A long slow goodbye - Re-examining the Mesolithic – Neolithic transition (5500 – 2500 BCE) in the Dutch delta

Abstract

Neolithic societies in the Dutch wetlands are characterised as “extended broad-spectrum hunter-gatherers”. They adopted agricultural elements only gradually and wild resources continue to play an important role in subsistence. However, the exact duration of the process of neolithisation in the Dutch wetlands is debated. We analyse the taxonomic diversity of faunal assemblages from the late Mesolithic and Neolithic in the Netherlands. We demonstrate that the diversity of exploited faunal resources remains remarkably constant throughout the Neolithic. We interpret this to show that the reliance on an extended broad-spectrum economy was not a transitional phase, but was a viable economic system in its own right.

Full text

M.V. Klinkenberg, R.M.R. van Oosten and C. van Driel-Murray (eds) 2020. A Human
Environment. Studies in honour of 20 years Analecta editorship by prof. dr. Corrie
Bakels, Leiden: Sidestone Press, pp. 121-142.
Gerrit L. Dusseldorp
Centre for Anthropological Research
University of Johannesburg
also:
Faculty of Archaeology
Leiden University
PO Box 9514
2300 RA Leiden
The Netherlands
g.l.dusseldorp@arch.leidenuniv.nl
Luc W.S.W. Amkreutz
National Museum of Antiquities
PO box 11114
2301 EC Leiden
The Netherlands
l.amkreutz@rmo.nl
also:
Faculty of Archaeology
Leiden University
A long slow goodbye – Re-examining the
Mesolithic – Neolithic transition (5500 –
2500 BCE) in the Dutch delta
Gerrit L. Dusseldorp and Luc W.S.W. Amkreutz
During the Neolithic, Neolithic societies in the Dutch wetlands are characterised as
“extended broad-spectrum hunter-gatherers”. They adopted agricultural elements
only gradually and wild resources continue to play an important role in subsistence.
However, the exact duration of the process of neolithisation in the Dutch wetlands
is debated. We analyse the taxonomic diversity of faunal assemblages from the late
Mesolithic and Neolithic in the Netherlands. We demonstrate that the diversity of
exploited faunal resources remains remarkably constant throughout the Neolithic. We
interpret this to show that the reliance on an extended broad-spectrum economy was
not a transitional phase, but was a viable economic system in its own right.
Keywords: Mesolithic, Neolithic, subsistence economy, foraging, agriculture, extended
broad spectrum, Archaeozoology
1. Introduction
The adoption of agriculture in the coastal regions of North-western Europe
occurred more gradually than in the interior loess belt and adjacent areas
(Raemaekers 1999; Bakels 2000; 2009; Louwe Kooijmans 2007). In the Dutch
wetlands, it may have taken over a millennium (e.g. Louwe Kooijmans 1987).
It appears that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers gradually and selectively adopted
elements of a farming way of life. The Early and Middle Neolithic inhabitants are
proposed to have an “extended broad-spectrum” economy, including hunting,
gathering and farming (Louwe Kooijmans 1993, 102-103).
However, the duration of the transitional period is contested. Proposals range
from a short transition that may have been completed during the Middle Neolithic
to a transition that only ended in the Early Bronze Age (compare Raemaekers 2003,
744-745; Amkreutz 2013, 435). The debate concerns when agricultural methods
came to dominate the subsistence economy, but also when an agricultural way of
life became central in societies’ worldviews. We examine the diversity of repre-
sented animal species in Mesolithic and Neolithic faunal assemblages to determine
if the extended broad-spectrum economy gave way to the exploitation of a more
narrow set of mainly agricultural resources over time.
Existing approaches focus on the proportion of domestic and wild resources
in the faunal spectrum of archaeological sites (e.g. Raemaekers 2003; also see
Amkreutz 2013, 312-324). Here we focus on the diversity of represented resources
to evaluate the extended broad-spectrum aspect. This complements proportional
analysis of the subsistence economy. It is also less vulnerable to certain biases such
as eld processing (e.g. Faith 2007; Dusseldorp and Langejans 2013; Morin and

122 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
Ready 2013), cultural discard patterns (cf. Sadr 2008;
Human 2010) and taphonomic and post-depositional
processes (e.g. excavation methods, sieving practices).
One of us, has analysed the process from an emic
perspective, foregrounding lived experience and
mentalité (Amkreutz 2013) arguing aspects of the
hunter-gatherer worldview remain visible until at least
3000 BCE. Raemaekers (2019) also develops an emic
perspective, arguing that in terms of societal relevance
cattle and cereals had taken centre stage by 4000 BCE.
Looking at changes and continuities in the diversity of
faunal assemblages may also help evaluate the societal
relevance of dierent subsistence strategies.
To study changes in the diversity of faunal assem-
blages, we adopt a “big-data” approach. We compiled a
database of Late Mesolithic and Neolithic assemblages
from the Netherlands, which we analyse in terms of
taxonomic richness (i.e. the number of represented
species) as a function of assemblage size. We demon-
strate that a diverse spectrum of resources is exploited
throughout the Neolithic, suggesting the uptake of an
agricultural way of life was a very gradual process.
2. Background
2.1 Ecological background
Neolithic bone assemblages from the Netherlands are
virtually only known from wetland settings. These
were not marginal areas and communities in the Late
Mesolithic-Neolithic succession clearly focused on
them (Amkreutz 2013, ch. 7, ch. 9; also see Raemaekers
2019). Our emphasis lies with these communities
in the Lower Rhine Area delta region between the
Scheldt in the south and the Elbe in the north. With
respect to food and raw materials these wetlands are
among the richest areas hunter-gatherers inhabit (Van
de Noort and O’Sullivan 2006; Nicholas 2007a; 2007b),
explaining why they could aord to be selective
compared to upland communities in their uptake of
elements from an agricultural subsistence economy
(Amkreutz 2013, 427).
The Lower Rhine delta comprises dierent zones
with varied characteristics. From east to west these
include a riverine area with extensive Pleistocene
upland, an extensive freshwater peat marsh inter-
spersed with riverine elements, levees, lakes and
Pleistocene river dunes (‘donken’) (Verbruggen
1992; Louwe Kooijmans 1993; Westerhof et al. 2003;
Amkreutz 2013). Further west there are salt marshes
dissected by creeks, followed by tidal ats and coastal
barriers with low dunes and wide estuaries. Further
north in the IJsselmeer basins and south in the
Scheldt valley water was an equally dominant factor
(Crombé et al. 2011; Ten Anscher 2012; Schepers 2014).
Site-based faunal and botanical research indicates
habitation of a wide range of settings (e.g. Bakels 1986;
Out 2009b; Amkreutz 2013, 298; Schepers 2014). In
general a dierence in subsistence strategies may exist
between freshwater (riverine and freshwater peat
districts) and coastal wetlands (Zeiler et al. 2011).
The area was subject to temporal changes as well.
Cycles of transgression and regression rst precip-
itated an inland coastline shift until 4000calBCE
resulting in peat growth and an eastward shift of the
entire system of beach barriers, lagunas and peat
marsh. Around the turn of the 5th millennium BCE
this reversed due to the drop in relative sea level rise
and resulted in increased freshwater inuence and
outward extension of the beach barriers (Van Gijssel
and Van der Valk 2005; Vos and Kiden 2005). Marine
incursions and peat growth made certain landscapes
uninhabitable. Additionally, changing river systems
and seasonal changes in habitability, such as ooding
of important sites (cf. Schepers 2014) greatly inu-
enced people’s lives.
To hunter-gatherers, the stable uplands aorded
very dierent foraging opportunities than these
dynamic wetlands. The Holocene fauna lacks
megafauna that play a key role in landscape engineer-
ing (Crégut-Bonnoure 1995, 233; Von Koenigswald
2007, table 29.1). In the dense forests covering the loess
and coversand landscapes, available prey biomass was
low, mainly consisting of red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe
deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa)
(Delpech 1999, also see Binford 2007). These “infertile
uplands” (Svenning 2002), were covered by closed
forest during the Mesolithic. Small-scale agricultural
activity resulted in a gradual opening up during the
Neolithic, and a largely open character by the Late
Neolithic (Van den Brink and Paulussen 2013, 21).
The herbivore biomass of the wetland regions was
larger, as vegetation was more open in places (Zeiler
1999; Svenning 2002). Some herbivores were adapted
to wetland settings (i.e. aurochs (Bos primigenius) and
elk (Alces alces)) (Hall 2008). Moreover, beaver (Castor
ber) and otter (Lutra lutra) were present in large
numbers. Additionally, the wetlands were character-
ised by the presence of rich sh and fowl stocks, and
more abundant edible plant foods (see overview in
Amkreutz 2013).
Clearly the wetland and upland landscapes
merged into each other, yet in general, the biodiver-

123G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
sity in the ‘upland’ regions is lower. The wetlands on
the other hand oered less ideal circumstances for
animal husbandry and crop cultivation (see Bakels
1988; Dusseldorp and Amkreutz 2015). Within the
wetland group geographic dierence and temporal
change intersected with the traditions and choices of
the communities living there (e.g. Louwe Kooijmans
2009; also see Amkreutz 2013, ch. 7-9). It appears
that both the wetland ecology, and its inhabiting
societies therefore favoured an extended broad
spectrum economy.
2.2 Archaeological background
The loess and coversand uplands in the southern
Netherlands witness a relatively quick transition to
agricultural societies (Amkreutz 2013; Dusseldorp and
Amkreutz 2015). We have argued this is partly caused
by these landscapes being relatively more suitable for
agriculture than foraging (Dusseldorp and Amkreutz
2015). The wetlands were less suitable for agriculture;
smaller areas for elds were available and in some
regions grazing was limited (Bakels 1988; Amkreutz
2013; Dusseldorp and Amkreutz 2015). Moreover,
Figure 1: Exploited food
remains from Hardinxveld
(Polderweg and De Bruin).
Note typical wetland resources
such as otter and beaver skulls
(elevated at back), sh vertebra
and grey seal jaw (center
right) as well as waternuts,
(front right). Photo: National
Museum of Antiquities, Leiden.

