Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 045 A Matter of Life and Death at Mienakker (the Netherlands) Late Neolithic Behavioural Variability in a Dynamic Landscape A Matter of Life and Death at Mienakker (the Netherlands) Late Neolithic Behavioural Variability in a Dynamic Landscape J.P. Kleijne, O. Brinkkemper, R.C.G.M. Lauwerier, B.I. Smit & E.M. Theunissen (eds) Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 45 A Matter of Life and Death at Mienakker (the Netherlands) Late Neolithic Behavioural Variability in a Dynamic Landscape Authors: S.M. Beckerman, D.C. Brinkhuizen, O. Brinkkemper, V. García-Díaz, J.P. Kleijne, L. Kubiak-Martens, G.R. Nobles, T.F.M. Oudemans, E. Plomp, E.M. Theunissen, M. van den Hof, H.J.T. Weerts & J.T. Zeiler, R.C.G.M. Lauwerier, J.H.M. Peeters, B.I. Smit, A.L. van Gijn & D.C.M. Raemaekers Editors: J.P. Kleijne, O. Brinkkemper, R.C.G.M. Lauwerier, B.I. Smit & E.M. Theunissen (eds) Illustrations: G.R. Nobles, M. Haars (BCL-Archaeological Support), S. Boersma (University of Groningen, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, ceramics Chapter 4), the authors, Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, unless otherwise stated Editors of illustrations: M. Haars (BCL-Archaeological Support), O. Brinkkemper English correction and translation: S. McDonnell, Utrecht Design and layout: uNiek-Design, Almere ISBN/EAN: 9789057992148 © Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, Amersfoort, 2013 Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands P.O. Box 1600 3800 BP Amersfoort The Netherlands www.cultureelerfgoed.nl This research was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, Den Haag), Cultural Heritage Agency (RCE, Amersfoort), BIAX Consult, ArchaeoBone, Kenaz Consult, University of Groningen, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, Faculty of Archaeology of Leiden University, Province of Noord-Holland, and Stichting Nederlands Museum voor Anthropologie en Praehistorie (SNMAP, Amsterdam). Kenaz Consult S•N•M•A•POL.indd 1 3/28/12 4:04:30 PM Preface 3 — The archaeological record of the province of Noord-Holland is spectacular in many respects. Just below the modern man-made landscape lie well-preserved remains, left by many generations of past inhabitants. The good state of preservation of these traces, particularly the perishable material, makes them very valuable. This is an extraordinary feature of these sites, especially for the Late Neolithic Single Grave Culture (SGC). The excavated settlements are a unique resource that can afford us a better understanding of the earliest habitation of Noord-Holland. The SGC sites embedded in a tidal landscape are regarded as one of the most important Late Neolithic cultural landscapes in Northwestern Europe. All kinds of specialists worked closely together to reveal the cultural/ecological details and other research data, and to thoroughly integrate all the information. The project team consisted of 18 people, including both established and young researchers. The PhD students on the project clearly developed their writing skills and academic approach. Two very young researchers, Master’s students, also took the opportunity to get involved in the project. The final result of this close collaboration is an intriguing new story of Late Neolithic life at Mienakker, which in many ways differs from Keinsmerbrug. This publication will alter our ideas about prehistoric societies in NoordHolland. Tackling the backlog in the analysis and publication of these important sites has been a serious challenge. As part of the Odyssey programme funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, a four-year project was started to unlock this Late Neolithic treasure chest. The monograph before you concerns the second key site on which information has been made accessible. The Keinsmerbrug site, published in volume 43 (2012), was the first to be revealed. During the process of unlocking key sites the provincial repository proved invaluable. The availability of good-quality materials and excavation data is essential for each study. The new repository at Castricum, due to open in the near future, promises to be a paradise, not only for archaeologists, but above all for the present inhabitants of Noord-Holland. They will, for example, be able to meet ‘Cees of Mienakker’ face to face thanks to the lifelike reconstruction based on this study. His life and Neolithic environment, illustrated by tools, ornaments, ceramics and other finds, will form an important part of the prehistoric story of the province. This publication highlights the Mienakker site, excavated in 1990. Mienakker had an advantage over other as yet unanalysed Neolithic sites in the sense that many of the material categories had already been studied. House plans had been identified and the well-preserved human burial, known as ‘Cees’, was published in 1991. The analysis of Mienakker – like that of Keinsmerbrug – took the form of a multidisciplinary project involving a number of partners: the Cultural Heritage Agency, the universities of Groningen and Leiden, NoordHolland provincial authority and various commercial parties – BIAX Consult, ArchaeoBone and Kenaz Consult. We should like to thank all who took part in this project for their efforts, and to compliment them on the impressive result. We wish the reader a great deal of pleasure in perusing the report. Jos Bazelmans Head of the department of research, Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Rob van Eerden Cultural resource manager for archaeology, Province of Noord-Holland Content Preface3 Summary6 Samenvatting8 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Introduction  The Odyssey project Research approach Choice of key sites: selection of Mienakker The Mienakker site: a short introduction Structure of the monograph Administrative information Acknowledgments 2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 Landscape and chronology 19 Geological development of the Bergen tidal basin19 Mienakker landscape and chronology 19 