eroded) 140E 113N Layer 6 Trench 1 11August2004 KCR Cod family 2 first vertebra (6.7, 6.2mm) 1 second vertebra 72 other vertebra 2R otolith 2L 2R premaxillary 1 parasphenoid 1 vomer 1L 2R angular 1L 1R quadrate 1L 1R maxillary Flatfish 11 vertebra 1 urohyal Eel 1 vertebra 140E 113N Layer 6 Trench 1 11August2004 KCR Cod family 1 vertebra 1L quadrate 1R dentary 1R vomer Flatfish 1R quadrate (turbot) Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 8 non-vertebra fragments 140E 113N Layer 7 Trench 1 12August2004 KCR Cod family 1 third vertebra 7 other vertebra 1R maxillary Flatfish 4 vertebra 141E 113N Layer 4 Trench 1 26July2004 KCR Weights: <1g fragments and no ID, 1g cod family, 1g flatfish Cod family 2 second vertebra 5 other vertebra 1R otolith Flatfish 11 other vertebra (1 turbot) Unidentified 3 vertebra 3 vertebra fragments 2 non-vertebra fragments 141E 113N Layer 5 Trench 1 29July2004 KCR Cod family 1 first vertebra (9.8mm) 2 other vertebra Flatfish 3 vertebra 141E 113N Layer 6 Trench 1 30July2004 KCR Cod family 2 vertebra

Flatfish 2 vertebra 1L cleithrum Unidentified 1 non-vertebra fragment 132E 114N Broken Crushed Shell Trench 2 04August2005 LRA Cod family 3 vertebra 1 parasphenoid (1 fragment) Flatfish 1 vertebra 132E 114N Sand Above Moraine Trench 2 05August2005 TLS Cod family 1 third vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra 133E 114N Broken Shell Top Layer Trench 2 20July2005 MJ Cod family 1L otolith 133E 114N Broken Crushed Shell Trench 2 04August2005 LRA Cod family 1 second vertebra 1 other vertebra 133E 114N Dark Layer Below A36 Trench 2 04August2005 LRA Cod family 1 vertebra 141E 114N Layer 6 (A7) Trench 1 18August2004 KCR Cod family 1L otolith 132E 115N Top Broken Shell Layer Trench 2 20July2005 MJ Cod family 3R otoliths 132N 116E Top Shell Layer Trench 2 11July2005 MJ Cod family 1 third vertebra 132E 117N Top Shell Layer Trench 2 15July2005 MJ Cod family 2 vertebra 132E 117N Top Shell Layer Trench 2 15July2005 MJ Unidentified 2 vertebra fragments (<½) 132E 117N Oyster Shell Heap #2 Trench 2 25July2005 MJ Cod family 1 second vertebra 5 third vertebra 12 other vertebra 1R dentary 1L 1R vomer 2L quadrate Unidentified 3 vertebra 1 ceratohyal/epihyal

132E 118N Oyster Shell Heap #2 Trench 2 26July2005 MJ 2 bags Unidentifed 1 vertebra 132E 118N Oyster Shell Heap #2 Trench 2 26July2005 MJ Cod family 1 vertebra Feature A35 Trench 1 01August2005 Cod family 1L otolith 141E Under Midden Mottled Sand Trench 1 02August2005 CF Unidentified 1 vertebra

Havnø 4014 101/98 MHF Nothing identified 102/94 NE FOH 1 os anale flatfish 1 Left 1 Right cleithrum eel 11 vertebra eel 1 vertebra herring 89/100 SE 231- HWD Nothing identified 92/100 SE 210-217 HZS Nothing identified 89/100 NE 196-212 HRR Nothing identified 89/100 NW 194-210 HRQ 2 vertebra eel 1 vertebra flatfish 100/99 SE LDY Nothing identified 93/100 SE 208-213 HZW 1 vertebra salmon/trout 99/98 SW LTT 1 vertebra flatfish 98/102 SE 149-161 MOM 1 vertebra eel 1 R ceratohyal eel 92/100 NW 180-188 HNW 1 L epihyal eel 2 parasphenoid eel 1 frontal eel 2 L ceratohyal eel 1 L cleithrum eel 8 vertebra eel 98/102 SE 135-139 MEO Nothing identified 92/100 NE 173-180 HLV 5 vertebra eel 1 L opercle eel 92/100 SW 180-188 HNY 1 vertebra eel

89/100 SE 220- HTU Nothing identified 102/94 SW FOL 4 vertebra eel 1 first vertebra flatfish 1 vertebra no ID 1 R ceratohyal eel 1 L 1 R cleithrum eel 98/101 SE JRN Nothing identified 102/93 NE FOM 2 vertebra eel 1 vertebra herring 2 vertebra salmon/trout 2 vertebra no ID 1 L quadrate eel 100/98 SE MGQ Nothing identified 102/93 NE 219-232 MNJ 1 vertebra weever 100/98 NE MBR Nothing identified 93/100 NW 202-210 HZT Nothing identified 92/100 SW 175-180 HLW 1 first vertebra eel 2 vertebra eel 1 R angular eel 98/101 SE 136-138 MEF 1 vertebra no ID 93/100 SW 178-189 HOC 2 vertebra eel 1 L hyomandibular eel 93/100 SW 205-214 HZV 1 first vertebra eel 4 vertebra eel 1 vertebra herring 1 vertebra eelpout 5 vertebra no ID (too dirty) 1 L cleithrum eel 89/100 NE 224- HWB 2 vertebra eel

99/102 SE MOQ Nothing identified 93/100 NW 174-180 HLY 2 vertebra eel 100/98 MHK 1 vertebra eel 99/99 SW 146-154 LJF Nothing identified 92/100 NW 173-180 HLU 4 vertebra eel 102/91 NW JNY 1 L dentary eel 1 L ceratohyal eel 102/96 NW Nothing identified 88/100 SE 196-216 HNQ 1 parasphenoid eel 1 vertebra salmon/trout 4 vertebra flatfish 1 vertebra no ID 3 vertebra garfish 102/93 NW FON 2 vertebra eel 2 vertebra herring 89/100 SE 184-204 HNU 7 vertebra eel 1 vertebra gadid 1 vertebra weever 1 R hyomandibular eel 1 L post-temporal gadid 99/98 NW LFR 1 vertebra garfish 99/102 NE 142-150 JSB Nothing identified 88/100 NE 191-212 HNO 1 vertebra eel 1 vertebra herring 1 vertebra flatfish 1 os anale flatfish 100/101 NGE Nothing identified

100/99 LDJ 1 vertebra flatfish 102/92 SE JOC Nothing identified 88/100 SW 241- HVY Nothing identified 88/100 SW 196-216 HNP Nothing identified 100/99 LRT 1 vertebra flatfish 93/100 SW 188- HUS 2 vertebra eel 1 R ceratohyal eel 102/92 NE JBM Nothing identified 89/100 SE 204- HRT 2 vertebra eel 1 vertebra flatfish 1 vertebra no ID 1 R angular flatfish 102/94 SW MNY Nothing identified 98/102 NE 145-162 MOO 1 vertebra eel 89/100 SW 183-203 HNT 4 vertebra eel 1 vertebra gadid 92/100 NE 208-217 HZQ 8 vertebra eel 88/100 237- HVW Nothing identified 102/96 SW APX 2 vertebra eel 93/100 NE 155- HCB Nothing identified 90/100 NE 180-199 HAG 1 vertebra gadid 102/94 SE FOK 3 vertebra eel 2 vertebra herring