124 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
the area may have been unsuited to some of the crop
plants and livestock species such as sheep/goat would
be vulnerable to liver uke (Louwe Kooijmans 1987).
In the wetlands, Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers
give way to the so-called Swifterbant culture (table 1).
Both Mesolithic and early Swifterbant societies
subsisted on a very broad range of wild resources to
which the latter added pottery (gure 1). From the
Middle phase of the Swifterbant culture, domestic
animals and cereals are found at sites. The date of
adoption of the earliest domesticates is debated as
previously reported specimens from Brandwijk appear
to be younger than originally thought (Çakirlar et al. in
press). At De Bruin, early domestic animals are present
during phase 3, prior to 4450 BCE (Mol and Louwe
Kooijmans 2001; Oversteegen et al. 2001). However,
numbers are small; transport of domestic remains to
the site from elsewhere is likely (Louwe Kooijmans
2007; 2017). Domestic crops appear slightly later
at e.g. Swifterbant S3 and P14 (Out 2008; Amkreutz
2013; Dusseldorp and Amkreutz 2015). Raemaekers
and colleagues have shown that small-scale cereal
cultivation also took place, even though the area was
previously thought unsuitable (Bakels 1988; Cappers
and Raemaekers 2008; Huisman and Raemaekers 2014;
also see Out 2009a). However, wild animals remain
present in large numbers (Zeiler 1997; Raemaekers
2003; Amkreutz 2013).
During the subsequent Hazendonk period, farming
becomes more important and in the Vlaardingen
period some faunal assemblages are clearly dominated
by cattle (Louwe Kooijmans 2009; Bulten and Stokkel
2017). However, wild mammals remain important at
many sites and foraging plays an important role until
the early Bronze Age (Zeiler 1997; Fokkens et al. 2016).
Based on the foregoing, a specic wetland formula
combining small-scale agricultural activities with
foraging, i.e. an extended broad-spectrum economy
continues well into the Late Neolithic. In the coastal
dunes, some cattle-dominated assemblages occur.
Elsewhere, however, communities remain character-
ized by a varied spectrum at what are clearly living
sites (e.g. Amkreutz 2013). During the Late Neolithic
Single Grave Culture in wetland settings, evidence
still abounds for an intensive use of a variety of wild
resources (e.g. Zeiler and Brinkhuizen 2012; 2013),
probably increasingly exploited in a logistical system.
3. Materials and Methods
Against the ecological and cultural background in-
troduced above we explore the diversity of Dutch
Late Mesolithic and Neolithic faunal assemblages as
a function of their size (Grayson 1991; Grayson and
Delpech 1998; Faith 2008; Lyman 2008; Broughton et al.
2011; Dusseldorp 2012; 2016; Lyman 2015). We rst
discuss the methodological background before present-
ing our dataset and methodology.
3.1 Methodological background
We examine taxonomic richness (i.e. the number of
represented taxa; NTAXA) of faunal assemblages to
evaluate whether an “extended broad-spectrum”
economy was in place throughout the Neolithic period.
This analysis complements proportional analyses
focusing on wild versus domestic resources (cf.
Raemaekers et al. 1997; Raemaekers 2003), yet cir-
Culture Chronology Characteristics
Late Mesolithic Up to 5000 BCE Broad-spectrum hunter-gatherers in the wetlands
Early Swifterbant 5100/5000-4500 BCE Pottery production in the wetlands; broad-spectrum hunter-gatherers
Middle-Late
Swifterbant
4500-3800/3400 BCE Livestock, cultivars introduced in wetlands; “extended broad-spectrum” hunter-gather-
ers (cf. Louwe Kooijmans 1993)
Hazendonk 3800/3400 BCE “Extended broad-spectrum” farmers; farming thought to increase in economic impor-
tance (cf. Raemaekers 2003)
Vlaardingen 3400-2500 BCE “Extended broad-spectrum” farmers, related to Stein group further inland.
Funnel Beaker Culture 3400-2900 BCE Farming communities on uplands in N. Netherlands (Pleistocene till deposits).
Associated with megalithic structures.
Single Grave 2900-2500 BCE Farming communities, but intensive use of other resource in coastal and wetland areas
Bell Beaker 2500-2000 BCE
Table 1: Chronological overview of cultural entities across the Late Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.

125G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
cumvents some of the problems associated with such
analyses, especially the underrepresentation of specic
resources due to behavioural and taphonomic factors.
We assume all subsistence activities are inter-
related, and that increases in the importance of
one aspect of the subsistence economy (e.g. animal
husbandry) are reected in other aspects (e.g.
decrease in time spent foraging) (Broughton et al.
2010, 409-410; Dusseldorp 2016, 364). Evaluating the
faunal richness provides a good way to determine
changes in allocation of eort between foraging and
agricultural activities. This means that increased
time allocation in agricultural subsistence methods
will lead to a decrease in foraging eort and hence
lower NTAXA values (cf. Dusseldorp 2012; 2016).
NTAXA is inuenced by assemblage size. Larger
assemblages are more likely to sample additional
taxa than smaller assemblages (Lyman 2008; 2015).
However, the diet breadth (i.e. the number of species
habitually exploited) determines the rate of skeletal
input in assemblages (Lyman 2008; 2015). Hence,
in an extended broad-spectrum economy, more
taxa will be represented in a faunal assemblage of
the same size than if the assemblage were accu-
mulated in a farming society focusing on livestock
exploitation.
We omit birds and sh from our analysis for
several reasons. First, due to recovery methods,
they are likely underrepresented. Second, having
a dierent anatomical structure from mammals,
these categories behave dierently in our measure
of taxonomic richness (Lyman 2015). However, in a
qualitative evaluation of the importance of foraging
relative to agriculture they should be incorporated.
By studying NTAXA, we work around a number
of analytical problems. First, classication of suid
remains to wild boar (Sus scrofa) or domestic pig
(Sus domesticus) is problematic (Gehasse 1995;
Raemaekers 2003). Genetic analysis presents similar
problems as wild boar admixture is present in
domestic pigs from very early on in Northwestern
Europe. This is alongside the independent domes-
tication of European wild boar at the time of the
introduction of domesticated suids with a Near
Eastern origin (Krause-Kyora et al. 2013). Based on
aDNA, the proportions of wild versus domestic suids
are therefore also impossible to determine.Our
approach circumvents this: a small number of
remains generally can be determined reliably to
wild boar and pig. Hence both will be reected. This
means a reliable reection of NTAXA can be attained
when no reliable reection of the proportions of
domestic and wild animals can be ascertained.
Second, behavioural patterns in Meso- and
Neolithic societies lead to dierential representation
of resources. Field processing and selective transport
of carcasses lead to the underrepresentation of hunted
prey (e.g. Faith 2007; Dusseldorp and Langejans 2013;
Morin and Ready 2013) over livestock butchered
on-site. Smaller species are more likely to be trans-
ported as whole carcasses than larger ones (e.g.
Metcalfe and Barlow 1992; Winterhalder 2001, 22-23;
Faith et al. 2009). This means the proportion of espe-
cially larger wild animals is likely an underestimate.
However NTAXA will still reect their exploitation.
This problem may be exacerbated for marine
mammals. Seals and cetaceans are present in small
numbers at many sites. Their most nutritious part is
the so-called sculp, consisting of blubber and skin.
Field processing of sculp may render these animals
virtually invisible in the archaeological record (Smith
and Kinahan 1984; Dusseldorp and Langejans 2013).
Sometimes the only archaeological evidence for
cetacean exploitation is the presence of species-specic
whale barnacles demonstrating sculp presence (Kandel
and Conard 2003; Parkington 2006). All local marine
mammal species are large and likely to be eld-pro-
cessed; harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena):
40-80 kg.; harbour seal (Phoca vitulina): 50-170 kg.; grey
seal (Halichoerus grypus): 100-300 kg (MacDonald 2006).
Much larger species such as sperm whale (Physeter
macrocephalus) are also occasionally represented
(Groenman-Van Waateringe et al. 1968). Cetacean scav-
enging opportunities were also probably much more
frequent during the Late Mesolithic and Neolithic, as
modern population declines due to whaling have been
severe (Lotze and Worm 2009, 256, 259).
Other behavioural factors inuencing the archae-
ological visibility of specic species may be cultural
discard patterns. Ethnographic evidence suggests rules
regarding the discard of specic categories of animal
remains inuences archaeological visibility (cf. Sadr
2008; Human 2010).
3.2 Analysis
To evaluate if the diversity of exploited animal
resources (i.e. the diet breadth) changes across the
Late Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, we compiled
a database of published faunal assemblages (n=67)
(Appendix at end of paper).
We compare dierent groups of bone assemblages
to determine trends in the taxonomic richness of