The local landscape 19 Radiocarbon dating 22 Micromorphology 27 3 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 Features Introduction Feature description Postholes Pits Hearths The creeks and ditches The branches The grave Other 4 Ceramics 4.1 Introduction 4.2 SGC Ceramics Methodology 4.3 4.4 Results 4.4.1 Technological characteristics 4.4.2 Morphological characteristics and decoration 4.4.3 Daub 4.5 Residue analysis 4.6 Spatial distribution 4.7 Comparing Mienakker to Keinsmerbrug 4.8 Conclusions 5 The use of flint, stones, amber and bones 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Methodology 5.2.1 Methodological study 5.2.2 Technological study 5.2.3 Use-wear analysis 5.3 Taphonomy 5.4 Flint: raw material 11 11 12 14 15 17 17 18 29 29 29 29 32 33 33 33 33 33 37 37 37 37 38 38 47 54 54 54 55 56 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 61 5.5 Flint: technology and typology 62 5.5.1 Flint technology 62 5.5.2 Flint typology 63 5.6 The use of flint artefacts 70 5.6.1 Plant processing and woodworking 70 5.6.2 Animal resources 75 5.6.3 Mineral resources 75 5.6.4 Unknown materials and hafting traces 77 5.7 Social interpretations of the flint implements analysis80 5.8 Stones: variety of types and sources 80 5.9 Social interpretations of the stone tool analysis 88 5.10 Bone tools 91 5.10.1 Bone tool typology and use 91 5.10.2 Conclusions 94 5.11 Amber 95 General conclusions 96 5.12 6 Botany: local vegetation and plant food economy99 6.1 Introduction 99 6.2 Methods 99 6.3 Natural vegetation 100 6.4 Cereal and other used plants 102 102 6.4.1 Cereals 6.4.2 Was Mienakker involved in the bulk handling of grain? 104 6.4.3 Potential arable weeds 107 107 6.4.4 Cereals in pollen spectra 6.4.5 Flax (Linum usitatissimum)108 6.5 Wild plants as food 108 6.5.1 Wild fruits and nuts 108 6.5.2 Seed food 111 6.5.3 Wild green vegetables 111 Processed plant foods 111 6.6 6.7 Plants used as raw material 112 Conclusions 115 6.8 7 Broad-spectrum cooking: botanical and chemical evidence in Late Neolithic pottery 119 7.1 Introduction 119 7.2 Materials and methods 119 7.2.1 Ceramics 119 7.2.2 Sampling the organic residues 119 7.2.3 Botanical methods 123 7.2.4 Chemical methods 123 7.3 Results124 7.3.1 Botany, scanning electron microscope 124 7.3.2 Chemical results 133 7.4 General discussion on the origin of residues 142 7.5 Conclusions 146 8 8.1 Charcoal Introduction 147 147 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Method Results Discussion Conclusions 147 149 152 153 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.3.1 9.3.2 9.3.3 9.3.4 9.3.5 9.4 9.5 Faunal remains Introduction Methods Results General results Mammals Birds Fish Background fauna Discussion Conclusions 155 155 155 156 156 158 163 167 171 172 173 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 The human skeleton Introduction Burial context and analysis Materials Determination of sex Estimation of age-at-death Metrics and non-metrics traits Dietary reconstruction Pathological condition Discussion Conclusion 175 175 175 178 178 179 179 180 182 183 184 11 Spatial analysis 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Critical analysis of the dataset and the recovery process Visual inspection 11.3 11.4 Spatial analysis 11.4.1 Methodology 11.4.2 Data acquisition 11.4.3 Outline of analysis and presentation 11.5 Elevation model 11.6 The animal remains 11.6.1 Characterising the data 11.6.2 Results 11.6.3 Analysis 11.6.4 Associations and interpretation 11.7 Flint 11.7.1 Characterising the data 11.7.2 Results 11.7.3 Analysis 11.7.4 Associations and interpretations 11.8 Stone 11.8.1 Characterising the data 11.8.2 Results 11.8.3 Analysis 11.8.4 Associations and interpretation 185 185 185 186 188 188 188 188 190 191 191 192 192 192 193 193 193 193 202 203 203 203 209 209 11.9 11.9.1 11.9.2 11.9.3 11.10 11.10.1 11.10.2 11.10.3 11.10.4 11.11 11.11.1 11.11.2 11.11.3 11.12 11.12.1 11.12.2 11.12.3 11.12.4 11.13 Amber 214 Characterising the data 214 Results 214 Analysis, association and interpretation 214 Ceramics 214 Characterising the data 214 Results 215 Analysis 215 Association and interpretation 216 Other materials 226 Clay and daub 226 Organic residues 227 Botanical remains 227 Synthesis and discussion 228 Combining the datasets 228 Remaining elements 231 Phasing 233 Site function 234 Conclusions240 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 The canoe Introduction Comparable wooden finds in the Netherlands Ethnographic parallels Archaeological evidence for skin linings The canoe Conclusion 241 241 242 242 246 247 247 13 Synthesis - A matter of life and death at Mienakker249 13.1 Introduction 249 13.2 Chronology 249 13.3 Environment 251 13.4 Exploitation of animal resources 252 13.5 Crop cultivation and use of wild plant resources253 13.6 Food preparation and consumption 254 Production and use of ceramics 255 13.7 13.8 Production and use of flint, hard stone and amber 255 13.9 Spatial distribution of finds and features 256 13.9.1 Identification of activity areas 256 13.9.2 Features and dwellings 256 13.10 Seasonality at Mienakker 257 13.11 Concluding Mienakker 258 Bibliography261 List of contributors 279 Appendices281 6 — Summary A matter of life and death at Mienakker The second excavation analysed in further detail as part of the Odyssey ‘Unlocking NoordHolland's Late Neolithic Treasure Chest’ project was that performed at the Mienakker site in 1990. Mienakker had an advantage over other as yet unpublished Neolithic sites in the sense that many of the material categories had already been studied. The area excavated was small, at 840 m2, but there were many post traces on the basis of which the excavators had identified two house plans. The clearest is approx. 