Gary Nobles
Gary Nobles completed his PhD (2016) research at the university of Groningen in the Netherlands. His research focuses on the Neolithic and spatial analysis. He is active in the development of 3D GIS and volumetric analysis as well as Geographic Information Systems/Science (GIS/GIs) and digital technologies.
ResearcherID: A-9305-2013 http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-9305-2013
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9451-5413
ResearcherID: A-9305-2013 http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-9305-2013
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9451-5413
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (42)
Uploads
Papers by Gary Nobles
To understand the construction, use and collapse of the tomb, a number of digital techniques have been applied, such as Structure from Motion (SfM; also referred to as Photogrammetry) to record the remains of the tomb, and Virtual Reality to build and test various roof constructions. This has allowed us to assess a number of possible hypotheses and conclude with the most plausible roof design.
To understand the construction, use and collapse of the tomb, a number of digital techniques have been applied, such as Structure from Motion (SfM; also referred to as Photogrammetry) to record the remains of the tomb, and Virtual Reality to build and test various roof constructions. This has allowed us to assess a number of possible hypotheses and conclude with the most plausible roof design.
Keinsmerbrug was a temporarily occupied settlement, used within the timespan of 2580-2450 cal BC (special activity site). The main period of use - probably consisting of several episodes of short-term use - occurred from spring to autumn. At the site people from different households or groups gathered for special reasons like feasting, besides the hunting of fowl, fishing and/or herding cattle. Mainly one type of food was cooked: a starch-rich porridge of emmer grain, or ache and water mixed with some fat from either mammals or fish. An astonishing aspect is the huge quantity of ducks (mallard, teal/garganey and wigeon) that were caught. Estimates range from 5000 to 10,000.
- 2012f: B.I. Smit, O. Brinkkemper, J.P. Kleijne, R.C.G.M. Lauwerier & E.M. Theunissen (eds), A Kaleidoscope of Gathering at Keinsmerbrug (the Netherlands). Late Neolithic Behavioural Variability in a Dynamic Landscape, Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 43).
this volume the new results and interpretations are presented. The analyses show that Keinsmerbrug was a temporarily occupied settlement, used occasionally or perhaps even only
seasonally within the time span of 2580-2450 cal BC. The main period of use – probably consisting of several episodes of short-term use – occurred from spring to autumn. The site
of Keinsmerbrug is interpreted as a non-residential settlement: a gathering settlement in the broadest sense of the word, for the gathering of people and resources (special activity site).
This scientific report is intended for archaeologists, as well as for other professionals and amateur enthusiasts involved in archaeology.
The Cultural Heritage Agency provides knowledge and advice to give the future a past.
The third and final excavation analysed in
further detail as part of the Odyssey ‘Unlocking
Noord-Holland's Late Neolithic Treasure Chest’
project was that performed at the Zeewijk site
in 1992, 1993 and 1994. Zeewijk, named after a
farm established by the first colonists of the
Groetpolder, was regarded as a very promising
site, but also a challenging one, considering the
huge backlog. The large size and very high
quantity of finds, the fact that the area was
only partially excavated and the potential for
sample selection within the project meant that
the narrative capacity of Zeewijk was of a
different order.
At Zeewijk, two large areas of cultural layer
were distinguished in the 1980s, referred to as
Zeewijk-West and Zeewijk-West. Both proved to
be located on the sandy levees along a filled
creek gully. About 15-20% was excavated,
distributed among East and West and over three
campaigns. In 1992, a large feature with a
wooden post was found at Zeewijk-East and in
1993 it became clear that it belonged to
remarkable large structure measuring 22 by 7 m.
At Zeewijk-West, the number of features is very
high, especially on the highest parts of the levee.
In this area five possible house plans were
recognised. These buildings vary from approx. 6
to 14 m in length and are approx. 3.5 to 4.5 m
wide. Based on the preliminary results from the
analyses of the 1992 campaign and
interpretation of the large structure, the Zeewijk
site was interpreted at the time as a large, more
permanent residential settlement.
