Hidden from view. The identification of Mesolithic dwelling structures on the Dutch sandy soils, the case of Kampen-Reevediep

Le résumé fourni par la source

• Identification of a ‘sturdy’ Late Mesolithic dwelling structure in the Netherlands. • Comparison of lithic assemblage composition to identify potential dwellings in the absence of structural features. • Applying lithic use-wear analysis for the identification of variability of represented activities. • Macrobotanical analysis of charred remains to identification of potential plant-food resources and seasonal exploitation. • Critical evaluation of excavation methods/strategies and a priori assumptions about the characteristics of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer dwellings. The discovery of a Late Mesolithic hut structure at the site of Kampen-Reevediep (Netherlands), consisting of a dense find scatter associated with posthole features, led to the question why hardly any dwelling structures have been identified on the Dutch sandy soils. The majority of excavated sites consist of flint scatters, which are generally interpreted as ‘hunting camps’ or ‘base camps’, based on size and assemblage composition. Structural features, such as postholes, have only occasionally been reported. However, the presence or absence of dwelling structures forms an important site characteristic when considered in the broader context of Mesolithic settlement dynamics and models of mobility. In this paper we provide a characterisation of the structure and flint scatters excavated at Kampen-Reevediep (typo-functional assemblage composition, use-wear analysis, archaeobotanical assemblage composition) as a baseline for the comparison with other sites in the region. At the sites of Baarn-Drie Eiken and Soest-Staringlaan structural features have been identified, which are comparable to those found at Kampen-Reevediep Cluster X2. The characteristics of the flint assemblage associated with the postholes (Cluster X2) is shown to bear resemblances with another (Middle) Mesolithic flint cluster at Kampen-Reevediep (Cluster X1), with an almost 50/50 ratio between hunting tools and tools used for other (‘domestic’) activities. Comparison with 12 scatters excavated at other sites shows that the assemblages from Baarn-Drie Eiken and Soest-Kernhem Cluster 2 are comparable to a certain degree with Kampen-Reevediep Cluster X1 and Cluster X2, while the others are clearly different and are dominated by hunting-related artefacts (microliths). From our analysis we conclude that find assemblages demonstrate a lot of variability, and that Kampen-Reevediep cannot serve as a ‘template’ for dwellings in the region, as a baseline for models about Mesolithic settlement dynamics and mobility. We argue that a broader multi-proxy approach is needed. Furthermore, we conclude that soil-formation processes form a problematic factor in the visibility of anthropogenic soil features, and that possibilities for a reliable comparison between assemblages/clusters from different sites is complicated by (post-)fieldwork strategies employed.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.