5.7 metres long and 3 metres wide. This is a simple, light, two-aisled structure that was recorded as a ‘small hut’ or auxiliary building. The other house plan was not published. It is slightly bigger, at 9 to 14 metres long and 3 to 4 metres wide, and appeared to be the remnants of a light structure that was rebuilt and altered several times on the same spot. The Mienakker settlement was interpreted at the time as a temporary hunters’ camp, as opposed to the larger, more permanent residential settlements like Aartswoud, Kolhorn and Zeewijk. All kinds of specialists worked closely together to reveal all the cultural/ecological details and other research data, and to thoroughly integrate all the information, focusing on the same research questions as those addressed in the recent analysis of Keinsmerbrug. The project team consisted of 18 people working at different organisations (commercial agencies, universities and the Cultural Heritage Agency), each of whom contributed their own particular expertise. Two students took the opportunity to focus on a particular area: an analysis of the charcoal and a physical-anthropological study of the skeleton. The spatial analysis of the find distributions and posthole clusters gave rise to surprising new insights. The study showed that Mienakker had two phases of occupation. The first was associated with an rectangular ground plan that largely coincides with the unpublished structure recognised in the 1990s. The northwestern end was found to be slightly longer, however, bringing the dimensions to 16.5 by 4 metres. Large amounts of settlement waste ended up in and around this house, and in the creek that ran parallel to it, enabling us to conclude that the first phase of occupation was intensive and diverse. After the creek silted up over time, a second structure was built over it. This has a slightly different, more trapezoid shape. The southwestern end is 3 metres wide and coincides with the small ‘hut’ identified previously. The northeastern end is also straight, but it is 6 metres wide. The structure is 22 metres long and is associated with the grave of an adult male. His burial was the last action performed at this place. The settlement was then abandoned and was overgrown with peat. The first inhabitants chose as their settlement site a sandy ridge in a salt marsh, in a fairly saline and open environment. Cattle grazed in the surrounding area, between the saltwater creeks. Further to the east, where there was an influx of fresh water, there were extensive reed beds. The landscape was probably not entirely devoid of trees. Close to the settlement there were poplar (probably aspen) and birch trees and, in the higher-lying parts of the area, oak and hazel. The inhabitants probably also used driftwood, which would have regularly washed up on shore, for building and for fuel. The abundant water in the surrounding area was fully exploited. The inhabitants caught and ate lots of fish, both saltwater and freshwater species. Their diet regularly included cod, 7 — flounder, plaice and even haddock. The presence of this last species, haddock, is unusual, because it has never before been found at a prehistoric site. The discovery of large quantities of mature haddock remains is therefore striking. Haddock prefers deep, cold waters, which means that in the winter months the farmers of Mienakker must have taken to a deep tidal creek, or even the open sea, in boats to catch haddock using long lines. Branch configurations in the creek and cut marks on seal phalanges provide clear indications of the presence, and even construction, of a skin-lined canoe which may have been used to fish for haddock. Hunting on land focused mainly on animals with fur, such as polecats, ermine and stone martens. Their skins may have been used to produce warm clothes and other forms of protection from the cold. As regards their meat intake, the farmers of Mienakker mainly ate beef from adult or sub-adult cattle. Though sheep, goats and pigs did forage around the settlement, they were not eaten as frequently. The inhabitants also occasionally harvested food at low tide from the extensive mussel banks in tidal gullies and on sandbanks. Naked barley and emmer wheat were both grown, as was flax, for its oil-bearing seeds. The farmers brought complete ears of barley and wheat to the settlement, possibly with the stalks still attached. The grain was milled and made into a type of porridge, or it was stored for later use. In autumn, the Mienakker diet was supplemented with hazelnuts, acorns and wild apples. Food crusts left on pots at the settlement indicate that the food prepared there contained barely any fat or oil. It may therefore have consisted of vegetable foods like orache, or of low-fat animal foods like protein, blood, lean meat, shellfish or white fish. The encrusted fish scales show that fish was indeed prepared at Mienakker. Starch-rich plants such as cereals, acorns and roots also found their way to the cooking pot, along with leafy green plants, shoots and other edible parts. Another notable feature is the uniformity of the pottery used for cooking. Stone, flint and amber were collected on the nearby beach or on the higher boulder clay outcrop at Wieringen, where the raw material lay on the surface. The inhabitants used the flint to make all kinds of tools, including borers and scrapers, which they used for working wood, cleaning skins and making amber beads. The use of the trapezoid structure and the burial of the incomplete body of an adult male at the base of one of the central posts were among the final actions performed at Mienakker. This intensively used site had already been abandoned for some time, and may have been partially overgrown by then. As to the reason behind the re-use of the structure and the significance attributed to it, they remain hypothetical, but these were no everyday activities. At some point the people of Mienakker built the trapezoid structure, and a short time later they buried one of their number in the middle of the building. We can probably refer to it as a ‘mortuary structure’, which gives Mienakker a more ‘ritual’ complexion, a location where the people said goodbye to someone close, or perhaps a more distant acquaintance. In summary, we can conclude that Mienakker may be interpreted as a site that was inhabited year-round, where a wide range of very diverse activities were performed. It was inhabited and returned to for many years. Over the years, Mienakker evolved from ‘home’ to become a place of parting and memory. 