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 analysis of Keinsmerbrug
and Mienakker. The project team consisted of 16
people working at different organisations
(commercial agencies, universities and the
Cultural Heritage Agency), each of whom
contributed their own particular expertise.
Due to the sampling strategy during the
excavation campaigns, the selection during our
project and some missing find categories, the
spatial analysis of the find distributions and
posthole clusters was very limited. No clear
structures were identified. The numerous
postholes, cow hoofprints and ard marks
(occurring over a large area measuring about 1
ha) suggest a large settlement area with
farmland. All human activities seemed to be
arranged in a mosaic pattern: habitation,
ploughing, growing crops on small arable fields
and raising cattle all occurred simultaneously,
successively (all year round) and shifting
spatially. Differences in the ceramic assemblage
point to different episodes of occupation. Based
on typochronological arguments, Zeewijk-East
and the northern part of Zeewijk-West can be
seen as the earliest phase, perhaps
contemporaneous, while the southern part of
Zeewijk-West is the latest. In this sequence, the
construction of the large structure of Zeewijk-
East, cutting through the numerous ard marks
and the tearing down of this building and reuse
of the wood from the wall posts could have been
the final act on the eastern side of the gully.
Habitation in the southern part of Zeewijk-West
continued, while Zeewijk-East was used for
activities other than habitation, or may have
been abandoned. The central posts of the large
structure remained visible for some time after.
The settlers of Zeewijk chose as their
settlement site two sandy ridges separated by
an active gully in a varied, fairly open
environment. The levees were covered with
plants, shrubs and trees such as willow, alder,
ash, bird cherry and field maple. The low-lying
parts of these saline and brackish wetlands are
more open, with a great diversity of grasses and
herbaceous plants, making ideal pasture for
cattle. Although this landscape is dominated by
marine influences, there are also places at or
near the settlement were fresh water
accumulates and where beavers lived.
The people of Zeewijk were experienced in
different fishing techniques that enabled them
to exploit the abundant waters of the tidal
creeks. They were able to catch large and small
fish, probably with traps, weirs or fences. The
large numbers of ducks and geese were probably
caught in the moulting period. Beaver were also
hunted, as well as other fur animals like stoat,
brown bear and wildcat, although these hides could have been passed on as exchanged goods.
The hunting of wild boar played a minor but not insignificant role. Cattle were by far the most important food source in terms of meat supply.
The abundance of cow hoofprints shows the importance of keeping cattle close by. Though sheep/goats, pigs and dog 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 and for its fibres. The farmers brought complete ears of barley and wheat to the settlement, possibly with the stalks still attached. Cultivation was probably small-scale and intensive. The small fields were located on the levees, close to the houses. Cereals were ground, pounded and processed into two types of porridge-like food, one made of coarsely crushed cereals, while the other was a compact, mushy food of finely ground grain. The consumption of acorns was also an important food source. Thin-walled beakers were used to cook the cereals and/or acorns into thick porridge or soup. Charred residue on a ceramic plate fragment indicates that it was used as a griddle. Zeewijk is the first Dutch prehistoric site where use of ceramic plates for baking has been demonstrated.
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. Jet could also be found on the nearby beach, but it may also have been obtained by exchange. The southern flint was evidently obtained via long-distance networks. The inhabitants used the flint to make all kinds of tools, including borers and scrapers, which they used for working wood, cleaning skins, scraping fish scales, cutting fish skins/cattle hides and making amber beads. Evidence of craftsmanship is more apparent than at Mienakker. The production of amber ornaments, and maybe of bone beads and ‘ripples’, spinning and weaving were all activities performed at the site.
