DOI Kapitel:
Grenzgänger, traders and the last hunter-gatherers of the North European Plain
DOI Kapitel:Molthof, Helle M.; Baetsen, Steffen: Two new Swifterbant settlements at Nieuwegein-Het Klooster, the Netherlands: preliminary site interpretation and overview of human remains
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0090
Helle M. Molthof and Steffen Baetsen
89
Fig. 5 Leaf-shaped point made of a basalt-like stone (drawing: M.
Koeweiden).
Roever 2004, fig. 20). The pottery from site B4/17 is
similar to that from site 1, except for some sherds that
are tempered with a relatively large amount of sand.
The majority of the flint and stone artefacts
from both sites seem to date to phase SW2 as well,
although there are indications for an older phase
(SW1; 4,900-4,400 cal BC) to the south of site 1, for
example the emphasis on blade technology in this
area, and the absence of relatively ‘late’ elements here
(such as fragments of polished flint axes, triangles
with surface retouch, and transverse arrowheads). In
contrast, the northern part of site 1 yielded several of
these tool types, including a leaf-shaped point made
out of a basalt-like stone (Fig. 5). As the occurrence
of leaf-shaped points at Swifterbant sites is usually
interpreted as an influence of the Michelsberg culture
(Raemaekers 1999, 142-143; Devriendt 2014, 255),
this indicates that at least a part of the assemblage
in the northern part of site 1 dates specifically to the
latter half of SW2.
The most striking difference between site 1
and site B4/17 is that the first has yielded several
inhumations and scattered human remains (which
will be further discussed in the next sections), while
on the latter site no human skeletal elements were
found. This corresponds with the current idea that
the broader levee by the main channel was inhabited
more permanently and intensively than the smaller
one in the north, which may have been used only
for special activities. Some other aspects support a
functional difference. Site 1 yielded several grinding
stones while they are absent on site B4/17; on site
B4/17 there are notable differences in the clustering
of the various materials, while on site 1 they show
more or less the same distribution patterns, and the
faunal remains from site B4/17 seem to contain rela-
tively many bones of birds and fish. Also, in the east
of site B4/17, there are areas in which the find layer
is dotted with specks of ochre. Ochre is often associ-
ated with ritual and burial activities, but it may also
have been used for preserving hides.
One last remarkable difference, one we do not
have a satisfactory explanation for yet, is that site
B4/17 yielded the remains of at least eleven surface
hearths, while these were absent (or not visible) on
site 1. Although the assemblage from site 1 is gen-
erally more fragmented than that from site B4/17,
pointing towards more intensive treading and dis-
turbing of the area, one would still expect the surface
hearths of the last occupation phase to remain pre-
served. Therefore, it is more likely that the explana-
tion lies in differences between the post-depositional
processes on each site.
In conclusion, the material from both sites seems
to date to at least the SW2-period, but further ty-
pological analyses and 14C-dates are necessary to
obtain a more detailed chronology of the sites. At
this moment, site 1 is interpreted as a settlement
site with evidence for either year-round habitation
or repeated - possibly seasonal - long-term occupa-
tion. On B4/17, we seem to be dealing with a less
intensive (and/or shorter) habitation, and there are
several clues that this site was used for special ac-
tivities. Variations in functionality are known from
other Swifterbant sites. Based on, for instance, the
occurrence of structures and/or graves, the faunal
assemblage, and the characteristics of the stone and
flint industry, many different site types have been
identified over the past years. In the Netherlands,
the sites of Polderweg and De Bruin have been inter-
preted as settlement sites or base camps, the site of
Hoge Vaart as an accumulation of several small hunt-
ing camps with evidence for pottery production, and
the sites of Brandwijk en Hazendonk are interpreted
as hunting and fishing camps (Devriendt 2014, ch.
6.3.4). The creek system at Swifterbant shows that
this same variety also occurs within a smaller area,
with site S3 as a main settlement site, S2 and S51 as
special activity sites, and S4 displaying both similari-
ties to S3 and distinguishing features like a child’s
grave. The stratigraphy of S4 moreover showed that
chronological developments in function even occur
within one site, with an alternation between cultiva-
tion layers and anthropogenic layers (Raemaekers /
De Roever 2020, ch. 10.3; Devriendt 2014, 265).