8 — Samenvatting Mienakker, een kwestie van leven en dood De tweede opgraving die in het Odyssee-project ‘Het openen van de laat-neolithische schatkist van Noord-Holland’ is uitgewerkt, is de vindplaats Mienakker, opgegraven in 1990. Mienakker had in vergelijking met andere onuitgewerkte steentijdvindplaatsen een streepje voor, omdat voor een groot aantal materiaal­categorieën al studies waren verricht. Het op­gegraven oppervlak was klein, 840 m2, maar er waren veel paalsporen waarin door de opgravers al twee huisplattegronden waren herkend. De duidelijkste heeft een lengte van ca. 5,7 meter en is 3 meter breed. Het is een eenvoudige, lichte tweeschepige structuur die in de boeken inging als een ‘kleine hut’ of bijgebouw. De andere huisplattegrond bleef ongepubliceerd. Deze was wat groter, 9 tot 14 meter met een breedte van 3 bij 4 meter en leek de weerslag te zijn van een lichte constructie die verschillende malen op dezelfde plaats was her- en verbouwd. De nederzetting Mienakker werd destijds aangemerkt als een tijdelijk jachtkamp, een tegenhanger van de meer vaste woonplekken, permanente grote nederzettingen zoals Aartswoud, Kolhorn en Zeewijk. Om alle culturele/ecologische detailinformatie en andere onderzoeksgegevens te ontsluiten en goed met elkaar te integreren, werkten allerlei specialisten weer nauw samen, vanuit dezelfde onderzoeksvragen als bij het onderzoek van Keinsmerbrug. Het projectteam bestond uit 18 personen met elk hun eigen expertise, werkend vanuit verschillende instanties (bedrijven, universiteiten en de Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed). Twee studenten namen de gelegenheid zich te richten op een deelonderwerp, de analyse van het houtskool en een fysisch-­ antropologische studie op het skelet. De ruimtelijke analyse van vondstverspreidingen en paalspoorclusters brachten verrassende nieu- we inzichten. De studie wees uit dat Mienakker twee bewoningsfasen heeft gekend. De eerste is verbonden aan een langwerpige plattegrond, die grotendeels samenvalt met de ongepubliceerde structuur herkend in de jaren negentig. Alleen het noordwestelijke uiteinde lijkt wat langer te zijn, en daarmee komen de afmetingen op 16,5 bij 4 meter. Op en rondom dit huis, en in de parallel liggend kreek is veel nederzettingsafval terechtgekomen, waaruit we kunnen afleiden dat deze eerste bewoningsfase intensief en veelomvattend was. Toen de kreek in de loop der tijd opgevuld raakte, is er een tweede structuur overheen gebouwd. Deze is wat anders van vorm, meer trapeziumvormig. Het zuidwestelijke einde heeft een breedte van 3 meter en valt samen met de eerder herkende kleine ‘hut’ van Mienakker. Het noordoostelijke uiteinde is ook recht, maar heeft een breedte van 6 meter. De structuur is 22 meter lang en is geassocieerd met een graf van een volwassen man. Het begraven van zijn lichaam was de laatste handeling op deze plek. De nederzetting is daarna verlaten en raakte overgroeid met veen. De eerste bewoners kozen een zandige kwelderrug uit in het open, vrij zoute milieu. In de omgeving graasden de koeien, tussen de zoutwater­ kreken in. Verder naar het oosten waar zoet water uitstroomde, groeide uitgestrekte rietlanden. Helemaal boomloos was het landschap waarschijnlijk niet. Dicht bij de woonplek stonden berken en op de hogere delen eik en hazelaar. Voor bouw- en brandhout was men wellicht ook aangewezen op drijfhout, dat regelmatig aanspoelde. De waterrijke omgeving werd goed benut; vele vissen, zowel zout- als zoetminnende soorten, werden gevangen en opgegeten. Kabeljauw, bot, schol en zelfs schelvis stonden regelmaat op het menu. Deze laatste, schelvis, is bijzonder omdat 9 — deze soort nimmer is aangetroffen op andere prehistorische vindplaatsen. De ontdekking van een grote hoeveelheid volwassen schelvissen is dan ook opvallend. Schelvis houdt zich vooral op in koude, diepe wateren en dat betekent dat de boeren van Mienakker met boten in de wintermaanden een diepe getijdenkreek of zelfs open zee moeten op zijn gegaan, om schelvis met lange lijnen te vangen. Takkenconfiguraties in de geul en de snijsporen op de kootjes van zee­ honden zijn duidelijke aanwijzingen voor de aanwezigheid, en zelfs bouw, van een huidenboot waarmee op schelvis gevist kan zijn. De jacht op het land was vooral gericht op dieren met een harige vacht, zoals bunzing, hermelijn en marter. De huiden werden getwijfeld verwerkt tot warme kleding, en andere vormen van bescherming tegen de koude. Voor wat betreft het vlees aten de boeren van Mienakker vooral runderen, volwassen of bijna-volwassen dieren. Schapen, geiten en ook varkens scharrelden ook rond, maar werden minder vaak gegeten. De grote, uitgestrekte mosselbanken die in getijdengeulen en op zandplaatsen leven, werden bij eb af en toe bezocht. Naakte gerst en emmertarwe werden beide verbouwd, evenals vlas, voor oliehoudende zaden. De boeren brachten de complete aren, en misschien wel met stengel en al naar de nederzetting. Het graan werd gemalen, en tot pap bereid, of even opgeslagen. In de herfst vulden hazel­noten, eikels en wilde appels de dagelijkse kost aan. Aankoeksels aan de potten geven aan dat het bereide voedsel nauwelijks vet of olie bevat. We kunnen dan denken aan plantaardige kost, zoals melde, maar ook aan vetarme dierlijke proteïnen, zoals eiwit, bloed, mager vlees, schelp­ dieren of vis. De vastgekoekte visschubben laten zien dat er daadwerkelijk vis is gekookt. Ook zetmeelrijke planten, zoals graan, eikels en wortels, verdwenen in de kookpot, aangevuld met groe- ne bladeren, scheuten en andere eetbare delen. Opmerkelijk is verder dat het gebruikte aardewerk opvallend uniform is. Steen, vuursteen en barnsteen werd verzameld op het strand nabij of op de hogere keileembult van Wieringen waar het ruwe materiaal aan het oppervlak lag. Van het vuursteen maakten de bewoners allerlei werktuigen, zoals boortjes en schrapers, waarmee onder andere hout en huiden werden schoongekrabd en barnsteen bewerkt tot