Zeewijk is regarded as a large domestic settlement, occupied all year round. We would characterise Zeewijk as a mosaic-like palimpsest, reflecting recurrent habitation alternating with agrarian activities. The local crafts, the large variety in ceramics and the construction and use of the large ceremonial building in East suggests that different groups of Corded Ware households lived at Zeewijk. In our view, this was a community of several families related by kinship both genetic and affinal. How many domestic social units lived there simultaneously or in successive generations is unclear, but the settlers of Zeewijk indisputably knew how to live in this environment.
The third and final excavation analysed in
further detail as part of the Odyssey ‘Unlocking
Noord-Holland's Late Neolithic Treasure Chest’
project was that performed at the Zeewijk site
in 1992, 1993 and 1994. Zeewijk, named after a
farm established by the first colonists of the
Groetpolder, was regarded as a very promising
site, but also a challenging one, considering the
huge backlog. The large size and very high
quantity of finds, the fact that the area was
only partially excavated and the potential for
sample selection within the project meant that
the narrative capacity of Zeewijk was of a
different order.
At Zeewijk, two large areas of cultural layer
were distinguished in the 1980s, referred to as
Zeewijk-West and Zeewijk-West. Both proved to
be located on the sandy levees along a filled
creek gully. About 15-20% was excavated,
distributed among East and West and over three
campaigns. In 1992, a large feature with a
wooden post was found at Zeewijk-East and in
1993 it became clear that it belonged to
remarkable large structure measuring 22 by 7 m.
At Zeewijk-West, the number of features is very
high, especially on the highest parts of the levee.
In this area five possible house plans were
recognised. These buildings vary from approx. 6
to 14 m in length and are approx. 3.5 to 4.5 m
wide. Based on the preliminary results from the
analyses of the 1992 campaign and
interpretation of the large structure, the Zeewijk
site was interpreted at the time as a large, more
permanent residential settlement.
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 analysis of Keinsmerbrug
and Mienakker. The project team consisted of 16
people working at different organisations
(commercial agencies, universities and the
Cultural Heritage Agency), each of whom
contributed their own particular expertise.
Due to the sampling strategy during the
excavation campaigns, the selection during our
project and some missing find categories, the
spatial analysis of the find distributions and
posthole clusters was very limited. No clear
structures were identified. The numerous
postholes, cow hoofprints and ard marks
(occurring over a large area measuring about 1
ha) suggest a large settlement area with
farmland. All human activities seemed to be
arranged in a mosaic pattern: habitation,
ploughing, growing crops on small arable fields
and raising cattle all occurred simultaneously,
successively (all year round) and shifting
spatially. Differences in the ceramic assemblage
point to different episodes of occupation. Based
on typochronological arguments, Zeewijk-East
and the northern part of Zeewijk-West can be
seen as the earliest phase, perhaps
contemporaneous, while the southern part of
Zeewijk-West is the latest. In this sequence, the
construction of the large structure of Zeewijk-
East, cutting through the numerous ard marks
and the tearing down of this building and reuse
of the wood from the wall posts could have been
the final act on the eastern side of the gully.
Habitation in the southern part of Zeewijk-West
continued, while Zeewijk-East was used for
activities other than habitation, or may have
been abandoned. The central posts of the large
structure remained visible for some time after.
The settlers of Zeewijk chose as their
settlement site two sandy ridges separated by
an active gully in a varied, fairly open
environment. The levees were covered with
plants, shrubs and trees such as willow, alder,
ash, bird cherry and field maple. The low-lying
parts of these saline and brackish wetlands are
more open, with a great diversity of grasses and
herbaceous plants, making ideal pasture for
cattle. Although this landscape is dominated by
marine influences, there are also places at or
near the settlement were fresh water
accumulates and where beavers lived.
The people of Zeewijk were experienced in
different fishing techniques that enabled them
to exploit the abundant waters of the tidal
creeks. They were able to catch large and small
fish, probably with traps, weirs or fences. The
large numbers of ducks and geese were probably
caught in the moulting period. Beaver were also
hunted, as well as other fur animals like stoat,
brown bear and wildcat, although these hides could have been passed on as exchanged goods.
