_UDK 903.0i'i2/'i5(4-i5)"633/634"_
Documenta Praehistorica XXXV (2008)
Becoming Neolithic.
The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and its impact on the
flint and stone industry at Swifterbant (the Netherlands)
Izabel Devriendt
Groningen Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
i.i.j.a.l.m.devriendt@rug.nl
ABSTRACT - The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition is traditionally defined by a change in subsistence
strategy. New ideas are picked up, and animal husbandry and cereal cultivation are adopted as
hunter-gatherers evolve. This article examines whether these economic changes stand on their own
or lead to changes in other aspects of life. The study will illustrate the innovations in the flint and
stone industry (including ornaments) during the Swifterbant period (5000-3400 BC). These include
changing debitage techniques and preferences, and the abandonment of the micro-burin technique,
but also the introduction of grinding stones, polished axes and amber ornaments. The significance
of these new features will be investigated as characteristics of the changing identity of the Swifter-
bant Culture.
IZVLEČEK - Mezolitsko-neolitska tranzicija je običajno definirana s pomočjo spremenjenih subsis-
tenčnih strategij. Predstavljeni so novi razmisleki o razvoju živinorejskega gospodarstva in kultivi-
ranju žitaric pri lovcih in nabiralcih. V članku ugotavljamo, ali so spremembe v pleogospodarskih
strategijah povzročile spremembe tudi v drugih segmentih življenja. Predstavljamo spremembe in
inovacije v produkciji (in ornamentiki) kamenih izdelkov v obdobju Swifterbant (5000-3400 BC).
Te so vezane na spremembe v odbitkovnih tehnikah in opustitvi mikrovbadalne tehnike ter vpeljavi
žrmelj, glajenih sekir in okrasa iz jantarja. Pomen novih predmetov vidimo v spreminjanju identi-
tete kulture Swifterbant.
KEY WORDS - Neolithic; flint; stone; bipolar knapping technique; ornaments
Introduction
The Swifterbant Culture encompasses the Late Meso-
lithic and the Early Neolithic in the main part of the
Netherlands, the north of Belgium and the northwest
of Germany. This cultural period runs from 5000 to
3400 BC, between the Linear Band Ceramic Culture
(LBK) and the Funnel Beaker Culture. In the Nether-
lands, the LBK is limited to the small loess area in
the south of the country, while in the other parts the
Late Mesolithic still continues. Over time these Late
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers become early farming
communities by adopting Neolithic trade marks. The
first of these novelties is pottery, produced in typical
Swifterbant tradition from around 5000 BC onwards.
Later on, animal husbandry was introduced. The ear-
liest evidence for cattle and sheep/goat is now dated
at 4600 BC, while pig is introduced around 4200 BC
(Raemaekers 2003.742; Raemaekers 2005.261,
277). For years, the presence of grinding stones,
charred grains and chaff remains (Cappers and Rae-
maekers in prep.) were strong indicators of cereal
cultivation, but the exact nature, magnitude and lo-
cation remained indistinct. Grain was presumably
cultivated in the vicinity of the sites, but more accu-
rate evidence was lacking. Recent discoveries at site
S4 proved beyond a doubt the introduction of cereal
cultivation at some time in the middle phase of the
Swifterbant Culture (4300-4000 BC). Although the
lasting importance of wild food resources cannot be
underestimated, the introduction of animal husban-
dry and cereal cultivation indicate that the Swifter-
bant Culture developed into a Neolithic tradition by
adopting certain traits from its Neolithic neighbours.
The transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic is
traditionally defined by a change in subsistence stra-
tegy. Hunter-gatherers change their way of life and
become farming communities. New ideas are picked
up as animal husbandry and cereal cultivation are
adopted. One can imagine that this economic change
does not stand on its own. These new ideas will lead
to new discoveries and, finally, will bring about a
cascade of changes in all aspects of life. But old rou-
tines and traditions are not lost or discarded when
new traits are introduced. What new aspects trickle
through into the flint industry? How will the existing
stone tool production alter when new items are in-
troduced? Which tool types, production techniques
and raw materials are adopted, and which artefact
types are maintained within the existing tool-kit?
Although many aspects of everyday life change in
this transitional phase, this article will focus only on
the innovations, alterations and transformations this
change brings about in the flint and stone industry,
including stone ornaments, during the Swifterbant
period. First, a general introduction will highlight
the different phases within the Swifterbant Culture.
Then the New Swifterbant Project, in which this re-
search is set, is presented. The flint and stone indu-
stry are then discussed and special attention is given
to stone ornaments. In order to give a clear insight
into the evolution of the lithic industries, and their
corresponding sites, they will be presented chrono-
logically. The late Swifterbant phase will not be de-
scribed in detail, as the little information that is
available will be given in the general introduction.
Finally, all the new features will be considered as
characteristics of the changing identity of the Swifter-
bant Culture.
The Swifterbant Culture is defined by its distinctive
pottery and, therefore, the division of the period
into three phases is based on the stylistic elements
of this pottery (e.g. Raemaekers 1999; 2005). The
major sites from the early phase (5000-4600 BC)
are Hoge Vaart, Polderweg and De Bruin - all thor-
oughly investigated find locations (Hogestijn and
Peeters 2001; Louwe Kooijmans 2001a; 2001b).