kraal. Het gebruik van de trapeziumvormige structuur en het begraven van het onvolledige lichaam van een volwassen man, aan de voet van een van de middenstaanders, is een van de laatste handelingen op Mienakker. De intensief gebruikte plek was toen al enige tijd verlaten en misschien wel deels overgroeid geraakt. Wat precies de achterliggende redenen zijn geweest van het hergebruik en welke betekenis de mensen eraan gaven, blijft hypothetisch, maar het waren geen gewone dagelijkse handelingen die daar werden uitgevoerd, zoals voedselbereiding. Op een zeker moment bouwden ze de trapeziumvormige structuur, en even later begroeven ze een van hen in het midden van het gebouw. Zeer waarschijnlijk kunnen we dit een ‘mortuary structure’ noemen, een huis voor de dode. En daarmee kreeg de plek van Mienakker een meer ‘rituele’ lading, een locatie waar afscheid werd genomen van een naaste of verre bekende. Samenvattend kunnen we concluderen dat Mienakker geïnterpreteerd kan worden als een locatie waar het gehele jaar rond is gewoond, en waar allerlei, zeer verschillende activiteiten zijn uitgevoerd. Het is een plek waar jarenlang is gewoond en waar telkens naar is teruggekeerd. In de loop der tijd veranderde Mienakker van ‘home’, naar een plek van afscheid en herinnering. 1 Introduction 11 — E.M. Theunissen & J.P. Kleijne approach 1.1 The Odyssey project ceramics In 2009 the Odyssey project ‘Unlocking NoordHolland's Late Neolithic Treasure Chest: Single Grave Culture behavioural variability in a tidal environment’ started with the analysis of the Keinsmerbrug site. This small site was interpreted as a non-residential settlement, a gathering settlement in the broadest sense of the word. The results were published in the first monograph 'A Kaleidoscope of Gathering at Keinsmerbrug (the Netherlands)'.1 This monograph on the Mienakker site is the second publication to emerge from the Odyssey project, known for short as the ‘Single Grave Project’. The project was initiated by the Cultural Heritage Agency and was awarded four years of funding under the Odyssey programme. The Odyssey programme was launched in 2009 as a one-off incentive from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.2 Thanks to this grant and subsidiary grants from the universities of Leiden and Groningen, plus the involvement of various specialists from commercial companies and the Cultural Heritage Agency (RCE), a multidisciplinary project on the Late Neolithic Single Grave Culture (SGC) of Noord-Holland saw its official launch in September 2009. The general aim of the Odyssey programme is the scientific disclosure of internationally important archaeological field research carried out in the Netherlands between 1900 and 2000 that was not further investigated or published at the time. 32 projects are being carried out from 2009 to 2013: four long-term investigations (lasting four years) and 28 short-term studies (lasting one year). The outcome of these projects will help provide new narratives about the past for local residents and help define research questions for new research. In the Odyssey programme are interpreting large numbers of archaeological finds, drawings and pictures that have often lain in boxes and repositories for years. This is leading to new scientific insights in archaeology. A group of specialists are working together within the framework of the ‘Single Grave Project’. Performing individual analysis, the specialist unlocks the cultural/ecological data lithics & use wear residue analysis spatial analysis archaeozoology archaeobotany physical anthropology integrated interpretation/synthesis Figure 1.1 Diagram showing relationships between the main research topics. and interprets the new information. At expert meetings, when all the team members come together as a research group, the various results and conclusions are discussed and integrated at site level (Fig. 1.1). Following the same approach as that taken at the Keinsmerbrug site, the project team are tackling different subjects and working in various institutional settings (commercial agencies and universities), with organisational and scientific backup from senior researchers at the Cultural Heritage Agency (RCE). The archaeobotanical remains are being studied by L. Kubiak-Martens (BIAX Consult), supported by O. Brinkkemper (RCE). The chemical analysis of organic residues present on the ceramic vessels has been carried out by T.F.M. Oudemans (Kenaz Consult). Archaeozoological material is being studied by J.T. Zeiler (ArchaeoBone), in the case of material from mammals and birds, while D.C. Brinkhuizen is analysing the fish remains. Both are being supported by R.C.G.M. Lauwerier (RCE). The spatial analysis is being performed by G.R. Nobles and ceramics are being studied by S.M. Beckerman, both of whom are PhD students at the University of Groningen, supervised by D.C.M. Raemaekers and J.H.M. Peeters. Analysis of lithics, bone and antler tools and ornaments is being carried out by V. García Díaz. She is a PhD student at Leiden University supervised by A.L. van Gijn. The Mienakker remains also provided an opportunity for young 1 Smit et al. 2012. 2 Van Ginkel 2010; http://www.nwo.nl/en/ research-and-results/programmes/ odyssee. 12 — researchers to become involved. Two master’s students at Leiden University took this opportunity. E. Plomp carried out a thorough study of the human skeleton. Her work was supervised by A. Waters-Rist. M. van den Hof studied the charcoal fragments as part of an internship at the Agency. She was coached by O. Brinkkemper (RCE). E.M. Theunissen (RCE) is acting as liaison and focusing on disseminating new knowledge to the general public, in collaboration with R. van Eerden (NoordHolland provincial authority). In September 2012 the management of the Single Grave Project as a whole was handed over to the new project leader, J.P. Kleijne (RCE). B.I. Smit (RCE), the former project leader, has not turned his back on the Single Grave Culture, however: he is on the editing committee, along with his four RCE colleagues mentioned above. 