The hunting of wild boar played a minor but not insignificant role. Cattle were by far the most important food source in terms of meat supply.
The abundance of cow hoofprints shows the importance of keeping cattle close by. Though sheep/goats, pigs and dog 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 and for its fibres. The farmers brought complete ears of barley and wheat to the settlement, possibly with the stalks still attached. Cultivation was probably small-scale and intensive. The small fields were located on the levees, close to the houses. Cereals were ground, pounded and processed into two types of porridge-like food, one made of coarsely crushed cereals, while the other was a compact, mushy food of finely ground grain. The consumption of acorns was also an important food source. Thin-walled beakers were used to cook the cereals and/or acorns into thick porridge or soup. Charred residue on a ceramic plate fragment indicates that it was used as a griddle. Zeewijk is the first Dutch prehistoric site where use of ceramic plates for baking has been demonstrated.
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. Jet could also be found on the nearby beach, but it may also have been obtained by exchange. The southern flint was evidently obtained via long-distance networks. The inhabitants used the flint to make all kinds of tools, including borers and scrapers, which they used for working wood, cleaning skins, scraping fish scales, cutting fish skins/cattle hides and making amber beads. Evidence of craftsmanship is more apparent than at Mienakker. The production of amber ornaments, and maybe of bone beads and ‘ripples’, spinning and weaving were all activities performed at the site.
Zeewijk is regarded as a large domestic settlement, occupied all year round. We would characterise Zeewijk as a mosaic-like palimpsest, reflecting recurrent habitation alternating with agrarian activities. The local crafts, the large variety in ceramics and the construction and use of the large ceremonial building in East suggests that different groups of Corded Ware households lived at Zeewijk. In our view, this was a community of several families related by kinship both genetic and affinal. How many domestic social units lived there simultaneously or in successive generations is unclear, but the settlers of Zeewijk indisputably knew how to live in this environment.
We can conclude that Zeewijk was a large domestic settlement, occupied all year round. In our view Zeewijk must be seen as a location where recurrent habitation took place, intensively, alternated with subsistence activities. It is a permanent mosaic of different assemblages: relocated dwellings, cultivated plots and the building and partial demolition of a remarkable ritual structure.
The habitants of Zeewijk carried out a broad spectrum of activities related to subsistence: mixed intensive farming (including small-scale crop cultivation, crop processing and
consumption, and animal herding and consumption), foraging, fishing, fowling and hunting all took place there. Furthermore there is ample evidence of craftsmanship.
This variety of local crafts, the construction and use of the large ceremonial building in Zeewijk-East and the large variation in ceramics are seen as indications that different groups of
Corded Ware people settled at Zeewijk. These groups were probably household groups, a community of several families, related by kinship both genetic and affinal.