Besides pottery, the material culture of this period is
characterised by a Late Mesolithic flint industry and
by stone artefacts such as cooking stones, tempering
material, hammer stones, and anvils. The organic
material culture includes T-shaped antler axes and
other antler tools, bone awls, bows, fish-weirs, fyke
nets, peddles and canoes. Subsistence is still based
on hunting, gathering, fishing and fowling, while
animal husbandry will be introduced at the transitio-
nal stage from the early to the middle phase, around
4600 BC.
The type-site of Swifterbant (Fig. 1) is an example
of the middle phase (4600-3900 BC). In this paper
it will be compared to well known sites from the
early phase in order to better comprehend the evo-
lution of the Swifterbant Culture as it traverses the
boundary from the Late Mesolithic to the Neolithic.
During this middle phase, the Swifterbant Culture
experiences a dichotomy into a northern and south-
ern cultural sphere. The Swifterbant type-site, located
in the northern cultural sphere, is found in an area
characterised by Late Pleistocene river dunes (with
Mesolithic and Neolithic occupation) and a Holocene
freshwater tidal creek system, with Neolithic levee
sites inhabitable between 4300-4000 BC. During this
period, at least three of these levee sites were inha-
bited, namely S2, S3 and S4. It is important to state
that most of the other sites from this middle phase,
such as Bergschenhoek, Brandwijk and Hazendonk,
yielded only very small amounts of flint artefacts, so
it is hard to compare these Swifterbant type-sites
within their own timeline.
The late phase (3900-3400 BC) is poorly documen-
ted because only one reliable site (Schokkerhaven)
has been found thus far. During this phase the dicho-
tomy deepens, as the southern group evolved into
the Hazendonk 3 group, while its northern counter-
part developed into the Late Swifterbant Culture.
For the northern group, the trend started in the mid-
dle phase seems to continue. The flint industry is
still based on flake production which possibly be-
comes increasingly important. The arrowhead type
is the same as at the Swifterbant type-sites (trapezes)
and thus presumably remains the same as in the
middle phase. Polished axes also still occur. Then
again, the isolation of this site makes this conclusion
provisional (Hogestijn 1990; Raemaekers 2003-
2004). Another site from this phase (P14), with a
very long inhabitation sequence and poor stratigra-
phical evidence, is characterised by transverse arrow-
heads, trapezes, triangular points and leaf-shaped
points (Wilhelm 1996). However, the significance
and reliability of this find cannot be attested.
Since the discovery of the type-site near the village
of Swifterbant in the 1960's, research has periodi-
cally made new discoveries, whether related to flint
technology, raw material usage or agricultural inno-
vations. Still, several aspects of the social and econo-
mic organisation remained obscure. Therefore new
research in different areas of expertise has been
conducted since the New Swifterbant Project started
in 2004, with new fieldwork and research into seve-
ral topics. The focal points of the project are the re-
lations between human occupation and landscape
development, the suitability of the area for cereal
cultivation, and the use of the landscape outside the
settled areas (see Raemaekers et al. 2005). One of
the sub-research fields re-evaluates the flint and
stone material from the type-site of Swifterbant, in
order to investigate, for example, debitage techni-
ques, or determine typological differences and gain
an insight into raw material usage and imported
items. This research is in progress, so this paper
needs to be regarded as a status quo of the new in-
sights gained as of March, 2008. A full and definite
report will be published in 2009 (i.e. Devriendt in
prep.a).
Fig. 1. The sites (known in 1999) belonging to the Swifterbant Culture:
1 - Schiedam; 2 - Bergschenhoek; 3 - Brandwijk; 4 - Polderweg; 5 - Ha-
zendonk; 6 - Hoge Vaart; 7 - Swifterbant cluster; 8 - J112; 9 - P14; 10 -
Schokkerhaven; 11 - Zoelen-Buren; 12 - Ede-Rietkamp; 13 - De Gaste-
Meppel; 14 - Winterswijk; 15 - Bronneger; 16 - Hüde (taken from
Raemaekers 1999-Fig. 3.1). The Swifterbant type-site is no. 7.
The flint industry
The early Swifterbant phase (5000-4600 BC)
Sites of relevance for this phase are Hoge Vaart, Pol-
derweg and De Bruin. The first site, Hoge Vaart, has
been studied in detail and reported fully (Peeters,
Schreurs and Verneau 2001). In this early stage of
the Swifterbant Culture, strong Late Mesolithic affi-
nities are still present within the flint industry. The
debitage sequence is based on the production of re-
gular blades from platform cores. The rolled nodu-
les were tested and prepared at the procurement
sites and transported to the settlement site, where
they were exploited until abandonment. Direct, hard
percussion was applied in the first stages of the core
preparation, while blade production was performed
by indirect percussion. The regular blades have pa-
rallel edges and ridges, and are usually between 3-
6cm long. They were selected for the production of
predominantly arrowheads, namely trapezes. Other
arrowhead types found less frequently are different
kinds of microlith. The use of the micro-burin tech-
nique to divide the blade into two or more fragments
is typical. More irregular shaped blades were cho-
sen to be used unmodified as
knives. Only in some cases
were they lightly retouched
(backed blades). Thicker exam-
ples and accidentally produced
flakes were predominantly
used as blanks for scrapers. Of
course, other tools such as re-
touched pieces, borers and bu-
rins, also occur, being made
from both blades and flakes.
Use-wear analysis shows that
fresh hide working was the
main activity, while tools for
bone and antler processing
were almost absent. There is al-
so some indication of ritual flint
deposition (Peeters, Schreurs
and Verneau 2001).