It is likely that sites 1 and B4/17 at Nieuwegein are
similar to those at Swifterbant, with respect to the
existence of functional differences between several
sites on the same river system.
89
Fig. 5 Leaf-shaped point made of a basalt-like stone (drawing: M.
Koeweiden).
Roever 2004, fig. 20). The pottery from site B4/17 is
similar to that from site 1, except for some sherds that
are tempered with a relatively large amount of sand.
The majority of the flint and stone artefacts
from both sites seem to date to phase SW2 as well,
although there are indications for an older phase
(SW1; 4,900-4,400 cal BC) to the south of site 1, for
example the emphasis on blade technology in this
area, and the absence of relatively ‘late’ elements here
(such as fragments of polished flint axes, triangles
with surface retouch, and transverse arrowheads). In
contrast, the northern part of site 1 yielded several of
these tool types, including a leaf-shaped point made
out of a basalt-like stone (Fig. 5). As the occurrence
of leaf-shaped points at Swifterbant sites is usually
interpreted as an influence of the Michelsberg culture
(Raemaekers 1999, 142-143; Devriendt 2014, 255),
this indicates that at least a part of the assemblage
in the northern part of site 1 dates specifically to the
latter half of SW2.
The most striking difference between site 1
and site B4/17 is that the first has yielded several
inhumations and scattered human remains (which
will be further discussed in the next sections), while
on the latter site no human skeletal elements were
found. This corresponds with the current idea that
the broader levee by the main channel was inhabited
more permanently and intensively than the smaller
one in the north, which may have been used only
for special activities. Some other aspects support a
functional difference. Site 1 yielded several grinding
stones while they are absent on site B4/17; on site
B4/17 there are notable differences in the clustering
of the various materials, while on site 1 they show
more or less the same distribution patterns, and the
faunal remains from site B4/17 seem to contain rela-
tively many bones of birds and fish. Also, in the east
of site B4/17, there are areas in which the find layer
is dotted with specks of ochre. Ochre is often associ-
ated with ritual and burial activities, but it may also
have been used for preserving hides.
One last remarkable difference, one we do not
have a satisfactory explanation for yet, is that site
B4/17 yielded the remains of at least eleven surface
hearths, while these were absent (or not visible) on
site 1. Although the assemblage from site 1 is gen-
erally more fragmented than that from site B4/17,
pointing towards more intensive treading and dis-
turbing of the area, one would still expect the surface
hearths of the last occupation phase to remain pre-
served. Therefore, it is more likely that the explana-
tion lies in differences between the post-depositional
processes on each site.
In conclusion, the material from both sites seems
to date to at least the SW2-period, but further ty-
pological analyses and 14C-dates are necessary to
obtain a more detailed chronology of the sites. At
this moment, site 1 is interpreted as a settlement
site with evidence for either year-round habitation
or repeated - possibly seasonal - long-term occupa-
tion. On B4/17, we seem to be dealing with a less
intensive (and/or shorter) habitation, and there are
several clues that this site was used for special ac-
tivities. Variations in functionality are known from
other Swifterbant sites. Based on, for instance, the
occurrence of structures and/or graves, the faunal
assemblage, and the characteristics of the stone and
flint industry, many different site types have been
identified over the past years. In the Netherlands,
the sites of Polderweg and De Bruin have been inter-
preted as settlement sites or base camps, the site of
Hoge Vaart as an accumulation of several small hunt-
ing camps with evidence for pottery production, and
the sites of Brandwijk en Hazendonk are interpreted
as hunting and fishing camps (Devriendt 2014, ch.
6.3.4). The creek system at Swifterbant shows that
this same variety also occurs within a smaller area,
with site S3 as a main settlement site, S2 and S51 as
special activity sites, and S4 displaying both similari-
ties to S3 and distinguishing features like a child’s
grave. The stratigraphy of S4 moreover showed that
chronological developments in function even occur
within one site, with an alternation between cultiva-
tion layers and anthropogenic layers (Raemaekers /
De Roever 2020, ch. 10.3; Devriendt 2014, 265).
It is likely that sites 1 and B4/17 at Nieuwegein are
similar to those at Swifterbant, with respect to the
existence of functional differences between several
sites on the same river system.