Keinsmerbrug: a kaleidoscope of gathering
The analysis of the Keinsmerbrug site, excavated in 1986, was the first step in our research as part of the Odyssey project entitled ‘Unlocking Noord-Holland’s Late Neolithic Treasure Chest: Single Grave Culture behavioural variability in a tidal environment’. The unpublished data available suggested Keinsmerbrug was a small site lacking clear structures. The limited scale of the excavation (area approx. 300 m2, excavated in a single campaign) made this site the obvious choice as a test case for the approach to be adopted in the Single Grave Culture project. A group of specialists worked together to unlock and integrate cultural/ecological information and research data. The project team consists of 16 people tackling different subjects and working in various institutional settings (commercial agencies, universities and the Cultural Heritage Agency). The good preservation of the archaeological remains at Keinsmerbrug allowed us to gain an insight into the exploitation of animal and plant resources there. Based on the archaeozoological evidence it is clear that subsistence was based on a combination of cattle breeding, fishing and fowling. Besides cattle, some sheep or goats and young pigs were consumed. The few wild mammals present like wolf, polecat and marten were probably hunted for their furs. Fish from both saline and brackish waters was an important part of the diet. Flatfish – particularly flounder – and sturgeon were caught. By far the most astonishing aspect is the huge quantity of bird bones discovered. Different kinds of birds, especially ducks (mallard, teal/garganey and wigeon), were caught in huge numbers. Estimates of the total number of birds caught range from 5000 to 10,000. Naked barley and emmer wheat were brought to the site as cleaned or semi-cleaned grains. Besides cereals, seeds of various orache species were gathered for food. It is remarkable that no other wild plant foods such as crab apple, berries, hazelnuts and acorns were consumed. Evidence for the gathering of roots and tubers for food is also lacking. Chemical evidence has shown that grain was cooked in liquid and that starch-rich foods were mixed with a small amount of animal fat or fish oil. Meat and fish were probably prepared for consumption using fire (open or otherwise), in the form of smoking, grilling or preparation in ashpits. Similar cooking strategies and drying on racks were used to conserve the large number of ducks and fish which must have been prepared for storage and transport to other settlements. Although the number of finds is not very high the study of the material culture revealed some important results. One intriguing aspect of the ceramics is their variation. Although the ceramics are low in number the variation in thickness, tempering and decoration is high. It is likely that this variation is caused by differences in the origins of the vessels or the origins or preferences of the individual potters. People from different local SGC traditions probably visited this specific location at different times, Summary 5 — each bringing their own vessels which they used for the preparation of one specific type of food. The absence of imported material suggests that the flint, hard stone and amber were probably collected in nearby areas, at the coastal beach barrier or on the glacial till deposits at Wieringen. The flint was carried to the site in small nodules and the knapping process was performed at the site to obtain the tools needed. During the excavation of the site in 1986 no patterns or configurations were observed in the stake- and postholes. Using a set of fresh eyes and applying currently available spatial analysis programmes to a multitude of datasets, five structures or dwellings have been identified. The spatial analysis of all the data shows the presence of at least seven identifiable activity areas. Three of the five structures have been identified as dwellings (house plans) based on their more or less regular outline. The dwellings are all two-aisled, similar to known dwellings at other Neolithic settlements. The structures are likely to have been relatively light constructions. The presence of burnt reed fragments in the cultural layer could be indicative of the deliberate burning of reed shoots when the settlement was revisited, to create an open surface. The analyses have shown that Keinsmerbrug was a temporarily occupied settlement, used occasionally or perhaps even only seasonally within the time span of 2580-2450 cal BC. The limited range of other activities combined with the characteristics of the material culture (low numbers of flints and ceramics, variation in the tempering of the ceramics, small range of different flint and stone tools) is indicative of such short-term use. The main period of use – probably consisting of several episodes of short-term use – occurred from spring to autumn. In conclusion, the site at Keinsmerbrug has been interpreted as a non-residential settlement: a gathering settlement in the broadest sense of the word, for the gathering of people and resources (special activity site). It seems that mainly one type of food was cooked in the vessels at Keinsmerbrug: a starch-rich porridge of emmer grain, orache and water mixed with some fat from either animals or fish. Keinsmerbrug was a settlement where people from different households or groups gathered for special reasons like feasting, besides the hunting of fowl, fishing and/or herding of cattle. These people gathered on occasion to hunt huge numbers of ducks and fish and simultaneously used this period to share information and eat specific foods. During their stay dwellings, pits/unlined wells and specific activity areas structured the settlement area. Since this was a non-residential settlement, the question of where the contemporaneous seasonal and residential settlements might be naturally arises. Future analysis of the sites at Mienakker and Zeewijk might show that these locations are the counterparts of the settlement at Keinsmerbrug.