The flint industry of the other
two sites, Polderweg and De
Bruin, is characterised by fla-
kes, largely because of the very
small size of the used nodules,
which do not allow the pro-
duction of blades (Van Gijn,
Beugnier and Lammers-Keij-
sers 2001; Van Gijn, Lammers
and Houkes 2001). The arrow-
head types which occur are trapezes and transverse
arrowheads, combined with a large variety of micro-
liths. The strong Mesolithic character of this industry
is illustrated. It must be noted that all three sites
mentioned here also have Late Mesolithic inhabita-
tion phases. For most or all microliths it is further-
more unclear how long into the Mesolithic they were
used as arrowhead types.
These last two sites give a dual impression of the
flint industry of the Swifterbant Culture in this phase;
both blade and flake production predominate. The-
refore, we might cautiously presume that both the
Hoge Vaart site, like the two other sites, Polderweg
and De Bruin, are good representatives of the early
phase of the Swifterbant Culture.
The middle Swifterbant phase (4600-3900 BC)
As mentioned above, the middle phase is characte-
rised by a dichotomy into a northern and southern
cultural sphere. The Swifterbant type-sites S2, S3 and
S4, dated 4300-4000 BC, are distinctive of the north-
ern group. These settlements are located on levees
in a fresh water creek system consisting of a main
gully and several tributaries1.
During the middle phase, lithic production focused
on flakes from platform cores. At S2 the flakes com-
prise 23% of the material, while blades only take up
14%. The same tendency is visible in S3, with 38%
of flakes and 12% of blades, while at S4 these num-
bers are respectively 18% and 6%. Cores are worked
on from one or two platforms and only seldom from
three or more platforms.
Although one of the Swifterbant sites of the southern
cultural sphere, Brandwijk, shows more new arrow-
head types, such as leaf shaped and drop shaped
points (Raemaekers 1999.58), on the Swifterbant
type-sites only one new type is seen. This transverse
arrowhead reminds one of a trapezoid arrowhead,
but it differs in dimensions. Instead of being long
rather than wide, it is now wide rather than long.
The trapezes, however, remain the dominant arrow-
head type. We must bear in mind that this typolo-
gical difference was perhaps not seen in the same
way by the Swifterbant people. The only difference
is, after all, in the shifting dimensions. With 20 000
artefacts analysed, which is almost 65% of the mate-
rial, and since no micro-burins have been found, it
is presumed that trapezes and transverse arrowheads
were no longer produced with the micro-burin tech-
nique, but by breaking blades2.
The analysis of the debitage material shows that the
bulk of the material was produced at the site. As a
case in point, the material from site S3 is used, as it
is the most numerous. When the measurements of
the non-fractured flakes and blades are compared to
those of the preparation and rejuvenation pieces, it
can be seen that the larger blades and some larger
flakes are not covered (Fig. 2). It is perceivable that
these would be decortication pieces. For the flakes,
some of the larger pieces are indeed decortication
flakes (Fig. 3). This implies that all or most flakes
were produced at the site. For the blades, this pic-
ture is different. The group of blades larger than
5cm that were not covered by the preparation or re-
juvenation pieces are not decortication blades either.
This implies that these large blades are not produ-
ced at the site, but imported as ready-made products
from somewhere else3.
The importation of blades or any other item does
not always involve movement over long distances.
The raw material used hints at this. All the large bla-
des mentioned above are of the regular type, with
parallel edges and ridges, produced from platform
cores. The raw material used is the same as that of
the smaller blades and flakes found on all sites and
is of local origin. The most likely sources are two
boulder clay outcrops at 12km and 15km distance of
the Swifterbant type-site. This indicates that the large
blades were possibly not imported over a long dis-
tance and that the raw material used for these blades
presumably came from the same procurement sites
as all the other flint artefacts. But the procurement
site does not need to be the production site. More-
over, boulder clay deposits are found over a larger
area in the north of the Netherlands, so imports from
further located sources cannot be ruled out.
As these regular blades show great similarities to
those from the early phase, they can be seen as the
continuation of this tradition, but innovations with-
in the flint industry also occur. The presence of a se-
cond debitage method, the bipolar technique, also
known as the hammer and anvil technique, has been
1	At two other levee sites, S41 and S51, habitation is attested by archaeological evidence while levee sites S31 and S42-S43 are only
mapped through auger surveys.
2	Of course, it cannot be ruled out that they were all made somewhere else, although this is highly unlikely.
3	However, it might also entail that all large preparation and rejuvenation pieces, as well as decortication blades, were taken from
the site, although that is improbable.
bably have an influence on the bi-
polar matter, these topics will not be
discussed here. They will be brought
up, along with gender related issues
and other, more detailed informa-
tion, in a separate paper which focu-
ses solely on the bipolar technique
(Devriendt in prep.b).
Fig. 2. Preparation and rejuvenation pieces set against complete
flakes and blades (site S3, Swifterbant).
detected. It is especially the systematic employed of
this technique that is significant. The core is no lon-
ger handheld or placed on the thigh, but is set on a
stone anvil and smashed with a hammer stone from
above. Bipolar cores and splintered pieces or pieces
esquilees have been defined in the past. The descrip-
tion and the function of the technique and the end-
products have been a topic of debate since their first
definition.