1 vertebra flatfish 89/100 NW 175-194 HNR 1 L dentary weever 1 first vertebra eel 21 vertebra eel 5 vertebra weever 89/100 NE 178-196 HNS 4 vertebra gadid 1 vertebra eel 1 vertebra no ID 92/100 NW 208-218 HZP 2 vertebra eel OAC 3 vertebra eel 1 R cleithrum eel 1 R ceratohyal eel 1 R quadrate eel 1 vertebra no ID 88/100 NW 191-211 HNN 2 vertebra eel 1 vertebra weever 102/94 SE 220-228 MLM Nothing identified 100/98 SW MGR Nothing identified 100/98 SE MGQ Nothing identified 89/100 NW 222- HWA Nothing identified 88/100 NW 211-225 HRM 3 vertebra eel 87/100 SE 261-269 HKJ 1 vertebra probably weever 100/102 SW JUD 2 snail shells 93/100 NW 180-189 HOA 1 vertebra eel 1 L ceratohyal eel 88/100 SW 230- HTP 1 vertebra eel

100/99 NE LPL 1 R maxillary flatfish 92/100 SE 179-188 HNZ 1 L dentary eel 1 L angular eel 1 R hyomandibular eel 89/100 SV 220- HTT 1 vertebra garfish 93/100 NE 188- HUR 1 vertebra eel 91/100 SE 173-199 HAD 3 vertebra eel 92/100 NE 154- HBX 3 vertebra + 2 fragments gadid 88/100 NE 226- HTO 1 R angular eel 102/93 SW MLO 1 vertebra flatfish 1 vertebra eel 1 basioccipital eel 90/100 NW 178-198 HAF 1 basioccipital eel 6 vertebra eel 1 vomer eel 1 L 1 R ceratohyal eel 1 R angular eel 1 vertebra eelpout 93/100 SE 181-189 HOD 1 vertebra eel 1 frontal eel 102/93 SE FOO 1 basioccipital weever 1 first vertebra eel 1 vertebra eel 1 vertebra herring 6 vertebra salmon/trout 1 vertebra flatfish 1 R quadrate eel 93/100 SE 173-181 HMB 3 vertebra eel

1 L opercle eel 98/101 NE JRP 2 vertebra eel 88/100 NE 212-226 HRN 1 vertebra eel 1 vertebra weever 6 vertebra garfish 101/98 SW MGV Nothing identified 100/101 NE MJF Nothing identified 101/98 SE MGU Nothing identified 88/100 SW 216-230 HRO 2 vertebra flatfish 1 os anale flatfish 1 L palatine flatfish 102/97 NW L/4 BGS 4 vertebra eel 2 vomer eel 1 L epihyal eel 1 L cleithrum eel 1 frontal eel 92/100 SE 153- HBZ 1 vomer eel 1 R dentary eel 89/100 SW 203-220 HRS 1 vertebra eel 102/94 NW (FOF?) 3 vertebra eel 4 vertebra weever 1 basioccipital gadid 1 L ceratohyal eel 1 L cleithrum eel 89/100 NE 212- HTS 2 vertebra flatfish 1 R dentary species? 92-93/100 NW OAD (fyldskifte OAB) 1 vertebra eel 102/91 SE JNZ Nothing identified (vertebra fragments)

92/100 NE 180-188 HNX 7 vertebra eel Rodent mandible L 1 L 2 R cleithrum eel 88/100 SE 216-230 HRP 1 small vertebra no ID 1 R cleithrum eel 93/100 SE HUT 1 R hyomandibular eel 100/99 SW LSE Nothing identified 93/100 NE 175-180 HLZ 8 vertebra eel 102/94 NE 216-229 MLK 1 vertebra flatfish 1 vertebra salmon/trout 102/93 SE 218-231 MMQ 2 vertebra eel 1 L opercle eel 88/100 NW 225- HTN 1 L angular eel 93/100 SW 173-178 HMA 1 vertebra eel 1 frontal eel 93/100 NW 188- HUQ 1 vertebra eel 102/92 NE JOA 1 vertebra eel 1 R dentary eel 1 basioccipital eel? (dirty) 1 R angular eel 2 L 1 R cleithrum eel 100/101 SW MJJ 2 vertebra eel 91/100 NW 171-196 HAC 1 vertebra eel 2 vertebra gadid 98/102 MZP 1 basioccipital eel 2 vertebra eel 100/99 SE LPJ 1 vertebra bull-rout

LHL 1 vertebra flatfish 1 cleithrum eel 93/100 SE 201-204 2 vertebra eel Totals 179 vertebra eel 20 vertebra flatfish 15 vertebra weever 13 vertebra gadid 11 vertebra salmon/trout 11 vertebra garfish 9 vertebra herring 2 vertebra eelpout 1 vertebra bull-rout 14 vertebra no ID 275 vertebra (261 identified) 69 non-vertebra specimens 344 total specimens (330 identified)

DJM 2050 Jesholm There were: 47 vertebrae, of which, 18 were not identified (mostly because of eroded features or clinging matrix that obscured features) 11 non-vertebra elements, including 2 otoliths 12 miscellaneous fragments, not identified Identified vertebrae include: 14 weever 5 flatfish (plaice/dab/flounder) 3 eel 3 spurdog 2 gadid 1 bull-rout 1 herring From 10 liter matrix samples: E036 N811 Orange sand 28February2008 Trench 6 10 liter 1 right opercle weever 1 basipterygium gurnard 2 vertebra flatfish 4 vertebra weever 4 vertebra too dirty for identification (probably weever) 1 vertebra not identified E038 N811 Shell layer L.1 29February2008 Trench 6 10 liter 1 vertebra spurdog E042 N813 Shell layer 04March2008 Trench 6 10 liter 1 vertebra weever 2 vertebra not identified (very eroded) 1 left cleithrum eel E044 N811 Shell layer L.1 04March2008 Trench 6 10 liter 1 fragment 1 vertebra eel 1 vertebra weever E038 N811 Orange sand 03March2008 Trench 6 10 liter 1 vertebra flatfish 2 vertebra not identified (eroded and with matrix encrustations) E040 N811 Orange sand 27February2008 Trench 6 10 liter 1 partial vertebra not identified (eroded) 1 vertebra not identified (also eroded, possibly gadid) E040 N811 Orange sand 28February2008 Trench 6 10 liter 1 vertebra flatfish 2 very small vertebra not identified 1 fragment E043 N813 Shell layer 07March2008 Trench 6 10 liter