126 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
dierent subsistence economies, plotting taxonomic
richness (NTAXA) as a function of total assemblage
size (log∑NISP) (Lyman 2008; Dusseldorp 2016). We
plot groups of assemblages to determine if NTAXA
increases more quickly relative to assemblage size
in earlier than in later groups. This would signify a
broader exploited set of resources in the earlier than
in the later groups. We also plot freshwater wetland
groups and coastal groups from the same period to
determine if NTAXA rises more quickly in the former.
This would be expected if freshwater sites were
special activity locations, whereas coastal locations
were residential farming settlements (as suggested by
Raemaekers 2003, 744-745).
We subdivided our dataset into three chronological
groups, to test whether diversity changes through
time. We dened an Early phase, prior to the intro-
duction of livestock, comprising Late Mesolithic and
Early Swifterbant sites (5500-4500calBCE). A Middle
phase consisting of Middle and Late Swifterbant sites
(4500-3400calBCE), witnessing the introduction of
livestock and cultivars, often interpreted as a transi-
tional phase (sensu Zvelebil 1986). And a Late phase
with Hazendonk, Vlaardingen and Late Neolithic
Beaker Culture sites (3700-2000calBCE). Raemaekers
(2003, 744) suggested that by the Late phase, the
majority of consumed calories would be from domestic
resources. Note that our dataset contains no assem-
blages from the Early phase in the coastal group as this
area was subject to large-scale erosion at that time.
We subdivided our dataset into two geographic
groups: a coastal group, containing sites from coastal
dunes, estuaries and salt marshes, and a freshwater
group containing sites from inland wetland contexts
including freshwater tidal environments. This rep-
resents a trade-o: dividing the dataset into more
environmentally specic groups might increase
the sensitivity. There would be greater similarities
in the resource spectrum available for exploita-
tion, however, these groups would be very small,
decreasing the power of the method to determine
larger-scale patterns.
Figure 2 presents an example: A plot of log∑NISP
and NTAXA from two groups of South African Later
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
00,5 11,5 22,5 33,5 44,5 5
NTA X A
logΣNISP
Inland assemblages
Coastal assemblages
Inland assemblages
Coastal assemblages
Figure 2: Example of a plot of two groups of assemblages showing clear dierence in taxonomic diversity (Dusseldorp 2016, g. 3).

127G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
Stone Age sites, demonstrating that in the rich coastal
environment, faunal assemblages are less diverse
than at inland sites (from Dusseldorp 2016). If farming
provided an important, reliable source of calories,
we expect assemblages accumulated by farmers
to be similarly less diverse than those of extended
broad-spectrum foragers.
Unfortunately, most recent excavation reports do
not include data by minimum number of individuals
(MNI). Hence we could not plot NTAXA and log∑MNI.
This is a limitation, as a high degree of fragmentation
is often mentioned (Zeiler 1997; Laarman 2001; Zeiler
2006). MNI provides a way to control for dierential
fragmentation (Lyman 1994; 2008). It is also the most
reliable index to study the relative abundance of
dierent taxa in faunal assemblages (Domínguez-
Rodrigo 2012).
Another limitation is our focus on mammal bone
assemblages. Based on ethnographic parallels, ter-
restrial hunter-gatherers in the Low Countries are
expected to get >50% of their caloric intake from plant
foods. In wetland environments, aquatic resources are
expected to be most important (Binford 2001; 2007;
Johnson 2014).
Data on specimens only identied to mammal size
class are not available for all sites, due to intensive
calcination and fragmentation in some assemblages
(e.g. Laarman 2001; Zeiler 2006). Therefore we have
plotted ∑NISP of specimens identied to taxon or
specic category (i.e. carnivore sp., cervidae sp., etc.
where included). We have included all non-human
macromammals, also dog (Canis familiaris). As tables
excluding antler specimens are not given for some
assemblages, we have used counts including antler for
all assemblages for the sake of consistency. At some
sites, micromammals (e.g. “rodent sp.”, Arvicola sp.)
were listed. We regard these as background fauna and
excluded them.
For assemblages where bones were listed as “pig/
wild boar”, but the accompanying text states that some
specimens from that category were identied with
certainty to pig and others to wild boar (e.g. Gehasse
1995), we have counted both. We counted general cat-
egories as one represented taxon when no specimens
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
log∑NISP
Freshwater
Early
Middle
Late
Log. (Early)
Log. (Middle)
Log. (Late)
Figure 3: Plot of log∑NISP and NTAXA for freshwater assemblages divided into three chronological groups.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
log∑NISP
Freshwater
Early
Middle
Late
Log. (Early)
Log. (Middle)
Log. (Late)

128 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
log∑NISP
Coastal sites
Late
Middle
Log. (Late)
Log. (Middle)
Figure 4: Plot of
log∑NISP and NTAXA
for coastal assemblages
divided into two
chronological groups.
Figure 5: Plot of
log∑NISP and NTAXA
for coastal assemblages
divided into two
chronological groups
with Wateringse
Binnentuinen 1‑7
excluded from the
“Late” group.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
log∑NISP
Coastal sites
Late
Middle
Log. (Late)
Log. (Middle)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
log∑NISP
Coastal sites
Late
Middle
Log. (Late)
Log. (Middle)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
log∑NISP
Coastal sites
Late
Middle
Log. (Late)
Log. (Middle)

129G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
were determined to any species from that category (i.e.
“cetacean” would be counted as a represented taxon
when no bones belonging to a specic whale species
were reported in that assemblage).
4. Results
We plot the dierent groups of assemblages in a series
of graphs to illustrate trends in NTAXA across groups
of sites.
In the freshwater category, there are three groups
of assemblages: Early (n=12), Middle (n=15) and
Late (n=15). All groups have high r2 values, demon-
strating the categorisation explains an important
part of the variability in the dataset (Early r2: 0.68;
Middle r2: 0.72; Late r2: 0.75; P<0.05). The slope of
the regression lines through the groups (gure 3) is
almost identical. This suggests that the diversity of the
faunal assemblages in freshwater wetland contexts
remains constant through time. This contrasts with
expectations as in the Late group the increased role of
agriculture is expected to result in a reduced diversity
of faunal assemblages.
In the coastal area, the slope of the regression lines
through the Middle (n=10) and Late (n=15) phases
dier (gure 4). NTAXA values are lower relative to
assemblage size in the Late period. This means a less
diverse set of resources was exploited. This is the
predicted pattern for an increased role of livestock in
the subsistence economy. The r2 value of the regression
line through the “Late” group is relatively low, but
statistically signicant (r2: 0.44; P <0.05). The “Middle”
group has a high r2 value (r2: 0.80; P <0.05). We
performed a t-test, which demonstrates the dierence
between the slopes of the regression lines is not statis-
tically signicant (t-value: 1.3; t-critical: 2.08; p: 0.21).
The low r2 value of the “Late” group is due largely
to the inclusion of one single assemblage: Wateringse
Binnentuinen zone 1-7, which is dominated by cattle
(Bos taurus). Its exclusion leads to a higher r2 value
(r2: 0.68; P <0.05), but also to a changed slope of the
regression line, which becomes virtually indistin-
guishable from that of the Middle group (g. 5). The
lower faunal diversity of the Late group is thus not a
very robust pattern.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
Log∑NISP
Middle Phase
Coastal
Inland
Log. (Coastal)
Log. (Inland)
Figure 6: Plot of log∑NISP and NTAXA of assemblages from the “Middle” phase.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
Log∑NISP
Middle Phase
Coastal
Inland
Log. (Coastal)
Log. (Inland)

130 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
Log∑NISP
Late phase
Freshwater
Coastal
Log. (Freshwater)
Log. (Coastal)
Figure 7: Plot of
log∑NISP and NTAXA of
assemblages from the
“Late” phase.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
Log∑NISP
Late phase
Freshwater
Coastal
Log. (Freshwater)
Log. (Coastal)
Figure 8: Plot of
log∑NISP and NTAXA of
assemblages from the
“Late” phase, excluding
Wateringse Binnentuinen
zone 1‑7.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
Log∑NISP
Late phase
Freshwater
Coastal
Log. (Freshwater)
Log. (Coastal)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 10 100 1000 10000
NTAXA
Log∑NISP
Late phase
Freshwater
Coastal
Log. (Freshwater)
Log. (Coastal)

131G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
We also compare dierent geographical zones.
Figure 6 shows that in the Middle phase, the fresh-
water and coastal groups exhibit very similar NTAXA
values. Figure 7 shows that the “Late” assemblages
from the freshwater area are more diverse than the
coastal assemblages. However, the dierence between
the slopes of the regression lines is not signicant
(t-value: 1.45; t-critical: 2.06; p: 0.16). Excluding
Wateringse Binnentuinen zone 1-7 from the coastal
group leads to more similar taxonomic richness in the
freshwater and coastal datasets. Still, coastal assem-
blages exhibit slightly lower NTAXA values (gure 8).
Finally, we have plotted the assemblages by
cultural group (gure 9) to examine if dierent cultural
groups produce dierent types of faunal assemblages
cross-cutting our geographic division. We have plotted
Middle and Late Swifterbant (n=10; r2: 0.83; P<0.05),
Hazendonk (n=12;r2: 0.80; P<0.05), Vlaardingen
(n=16;r2: 0.44; P<0.05), and a Late Neolithic group with
assorted beaker phenomena (n=13; r2: 0.77; P<0.05).
No clear dierence in the diversity of the faunal as-
semblages is apparent. The variety of the Vlaardingen
group is caused in part by the assemblage from
Wateringse Binnentuinen zone 1-7, omitting it yields
an r2 value of 0.6 (P<0.05).
5. Discussion
Our analysis shows that the diversity of faunal assem-
blages is remarkably constant throughout the Late
Mesolithic and Neolithic in Dutch wetland contexts.
This suggests a persistence of the extended broad-spec-
trum economy throughout the Late Neolithic. Our
results are surprising in view of existing models (e.g.
Raemaekers 2003; Amkreutz 2013). One possible expla-
nation is that our analysis is not sensitive enough to
pick up important changes in taxonomic diversity. We
consider this unlikely as the method has been shown
to be sensitive to dierences across landscape context
and dierences in hunter-gatherer subsistence strate-
gies (e.g. Grayson 1991; Faith 2008; Dusseldorp 2016). If
current patterns are conrmed at more sites, the slight
dierences between some groups may attain statistical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 10 100 1000 10000
Vlaardingen
Hazendonk
Swi�erbant
Late
Log. (Vlaardingen)
Log. (Hazendonk)
Log. (Swi�erbant)
Log. (Late)
Figure 9: Plot of log∑NISP and NTAXA of assemblages from dierent cultural groups.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 10 100 1000 10000
Vlaardingen
Hazendonk
Swi�erbant
Late
Log. (Vlaardingen)
Log. (Hazendonk)
Log. (Swi�erbant)
Log. (Late)