Bipolar pieces are mostly functionally defined as
tools, like wedges (piece esquilee) (Hayden 1980)
or burins (MacDonald 1968), or are sometimes de-
fined as cores (Guyodo and Marchand 2005; Ballin
1999; White 1968). The use of the bipolar technique
has also been interpreted as the solution to a raw
material shortage (Callahan 1987; Deckers 1982;
Kamminga 1978), the opening of rounded nodules
(Van Ciijn andNiekus 2001), or as
the work of apprentices or children,
thus skill related (Stapert 2007;
Sternke and Sörensen 2007). It is
even seen as the work of women, as
it is sometimes considered a "low
prestige" technique (Flenniken
1979), while in other parts of the
world bipolar flakes are used pre-
dominantly by men (Kosambi 1967).
Of course, one cannot rule out that
two or more functions may coexist.
This paper will only provide an in-
sight into the material from the
Swifterbant type-sites and will give a
site-specific interpretation. Although
tradition and social organisation pro-
Regular bipolar cores, irregular bipo-
lar pieces and splintered pieces have
been found on the Swifterbant sites
S2, S3, and S4. This distinction is
based mostly on morphology and
technology, and partially on presu-
med function. Typical of all the pie-
ces is the lack of a striking platform
and the lenticular shape in side-view created by two
opposing striking ridges or striking points. They are
produced from small nodules of local flint with a
length up to 5cm. The high degree of uniformity of
the regular bipolar cores and the standardisation of
dimensions of the splintered pieces is remarkable.
Several trains of thoughts are being pursued at the
moment. The first presented itself during the study
of the bipolar pieces. In this theory, I considered the
three types as different steps in a chatne operatoire,
with the splintered pieces as an end result. This
would be a functional interpretation with a tool, the
splintered pieces, as goals for production. In order
to verify this assumption, use-wear analysis was pre-
formed4 on 4% of the bipolar pieces (n = 18) and
on 11% of the splintered pieces (n = 10). Surprising-
ly, only two artefacts showed traces of use. One bi-
Fig. 3. Decortication pieces set against complete flakes and blades
(site S3, Swifterbant).
4 This research was done by Karsten Wentink, Lithic Laboratory, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University.
polar core was used as a burin, and one splintered
piece was used on plant material. Most unexpected
was that the majority of the splintered pieces, or all
the other bipolar pieces for that matter, had not been
used at all. With only 4 or 11% of the bipolar pieces
analysed, it is possible that the sample size was too
small. However, if they had been used systematical-
ly as a wedge, the analysis would have picked it up.
If the functional interpretation of bipolar pieces as
wedges is off the table, two other possible functio-
nal explanations remain. Firstly, the bipolar pieces
are used as tools but so rarely or in such a way that
it leaves no visible use-wear traces. Secondly, they
are cores.
This leads to the second train of thought: that the
bipolar technique is a response to a raw material
shortage (Callahan 1987; Deckers 1982; Kamminga
1978). Two related hypotheses present themselves.
The bipolar technique is used for opening small no-
dules without wasting flint on extensive platform
preparation, or even in the initial stages of core re-
duction for testing nodules and for cortex removal.
Callahan (1987) works along the same lines when
he writes that the bipolar technique is a part of the
chaine operatoire which starts with the freehand
debitage of platform cores, and when these become
smaller, the platform core is placed on an anvil. It is
only in the final stage that, according to him, bipo-
lar percussion is applied.
A third train of thought has been gaining ground
recently. Some scholars (Stapertpersonal commu-
nication November 2007) and recent experiments
have shown that young children steady the core on
the floor for a better grip (Sternke & Sorensen 2007;
Sternke personal communication March 2008),
possibly as compensation for lack of motor skills.
Whether it is the result of mimicry by children, or
just children playing, or whether it is a structural
part within skill transmission to apprentices, is still
under investigation.
With Occam's Razor5 in mind a fourth train of
thought forces itself upon us. The bipolar technique
is used alongside the platform technique as an op-
portunistic way of exploiting all the flint available.
Thus they can be considered as two separate meth-
ods of working flint. Of course, none of these lines
of thought need stand on their own. A combination
of different aspects and factors is therefore more
than likely. Furthermore, as research continues, it is
not even sure the division into three types still holds.
The function, meaning and interpretation of the bi-
polar technique might still be obscure, but the fact
that the technique is being introduced as a systema-
tically applied debitage technique in this period is
not. It can be seen as an important innovation, as it
is not the portent of declining debitage techniques:
it is evidence of an opportunistic and highly adap-
tive and flexible way of knapping flint.
The stone industry
The early Swifterbant phase
As with flint production, strong Late Mesolithic affi-
nities are still present in the stone industry. On the
site of Hoge Vaart, the bulk of the stone material
comprised small granite and quartz fragments, whe-
reas only a limited amount of larger, stone artefacts
was found (Peeters 2001). The small stone fragments
were used as temper for the on-site production of
pottery. Others were presumably the result of cob-
bles being used as cooking stones. This high frag-
mentation rate prohibits a good insight into, and de-
finition of larger stone tools on this site. Even so, a
hammer stone, an arrow shaft polisher, a chopping
tool, several flakes and other stone tools have been
defined. The study of the flint blades and scrapers
made it apparent that anvils must also have been
present at the site, not only for retouching tools, but
also possibly for the production of temper. Unfortu-
nately, no such tools or tool fragments have been
identified, presumably due to fragmentation (Peeters
personal communication April 2008).
On the sites at Polderweg and De Bruin (Van Gijn,
Louwe Kooijmans and Zandstra 2001; Van Gijn
and Houkes 2001), where roughly the same variety
of tools was found as on the Hoge Vaart site, anvils
were even used for the opening of rounded nodules.