3 Van Heeringen & Theunissen 2001; Drenth, Brinkkemper & Lauwerier 2008. 4 Dörfler & Müller 2008. 5 Fokkens 2005a; Hogestijn 2005; Drenth, Brinkkemper & Lauwerier 2008. 6 Drenth & Hogestijn 2001; Van der Beek & Fokkens 2001; Bakels & Zeiler 2005; Hogestijn 2005. G roningen F riesland Drenthe NoordHolland F levoland Zuid-Holland Zeeland Utrecht Overijss el G elderland Noord-Brabant Limburg Figure 1.2 Location of the research area (red square). 1.2 Research approach cultural differentiation, material culture and human-landscape interaction. West-Friesland, and the ‘De Gouw’ district in the province of Noord-Holland in particular, are home to an impressive number of wellpreserved sites that can be attributed to the Late Neolithic Single Grave Culture (Fig. 1.2).3 However, the analysis of excavation data and find categories lags far behind the efforts put into the fieldwork by various institutions. Some analyses were performed in the past, but were recorded only as internal reports or in handwritten notes, or have been digitally stored in computer files or on disks which are now difficult to access due to technological developments. In conclusion, few results have been published, and most of them have been in Dutch. Due to the absence of internationally accessible publications, the sites feature only sporadically in the international literature on the SGC and the Northwestern European Late Neolithic in general.6 Hence, current interpretations of SGC subsistence and settlement variability are based on incomplete analyses and are thus by definition not wellfounded. Dissemination of old and new research results will therefore contribute significantly to the international debate on cultural dynamics in the third millennium BC. In view of the above, the aim of the research project is threefold: (1) to unlock and integrate cultural/ecological data in order to expand our knowledge of the SGC, (2) to test and develop models of SGC subsistence and settlement variability, and (3) to provide a sound In the second half of the 20th century, coring campaigns were conducted and test trenches dug at most of these sites. Some of the sites underwent large-scale excavation. This research demonstrated the excellent preservation of organic remains (including human burials), inorganic materials and settlement features. This quality, combined with the fact that the sites are located in similar palaeoenvironmental settings (a tidal zone), makes this set of sites one of the most important Late Neolithic cultural landscapes in Northwestern Europe.4 In the Dutch context, the quality of these sites far exceeds that of the SGC sites in the surrounding sandy Pleistocene areas, where the SGC is mainly known from burials (settlement sites are barely recognisable) or from sites where longterm reuse of locales has resulted in loss of chronological and spatial resolution (Fig. 1.3).5 Noord-Holland’s site complexes therefore offer vast opportunities to increase our understanding of SGC subsistence, settlement variability, 13 — 0 50km Beach barriers and dunes Tidal flats and rivervalleys Peat Water Rivervalleys and brookvalleys Coversand Ice-pushed ridge Loess Settlements Burials Figure 1.3 General overview of SGC settlements and burials in the Netherlands (adapted from Drenth, Brinkkemper & Lauwerier 2008) plotted on palaeogeographical reconstruction of the Netherlands around 2750 BC adapted from Vos & Kiden 2005. 14 — basis for the development of management approaches to and public appreciation of the SGC heritage. Three research themes have been defined for the Single Grave Project. (A) The study of settlement variability, which focuses on the identification of functional differences between sites. (B) The study of the use and role of material culture, which will first of all contribute input on several aspects of site variability and group composition, as well as focusing on the identification of the cultural biographies of objects.7 (C) The study of landscape usage, which explores how SGC communities exploited resources and structured the landscape in broader terms. To explore these themes, specific research questions have been formulated: 1. What is the spatial extent of settlement areas and how can any intra-site spatial differentiation be characterised? 2. What activities are represented in the artefact assemblages (ceramics, lithics, bone and antler tools, ornaments)? 3. What activities are represented in the characteristics of the archaeozoological and archaeobotanical remains? 4. What is the functional nature of structures and features? 5. What do indicators tell us about the duration and seasonality of occupation? 6. What evidence exists for group composition? 7. What variability exists in the 'cultural biography' of objects? 8. What ecozones are represented in the archaeozoological and archaeobotanical assemblages? 9. What is the possible origin of inorganic resources? 10. How do the characteristics of the SGC settlements in Noord-Holland compare to SGC/Corded Ware phenomena in the wider geographical setting? 7 Kopytoff 1986; Fontijn 2002.Drenth, Brinkkemper & Lauwerier 2008. 8 Van Heeringen & Theunissen 2001. 9 Van Heeringen & Theunissen 2001, 227-228. 