1 ultimate vertebra flatfish 1 second vertebra gadid-familie (3,5mm anterior face) 1 vertebra not identified 1 epihyal flatfish E041 N816 Shell layer 04March2008 Trench 6 10 liter 2 fragments 2 vertebra eel 1 vertebra bull-rout 1 vertebra weever 2 vertebra not identified (eroded) E040 N811 Shell layer 26February2008 Trench 6 10 liter 1 left preopercle weever 1 half vertebra spurdog 1 vertebra herring 1 vertebra gadid (small) 5 vertebra weever 1 vertebra not identified (eroded, possibly weever) E041 N811 Shell layer L. 1 27February2008 Trench 6 10 liter 1 fragment 1 half vertebra spurdog 1 partial vertebra not identified 2 vertebra weever 1 left and 1 right otolith species? Not from 10 liter samples: E044 N812 Shell layer 06March2008 Trench 6 1 left opercle weever 1 right preopercle weever E043 N812 Shell layer 06March2008 Trench 6 1 right opercle weever 1 fragment E042 N813 Shell layer 04March2008 Trench 6 3 fragments 1 left maxillary gadid?

Lollikhuse Fish Notes 9/88 358/504 10-20cm Cod family 8 vertebra (3 sent to Anders Fischer June 2007) Flatfish 2 first vertebra 123 other vertebra 1 os anale Eel 6 vertebra (5 sent to Anders Fischer June 2007) Herring 3 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 4 vertebra 16 vertebra fragments 5 other fragments MFG 9/88 x667 358/504 30-40cm Cod family 1L premaxillary MFG 9/88 x665 358/504 30-40cm Cod family 1R quadrate MFG 9/88 x610 358/504 30-40cm Cod family 1R supracleithrum 9/88 358/504 30-40cm Cod family 1 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 6 third vertebra 7 fourth vertebra 6 fifth vertebra 2 sixth vertebra 54 other vertebra 1 parasphenoid 1 vomer 1R angular Flatfish 6 first vertebra 222 other vertebra 2 os anale Eel 6 vertebra 2 cleithrum Mackerel 1 vertebra Herring 2 vertebra Garfish 22 vertebra Unidentified 23 vertebra too dirty (cf 10 flatfish) 18 vertebra 81 vertebra fragments 5 other fragments 6 fragments non-fish MFG 9/88 358/504 30-40cm Cod family 2 first vertebra 1 third vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 1 other vertebra 1 vomer 1L premaxillary 1L posttemporal 3L angular Flatfish

22 vertebra 8 os anale 1 urohyal Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 19 vertebra fragments 24 other fragments MFG 9/88 358/504 40-50cm Cod family 10 vertebra 1R premaxillary (large fish) Flatfish 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 36 other vertebra Eel 1 vertebra Unidentified 6 vertebra too dirty (cf 3 flatfish, 1 garfish) 1 vertebra 10 vertebra fragments 4 other fragments MFG 9/88 x527 358/504 40-50cm Cod family 1R angular MFG 9/88 359/504 0-10cm Flatfish 7 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 9/88 359/504 10-20cm Flatfish 15 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 11 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 359/504 20-30cm Cod family 3 vertebra Flatfish 30 vertebra Garfish 4 vertebra Spurdog 1 dorsal spine Unidentified 8 vertebra too dirty 11 vertebra fragments 9/88 359/504 30-40cm Cod family 1 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 3 fourth vertebra 18 other vertebra (2 vertebra sent to Anders Fischer June 2007) 1L supracleithrum 1R maxillary Flatfish 13 first vertebra 655 other vertebra 1 urohyal 19 os anale Eel

16 vertebra (4 vertebra sent to Anders Fischer June 2007) 3L 1R cleithrum (3.2, 2.1, 3.3, 3.5mm) Herring 6 vertebra Garfish 34 vertebra Gurnard 1 vertebra Unidentified 30 vertebra too dirty 11 vertebra 184 vertebra fragments 55 other fragments 5 mammal/bird fragments MFG 9/88 x516 359/504 40-50cm Flatfish 1 os anale MFG 9/88 359/504 40-50cm Flatfish 2 vertebra 9/88 359/504 40-50cm Cod family 9 vertebra 2R premaxillary Flatfish 4 first vertebra 173 other vertebra 2 os anale Eel 10 vertebra 1L 1R cleithrum (3.4, 2.5mm) 2L 1R ceratohyal (3.6, 3.0, 3.0mm) Mackerel 2 vertebra Garfish 4 vertebra Unidentified 7 vertebra too dirty 8 vertebra 60 vertebra fragments 33 other fragments 5 non-fish fragments MFG 9/88 359/504 50cm-bund Cod family 2 vertebra Flatfish 9 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra 1 vertebra fragment MFG 9/88 360/504 Afrens af grøft Flatfish 2 vertebra Herring 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty MFG 9/88 360/504 Oprens af grøft Flatfish 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 363/504 0-10cm Flatfish

1 vertebra MFG 9/88 363/504 10-20cm Flatfish 2 vertebra 9/88 363/504 30-40cm Cod family 2 vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 31 other vertebra Eel 2 vertebra Garfish 11 vertebra Unidentified 5 vertebra too dirty 4 vertebra 31 vertebra fragments 4 other fragments MFG 9/88 364/504 20-30cm Flatfish 1 vertebra 9/88 364/504 40-50cm Cod family 1 first vertebra (no measure) 1 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 2 fourth vertebra 4 fifth vertebra 1 sixth vertebra 27 other vertebra 1L premaxillary 1L maxillary Flatfish 5 vertebra Garfish 6 vertebra Unidentified 7 vertebra too dirty (cf 2 flatfish, 1 eel) 1 vertebra 8 vertebra fragments 8 other fragments MFG 9/88 364/504 40-50cm Cod family 2 vertebra 1L maxillary MFG 9/88 365/502 0-15cm Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty MFG 9/88 365/504 40-50cm Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty (cf cod family) 9/88 366/502 10-15cm Flatfish 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 366/504 20-30cm Flatfish

1 vertebra MFG 9/88 366/504 40-50cm Cod family 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty MFG 9/88 366/505 30-40cm Cod family 1 second vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 366/505 40-50cm Cod family 1 first vertebra (9.4mm) Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra fragment MFG 9/88 366/505 50-60cm Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment MFG 9/88 367/504 50-60cm Flatfish 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 367/504 60-70cm Flatfish 3 vertebra MFG 9/88 367/505 40-50cm Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty MFG 9/88 367/505 50-60cm Unidentified 2 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 367/505 60-70cm Cod family 1 second vertebra 2 third vertebra Flatfish 2 first vertebra 5 other vertebra Eel 1 first vertebra Garfish

2 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra fragments 9/88 367/505 80-90cm Cod family 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 367/505 90cm-bund Cod family 1 fourth vertebra 1 other vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 369/510 Lag 1 40-50cm Cod family 1R posttemporal Unidentified 2 other fragments MFG 9/88 369/510 Lag 1 Garfish 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 369/510 Lag 2 Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra fragment MFG 9/88 369/510 Lag 2 Flatfish 6 vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra fragment MFG 9/88 369/510 Lag 2 Cod family 1 third vertebra 2 other vertebra Flatfish 6 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Garfish 3 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment MFG 9/88 369/510 Lag 3 Flatfish