Keinsmerbrug: a kaleidoscope of gathering
The analysis of the Keinsmerbrug site, excavated in 1986, was the first step in our research as part of the Odyssey project entitled ‘Unlocking Noord-Holland’s Late Neolithic Treasure Chest: Single Grave Culture behavioural variability in a tidal environment’. The unpublished data available suggested Keinsmerbrug was a small site lacking clear structures. The limited scale of the excavation (area approx. 300 m2, excavated in a single campaign) made this site the obvious choice as a test case for the approach to be adopted in the Single Grave Culture project. A group of specialists worked together to unlock and integrate cultural/ecological information and research data. The project team consists of 16 people tackling different subjects and working in various institutional settings (commercial agencies, universities and the Cultural Heritage Agency). The good preservation of the archaeological remains at Keinsmerbrug allowed us to gain an insight into the exploitation of animal and plant resources there. Based on the archaeozoological evidence it is clear that subsistence was based on a combination of cattle breeding, fishing and fowling. Besides cattle, some sheep or goats and young pigs were consumed. The few wild mammals present like wolf, polecat and marten were probably hunted for their furs. Fish from both saline and brackish waters was an important part of the diet. Flatfish – particularly flounder – and sturgeon were caught. By far the most astonishing aspect is the huge quantity of bird bones discovered. Different kinds of birds, especially ducks (mallard, teal/garganey and wigeon), were caught in huge numbers. Estimates of the total number of birds caught range from 5000 to 10,000. Naked barley and emmer wheat were brought to the site as cleaned or semi-cleaned grains. Besides cereals, seeds of various orache species were gathered for food. It is remarkable that no other wild plant foods such as crab apple, berries, hazelnuts and acorns were consumed. Evidence for the gathering of roots and tubers for food is also lacking. Chemical evidence has shown that grain was cooked in liquid and that starch-rich foods were mixed with a small amount of animal fat or fish oil. Meat and fish were probably prepared for consumption using fire (open or otherwise), in the form of smoking, grilling or preparation in ashpits. Similar cooking strategies and drying on racks were used to conserve the large number of ducks and fish which must have been prepared for storage and transport to other settlements. Although the number of finds is not very high the study of the material culture revealed some important results. One intriguing aspect of the ceramics is their variation. Although the ceramics are low in number the variation in thickness, tempering and decoration is high. It is likely that this variation is caused by differences in the origins of the vessels or the origins or preferences of the individual potters. People from different local SGC traditions probably visited this specific location at different times, Summary 5 — each bringing their own vessels which they used for the preparation of one specific type of food. The absence of imported material suggests that the flint, hard stone and amber were probably collected in nearby areas, at the coastal beach barrier or on the glacial till deposits at Wieringen. The flint was carried to the site in small nodules and the knapping process was performed at the site to obtain the tools needed. During the excavation of the site in 1986 no patterns or configurations were observed in the stake- and postholes. Using a set of fresh eyes and applying currently available spatial analysis programmes to a multitude of datasets, five structures or dwellings have been identified. The spatial analysis of all the data shows the presence of at least seven identifiable activity areas. Three of the five structures have been identified as dwellings (house plans) based on their more or less regular outline. The dwellings are all two-aisled, similar to known dwellings at other Neolithic settlements. The structures are likely to have been relatively light constructions. The presence of burnt reed fragments in the cultural layer could be indicative of the deliberate burning of reed shoots when the settlement was revisited, to create an open surface. The analyses have shown that Keinsmerbrug was a temporarily occupied settlement, used occasionally or perhaps even only seasonally within the time span of 2580-2450 cal BC. The limited range of other activities combined with the characteristics of the material culture (low numbers of flints and ceramics, variation in the tempering of the ceramics, small range of different flint and stone tools) is indicative of such short-term use. The main period of use – probably consisting of several episodes of short-term use – occurred from spring to autumn. In conclusion, the site at Keinsmerbrug has been interpreted as a non-residential settlement: a gathering settlement in the broadest sense of the word, for the gathering of people and resources (special activity site). It seems that mainly one type of food was cooked in the vessels at Keinsmerbrug: a starch-rich porridge of emmer grain, orache and water mixed with some fat from either animals or fish. Keinsmerbrug was a settlement where people from different households or groups gathered for special reasons like feasting, besides the hunting of fowl, fishing and/or herding of cattle. These people gathered on occasion to hunt huge numbers of ducks and fish and simultaneously used this period to share information and eat specific foods. During their stay dwellings, pits/unlined wells and specific activity areas structured the settlement area. Since this was a non-residential settlement, the question of where the contemporaneous seasonal and residential settlements might be naturally arises. Future analysis of the sites at Mienakker and Zeewijk might show that these locations are the counterparts of the settlement at Keinsmerbrug.