1.3 C  hoice of key sites: selection of Mienakker The degree to which we will be able to address the questions above depends chiefly on the possibility of linking finds to context information (e.g. features, layers). An inventory of Neolithic sites in the 'Kop van Noord-Holland' and 'De Gouw' areas published in 2001 lists 37 sites, the majority of which date to the SGC.8 Of these, 17 sites are considered particularly valuable, and eight sites have a uniquely high potential information value. These eight sites were nominated as sources with higher priority when it comes to analysis of the excavated remains and publication of the results.9 Among these eight are the sites at Zeewijk, Aartswoud, Kolhorn, Mienakker and Keinsmerbrug, which have been subjected to 'complete' excavation or large-scale test trench investigations. The data are very diverse, in terms of both quantity and quality. However, the lack of consistency in the data presents the greatest problems. Different find categories have been studied at several sites, which makes inter-site comparison impossible (cf. Kolhorn). In other cases, analyses have been performed but no final report has been published. Since the total body of excavation data and finds is too large to be covered in its entirety in the context of the Odyssey project, a selection of sites has had to be made. This was done according to specific criteria: (A) accessibility of excavation documentation, (B) availability and quality of find materials, (C) representativeness of the excavated area and (D) settlement size/type variability. The sites at Zeewijk, Kolhorn, Mienakker and Keinsmerbrug fit these criteria best. All other sites listed in the 2001 inventory have only been subjected to small-scale test trench and coring campaigns and are less suitable for further analysis in relation to the research themes, given the limited amount of archaeological data available from these sites. The general information from these other sites might however be used as general reference material. Furthermore, the site Kolhorn has to be approached in a more general way. Although several serious attempts have been made, as yet it has proved impossible to relate 15 — the find numbers used to specific contexts. This problem is the consequence of a new find number system applied some years after excavation during the first analysis of data. Due to this lack of context information, the Kolhorn site was abandoned during the course of the project and replaced by Zeewijk, a similar large settlement site. After the analysis and publication of the fairly small site at Keinsmerbrug, we have now turned our attention to much larger sites, like Zeewijk, and to Mienakker, which is representative of a small site with dwelling structures. During our research project, we gained more and more insight into the quality of the data and the potential for answering the research questions at site level, as well as the more general questions on landscape and human behaviour. The site at Keinsmerbrug, which was a test case during our project, became an important point of reference in the analysis of Mienakker. It was inevitable that most specialists would compare the results from Mienakker to those from Keinsmerbrug. Such a tendency towards comparison is a natural thing, and certainly nothing untoward, but we did realise that our view had been altered by Keinsmerbrug as we gained more knowledge during the process. 1.4 T he Mienakker site: a short introduction The site Mienakker was discovered in 1986, during an archaeological survey carried out within the framework of land consolidation in the De Gouw region. Staff of the RAAP archaeological consultancy recognised a black cultural layer in the core sample, with fragments of mussel shells and two fragments of bone.10 The site was situated in a vast area of grassland, between the villages of Hoogwoud and Aartswoud (Fig. 1.4). The site is named after the toponym of this area, Mienakker. The meaning of the word mien is derived from the concept of gemeenschappelijk, in the sense of communal property/use; akker means field.11 In the Late Middle Ages these parcels were situated at the jurisdictional boundaries of the two villages, and regarded as being in joint ownership. Hoogwoud and Aartswoud were separate municipalities, until 1979, when they were incorporated into the new municipality of Opmeer. At first, just after the discovery in 1986, the dating of the site was unsure. No clear indications of a Late Neolithic settlement appeared; the nature of the cultural layer and the geological location suggested a prehistoric dating, probably Late Neolithic. In August 1989, a more detailed survey was executed by the predecessor of the Cultural Heritage Agency, the State Service for Archaeological Investigations (ROB): a geological boring campaign by G. Lenselink and small-scale investigations involving three small test pits.12 The spatial and vertical dimensions of the cultural layer were recorded: it appeared to be a small site of approx. 500 m2. The thickness of the cultural layer was 10 to 20 cm, at 75 to 135 cm below the surface. Although agricultural levelling activities had taken place in 1988, the culture layer was not eroded. The geological borings revealed a sandy levee adjacent to a filled creek gully. Besides stone and bone fragments, the small test pits of one by two metres, dug by hand – the spyholes into the site – also revealed ceramics which pointed to habitation in the Late Neolithic, the time of the Single Grave Culture. Within a year of this more detailed research, in April 1990, the excavation of the site started, and lasted about six months (Fig. 1.5). The research was led by W.J. Hogestijn and E.E.B. Bulten, both employed at the State Service. The excavation was financed by Noord-Holland provincial authority. It took place on a parcel of land in the former municipality of Hoogwoud. The human skeleton found during the excavation was named after the owner of the land, Cees J. van Berkel. The discovery of Cees, a well-preserved Late Neolithic burial, aroused a lot of excitement at the time. After the excavation, the analysis of several find categories started and the results were published in internal reports.13 For instance, the remains of fish, birds and mammals were studied by B. Beerenhout and F.W. Schnitger. The human skeleton from Mienakker was investigated by J.M. Pasveer and H.T. Uytterschaut, along with the Late Neolithic burial at Sijbekarspel discovered a year earlier. Flint and amber were published in 2001, within the framework of the inventory project. In comparison with the site at Keinsmerbrug, 10 M  anning & Van der Gaauw 1987. 11 With thanks to the members of the Westfries Genootschap historical society. 12 Bulten, Hogestijn & Jager 1990. 13 Van Heeringen & Theunissen 2001, 174-178. 