132 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
signicance. For instance, the slightly lower diversity
in the coastal zone during the Late Neolithic could be
shown to reect a greater importance of farming in
this area.
Another factor is the composition of the dataset.
The distribution of known assemblages is uneven
across periods and landscape settings. This is illustrat-
ed by the Early phase, with no known coastal sites.
Similarly, assemblages from estuary contexts are
almost exclusively late and from one specic area.
Hypothetical future discoveries of e.g. Swifterbant
sites in a coastal dune setting would complement our
analysis and might reveal an increased reliance on
agricultural subsistence methods in more suitable
landscape areas (cf. Wateringse Binnentuinen for the
Vlaardingen period).
The inuence of the biased distribution of faunal
assemblages should not be underestimated. For the
Vlaardingen phase, Raemaekers (2003, 744-745)
proposes a division of three types of sites: permanent
settlements in the dunes, and seasonally inhabited
special activity camps in wetland contexts. The former
are characterised by the presence of house sites, cereal
remains, a wide activity spectrum and faunal assem-
blages dominated by domestic animals. However, bone
remains at these locations are often poorly preserved
and hence we could not include all of these sites in our
dataset (e.g. Haamstede-Brabers, yielded only a single
identiable specimen (Amkreutz 2013)). Recently dis-
covered sites such as Wateringse Binnentuinen (Bulten
and Stokkel 2017) may conrm this classication.
However, if the “consolidation phase” (sensu Zvelebil
1986) had started, we would expect the “Wateringse
Binnentuinen-pattern” to be commonplace, while it
appears to represent an exception. The inuence of
taphonomic bias here is dicult to evaluate.
An interpretation in terms of foraging behaviour
suggests that although many late assemblages are
dominated by cattle bones, the persistent representa-
tion of varied wild resources shows that this numerical
dominance need not imply caloric dominance. The
apparent contradiction between our results and those
of proportional analyses can be explained at least in
part by eld processing and transport, leading to the
underrepresentation of wild resources. This is likely
most severe for marine mammals in the coastal zone.
Continued investment in foraging is demonstrated
by the identical taxonomic diversity through time.
Some of the most diverse assemblages from our
Middle and Late phases are numerically as large as
the Wateringse Binnentuinen zone 1-7 assemblage
(Appendix). Hence the activities responsible for the
accumulation of diverse assemblages were not occa-
sional, but represented a crucial element of subsist-
ence economies.
One potential distorting factor is if the introduc-
tion of agriculture led to changed foraging strategies
masking the expected narrowing of the resource
base. With less time available for foraging, hunting
may have been less selective, targeting “anything
that moved”. This would increase faunal assemblage
diversity, for an activity of minor importance. We think
this is unlikely as investments in foraging for e.g. sh
and birds remains high and hence considerable eort
in hunting was coupled with deliberate prey selection.
Birds are of prominent importance especially
in the coastal zone (Bakels and Zeiler 2005; Zeiler
et al. 2011). Fish are present in moderate numbers in
many assemblages and are likely underrepresented
especially in older excavations due to absence of
sieving. Ironically, in the most recent excavations,
only selective sieving in samples taken for botanical
analysis is practised (see site comparison in Van Dijk
et al. 2017). The importance of aquatic resources thus
continues to be overlooked.
The importance of wild resources in the subsistence
economy is further conrmed by stable isotope analysis
at the site of Schipluiden. Here δ15N values suggest that
many people here consumed a largely aquatic diet
(Smits and Van der Plicht 2009, 80-81). Discrepancies
between bone assemblages and stable isotope analysis
are sometimes dicult to resolve and elevated δ15N
values may be caused by other factors than sh con-
sumption (e.g. Dusseldorp 2011). However, there is
ample evidence of continued extreme investment
expended on the exploitation of sh, for instance from
the recovery of shing weirs at Emmeloord and Almere
(Bulten et al. 2002; Ter Voorde 2017). These were
extensive, permanent installations (sensu Torrence
1983), in the case of the Middle to Late Neolithic Almere
weir, over 190 meters (Ter Voorde 2017).
Much variation is hidden within the groups.
Especially in the Vlaardingen phase (Zeiler et al. 2011).
This points to the potential of examining more ne-
grained environmental groupings (Raemaekers 2003;
Amkreutz 2013). It also suggests that people, or groups
of people behaved variably during the period under
consideration. The dynamic nature of the landscape
and the myriad possibilities aorded by the available
resource spectrum may have given rise to this. There
were fewer factors constraining individual agency
than in later periods with more depleted environ-

133G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
ments and more interconnected relationships with
fully-edged farming communities on the Pleistocene
soils, or in earlier periods when agricultural options
were not yet available.
From an economic perspective, practicing an
extended broad-spectrum foraging economy may have
become increasingly lucrative during the Neolithic.
The small-scale agriculture in evidence at e.g. the
Swifterbant sites (Huisman et al. 2009; Huisman and
Raemaekers 2014) can be seen as landscape engi-
neering similar to re use (Scherjon et al. 2015). Such
small-scale clearings in the landscape likely increased
the productivity for game species. At the Hazendonk,
this appears to lead to an increase in cervid exploita-
tion (Zeiler 1999). This landscape engineering con-
tributed to the limited relative advantage of farming
over foraging (cf. Rogers 1995). However, it suggests
a situation in which some Neolithic groups could eat
their cake and have it too: with increased foraging pro-
ductivity, more time may have been available for other
activities, such as experimenting with agriculture. We
think such niche construction may play an important
part in explaining the long persistence of the extended
broad-spectrum economy.
6. Conclusion
We contend that the transition from foraging to agri-
culture in the Dutch wetlands lasted throughout the
Neolithic period into the Early Bronze Age. Due to
varied biases, we argue that focussing on taxonomic
diversity of faunal assemblages may be more inform-
ative to determine whether extended broad-spectrum
foraging was practiced. The similar diversity of faunal
assemblages suggests that many individuals and
groups subsisted on an extended broad-spectrum
menu throughout the Neolithic. Our results support the
suggestion that the adoption of small-scale agriculture
may actually have reinforced foraging economies
and worldviews. The extended broad-spectrum
economy is not simply a transitional system, but a
successful solution to living in the wetlands in its own
right. Studying this period from the perspective of
Neolithisation suggests a teleological bias.
No single proxy can determine the nature of past
livelihoods, and complementary analyses of other
proxies will increase our understanding of diachronic
changes in wetland societies’ subsistence methods
amd the role of food production in the region. This
extended broad perspective is a lesson learned from
Corry Bakels who always ventured widely, both in
science and in the world. By her extended sojourn in
her Leiden home range she continues to bring along
new ideas and angles to our research of past commu-
nities. By doing so she inspired many to also broaden
their horizon and even managed to demonstrate the
beauty hidden in a pollen diagram.
Acknowledgements
Our analysis depends on access to site reports.
We are therefore grateful to our colleagues Emile
Eimermann (Askos Aardewerk Archeologie) Sebastiaan
Knippenberg, Lucas Meurkens and Marleen van
Zon (Archol), Marcel Niekus (STONE), Peter Stokkel
(Municipality the Hague), Harry Fokkens and
Annelou van Gijn (Leiden University) who helped
to access dicult to acquire data. We would like to
thank Daan Raemaekers (GIA) in particular for his
valuable feedback. In some cases, notably the site of
Hazerswoude-Rijndijk, no access to the excavation
report could be attained. This demonstrates the
problematic nature of the system of commercial
archaeology and the problems incurred when attempt-
ing to integrate “grey literature” in analyses. Gerrit
Dusseldorp’s research is funded by NWO Vidi grant
276-60-004.
References
Amkreutz, L.W.S.W. 2013. Persistent traditions: a
long-term perspective on communities in the
process of Neolithisation in the Lower Rhine Area
(5500‑2500calBC), Leiden.
Bakels, C.C. 1986. Akkerbouw in het moeras? In: Van
Trierum, M.C. and H.E. Henkes (eds), Rotterdam
Papers V: A contribution to prehistoric, Roman and
medieval archaeology, Rotterdam, 1-6.
Bakels, C.C. 1988. Een lading graan, Inaugural lecture
Leiden University.
Bakels, C.C. 2000. The neolithization of the Nether-
lands: Two ways, one result. In: A.S. Fairbairn,
(ed.) Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond, Oxford,
101-106.
Bakels, C.C. 2009. The western European loess belt:
Agrarian history 5300 BC– AD 1000, New York.
Bakels, C.C., J. Zeiler 2005. De vruchten van het land:
De neolithische voedselvoorziening. In: L.P. Louwe
Kooijmans, P.W. Van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and
A. Van Gijn (eds), Nederland in de prehistorie,
Amsterdam, 311-335.
Besselsen, E.A., M.J. Van der Heiden 2008. Cultuur-
landschap. In: E.A. Besselsen and M.J. Van der
Heiden (eds), Vindplaats Vleugel 20: Archeolo-