Although this use of hammer stone and anvil would
fall under the definition of bipolar technique, some
remarks should be made. The bipolar technique was
already used during the Palaeolithic and the Mesoli-
thic, but it is its frequency that becomes different in
the Neolithic. Possibly starting in the early phase of
the Swifterbant Culture, but definitely in the middle
phase, it is introduced as a systematically employed
technique and no longer applied sporadically.
The middle Swifterbant phase
The stone industry of the middle phase of the Swif-
terbant Culture is characterised by tools like grind-
ing stones, hammer stones, anvils, and polished axes
and adzes. The distinction between this phase and
5 "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one."
the previous one is overwhelming. New tools and
particularly their abundance stand out.
One of the most important, if not the most impor-
tant, tools of this period is the grinding stone. With
the rise of grain as a new food source, a new tool
type meeting the specific requirements of this speci-
fic plant was needed. And although grinding stones
are not a new invention, they are introduced into
the Swifterbant Culture during this middle phase. It
is apparent that the Swifterbant grinding stones lack
any form modelling or stylistic elements. The only
rule that seems to apply is ease of use and work com-
fort. This stands in sharp contrast with the Linear
Band Ceramic Culture or the Beaker Cultures, where
bowl or saddle shaped grinding stones are common
(Beuker 1990). A grinding tool consists of two com-
ponents that need to be used together, a handheld
stone (handstone or mano) and a lying stone (ne-
therstone or metate) (Adams 2002). For handstones,
natural rounded cobbles were selected that lie com-
fortably in the palm of the hand. The netherstones
need to remain firmly on the ground, so boulders
were chosen with either two opposing flat surfaces
or with a flat surface opposing a protruding area
which could be dug into the ground.
A second interesting aspect here is the fragmenta-
tion rate. When all stone tools are compared, it
stands out that five times as many grinding stones6
are broken as hammer stones or anvils. This might,
of course, point towards taphonomy, but the fre-
quency rather indicates special treatment of grind-
ing stones. Could it be possible that this tool type
was intentionally destroyed when people, by exam-
ple, left the settlement? Several other explanations
may be valid. Some of the small grinding stones may
be used as cooking stones. When a grinding surface
has become too smooth to perform, it is roughened
by pounding on it with a hammer stone or even per-
haps with another, small grinding stone. Sometimes
a grinding stone is used as a multifunctional tool
and is employed as an anvil or hammer stone. And
when a grinding stone can no longer be exploited,
it can always be used as tempering material if the
raw material is suitable, all of which can lead to frag-
mentation.
Although anvils were present during the early phase,
their use must have been increasingly important
and systematic in the middle phase for their number
rises significantly. Anvils become standard issue in
the tool-kit. They are no longer solely used for the
retouching of tools or for the sporadic opening of
rounded nodules, but for a wide variety of tasks. Im-
pact traces differ greatly in depth and extensiveness,
suggesting diverse applications. Centred impact tra-
ces sometimes even create small hollows, while some
anvils have the appearance of mortars as the hollow
deepens.
All these tools were produced out of local raw mate-
rial (see section on flint), except for several polished
adzes. These were imported from the south of the
Netherlands, or even from Germany or Poland, the
area of the Rössen Culture; a contemporary, fully
developed Neolithic culture in the Central-European
loess areas which can be seen as the successor of the
LBK. The imported Rössen adzes are characterised
by a straight perforation oriented parallel to the cut-
ting edge of the adze. The raw material used for
these tools is of German and/or Polish origin. Re-
markable are two adzes found at site S3, which have
a deviant shape. The perforation is bi-conical or
hour-glass shaped and is oriented obliquely to the
cutting edge of the adze. The reason for this oblique
orientation is not yet known, but the difference in
perforation is significant. The use of pecking or a
solid drill, which results in an hour-glass shaped per-
foration is considered a Mesolithic characteristic (Ge-
röllkeulen and Spitzhauen), while the use of a hol-
low drill resulting in a straight perforation is typical
of fully developed Neolithic cultures (Schuhleisten-
keilen and Breitkeilen). Furthermore, the raw mate-
rial used for these deviant adzes is of local origin. This
makes the interpretation as local copies plausible.
The amber ornaments
This special find category that appeals to everybody's
imagination forms only a small part of the stone in-
dustry at the Swifterbant sites. Lumps of this fossil re-
sin were perforated and worn as pendants or beads,
sometimes individually, sometimes strung together
with or without pendants made from other raw ma-
terials. Only 17% (n = 4) of the inhumations at the
Swifterbant cemeteries showed evidence of orna-
ments (Devriendt in prep.c; Raemaekers et. al. in
prep; Meiklejohn and Constandse-Westerman
1978). These were not only made from amber, but
also from stone pebbles and animal teeth. It appears
that for the Swifterbant-type sites the ornaments fa-
6 Due to the fragmentation it is not always possible to define the pieces as handstone or netherstone, therefore, the more neutral
term 'grinding stone' is chosen.
bricated from stone pebbles were produced on-site
(there are many semi-finished products) while the
amber beads and pendants were clearly imported.
The pendants made of animal teeth were presumably
imported as well (Devriendt in prep.c).
The most remarkable finds were discovered in the
grave of a man on site S2. He was buried with five
amber ornaments strung across his forehead, along
with one sandstone pendant, located near his right
ear, and a perforated fragment of a boar's tusk on
his chest. Three of these five amber ornaments are
the biggest found in all the Swifterbant burials.