1 vertebra MFG 9/88 369/510 Lag 3 Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 7 vertebra Eel 1 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra fragments 3 other fragments MFG 9/88 369/510 Lag 4 Cod family 1 sixth vertebra MFG 9/88 369/511 Lag 1 under Lag 4 Cod family 1 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 4 other vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 369/511 Lag 4 Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 369/511 Lag 4 Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 fourth vertebra 1 sixth vertebra 3 other vertebra Flatfish 7 vertebra Eel 1 vertebra Garfish 3 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra fragments 1 other fragment MFG 9/88 369/511 Lag 5 Cod family 2 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 1 sixth vertebra 3 other vertebra Flatfish 3 first vertebra 24 other vertebra Eel 1 first vertebra 1 other vertebra Mackerel

6 vertebra Herring 1 vertebra Garfish 10 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra 16 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 369/511 Lag 5 Cod family 3 vertebra Flatfish 24 vertebra Garfish 23 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra 12 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 369/511 Lag 7 Flatfish 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 369/511 Lag 8 Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 369/512 Lag 3 Cod family 1 first vertebra (7.6mm) 1 other vertebra Flatfish 10 vertebra Mackerel 3 vertebra Garfish 3 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra 2 vertebra fragments 2 other fragments MFG 9/88 369/512 Lag 4 Unidentified 2 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 369/512 Lag 4 Cod family 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra Flatfish 18 vertebra Eel 1 vertebra Unidentified 5 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra 6 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 369/512 Lag 5 Cod family

1 third vertebra 1 other vertebra Flatfish 4 vertebra 1 os anale Eel 1 vertebra Garfish 10 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra 10 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 369/512 Lag 6 Cod family 2 basioccipital 2 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 2 sixth vertebra 11 other vertebra 1L 1R premaxillary Flatfish 2 first vertebra 34 other vertebra Mackerel 3 vertebra Garfish 17 vertebra Unidentified 5 vertebra 37 vertebra fragments 4 other fragments MFG 9/88 369/512 Lag 6 Cod family 3 vertebra Flatfish 15 vertebra Garfish 1 first vertebra 19 vertebra Spurdog 1 dorsal spine Unidentified 2 vertebra 10 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 369/512 Lag 6 Garfish 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 369/512 Lag 6 Cod family 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 17 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 8 other vertebra 1 os anale Garfish 4 vertebra Unidentified 5 vertebra too dirty 2 vertebra 13 vertebra fragments 9/88 370/504 50-60cm Cod family 1 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 1R angular Flatfish

2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 3 vertebra fragments 9/88 370/504 70-73cm Cod family 1 second vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 1 other vertebra 1R supracleithrum Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 3 vertebra fragments 1 other fragment 9/88 371/504 50-60cm Cod family 1 fourth vertebra 9/88 372/504 40-50cm Cod family 3 vertebra (1 very large) Flatfish 5 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra (cf cod family) 2 vertebra fragments 9/88 374/504 30-40cm Flatfish 1 vertebra 9/88 374/504 40-50cm Cod family 1 first vertebra 2 other vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra too dirty (cf flatfish) 1 vertebra fragment 9/88 374/504 50-60cm (1) Flatfish 2 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra 9/88 374/504 60-70cm Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 1 os anale 1 fragment vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra 9/88 375/504 20-30cm Cod family 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 9/88 375/504 50-60cm

Cod family 1 second vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra 9/88 376/504 40-50cm Flatfish 1 os anale 9/88 376/504 40-50cm Cod family 1 third vertebra 1 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 1 urohyal Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 9/88 376/504 50-60cm Cod family 1 third vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra 9/88 376/504 50-60cm Flatfish 9 vertebra 1 os anale Garfish 1 first vertebra 1 other vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 9/88 376/504 60-70cm pose 1 Flatfish 1 first vertebra 18 other vertebra 1 os anale Eel 1 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra too dirty 3 vertebra 10 vertebra fragments 9/88 376/504 60-70cm pose 2 Flatfish 10 vertebra 1 os anale Mackerel 1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra too dirty 2 vertebra fragments 9/88 377/504 60-70cm Flatfish 1 vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra

Unidentified 1 vertebra fragments 2 other fragments 9/88 378/504 0-10cm Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 other fragment 9/88 378/504 40-50cm Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra fragments 2 other fragments 9/88 378/504 60-70cm Flatfish 1 vertebra 9/88 379/504 30-40cm Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty (cf flatfish) 9/88 379/504 40-50cm Cod family 1L premaxillary Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra too dirty 2 vertebra fragments 9/88 379/504 50-60cm Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 3 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra fragments 1 other fragment 9/88 379/504 60cm-bund Flatfish 1 first vertebra 4 other vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 9/88 380/504 20-30cm Flatfish 1 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra fragment 9/88 380/504 30-40cm Cod family 2 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 11 other vertebra

1L premaxillary 1R maxillary Flatfish 1 first vertebra 16 other vertebra 1 os anale Eel 4 vertebra Garfish 9 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra too dirty 10 vertebra fragments 9/88 380/504 40-50cm Cod family 7 vertebra Flatfish 16 vertebra Eel 1 vertebra Mackerel 2 vertebra Garfish 11 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra too dirty 10 vertebra fragments 1 other fragment 9/88 380/504 50-60cm Cod family 2 vertebra 1L premaxillary Flatfish 8 vertebra Eel 1 cleithrum Unidentified 2 vertebra too dirty (herring?) 2 vertebra fragments 9/88 380/504 60-70cm Cod family 1R maxillary Flatfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 other fragment MFG 9/88 381/503 20-30cm Cod family 3 vertebra 1R premaxillary Flatfish 8 vertebra Unidentified 3 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra 1 vertebra fragment MFG 9/88 381/503 30-40cm Cod family 1 third vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 4 other vertebra 1L dentary (cod, from a large fish) Flatfish 64 other vertebra 3 os anale

Eel 6 vertebra Mackerel 1 vertebra Garfish 1 first vertebra 35 vertebra Unidentified 10 vertebra too dirty 2 vertebra 24 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 381/503 Lag 4 Cod family 5 vertebra Flatfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 1 other fragment 9/88 381/504 0-10cm Cod family 1 vertebra Flatfish 1 vertebra 9/88 381/504 10-20cm Cod family 3 vertebra Flatfish 3 vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra Spurdog 1 dorsal spine Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty (cf cod family) 1 vertebra 2 vertebra fragments 9/88 381/504 20-30cm Cod family 1 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 6 other vertebra 1R premaxillary (sent to Anders Fischer June2007) Flatfish 29 vertebra Eel 4 vertebra Garfish 6 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 31 vertebra too dirty 32 vertebra fragments 3 other fragments 9/88 381/504 40-50cm Cod family 3 vertebra Flatfish 14 vertebra Eel 4 vertebra

Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 10 vertebra too dirty 10 vertebra fragments 9/88 381/504 50-60cm Unidentified 1 vertebra 1 vertebra fragment 1 other fragment 9/88 381/504 60cm-bund Cod family 2 vertebra Garfish 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 383/504 Lag 4 30-40cm Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra fragment MFG 9/88 386/504 0-10cm Cod family 2 vertebra MFG 9/88 387/504 Øverste lag 0-10cm Cod family 1 first vertebra 3 third vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 5 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 12 other vertebra Garfish 3 vertebra Unidentified 9 vertebra too dirty 2 vertebra 13 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 388/504 Cod family 1 fifth vertebra 9 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 21 other vertebra Garfish 2 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra 14 vertebra fragments 1 other fragment MFG 9/88 389/504 Cod family 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra MFG 9/88 390/505 Østerlag Cod family 1 third vertebra 2 other vertebra Flatfish 1 first vertebra 2 other vertebra Unidentified

2 vertebra too dirty 1 vertebra fragment MFG 9/88 391/506 Skallag Cod family 1 first vertebra (no measure) 3 other vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty 4 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 391/507 Lag 2 Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 2 vertebra fragments MFG 9/88 393/507 Lag 6 Garfish 1 vertebra Unidentified 1 vertebra too dirty

Nederst Fish Notes X9483 søldeprøve Cod family 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 37 vertebra A 30 vertebra B 51 vertebra C 1R premaxillary (2 fragments, 1 fragment burned) 1L supracleithrum 1L quadrate 3L 1R otolith (1 fragment) 1L 1R vomer 3L 2R palatine 3L 1R posttemporal 1L angular 5L 2R maxillary 1L 1R opercle 1 branchiostegal ray 1 parasphenoid 2L 1R epihyal (1 burnt) Flatfish 13 basioccipital 35 first vertebra (4.6, 4.2, 4.1, 4.1, 3.5, 4.4, 4.1, 2.6, 4.2, 4.2, 4.0, 3.6, 3.9, 4.2, 4.0, 4.7, 3.5, 4.9, 5.0, 4.2, 4.0, 4.4, 4.8, 3.6, 4.3, 3.7mm, 9 no measure) 110 vertebra A (1 burnt) 190 vertebra B 874 vertebra C (8 turbot) 8L 5R premaxillary 3L 3R supracleithrum 11L 4R quadrate 7 os anale 14 urohyal 13 vomer 8L palatine 1L 1R posttemporal 3R angular 7L 13R maxillary 2 pharyngobranchial 1L 1R ceratohyal Eel 2 first vertebra 2 vertebra A 9 vertebra B 84 vertebra C 1L 1R cleithrum 1L ceratohyal (1.8mm) 1L anguloarticular Weever 3 vertebra B 8 vertebra C 1R quadrate Eelpout 3 vertebra B 15 vertebra C Trout/salmon 4 vertebra C Stickleback 1 vertebra Herring 11 vertebra C Unidentified 38 vertebra B (1 calcined) 47 vertebra C X9394 Cod family 1 first vertebra (6.2mm) 1 second vertebra 4 third vertebra 2 fourth vertebra 1 vertebra A 3 vertebra B 15 vertebra C 1 parasphenoid 1L maxillary 2L otolith 1R dentary 1R supracleithrum Flatfish 12 basioccipital 36 first vertebra (3.8, 5.4, 3.9, 3.6, 5.1, 4.8, 4.4, 5.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.2, 3.6, 4.5, 5.0, 4.8, 3.5, 4.5, 4.4, 5.5, 3.7, 4.3, 5.4, 4.5, 4.0, 5.2, 4.3, 4.0, 3.7, 4.3mm, 7 no measure) 111 vertebra B (1 burnt) 1227 vertebra C (2 burned, minimum 1 turbot) 69 vertebra A 1L 3R angular 7L 13R maxillary 24 os anale (6 fragments) 8 urohyal 10 vomer 1 otolith 1L 1R dentary 1L 2R premaxillary 6L 5R quadrate 10L 5R supracleithrum 8L 1R palatine 3 pharyngobranchial 1R cleithrum 5R hyomandibular 13 ectopterygoid 4L 3R epihyal 2R hypohyal 4R posttemporal Eel

4 vertebra B 41 vertebra C 1L opercle 2Lceratohyal (2.4, 1.8mm) Weever 1 basioccipital 12 vertebra C 2L 1R quadrate Herring 4 first vertebra 8 vertebra B 62 vertebra C Eelpout 1 vertebra C Unidentified 38 vertebra B 17 vertebra C X4915 Cod family 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (7.0, 5.5mm) 6 second vertebra (1 burnt) 5 third vertebra 5 fourth vertebra (1 burnt) 4 fifth vertebra 43 vertebra A (6 burnt) 39 vertebra B (4 burnt, 1 calcined) 135 vertebra C (3 burnt, 2 calcined) 4L 3R otolith (3 fragments) 5L 3R premaxillary (3 burnt) 2L 5R dentary (2 burnt) 3L 5R quadrate (1 burnt) 3L 4R maxillary (1 burnt) 2L angular 3L 1 whole vomer 4 parasphenoid 1 pharyngobranchial 2L 1R supracleithrum 1L 2R posttemporal 1L 4R palatine 2L 2R epihyal 2 branchiostegal rays (1 burnt) 1R opercle 2 mesethmoid Flatfish 5 basioccipital 10 first vertebra (3.7, 5.3, 3.8, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 2.7, 3.8, 4.4, 4.3mm) 21 vertebra A (1 burnt) 50 vertebra B (1 burnt) 427 vertebra C (7 burnt) 1L premaxillary 2L 1R quadrate 1L maxillary 2R angular 1 vomer 6 urohyal 2 pharyngobranchial 2L 2R supracleithrum 2L palatine 5 os anale 4 ectopterygoid 1L pterotic (flounder) Eel 7 basioccipital (1 burnt) 4 first vertebra 24 vertebra A (2 burnt) 52 vertebra B (7 burnt, 4 calcined) 356 vertebra C (41 burnt, 7 calcined) 7L 2R ceratohyal (3.5, 1.9, 2.1, 1.6, 2.1, 1.4, 1.7, 1.0, 1.1mm) 1L 2R dentary 1R quadrate 1 parasphenoid 3 vomer 1L 2R cleithrum 1L opercle 1R frontal Mackerel 10 vertebra A (1 burnt) 4 vertebra C (1 burnt) Herring 13 first vertebra (6 burnt, 6 calcined) 14 vertebra A (8 burnt, 3 calcined) 166 vertebra B (102 burnt, 52 calcined) 189 vertebra C (86 burnt, 62 calcined) 15 prooticum (13 burnt, 2 calcined) Eelpout 5 vertebra C (1 burnt) Weever 3 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 8 vertebra B (2 burnt) 111 vertebra C (6 burnt, 3 calcined) 1L dentary 1R premaxillary 1R quadrate 1R maxillary 1L 2R opercle 1R hyomandibular Unidentified 29 vertebra B (6 burnt, 2 calcined) 39 vertebra C (4 burnt, 1 calcined) X108 Cod family 3 second vertebra 4 third vertebra (1 calcined) 1 fourth vertebra 10 vertebra A 37 vertebra B (1 burnt) 40 vertebra C 1L 2R otoliths (4 fragments) 1 parasphenoid 1L palatine