134 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
gisch onderzoek naar een cultuurlandschap uit de
Bronstijd, Amsterdam (AAC rapport 49), 31-46.
Binford, L.R. 2001. Constructing frames of reference, An
analytical method for Archaeological theory building
using ethnographic and environmental data sets,
Berkeley/Los Angeles/London.
Binford, L.R. 2007. The diet of early hominids: Some
things we need to know before “Reading” the menu
from the archaeological record. In: W. Roebroeks
(ed.) Guts and Brains: An integrative approach to the
hominin record, Leiden, 185-222.
Broughton, J.M., M.D. Cannon, E.J. Bartelink 2010. Evo-
lutionary Ecology, Resource Depression, and Niche
Construction Theory: Applications to Central Cal-
ifornia Hunter-Gatherers and Mimbres-Mogollon
Agriculturalists, Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 17, 371-421.
Broughton, J.M., M.D Cannon, F.E. Bayham, D.A. Byers
2011. Prey Body Size and Ranking in Zooarchaeol-
ogy: Theory, Empirical Evidence, and Applications
from the Northern Great Basin, American Antiquity
76, 403-428.
Bulten, E.E.B., P.J.A. Stokkel 2017. Synthese. In: P.J.A.
Stokkel and E.E.B. Bulten (eds), De Wateringse Bin-
nentuinen Gemeente Den Haag: Een Vlaardingenned-
erzetting in het Wateringse Veld, Den Haag, 283-305.
Bulten, E.E.B., F.J.G. Van der Heijden, T. Hambrug 2002.
Emmeloord, prehistorische visweren en fuiken, Am-
ersfoort (ADC rapport 140).
Çakirlar, C., R. Breider, F. Koolstra, K. Cohen, D.C.M.
Raemaekers. in press. Dealing with domestic
animals in fth millenniumcalBC Dutch wetlands:
new insights from old Swifterbant assemblages.
Cappers, R.J.T., D.C.M. Raemaekers 2008. Cereal cultiva-
tion at Swifterbant? Neolithic wetland farming on
the North European Plain, Current Anthropology 49,
385-402.
Clason, A.T. 1967. Animal and man in Holland’s past:
An investigation of the animal world surrounding
man in prehistoric and early historical times in the
provinces of North and South Holland, Groningen.
Crégut-Bonnoure 1995. La faune de grands mam-
mifères en Provence de la n du Pléistocène
supérieur à l’Holocène, Forêt méditerranéenne 16,
233-238.
Crombé, P., J. Sergant, E. Robinson, J. De Reu 2011.
Hunter-gatherer responses to environmental
change during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition
in the southern North Sea basin: Final Palaeolith-
ic-Final Mesolithic land use in northwest Belgium,
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30, 454-471.
De Vries, L.S. 2004. Luilekkerland aan de kust: De
faunaresten van de neolithische nederzetting bij
Rijswijk-Ypenburg, Amersfoort (Rapportage Arche-
ologische Monumentenzorg 106).
Delpech, F. 1999. Biomasse d’ongulés au Paléolithique
et inférences sur la demographie, Paleo, 11, 19-42.
Domínguez-Rodrigo, M. 2012. Critical review of the
MNI (minimum number of individuals) as a zooar-
chaeological unit of quantication, Archaeological
and Anthropological Sciences 4, 47-59.
Dusseldorp, G.L. 2011. Studying Pleistocene Neander-
thal and cave hyena dietary habits: Combining
isotopic and archaeozoological analyses, Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 18, 224-255.
Dusseldorp, G.L. 2012. Tracking the inuence of Middle
Stone Age technological change on modern human
hunting strategies, Quaternary International 270,
70-79.
Dusseldorp, G.L. 2016. Faunal Assemblage Structure
Suggests a Limited Impact of the Introduction of
Domestic Stock on Later Stone Age Subsistence
Economies in South Africa, African Archaeological
Review 33, 363-383.
Dusseldorp, G.L. and L.W.S.W. Amkreutz, 2015.
Foraging for farmers? An evolutionary perspective
on the process of Neolithisation in NW Europe– A
case study from the Low Countries, Praehistorische
Zeitschrift 90, 20-44.
Dusseldorp, G.L. and G.H.J. Langejans 2013. Carry that
weight: Coastal foraging and transport of marine
resources during the South African Middle Stone
Age, Southern African Humanities 25, 105-135.
Faith, J.T. 2007. Changes in reindeer body part rep-
resentation at Grotte XVI, Dordogne, France,
Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 2003-2011.
Faith, J.T. 2008. Eland, bualo, and wild pigs: were
Middle Stone Age humans ineective hunters?
Journal of Human Evolution 55, 24-36.
Faith, J.T., M. Dominguez-Rodrigo, A.D. Gordon 2009.
Long-distance carcass transport at Olduvai Gorge?
A quantitative examination of Bed I skeletal
element abundances, Journal of Human Evolution
56, 247-256.
Fokkens, H., B.J.W. Steens, S.F.M. Van As 2016.
Farmers, shers, fowlers, hunters: Knowledge
generated by development-led archaeology about the
Late Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age, and the start
of the Middle Bronze Age (2850– 1500calBC) in the
Netherlands, Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeologis-
che Rapporten 53).

135G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
Gehasse, E.F. 1995. Ecologisch-archeologisch onderzoek
van het Neolithicum en de vroege Bronstijd in de
Noordoostpolder met de nadruk op vindplaats
P14, gevolgd door een overzicht van de bewonings-
geschiedenis en de economie binnen de Holocene
Delta, PhD-thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Goossens, T. 2009. Opgraving Hellevoetsluis-Ossenhoek,
Leiden (Archol rapport 87).
Grayson, D.K. 1991. Alpine faunas from the White
Mountains, California: Adaptive change in the late
prehistoric great basin? Journal of Archaeological
Science 18, 483-506.
Grayson, D.K., F. Delpech 1998. Changing Diet Breadth
in the Early Upper Palaeolithic of Southwestern
France, Journal of Archaeological Science 25,
1119-1129.
Grimm, J.M. 2010. Archeozoölogisch onderzoek van het
Neolithische botmateriaal van de opgraving Hazer-
swoude-Rijndijk, Salisbury.
Groenewoudt, B.J., J. Deeben, B. Van Geel, R.C.G.M.
Lauwerier 2001. An early Mesolithic assemblage
with faunal remains in a stream valley near
Zutphen, the Netherlands, Archäologisches Korre-
spondenzblatt 31, 329-348.
Groenman– Van Waateringe, W., A. Voorrips, L.H.
Van Wijngaarden-Bakker 1968. Settlements of the
Vlaardingen Culture at Voorschoten and Leidschen-
dam (ecology), Helinium 8, 105-130.
Hall, S.J.G. 2008. A comparative analysis of the habitat
of the extinct aurochs and other prehistoric
mammals in Britain, Ecography 31, 187-190.
Hamburg, T. 2005. Neolithische bewoningsresten te
Leidschendam: Begeleiding, Inventariserend vel-
donderzoek (IVO), en opgraving (DO) Leidschen-
dam-Prinsenhof, Leiden (Archol rapport 59).
Hogestijn, J.W.M., E. Drenth 2000/2001. In Slootdorp
stond een Trechterbeker-huis? Over Midden- en
Laat-Neolithische huisplattegronden uit Nederland,
Archeologie 10, 42-79.
Hübner, K.-D., R. Saur, H. Reichstein 1988. Die
Saugetierknochen der neolithischen Seeufer-
siedlung Hüde I, Göttinger Schriften zur Vor- un
Frügeschichte 23, 35-142.
Human, T.N. 2010. Debating the Central Cattle
Pattern: A reply to Badenhorst, The South African
Archaeological Bulletin 65, 164-174.
Huisman, D.J., A.G. Jongmans, D.C.M. Raemaekers 2009.
Investigating Neolithic land use in Swifterbant (NL)
using micromorphological techniques, Catena 78,
185-197.
Huisman, D.J. and D.C.M. Raemaekers 2014. Systematic
cultivation of the Swifterbant wetlands (The Neth-
erlands). Evidence from Neolithic tillage marks
(c. 4300-4000cal.BC), Journal of Archaeological
Science 49, 572-584.
Johnson, A.L. 2014. Exploring adaptive variation
among hunter-gatherers with Binford’s frames of
reference, Journal of Archaeological Research 22,
1-42.
Kandel, A.W. and N.J. Conard 2003. Scavenging and
Processing of Whale Meat and Blubber by Later
Stone Age People of the Geelbek Dunes, Western
Cape Province, South Africa, South African Archaeo-
logical Bulletin 58, 91-93.
Kleijne, J.P. 2013. Synthesis– A matter of life and death
at Mienakker. In: J.P. Kleijne, O. Brinkkemper,
R.C.G.M. Lauwerier, B.I. Smit and E.M. Theunissen
(eds), A matter of life and death at Mienakker (the
Netherlands), Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeolo-
gische Rapporten 45), 249-260.
Krause-Kyora, B., C. Makarewicz, A. Evin, L. Girdland
Flink, K. Dobney, G. Larson, S. Hartz, S. Schreiber, C.
Carnap-Bornheim, N. Von Wurmb-Schwark and A.
Nebel 2013. Use of domesticated pigs by Mesolithic
hunter-gatherers in northwestern Europe, Nature
Communications 4, 2348.
Laarman, F.J. 2001. Archeozoölogie: Aard en betekenis
van de dierlijke resten, Amersfoort (De mesoli-
thische en vroeg-neolithische vindplaats Hoge
Vaart-A27 (Flevoland) 16).
Laarman, F.J. 2004. Rijswijk Rijksweg A4. In: L.S. De
Vries (ed.) Luilekkerland aan de kust, Amersfoort
(Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg
106), 53-56.
Lotze, H.K., B. Worm 2009. Historical baselines
for large marine animals, Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 24, 254-262.
Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. 1974. The Rhine/Meuse Delta:
four studies on its prehistoric occupation and
holocene geology, Leiden (Analecta Praehistorica
Leidensia 7).
Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. 1987. Neolithic settlement and
subsistence in the wetlands of the Rhine/Meuse
delta of the Netherlands . In: J.M. Coles and A.J.
Lawson (eds), European wetlands in Prehistory,
Oxford, 227-251.
Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. 1993. Wetland exploitation and
upland relations of prehistoric communities in
the Netherlands. In: J. Gardiner (ed.) Flatlands and
wetlands : current themes in East Anglian archaeolo-
gy, Norwich, 71-116.