Equally compelling is the grave of a woman on the
same site. She was buried with seven beads around
her neck, one bead near her pelvis and, probably,
three beads around her head, thus possibly eleven
amber ornaments in total. Another special find, is
the small amber pendant found in the grave of a
child on S4. Although this is the only child buried
with ornaments, it shows that men and women as
well as children were, in some circumstances, buried
with ornaments. This example also illustrates the
different number, composition and even size of the
ornaments given to different people. The man was
buried with seven artefacts made of three different
raw materials. The woman even had eleven artefacts
but only made of one raw material. The child was
buried with just one gift. Whether this is an indica-
tion of status, sex, age, personal wealth, or some
other form of social differentiation is still under in-
vestigation. We must also bear in mind that gifts
made of organic material have long perished. And
although a fair number of graves is known (n = 37)
(Raemaekers et al. in prep) the limited number of
Swifterbant sites with graveyards, three to be pre-
cise, also impedes this research.
The funerary practises, i.e. the inhumation of people
on their back in an extended position (e.g. Alberth-
sen and Brinch Petersen 1976), as well as the pre-
sence of animal teeth pendants, are still very Meso-
lithic minded. Even the presence of amber lumps
have been attested at archaeological sites in the Ne-
therlands from the Palaeolithic onwards (Waterbolk
and Waterbolk 1991). The introduction of amber
ornaments in graves during the Swifterbant period
is, however, of great importance. It is the first time
that amber lumps have been transformed into beads
and pendants. In this pioneering phase, amber lumps
are only perforated and not altered in any other way.
In later phases, when they are being produced more
systematically, for example during the Single Grave
Culture, amber lumps are not only perforated, but
also cut, scraped, and ground (Piena and Drenth
2001; Bulten 2001). It is also during the middle
Swifterbant phase that amber beads and pendants
are recovered from graves for the first time.
The analysis of the new features
It has long been common practice that subsistence
is the main feature in defining the difference be-
tween the Mesolithic and Neolithic (e.g. Zvelebil
1998). This would imply that the introduction of ani-
mal husbandry and cereal cultivation would have
been the most important innovation of that time. It
is most likely that the Swifterbant people did not see
it in that way.
The introduction of pottery at the beginning of their
cultural period, or is it the other way around, is pro-
bably of more significance. This could imply that the
Swifterbant people had more use for an innovation
like a decent pot for storage or cooking than they
had for animal husbandry. Of course, it is easy to
take the functional explanation as the prime one.
Cultural restrains, social taboos or even technical
complexity make the adoption of new aspects by a
culture an unequal fight. One might think that the
adoption of successful cereal cultivation is harder
to accomplish than the herding and feeding of ani-
mals. Whether this is the reason animal husbandry
was adopted first is difficult to fathom. It is also pos-
sible that the Rössen people were more protective of
their agricultural technology and thus more reluc-
tant to share this information with others.
Regardless of how, when and why cereal cultivation
was adopted, the introduction of grain apparently
implied the introduction of grinding stones. Perhaps
the properties of emmer wheat and naked barley
make it necessary to crush and grind the grains be-
fore they are cooked. Therefore, the one could not
go without the other. We might assume that this led
to the special standing of grinding stones, as it was a
material symbol of the new agricultural technique.
The imported adzes must also have been a very spe-
cial item for the Swifterbant people, presumably with
high significance (Louwe Kooijmans 2005; Verhart
2000). The exoticism of the raw material, the time
invested during production, and the technical inge-
nuity, must have appealed to the Swifterbant peo-
ple's imagination. Therefore, grinding stones and
polished adzes might have been Neolithic icons or
symbols of the new way of life.
Thus, the Swifterbant Culture might be characterised
by their interest in Neolithic traits, and defined by
all sorts of innovations, adoptions and introductions,
regardless of the importance we give them. Still, the
lithic industry, the burial practises and the perseve-
rance of collecting wild food, prove that they remai-
ned loyal to their Mesolithic traditions and did not
change their ways overnight. We must also bear in
mind that the Neolithisation process was more likely
to be one of trial and error than a straightforward
success story.
Conclusion
That the Swifterbant Culture evolved from a Late
Mesolithic tradition towards an almost fully Neoli-
thic one can be illustrated by comparing the sites of
the Swifterbant early phase with the type-sites from
the middle phase. The lithic industry of sites S2, S3,
and S4 is being analysed systematically to gain in-
sight into how this culture was affected by the Neoli-
thisation process.
The flint industry of the Swifterbant Culture started
out as Late Mesolithic. Over time, it developed into
a more Neolithic tradition by adopting new tools
and debitage techniques. This began with a change
from a blade to a more flake orientated industry and
by abandoning the micro-burin technique for making
arrowheads. More precisely, for the Swifterbant type-
sites it has been attested that on the one hand, small
flakes and blades, produced with the platform tech-
nique from local flint were created on the site itself.
On the other hand, large blades also produced with
the platform technique and from local flint were
brought to the site. So, regardless of where they
were manufactured, flakes and blades were produ-
ced from local raw material. Furthermore, the bipo-
lar technique was introduced as a systematically ap-
plied debitage technique. A new set of arrowheads
was being used, ranging from trapezes and trans-
verse arrowheads to leaf and drop shaped points,
depending on the sites.
The stone industry depended on Mesolithic types,
such as hammer stones and anvils, but was at the
same time radically changed by the introduction of
grinding stones. The high fragmentation rate of these
artefacts leads one to suspect that they were treated
in a special way. Amber beads and pendants were
produced for the first time, and only a small num-
ber of the Swifterbant people were buried with them.