1R cleithrum 3L 3R premaxillary 1L dentary 1L 1R vomer 1R angular 1L 1R quadrate 2R maxillary 2L 1R posttemporal 1L 1R supracleithrum 1R hypohyal Flatfish 3 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (no measure) 6 vertebra A 38 vertebra B 119 vertebra C 1R supracleithrum 2 os anale 1 urohyal 2 ectopterygoid 1L palatine 1L pterotic (flounder) 1 interhyal 1R quadrate Eel 5 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 25 vertebra A 51 vertebra B (1 calcined) 266 vertebra C 2L 1R dentary (1 fragment) 3 vomer 4L 6R ceratohyal (1.7, 2.0, 1.5, 2.0, 1.9, 2.1, 1.7, 1.3, 1.4, 1.2mm) 3L 3R 1? cleithrum 1R anguloarticular 1L 1R epihyal 1L hyomandibular 2L 1R quadrate Mackerel 2 vertebra A 5 vertebra B 6 vertebra C Herring 1 first vertebra 3 vertebra B 13 vertebra C Sitckleback 1 vertebra Eelpout 2 vertebra B 6 vertebra C Weever 3 basioccipital 3 first vertebra 4 vertebra A 17 vertebra B 150 vertebra C (3 burnt) 1L dentary 1R premaxillary 1L 1R angular 1L maxillary 1L posttemporal 1L 1R supracleithrum Bull-rout 1 vertebra C Unidentified 24 vertebra B 13 vertebra C X9110 (#2) Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (no measure) 3 second vertebra 2 third vertebra 2 fourth vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 11 vertebra A 16 vertebra B 41 vertebra C 1R otolith 1 parasphenoid 1R supracleithrum 1R quadrate 1R hyomandibular 1L 1R premaxillary 1R angular Flatfish 1 basioccipital 9 first vertebra (3 no measure, 4.6, 4.2, 4.2, 3.9, 3.5, 2.2mm) 16 vertebra A 34 vertebra B 110 vertebra C 2 vomer 5 ectopterygoid 3 os anale 4 urohyal 2 hypohyal 1 epihyal 1L palatine 4L 5R supracleithrum 1R cleithrum 3 interhyal 2 pharyngobranchial 3L 1R hyomandibular 4L 5R premaxillary 1L maxillary 1L angular Eel 5 basioccipital 7 first vertebra 37 vertebra A 84 vertebra B (1 calcined) 219 vertebra C (1 calcined) 1L dentary 7 vomer 1 parasphenoid 2L 3R quadrate 1L 2R hyomandibular 4L 4R anguloarticular 4R epihyal 1L 1R frontal 2L 2R cleithrum

5L 8R ceratohyal (2.7, 3.2, 2.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.3, 1.1, 1.5, 1.4, 1.8, 1.2, 1.1, 1.1mm) Herring 1 first vertebra 13 vertebra B 50 vertebra C Eelpout 1 first vertebra 4 vertebra A 10 vertebra B 127 vertebra C Trout/salmon 1 vertebra A 3 vertebra B 5 vertebra C Weever 14 basioccipital 21 first vertebra 8 vertebra A 59 vertebra B 557 vertebra C 3L 5R palatine 8 parasphenoid 1L 1R cleithrum 2L 2R angular 1L 1R epihyal 8L 5R quadrate 1R hyomandibular 4L 6R posttemporal 14 vomer 1L 2R dentary 2 (mes)ethmoid 4L 6R opercle 5L 4R premaxillary 7L 6R maxillary Bull-rout 1 first vertebra 9 vertebra C Spurdog 12 vertebra A Unidentified 48 vertebra B 29 vertebra C X4915 Cod family 7 basioccipital (1 burnt, 1 calcined) 8 first vertebra (4 no measure, 7.3, 6.6, 5.6, 5.2mm) 12 second vertebra (3 burnt, 2 calcined) 10 third vertebra (2 burnt, 1 calcined) 10 fourth vertebra (2 burnt, 1 calcined) 16 fifth vertebra (2 burnt) 3 sixth vertebra 102 vertebra A (28 burnt, 13 calcined) 114 vertebra B (34 burnt, 16 calcined) 191 vertebra C (31 burnt, 7 calcined) 9L 6R otoliths (1 fragment) 5L 5R quadrate (2 burnt) 3L 2R vomer 10L 6R angular (3 burnt, 2 calcined) 12L 8R maxillary (4 burnt) 7L 8R dentary (4 burnt) 8L 9R premaxillary (6 fragments, 4 burnt, 3 calcined) 2L 2R posttemporal (3 burnt) 8 branchiostegal rays 9 parasphenoid (1 fragment, 3 burnt) 7L 3R supracleithrum (3 burnt) 1R hyomandibular 5L 4R palatine (3 burnt) 2R interopercle 2L epihyal 1R ceratohyal 5 pharyngeal plates 1R postcleithrum 2L 2R symplectic 1L 2R opercle 4L 3R sphenotic (1 burnt) 2L 2R cleithrum 4 epibranchial 1L ectopterygoid Flatfish 5 basioccipital 27 vertebra A (1 burnt, 1 calcined) 11 first vertebra (9.1, 4.3, 4.2, 3.5, 2.7, 3.5, 2.9, 2.3, 3.8, 5.3mm, 1 no measure, 1 burnt) 55 vertebra B (1 burnt) 398 vertebra C (14 burnt, 3 calcined, 2 turbot) 5 vomer 1L otolith 3L 2R angular 4L 2R maxillary 12 urohyal 7 ectopterygoid 3 os anale (5 fragments) 3L 1R premaxillary 1L 1R dentary 2L 1R posttemporal 1L 1R supracleithrum 1L hyomandibular 3L palatine 1L 1R epihyal 1 pharyngobranchial 2L quadrate Eel 5 basioccipital (1 burnt) 1 first vertebra 20 vertebra A 58 vertebra B (3 burnt) 206 vertebra C (6 burnt, 3 calcined) 1L 2R quadrate 2L 1R anguloarticular 1R dentary 1L frontal 1L 1R epihyal 3L 2R cleithrum 2L 2R ceratohyal (1.3, 2.2, 1.0, 1.0mm) 1 parasphenoid 1L hyomandibular 1L opercle