136 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. 2007. The gradual transition to
farming in the Lower Rhine Basin. In: A. Whittle
and V. Cummings (eds), Going Over: The Mesolith-
ic-Neolithic Transition in North-West Europe, Oxford
(Proceedings of the British Academy 144), 287-309.
Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. 2009. The agency factor in
the process of Neolithisation-a Dutch case study,
Journal of Archaeology in the Low Countries 1,
27-54.
Louwe Kooijmans, L.P., J. Mol 2001. Stratigrae, chro-
nologie en fasering. In: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.)
Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg: Een Mesoli-
thisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500-5000
v. Chr), Amersfoort (Rapportage Archeologische
Monumentenzorg 83), 55-72.
Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy, Cambridge
(Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology).
Lyman, R.L. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology,
Cambridge (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology).
Lyman, R.L. 2015. On the variable relationship
between NISP and NTAXA in bird remains and in
mammal remains, Journal of Archaeological Science
53, 291-296.
MacDonald, D.W. 2006. The Encyclopedia of Mammals,
New edition, Oxford.
Metcalfe, D. and K.R. Barlow 1992. A Model for
Exploring the Optimal Trade-o between Field
Processing and Transport, American Anthropologist
94, 340-356.
Meylemans, E., Y. Perdaen, J. Sergant, J. Bastiaens,
P. Crombé, S. Debruyne, K. Deforce, E. Du Rang,
A. Ervynck, A. Lentacker, A. Storme and W. Van
Neer 2016. Archeologische opgraving van een mid-
den-mesolithische tot midden-neolithische vindp-
laats te Bazel-Sluis 5 (Gemeente Kruibeke, provincie
Oost‑Vlaanderen), Brussel (Onderzoeksrapport
Agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed).
Mol, J. and L.P. Louwe Kooijmans 2001. Stratigrae,
chronologie en fasering. In: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans
(ed.) Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin: Een kamp-
plaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin van de
Swifterbant-cultuur, Amersfoort (Rapportage Arche-
ologische Monumentenzorg 88), 57-74.
Mol, J., L.P. Louwe Kooijmans, T. Hamburg 2006. Stra-
tigraphy and chronology of the site. In: L.P. Louwe
Kooijmans and P. Jongste, Schipluiden : a neolithic
settlement on the Dutch North Sea coast c. 3500
CAL BC, Leiden (Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia
37/38), 19-38.
Moree, J.M., C.C. Bakels, S.B.C. Bloo, J.T. Brinkhuizen,
R.A. Houkes, P.F.B. Jongste, M.C. Van Trierum, A.
Verbaas and J.T. Zeiler 2011. Barendrecht-Carnis-
selande: bewoning van een oeverwal vanaf het
Laat-Neolithicum tot in de Midden-Bronstijd. In: A.
Carmiggelt, M.A. Van Trierum and D.A. Wesselingh
(eds), Boor balans 7, 15-154.
Morin, E. and E. Ready, 2013. Foraging Goals and
Transport Decisions in Western Europe during the
Paleolithic and Early Holocene. In: J.L. Clark and
J.D. Speth (eds), Zooarchaeology and Modern Human
Origins: Human Hunting Behavior during the Later
Pleistocene, Dordrecht, 227-269.
Nicholas, G.P. 2007a. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers in
wetland environments: mobility/sedentism and
aspects of socio-political organisation. In: M. Lillie
and S. Ellis (eds), Wetland archaeology and environ-
ments. Regional issues, global perspectives, Oxford,
245-257.
Nicholas, G.P. 2007b. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers
in wetland environments: theoretical issues,
economic organisationand resource management
strategies. In: M. Lillie and S. Ellis (eds), Wetland ar-
chaeology and environments. Regional issues, global
perspectives, Oxford, 46-64.
Out, W.A. 2008. Growing habits? Delayed introduction
of crop cultivation at marginal Neolithic wetland
sites, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17,
131-138.
Out, W.A. 2009a. Reaction to “Cereal Cultivation at
Swifterbant? Neolithic Wetland Farming on the
North European Plain”, Current Anthropology 50,
253-254.
Out, W.A. 2009b. Sowing the seed? Human impact and
plant subsistence in Dutch wetlands during the Late
Mesolithic and Early and Middle Neolithic, Leiden
(Archaeological Studies Leiden University 18).
Oversteegen, J.F.S. 2001. Archeozoölogie. In: F.J.C. Peters
and J.H.M. Peeters (eds), De opgraving van de mes-
olithische en neolithische vindplaats Urk‑E4 (Dom-
ineesweg, gemeente Urk), Amersfoort (Rapportage
Archeologische Monumentenzorg 93), 43-47.
Oversteegen, J.F.S., L.H. Van Wijngaarden-Bakker, C.H.
Maliepaard and T. Van Kolfschoten, 2001. Zoogdier-
en, vogels en reptielen. In: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans
(ed.) Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin: Een kamp-
plaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin van de
Swifterbant-cultuur, Amersfoort (Rapportage Arche-
ologische Monumentenzorg 88), 209-298.

137G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
Parkington, J. 2006. Shorelines, strandlopers and shell
middens, Cape Town (Archaeology of the Cape
Coast).
Peters, F.J.C. and J.H.M. Peeters 2001. De opgraving van
de mesolithische en neolithische vindplaats Urk‑E4
(Domineesweg, gemeente Urk), Amersfoort (Rap-
portage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 93).
Prummel, W. 1987. The faunal remains from the
Neolithic site of Hekelingen III, Helinium 27,
190-258.
Prummel, W., D.C.M. Raemaekers, S.M. Beckerman, J.N.
Bottema-MacGillavry, R.T.J. Cappers, P. Cleveringa,
I. Devriendt, H. De Wolf and J.T. Zeiler 2009. Terug
naar Swifterbant: Een kleinschalige opgraving te
Swifterbant-S2 (Gemeente Dronten), Archeologie 13,
17-45.
Raemaekers, D.C.M. 1999. The Articulation of a new
Neolithic, The meaning of the Swifterbant culture for
the process of neolithization in the western part of
the North European Plain, Leiden (ASLU 3).
Raemaekers, D. 2003. Cutting a long story short? The
process of neolithization in the Dutch delta re-ex-
amined, Antiquity 77, 740-748.
Raemaekers, D.C.M. 2019. Taboo? The process of Ne-
olithisation in the Dutch wetlands re-examined
(5000-3400calBC). In: R. Gleser and D. Hofmann
(eds), Contacts, boundaries & innovation in the fth
millennium: Exploring developed Neolithic societies
in central Europe and beyond, Leiden, 91-102.
Raemaekers, D.C.M., Y.I. Aalders, S.M. Beckerman, D.C.
Brinkhuizen, I. Devriendt, H. Huisman, M. De Jong,
H.M. Molthof, W. Prummel, M.J.L.T. Niekus and M.
Van der Wal, 2011/2012. The submerged pre-Drou-
wen TRB settlement site Wetsingermaar, c. 3500
cal. BC (province of Groningen, the Netherlands),
Palaeohistoria 53/54, 1-24.
Raemaekers, D.C.M., C.C. Bakels, B. Beerenhout, A.L.
Van Gijn, K. Hänninen, S. Molenaar, D. Paalman, M.
Verbruggen and C. Vermeeren 1997. Wateringen 4:
a settlement of the Middle Neolithic Hazendonk 3
Group in the Dutch coastal area, Analecta Praehis-
torica Leidensia 29, 143-192.
Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diusion of innovations, fth edition,
New York.
Sadr, K. 2008. Invisible herders? The archaeology of
Khoekhoe pastoralists, Southern African Humanities
20, 179-203.
Schepers, M. 2014. Wet, wealthy worlds: The environ-
ment of the Swifterbant river system during the
Neolithic occupations, Journal of Archaeology in the
Low Countries 5, 79-104.
Scherjon, F., C. Bakels, K. MacDonald and W. Roebroeks
2015. Burning the Land: An Ethnographic Study of
O-Site Fire Use by Current and Historically Doc-
umented Foragers and Implications for the Inter-
pretation of Past Fire Practices in the Landscape,
Current Anthropology 56, 299-326.
Schiltmans, D.E.A. 2013. Rotterdam Groenenhagen-Tu-
inenhoven De Zwanen-Rietpark Een opgraving van
een vindplaats uit het Neolithicum op een rivier-
duin op IJsselmonde (vindplaats 13-78), Rotterdam
(Boor Rapporten 491).
Slopsma, J. 2008. Archeozoölogie. In: E.A. Besselsen and
M.J. Van der Heiden (eds), Vindplaats Vleugel 20:
Archeologisch onderzoek naar een cultuurlandscap
uit de bronstijd, Amsterdam (AAC rapport 49), 47-64.
Smit, B.I., S.M. Beckerman, D.C. Brinkhuizen, V. Gar-
cia-Diaz, L. Kubiak-Martens, G.R. Nobles, T.F.M.
Oudemans, J.T. Zeiler, O. Brinkkemper, J.P. Kleijne,
R.C.G.M. Lauwerier, E.M. Theunissen, A. Van Gijn
and D. Raemaekers 2012. Synthesis– Keinsmer-
brug: A kaleidoscope of gathering. In: B.I. Smit, O.
Brinkkemper, J.P. Kleijne, R.C.G.M. Lauwerier and
E.M. Theunissen (eds), A kaleidoscope of gathering
at Keinsmerbrug (the Netherlands), Amersfoort
(Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 43),
211-222.
Smith, A.B. and J. Kinahan 1984. The invisible whale,
World Archaeology 16, 89-97.
Smits, E. and J. Van der Plicht 2009. Mesolithic and
Neolithic human remains in the Netherlands:
physical anthropological and stable isotope investi-
gations, Journal of Archaeology of the Low Countries
1, 55-85.
Stokkel, P.J.A., E.E.B. Bulten (eds) 2017. De Wateringse
Binnentuinen Gemeente Den Haag: Een Vlaarding-
ennederzetting in het Wateringse Veld, Den Haag
(Haagse Oudheidkundige Publicaties 20).
Svenning, J.-C. 2002. A review of natural vegetation
openness in north-western Europe, Biological Con-
servation 104, 133-148.
Ten Anscher, T. 2012. Leven met de Vecht.
Schokland‑P14 en de Noordoostpolder in het neo-
lithicum en de bronstijd, PhD-thesis University of
Amsterdam.
Ten Anscher, T. 2018. Archeologische opgraving
Medel-De Roeskamp. Evaluatie- en selectierapport,
RAAP-ADC-Archol.