Finally, imported polished adzes brought influen-
ces with them from the south of the country, where
a true Neolithic culture resided. By making their first
polished adzes, the Swifterbant people took into
their own hands the final step to becoming fully
Neolithic.
REFERENCES
ADAMS J. L. 2002. Ground Stone Analysis: A Technolo-
gical Approach. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
ALBERTHSEN S. E., BRINCH PETERSEN E. 1976. Excava-
tions of a Mesolithic Cemetery at Vedbaek, Denmark. Acta
Archaeologica 47:1-26.
BALLIN T. B. 1999. Bipolar Cores in Southern Norway.
Classification, Chronology and Geography. Lithics 20:13-
22.
BEUKER J. 1990. Werken met steen. Drenths Museum.
Assen.
BULTEN E. 2001. Het barnsteen van de laat-neolithische
nederzetting 'Mienakker': Een onderzoek naar de bewer-
king van barnsteen in een nederzetting van de Enkelgraf-
cultuur. In R. M. van Heeringen and E. M. Theunissen
(eds.), Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek ten behoeve van
duurzaam behoud van neolithische terreinen in West-
Friesland en de Kop van Noord-Holland. Deel 3: Archeo-
logische onderzoeksverslagen. Rijksdienst voor het Oud-
heidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort: 471-483.
CALLAHAN E. 1987. An evaluation of the lithic techno-
logy in Middle Sweden during the Mesolithic and Neoli-
thic. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis. Uppsala (= Aun
8).
CAPPERS R. T. J., RAEMAEKERS D. C. M. in prep. Cereal
cultivation at Swifterbant? About being a Neolithic wet-
land farmer in the western part of the North European
Plain. Current Anthropology.
DECKERS P. H. 1982. Preliminary notes on the Neolithic
flint material from Swifterbant (Swifterbant Contribution
13). Helinium 22:33-39.
DEVRIENDT I. in prep.a. The stone and flint artefacts
from Swifterbant (provisional title). Ph. Dissertation.
University of Groningen. Groningen.
in prep.b. Bipolar pieces: a question of function, raw
material availability or skill. A case-study of the Neoli-
thic sites at Swifterbant (The Netherlands). Lithic Tech-
nology.
in prep.c. "Diamonds are a girl's best friend". Neolithi-
sche kralen en hangers uit Swifterbant. Westerheem.
FLENNIKEN J. J. 1979. Replicative systems analysis of the
lithic artifacts from Hoko River archaeological site. Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropo-
logy, Washington State University. Washington.
GUYODO J.-N., MARCHAND G. 2005. La percussion bipo-
laire sur enclume dans l'Ouest de la France de la fin du
Paleolithique au Chalcolithique: une lecture economique
et sociale. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Frangaise
102 (3): 539-549.
HAYDEN B. 1980. Confusion in the Bipolar World: Bashed
Pebbles and Splintered Pieces. Lithic Technology 9 (1):
2-7.
HOGESTIJN J. W. 1990. From Swifterbant to TRB in the
IJssel-Vecht Basin - Some Suggestions. In D. Jankowska
(ed.), Die Trichterbecherkultur. Teil I. Neue Forschngen
und Hypothesen. Poznan: 163-180.
HOGESTIJN J. W. H., PEETERS J. H. M. 2001. De mesolithi-
sche en vroeg-neolithische vindplaats Hoge Vaart-A27
(Flevoland). Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bode-
monderzoek, Amersfoort (= ROB Rapportage Archeologi-
sche Monumentenzorg 79).
KAMMINGA J. J. 1978. Journey into the microcosms: a
functional analysis of certain classes ofprehistoric Au-
stralian stone tools. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. De-
partment of Anthropology, University of Sydney. Sidney.
KOSAMBI D. D. 1967. Living prehistory in India. Scienti-
fic American 216 (Feb.): 105-114.
LOUWE KOOIJMANS L. P. 2001a. Hardinxveld-Giessen-
dam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het
riviergebied (5500-5000 v. Chr.). Rijksdienst voor het
Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort (= Rappor-
tage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 83).
2001b. Hardinxveld-De Bruin: een kampplaats uit
het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin van de Swifter-
bant-cultuur (5500-4450 v. Chr.). Rijksdienst voor het
Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort (= Rap-
portage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88).
2005. Ook de jagers worden boer. Vroeg-neolithicum
B en midden-neolithicum A. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans,
P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. van Gijn
(eds.), Nederland in de Prehistorie. Bakker, Amster-
dam: 249-271.
MACDONALD G. 1968. Debert: a Paleo-Indian site in cen-
tral Nova Scotia. Anthropology Papers, National Museum
of Canada 16.
MEIKLEJOHN C., CONSTANDSE-WESTERMAN T. S. 1978.
The human skeletal material from Swifterbant, Earlier
Neolithic of the Northern Netherlands: I. Inventory and
demography. Final Reports on Swifterbant I. Palaeohi-
storia 20: 39-89.
PEETERS J. H. M. 2001. Deel 19. Natuursteen: karakteri-
sering en gebruik. In J. W. H. Hogestijn and J. H. M. Peeters
(eds.), De mesolithische en vroeg-neolithische vindplaats
Hoge Vaart-A27 (Flevoland). Rijksdienst voor het Oud-
heidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort (= ROB Rap-
portage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 79).
PEETERS J. H. M., SCHREURS J., VERNEAU S. M. J. P. 2001.