16 — 123 121 125 127 129 531 Lutjewinkel 529 Winkel Aartswoud Aardswoud Nieuwe-Niedorp 527 Gouwe De Weere Hoogwoud 525 Oude-Niedorp Sijbekarspel 1:50.000 Building Road Forest Arable Grassland Orchard Cemetery Water Other landuse Site location Figure 1.4 Location of the Mienakker site, situated in the grassland between Aartswoud and Hoogwoud. 14 Van Heeringen & Theunissen 2001, 178. 15 Hogestijn 2001, 149-150, afb. 3. therefore, the find material from Mienakker was subjected to more analysis. Some of the cultural/ ecological information sources were unlocked, but others, such as the ceramics, were still waiting for analysis. Attention was focused on the analysis of the features both during and after excavation. At least two structures were recognised in the dense concentration. These appear to be very plain two-aisled buildings, the larger one of to twelve metres in length and three to four metres wide.14 The clearest one is fairly small, with dimensions of approx. 5-7 to 3 metres.15 In short, the Mienakker site was regarded as a very promising prospect for analysis in the Odyssey project. An integral approach, using a set of fresh eyes, in combination with an evaluation what was already done in the past, could bring new results, new insights in Neolithic life in Noord-Holland. 17 — Figure 1.5 A view of the excavation in 1990. 1.5 Structure of the monograph Since the approach to the analysis of the Mienakker site was similar to that at Keinsmerbrug, the structure of the monograph is more or less the same. It was decided to divide the monograph into thirteen chapters. The first two chapters introduce the site and its environmental setting. The features are presented in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 and 5 deal with two material categories: the ceramics and the flint, amber and stone artefacts. The results of the botanical analysis are presented in Chapter 6, and the organic residues are discussed in Chapter 7. The charcoal is discussed in Chapter 8. The faunal remains – mammals, birds and fish – are discussed in Chapter 9. The human skeleton is highlighted in Chapter 10. The spatial information will be presented and evaluated in Chapter 11. Chapters 3-11 thus present the reports of the specialist analyses, each based on their own research questions. Chapter 12 deals with the question of the supposed canoe, combining the results from the specialist analyses. Chapter 13, the final chapter, brings together the conclusions from the different studies, discussing and synthesising the archaeological data from the site at Mienakker. This chapter is based on the input from the specialists and is a joint interpretation of the site by the project team. 1.6 Administrative information Province Noord-Holland Municipality Opmeer Location Mienakker Toponym Mienakker Centre Coordinate (Dutch coordinate system) 124.540/527.550 Land use grassland Year of discovery 1986 Excavation 1990 18 — 1.7 Acknowledgements Various people contributed in several ways to the research and the production of this monograph. Their advice, help and constructive criticism were greatly appreciated by the authors. Thanks go to: André Aptroot, Everhard Bulten, Theo Geurtsen, Evert van Ginkel, Willem Jan Hogestijn, Maja d’Hollosy, Jorrin Kuijper, Julliët Pasveer, Jean Roefstra, Esther Scheele, Muuk ter Schegget, Martin Veen, Andrea Waters-Rist, the people of the Swaensteyn Museum and of the Westfries Genootschap historical society. We also would like to thank all those unnamed people who took part in the excavation of Mienakker almost 25 years ago. 2 Landscape and chronology 19 — J.P. Kleijne & H.J.T. Weerts 2.1 G  eological development of the Bergen tidal basin The Mienakker site is situated in a former tidal basin, known as the Bergen tidal basin.16 This basin developed when from the Early Holocene onwards a large incised valley drowned due to sea-level rise. This was the former Rhine valley, which was abandoned by the Rhine around 40,000 BP.17 Afterwards, a smaller river flowed through this valley, fed mainly by the Vecht river (Fig. 2.1). Since sea-level rise was rapid in the first half of the Holocene, almost the entire western part of the Netherlands drowned and changed from sandy Pleistocene landscapes to tidal basins one of which is the Bergen tidal basin (Fig. 2.2). Due to its low-lying Pleistocene topography, the Bergen valley was the first to drown.18 Around 4000 BC, global sea-level rise stopped because the ice masses above North America and Scandinavia had completely melted. For the Netherlands, however, relative sea-level (RSL) rise continued because the Netherlands is subsiding due to glacio-isostatic adjustment and its structural geology.19 If the land subsides at a given location while global sea level remains constant, RSL continues to rise there. RSL rise proceeded slowly in the Netherlands. Because sediment input to the coastal zone from the North Sea by marine currents and wave action and fluvial input by the Rhine exceeded RSL rise, the coast started to prograde from 4000 BC onward, despite the slow rising RSL.20 Successively, the tidal inlets closed and beach ridges with small dunes formed in a westward direction along the North Sea coast. The Bergen inlet was the last to close because here the volume to be filled was largest and it was furthest away from the sediment sources. Around 3200 BC the Bergen tidal basin was still in existence, but it had almost completely silted up to form a salt marsh, dissected by several tidal creeks (Fig. 2.3). The highest parts of this salt marsh were only flooded during storms and spring tides. To the northwest and southwest, habitable beach ridges existed near the coast. Even further to the north, high Pleistocene grounds cropped out where Texel and Wieringen are now situated. In the salt marsh itself, the levees along the tidal creeks were attractive habitable areas (Fig. 2.4). Further away from the tidal creeks, peat started to form. For some time, this dynamic landscape was an attractive region for prehistoric man. Several very different landscapes existed close to each other. Food supply, from both animals and plants, was rich and diverse and living conditions were generally dry. Fi