138 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
Ter Voorde, M. 2017. Opgraving Almere blijkt vissenval
uit de Steentijd, 2019. Nemo Kennislink
Van de Noort, R., A. O’Sullivan 2006. Rethinking wetland
archaeology, London.
Van den Brink, V.B. and R. Paulussen 2013. Landschap
en bodem. In: J. Van Kampen and V.B. Van den
Brink (eds), Archeologisch onderzoek op de
Habraken te Veldhoven: Twee unieke nederzettingen
uit het Laat Neolithicum en de Midden Bronstijd
en een erf uit de Volle Middeleeuwen, Amsterdam
(Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 52),
19-28.
Van den Broeke, P.W. 2007. Aardkundige en chronolo-
gische aspecten. In: E. Ball and P.W. Van den Broeke
(eds), Opgravingen op ‘t Klumke te Nijmegen-Oos-
terhout, Nijmegen (Archeologische Berichten
Nijmegen 6), 11-20.
Van Dijk, J. 2009. Zoogdieren, vogels en reptielen. In: T.
Goossens (ed.) Opgraving Hellevoetsluis-Ossenhoek,
Leiden (Archol rapport 87), 113-144.
Van Dijk, J. And B. Beerenhout 2014. Archeozoölogie.
In: H. Siemons and E.E.B. Bulten, (eds), Archeologie
in het Wateringse Veld, gemeente Den Haag: Van
steentijd tot nieuwe tijd, Den Haag (Haagse Oud-
heidkundige Publicaties 17), 158-169.
Van Dijk, J., F. Kerklaan and M. Rijkelijkhuizen 2017. De
dierlijke resten. In: P.J.A. Stokkel and E.E.B. Bulten
(eds), De Wateringse Binnentuinen Gemeente Den
Haag: Een Vlaardingennederzetting in het Water-
ingse Veld, Den Haag (Haagse Oudheidkundige
Publicaties 20), 205-223.
Van Gijssel, K. and B. Van der Valk 2005. Aangespoeld,
gestuwd en verwaaid: de wording van Nederland.
In: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans, P.W. Van den Broeke,
H. Fokkens and A. Van Gijn (eds), Nederland in de
prehistorie, Amsterdam, 45-76.
Van Heeringen, R.M. and E.M. Theunissen (eds) 2001.
Deel 2: Site-dossiers Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek
ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud van neolith-
ische terreinen in West-Friesland en de Kop van
Noord-Holland, Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeolo-
gische Rapporten 21).
Van Neer, W. 2005. Archaeozoological analyses. In: P.
Crombé (ed), The last hunter‑gatherer‑shermen
in Sandy Flanders, (Archaeological Reports Ghent
University 3), 279-294.
Van Wijngaarden-Bakker, L.H., C. Cavallo, T. Van Kolf-
schoten and J.F.S. Oversteegen 2001. Zoogdieren,
vogels, reptielen. In: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed),
Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg: Een Mesoli-
thisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500-5000
v. Chr), Amersfoort (Rapportage Archeologische
Monumentenzorg 83), 181-242.
Von Koenigswald, W. 2007. Mammalian faunas from
the interglacial periods in Central Europe and their
stratigraphic correlation. In: F. Sirocko, M. Claussen,
M.F. Sánchez Goñi and T. Litt (eds), Developments in
Quaternary Sciences, 445-454.
Verbruggen, M. 1992. Geoarchaeological prospection of
the Rommertsdonk, Analecta Prehistorica Leidensia
25, 117-128.
Vos, P.C. and P. Kiden 2005. De landschapsvorming
tijdens de steentijd, Archeologie 11/12, 7-38.
Westerhof, W.E., T.E. Wong and F.J. De Mulder 2003.
Deel 2: Geschiedenis van de ondergrond. In: F.J.
De Mulder, M.C. Geluk, I. Ritsema, W.E. Westerho
and T.E. Wong (eds), De ondergrond van Nederland,
Herent, 119-246.
Winterhalder, B. 2001. The behavioural ecology of
hunter-gatherers. In: C. Panter-Brick, R.H. Layton
and P. Rowley-Conwy (eds), Hunter-gatherers, An
interdisciplinary perspective, Cambridge (Biological
symposium series), 12-38.
Zeiler, T.J. 1997. Hunting, Fowling and Stock-Breeding
at Neolithic sites in the Western and Central Nether-
lands, Groningen.
Zeiler, J.T. 1999. Fauna en landschap in prehistorisch
Nederland, De levende natuur 100, 19-21.
Zeiler, J. 2006. Mammals, Analecta Praehistorica
Leidensia 37/38, 375-420.
Zeiler, J.T. 2007. Dierlijk botmateriaal. In: E. Ball
and P.W. Van den Broeke (eds), Opgravingen op ‘t
Klumke te Nijmegen-Oosterhout, Nijmegen (Archeol-
ogische Berichten Nijmegen 6), 117-128.
Zeiler, J.T. 2013. Botmateriaal. In: D.E.A. Schiltmans
(ed.) Rotterdam Groenenhagen-Tuinenhoven De
Zwanen-Rietpark, Rotterdam (BOOR rapporten 491),
81-85.
Zeiler, J.T. and D.C. Brinkhuizen 2005. Jachtwild, vis en
vee uit Vrijenburg, Leeuwarden.
Zeiler, J.T. and D.C. Brinkhuizen 2012. The faunal
remains. In: B.I. Smit, O. Brinkkemper, J.P. Kleijne,
R.C.G.M. Lauwerier and E.M. Theunissen (eds),
A kaleidoscope of gathering at Keinsmerbrug (the
Netherlands), Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeolo-
gische Rapporten 43), 131-147.
Zeiler, J.T. and D.C. Brinkhuizen 2013. Faunal remains.
In: J.P. Kleijne, O. Brinkkemper, R.C.G.M. Lauwerier,
B.I. Smit and E.M. Theunissen (eds), A matter of life
and death at Mienakker (the Netherlands), Amers-

139G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
foort (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 45),
155-173.
Zeiler, J.T., D.C. Brinkhuizen, D.L. Bekker and A.Verbaas
2015. Fauna. In: J.M. Moree and M.M. Sier (eds),
Twenty metres deep! The Mesolithic period at the
Yangtze Harbour site– Rotterdam Maasvlakte, the
Netherlands: Early Holocene landscape development
and habitation, Rotterdam, 201-222.
Zeiler, J.T., O. Brinkkemper and E. Drenth 2011. An
outline of the subsistence of the Vlaardingen
culture from the Netherlands, Revue archéologique
de Picardie, 207-220.
Zvelebil, M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic rev-
olution. In: M. Zvelebil (ed), Hunters in transition,
Mesolithic societies of temperate Eurasia and their
transition to farming, Cambridge, 5-15.