Keinsmerbrug: a kaleidoscope of gathering
The analysis of the Keinsmerbrug site, excavated in 1986, was the first step in our research as part of the Odyssey project entitled ‘Unlocking Noord-Holland’s Late Neolithic Treasure Chest: Single Grave Culture behavioural variability in a tidal environment’. The unpublished data available suggested Keinsmerbrug was a small site lacking clear structures. The limited scale of the excavation (area approx. 300 m2, excavated in a single campaign) made this site the obvious choice as a test case for the approach to be adopted in the Single Grave Culture project. A group of specialists worked together to unlock and integrate cultural/ecological information and research data. The project team consists of 16 people tackling different subjects and working in various institutional settings (commercial agencies, universities and the Cultural Heritage Agency). The good preservation of the archaeological remains at Keinsmerbrug allowed us to gain an insight into the exploitation of animal and plant resources there. Based on the archaeozoological evidence it is clear that subsistence was based on a combination of cattle breeding, fishing and fowling. Besides cattle, some sheep or goats and young pigs were consumed. The few wild mammals present like wolf, polecat and marten were probably hunted for their furs. Fish from both saline and brackish waters was an important part of the diet. Flatfish – particularly flounder – and sturgeon were caught. By far the most astonishing aspect is the huge quantity of bird bones discovered. Different kinds of birds, especially ducks (mallard, teal/garganey and wigeon), were caught in huge numbers. Estimates of the total number of birds caught range from 5000 to 10,000. Naked barley and emmer wheat were brought to the site as cleaned or semi-cleaned grains. Besides cereals, seeds of various orache species were gathered for food. It is remarkable that no other wild plant foods such as crab apple, berries, hazelnuts and acorns were consumed. Evidence for the gathering of roots and tubers for food is also lacking. Chemical evidence has shown that grain was cooked in liquid and that starch-rich foods were mixed with a small amount of animal fat or fish oil. Meat and fish were probably prepared for consumption using fire (open or otherwise), in the form of smoking, grilling or preparation in ashpits. Similar cooking strategies and drying on racks were used to conserve the large number of ducks and fish which must have been prepared for storage and transport to other settlements. Although the number of finds is not very high the study of the material culture revealed some important results. One intriguing aspect of the ceramics is their variation. Although the ceramics are low in number the variation in thickness, tempering and decoration is high. It is likely that this variation is caused by differences in the origins of the vessels or the origins or preferences of the individual potters. People from different local SGC traditions probably visited this specific location at different times, Summary 5 — each bringing their own vessels which they used for the preparation of one specific type of food. The absence of imported material suggests that the flint, hard stone and amber were probably collected in nearby areas, at the coastal beach barrier or on the glacial till deposits at Wieringen. The flint was carried to the site in small nodules and the knapping process was performed at the site to obtain the tools needed. During the excavation of the site in 1986 no patterns or configurations were observed in the stake- and postholes. Using a set of fresh eyes and applying currently available spatial analysis programmes to a multitude of datasets, five structures or dwellings have been identified. The spatial analysis of all the data shows the presence of at least seven identifiable activity areas. Three of the five structures have been identified as dwellings (house plans) based on their more or less regular outline. The dwellings are all two-aisled, similar to known dwellings at other Neolithic settlements. The structures are likely to have been relatively light constructions. The presence of burnt reed fragments in the cultural layer could be indicative of the deliberate burning of reed shoots when the settlement was revisited, to create an open surface. The analyses have shown that Keinsmerbrug was a temporarily occupied settlement, used occasionally or perhaps even only seasonally within the time span of 2580-2450 cal BC. The limited range of other activities combined with the characteristics of the material culture (low numbers of flints and ceramics, variation in the