Herring 5 first vertebra (2 burnt) 2 vertebra A (1 burnt, 1 calcined) 18 vertebra B (9 burnt, 4 calcined) 39 vertebra C (7 burnt, 7 calcined) 3 prooticum (2 burnt) Mackerel 2 vertebra A (1 burnt) 3 vertebra C Eelpout 5 vertebra C Spurdog 1 vertebra A Trout/salmon 1 vertebra C Weever 6 basioccipital (1 burnt) 11 first vertebra (5 burnt, 2 calcined) 5 vertebra A (3 burnt, 2 calcined) 17 vertebra B (7 burnt, 4 calcined) 218 vertebra C (30 burnt, 24 calcined) 4L 2R quadrate 1 vomer 1 (mes)ethmoid 2L angular 3L maxillary 2L premaxillary 2L 2R dentary (1 burnt) 4L 3R posttemporal 4L 2R hyomandibular (1 burnt) 1R palatine (burnt) 1L 1R epihyal 1L 1R ceratohyal 2L 4R opercle (1 burnt, 2 calcined) Unidentified 29 vertebra B (6 burnt, 4 calcined) 21 vertebra C (5 burnt) X8594 grøft Cod family 1R vomer 1L maxillary Flatfish 1 first vertebra (no measure) 2 vertebra B 5 vertebra C Eel 1 vertebra B 2 vertebra C Weever 5 vertebra B 16 vertebra C Unidentified 2 vertebra B 2 vertebra C (too dirty) X8594 fint Cod family 1 first vertebra (3.7mm) 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 3 vertebra B 5 vertebra C 1L 1R otoliths (1 fragment) 1L premaxillary 1R maxillary Flatfish 4 first vertebra (2 no measure, 3.4, 4.7mm) 5 vertebra B 21 vertebra C (2 burnt) 1R pterotic (flounder) 1R premaxillary 1R angular 1 urohyal 1R quadrate Eel 6 first vertebra 13 vertebra B (2 burnt, 1 calcined) 42 vertebra C (5 burnt, 1 calcined) 1 vomer 2L 1R ceratohyal (2.2, 1.9, 1.6mm) 1 dentary Weever 6 first vertebra 18 vertebra B (1 burnt) 82 vertebra C (5 burnt) 1R quadrate 2R opercle 1L 1R premaxillary Herring 2 vertebra B 5 vertebra C (1 burnt) 1 prooticum Eelpout 1 first vertebra 2 vertebra C (1 burnt) Unidentified

25 vertebra B (1 calcined) 17 vertebra C (1 burnt) X8502 <fint – not labeled> 1 bead, removed Cod family 1 fifth vertebra 3 vertebra C (1 burnt) 1 branchiostegal ray 1R maxillary 1L angular 1 fragment otolith Flatfish 1 basioccipital 1 vertebra B 4 vertebra C 1 urohyal Eel 2 basioccipital 2 vertebra A 4 vertebra B 16 vertebra C (5 burnt) 1 dentary 1L ceratohyal (2.6mm) Trout/salmon 1 vertebra C (calcined) Weever 1 first vertebra 7 vertebra C (1 burnt) Unidentified 5 vertebra B 7 vertebra C X8492 fint Cod family 1 third vertebra 1 vertebra A 2 vertebra B (1 calcined) 3 vertebra C 1L premaxillary 1R supracleithrum 1R hyomandibular Flatfish 1 vertebra B 5 vertebra C Eel 1 first vertebra 3 vertebra A (1 burnt) 5 vertebra B (1 burnt) 20 vertebra C (4 burnt, 2 calcined) Weever 3 vertebra B 14 vertebra C (2 burnt) 1L opercle Bull-rout 4 vertebra C (1 calcined) Unidentified 3 vertebra B 7 vertebra C (1 burnt) X8566 <fint> Cod family 1 second vertebra 1 vertebra B 2 vertebra C (1 burnt) 1L vomer Flatfish 2 vertebra A 2 vertebra B 10 vertebra C Eel 2 vertebra A 7 vertebra C 1R cleithrum 1 epihyal Weever 2 vertebra B 23 vertebra C Herring 2 vertebra C Salmon/trout 1 vertebra C Bull-rout 4 vertebra C Unidentified 5 vertebra B 1 vertebra C

X8769 grøft Cod family 1 first vertebra (7.1mm) 1 second vertebra 1 third vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 3 vertebra B 6 vertebra C 1 parasphenoid Flatfish 1 vertebra B 23 vertebra C 1 os anale 2L supracleithrum Eel 1 basioccipital 1R epihyal Weever 1R frontal (investing bone) 1L angular Unidentified 1 vertebra B 1 vertebra C X8813 fint Flatfish 4 vertebra A 3 vertebra B 14 vertebra C Eel 1 basioccipital 3 vertebra B 6 vertebra C Weever 2 vertebra C (1 calcined) Unidentified 4 vertebra B 1 vertebra C X8813 grøft Flatfish 2 vertebra B 5 vertebra C 1R supracleithrum Eel 1L cleithrum X9110 grøft excellent preservation Cod family 1 vertebra C 1R otolith 1L premaxillary 1 parasphenoid Flatfish 1 first vertebra (4.7mm) 7 vertebra B 42 vertebra C 1R angular 1R supracleithrum 2 os anale 1L pterotic (flounder) 1L posttemporal 1R cleithrum Eel 1 basioccipital 1 vertebra A 1 vertebra B 7 vertebra C 1 vomer Eelpout 3 vertebra C Weever 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 1 vertebra B 117 vertebra C 1L premaxillary 1L maxillary 3R cleithrum 1R subopercle 5L 1R opercle 6L 3R hyomandibular 1L 1R angular 1L dentary 2L 3R posttemporal 1R frontal (investing bone) 1L ceratohyal 1 parasphenoid Trout/salmon 4 vertebra C Herring 1 vertebra B Unidentified

1 vertebra B 3 vertebra C X9110 grøft Cod family 2 vertebra C 1R supracleithrum Flatfish 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (4.1mm) 6 vertebra B 51 vertebra C 3 os anale 2 urohyal 1L quadrate 1R dentary 1R maxillary 1L hyomandibular Eel 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 4 vertebra B 15 vertebra C 3 vomer 1R cleithrum 2L ceratohyal 1L hyomandibular Weever 2 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 5 vertebra B 112 vertebra C 1L maxillary 1L angular 2L 2R opercle 1R frontal (investing bone) 1L 1R cleithrum 2L 1R supracleithrum 2L posttemporal 2L 2R ceratohyal & epihyal 1L quadrate 1L dentary 2 parasphenoid 3L 2R hyomandibular Herring 1 first vertebra Eelpout 1 basioccipital 9 vertebra C Unidentified 1 vertebra B 2 vertebra C X9347 grøft Cod family 1 first vertebra (5.0mm) 2 second vertebra 4 third vertebra 3 fourth vertebra 2 fifth vertebra 17 vertebra A 23 vertebra B 40 vertebra C 2L 1R otoliths 1R quadrate 1L supracleithrum 1R cleithrum 2L maxillary 2L 1R angular 1R vomer 1L hyomandibular 1R posttemporal 1 branchiostegal ray 4L 3R premaxillary 2L epihyal 1L hypohyal 1L dentary Flatfish 1 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (4.3, 5.7mm) 9 vertebra A 7 vertebra B 123 vertebra C 1 os anale (2 fragments) 1L supracleithrum 1 urohyal 1 vomer 1L 1R quadrate 1L palatine Eel 9 vertebra C 1 vomer Weever 1 vertebra B 29 vertebra C 1L opercle 1L 2R angular 1L dentary 1L quadrate Herring 1 first vertebra 2 vertebra C Eelpout 1 vertebra C Unidentified 5 vertebra B 3 vertebra C X9347 fint