140 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
Assemblage Cultural attribution Date ∑NISP NTAXA Category Reference
Barendrecht- Carnisselande 1 Vlaardingen 2500-2200 BCE 88 7 Freshwater (Moree et al. 2011)
Barendrecht- Carnisselande 2 Bell Beaker ~2200 BCE 18 4 Freshwater (Moree et al. 2011)
Barendrecht- Carnisselande 3 Bell Beaker – Early
Bronze Age
2275-1886 BCE 1036 12 Freshwater (Moree et al. 2011)
Barendrecht- Vrijenburg Hazendonk 3 4789 ± 45 BP 12 5 Freshwater (Zeiler and
Brinkhuizen 2005)
Bazel-Sluis Mesolithic – Swifterbant 211 10 Freshwater (Meylemans et al.
2016)
Hardinxveld-Giessendam De
Bruin Fase 1
Late Mesolithic 5475-5100 BCE 347 12 Freshwater (Mol and Louwe
Kooijmans 2001;
Oversteegen et al.
2001)
Hardinxveld-Giessendam De
Bruin Fase 2
Swifterbant 5100-4800 BCE 1772 14 Freshwater (Mol and Louwe
Kooijmans 2001;
Oversteegen et al.
2001)
Hardinxveld-Giessendam De
Bruin Fase 3
Swifterbant 4685-4459 BCE 5262 17 Freshwater (Mol and Louwe
Kooijmans 2001;
Oversteegen et al.
2001)
Doel – Deurganckdok Swifterbant 4550-3960 BCE 26 3 Freshwater (Van Neer 2005)
E170 Swifterbant 3900 BCE 28 7 Freshwater (Gehasse 1995)
Ewijk – Ewijkse Velden Vlaardingen 3000 BCE 554 8 Freshwater (Bakels and Zeiler
2005; Amkreutz 2013a)
Groenenhagen-Tuinendonk De
Zwanen-Rietpark
Swifterbant, vroeg 5000-3900 BCE 9 2 Freshwater (Schiltmans 2013;
Zeiler 2013)
Hazendonk 1&2 Swifterbant 4020-3790 BCE 167 5 Freshwater (Zeiler 1997; Amkreutz
2013)
Hazendonk 3 Hazendonk groep 3670-3610 BCE 490 10 (Zeiler 1997; Amkreutz
2013)
Hazendonk Vl1b Vlaardingen 3270-3090 524 14 Freshwater (Zeiler 1997; Amkreutz
2013)
Hazendonk Vl2b Vlaardingen 2580-2480 BCE 2597 10 Freshwater (Zeiler 1997; Amkreutz
2013)
Hazerswoude Rijndijk Vlaardingen-EGK 345 13 Freshwater (Grimm 2010)
Hekelingen I Vlaardingen 628 13 Freshwater (Clason 1967)
Hekelingen III Vlaardingen 3200-2800 BCE 1314 17 Freshwater (Prummel 1987:
Amkreutz 2013)
Hellevoetsluis-Ossenhoek Vlaardingen 3330-2700 BCE 2366 13 Coastal (Goossens 2009; Van
Dijk 2009)
Hoge Vaart Mesolithic/Swifterbant 5500-4500 BCE 1523 15 Freshwater (Laarman 2001)
Houten Vleugel Late-Neolithic/Early
Bronze Age
120 6 Freshwater (Besselsen and Van
der Heiden 2008;
Slopsma 2008)
Appendix: Inventory of assemblages included in the analysis

141G. DUSSELDORP AND L. AMKREUTZ – A LONG SLOW GOODBYE
Assemblage Cultural attribution Date ∑NISP NTAXA Category Reference
Hüde Swifterbant 4700-3500 BCE 8843 19 Freshwater (Hübner et al. 1988)
J78 Single Grave Culture 41 5 Freshwater (Gehasse 1995)
Keinsmerbrug Single Grave Culture 2580-2450 BCE 144 9 Coastal (Smit et al. 2012; Zeiler
and Brinkhuizen 2012)
Kolhorn Northern site Single Grave Culture 4100-3900 BP 346 13 Coastal (Zeiler 1997; Van
Heeringen and
Theunissen 2001)
Kolhorn Southern site Single Grave Culture 4100-3900 BP 154 9 Coastal (Zeiler 1997; Van
Heeringen and
Theunissen 2001)
Leidschendam Vlaardingen 463 8 Freshwater (Groenman – Van
Waateringe et al. 1968)
Leidschendam-Prinsenhof Vlaardingen 3400-2600 BCE 14 3 Freshwater (Hamburg 2005)
Mienakker Single Grave Culture 2880-2581 BCE 572 11 Coastal (Kleijne 2013; Zeiler
and Brinkhuizen 2013)
Molenaarsgraaf Bell Beaker 3630 40
3780 50
3635 60
3640 30
3635 40
284 9 Freshwater (Louwe Kooijmans
1974; Bakels and Zeiler
2005)
Nijmegen ‘t Klumke Hazendonk 3 3770-3630 BCE 58 4 Freshwater (Van den Broeke 2007;
Zeiler 2007)
P14 A Swifterbant 4400-4100 BCE 217 10 Freshwater (Gehasse 1995)
P14 B Swifterbant 4100-3800 BCE 561 12 Freshwater (Gehasse 1995)
P14 C Swifterbant 3800-3600 BCE 285 13 Freshwater (Gehasse 1995)
P14 E Swifterbant 3600-3300 BCE 58 10 Freshwater (Gehasse 1995)
P14 EKW Single Grave Culture 2600 BCE 164 12 Freshwater (Gehasse 1995;
Amkreutz 2013a)
Hardinxveld-Giessendam
Polderweg fase 0
Mesolithic Pre 5500 BCE 46 7 Freshwater (Louwe Kooijmans
and Mol 2001; Van
Wijngaarden-Bakker
et al. 2001)
Hardinxveld-Giessendam
Polderweg fase 1
Mesolithic 5500-5300 BCE 4119 13 Freshwater (Louwe Kooijmans
and Mol 2001; Van
Wijngaarden-Bakker
et al. 2001)
Hardinxveld-Giessendam
Polderweg fase 1/2
Swifterbant 5100 +/- 100 BCE 377 10 Freshwater (Louwe Kooijmans
and Mol 2001; Van
Wijngaarden-Bakker
et al. 2001)
Hardinxveld-Giessendam
Polderweg fase 2
Swifterbant 5100-4900 246 5 Freshwater (Louwe Kooijmans
and Mol 2001; Van
Wijngaarden-Bakker
et al. 2001)
Rijswijk A4 locatie 1 Hazendonk group 3940-3200 BCE 186 8 Coastal (Laarman 2004;
Amkreutz 2013)

142 ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA 50
Assemblage Cultural attribution Date ∑NISP NTAXA Category Reference
Rijswijk A4 locatie 4 Hazendonk group 4350 – 3380 BCE 28 4 Coastal (Laarman 2004;
Amkreutz 2013)
Rijswijk Ypenburg laag 1 Hazendonk group 3860 – 3200 BCE 33 6 Coastal (De Vries 2004)
Rijswijk Ypenburg laag 2 Hazendonk group 3860 – 3200 BCE 461 13 Coastal (De Vries 2004)
Rijswijk de Schilp Vlaardingen 594 6 Coastal (Zeiler et al. 2011)
Schipluiden phase 1 Hazendonk group 3630-3550 BCE 180 7 Coastal (Mol et al. 2006; Zeiler
2006)
Schipluiden phase 2a Hazendonk group 3550-3490 BCE 3642 17 Coastal (Mol et al. 2006; Zeiler
2006)
Schipluiden phase 2b Hazendonk group 3550-3490 BCE 1610 14 Coastal (Mol et al. 2006; Zeiler
2006)
Schipluiden phase 3 Hazendonk group 3490-3380 BCE 1099 12 Coastal (Mol et al. 2006; Zeiler
2006)
Slootdorp Bouwlust TRB c. 3500-3100 BCE 1383 12 Coastal (Hogestijn and Drenth
2000/2001)
Swifterbant S2 Swifterbant 4300-4000 BCE 528 8 Freshwater (Prummel et al. 2009)
Swifterbant S3 Swifterbant 4300-4000 BCE 4043 15 Freshwater (Zeiler 1997)
Tiel-Medel Swifterbant-Hazendonk 1198 10 Freshwater (Ten Anscher 2018)
Urk-E4 Swifterbant 4200-3400 BCE 228 9 Freshwater (Oversteegen 2001;
Peters and Peeters
2001)
Vlaardingen Vlaardingen 3200-2600 BCE 1837 17 Freshwater (Clason 1967;
Amkreutz 2013a)
Voorschoten Boschgeest Vlaardingen 2870-2500 BCE 479 10 Freshwater (Groenman – Van
Waateringe et al. 1968;
Amkreutz 2013a)
Wateringen 4 Hazendonk 3625-3400 BCE 654 9 Coastal (Raemaekers et al.
1997)
Wateringse binnentuinen
zone 8
Vlaardingen 44 3 Coastal (Stokkel and Bulten
2017)
Wateringse binnentuinen
zone 1-7
Vlaardingen 2606 6 Coastal (Stokkel and Bulten
2017)
Wateringse veld Vlaardingen-EGK 2650-2300 BCE 306 7 Coastal (Van Dijk and
Beerenhout 2014)
Wetsingermaar TRB 3500 BCE 16 3 Freshwater (Raemaekers et al.
2011/2012)
Yangtzehaven trench 2 Mesolithic 8555-8300 BCE 32 7 Freshwater (Zeiler et al. 2015)
Yangtzehaven trench 1 Mesolithic 8555-8300 BCE 139 5 Freshwater (Zeiler et al. 2015)
Zandwerven Vlaardingen 2900-2300 BCE 50 4 Coastal (Clason 1967;
Amkreutz 2013a)
Zeewijk context A EGK 2600-2450 BCE 67 7 Coastal (Van Heeringen and
Theunissen 2001)
Zeewijk context B EGK 2600-2450 BCE 84 5 Coastal (Van Heeringen and
Theunissen 2001)
Zutphen Ooijerhoek Mesolithic 9400-8700 26 6 Freshwater (Groenewoudt et al.
2001)