tempering of the ceramics, small range of different flint and stone tools) is indicative of such short-term use. The main period of use – probably consisting of several episodes of short-term use – occurred from spring to autumn. In conclusion, the site at Keinsmerbrug has been interpreted as a non-residential settlement: a gathering settlement in the broadest sense of the word, for the gathering of people and resources (special activity site). It seems that mainly one type of food was cooked in the vessels at Keinsmerbrug: a starch-rich porridge of emmer grain, orache and water mixed with some fat from either animals or fish. Keinsmerbrug was a settlement where people from different households or groups gathered for special reasons like feasting, besides the hunting of fowl, fishing and/or herding of cattle. These people gathered on occasion to hunt huge numbers of ducks and fish and simultaneously used this period to share information and eat specific foods. During their stay dwellings, pits/unlined wells and specific activity areas structured the settlement area. Since this was a non-residential settlement, the question of where the contemporaneous seasonal and residential settlements might be naturally arises. Future analysis of the sites at Mienakker and Zeewijk might show that these locations are the counterparts of the settlement at Keinsmerbrug.
Dutch. This research project provided an excellent
opportunity to unlock the high quality archaeological information. The presence of organic remains and numerous artefacts in cultural layers and the thorough excavation of these layers have produced a wealth of data regarding Late Neolithic behavioural variability in a dynamic wetland landscape. In this article, a summary of the results of this project will be presented.
was carried out by several research institutes
and commercial companies in order to study
and publish three settlement sites of the Single
Grave Culture located in the Western Netherlands.
These sites were excavated more than
twenty years ago, but unfortunately the results
were only scarcely published, and mostly in
Dutch. This research project provided an excellent
opportunity to unlock the high quality
archaeological information. The presence of
organic remains and numerous artefacts in
cultural layers and the thorough excavation of
these layers have produced a wealth of data
regarding Late Neolithic behavioural variability
in a dynamic wetland landscape. In this
article, a summary of the results of this project
will be presented.
This study is concerned with the reconstruction of the architecture of a so-called Built Chamber Tomb found in the early Mycenaean cemetery of Ayios Vasilios, mainland Greece (approx. 1700-1420 BC). The Built Chamber Tomb is a rather rare tomb type that signals some of the first architectural elaborations on the mainland and they are testament to a change in funerary practices and beliefs. At the same time pervasive social changes take place with the appearance of social differentiation.
The main topic is the reconstruction, construction, multiple use and destruction of a partially preserved tomb called Tomb 21. The architecture of this particular tomb – especially the roof – is uncertain. This is because this tomb was introduced in a process of experimentation: tomb 21 is both larger and more labour intensive than the surrounding tombs and built for multiple burials. This has major repercussions for the construction of the roof. At least 25 individuals have been buried inside Tomb 21 at different times, which means the tomb was repeatedly opened and closed with every single internment. The roof was clearly not a simple closing mechanism never to be touched again, it was the most dynamic part of the construction.
The goal of this study is to understand both how the tomb collapsed and how it was originally constructed. To do so, we use a number of digital techniques, such as photogrammetry and Virtual Reality. In cooperation with the Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality Center of the University of Groningen we create a digital environment in which it is possible to ‘puzzle’ back together the various pieces and create a number of scenarios and reconstructions. This allows us to gain a better understanding of the sequence of actions that have taken place inside the tomb. This project is also used to train students in the possibilities and application of photogrammetry, 3D modeling and VR techniques. The reconstructions themselves will be used for heritage purposes, in order to visualize the process of experimentation with new mortuary practices and to present the process of social differentiation to the public.