Deel 18. Vuursteen: typologie, technologische organisatie
en gebruik. In J. W. H. Hogestijn and J. H. M. Peeters (eds.),
De mesolithische en vroeg-neolithische vindplaats Hoge
Vaart-A27 (Flevoland). Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkun-
dig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort (= ROB Rapportage
Archeologische Monumentenzorg 79).
PIENA H., DRENTH E. 2001. Doorboorde sieraden van de
laat-neolithsche site Aartswoud, gem. Opmeer. In R. M.
van Heeringen and E. M. Theunissen (eds.), Kwaliteitsbe-
palend onderzoek ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud
van neolithische terreinen in West-Friesland en de Kop
van Noord-Holland. Deel 3: Archeologische onderzoeks-
verslagen. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemon-
derzoek, Amersfoort: 433-469.
RAEMAEKERS D. C. M. 1999. The Articulation of a 'New
Neolithic'. The meaning of the Swifterbant Culture for
the process of neolithisation in the western part of the
North European Plain (4900-3400 BC). Faculty of Archa-
eology. University of Leiden. Leiden. (=Archaeological Stu-
dies Leiden University 3)
2003. Cutting a long story short? The process of neoli-
thization in the Dutch delta re-examined. Antiquity 77:
740-748.
2003-2004. An outline of Late Swifterbant pottery in
the Noordoostpolder (provincie of Flevoland, the Ne-
therlands) and the chronological development of the
pottery of the Swifterbant culture. Palaeohistoria 45/
46:11-36.
2005. Het vroeg- en midden-neolithicum in Noord-,
Midden- en West-Nederland. In J. Deeben, E. Drenth,
M.-F. van Oorsouw and L. Verhart (eds.), De steentijd
van Nederland. Stichting Archeologie, Zutphen. (= Ar-
cheologie 11/12): 261-282.
RAEMAEKERS D. C. M., DEVRIENDT I., CAPPERS R. T. J.,
PRUMMEL W. 2005. Het Nieuwe Swifterbant Project.
Nieuw onderzoek aan de mesolithische en neolithische
vindplaatsen nabij Swifterbant (provincie Flevoland, Ne-
derland). Notae Praehistoricae 25:119-127.
RAEMAEKERS D. C. M., MOLTHOF H. M., SMITS E. in prep.
The textbook 'dealing with death' from the Neolithic Swif-
terbant culture (5000-3400 BC), The Netherlands.
STAPERT D. 2007. Neanderthal children and their flints.
PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Northwest Europe 1
(2): 16-38.
STERNKE F., SÖRENSEN M. 2007. The Identification of
Children's Flintknapping Products in Mesolithic Scandi-
navia. In S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. C.
Woodman, (eds.), Mesolithic horizons. Papers presented
at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic
in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
VAN GIJN A. L., BEUGNIER V., LAMMERS-KEIJSERS Y. 2001.
Vuursteen. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.), Hardinxveld-
Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in
het riviergebied (5500-5000 v. Chr.). Rijksdienst voor
het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort (= Rap-
portage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 83): 119-161.
VAN GIJN A. L., LAMMERS Y., HOUKES R. 2001. Vuursteen.
In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.), Hardinxveld-De Bruin:
een kampplaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin
van de Swifterbant-cultuur (5500-4450 v. Chr.). Rijks-
dienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amers-
foort (= Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88):
153-191.
VAN GIJN A. L., LOUWE KOOIJMANS L. P., ZANDSTRA J. G.
2001. Natuursteen. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans (ed.), Har-
dinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jacht-
kamp in het riviergebied (5500-5000 v. Chr.). Rijks-
dienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amers-
foort (= Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 83):
163-179.
VAN GIJN A. L., HOUKES R. 2001. In L. P. Louwe Kooij-
mans (ed.), Hardinxveld-De Bruin: een kampplaats uit
het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin van de Swifterbant-
cultuur (5500-4450 v. Chr.). Rijksdienst voor het Oud-
heidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort (= Rapportage
Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88): 193-207.
VAN GIJN A., NIEKUS M. 2001. Bronze Age Settlement Flint
from the Netherlands: the Cinderella of Lithic Research.
In W. H. Metz, B. L. Van Beek and H. Steegstra (eds.), Pa-
tina. Essays Presented to Jay Butler on the Occasion of his
80th Birthday. Groningen: 305-320.
VERHART L. B. M. 2000. Times fade away: the neolithi-
zation of the Southern Netherlands in an anthropologi-
cal and geographical perspective. Faculty of Archaeology,
Leiden University. Leiden.
WATERBOLK H. J., WATERBOLK H. T. 1991. Amber on the
Coast of the Netherlands. In H. Thoen, J. Bourgeois, F. Ver-
meulen, Ph. Crombe and K. Verlaeckt (eds.), Liber Ami-
corum Jaques A. E. Nenquin. (= Studia Archaeologica).
Seminarie voor Archeologie, Gent: 201-209.
WHITE J. P. 1968. Fabricators, outils ecailles, or scalar
cores? Mankind 6: 658-666.
WILHELM L. C. G. 1996. De vuurstenen pijlpunten van
P14. Internal report Amsterdam University. Amsterdam.
ZVELEBIL M. 1998. What's in a Name: the Mesolithic, the
Neolithic, and Social Change at the Mesolithic-Neolithic
Transition. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds.), Under-
standing the Neolithic of north-western Europe. Gruithne
Press, Glasgow: 1-36.
back to contents