Cod family 1 second vertebra 30 vertebra A 19 vertebra B 23 vertebra C 2R otoliths (1 fragment) 1L supracleithrum 1L quadrate 1 parasphenoid Flatfish 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (2.7mm) 21 vertebra A 27 vertebra B 70 vertebra C (1 calcined) 1 vomer 1R premaxillary 2R angular 1L palatine Eel 1 basioccipital 1 vertebra A 5 vertebra B 38 vertebra C Weever 3 basioccipital 2 first vertebra 1 vertebra A 2 vertebra B 55 vertebra C (1 burnt) 1 vomer 1R premaxillary 1R quadrate 1 parasphenoid 1 (mes)ethmoid Mackerel 1 vertebra B Herring 1 first vertebra 3 vertebra C Bull-rout 1 vertebra C Eelpout 4 vertebra C Stickleback 2 vertebra C Unidentified 11 vertebra B 18 vertebra C X9469 grøft Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (6.8mm) 3 second vertebra 5 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 1 fifth vertebra 14 vertebra A 14 vertebra B 30 vertebra C 3L 2R otoliths (2 fragments) 2R hyomandibular 1 pharyngobranchial 1R vomer 1L dentary 3L 3R premaxillary 1L supracleithrum 1 parasphenoid 2L 2R maxillary 1R angular Flatfish 2 basioccipital 2 first vertebra (1 no measure, 3.9mm) 7 vertebra A 17 vertebra B 149 vertebra C 6 os anale (1 fragment) 1 vomer 1L premaxillary 1L supracleithrum 4 urohyal Eel 2 basioccipital 1 vertebra A 1 vertebra B 8 vertebra C 1 vomer 1L 1R cleithrum 1L ceratohyal (1.6mm) Weever 20 vertebra C 1R angular Mackerel 1 vertebra C Herring 1 vertebra C Eelpout 3 vertebra C Unidentified

9 vertebra B X8484 grøft Cod family 1 vertebra A 4 vertebra C 1L otolith 2L posttemporal 1L 1R supracleithrum 1L angular Flatfish 1 vertebra A 1 vertebra B 4 vertebra C (1 burnt) 1R supracleithrum Eel 6 vertebra C (4 burnt) Weever 1 first vertebra 1 vertebra A 4 vertebra C Eelpout 1 vertebra C (burnt) Unidentified 1 vertebra C (burnt) X8484 fint Cod family 2 vertebra A 1L otolith 1 mesethmoid 1R posttemporal Flatfish 1 first vertebra (4.2mm) 4 vertebra A 4 vertebra C Eel 5 vertebra A (1 burnt) 6 vertebra B (1 burnt) 28 vertebra C (6 burnt) 1L ceratohyal (2.2mm) Weever 1 vertebra B 2 vertebra C Herring 1 vertebra C (burnt) Eelpout 2 vertebra C Unidentified 5 vertebra B (1 calcined) 2 vertebra C (1 burnt) X9469 fint Cod family 30 vertebra A 22 vertebra B 21 vertebra C 1L 2R otolith (1 fragment) 1L angular 2L supracleithrum 1R maxillary 1L quadrate 1L dentary Flatfish 3 basioccipital 15 first vertebra (6 no measure, 3.6, 2.6, 2.3, 2.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 3.8, 2.3) 40 vertebra A 67 vertebra B 253 vertebra C 3 os anale 4 urohyal 5 vomer 2R angular 2L 5R maxillary 1L 1R posttemporal 1L palatine 1L hyomandibular 3L 1R supracleithrum 2L 2R quadrate Eel 3 basioccipital 1 first vertebra 13 vertebra A 23 vertebra B 108 vertebra C 1 vomer 1L 1R ceratohyal (1.1, 1.3mm) 1L cleithrum Trout/salmon 1 vertebra A Weever 3 first vertebra 6 vertebra B 45 vertebra C

1L quadrate Herring 5 vertebra B 12 vertebra C Mackerel 1 vertebra B Eelpout 16 vertebra C Bull-rout 2 vertebra C Unidentified 39 vertebra B 28 vertebra C X5110 grøft Cod family 1 basioccipital 1 first vertebra (no measure) 2 second vertebra 3 third vertebra 1 fourth vertebra 4 fifth vertebra 33 vertebra A (1 burnt) 55 vertebra B (1 burnt) 89 vertebra C (1 burnt) 5L 4R otoliths (4 fragments) 1L angular 3L premaxillary (1 fragment) 3R dentary 2L 3R posttemporal 3L 1R maxillary 1R quadrate 3L 4R supracleithrum 1L 2R 1 whole vomer 1 pharyngobranchial 1 parasphenoid 1 branchiostegal ray 1L 1R cleithrum 3R epihyal 1L opercle 1L palatine Flatfish 10 basioccipital 28 first vertebra (8 no measure, 3.3, 3.7, 4.2, 3.9, 1.9, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 2.8, 3.7, 4.5, 4.6, 3.4, 2.8, 3.6, 4.3, 3.5, 3.7, 5.0, 2.5mm) 37 vertebra A (1 burnt) 82 vertebra B (1 burnt) 561 vertebra C (5 burnt, 1 calcined) 9 os anale 9 urohyal 2L 2R premaxillary 2L 4R hyomandibular 2L 7R maxillary 3L 2R quadrate 3L 2R supracleithrum 5L palatine 2 pharyngobranchial 7 vomer 1 parasphenoid Eel 5 basioccipital 5 first vertebra (1 burnt) 30 vertebra A (3 burnt) 73 vertebra B (2 burnt) 512 vertebra C (5 burnt) 1L 1R anguloarticular 1L 2R hyomandibular 5 vomer 2L dentary 5L 5R ceratohyal (2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 1.3, 1.4, 0.9, 1.8, 1.3, 1.4, 1.1mm) 3R epihyal 6L 3R cleithrum 2 parasphenoid 2L 1R frontal 1L 1R opercle Herring 5 first vertebra 26 vertebra B (2 burnt) 154 vertebra C (2 burnt) 2 prooticum Mackerel 4 vertebra B 5 vertebra C Weever 5 basioccipital 8 first vertebra 13 vertebra B (1 burnt) 198 vertebra C (7 burnt, 4 calcined) 1R angular 1L dentary 1L 4R posttemporal 3L 1R hyomandibular 4L 3R opercle 1 vomer 3 parasphenoid 1 investing bone 1L ceratohyal 2L 1R supracleithrum Eelpout 3 vertebra C Salmon/trout 1 vertebra A 2 vertebra C Unidentified 46 vertebra B (2 burnt) 42 vertebra C (1 burnt)